10874 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2007–BT–STD– 

0007] 

RIN 1904–AB70 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Small 

Electric Motors 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is adopting energy 

conservation standards for small electric 

motors. DOE has determined that these 

standards will result in significant 

conservation of energy, and are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of this rule is April 8, 2010. The 

standards established in today’s final 

rule will be applicable starting March 9, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, the 

technical support document, transcripts 

of the public meetings in this 

proceeding, or comments received, visit 

the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource 

Room of the Building Technologies 

Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 

586–2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at the above telephone number 

for additional information regarding 

visiting the Resource Room. (Note: 

DOE’s Freedom of Information Reading 

Room no longer houses rulemaking 

materials.) You may also obtain copies 

of certain previous rulemaking 

documents in this proceeding (i.e., 

framework document, notice of public 

meeting and availability of preliminary 

technical support document, notice of 

proposed rulemaking, draft analyses, 

public meeting materials, and related 

test procedure documents from the 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy’s Web site at http:// 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

small_electric_motors.html). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

8654, e-mail: Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC– 

72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–8145, 

e-mail: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits 

A. Energy Conservation Standards Levels 

B. Benefits and Burdens to Customers of 

Small Electric Motors 

C. Impact on Manufacturers 

D. National Benefits 

E. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Energy Conservation Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Small Electric Motors 

III. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

C. Energy Savings 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Motor Customers 

and Manufacturers 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Comments on Methodology 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Definition of Small Electric Motor 

a. Motor Categories 

b. Horsepower Ratings 

c. Performance Requirements 

d. Motor Enclosures 

e. Frame Sizes 

f. Insulation Class Systems 

g. Service Factors 

h. Metric Equivalents and Non-Standard 

Horsepower and Kilowatt Ratings 

i. Summary 

2. Product Classes 

B. Screening Analysis 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Product Classes Analyzed 

2. Baseline Models 

a. Baseline Efficiencies 

b. Baseline Temperature Rise 

c. Baseline Motor Performance 

3. Higher Efficiency Motor Designs 

a. Electrical Steel 

b. Thermal Analysis 

c. Performance Requirements 

d. Stray Load Loss 

e. Stack Length and Core Diameter 

4. Cost Model 

5. Efficiency Scaling 

6. Cost-Efficiency Results 

D. Markups to Determine Equipment Price 

E. Energy Use Characterization 

1. Applications 

2. Annual Hours of Operation and Motor 

Loading 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Installation Cost 

2. Energy Prices 

3. Energy Price Trend 

4. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

5. Equipment Lifetime 

6. Discount Rates 

7. Space-Constrained Applications and the 

After-Market 

8. Standard Compliance Date 

G. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. General 

2. Shipments 

3. Space Constraints 

4. Base-Case and Standards-Case Efficiency 

Distributions 

5. Annual Energy Consumption per Unit 

H. Customer Sub-Group Analysis 

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Capital Conversion and Equipment 

Conversion Costs 

2. Manufacturer Selling Prices 

3. Markup Scenarios 

4. Premium Electrical Steels 

J. Employment Impact Analysis 

K. Utility Impact Analysis 

L. Environmental Assessment 

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

c. Approach and Key Assumptions 

2. Monetary Values of Non-Carbon 

Emissions 

V. Discussion of Other Comments 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Enforcement 

C. Nominal Full-Load Efficiency 

VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Significance of Energy Savings 

C. Economic Justification 

1. Economic Impact on Motor Customers 

a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period 

b. Life-Cycle Cost Sensitivity Calculations 

c. Customer Subgroup Analysis 

d. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

b. Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Net Present Value and Net 

National Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

D. Conclusion 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10875 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

M. Congressional Notification 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its 

Benefits 

A. Energy Conservation Standards 

Levels 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; 

EPCA or the Act), directs the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) to adopt 

energy conservation standards for those 

small electric motors for which 

standards would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in significant energy 

savings (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)–(2)). The 

standards in today’s final rule satisfy 

these requirements and will achieve the 

maximum improvements in energy 

efficiency that are technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

Table I.1 and Table I.2 show these 

standard levels, which will apply to all 

small electric motors manufactured for 

sale in the United States, or imported 

into the United States, starting five years 

after publication of this final rule. 

TABLE I.1—STANDARD LEVELS FOR POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTOR

Motor output power Six poles Four poles Two poles 

0.25 Hp/0.18 kW .............................................................................................................. 67.5 69.5 65.6 

0.33 Hp/0.25 kW .............................................................................................................. 71.4 73.4 69.5 

0.5 Hp/0.37 kW ................................................................................................................ 75.3 78.2 73.4 

0.75 Hp/0.55 kW .............................................................................................................. 81.7 81.1 76.8 

1 Hp/0.75 kW ................................................................................................................... 82.5 83.5 77.0 

1.5 Hp/1.1 kW .................................................................................................................. 83.8 86.5 84.0 

2 Hp/1.5 kW ..................................................................................................................... N/A 86.5 85.5 

3 Hp/2.2 kW ..................................................................................................................... N/A 86.9 85.5 

* Standard levels are expressed in terms of average full-load efficiency. 

** These efficiencies correspond to a modified Trial Standard Level 4b for polyphase motors. For horsepower/pole configurations with efficiency 

standards higher than the for general purpose electric motors (subtype I), DOE reduced the standard level to align with regulations in 10 CFR 

431.25. See section VI for further discussion. 

TABLE I.2—STANDARD LEVELS FOR CAPACITOR-START INDUCTION-RUN AND CAPACITOR-START CAPACITOR-RUN SMALL

ELECTRIC MOTORS

Motor output power Six poles Four poles Two poles 

0.25 Hp/0.18 kW .............................................................................................................. 62.2 68.5 66.6 

0.33 Hp/0.25 kW .............................................................................................................. 66.6 72.4 70.5 

0.5 Hp/0.37 kW ................................................................................................................ 76.2 76.2 72.4 

0.75 Hp/0.55 kW .............................................................................................................. 80.2 81.8 76.2 

1 Hp/0.75 kW ................................................................................................................... 81.1 82.6 80.4 

1.5 Hp/1.1 kW .................................................................................................................. N/A 83.8 81.5 

2 Hp/1.5 kW ..................................................................................................................... N/A 84.5 82.9 

3 Hp/2.2 kW ..................................................................................................................... N/A N/A 84.1 

* Standard levels are expressed in terms of full-load efficiency. 

** These efficiencies correspond to a modified Trial Standard Level 7 for capacitor-start motors. DOE reduced efficiency standards for capacitor-start induction run motors such that they harmonize with adopted capacitor-start capacitor-run motor efficiency standards. See section VI for 

further discussion. 

B. Benefits and Burdens to Customers of 

Small Electric Motors 

Table I.3 presents the implications of 

today’s standards for consumers of 

small electric motors. The economic 

impacts of the standards on consumers 

as measured by the average life-cycle 

cost (LCC) savings are positive, even 

though the standards may increase some 

initial costs. For example, a typical 

polyphase motor has an average 

installed price of $517 and average 

lifetime operating costs (discounted) of 

$751. To meet the amended standards, 

DOE estimates that the average installed 

price of such equipment will increase 

by $72, which will be more than offset 

by savings of $100 in average lifetime 

operating costs (discounted). 

TABLE I.3—IMPLICATIONS OF STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL CONSUMERS

Equipment class 

Energy conservation 

standard 

% 

Average installed price* 

$ 

Average installed price 

increase 

% 

Average lifecycle cost 

savings 

$ 

Median payback period 

years 

Polyphase, 1-horsepower, 4-pole ........................................ 83.5 589 72 28 7.8 

Capacitor-start induction-run, 1⁄2-horsepower, 4-pole ......... 76.2 996 502 ¥369 12.4 

Capacitor-start capacitor-run, 3⁄4-horsepower, 4-pole ......... 81.8 599 51 24 5.9 

* For a baseline model. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10876 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

C. Impact on Manufacturers 

Using a real corporate discount rate of 

9.7 percent, which DOE calculated by 

examining the financial statements of 

motor manufacturers, DOE estimates the 

industry net present value (INPV) of the 

small electric motor manufacturing 

industry to be $70 million for polyphase 

small electric motors and $279 million 

for capacitor-start, or single-phase 

motors (both figures in 2009$). DOE 

expects the impact of the standards on 

the INPV of manufacturers of small 

electric motors to range from a increase 

of 4.8 percent to a loss of 7.8 percent (an 

increase of $3.4 million to a loss of $5.4 

million) for polyphase motors and an 

increase of 6.6 percent to a loss of 12.2 

percent (an increase of $32.2 million to 

a loss of $42.2 million) for single-phase 

motors. Based on DOE’s interviews with 

the major manufacturers of small 

electric motors, DOE expects minimal 

plant closings or loss of employment as 

a result of the standards. 

D. National Benefits 

The standards will provide significant 

benefits to the Nation. DOE estimates 

the standards will save approximately 

2.2 quads (quadrillion (1015) British 

thermal units (BTU)) of energy over 30 

years (2015–2045). This is equivalent to 

about 2.2% of total annual U.S. energy 

consumption. 

By 2045, DOE expects the energy 

savings from the standards to eliminate 

the need for approximately eight new 

250-megawatt (MW) power plants. 

These energy savings will result in 

cumulative greenhouse gas emission 

reductions of approximately 112 million 

tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2), or an 

amount equal to that produced by 

approximately 25 million new cars in a 

year. Additionally, the standards will 

help alleviate air pollution by resulting 

in approximately 81 thousand tons (kt) 

of nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission 

reductions and approximately 0.49 ton 

of cumulative mercury (Hg) emission 

reductions from 2015 through 2045. The 

estimated net present monetary value of 

these emissions reductions is between 

$385 and $6,081 million for CO2, 

(expressed in 2009$). The estimated net 

present monetary values of these 

emissions reductions are between $13.2 

and $63.4 million for NOX (expressed in 

2009$) and $0.12 and $5.14 million for 

Hg (expressed in 2009$) at a 7-percent 

discount rate (discounted to 2010). At a 

3 percent discount rate, the estimated 

net present values of these emissions 

reductions are between $17.1 and 

$175.5 million (2009$) for NOX and 

$0.22 and $9.66 million (2009$) for Hg. 

The national NPV of the standards is 

$5.3 billion using a seven-percent 

discount rate and $12.5 billion using a 

three-percent discount rate, cumulative 

from 2015 to 2045 in 2009$. This is the 

estimated total value of future savings 

minus the estimated increased 

equipment costs, discounted to the year 

2009. 

The benefits and costs of today’s rule 

can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized (2009$) values from 2015– 

2045. Estimates of annualized values are 

shown in Table I.4. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of the 

annualized national economic value of 

operating savings benefits (energy, 

maintenance and repair), expressed in 

2009$, plus the monetary value of the 

benefits of CO2 emission reductions, 

otherwise known as the Social Cost of 

Carbon (SCC), calculated using the 

average value derived using a 3% 

discount rate (equivalent to $21.40 per 

metric ton of CO2 emitted in 2010, in 

2007$). This value is a central value 

from a recent interagency process. The 

monetary benefits of cumulative 

emissions reductions are reported in 

2009$ so that they can be compared 

with the other costs and benefits in the 

same dollar units. The derivation of this 

value is discussed in section IV.M. 

Although comparing the value of 

operating savings to the value of CO2

reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, please note the following: 

(1) The national operating savings are 

domestic U.S. consumer monetary 

savings found in market transactions 

while the value of CO2 reductions is 

based on a global value. Also, note that 

the central value is only one of four SCC 

developed by the interagency 

workgroup. Other marginal SCC values 

for 2010 are $4.70, $35.10, and $64.90 

per metric ton (2007$ for emissions in 

2010), which reflect different discount 

rates and, for the highest value, the 

possibility of higher-than-expected 

impacts further out in the tails of the 

SCC distribution. (2) The assessments of 

operating savings and CO2 savings are 

performed with different computer 

models, leading to different time frames 

for analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

small electric motors shipped in the 31- 

year period 2015–2045. The value of 

CO2, on the other hand, reflects the 

present value of all future climate 

related impacts due to emitting a ton of 

carbon dioxide in that year, out to 2300. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for the 

annualized cost analysis, the combined 

cost of the standards proposed in 

today’s proposed rule for small electric 

motors is $263.9 million per year in 

increased equipment and installation 

costs, while the annualized benefits are 

$855.1 million per year in reduced 

equipment operating costs, $115.6 

million in CO2 reductions, $3.89 million 

in reduced NOX emissions, and $0.30 

million in reduced Hg emissions, for a 

net benefit of $711.0 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate, the cost 

of the standards proposed in today’s 

rule is $263.7 million per year in 

increased equipment and installation 

costs, while the benefits of today’s 

standards are $989.5 million per year in 

reduced operating costs, $115.6 million 

in CO2 reductions, $5.58 million in 

reduced NOX emissions, and $0.29 

million in reduced Hg emissions, for a 

net benefit of $847.3 million per year. 

TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

Category 

Primary estimate (AEO reference case) Low estimate 

(low energy 

price case) 

High estimate 

(high energy 

price case) 

Units 

Year dollars Disc. rate Period 

covered 

Benefits 

Energy Annualized Monetized 

(millions$/year).

855.1 ...............

989.5 ...............

831.8 ...............

964.8 ...............

870.3 ...............

1000.5 .............

2009 

2009 

7% ................

3% ................

31 

31 

Annualized Quantified ............................ 2.29 CO2 (Mt) 2.29 CO2 (Mt) 2.29 CO2 (Mt) NA 7% ................ 31 

1.55 NOX (kt) .. 1.55 NOX (kt) .. 1.55 NOX (kt) .. NA 7% ................ 31 

0.017 Hg (t) .... 0.017 Hg (t) .... 0.017 Hg (t) .... NA 7% ................ 31 

3.13 CO2 (Mt) 3.13 CO2 (Mt) 3.13 CO2 (Mt) NA 3% ................ 31 

2.22 NOX (kt) .. 2.22 NOX (kt) .. 2.22 NOX (kt) .. NA 3% ................ 31 

0.017 Hg (t) .... 0.017 Hg (t) .... 0.017 Hg (t) .... NA 3% ................ 31 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10877 

1These two parts were titled Parts B and C in 

EPCA, but were codified as Parts A and A–1 in the 

United States Code for editorial reasons. 

TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS—Continued 

Category 

Primary estimate (AEO reference case) Low estimate 

(low energy 

price case) 

High estimate 

(high energy 

price case) 

Units 

Year dollars Disc. rate Period 

covered 

CO2 Monetized Value (at $4.7/Metric 

Ton, millions$/year)*.

31.5 ................. 31.5 ................. 31.5 ................. 2009 5% ................ 31 

CO2 Monetized Value (at $21.4/Metric 

Ton, millions$/year)*.

115.6 ............... 115.6 ............... 115.6 ............... 2009 3% ................ 31 

CO2 Monetized Value (at $35.1/Metric 

Ton, millions$/year)*.

179.2 ............... 179.2 ............... 179.2 ............... 2009 2.5% ............. 31 

CO2 Monetized Value (at $64.9/Metric 

Ton, millions$/year)*.

352.5 ............... 352.5 ............... 352.5 ............... 2009 3% ................ 31 

NOX Monetized Value (at $2,437/Metric 

Ton, millions$/year).

3.89 .................

5.58 .................

3.89 .................

5.58 .................

3.89 .................

5.58 .................

2009 

2009 

7% ................

3% ................

31 

31 

Hg Monetized Value (at $17 million/ 

Metric Ton, millions$/year).

0.3 ...................

0.29 .................

0.3 ...................

0.29 .................

0.3 ...................

0.29 .................

2009 

2009 

7% ................

3% ................

31 

31 

Total Monetary Benefits (millions$/ 

year)**.

890.8–1211.8 ..

974.9 ...............

867.5–1188.5 ..

951.6 ...............

906.0–1227.0 ..

990.1 ...............

2009 

2009 

7% Range ....

7% ................

31 

31 

1111.0 ............. 1086.3 ............. 1121.9 ............. 2009 3% ................ 31 

1026.9–1347.9 1002.2–1323.2 1037.8–1358.8 2009 3% Range .... 31 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized (millions$/year) .. 263.9 ............... 263.9 ............... 263.9 ............... 2009 7% ................ 31 

263.7 ............... 263.7 ............... 263.7 ............... 2009 3% ................ 31 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized, including CO2

Benefits (million$/year)**.

626.9–947.9 ....

711.0 ...............

603.6–924.6 ....

687.7 ...............

642.1–963.1 ....

726.2 ...............

2009 

2009 

7% Range ....

7% ................

31 

31 

847.3 ............... 822.6 ............... 858.3 ............... 2009 3% ................ 31 

763.2–1084.3 .. 738.5–1059.6 .. 774.2–1095.2 .. 2009 3% Range .... 31 

* These values represent global values (in 2007$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.7, 

$21.4, and $35.1 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of 

$64.9 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. See section IV.M for details. 

** Total Monetary Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of CO2 emissions calculated at a 3% discount rate (averaged across three IAMs), which is equal to $21.4/ton in 2010 (in 2007$). The rows labeled as ‘‘7% Range’’ and ‘‘3% Range’’ calculate consumer, Hg, and NOX cases with the labeled discount rate but add these values to the full range of CO2 values with the $4.7/ton value 

at the low end, and the $64.9/ton value at the high end. 

E. Conclusion 

DOE has concluded that the benefits 

(energy savings, consumer LCC savings, 

national NPV increases, and emissions 

reductions) to the Nation of today’s 

standards for small electric motors 

outweigh their costs (loss of 

manufacturer INPV and consumer LCC 

increases for some users of small 

electric motors). DOE has also 

concluded that these standards are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 

in significant energy savings. Small 

electric motors that are commercially 

available or working prototypes use or 

have used the technologies needed to 

meet the new standard levels. 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety 

of provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other than 

Automobiles. Part A–1 of Title III (42 

U.S.C. 6311–6317) establishes a similar 

program for ‘‘Certain Industrial 

Equipment,’’ which includes small 

electric motors, the subject of this 

rulemaking.1 DOE publishes today’s 

final rule pursuant to Part A–1 of Title 

III, which provides for test procedures, 

labeling, and energy conservation 

standards for small electric motors and 

certain other equipment, and authorizes 

DOE to require information and reports 

from manufacturers. The test procedures 

DOE recently adopted for small electric 

motors, 74 FR 32059 (July 7, 2009), 

appear at Title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), sections 431.443, 

431.444, and 431.445. 

The Act defines ‘‘small electric motor’’ 

as follows: 

[A] NEMA [National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association] general purpose 

alternating current single-speed induction 

motor, built in a two-digit frame number 

series in accordance with NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1–1987. 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) EPCA requires 

DOE to prescribe energy conservation 

standards for those small electric motors 

for which DOE: (1) Has determined that 

standards would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified and 

would result in significant energy 

savings, and (2) has prescribed test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)) 

However, pursuant to section 346(b)(3) 

of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)), no 

standard prescribed for small electric 

motors shall apply to any such motor 

that is a component of a covered 

product under section 322(a) of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)), or of covered 

equipment under section 340 (42 U.S.C. 

6311). 

Additionally, EPCA requires DOE, in 

establishing standards for small electric 

motors, to consider whether the 

standards themselves will result in a 

significant conservation of energy, are 

technologically feasible, and are cost 

effective as described in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) 

These criteria, along with requirements 

that any standards be economically 

justified, are largely incorporated into 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10878 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/ 

small_motors_tsd.pdf. 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which sets forth the 

criteria for prescribing standards for 

‘‘covered products,’’ i.e., consumer 

products as defined in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(1) and (2)) Under 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a), portions of 42 U.S.C. 6295, 

including subsection (o), also apply 

when DOE promulgates standards for 

certain specified commercial and 

industrial equipment—‘‘covered 

equipment’’ as defined in EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6311(1))—including small 

electric motors. (EPCA states that the 

term ‘‘equipment’’ shall be substituted 

for ‘‘product’’ in applying the consumer 

product-related provisions of EPCA to 

commercial and industrial equipment. 

(42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(3)) 

Therefore, as indicated above, DOE 

analyzed whether today’s standards for 

small electric motors will achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Additionally, DOE 

examined whether each of today’s 

standards for this equipment is 

economically justified, after receiving 

comments on the proposed standards, 

by determining whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens by 

considering, to the greatest extent 

practicable, the following seven factors 

that are set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i): 

1. The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the equipment subject to 

the standard; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered equipment in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered equipment that 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of 

energy savings likely to result directly 

from the imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered equipment 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

5. The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

6. The need for national energy 

conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary [of 

Energy] considers relevant. 

In developing today’s energy 

conservation standards, DOE also has 

applied certain other provisions of 42 

U.S.C. 6295 as it is required to do. First, 

DOE would not prescribe a standard for 

small electric motors if interested 

persons established by a preponderance 

of the evidence that the standard is 

likely to result in the unavailability in 

the United States of any type (or class) 

of this product with performance 

characteristics, features, sizes, 

capacities, and volume that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4)) 

Second, DOE has applied 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), which establishes a 

rebuttable presumption that a standard 

is economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that ‘‘the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy * * * 

savings during the first year that the 

consumer will receive as a result of the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure.’’ 

Third, in setting standards for a type 

or class of equipment that has two or 

more subcategories, DOE specifies a 

different standard level than that which 

applies generally to such type or class 

of equipment ‘‘for any group of covered 

products which have the same function 

or intended use, if * * * products 

within such group—(A) consume a 

different kind of energy from that 

consumed by other covered products 

within such type (or class); or (B) have 

a capacity or other performance-related 

feature which other products within 

such type (or class) do not have and 

such feature justifies a higher or lower 

standard’’ than applies or will apply to 

the other products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies 

such a different standard for a group of 

products, DOE considers such factors as 

the utility to the consumer of such a 

feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Any rule prescribing such 

a standard must include an explanation 

of the basis on which DOE establishes 

such higher or lower level. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(2)) 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for equipment covered 

under EPCA generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c) and 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a)) DOE can, however, grant 

waivers of preemption for particular 

State laws or regulations, in accordance 

with the procedures and other 

provisions of section 327(d) of the Act. 

(42 U.S.C. 6297(d) and 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a)) 

B. Background 

1. Current Energy Conservation 

Standards 

As indicated above, at present there 

are no national energy conservation 

standards for small electric motors. 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Small Electric Motors 

To determine the small electric 

motors for which energy conservation 

standards would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in significant energy 

savings, DOE first concluded that the 

EPCA definition of ‘‘small electric 

motor’’ covers only those motors that 

meet the definition’s frame-size 

requirements, and that are either threephase, non-servo motors (referred to 

below as polyphase motors) or singlephase, capacitor-start motors, including 

both capacitor-start, induction run 

(CSIR) and capacitor-start, capacitor-run 

(CSCR) motors. 71 FR 38799, 38800–01 

(July 10, 2006). In June 2006, DOE 

issued a report in which it analyzed and 

estimated the likely range of energy 

savings and economic benefits that 

would result from standards for these 

motors.2 The report did not address 

motors that are a component of a 

covered product or equipment, 

consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6317. After 

receiving comments on the report, DOE 

performed further analysis to determine 

whether standards are warranted for 

small electric motors and then issued 

the following determination on June 27, 

2006: 

Based on its analysis of the information 

now available, the Department [of Energy] 

has determined that energy conservation 

standards for certain small electric motors 

appear to be technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and are likely to 

result in significant energy savings. 

Consequently, the Department [of Energy] 

will initiate the development of energy 

efficiency test procedures and standards for 

certain small electric motors. 71 FR 38807. 

Thereafter, in 2007, DOE initiated this 

rulemaking by issuing and seeking 

public comment on the ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Framework Document for Small Electric 

Motors,’’ which described the 

approaches DOE anticipated using to 

develop energy conservation standards 

for small electric motors and the issues 

to be resolved in the rulemaking. See 72 

FR 44990 (August 10, 2007). This 

document is also available on the 

aforementioned DOE Web site. On 

September 13, 2007, DOE held a public 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10879 

meeting to present the contents of the 

framework document, describe the 

analyses DOE planned to conduct 

during the rulemaking, obtain public 

comment on these subjects, and 

facilitate the public’s involvement in the 

rulemaking. Manufacturers, trade 

associations, electric utilities, 

environmental advocates, regulators, 

and other interested parties provided 

comments at this meeting, and 

submitted written comments, on the 

Framework Document. They addressed 

a range of issues. 

On December 19, 2008, after having 

considered these comments, gathering 

additional information, and performing 

preliminary analyses as to standards for 

small electric motors, DOE announced 

an informal public meeting and the 

availability on its Web site of a 

preliminary technical support document 

(preliminary TSD). 73 FR 79723 

(December 30, 2008). The preliminary 

TSD discussed the comments DOE had 

received in this rulemaking and 

described the actions DOE had taken, 

the analytical framework DOE was 

using, and the content and results of 

DOE’s preliminary analyses. Id. at 

79724–25. DOE’s preliminary analyses 

were largely based on comments 

received from industry; including those 

focusing on what constitutes small 

electric motors and corresponding 

shipment estimates. DOE convened the 

public meeting to discuss, and receive 

comments on, these subjects, DOE’s 

proposed product classes, potential 

standard levels that DOE might 

consider, and other issues participants 

believed were relevant to the 

rulemaking. Id. at 79723, 79725. DOE 

also invited written comments on all of 

these matters. The public meeting took 

place on January 30, 2009. Eighteen 

interested parties participated, and ten 

submitted written comments during the 

comment period. 

On November 24, 2009, DOE 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) to establish small 

electric motor energy conservation 

standards. 74 FR 61410. Shortly after, 

DOE also published on its Web site the 

complete technical support document 

(TSD) for the proposed rule, which 

incorporated the completed analyses 

DOE conducted and technical 

documentation for each analysis. These 

analyses were developed using, in part, 

NEMA-supplied data. The TSD 

included the LCC spreadsheet, the 

national impact analysis spreadsheet, 

and the manufacturer impact analysis 

(MIA) spreadsheet—all of which are 

available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

commercial/small_electric_motors.html. 

The energy efficiency standards DOE 

proposed in the NOPR were as follows: 

TABLE II.1—PROPOSED STANDARD LEVELS FOR POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

Motor output power Six poles Four poles Two poles 

0.25 Hp/0.18 kW .............................................................................................................. 77.4 72.7 69.8 

0.33 Hp/0.25 kW .............................................................................................................. 79.1 75.6 73.7 

0.5 Hp/0.37 kW ................................................................................................................ 81.1 80.1 76.0 

0.75 Hp/0.55 kW .............................................................................................................. 84.0 83.5 81.6 

1 Hp/0.75 kW ................................................................................................................... 84.2 85.2 83.6 

1.5 Hp/1.1 kW .................................................................................................................. 85.2 87.1 86.6 

2 Hp/1.5 kW ..................................................................................................................... 89.2 88.0 88.2 

≥ 3 Hp/2.2 kW .................................................................................................................. 90.8 90.0 90.5 

* Standard levels are expressed in terms of full-load efficiency. 

** These efficiencies corresponded to NOPR Trial Standard Level 5 for polyphase motors. 

TABLE II.2—PROPOSED STANDARD LEVELS FOR CAPACITOR-START INDUCTION-RUN SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

Motor output power Six poles Four poles Two poles 

0.25 Hp/0.18 kW .............................................................................................................. 65.4 69.8 71.4 

0.33 Hp/0.25 kW .............................................................................................................. 70.7 72.8 74.2 

0.5 Hp/0.37 kW ................................................................................................................ 77.0 77.0 76.3 

0.75 Hp/0.55 kW .............................................................................................................. 81.0 80.9 78.1 

1 Hp/0.75 kW ................................................................................................................... 84.1 82.8 80.0 

1.5 Hp/1.1 kW .................................................................................................................. 87.7 85.5 82.2 

2 Hp/1.5 kW ..................................................................................................................... 89.8 86.5 85.0 

≥ 3 Hp/2.2 kW .................................................................................................................. 92.2 88.9 85.6 

* Standard levels are expressed in terms of full-load efficiency. 

** These efficiencies corresponded to NOPR Trial Standard Level 7 for capacitor-start motors. 

TABLE II.3—PROPOSED STANDARD LEVELS FOR CAPACITOR-START CAPACITOR-RUN SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

Motor output power Six poles Four poles Two poles 

0.25 Hp/0.18 kW .............................................................................................................. 63.9 68.3 70.0 

0.33 Hp/0.25 kW .............................................................................................................. 69.2 71.6 72.9 

0.5 Hp/0.37 kW ................................................................................................................ 75.8 76.0 75.1 

0.75 Hp/0.55 kW .............................................................................................................. 79.9 80.3 77.0 

1 Hp/0.75 kW ................................................................................................................... 83.2 82.0 79.0 

1.5 Hp/1.1 kW .................................................................................................................. 87.0 84.9 81.4 

2 Hp/1.5 kW ..................................................................................................................... 89.1 86.1 84.2 

≥ 3 Hp/2.2 kW .................................................................................................................. 91.7 88.5 84.9 

* Standard levels are expressed in terms of full-load efficiency. 

** These efficiencies corresponded to NOPR Trial Standard Level 7 for capacitor-start motors. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10880 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

In the NOPR, DOE also identified 

issues on which it was particularly 

interested in receiving the comments 

and views of interested parties. DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

energy efficiency levels for polyphase 

and single-phase motors, product 

classes, covered insulation class 

systems, its selection of baseline 

models, markups used in the 

engineering analysis, design option and 

limitations used in the engineering 

analysis, the approach to scaling the 

results of the engineering analysis, the 

proposed definition of nominal 

efficiency, the manufacturer impact 

analysis scenarios, capital investment 

costs used, market interaction between 

CSIR and CSCR motors, market response 

to standards, behavior of customers with 

space constraints, the combined effect of 

certain market assumptions, the 

appropriateness of other discount rates 

besides seven and three percent to 

discount future emissions, and the 

anticipated environmental impacts. The 

NOPR also included additional 

background information on the history 

of this rulemaking. 74 FR 61416–17. 

DOE held a public meeting in 

Washington, DC on December 17, 2009, 

to hear oral comments on, and solicit 

information relevant to, the proposed 

rule. DOE has also received written 

comments and information in response 

to the NOPR. 

III. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

On July 7, 2009, DOE published a 

final rule that incorporated by reference 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) Standard 112– 

2004 (Test Method A and Test Method 

B), IEEE Standard 114–2001, and 

Canadian Standards Association 

Standard C747–94 as the DOE test 

procedures to measure energy efficiency 

small electric motors. 74 FR 32059. 

In addition to incorporating by 

reference the above industry standard 

test procedures, the small electric 

motors test procedure final rule also 

codified the statutory definition for the 

term ‘‘small electric motor;’’ clarified the 

definition of the term ‘‘basic model’’; and 

the relationship of the term to certain 

product classes and compliance 

certification reporting requirements; and 

codified the ability of manufacturers to 

use an alternative efficiency 

determination method (AEDM) to 

reduce testing burden when certifying 

their equipment as compliant but 

maintaining efficiency measurement 

accuracy and ensuring compliance with 

potential future energy conservation 

standards. The test procedure notice 

also discussed matters of laboratory 

accreditation, compliance certification, 

and enforcement of energy conservation 

standards for small electric motors. 

DOE notes that complete certification 

and enforcement provisions for small 

electric motors have not yet been 

developed. DOE intends to propose 

such provisions in a separate test 

procedure supplementary NOPR, at 

which time DOE will invite comments 

on how small electric motor efficiency 

standards can be effectively enforced. 

Section V.B of this final rule 

summarizes comments received in 

response to the NOPR that will be 

further addressed in the test procedure 

supplemental NOPR. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

As stated above, any standards that 

DOE establishes for small electric 

motors must be technologically feasible. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a)) DOE considers a design option 

to be technologically feasible if it is in 

use by the respective industry or if 

research has progressed to the 

development of a working prototype. 

‘‘Technologies incorporated in 

commercially available equipment or in 

working prototypes will be considered 

technologically feasible.’’ 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(i). This final rule considers the 

same design options as those evaluated 

in the NOPR. (See chapter 5 of the TSD.) 

All the evaluated technologies have 

been used (or are being used) in 

commercially available products or 

working prototypes. Therefore, DOE has 

determined that all of the efficiency 

levels evaluated in this notice are 

technologically feasible. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

As required by EPCA, (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)), in 

developing the NOPR, DOE identified 

the efficiency levels that would achieve 

the maximum improvements in energy 

efficiency that are technologically 

feasible (max-tech levels) for small 

electric motors. 74 FR 61418. Table III.1 

lists the max-tech levels that DOE 

determined for this rulemaking. DOE 

identified these levels as part of the 

engineering analysis (chapter 5 of the 

TSD), using the most efficient design 

parameters that lead to the highest fullload efficiencies for small electric 

motors. 

TABLE III.1—MAX-TECH EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASSES * 

Motor category Poles Horsepower Efficiency % 

Polyphase ................................................................................................................ 4 1 87.7 

CSIR ........................................................................................................................ 4 0.5 77.6 

CSCR ....................................................................................................................... 4 0 .75 87.5 

* These max-tech efficiency levels are only for the representative product classes described in section IV.C.2. Max-tech efficiency levels for the 

remaining product classes are determined using the scaling methodology outlined in section IV.C.5. 

DOE developed maximum 

technologically feasible efficiencies by 

creating motor designs for each product 

class analyzed, which use all the viable 

design options that DOE considered. 

The efficiency levels shown in Table 

III.1 correspond to designs that use a 

maximum increase in stack length, a 

copper rotor design, a premium 

electrical steel (Hiperco 50), a maximum 

slot-fill percentage (65-percent), a 

change in run-capacitor rating (CSCR 

motors only), and an optimized end ring 

design. All of the design options used to 

create these max-tech motors remain in 

the analysis and are options that DOE 

considers technologically feasible. 

C. Energy Savings 

DOE forecasted energy savings in its 

national energy savings (NES) analysis, 

through the use of an NES spreadsheet 

tool, as discussed in the NOPR. 74 FR 

61418, 61440–42, 61470–72. 

One of the criteria that govern DOE’s 

adoption of standards for small electric 

motors is that the standard must result 

in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. (42 

U.S.C. 6317(b)) While the term 

‘‘significant’’ is not defined by EPCA, a 

D.C. Circuit indicated that Congress 

intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings to 

be savings that were not ‘‘genuinely 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10881 

3 In an alternating current power system, the 

reactive power is the root mean square (RMS) 

voltage multiplied by the RMS current, multiplied 

by the sine of the phase difference between the 

voltage and the current. Reactive power occurs 

when the inductance or capacitance of the load 

shifts the phase of the voltage relative to the phase 

of the current. While reactive power does not 

consume energy, it can increase losses and costs for 

the electricity distribution system. Motors tend to 

create reactive power because the windings in the 

motor coils have high inductance. 

trivial.’’ Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 

1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985) The energy savings 

for the standard levels DOE is adopting 

today are non-trivial, and therefore DOE 

considers them ‘‘significant’’ as required 

by 42 U.S.C. 6317. 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

The following section discusses how 

DOE has addressed each of the seven 

factors that it uses to determine if 

energy conservation standards are 

economically justified. 

a. Economic Impact on Motor Customers 

and Manufacturers 

DOE considered the economic impact 

of today’s new standards on purchasers 

and manufacturers of small electric 

motors. For purchasers of small electric 

motors, DOE measured the economic 

impact as the change in installed cost 

and life-cycle operating costs, i.e., the 

LCC. (See section IV.F of this preamble, 

and chapter 12 of the TSD.) DOE 

investigated the impacts on 

manufacturers through the manufacturer 

impact analysis (MIA). (See sections IV.I 

and VI.C.2 of this preamble and chapter 

13 of the TSD.) The economic impact on 

purchasers and manufacturers is 

discussed in detail in the NOPR. 74 FR 

61418–19, 61436–40, 61442–46, and 

61454–70. 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

DOE considered life-cycle costs of 

small electric motors, as discussed in 

the NOPR. 74 FR 61436–40, 61442, 

61454–64. In considering these costs, 

DOE calculated the sum of the purchase 

price and the operating expense— 

discounted over the lifetime of the 

equipment—to estimate the range in 

LCC savings that small motors 

purchasers would expect to achieve due 

to the standards. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for imposing an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA also 

requires DOE, in determining the 

economic justification of a standard, to 

consider the total projected energy 

savings that are expected to result 

directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 

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

6316(a)) As in the NOPR (74 FR 61440– 

42, 61470–72), for today’s final rule, 

DOE used the NES spreadsheet results 

in its consideration of total projected 

energy savings that are directly 

attributable to the standard levels DOE 

considered. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

In selecting today’s standard levels, 

DOE avoided selection of standards that 

lessen the utility or performance of the 

equipment under consideration in this 

rulemaking. (See 42 U.S.C. 

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

6316(a)) 74 FR 61419, 61476. The 

efficiency levels DOE considered 

maintain both motor performance and 

power factor in order to preserve 

consumer utility. DOE considered enduser size constraints by developing 

designs with size increase restrictions 

(limited to a 20-percent increase in stack 

length), as well as designs with less 

stringent constraints (100-percent 

increase in stack length). The designs 

adhering to the 20-percent increase in 

stack length maintain all aspects of 

consumer utility and were created for 

all efficiency levels, but these designs 

may become very expensive at higher 

efficiency levels when compared with 

DOE’s other designs. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE considered any lessening of 

competition that is likely to result from 

standards. As discussed in the NOPR, 

74 FR 61419, 61476, and as required 

under EPCA, DOE requested that the 

Attorney General transmit to the 

Secretary a written determination of the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from the 

standards proposed in the NOPR, 

together with an analysis of the nature 

and extent of such impact. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii) and 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a)) 

To assist the Attorney General in 

making such a determination, DOE 

provided the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) with copies of the November 24, 

2009 proposed rule and the NOPR TSD 

for review. The Attorney General’s 

response is discussed in IV.F.7 below, 

and is reprinted at the end of this rule. 

DOJ concluded that TSL 5 for polyphase 

small electric motors and TSL 7 for 

single-phase small electric motors are 

likely to affect the replacement market 

for certain applications. DOJ requested 

that DOE consider this potential impact 

and, as warranted, allow exemptions 

from the proposed standard levels the 

manufacture and marketing of certain 

replacement small electric motors. 

f. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

In considering standards for small 

electric motors, the Secretary must 

consider the need of the Nation to 

conserve energy. (42 U.S.C. 

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

6316(a)) The Secretary recognizes that 

energy conservation benefits the Nation 

in several important ways. The nonmonetary benefits of the standard are 

likely to be reflected in improvements to 

the security and reliability of the 

Nation’s energy system. Today’s 

standard will also result in 

environmental benefits. As discussed in 

the NOPR, 74 FR 61419, 61447–61453, 

61476–61484, and in section VI.C.6 of 

this final rule, DOE considered these 

factors in adopting today’s standards. 

g. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, considers any 

other factors that the Secretary of Energy 

deems relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

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

6316(a)) In adopting today’s standards, 

the Secretary considered the following: 

(1) Harmonization of standards for small 

electric motors with existing standards 

under EPCA for medium-sized 

polyphase general purpose motors; (2) 

the impact, on consumers who need to 

use CSIR motors, and on the prices for 

such motors at potential standard levels; 

and (3) the potential for standards to 

reduce reactive power demand and 

thereby lower costs for supplying 

electricity.3 74 FR 61419–20, 61484. 

These issues are addressed in section 

VI.C.7 below. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA 

states that there is a rebuttable 

presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the increased installed cost 

for a product that meets the standard is 

less than three times the value of the 

first-year energy savings resulting from 

the standard, as calculated under the 

applicable DOE test procedure. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a)) DOE’s LCC and payback period 

(PBP) analyses generate values that 

calculate the PBP of potential energy 

conservation standards. The calculation 

includes, but is not limited to, the threeyear PBP contemplated under the 

rebuttable presumption test just 

described. However, DOE routinely 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10882 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

4An open motor is constructed with ventilating 

openings that permit external cooling air to pass 

over and around the windings of the motor. An 

enclosed motor is constructed to prevent the free 

exchange of air between the inside and outside of 

the housing. 

conducts a full economic analysis that 

considers the full range of impacts, 

including those to the customer, 

manufacturer, Nation, and environment, 

as required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). 

The results of this analysis serve as the 

basis for DOE to evaluate definitively 

the economic justification for a potential 

standard level (thereby supporting or 

rebutting any presumption of economic 

justification). 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Comments on Methodology 

DOE used several analytical tools that 

it developed previously and adapted for 

use in this rulemaking. One is a 

spreadsheet that calculates LCC and 

PBP. Another tool calculates national 

energy savings and national NPV that 

would result from the adoption of 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

also used the Government Regulatory 

Impact Model (GRIM), along with other 

data obtained from interviews with 

manufacturers, in its MIA to determine 

the impacts of standards on 

manufacturers. Finally, DOE developed 

an approach using the National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate 

impacts of standards for small electric 

motors on electric utilities and the 

environment. The NOPR discusses each 

of these analytical tools in detail, 74 FR 

61420, 61436–53, as does the TSD. 

As a basis for this final rule, DOE has 

continued to use the spreadsheets and 

approaches explained in the NOPR. 

DOE used the same general 

methodology as applied in the NOPR, 

but revised some of the assumptions 

and inputs for the final rule in response 

to public comments. DOE also added 

new analysis based on the comments it 

received from interested parties. The 

following paragraphs address these 

revisions. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

When beginning an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE develops information that provides 

an overall picture of the market for the 

equipment concerned, including the 

purpose of the equipment, the industry 

structure, and market characteristics. 

This activity includes both quantitative 

and qualitative assessments based 

primarily on publicly available 

information. The subjects addressed in 

the market and technology assessment 

for this rulemaking include scope of 

coverage, product classes, 

manufacturers, quantities, and types of 

equipment sold and offered for sale; 

retail market trends; and regulatory and 

non-regulatory programs. See chapter 3 

of the TSD for further discussion of the 

market and technology assessment. 

1. Definition of Small Electric Motor 

EPCA defines a small electric motor 

as ‘‘a NEMA general purpose alternating 

current single-speed induction motor, 

built in a two-digit frame number series 

in accordance with NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1–1987.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)(G). NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1–1987 is an industry 

guidance document that addresses, 

among other things, various aspects 

related to small and medium electric 

motors. As denoted in the title, this 

version of MG1 was prepared in 1987, 

more than 20 years before the date of 

today’s final rule. NEMA has since 

published updated versions of this 

document, the latest of which was 

released in 2006. Of particular 

significance is the difference in what 

was considered in 1987 a general 

purpose, alternating current motor (only 

open construction motors) compared to 

what NEMA currently considers a 

general purpose alternating current 

motor (both open and enclosed 

construction motors).4

DOE explained its view in the NOPR 

as to how it currently reads 42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)(G). 74 FR 61421. DOE 

indicated that the statute refers to MG1– 

1987 for purposes of ascertaining what 

constitutes a small electric motor. The 

agency explained and articulated certain 

assumptions in the NOPR regarding the 

scope of categories of motors, frame 

sizes, performance characteristics, 

insulation systems, and motor 

enclosures that it examined within the 

proposed scope of this rulemaking. 

DOE received several comments 

criticizing the scope of DOE’s coverage 

in its analyses. Manufacturers indicated 

that DOE’s scope was too broad because, 

in their view, many of the motors DOE 

examined in ascertaining the energy 

savings potential for small electric 

motors, were not small electric motors 

under MG1–1987. For example, 

Emerson commented that in order for 

standards to be enforceable, DOE should 

adhere strictly to MG1–1987 in defining 

scope. (Emerson, No. 28 at p. 2) NEMA 

made similar comments echoing the 

same concern and argued that DOE’s 

analysis should have been limited to the 

performance characteristics contained 

in MG1–1987. (See, e.g., NEMA, No. 8 

at pp. 2–5) 

In contrast, Earthjustice and UL both 

commented that DOE was unnecessarily 

constraining itself by adhering to NEMA 

MG1–1987. See Earthjustice, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 49– 

50; UL, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20.4 at pp. 89–90. UL asserted that 

DOE’s scope would create a negligible 

impact on the market, which has been 

shifting from the motors covered under 

the NOPR to other motor types (such as 

electronically commutated motors). (UL, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at 

p. 182, UL, No. 21 at pp. 2) Earthjustice 

advised DOE that it should expand the 

scope of the rulemaking to include any 

‘‘covered equipment’’ that it finds are 

justified. (Earthjustice, No. 22 at pp. 

1–3) It had also noted during the 

preliminary analysis public meeting, 

that DOE could adopt a different reading 

of the definition by applying the phrase 

MG1–1987 only to the two digit frame 

number series requirement. Earthjustice, 

Public Meeting Transcript, at 47–49 

(January 30, 2009). 

After careful consideration of all of 

the comments, DOE believes that its 

scope of coverage in this final rule is 

appropriate. As such, DOE is declining 

to revise its scope of coverage for this 

equipment within this rulemaking. 

While DOE is continuing to adhere to 

the approach proposed in its NOPR and 

accompanying TSD, DOE may revisit 

this issue in the future and re-examine 

its interpretation of the small electric 

motor definition in 42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)(G). Any such re-examination 

would be performed within the context 

of the rulemaking process and offer an 

opportunity for public comment. 

a. Motor Categories 

The motor categories examined by 

DOE are tied in part to the terminology 

and performance requirements in 

NEMA MG1–1987. These requirements 

were established for (1) general-purpose 

alternating-current motors, (2) singlespeed induction motors, and (3) the 

NEMA system for designating (twodigit) frame sizes. Single-speed 

induction motors, as delineated and 

described in MG1–1987, fall into five 

categories: split-phase, shaded-pole, 

capacitor-start (both CSIR and CSCR), 

permanent-split capacitor (PSC), and 

polyphase. Of these five motor 

categories, DOE determined for 

purposes of this rulemaking that only 

CSIR, CSCR, and polyphase motors are 

able to meet performance requirements 

in NEMA MG1 and are widely 

considered general purpose alternating 

current motors, as shown by the listings 

found in manufacturers’ catalogs. 

Therefore, in the NOPR DOE proposed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10883 

to only cover those three motor 

categories. 

Underwriters Laboratories stated that 

they believe DOE should cover the splitphase, shaded-pole, and PSC motor 

categories because they are much more 

common in the current market. 

(Underwriters Laboratories, No. 21 at p. 

2) It is DOE’s understanding that the 

motors suggested for coverage by UL do 

not meet the requirements for a NEMA 

general purpose motors and, 

consequently, are outside the scope of 

this rulemaking despite being more 

common. As a result, DOE continues to 

maintain that CSIR, CSCR, and 

polyphase motors are the only motor 

categories that are general purpose 

motors for purposes of this rulemaking. 

b. Horsepower Ratings 

In DOE’s preliminary and NOPR 

analyses on small electric motors, DOE 

presented a range of horsepower ratings 

from 1⁄4-horsepower up to 3- 

horsepower. The range of horsepower 

ratings was the same for all three motor 

categories covered: CSIR, CSCR, and 

polyphase motors as well as all three 

pole configurations: Two, four, and six. 

This range of horsepower ratings was 

consistent with what DOE believed to be 

the range of ratings where 

manufacturers build NEMA general 

purpose motors in a two-digit frame 

number series. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA and 

Baldor commented that the horsepower 

range for the products classes DOE 

proposed was incorrect. Baldor stated 

that horsepower ratings higher than 1⁄2- 

horsepower for six-pole motors, 3⁄4- 

horsepower for four-pole motors, and 

1-horsepower for two-pole motors are 

not standard ratings for small electric 

motors as defined in NEMA MG1, in 

particular, as listed in Table 10–1 of 

MG1–1987. Therefore, NEMA and 

Baldor stated that motors with such 

ratings are not NEMA general purpose 

motors and should be excluded from 

DOE’s scope of coverage. (Baldor, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 38– 

41; NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 1–5, 7) 

DOE understands that NEMA MG1– 

1987 does not provide ratings for small 

motors of the identified higher 

horsepower ratings. However, DOE does 

not believe this precludes certain higher 

horsepower ratings built in a two-digit 

NEMA frame consistent with NEMA 

MG1–1987 from coverage. In addition, 

upon review of NEMA manufacturer 

product catalogs, DOE noted that twodigit frame size motors of higher 

horsepower ratings are commonly 

marketed as general purpose. DOE also 

observed from NEMA shipment data 

provided to DOE for the determination 

analysis that when NEMA surveyed its 

members and requested shipments of 

general purpose motors built in a twodigit frame number series, responding 

manufacturers provided shipments data 

in horsepower ratings exceeding those 

listed in the comments above. Although 

NEMA argued that these motors do not 

fall within this rulemaking, NEMA did 

not deny that these motors are 

considered general purpose motors. 

Thus, DOE believes that even though 

NEMA MG1–1987 does not provide 

standard ratings for higher horsepower 

small electric motors, many of these 

motors are considered NEMA general 

purpose motors that could be 

considered for coverage by DOE. 

DOE notes that there is precedent for 

clarifying the scope of coverage of these 

motors. At industry’s request during the 

test procedure rulemaking for small 

electric motors, DOE clarified the small 

electric motor definition to incorporate 

metric-equivalent motors that are built 

in accordance with the International 

Electrotechnical Commission’s 

requirements. See Baldor, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 75; 

NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2. This expansion 

of the small electric motor definition, 

which was added to ensure that DOE 

provided adequate coverage over small 

electric motors generally, was 

incorporated into 10 CFR 431.442. See 

also 74 FR 32061–62 and 32072. 

While DOE believes that many of the 

horsepower ratings recommended for 

exclusion by NEMA and Baldor could 

be included in the definition of small 

electric motors, upon examining 

manufacturer catalogs, DOE found that 

motors did not exist for some 

horsepower ratings/pole configuration 

combinations included in NOPR. 

Specifically, DOE found that no open 

construction, two-digit frame size 

motors have horsepower ratings greater 

than 3-horsepower. In addition, DOE 

found no small electric polyphase 

motors built with a 2- or 3-horsepower 

rating and a six-pole configuration. DOE 

also found that small electric singlephase motors (CSIR and CSCR) do not 

exist with a 11⁄2-horsepower rating or 

higher for six-poles or a 3-horsepower 

rating for four-poles. As there is no 

evidence that these motors, if 

manufactured, would be considered 

general purpose motors, and because 

DOE lacks data on which to base energy 

conservation standards for these motors, 

DOE is not including them in the scope 

of this rulemaking. Today’s final rule 

reflects this decision as no standards are 

being adopted in those product classes. 

Table IV.1 presents the horsepower 

ratings for which DOE believes no small 

electric motors are currently 

commercially available. 

TABLE IV.1—HORSEPOWER RATINGS FOR WHICH NO MOTORS EXIST

Motor category Two-pole Four-pole Six-pole 

Polyphase .................................................................................................................... ................................. ................................. ≥ 2 Hp. 

Single-Phase ............................................................................................................... ................................. ≥ 3 Hp ..................... ≥ 1.5 Hp. 

c. Performance Requirements 

NEMA defines several performance 

requirements, including breakdown 

torque, locked rotor torque, and locked 

rotor current that motors must meet in 

order to be considered general-purpose. 

Because DOE’s assessment of the small 

electric motors market (through analysis 

of commercially-available products 

sold) indicates that the vast majority of 

motors meet the previously listed 

requirements, DOE believes that a motor 

must meet these performance 

characteristics as a condition for 

coverage. 

PG&E commented that a loophole 

exists in the rulemaking since the 

current definition of a small general 

purpose motor is so narrow with respect 

to design and performance 

characteristics. (PG&E, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 259–60) 

PG&E added that DOE’s reliance on 

MG1–1987 provides another loophole 

where NEMA could update its standards 

such that manufacturers could still 

make a NEMA general purpose motor 

that is not covered under today’s 

rulemaking. (PG&E, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 260–61) 

NEEA/NPCC agreed with PG&E that a 

manufacturer could easily circumvent 

any standards whose coverage was 

based around NEMA performance 

requirements, by simply constructing 

the motor such that it slightly deviates 

from NEMA requirements, but still 

provides similar utility to the consumer. 

(NEEA/NPCC, No. 27, pp. 2–3) Baldor 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10884 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

5Temperature rise refers to the increase in 

temperature over the ambient temperature of the 

motor when operated at service factor load. NEMA 

MG1 provides maximum temperature rises (as 

measured on the windings of the motor) for each 

insulation class system. 

stated that the tables of performance 

requirements in NEMA MG1 are 

designed to let customers know how 

motors will perform from manufacturer 

to manufacturer and they have been 

established for many years and there 

would be no reason to change them. 

(Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20.4 at pp. 266–67) 

DOE understands the concerns 

expressed by PG&E, but agrees with 

Baldor that considering that the relevant 

performance requirements in NEMA 

MG1 have not changed substantially in 

over 20 years, these performance 

standards are unlikely to change should 

NEMA develop a new version of MG1. 

DOE believes that to do so would 

constitute a major change to the 

industry and performance 

characteristics that customers have been 

accustomed to over the years. Therefore, 

DOE believes that small electric motors 

must meet certain requirements in 

NEMA MG1–1987 shown in Table IV.6. 

For those combinations of horsepower 

rating and pole configuration that do not 

have performance requirements for twodigit frame sizes, DOE has no 

performance requirements. Instead, DOE 

will cover only those motors widely 

considered general purpose and 

marketed as such in manufacturer 

catalogs. 

d. Motor Enclosures 

In the NOPR, DOE stated that in 

ascertaining what constitutes a small 

electric motor, only the 1987 version of 

MG1 applies within the context of the 

statutory definition. Under that 

interpretation, DOE stated that only 

open construction motors were 

considered covered products. DOE is 

continuing to adhere to this approach. 

As DOE’s proposed scope did not 

extend beyond open motors as covered 

products, Baldor and NEMA 

commented that the revision to 10 CFR 

Part 431 proposed in the NOPR should 

clearly mention that the table of 

efficiency values for section 431.446 

applies only to open motors. (Baldor, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at 

pp. 47–48, NEMA, No. 24 at p. 5) To 

clarify the application of the new 

efficiency values, DOE is modifying the 

efficiency standards tables in section 

431.446 from today’s final rule to 

include the words, ‘‘open motors’’ in the 

headings. 

e. Frame Sizes 

As for the frame sizes of motors that 

are covered by DOE standards for small 

electric motors, EPCA defines a small 

electric motor, in relevant part, as a 

motor ‘‘built in a two-digit frame 

number series in accordance with 

NEMA Standards Publication MG1– 

1987.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) MG1– 

1987 establishes a system for 

designating motor frames that consisting 

of a series of numbers in combination 

with letters that correspond to a specific 

size. The 1987 version of MG1 

designates three two-digit frame series: 

42, 48, and 56. These frame series have 

standard dimensions and tolerances 

necessary for mounting and 

interchangeability that are specified in 

sections MG1–11.31 and MG1–11.34. 

DOE understands that manufacturers 

produce motors in other two-digit frame 

sizes, namely a 66 frame size. The 66 

frame size is used for definite-purpose 

or special-purpose motors and not used 

in general-purpose applications and are 

not covered under the EPCA definition 

of ‘‘small electric motor.’’ In the NOPR, 

DOE stated that it was unaware of any 

other motors with two-digit frame sizes 

that are built in accordance with NEMA 

MG1–1987. Should such frame sizes 

appear on the market, DOE will 

consider evaluating whether to include 

that equipment. For the NOPR, DOE 

received no comments regarding this 

issue and as a result, is maintaining its 

stance on this topic for this final rule. 

f. Insulation Class Systems 

Because DOE’s interpretation of the 

statutory definition of a small electric 

motor is largely influenced by what 

NEMA defines as a general-purpose 

alternating-current motor under MG1– 

1987, DOE has taken into account the 

criteria that comprise a general purpose 

motor. Among these criteria are the 

applicable insulation classes. NEMA 

MG1–1987 paragraph 1–1.05, provides 

that a general-purpose motor must 

incorporate a ‘‘Class A insulation system 

with a temperature rise as specified in 

MG 1–12.42 for small motors or Class B 

insulation system with a temperature 

rise as specified in MG 1–12.43 for 

medium motors.’’ 

In NEMA MG1–1987, paragraphs 1.66 

and 12.42.1 define four insulation class 

systems: Class A, Class B, Class F, and 

Class H. They are divided into classes 

based on the thermal endurance and 

each system has a different temperature 

rise 5 that the insulating material must 

be able to withstand without 

degradation. The temperature rise 

requirement for Class A systems is the 

lowest of the four systems defined in 

NEMA MG1–1987, which means that all 

other insulation classes meet Class A 

requirements. Because all insulation 

class systems meet the Class A 

requirements, DOE proposed to cover 

motors that incorporate any of the other 

insulation class systems in the NOPR. A 

joint comment submitted by Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern 

California Edison (SCE), Southern 

California Gas Company (SCGC), and 

San Diego Gas and Electric Company 

(SDGE) supported DOE’s decision to 

include insulation Classes B, F, and H 

in addition to Class A. (Joint Comment, 

No. 23 at p. 2) NEMA and Baldor 

commented that although it is prudent 

to cover insulation class systems other 

than Class A, in order for a motor to be 

considered covered it must adhere to 

the temperature rise limits required of 

Class A motors by NEMA MG1. For 

example, if a motor contains a Class B 

insulation system, but the temperature 

rise exceeds the threshold for Class A 

insulation systems, the commenters 

stated that that motor should be 

excluded from coverage. (Baldor, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 25– 

26; Baldor, No. 15 at p. 3–4, NEMA, No. 

24 at pp. 5–7) 

DOE disagrees with Baldor and 

NEMA’s assessment regarding 

temperature rise and in today’s final 

rule maintains that the scope of 

coverage includes motors with any 

insulation class system Class A or 

higher, regardless of whether a motor 

meets the Class A temperature rise 

requirements. First, DOE notes that 

NEMA MG1 does not require small 

motors to meet the temperature rise for 

a Class A insulation system. Rather, it 

only requires that the motor 

incorporates an insulation system that 

meets Class A requirements, which DOE 

has determined could be Class A, B, F, 

or H. 

Second, DOE believes that it is 

unreasonable to apply a more stringent 

temperature rise requirement on motors 

with higher insulation class systems. 

These motors often incorporate the 

higher insulation class systems in order 

to protect the motors from degradation 

at high temperatures. As a result, the 

accompanying temperature rise, which 

serves as a marker of how much heat a 

particular insulation class can 

withstand to prevent the motor from 

damage, will generally increase as a 

higher grade of insulation is used. 

Baldor’s suggestion that a lower 

temperature rise (70 °C) must be used for 

each higher grade of insulation that 

offers protection at higher temperatures 

is one that DOE declines to adopt. 

Furthermore, according to NEMA 

Standards publication MG1–1987, 

paragraph 10.39.1, although insulation 

class system designation is a required 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10885 

marking on the nameplate of small 

electric motors, temperature rise is not. 

If DOE were to limit scope based on the 

temperature rise requirements of Class 

A systems, DOE would have no way of 

determining whether motors of 

insulation class systems greater than 

Class A meet the required temperature 

rise and are therefore subject to energy 

conservation standards. As only 2 

percent of small electric motor models 

sold are labeled with Class A insulation 

systems, 98 percent of small electric 

models would have unknown 

temperature rises (relative to Class A 

requirements). DOE believes that 

including all insulation classes and 

temperature rises satisfies the statutory 

definition and avoids creating an 

unenforceable standard for a large 

number of motors that do not list 

temperature rise. 

g. Service Factors 

Some CSIR, CSCR, and polyphase 

motors may fail to meet the NEMA 

definition of general purpose alternating 

current motor because they do not meet 

NEMA service factor requirements. See, 

e.g. NEMA MG1–1987 Table 12–2. 

Service factor is a measure of the 

overload capacity at which a motor can 

operate without thermal damage, while 

operating normally within the correct 

voltage tolerances. The rated 

horsepower multiplied by the service 

factor determines that overload 

capacity. For example, a 1-horsepower 

motor with a 1.25 service factor can 

operate at 1.25 horsepower (1- 

horsepower × 1.25 service factor). For 

the NOPR, DOE concluded that motors 

that fail to meet service factor 

requirements in MG1–12.47 of MG1– 

1987 (now 12.51.1 of MG1–2006) are not 

‘‘small electric motors’’ as EPCA uses 

that term. Receiving no comments to the 

contrary, DOE maintains that position in 

today’s final rule and energy efficiency 

standards do not apply to them. 

h. Metric Equivalents and Non-Standard 

Horsepower and Kilowatt Ratings 

DOE’s interpretation of a small 

electric motor is largely based on the 

construction and rating system in 

NEMA MG1–1987. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)(G)) This system uses English 

units of measurement and power output 

ratings in horsepower. In contrast, 

general-purpose electric motors 

manufactured outside the United States 

and Canada are defined and described 

with reference to the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

Standard 60034–1 series, ‘‘Rotating 

electrical machines,’’ which employs 

terminology and criteria different from 

those in EPCA. The performance 

attributes of these IEC motors are rated 

pursuant to IEC Standard 60034–1 Part 

1: ‘‘Rating and performance,’’ which uses 

metric units of measurement and 

construction standards different from 

MG1, and a rating system based on 

power output in kilowatts instead of 

power output in horsepower. The 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112 

recognizes this difference in the market 

and defines the relationship between 

horsepower and kilowatts. Furthermore, 

in 10 CFR 431.12, DOE defined ‘‘electric 

motor’’ in terms of both NEMA and IEC 

equivalents even though EPCA’s 

corresponding definition and standards 

were articulated in terms of MG1 

criteria and English units of 

measurement. 64 FR 54114 (October 5, 

1999) The test procedure final rule 

adopted a definition for small electric 

motor that explicitly indicated that IEC 

equivalent motors are considered small 

electric motors. 10 CFR 431.442. 74 FR 

32062, 72. 

In the NOPR, DOE addressed how IEC 

metric or kilowatt-equivalent motors 

can perform identical functions as 

NEMA small electric motors and 

provide comparable rotational 

mechanical power to the same machines 

or equipment. Moreover, IEC metric or 

kilowatt-equivalent motors can 

generally be interchangeable with 

covered small electric motors. 

Consistent with the codified definition 

of ‘‘small electric motor in 10 CFR 

431.442, DOE interpreted EPCA to apply 

the term ‘‘small electric motor’’ to any 

motor that is identical or equivalent to 

a motor constructed and rated in 

accordance with NEMA MG1, which 

includes IEC metric motors. DOE also 

proposed that motors with non-standard 

kilowatt and horsepower ratings would 

be required to meet small electric motor 

energy conservation standards. 74 FR 

61422. 

A joint comment submitted by PG&E, 

SCE, SCGC, and SDGE indicated 

support for DOE’s decision to include 

IEC-rated motors in today’s rulemaking. 

(Joint Comment, No. 23 at p. 2) NEMA 

and Baldor commented that, even 

though they agreed with DOE’s 

approach in the NOPR, they believed 

that given the statutory definition’s 

dependence on MG1–1987 (and the 

ratings contained in that standard) more 

justification is needed to include nonstandard metric or English-rated motors 

in its scope of coverage. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 288–89; 

NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 24–25) 

DOE appreciates these comments and 

in this final rule maintains its position 

regarding the inclusion of non-standard 

IEC metric and English-rated motors. 

Though NEMA MG1 does not provide 

ratings for these non-standard motors, 

DOE recognizes that they can perform 

identical functions as those NEMA 

motors with standard horsepower 

ratings. Therefore, as DOE did within 

the context of its codified definition of 

the term ‘‘small electric motor’’ found in 

10 CFR 431.442 to include IEC metricequivalent motors, DOE believes that 

non-standard horsepower and kilowatt 

rated motors should be considered 

NEMA general purpose and included in 

the scope of coverage of this 

rulemaking. 

i. Summary 

During the public meeting, Baldor and 

NEMA commented that DOE did not 

include the definition of NEMA general 

purpose motor in 10 CFR 431.442, and 

suggested that DOE include the 

definition for clarity and completeness. 

(Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20.4 at p. 46; NEMA, No. 24 at p. 5) A.O. 

Smith also requested clarification of the 

term ‘‘small electric motor,’’ and 

suggested that the definition align with 

NEMA established guidelines. (A.O. 

Smith, No. 26 at p. 2) 

DOE has discussed the covered motor 

categories, horsepower ratings, motor 

enclosures, frame sizes, insulation class 

systems, service factors, and metric 

equivalents. As discussed in section 

IV.A.1.b, because DOE has found several 

horsepower/pole configurations for 

which small electric motors are not 

commercially available, DOE has made 

slight modifications in the range of 

horsepower ratings for which it is 

adopting standards in this final rule. 

The motors covered by today’s rule 

include polyphase motors from 1⁄4- to 3- 

horsepower for motors equipped with 

two poles, 1⁄4- to 3-horsepower for 

motors with four poles, and 1⁄4- to 1⁄2- 

horsepower for motors with six pole 

motors as long as they are built in a twodigit frame number series and with an 

open construction; the CSIR and CSCR 

motors covered by today’s rule include 

motors from 1⁄4- to 3-horsepower motors 

equipped with two poles, 1⁄4- to 2- 

horsepower for motors with four poles, 

and 1⁄4- to 1-horesepower for motors 

with six poles as long as they are built 

in a two-digit frame number series and 

with an open construction. A motor will 

not be excluded because of its 

insulation class system or its 

temperature rise. However, it will be 

excluded if it fails to meet NEMA 

general purpose service factor 

requirements. Any metric-equivalent 

motor or motor with a non-standard 

horsepower or kilowatt rating that has 

performance characteristics and 

construction equivalent to those listed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10886 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

above is also a covered product and 

must meet the energy efficiency 

standards of this rulemaking. Although 

today’s final rule DOE does not codify 

a definition for ‘‘NEMA general purpose 

motor’’, DOE will consider proposing a 

definition for this term in the electric 

motor test procedure supplemental 

NOPR. 

2. Product Classes 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

generally divides covered equipment 

into classes by the type of energy used, 

capacity, or other performance-related 

features that affect efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)) DOE routinely establishes 

different energy conservation standards 

for different product classes based on 

these criteria. 

At the NOPR public meeting, DOE 

presented its rationale for creating 72 

product classes. The 72 product classes 

were based on combinations of three 

different characteristics: motor category, 

number of poles, and horsepower. As 

these motor characteristics change, so 

does the utility and efficiency of the 

small electric motor. 

The motor category divides the small 

electric motors market into three major 

groups: CSIR, CSCR, and polyphase. For 

each motor category, DOE divided the 

product classes by all combinations of 

eight different horsepower ratings (i.e., 1⁄4 to ≥ 3) and three different pole 

configurations (i.e., 2, 4, and 6). A 

change in motor category can constitute 

a change in the type of power used, 

three-phase power for polyphase motors 

versus single-phase power for capacitorstart motors. Alternatively, it might be a 

change in consumer utility that affects 

efficiency. The addition of a runcapacitor on a CSCR motors can make 

the motor more efficient as well as 

constitute dimensional changes as the 

run-capacitor is usually mounted 

externally on the housing. Horsepower 

rating is directly related to a motor’s 

capacity, and its pole configuration is 

directly related to the theoretical 

maximum speed at which a motor can 

operate. For the NOPR, DOE received no 

comments contrary to disaggregating 

product classes with these 

characteristics, but did receive other 

comments regarding product classes. 

Consistent with their comments on 

scope (discussed in section IV.A.1), 

NEMA and Baldor stated that certain 

combinations of horsepower and speed 

(or pole-configuration) ratings should be 

excluded from DOE’s product classes 

because, in their view, they are not 

small electric motors within the context 

of MG1–1987. Specifically, they stated 

that motors with horsepower ratings 

greater than 1-horsepower for two-pole 

motors, greater than 3⁄4-horsepower for 

four-pole motors, and greater than 1⁄2- 

horsepower for six-pole motors do not 

meet the statutory definition. (Baldor, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at 

pp. 39–41; NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 3–4) As 

discussed in section IV.A.1, DOE 

examined the statutory definition of 

small electric motor and disagrees that 

the aforementioned horsepower and 

speed ratings are not covered under this 

rulemaking. Therefore, in this final rule 

DOE is maintaining coverage of 

combinations of horsepower and pole 

configurations higher than those 

recommended by NEMA and Baldor. 

However, as discussed in section 

IV.A.1.b, DOE is not adopting standards 

for motors which are not currently 

commercially available. Accordingly, 

DOE has removed these proposed 

product classes in the final rule, 

resulting in 62 total product classes. 

NEMA and Baldor also commented 

that DOE should include frame size 

among the characteristics that define a 

product class. They stated that smaller 

frame size motors will not be able to 

achieve as high an energy efficiency 

rating as the larger frame sized motors, 

thus warranting separate product 

classes. (Baldor, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 43–44, 

NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 4–5, 23) 

DOE acknowledges that motors built 

with smaller dimensions, namely core 

diameters, may not be able to achieve 

the same efficiency as a motor with 

larger dimensions. The smaller diameter 

limits the amount of active material that 

is used to reduce motor losses and 

therefore limits the maximum efficiency 

rating possible as well. However, frame 

size, which relates to the frame housing 

and not the core diameter, is a 

measurement of height from the bottom 

of the mounting feet to the center of the 

shaft of the motor. Frame size does not 

always correlate to the core diameter of 

the motor and amount active material. 

For example, DOE found that some 

motors with larger frame sizes have core 

diameters equivalent to those motors 

built in smaller frame sizes, which 

means that these motors have an 

efficiency potential equivalent to that of 

a motor in a smaller frame size. 

Consequently, frame size alone does not 

necessarily change the efficiency of a 

small electric motor. 

Additionally, NEMA MG1 does not 

differentiate breakdown torque, lockedrotor torque, and locked-rotor current 

requirements for small general-purpose 

motors by frame size. DOE believes that 

if performance requirements other than 

efficiency for small motors are not 

different for different frame sizes, there 

is no need or precedent for DOE to 

differentiate efficiency standards for 

small electric motors based on frame 

size. 

However, as stated earlier, DOE 

recognizes that core diameter affects 

efficiency. If DOE were to set a standard 

based on an analysis of a motor of larger 

core diameter, it could potentially be 

eliminating from market smaller core 

diameter motors. However, because core 

diameter is not a standardized 

dimension across all small electric 

motors, DOE has chosen to address this 

issue in the engineering analysis. As 

discussed in section IV.C DOE based its 

representative unit and scaling analyses 

on what it perceived as the greatest 

dimensionally constrained motors on 

the market for each product class. By 

doing this, DOE ensures that all existing 

consumer utility in the marketplace of 

smaller core diameter motors is 

maintained with energy conservation 

standards. 

Chapter 3 of the TSD accompanying 

today’s notice provides additional detail 

on the product classes defined for the 

standards proposed in this final rule, 

and Table IV.2 through Table IV.4 below 

enumerate these product classes. For the 

final rule, DOE considers 62 product 

classes. 

TABLE IV.2—PRODUCT CLASSES FOR POLYPHASE MOTORS WITH AN OPEN CONSTRUCTION

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent Six poles Four poles Two poles 

1⁄4 hp/0.18 kW ..................................................................................................................... PC #1 ............... PC #2 ............... PC #3. 1⁄3 hp/0.25 kW ..................................................................................................................... PC #4 ............... PC #5 ............... PC #6. 1⁄2 hp/0.37 kW ..................................................................................................................... PC #7 ............... PC #8 ............... PC #9. 3⁄4 hp/0.55 kW ..................................................................................................................... PC #10 ............. PC #11 ............. PC #12. 

1 hp/0.75 kW ...................................................................................................................... PC #13 ............. PC #14 ............. PC #15. 

11⁄2 hp/1.1 kW ..................................................................................................................... PC #16 ............. PC #17 ............. PC #18. 

2 hp/1.5 kW ........................................................................................................................ ........................... PC #19 ............. PC #20. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10887 

TABLE IV.2—PRODUCT CLASSES FOR POLYPHASE MOTORS WITH AN OPEN CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent Six poles Four poles Two poles 

3 hp/2.2 kW ........................................................................................................................ ........................... PC #21 ............. PC #22. 

TABLE IV.3—PRODUCT CLASSES FOR CAPACITOR-START INDUCTION-RUN MOTORS WITH AN OPEN CONSTRUCTION

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent Six poles Four poles Two poles 

1⁄4 hp/0.18 kW ..................................................................................................................... PC #23 ............. PC #24 ............. PC #25. 1⁄3 hp/0.25 kW ..................................................................................................................... PC #26 ............. PC #27 ............. PC #28. 1⁄2 hp/0.37 kW ..................................................................................................................... PC #29 ............. PC #30 ............. PC #31. 3⁄4 hp/0.55 kW ..................................................................................................................... PC #32 ............. PC #33 ............. PC #34. 

1 hp/0.75 kW ...................................................................................................................... PC #35 ............. PC #36 ............. PC #37. 

11⁄2 hp/1.1 kW ..................................................................................................................... ........................... PC #38 ............. PC #39. 

2 hp/1.5 kW ........................................................................................................................ ........................... PC #40 ............. PC #41. 

3 hp/2.2 kW ........................................................................................................................ ........................... ........................... PC #42. 

TABLE IV.4—PRODUCT CLASSES FOR CAPACITOR-START CAPACITOR-RUN MOTORS WITH AN OPEN CONSTRUCTION

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent Six poles Four poles Two poles 

1⁄4 hp/0.18 kW ..................................................................................................................... PC #43 ............. PC #44 ............. PC #45. 1⁄3 hp/0.25 kW ..................................................................................................................... PC #46 ............. PC #47 ............. PC #48. 1⁄2 hp/0.37 kW ..................................................................................................................... PC #49 ............. PC #50 ............. PC #51. 3⁄4 hp/0.55 kW ..................................................................................................................... PC #52 ............. PC #53 ............. PC #54. 

1 hp/0.75 kW ...................................................................................................................... PC #55 ............. PC #56 ............. PC #57. 

11⁄2 hp/1.1 kW ..................................................................................................................... ........................... PC #58 ............. PC #59. 

2 hp/1.5 kW ........................................................................................................................ ........................... PC #60 ............. PC #61. 

3 hp/2.2 kW ........................................................................................................................ ........................... ........................... PC #62. 

B. Screening Analysis 

The purpose of the screening analysis 

is to evaluate the technology options 

identified as having the potential to 

improve the efficiency of equipment, to 

determine which technologies to 

consider further and which to screen 

out. DOE consulted with industry, 

technical experts, and other interested 

parties to develop a list of technologies 

for consideration. DOE then applied the 

following four screening criteria to 

determine which design options are 

suitable for further consideration in a 

standards rulemaking: 

1. Technological feasibility. DOE 

considers technologies incorporated in 

commercial products or in working 

prototypes to be technologically 

feasible. 

2. Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If mass production 

and reliable installation and servicing of 

a technology in commercial products 

could be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time the standard comes into effect, 

then DOE considers that technology 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service. 

3. Adverse impacts on product utility 

or product availability. If DOE 

determines 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 consider this 

technology further. 

4. Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If DOE determines that a 

technology will have significant adverse 

impacts on health or safety, it will not 

consider this technology further. 

See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

appendix A, (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b). 

DOE identified the following 

technology options that could improve 

the efficiency of small electric motors: 

Utilizing a copper die-cast rotor, 

reducing skew on the rotor stack (i.e. 

straightening the rotor conductor bars), 

increasing the cross-sectional area of 

rotor conductor bars, increasing the end 

ring size, changing the copper wire 

gauge used in the stator, manipulating 

the stator slot size, changing capacitor 

ratings, decreasing the air gap between 

the rotor and stator, improving the 

grades of electrical steel, using thinner 

steel laminations, annealing steel 

laminations, adding stack length, using 

high efficiency steel lamination 

materials, using plastic bonded iron 

powder (PBIP), installing better ball 

bearings and lubricant, and installing a 

more efficient cooling system. For a 

description of how each of these 

technology options improves small 

electric motor efficiency see TSD 

chapter 3. For the NOPR, DOE screened 

out two of these technology options: 

PBIP and decreasing the air gap below 

.0125 inch. DOE received no comments 

regarding these two technology options 

and therefore maintains its exclusion of 

these technology options in today’s final 

rule. However, DOE did receive 

comments concerning the availability of 

premium electrical steels (such as 

Hiperco) and copper rotors, two design 

options that it did not screen out in the 

NOPR. Please see section IV.I for a 

discussion of those issues. 

DOE believes that all of the efficiency 

levels discussed in today’s notice are 

technologically feasible. The 

technologies that DOE examined have 

been used (or are being used) in 

commercially available equipment or 

working prototypes. These technologies 

all incorporate materials and 

components that are commercially 

available in today’s supply markets for 

the motors that are the subject of this 

final rule. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The engineering analysis develops 

cost-efficiency relationships to show the 

manufacturing costs of achieving 

increased energy efficiency. As 

discussed in the NOPR, to conduct the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10888 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

engineering analysis, DOE used a 

combined design-option and efficiency 

level approach in which it employed a 

motor design software technical expert 

to develop motor designs at several 

efficiency levels for each analyzed 

product class. Based on these simulated 

designs and manufacturer and 

component supplier data, DOE 

calculated manufacturing costs and 

selling prices associated with each 

efficiency level. DOE decided on this 

approach after receiving insufficient 

response to its request for the 

manufacturer data needed to execute an 

efficiency-level approach for the 

preliminary analyses. The design-option 

approach allowed DOE to make its 

engineering analysis methodologies, 

assumptions, and results publicly 

available in the NOPR, thereby 

permitting all interested parties the 

opportunity to review and comment on 

this information. The design options 

considered in the engineering analysis 

include: Copper die-cast rotor, reduced 

skew on the rotor stack, increased crosssectional area of rotor conductor bars, 

increase end-ring size, changing the 

gauge of copper wire in the stator, 

manipulating stator slot size, decreased 

air gap between rotor and stator to .0125 

inch, improved grades of electrical steel, 

use thinner steel laminations, annealed 

steel laminations, increased stack 

height, modified capacitors ratings, 

improved ball bearings and lubricant, 

and more efficient cooling systems. 

Chapter 5 of the TSD contains a detailed 

description of the engineering analysis 

methodology and chapter 3 of the TSD 

contains a detailed description of how 

the design options listed above increase 

motor efficiency. 

1. Product Classes Analyzed 

As discussed in section IV.A.2 of this 

notice, DOE is establishing a total of 62 

product classes for small electric 

motors, based on the motor category 

(polyphase, CSIR, or CSCR), horsepower 

rating, and pole configuration. DOE 

carefully selected certain product 

classes to analyze, and then scaled its 

analytical findings for those 

representative product classes to other 

product classes that were not directly 

analyzed. Further discussion of DOE’s 

scaling methodology is presented in 

section IV.C.5 

For the NOPR, DOE analyzed three 

representative product classes: (1) 1- 

horsepower, four-pole, polyphase 

motor, (2) 1⁄2-horsepower, four-pole, 

CSIR motors, and (3) 3⁄4-horsepower, 

four-pole, CSCR motor. By choosing 

these three product classes, DOE 

ensured that each motor category 

(polyphase, CSIR, and CSCR) was 

represented. DOE achieved this by 

selecting horsepower ratings for each 

motor category that are commonly 

available from most manufacturers, thus 

increasing the quantity of available data 

on which to base the analysis. Finally, 

DOE chose four-pole motors for each 

motor category, consistent with NEMAprovided shipments data (see TSD 

chapter 9), which indicated that these 

motors had the highest shipment 

volume in 2007. See TSD chapter 5 for 

additional detail on the product classes 

analyzed. 

In response to the NOPR, Baldor and 

NEMA commented that the product 

class selected for polyphase motors was 

inappropriate. They asserted that 

according to NEMA’s standard ratings in 

MG1–1987, a 1-horsepower, four-pole, 

polyphase motor would not be 

considered a small motor or NEMA 

general purpose small motor, and 

therefore falls out of the scope of this 

rulemaking. (Baldor, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 62–63; 

NEMA, No. 24 at p. 7) However, as 

discussed in section IV.A.1, DOE 

disagrees with Baldor and NEMA’s 

interpretation of scope, and in this final 

rule, DOE is including small electric 

motors with horsepower ratings ranging 

from 1⁄4- to 3-horsepower and pole 

configurations of two, four, and six 

poles. In consideration of this scope, 

DOE believes that the representative 

product classes selected in the NOPR 

engineering analysis are appropriate and 

is continuing to use these same 

representative product classes in today’s 

final rule. 

2. Baseline Models 

The engineering analysis DOE 

conducted calculates the incremental 

costs for equipment with efficiency 

levels above the baseline in each 

product class analyzed. For the NOPR 

analysis, DOE established the baseline 

motor efficiency and design for the three 

representative product classes by 

purchasing what it believed to be the 

lowest efficiency motors on the market 

for each of these classes. To select these 

baseline motors, DOE interviewed 

manufacturers and used catalog data on 

motor efficiency and physical 

dimensions. DOE recognizes that motors 

with smaller core diameters, may be 

unable to achieve efficiencies as high as 

those with larger core diameters. In 

order to preserve the availability of 

these smaller core diameter motors, 

DOE selected baselines which it 

believed represented the most 

dimensionally constrained, in terms of 

core diameter, and least efficient motors 

currently available on the market. 

After purchasing the three baseline 

small electric motors, DOE tested the 

motors according to the appropriate 

IEEE test procedures (as dictated by 

DOE’s small electric motor test 

procedure discussed in section III.A). 

After performing the appropriate test 

procedures, DOE then tore down each 

baseline motor to obtain internal 

dimensions, copper wire gauges, steel 

grade, and any other pertinent design 

information. Those parameters and tests 

were then used as inputs into the design 

software, allowing DOE to model the 

motor and calibrate its software to the 

tested efficiencies. All subsequent 

higher-efficiency motor designs 

employed the design options discussed 

earlier to model incremental 

improvements in efficiency and 

increases in cost over the baseline. 

a. Baseline Efficiencies 

At the NOPR public meeting, DOE 

received several comments regarding 

the validity of the baseline motor 

efficiencies used in the engineering 

analysis. Emerson Motor Company 

pointed out that it is common to see a 

spread in efficiencies within a 

population of motors of a particular 

design. Emerson questioned if an 

analysis was conducted to determine if 

the baseline polyphase motor chosen 

and tested had an efficiency value that 

was at the high-end, low-end, or near 

the average compared to the population 

of motors of that model type. (Emerson, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at 

pp. 73–75) Similarly, Baldor and NEMA 

noted that the baseline polyphase 

motor’s tested efficiency (77 percent) 

varied significantly from the catalog 

efficiency (74 percent). They 

commented that using 77 percent as the 

efficiency of the baseline motor in the 

engineering analysis assumed that a 

single tested value of efficiency is equal 

to the true arithmetic mean of the fullload efficiencies of the population of 

motors. They argued that given the 

distribution of efficiencies commonly 

seen across a population of motors, due 

in part to factors such as manufacturing 

variability, this would be an 

inappropriate assumption. In addition, 

they also cited the electric motor 

compliance provisions (in 10 CFR 

431.17) for support. These provisions 

state that the lowest full-load efficiency 

in a sample can differ from the nominal 

full load efficiency by as much as 15 

percent due to variations in losses 

attributable to variability in 

manufacturing and testing facilities. 

Baldor and NEMA asserted that similar 

conditions should be expected for small 

motors. Baldor and NEMA 

recommended that absent any other 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10889 

6This efficiency represents the average of tests 

conducted on six separate units of the same model 

number. 7These values were incorrectly presented in the 

NOPR as 57.7 and 71.0 for CSIR and CSCR, 

respectively. These values presented in the NOPR 

represent the NOPR modeled efficiencies. 74 FR 

61427. 

data, DOE should use the manufacturerrated catalog efficiency of the polyphase 

motor (74 percent) as the baseline 

efficiency. (Baldor, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 120–121, 

125; NEMA, No. 24 at p. 11, 13) 

DOE agrees that it is possible that one 

tested efficiency value does not 

represent the average efficiency over a 

population of motors. Inconsistencies in 

motor laminations and processing 

during manufacturing can result in 

motors of a single design having a 

distribution of efficiencies, most 

commonly seen as variability in core 

and stray load losses. However, as 

manufacturers were not required to 

report its catalog efficiencies for these 

motors based on the results of the DOE 

test procedures, DOE does not agree 

with NEMA’s assertion that catalog 

efficiencies should be used as the 

baseline efficiencies. 

In consideration of the comments 

received, DOE conducted additional 

testing to validate the polyphase 

baseline efficiency. DOE tested five 

additional polyphase motors (for a total 

of six tests, exceeding the minimum five 

required by the DOE sampling 

requirements for electric motors in 10 

CFR 431.17) of the same baseline model, 

purchased from five separate 

warehouses in order to ensure the 

maximum variability in production. 

DOE then used the average of the six 

tests as the baseline efficiency for the 

polyphase motor. For the single-phase 

baseline motors, because the tested 

values did not deviate significantly from 

the catalog efficiency values and as DOE 

did not receive specific comments 

opposing these values, DOE used the 

single-tested efficiency values as the 

baseline efficiencies. 

Because DOE modified the 

efficiencies of the baseline designs 

relative to that which was calculated in 

the motor design software, DOE felt it 

necessary to evaluate whether the 

efficiencies of the higher efficiency 

designs modeled in the software would 

also change. As stated earlier, DOE 

calibrated its software model to the 

NOPR tested efficiencies of the baseline 

models, and all subsequent higher 

efficiency motor designs were generated 

as incremental efficiency gains and cost 

increases over this baseline design. 

Thus, a change in the baseline efficiency 

would likely affect the efficiencies of 

the other motor designs. Therefore, for 

this final rule, DOE shifted the baseline 

modeled efficiencies to match the tested 

values described above. Similarly, 

subsequent, more efficient designs were 

shifted by the same percentage change 

in losses as the baseline shifts. For 

example, the baseline polyphase model 

in the design software predicted an 

efficiency of 77.7 percent. This value 

was decreased to the average tested 

efficiency value of 75.3 percent, 

constituting an increase in motor losses 

of roughly 14 percent. The modeled 

efficiencies of the more efficient designs 

were then shifted down in efficiency by 

a 14 percent increase in motor losses as 

well. 

TABLE IV.5—EFFICIENCY VALUES OF BASELINE MODELS

Polyphase 

1 hp, 4 pole 

CSIR 1⁄2 hp, 4 pole CSCR 3⁄4 hp, 4 pole 

Catalog Rated Efficiency (%) .................................................................................... 74.0 59.0 72.0 

Software Modeled Efficiency (%) .............................................................................. 77.7 57.9 70.7 

Baseline/Tested Efficiency (%) .................................................................................. 6 75.3 7 57.9 7 71.4 

Shift in Losses from Modeled Values (%) ................................................................. 14 0 ¥3 

In the NOPR, DOE stated that an 

accredited laboratory performed IEEE 

Standard 112 Test Methods A and B and 

IEEE Standard 114 to find efficiency 

data for its baseline models. However, at 

the public meeting on December 17, 

2009, Baldor commented that according 

to NEMA and the National Voluntary 

Laboratory Accreditation Program 

Handbook 150–10, accreditation is 

based on motor testing in accordance 

with IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B 

only, and that it does not currently 

cover testing in accordance with IEEE 

Standard 112 Method A or IEEE 

Standard 114. (Baldor, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 114–115) 

Therefore, Baldor suggested that DOE’s 

statement about motor tests was 

misleading because no accreditation 

exists for two of the three listed 

methods. DOE clarifies its previous 

statement to say that a laboratory 

accredited to perform IEEE Standard 

112 Test Method B performed the tests. 

b. Baseline Temperature Rise 

NEMA MG1 defines several 

temperature rise requirements for 

general purpose alternating current 

single-speed induction motors. In the 

NOPR TSD, DOE reported the modeled 

temperature rise characteristics of the 

baseline motors selected in the 

engineering analysis. In response to 

those values, Baldor reasoned that 

because the reported temperature rises 

(78 °C for the polyphase motor and 

86 °C for the CSIR motor at full load) 

would far exceed the NEMA 

temperature rise limit of 70 °C at service 

factor load, for a Class A motor, the 

selected baseline motors were 

inappropriate selections. (Baldor, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 27– 

30) After receiving Baldor’s comments, 

DOE reviewed the data from thermal 

tests conducted on the purchased 

baseline motors and found that the 

winding temperature tests indicated that 

all three baseline motors in fact meet 

NEMA temperature rise requirements 

for Class A insulation systems. See 

chapter 5 of the TSD for the tested 

temperature rise data for each baseline 

motor. However, because the modeled 

temperature rises in the design software 

were inconsistent with these tests, DOE 

revised the operating temperature 

inputs to the design software to agree 

with the tested temperature rise data. 

This change in operating temperature 

results in slight changes in the baseline 

modeled efficiencies. Namely as 

operating temperature decreases, motor 

efficiency generally increases. Though 

these motors meet temperature rise 

requirements for Class A insulation 

systems, DOE emphasizes again, that its 

scope of coverage is not bound to those 

motors with temperature rises of less 

than Class A requirements, but rather 

motors that contain insulation class 

systems rated A or higher. 

c. Baseline Motor Performance 

In the NOPR TSD, DOE presented the 

modeled performance characteristics for 

the baseline motors selected. Baldor and 

NEMA both commented that none of the 

baseline motors meet all of the general 

purpose performance characteristics for 

locked-rotor torque, locked-rotor 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10890 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

8 DOE notes that the software used for its analysis 

has been employed by numerous motor 

manufacturers to develop designs that have then 

been used to produce lines of motors, including 

capacitor-start and polyphase motors. 

current, and breakdown torque as 

defined in NEMA MG1–1987. They 

argued that these motors cannot be 

considered small electric motors (under 

the statutory definition) and therefore, 

should have never been chosen as 

baseline motors. For polyphase motors, 

they cited comparisons to performance 

characteristics in NEMA MG1–1987 

intended for ‘‘medium’’ motors. (Baldor, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at 

pp. 64–67; NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 7–8) 

The NEEA/NPCC disagreed and stated 

that because the performance of the 

motors selected by DOE were 

representative of products on the 

market, they were appropriate baseline 

models. (NEEA/NPCC, No. 27 at pp. 8– 

9) 

DOE examined the performance 

characteristics of the three baseline 

motors, and determined that they meet 

all small electric motor performance 

requirements of NEMA MG1. Thus, DOE 

believes that they are appropriate 

baseline motors and are representative 

of covered small electric motors on the 

market. Table IV.6 below presents 

references to NEMA MG1–1987 sections 

containing performance characteristics 

that DOE believes are relevant to singlephase and polyphase small electric 

motors. 

TABLE IV.6—NEMA MG1–1987 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS RELEVANT TO GENERAL PURPOSE SMALL MOTORS

Single phase Polyphase 

Breakdown Torque ..................................................................................................... 12.32.1 ..................................................... 12.37. 

Locked Rotor Current ................................................................................................. 12.33.2 ..................................................... None.* 

Locked Rotor Torque .................................................................................................. 12.32.2 ..................................................... None. 

* Because NEMA MG1–1987 section 12.35 is labeled as applying to only medium motors, DOE does not believe there are polyphase locked 

rotor current requirements for small motors. However, NEMA commented at the preliminary analysis stage that it is common industry practice to 

use the limits for Design B medium motors for small motors. (NEMA. No. 13, p. 6). 

DOE notes that in the NOPR TSD, 

DOE presented these performance 

characteristics at full load, steady state 

operating temperature. When 

extrapolated down to an ambient 

temperature of 25° C, the temperature at 

which NEMA specifies that breakdown 

torque requirements must be met, all 

baseline motors meet the necessary 

small motor performance requirements 

in MG1. A direct comparison of those 

values, as requested by Baldor (Baldor, 

No. 25 at p. 2; Baldor, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at p. 66) is available 

in TSD chapter 5. 

3. Higher Efficiency Motor Designs 

After establishing baseline models, 

DOE next used the motor design 

software to incorporate design options 

(generated in the market and technology 

assessment and screening analysis) to 

increase motor efficiency. In response to 

the NOPR engineering analysis, DOE 

received several comments that 

addressed issues regarding the 

application of the design options in the 

engineering analysis and the validity of 

the results outputted from the design 

software. 

In general, manufacturers questioned 

whether DOE adequately verified that 

its design software accurately predicts 

motor efficiency. NEMA and Baldor 

stated that DOE seemingly used an 

AEDM to generate motor designs and 

scaled efficiencies for other product 

classes without meeting DOE’s own 

substantiation requirements of an 

AEDM. Emerson stated that in order for 

manufacturers to use an AEDM for 

compliance and certification with 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

requires that the AEDM must be applied 

to 5 basic models of small electric 

motors, and it be shown to accurately 

predict motor efficiency under realworld testing. Collectively, this 

constitutes a total of 25 tests 

manufacturers must complete in order 

to verify their design software. 

(Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 20.4 at p. 105) Baldor and NEMA 

contended that DOE must be held to 

these same verification standards if it 

uses an AEDM in establishing energy 

conservation standards. (Baldor, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 118– 

24, 145–146; NEMA, No. 24 at p. 11–12) 

NEEA/NPCC disagreed with these 

comments, stating that requirements of 

certification and compliance with 

Federal efficiency regulations are 

wholly unrelated and inapplicable to 

DOE’s analysis methodology. The motor 

design software used in the engineering 

analysis was simply being used to create 

motor models for analysis, not as an 

alternative compliance tool. Thus, DOE 

is under no obligation to meet the 

verification standards of an AEDM. 

NEEA/NPCC stated that based on the 

description of the design software, the 

technical qualifications of the 

consultants, and the motor testing and 

teardowns conducted to verify the 

accuracy of software tools, it has 

satisfied with DOE’s engineering 

analysis methodology. (NEEA/NPCC, 

No. 27 at pp 6–7). 

DOE agrees with NEEA/NPCC that 

substantiation of an AEDM is a concept 

intended for certifying compliance with 

energy efficiency standards. It is a tool 

for manufacturers to use to help ensure 

that equipment they manufacture 

comply with the standards that DOE 

sets. It is not a tool for assessing 

whether a particular energy efficiency 

level under consideration by DOE 

satisfies the EPCA criteria. Accordingly, 

the use of the AEDM in the manner 

suggested by industry would not be 

relevant for the purposes of this 

engineering analysis, which is geared 

toward DOE’s standards rulemaking. 

Moreover, on the bases of the baseline 

motor efficiency verification process 

which included physical teardowns for 

numerous small motors, DOE has 

confidence in the software program it 

has selected and believes it to be 

appropriate to analyze efficiency levels 

for small electric motors.8 Though the 

supporting data for these tests are based 

on confidential manufacturer data, the 

performances of these motors verify the 

software predictions. 

In addition, as discussed in the 

NOPR, to the extent that it was feasible, 

DOE substantiated the resulting costefficiency curves by testing and tearing 

down higher efficiency motors. In 

response to that NOPR discussion, 

NEMA asserted that as seen in Table 

12.1 and Table 12.2 in appendix 5A of 

the NOPR, DOE did not compare the test 

results to the calculated results for the 

representative product classes. (NEMA, 

No. 24 at p. 24) DOE wishes to clarify 

that Table 12.1 and Table 12.2 in 

appendix 5A of the NOPR TSD 

contained test results for motors that 

were used as part of DOE’s scaling 

methodology. The results of the costefficiency curve validation testing for 

representative product classes are 

shown in Figure 4.1 through Figure 4.3 

of appendix 5A of the NOPR and final 

rule TSDs. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10891 

9Epstein tests are performed by steel 

manufacturers to determine expected core loss 

values in electrical steel. The results of these tests 

are usually provided by steel manufacturers and are 

used by motor design engineers to predict motor 

performance. 

10 Yamazaki, Katsumi; Watanabe, Yuta. ‘‘Stray 

Load Loss Calculation of Induction Motors Using 

Electromagnetic Field Analysis.’’ IEEJ Transactions 

on Industry Applications, Volume 128, Issue 1, pp. 

56–63. 

11AK Steel Product Data Bulletin. Nonoriented 

Electrical Steels. http://www.aksteel.com/pdf/ 

markets_products/electrical/ 

Non_Oriented_Bulletin.pdf. 

a. Electrical Steel 

In the NOPR engineering analysis, 

DOE modeled the use improved grades 

of electrical steel and thinner 

laminations to achieve higher motor 

efficiency. In response to that analysis 

Baldor and NEMA commented that 

because DOE’s design software bases 

loss calculations on Epstein core loss 

values, they believe DOE’s modeled 

efficiencies using improved steel types 

may overestimate the actual achievable 

efficiency for a particular motor design. 

Baldor cited its experience with 

building and testing multiple motors 

using various steel types, stating that it 

has never been shown that the core loss 

in a motor with round laminations and 

rotating flux field is directly related to 

the results of Epstein testing. (Baldor, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at 

pp. 276–80, Baldor, No. 25 at pp. 5–7; 

NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 23–24) As a result, 

Baldor asserted that DOE should not 

rely on steel manufacturer core loss data 

unless it is able to produce an actual 

motor to verify its design assumptions. 

(Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20.4 at p. 277) NEEA/NPCC encouraged 

DOE to investigate the claims made by 

Baldor at the public meeting and revise 

the engineering analysis if necessary. 

(NEEA/NPCC, No. 27 at pp. 9–10) 

DOE recognizes that in analyzing 

motor performance, calculated core 

losses based on Epstein tests may 

deviate from actual core losses in the 

motor.9 This is primarily due to the 

harmonic effects created by the 

distortion of the flux density waveform. 

When motor core losses are modeled or 

measured at solely the fundamental 

frequency, it is possible that additional 

losses due to these harmonics may not 

be accounted for, which may yield an 

overall underestimation of losses. While 

DOE acknowledges that this 

phenomenon exists, DOE also believes it 

has accounted for this effect in its 

analysis. 

As Baldor suggests, one way to ensure 

that a software model is calibrated 

correctly to account for effects such as 

these is to build prototype motors and 

examine their performance 

characteristics. Though DOE did not 

perform such an exercise specifically for 

this rulemaking, the design software 

DOE employed for this analysis has 

been used in the past to design many 

small motors, whose performance 

characteristics compare favorably with 

the model predictions. Baldor did not 

provide any additional data from which 

DOE could refine its analysis or perform 

sensitivity analyses, even though it 

stated the values of core loss used in 

DOE’s software model were inaccurate. 

DOE believes that the variances 

between Epstein losses and actual motor 

losses are not an issue for its 

engineering analysis. It is DOE’s 

understanding that the Epstein core loss 

data begin to vary significantly from 

actual motor core losses when various 

components of the core steel are driven 

into magnetic saturation. Magnetic 

saturation is when the amplitude of the 

magnetic field excitation is large enough 

to force the flux density (of the magnetic 

field) into the nonlinear region of the B– 

H curve. At this point the harmonic 

components of the electromagnetic field 

increase.10 As these harmonic 

components increase, motor efficiency 

may be adversely affected and predicted 

core losses from the Epstein tests will 

deviate from actual core losses seen in 

the motor. In order to assess the degree 

to which these harmonic effects may 

impact the efficiency of motors analyzed 

in the engineering analysis, DOE 

examined the magnetic flux densities at 

full-load for each motor design. By 

using steel manufacturer-provided 

magnetization curves, DOE first 

determined the saturation point for each 

of the lamination types. DOE then 

evaluated each of its motor designs to 

determine whether it operates near 

magnetic saturation. The results of this 

analysis indicated that only two motor 

designs, the CSIR baseline design and 

the polyphase efficiency level (EL) 1 

design, operate close to the point of 

magnetic saturation at full load. Based 

on these results, DOE believes that for 

all other motor designs, reliance on the 

Epstein core loss data is appropriate to 

model motor efficiency. 

DOE recognizes that for motors 

designs operating near the point of 

magnetic saturation (i.e., CSIR baseline 

and polyphase EL 1 designs), the 

modeled efficiency might deviate from a 

tested efficiency if a prototype were 

built. With regards to the CSIR baseline 

design, DOE notes that, as discussed in 

section IV.C.2.a, the efficiency 

associated with that design was based 

on a tested efficiency, rather than a 

modeled efficiency. Therefore, the 

baseline efficiency for the CSIR motor 

should adequately account for any 

harmonic core loss effects. For the 

polyphase EL 1 design, DOE recognizes 

that there may be significant uncertainty 

in its modeled efficiency. However, as 

discussed in section VI DOE has found 

that an efficiency level higher than EL 

1 is technologically feasible and 

economically justified based on the net 

benefits to the nation and individual 

consumers. Therefore, DOE’s standardssetting decisions in this final rule are 

not dependent on any uncertainties 

associated with the polyphase EL1 

motor design. Please refer to TSD 

chapter 5 for additional information 

regarding the steels used in DOE 

engineering analysis, their respective 

saturation levels, and the flux densities 

of the designs using those steels. 

Baldor also questioned the validity of 

using several higher efficiency steel 

types in small motors, citing an AK steel 

publication. Baldor commented that 

several of the lamination types modeled, 

namely 24M19 and 29M15, are not 

recommended for use in motors with 

less than a 100 horsepower rating. 

(Baldor, No. 25 at p. 7) DOE has 

reviewed the referenced AK Steel 

publication 11 and disagrees with 

Baldor’s assertion. The AK Steel 

publication does not suggest that 24M19 

and 29M15 steels should not be used in 

motors with less than a 100 horsepower 

rating; rather it only indicates that small 

electric motors currently on the market 

do not typically use these steel grades. 

In addition, DOE has not received any 

comments explaining why these 

lamination types, commonly used in 

medium motors, would not be 

applicable to small electric motors. 

Therefore, in this final rule, DOE 

continues to use higher efficiency steel 

grades and thinner laminations in the 

engineering analysis. 

b. Thermal Analysis 

NEMA and Baldor also questioned 

whether a thermal analysis was 

conducted for the higher efficiency 

motors modeled, stating the importance 

of verifying the thermal viability of 

motor designs. (NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 

6–7, Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 20.4 at pp. 28–29) Emerson 

commented that the NOPR analysis 

disregarded MG1 performance 

requirements, including operating 

temperatures, potentially cause conflicts 

with the National Electrical Code. 

(Emerson, No. 28, p. 2) In response to 

these comments, DOE has refined its 

thermal analysis methodology to ensure 

that it is accurately modeling motor 

efficiency and that all motor designs 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10892 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

12 I2R losses refer to resistive losses, stemming 

from current flow through the copper windings in 

the stator and conductor bars in the rotor and 

manifest as waste heat which adversely affects the 

efficiency of a motor. 

evaluated are thermally viable. As 

mentioned in section IV.C.2.b, to 

establish the baseline motors’ operating 

temperatures, DOE conducted tests in 

accordance with the relevant IEEE test 

procedures and monitored the 

temperature rises of the motors. DOE 

was then able to calculate a thermal 

resistance for each of the baseline 

motors. The thermal resistance of each 

subsequent design was modified to 

reflect the improved thermal transfer of 

the more efficient design. As each 

higher efficiency design was modeled, 

DOE calculated a new temperature rise. 

These calculations indicate that as 

motor efficiency increases (through an 

increase in the amount of active 

material and decrease in I2R losses 12), 

the temperature rise of the motor 

continually decreases. For this reason, 

DOE believes that all higher efficiency 

motor designs analyzed in the 

engineering analysis have lower 

temperature rises than their respective 

baseline motors and are thermally 

viable. See TSD chapter 5 for additional 

information regarding the actual 

temperature rises calculated for each of 

DOE’s designs. 

c. Performance Requirements 

As discussed in section IV.C.2.c, 

NEMA, through its MG1 publication, 

lays out a number of performance 

requirements (breakdown torque, locked 

rotor torque, and locked rotor current) 

that motors must meet in order to be 

considered ‘‘general purpose.’’ In 

response to the small electric motor 

designs presented in the NOPR, 

manufacturers commented that some of 

DOE’s more efficient designs do not 

meet certain performance requirements. 

Emerson added that many of the design 

changes that would be necessary to meet 

these requirements, such as increasing 

resistance at locked rotor or increasing 

the number of turns of the stator coils, 

could actually decrease efficiency. 

(Baldor, No. 25 at p. 4; Baldor, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 67, 

86–87; Baldor, No. 25 at pp. 1–3; 

Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 20. 4 at pp. 192–93; Emerson, No. 

28, p. 1) Emerson also noted that the 

costs for the designs might increase 

when the motors are adjusted to meet 

these performance characteristics. 

(Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 73) In light of these comments, DOE 

revisited its engineering designs and 

found that when new performance 

values were calculated at operating 

temperatures of 25 °C (as was done for 

the baseline designs), the vast majority 

of motors met applicable NEMA 

standards. For the motors that did not 

meet breakdown torque, locked rotor 

torque, or locked rotor current 

requirements (as presented in TSD 

Chapter 5), DOE revised these designs 

such that they adhered to all 

performance requirements. DOE notes 

that in some cases, as predicted by 

manufacturers, the design revisions led 

to increases in costs to maintain the 

same level of efficiency. See Chapter 5 

of the TSD for further details on the 

performance characteristics of motor 

designs analyzed in the engineering 

analysis and comparisons to NEMA 

performance requirements. 

Baldor also noted that many small 

electric motors are rated in a broad 

voltage range (208V to 230V) and 

asserted (without clarifying) that the 

NEMA standard specifies these motors 

must be able to meet NEMA 

performance requirements over the 

entire voltage range. Baldor questioned 

whether DOE’s proposed efficiency 

levels are achievable when motors are 

operated across this entire voltage range 

(specifically at 208V). (Baldor, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 271– 

72) As indicated by Emerson (Emerson, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at 

pp. 273–74), it is DOE’s understanding 

the 208V rating constitutes an unusual 

service condition. Thus, DOE’s 

engineering analysis was based on 

motor operation at 230V. 

DOE notes that although the NEMA 

standard may require that certain 

performance characteristics (such as 

breakdown torque) be met through the 

entire rated voltage range, there is no 

such requirement for Federal efficiency 

standards. In fact, DOE’s test procedures 

for small electric motors, IEEE 112 

(Section 6.1) and IEEE 114 (Section 

8.2.1) state that efficiency shall be 

determined at the rated voltage, without 

specifying which voltage shall be used 

in cases where motors are rated with 

broad voltages or dual voltages. DOE 

understands that it is at the 

manufacturer’s discretion under which 

single voltage condition to test its 

motor. Because the test procedure 

outputs an efficiency value at a single 

input voltage, DOE did not conduct an 

additional analysis at 208V. 

Baldor and NEMA stated that MG1 

has additional requirements for small 

electric motors such as voltage 

unbalance, variation from rated speed, 

occasional excess current, stall time, 

overspeed, and sound quality. (Baldor, 

No. 25 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 24 at p. 9) 

In examining the variation from rated 

speed requirements, DOE notes that 

these are only applicable to medium 

motors, and thus not relevant to DOE’s 

small electric motor designs. With 

regard to the other specifications, DOE 

believes that because it purchased the 

baseline motors from NEMA 

manufacturers, it is reasonable to 

assume that the motors meet NEMA 

MG1 requirements. 

In addition DOE has evaluated each of 

its motor designs and believes for the 

following reasons that because the 

baseline motors likely meet all 

specifications, then the higher efficiency 

motors are expected to meet them as 

well. Specifically, whether a motor is 

able to meet voltage unbalance, excess 

current, and stall time requirements is 

often related to whether a motor 

overheats at those specified conditions. 

As the I2R losses in higher efficiency 

motors modeled are generally lower 

than that of the baseline motors (thus, 

resulting in a lower temperature rise), 

DOE believes that overheating effects 

will not be exacerbated with higher 

efficiency. 

For the overspeed requirement, DOE 

understands that there are several 

mechanical failure modes that may 

cause the motor to be unable to 

withstand speeds above the rated speed. 

Two primary reasons are the failure of 

the motor bearings and the potential for 

the motor shaft to bend, causing the 

rotor and stator to contact. In addition, 

DOE understands this issue to be more 

problematic for medium motors (with 

larger inertia) than small motors. 

Finally, for sound quality, decreased 

current and magnetic flux densities in 

higher efficiency motors will likely 

cause the magnitude of the torque 

pulsations of the motor to decrease 

during running conditions, reducing 

noise. The added mass of higher 

efficiency motors also serves as a 

dampener to reduce motor vibrations 

and noise. Given all of these reasons, 

DOE believes that all motor designs 

analyzed in the engineering analysis 

meet the additional performance 

requirements identified by the 

commenters. 

DOE also received comments at the 

public meeting regarding the power 

factor associated with its designs. 

Baldor commented that during the 

preliminary analysis stage of the 

rulemaking some parties preferred that 

the power factor levels be above 85 

percent, but that DOE’s analyses utilized 

a power factor around 71 to 73 percent 

for polyphase motors. (Baldor, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 275– 

76) As discussed in the NOPR, DOE 

understands that sacrificing power 

factor to obtain gains in efficiency is 

counterproductive because of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10893 

negative effects on line efficiency. 74 FR 

61429 For this reason, DOE maintained 

or increased the power factor of the 

baseline motor for each more efficient 

design. While power factor is generally 

considered when evaluating the 

potential benefits related to a particular 

efficiency level, it is not a design option 

that necessarily improves the energy 

efficiency of small electric motors. 

Increasing power factor could yield 

results that reduce the energy efficiency 

of individual units or impose higher 

costs without an increase in energy 

efficiency. For this reason, DOE opted 

not to require its designs to have an 85 

percent power factor in its design 

analysis. 

d. Stray Load Loss 

In the NOPR, DOE presented values of 

stray load loss that were modeled in the 

design software for the baseline and 

higher efficiency motor designs. The 

polyphase designs had a value of 2.4 

percent for stray load loss, while the 

CSIR and CSCR designs had a value of 

1.8 percent. In response to the NOPR, 

DOE received several comments 

regarding the stray load loss values used 

in its designs. Baldor commented that in 

the absence of a tested stray load loss 

value, the IEEE Standard 112 Test 

Method A (which is referenced as the 

DOE test procedure for polyphase 

motors of 1-horsepower or lower) 

indicates that a value of 1.8 percent 

should be used. As a result, Baldor 

questioned the source of DOE’s 

polyphase motor stray load loss value. 

Baldor was concerned that DOE actually 

performed IEEE Standard 112 Test 

Method B, which calculates stray load 

loss but may yield a different tested 

efficiency value than Test Method A. In 

Baldor’s view, using Test Method B 

could potentially skew the analysis. 

(Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20.4 at pp. 280–82; NEMA, No. at pp. 

23–24) 

Baldor and NEMA also questioned 

why the stray load loss value of 1.8 

percent was used for the single-phase 

motors when the IEEE Standard 114 test 

procedure calls for a measurement of 

stray load losses. (Baldor, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at p. 282; 

NEMA, No. 24 at p. 24) They were 

concerned that DOE did not follow the 

IEEE Standard 114 test procedure for the 

single-phase motors since the stray load 

loss value used did not appear to be a 

measured value. (Baldor, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at p. 286) Advanced 

Energy supported DOE’s assumptions, 

commenting that even though IEEE 

Standard 114 calls for a separation of 

losses, it also allows an assumed stray 

load loss value of 1.8 percent when a 

measured value cannot be determined. 

(Advanced Energy, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 285–87) 

NEEA/NPCC also commented that 

DOE’s stray load loss assumptions were 

appropriate. (NEEA/NPCC, No. 27 at 

p. 10) 

To clarify, DOE tested the polyphase 

baseline motor according to both the 

IEEE Standard 112 Method A and 

Method B test procedures. While 

Method A is the appropriate DOE test 

procedure for a 1-horsepower, four-pole 

small electric motor, Method B 

determines efficiency by segregating 

motor losses. When DOE compared the 

results of Method A and Method B, it 

found that there was no material 

difference between the resulting tested 

efficiencies for this particular motor. 

Therefore, DOE assumed that it would 

be most accurate to model the stray load 

losses determined by IEEE Standard 112 

Method B (i.e. 2.4 percent) rather than 

an assumed value (i.e. 1.8 percent). 

The two baseline single-phase motors 

were tested according to IEEE Standard 

114. As stated by Advanced Energy, the 

IEEE Standard 114 test procedure 

provides that if stray load loss is not 

measured, then the value of stray load 

loss at rated load may be assumed to be 

1.8 percent of the rated load, consistent 

with DOE’s assumption for CSCR and 

CSIR motors. DOE recognizes that losses 

can be segregated using the IEEE 

Standard 114 test procedure and 

therefore also calculated the stray load 

losses for the baseline motors. The 

results of these tests showed that the 

stray load losses for the CSIR and CSCR 

baseline motors were 1.8 percent and 

1.7 percent. Given the similarity to IEEE 

Standard 114 assumed value and 

NEMA’s previous recommendation to 

use this value, DOE believes that the use 

of 1.8 percent stray load loss for the 

single-phase motors was appropriate 

and has used it again for today’s final 

rule. 

Additionally, NEMA and Baldor 

questioned DOE’s decision to maintain 

a constant stray load loss across its 

designs within a representative product 

class, stating that it would be unlikely 

that the use of thinner electrical steels 

in a longer core length would have 

resulted in the same level of stray load 

loss as in the baseline design. (NEMA, 

No. 24 at p. 24; Baldor, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 281–83) In 

response, DOE affirms that its 

assumptions of stray load loss for higher 

efficiency motor designs are 

appropriate. DOE recognizes that several 

factors, such as manufacturing process 

and harmonic effects, may affect the 

quantity of stray load loss for a 

particular motor. However, as discussed 

earlier, DOE has determined that the 

majority of motor designs evaluated 

operate below the point of magnetic 

saturation, thus reducing the impact of 

harmonic effects. Additionally, DOE 

understands that it is common practice 

for motor design engineers to assume a 

value of stray load loss either based on 

experience or as recommended by IEEE 

test procedures when creating new, 

potentially more efficient, motor 

designs. Finally, DOE also notes that 

both the polyphase and single-phase 

IEEE test procedures provide precedent 

for the assumption of constant stray 

load losses across several motor designs. 

e. Stack Length and Core Diameter 

In the NOPR, DOE considered an 

increase in stack length as a viable 

option for increasing motor efficiency. 

DOE recognized, however, that 

limitations for certain motor 

applications exist because an increase in 

stack length may cause the motor to 

exceed the space constraints of the 

application into which it would reside. 

Thus, DOE followed a suggestion made 

by NEMA during the preliminary 

analysis stage and limited the stack 

length increases for space-constrained 

applications to no more than a 20 

percent increase over the baseline 

motor. (NEMA, No. 13, at p. 4) For 

applications that DOE considered nonspace constrained, the stack length of 

the motor was allowed to increase by up 

to 100 percent of the stack length of the 

baseline motor (i.e. it could double). 

In response to the NOPR analysis, 

several interested parties commented on 

DOE’s assumptions of space constraints 

and stack length increases. WEG 

questioned if the 20 percent increase in 

stack length for space constrained 

applications is an appropriate tolerance. 

(WEG, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20.4 at p. 83) A.O. Smith commented 

that doubling the stack length in nonspace constrained applications will be 

somewhat impractical for customers’ 

applications. (A.O. Smith, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at p. 81). 

In response to the manufacturers’ 

comments, DOE maintains that the 20 

percent increase in stack length for 

space-constrained applications that was 

used in the NOPR is still an acceptable 

tolerance. DOE notes that NEMA 

reiterated its support for this design 

constraint in its comments responding 

to the NOPR, by citing its 

recommendation from the preliminary 

analysis. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 9) 

Regarding doubling the stack length of 

the motor, DOE also believes this is an 

appropriate tolerance for non-space 

constrained applications. When DOE 

solicited engineering cost-efficiency 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10894 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

13NEMA Premium refers to efficiency levels for 

three-digit frame series medium electric motors 

developed by NEMA to identify high efficiency 

motors. Congress subsequently adopted those levels 

for medium electric motors. See EISA 2007, Sec. 

313(b). 

curves from manufacturers for the 

preliminary analysis, all participating 

manufacturers suggested that increasing 

stack height would be one of the first 

design options used to achieve greater 

efficiencies because of the relative cost 

of this design option versus a change in 

steel type lamination. In designs 

provided by all of these manufacturers, 

stack increases of well over 100 percent 

relative to the baseline were used to 

achieve target efficiency levels that DOE 

provided to manufacturers. 

Accordingly, DOE believes that for those 

applications that are non-space 

constrained, a stack increase of 100 

percent is an appropriate and even a 

likely design option that manufacturers 

could employ. DOE accounts for the 

costs associated with increasing a 

motor’s stack length in markups 

analysis (see section IV.D). 

Emerson also commented that the 

NOPR efficiency levels would require 

several motors to increase in frame size. 

(Emerson, No. 28 at p.1) However, DOE 

disagrees with Emerson’s comments and 

notes that for all higher efficiency 

designs developed in the engineering 

analysis, core diameter was held 

constant to the baseline value. As only 

an increase in core diameter would 

force a frame size increase, DOE 

believes that all efficiency levels 

analyzed can be achieved without 

increasing frame size. 

4. Cost Model 

For the NOPR engineering analysis, 

DOE estimated the manufacturing 

production cost (MPC) of small electric 

motors by using outputs of the design 

software to generate a complete bill of 

materials. The bill of materials was 

marked up to account for scrap, 

overhead (which includes depreciation) 

and associated non-production costs 

such as interest payments, research and 

development, and sales and general 

administration. To account for the 

increased depreciation of equipment 

associated with manufacturing a copper 

rotor, DOE used separate overhead 

markups for motor designs using copper 

and aluminum rotors. The software 

output also included an estimate of 

labor time associated with each step of 

motor construction. DOE multiplied 

these estimates by a fully burdened 

labor rate to obtain an estimate of labor 

costs. 

DOE estimated input costs by using 

an inflation-adjusted 5-year average of 

prices for each of the input 

commodities: Steel laminations, copper 

wiring, and aluminum and copper for 

rotor die-casting. This method for 

calculating costs is consistent with past 

rulemakings where material costs were 

a significant part of manufacturers’ 

costs. In calculating the 5-year average 

prices for these commodities, DOE 

adjusted historical prices to 2008 terms 

using the historical Producer Price 

Index (PPI) for that commodity’s 

industry. For this final rule, DOE 

updated material prices using the PPI to 

reflect 2009$. After calculating the MPC, 

DOE applied a 1.45 manufacturer 

markup to arrive at the MSP. 

Emerson commented that it was 

concerned that DOE had not 

appropriately accounted for the 

significant costs associated with 

implementing the technology to 

manufacture motors with copper diecast rotors in the engineering analysis. 

(Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 20.4 at p. 94) DOE recognizes that 

there are additional costs associated 

with implementing copper die-cast 

rotors and has incorporated higher 

depreciation costs in the Engineering 

Analysis for designs requiring this 

technology. 

With regard to the accounting of 

higher depreciation for equipment used 

to manufacture copper die-cast rotors, 

NEEA/NPCC supported DOE’s approach 

to using different overhead markups for 

designs with copper rotors and those 

with aluminum rotors. (NEEA/NPCC, 

No. 27 at p. 9) NEMA commented that 

since motor manufacturers typically 

standardize its production process for a 

product line, the higher overhead 

attributable to the application of 

advanced technologies will be applied 

over all production unless the 

manufacturer exits that portion of the 

market. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 9) As all 

comments supported the use of higher 

markups when manufacturing copper 

rotors, DOE maintained this approach in 

the engineering analysis for the final 

rule. See section IV.C.4 for further 

details. 

5. Efficiency Scaling 

For the NOPR, in order to scale 

efficiency levels from the representative 

product classes to the other product 

classes, DOE used data on 

commercially-available motors to 

investigate how changing horsepower or 

pole configuration affects efficiency, 

DOE evaluated product lines of different 

manufacturers separately. In developing 

these efficiency relationships, DOE 

considered only motors of the most 

restrictive frame size for a given product 

class to ensure that the most 

dimensionally-constrained motors on 

the market would be able to meet all 

efficiency levels derived. DOE then 

converted these efficiency relationships 

across product class into motor loss 

relationships. DOE applied these 

relationships (as a percentage change in 

motor losses) to each efficiency level 

analyzed for the representative product 

classes, ultimately deriving 

corresponding efficiency levels for 

product classes not directly analyzed in 

the engineering analysis. DOE repeated 

this analysis for each manufacturer’s 

product line for which sufficient data 

were available. Finally, DOE averaged 

the results based on each of the 

manufacturer’s product lines to obtain 

aggregated scaled efficiency levels for 

all product classes. 

DOE received several comments on 

the results and methodology of the 

proposed scaling analysis. While 

NEAA/NPCC supported DOE’s scaling 

methodology (NEEA/NPCC, No. 27 at p. 

9), Baldor stated that the scaling 

presented is likely not accurate because 

of the difficulty in predicting 

efficiencies when changing frame sizes, 

horsepower, and pole configurations. 

Instead, Baldor commented that DOE 

should create a motor design for each 

non-representative product class to 

verify the scaled efficiencies. (Baldor, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at p. 

97; Baldor, No. 25 at p. 8) WEG also 

commented that the scaling should take 

into account not only the change in 

efficiency associated with altering 

horsepower or pole configuration, but 

also the drop in efficiency associated 

with moving from a 56-frame to a 48- 

frame, and potentially a smaller core 

diameter. (WEG, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at p. 220) 

In addition, with regard to the 

polyphase motor scaling, several 

manufacturers pointed to the 

efficiencies at high horsepower ratings 

as evidence that DOE scaling was 

flawed. Specifically, they remarked that 

although the proposed level for the 

representative polyphase product class 

harmonized with medium motor NEMA 

Premium efficiency standards, the 3- 

horsepower, six-pole polyphase motor 

had a scaled efficiency greater than the 

NEMA Premium level.13 They also 

noted that because the comparable 

medium motor for that product class is 

built in a 213 T-frame (larger than a 56- 

frame), it may be unreasonable to 

require a 56-frame motor to have a 

higher efficiency. (A.O. Smith, No. 26 at 

p. 2; Baldor, No. 25 at p. 8; Baldor, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at 

pp. 100–101, 212–213; Regal-Beloit, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10895 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at 

pp.105) 

DOE agrees that the efficiency 

behavior at high horsepower ratings for 

polyphase motors indicated a lack of 

accuracy in the NOPR scaling, and has 

revised its analysis for the final rule. 

Baldor’s recommendation to generate 

motor designs to validate scaling 

essentially constitutes developing an 

additional engineering analysis for 

every product class, which is atypical 

for DOE rulemakings and unnecessary 

because it defeats the purpose of using 

a scaling methodology. In addition, DOE 

notes that in its comments on the 

preliminary analysis, NEMA 

recommended that DOE utilize product 

literature to derive efficiency levels for 

product classes not directly analyzed in 

the engineering analysis, which was a 

significant reason why DOE maintained 

a scaling approach based partially on 

publicly available data. (NEMA, No. 13, 

at p. 10) Thus, DOE believes scaling is 

an appropriate approach to developing 

efficiency levels. As interested parties 

did not recommend a new methodology 

for scaling, DOE based it revised scaling 

on the same general methodology 

(establishing relationships in efficiency 

across horsepower ratings and pole 

configurations), but utilized additional 

sources of data to refine its inputs. 

One new source of data DOE utilized 

was the NEMA recommended standard 

levels for polyphase, CSIR, and CSCR 

motors built in small frames (42- and 

48-frames) and in 56-frames. These 

recommended standard levels included 

efficiencies for motors with horsepower 

ratings less than and equal to 1- 

horsepower and with two-, four-, or sixpole configurations. (NEMA, No. 24 at 

p. 1) DOE first examined this data to see 

how it compared to the efficiency data 

of motors currently on the market. DOE 

noted that the efficiency relationships 

that NEMA presented between product 

classes were comparable to the market 

data that DOE had collected for the 

NOPR. For this reason, DOE concludes 

that NEMA’s recommended standard 

levels can be used to establish 

appropriate efficiency (or loss) 

relationships for lower horsepower 

polyphase, CSIR, and CSCR motors. 

For the high horsepower (greater than 

or equal to 1-horsepower) polyphase 

motors, DOE utilized the relationships 

found in the NEMA Premium standards 

for electric motors. As seen in Table 

IV.7, the majority of the NEMA 

Premium standards between 1- and 3- 

horsepower are based on motors with a 

frame size in the 140T series, which has 

the same foot to shaft dimension as the 

56-frame motor. Therefore, for these 

140T series product classes, DOE used 

NEMA Premium efficiencies to develop 

relationships across horsepower ratings 

and poles. DOE did not use the 

efficiency relationships found from 

NEMA Premium classes associated with 

larger frame sizes (182T). For these 

horsepower/pole configurations, DOE 

did not have sufficient efficiency data to 

determine appropriate scaling 

relationships. Thus, though efficiency 

generally increases with horsepower, in 

order to ensure that all efficiency levels 

are technologically feasible, DOE 

decided that the 3-horsepower, fourpole motor and 11⁄2-horsepower, two 

pole motor would have the same 

minimum efficiency standards as the 2- 

horsepower, four-pole motor and 1- 

horsepower, two-pole motor, 

respectively. 

TABLE IV.7—FRAME SIZES ASSOCIATED WITH NEMA PREMIUM STANDARDS

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent Six poles Four poles Two poles 

1 hp/0.75 kW ............................................................................................................................... 56 143T 145T 

11⁄2 hp/1.1 kW .............................................................................................................................. 143T 145T 182T 

2 hp/1.5 kW ................................................................................................................................. 145T 145T ........................

3 hp/2.2 kW ................................................................................................................................. 145T 182T ........................

In the absence of any standardized 

efficiency levels above 1-horsepower for 

CSIR motors (such as those provided in 

the NEMA Premium table for polyphase 

motors), DOE continued to use market 

efficiency data. Since this approach, 

when used in the NOPR, resulted in 

some aberrations (abnormally high 

efficiencies) for high horsepower 

polyphase motors, DOE modified its 

methodology slightly for the final rule to 

result in more appropriate scaling 

relationships. As stated earlier, for the 

NOPR, because some manufacturers 

showed larger increases in efficiency 

with increasing horsepower than others, 

DOE averaged data from several 

manufacturer product lines to create 

efficiency relationships. However, for 

this final rule, to ensure the 

technological feasibility of all scaled 

efficiency levels, instead of averaging 

data from all manufacturers, DOE 

selected the product line which resulted 

in the most achievable efficiency levels. 

As mentioned in the NOPR, DOE was 

unable to locate sufficient market data 

for CSCR motors. However, DOE data 

indicate that CSCR motors exhibit 

scaling relationships similar to CSIR 

motors. For these reasons, DOE decided 

to continue utilizing CSIR market data 

to characterize the efficiency (or loss) 

relationships present in the CSCR 

market at high horsepower ratings. 

Next, DOE addressed changes in 

physical dimensions of motors across 

horsepower ratings and pole 

configurations. As discussed earlier, 

DOE recognizes that core diameter 

affects the amount of active material 

that is used to reduce motor losses, thus 

impacting efficiency. If DOE were to set 

a standard based on an analysis of a 

motor of larger core diameter, it could 

potentially eliminate smaller core 

diameter motors from the market. 

Therefore, after establishing the 

efficiency relationships (by using the 

NEMA recommended levels, the NEMA 

Premium levels, and market data), DOE 

accounted for the fact that for some 

horsepower/pole configurations, 48- 

frame size motors are commercially 

available, while for others, only 56- 

frame size motors are commercially 

available. 

As stated by WEG at the NOPR public 

meeting, a reduction in frame size (or 

core diameter) should accompanied by 

a reduction in efficiency. To determine 

the appropriate efficiency reduction of 

shifting from a motor with a core 

diameter representative of a 56-frame to 

a core diameter representative of a 48- 

frame, DOE again utilized the NEMA 

recommended efficiencies. From these 

efficiency values, DOE noted that 

according to NEMA a shift in frame size 

constitutes approximately a 20 percent 

change in losses. DOE applied this 20 

percent reduction in losses to product 

classes for which 42 frame or 48-frame 

motors are commercially available. DOE 

intends for its loss scaling analysis to 

reflect motors in the smallest 

commercially available frame size for 

each product class. 

After deriving efficiency relationships 

accounting for changes in horsepower, 

pole configuration, and core diameter, 

DOE then applied these relationships 

(as a percentage change in motor losses) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10896 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

to each efficiency level of the 

representative product classes, 

ultimately deriving corresponding 

efficiency levels for the nonrepresentative product classes. 

6. Cost-Efficiency Results 

The results of the engineering analysis 

are reported as cost-efficiency data (or 

‘‘curves’’) in the form of MSP (in dollars) 

versus full-load efficiency (in 

percentage). These data form the basis 

for subsequent analyses in the final rule. 

As discussed in the NOPR, DOE 

developed two curves for each product 

class analyzed, one for the spaceconstrained set of designs restricted by 

a 20-percent increase in stack height 

and one for the non-space constrained 

set of designs restricted by a 100-percent 

increase in stack height relative to the 

baseline. 

NEMA recommended efficiency levels 

for small electric motors that it believed 

would be technologically feasible to 

implement by 2015. NEMA presented 

six separate sets of efficiency levels, one 

for 56-frame size motors in each of the 

three motor categories and one for 42- 

and 48-frame size motors in each of the 

three motor categories. (NEMA, No. 24 

at p. 1) When DOE revised its 

engineering analysis, it ensured that 

each of its representative units had an 

efficiency level that corresponded to 

one of those sets of standards. For CSIR 

motors, NEMA proposed an efficiency 

value of 72.0 percent for a 48-frame size, 

four-pole 1⁄2-horsepower motor. This 

proposal roughly corresponds to DOE’s 

efficiency level 4 for CSIR motors. For 

CSCR motors NEMA proposed an 

efficiency value of 80.0 percent for a 56- 

frame size, four-pole, 3⁄4-horsepower 

motor. This proposal corresponds to 

DOE’s efficiency level 2 for CSCR 

motors. 

For polyphase motors, NEMA did not 

present an efficiency value for the fourpole, 1-horsepower product class. In 

light of this, DOE utilized its scaling 

model to identify the projected 

efficiency for the four-pole, 1- 

horsepower product class according to 

NEMA’s recommendations for the 42- 

and 48-frame size motors. DOE used the 

42/48-frame size proposed levels to 

apply to its representative product class 

because the core diameter of its baseline 

model is representative of 48-frame size 

motors. DOE projects this efficiency 

value to be approximately 82.6 percent 

for the representative polyphase motor. 

As this efficiency lies between the 

designs analyzed for EL 4 and EL5, DOE 

created an additional efficiency level at 

82.6 percent, denoted EL 4b. DOE 

developed a new space constrained and 

non-space constrained design at this 

efficiency level that adhered to all of 

DOE’s design limitations. 

Table IV.8 through Table IV.10 show 

the efficiency value and manufacturer 

selling price data for each EL examined 

in the final rule. 

TABLE IV.8—EFFICIENCY AND MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE DATA FOR POLYPHASE MOTOR

Efficiency level 

Efficiency 

(%) 

(Design 1/Design 2) * 

Manufacturer selling 

price 

($) 

(Design 1/Design 2) * 

Baseline ........................................................................................................................................... 75.3 98.54 

EL 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 77.3 104.83 

EL 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 78.8 108.17 

EL 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 80.5 114.24 

EL 4 ................................................................................................................................................. 81.1 118.54 

EL 4b ............................................................................................................................................... 83.5/83.5 135.62/134.04 

EL 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 85.3/85.2 230.92/153.92 

EL 6 ................................................................................................................................................. 86.2/86.3 237.70/186.37 

EL 7 (Max-tech) ............................................................................................................................... 87.7/87.8 1,766.06/326.18 

* Design 1 denotes the space-constrained design, and Design 2 denotes the non-space-constrained design. If only one value is listed, then the 

space-constrained design is the same as the non-space-constrained design. 

TABLE IV.9—EFFICIENCY AND MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE DATA FOR CAPACITOR-START, INDUCTION-RUN MOTOR

Efficiency level Efficiency (%) 

(Design 1/Design 2) * 

Manufacturer selling 

price ($) 

(Design 1/Design 2) * 

Baseline ........................................................................................................................................... 57.9 91.24 

EL 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 61.1 95.43 

EL 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 63.5 98.45 

EL 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 65.7 99.58 

EL 4 ................................................................................................................................................. 70.6/70.5 114.31/106.99 

EL 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 71.8/71.8 117.07/118.00 

EL 6 ................................................................................................................................................. 73.1/73.3 182.09/132.22 

EL 7 (Max-tech) ............................................................................................................................... 77.6/77.7 1,200.98/151.25 

* Design 1 denotes the space-constrained design, and Design 2 denotes the non-space-constrained design. If only one value is listed, then the 

space-constrained design is the same as the non-space-constrained design. 

TABLE IV.10—EFFICIENCY AND MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE DATA FOR CAPACITOR-START, CAPACITOR-RUN MOTOR

Efficiency level 

Efficiency 

(%) 

(Design 1/Design 2) * 

Manufacturer selling 

price 

($) 

(Design 1/Design 2) * 

Baseline ........................................................................................................................................... 71.4 111.72 

EL 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 75.1 117.13 

EL 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 79.5/79.5 137.20/129.88 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10897 

TABLE IV.10—EFFICIENCY AND MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE DATA FOR CAPACITOR-START, CAPACITOR-RUN MOTOR— 

Continued 

Efficiency level 

Efficiency 

(%) 

(Design 1/Design 2) * 

Manufacturer selling 

price 

($) 

(Design 1/Design 2) * 

EL 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 81.7/81.8 142.63/135.56 

EL 4 ................................................................................................................................................. 82.8/82.8 146.44/142.76 

EL 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 84.1/84.0 154.55/151.91 

EL 6 ................................................................................................................................................. 84.8/84.6 236.98/158.25 

EL 7 ................................................................................................................................................. 86.8/86.7 244.03/175.75 

EL 8 (Max-tech) ............................................................................................................................... 88.1/87.9 1,771.47/327.69 

* Design 1 denotes the space-constrained design, and design 2 denotes the non-space-constrained design. If only one value is listed, then the 

space-constrained design is the same as the non-space-constrained design. 

D. Markups To Determine Equipment 

Price 

To calculate the equipment prices 

faced by small electric motor 

purchasers, DOE multiplied the 

manufacturing costs developed from the 

engineering analysis by the supply 

chain markups it developed (along with 

sales taxes). In the NOPR, DOE 

explained how it developed the 

distribution channel markups used. 74 

FR 61434. 

DOE did not receive comments on 

these markups; however, in written 

comments, NEMA and DOJ commented 

that some original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs) could incur 

additional design costs to redesign their 

products to accommodate the increased 

size of more efficient motor designs. 

(NEMA, No. 24 at p.19 and DOJ No. 29 

at p. 2) DOE recognizes that motors 

produced following the introduction of 

the standards described in this rule will 

likely be different in size and shape 

from motors produced today. In 

particular, the designs produced in 

DOE’s engineering analysis exhibit 

longer stack length to increase 

efficiency. DOE also projects that the 

standards may result in significant 

increases in market share for CSCR 

motors (which have an extra external 

capacitor). DOE understands that these 

changes may result in the need for some 

OEMs who incorporate these motors to 

redesign their products. Nationally, 

about 2.5% of U.S. gross domestic 

product is spent on research and 

development (R&D; National Science 

Board. 2010. Science and Engineering 

Indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National 

Science Foundation (NSB 10–01)). DOE 

estimates that R&D by equipment OEMs, 

including the design of new products, 

generally represents approximately 2 

percent of company revenue. This 

percentage is slightly less than the 

national average to account for high 

technology companies that generally 

spend a much larger fraction of revenue 

on R&D than OEMs of equipment that 

incorporate small motors. DOE 

accounted for the additional costs to 

redesign products and incorporate 

differently-shaped motors by adding 2% 

to the OEM markup, increasing the 

baseline OEM markup from 1.37 to 1.39 

and the incremental OEM markup from 

1.27 to 1.29 for OEMs without a 

distributor, and 1.33 to 1.35 for OEMs 

that purchase motors through 

distributors. 

DOE used these markups, along with 

sales taxes, installation costs, and 

manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) 

developed in the engineering analysis, 

to arrive at the final installed equipment 

prices for baseline and higher efficiency 

small electric motors. As explained in 

the NOPR (74 FR 61434), DOE defined 

three distribution channels for small 

electric motors to describe how the 

equipment passes from the 

manufacturer to the customer. DOE 

retained the same distribution channel 

market shares described in the NOPR. 

Table IV.11 summarizes for each of 

the three identified distribution 

channels the baseline and incremental 

markups at each stage and the overall 

markups, including sales taxes. 

Weighting the markups in each channel 

by its share of shipments yields an 

average overall baseline markup of 2.52 

and an average overall incremental 

markup of 1.86. DOE used these 

markups for all three types of motors. 

TABLE IV.11—SUMMARY OF SMALL ELECTRIC MOTOR DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL MARKUPS

Direct to OEMs 

65% 

Via distributors to OEMs 

30% 

Via distributors to end-users 

5% 

Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental 

Wholesale Distributor ............................... ........................ ........................ 1.28 1.10 1.28 1.10 

OEM ......................................................... 1.39 1.29 1.39 1.35 ........................ ........................

Retail and Post-OEM Distributor ............. 1.43 1.18 1.43 1.18 1.44 1.18 

Contractor or Installer .............................. 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 

Sales Tax ................................................. 1.0684 1.0684 1.0684 

Overall ...................................................... 2.34 1.79 2.99 2.06 2.17 1.53 

Using these markups, DOE generated 

motor end-user prices for each 

efficiency level it considered, assuming 

that each level represents a new 

minimum efficiency standard. Because 

it generated a range of price estimates, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10898 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DOE describes prices within a range of 

uncertainty. 

Chapter 7 of the TSD provides 

additional detail on the markups 

analysis. 

E. Energy Use Characterization 

The energy use characterization 

estimates the annual energy 

consumption of small electric motors. 

This estimate is used in the subsequent 

LCC and PBP analyses (chapter 8 of the 

TSD) and National Impacts Analysis 

(NIA) (chapter 11 of the TSD). DOE 

determined the annual energy 

consumption of small electric motors by 

multiplying the energy use while in 

operation by the annual hours of 

operation. The energy use in operation 

is a function of the motor loading and 

the losses resulting from motor 

operation, based on the motor designs 

characterized in the engineering 

analysis. DOE’s motor designs are also 

characterized by their power factor, 

which allows DOE to estimate the 

reactive power requirements of each 

analyzed motor. 

1. Applications 

DOE’s shipments analysis indicates 

that small electric motors are used in 

five application categories: Pumps; fans 

and blowers; air compressors; conveyors 

and material handling; and general 

industrial or miscellaneous 

applications. Motor energy use depends 

on application because different 

applications have different annual hours 

of operation and different average motor 

loading. 

In the NOPR, DOE presented the 

results of an analysis of motor 

shipments into the five application 

categories. Table IV.12 shows the 

distribution of motor shipments by 

application presented in the NOPR. 

TABLE IV.12—DISTRIBUTION OF MOTORS BY APPLICATION AND MOTOR TYPE

Motor application Polyphase 

(%) 

CSIR 

(%) 

CSCR 

(%) 

Reference Case: 

Air and gas compressors ..................................................................................................... 17.3 14.9 14.9 

Conveyors & packaging equipment ..................................................................................... 13.3 11.9 11.9 

General industrial machinery ................................................................................................ 11.3 12.5 12.5 

Indus. and comm. fans and blowers .................................................................................... 7.3 6.9 6.9 

Pumps and pumping equipment .......................................................................................... 50.7 53.7 53.7 

Service industry .................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total ............................................................................................................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Sensitivity (NEMA Survey): 

Air and gas compressors ..................................................................................................... 45 22 45 

Conveyors & packaging equipment ..................................................................................... 5 2 2 

General industrial machinery ................................................................................................ 7 1 1 

Indus. and comm. fans and blowers .................................................................................... 23 51 29 

Pumps and pumping equipment .......................................................................................... 15 13 12 

Service industry .................................................................................................................... 5 11 11 

Total ............................................................................................................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 

In written comments, NEMA 

submitted the results of a survey of their 

OEM customers for motors which 

NEMA considers to be covered 

products. (NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 19 to 

21) The survey reports distributions by 

application and owner type, estimates of 

annual hours of operation, and the 

fraction of motors that are spaceconstrained. NEMA also provided 

information on a sixth application not 

included in DOE’s NOPR, service 

industry motors. The distribution by 

application and motor type provided by 

NEMA is also shown in Table IV.13. 

DOE has concerns about the accuracy 

of the results of this survey. It is not 

clear which OEMs were contacted for 

the survey, how many responded, how 

representative the respondents are of the 

small motor market, and what specific 

questions were asked. It is also not clear 

that the survey results represent an 

accurate picture of the entire U.S. 

market for small motors, or how all 

OEMs will respond to today’s rule. In 

contrast, the distributions by motor 

application that DOE used in the NOPR 

were based on analysis conducted in the 

early stages of the rulemaking, 

supplemented by a review of U.S. 

Census and U.S. Customs data regarding 

production and imports of motors and 

equipment containing motors. For these 

reasons, DOE retained its assumptions 

regarding the distribution of motors by 

application and sector; however, DOE 

did run a sensitivity case that reflects 

the results of the NEMA survey. This 

sensitivity is discussed in Section VI, 

and the detailed results are presented in 

the TSD. 

Table IV.13 shows the distributions of 

motors by sector within each 

application used in the NOPR, as well 

as the results provided by the NEMA 

survey. 

TABLE IV.13—DISTRIBUTION OF MOTORS BY APPLICATION AND SECTOR

Application 

Sector 

Total 

Industrial (%) 

(%) 

Commercial 

(%) 

Agricultural 

(%) 

Residential 

(%) 

Reference Case: 

Air and gas compressors .............................................. 40 40 10 10 100 

Conveyors & Packaging Equipment ............................. 40 50 10 0 100 

General industrial machinery ........................................ 50 40 10 0 100 

Indus. and comm. fans and blowers ............................ 50 50 0 0 100 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10899 

TABLE IV.13—DISTRIBUTION OF MOTORS BY APPLICATION AND SECTOR—Continued 

Application 

Sector 

Total 

Industrial (%) 

(%) 

Commercial 

(%) 

Agricultural 

(%) 

Residential 

(%) 

Pumps and pumping equipment ................................... 40 35 20 5 100 

Service industry ............................................................ 0 0 0 0 N/A 

Sensitivity (NEMA Survey): 

Air and gas compressors .............................................. 0 15 15 70 100 

Conveyors & Packaging Equipment ............................. 65 35 0 0 100 

General industrial machinery ........................................ 80 20 0 0 100 

Indus. and comm. fans and blowers ............................ 20 80 0 0 100 

Pumps and pumping equipment ................................... 10 40 20 30 100 

Service industry ............................................................ 10 80 0 10 100 

2. Annual Hours of Operation and 

Motor Loading 

In the NOPR, and in today’s final rule, 

DOE characterized the motor loading 

and annual hours of operation with 

distributions for each analyzed motor 

application. DOE’s estimates of the 

average motor loading in each 

application are unchanged from the 

NOPR to today’s final rule. Table IV.14 

shows the average loading in each 

application. DOE assumed that the 

motor loading distribution took the form 

of a normal distribution, centered on the 

average value, with a standard deviation 

equal to one fifth of the average loading. 

Details on these calculations are 

provided in chapter 6 of the TSD. 

TABLE IV.14—AVERAGE MOTOR

LOADING BY APPLICATION

Application 

Average 

loading 

(%) 

Air and gas compressors ......... 85 

Conveyors & Packaging Equipment ...................................... 50 

General industrial machinery .... 70 

Indus. and comm. fans and 

blowers .................................. 80 

Pumps and pumping equipment 65 

Service industry ........................ 70 

In the NOPR, DOE assumed 

distributions of the annual hours of 

operation in each application with 

means and medians as shown in Table 

IV.15. At the December 17, 2009 public 

meeting, Emerson commented that the 

average hours of operation within each 

application assumed by DOE are too 

high (Emerson, Public Meeting 

Transcript No. 20.4 at pp. 197–99). 

According to Emerson, the distribution 

of hours of operation that DOE assumed 

for each application, detailed in the 

TSD, is a highly skewed distribution in 

which the mean and median can be 

significantly different. As a result of its 

survey of OEMs, NEMA reported lower 

hours of operation only for compressors, 

and reported that service industry 

motors run 1000 hours per year on 

average, with a median of 400 hours. 

However, by including in the table in 

their written comments the operating 

hour assumptions DOE used in the 

NOPR for the other applications, NEMA 

appears to accept DOE’s assumptions of 

hours of operation for conveyors, 

general industrial machinery, fans and 

blowers, and pumps. The mean and 

median hours of operation in each 

application in the reference and 

sensitivity case are shown in Table 

IV.15. 

TABLE IV.15—MEDIAN AND MEAN ANNUAL HOURS OF OPERATION AND FRACTION THAT RUN ALL THE TIME, BY MOTOR

APPLICATION

Application 

Annual Hours of Operation Fraction of 

motors that 

run all the time 

(%) Median Mean 

Reference Case: 

Air and gas compressors ..................................................................................................... 375 600 0 

Conveyors & Packaging Equipment ..................................................................................... 2000 3000 8

General industrial machinery ................................................................................................ 1200 2000 4 

Indus. and comm. fans and blowers .................................................................................... 2825 4500 40 

Pumps and pumping equipment .......................................................................................... 1850 3000 12 

Service industry .................................................................................................................... NA NA NA 

Sensitivity (NEMA Survey): 

Air and gas compressors ..................................................................................................... 100 200 0 

Conveyors & Packaging Equipment ..................................................................................... 2000 3000 0

General industrial machinery ................................................................................................ 1200 2000 4 

Indus. and comm. fans and blowers .................................................................................... 2825 4500 10 

Pumps and pumping equipment .......................................................................................... 1850 3000 12 

Service industry .................................................................................................................... 400 1000 2 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10900 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

14Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

In response to the requirements of 

section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, DOE 

conducted LCC and PBP analyses to 

evaluate the economic impacts of 

possible amended energy conservation 

standards on small electric motor 

customers. This section of the notice 

describes these analyses. DOE 

conducted the analysis using a 

spreadsheet model developed in 

Microsoft (MS) Excel for Windows 2003. 

The LCC is the total consumer 

expense over the life of the equipment, 

including purchase and installation 

expense and operating costs (energy 

expenditures, repair costs, and 

maintenance costs). The PBP is the 

number of years it would take for the 

consumer to recover the increased costs 

of a higher-efficiency equipment 

through energy savings. To calculate the 

LCC, DOE discounted future operating 

costs to the time of purchase and 

summed them over the lifetime of the 

equipment. DOE measured the change 

in LCC and the change in PBP 

associated with a given efficiency level 

relative to a base case forecast of 

equipment efficiency. The base case 

forecast reflects the market in the 

absence of amended mandatory energy 

conservation standards. As part of the 

LCC and PBP analyses, DOE developed 

data that it used to establish equipment 

prices, installation costs, annual energy 

consumption, energy and water prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, 

equipment lifetime, and discount rates. 

Table IV.16 summarizes the 

approaches and data DOE used to derive 

the inputs to the LCC and PBP 

calculations for the NOPR. For today’s 

final rule, DOE did not introduce 

changes to the LCC and PBP analyses 

methodology described in the NOPR, 

but incorporated changes to the inputs 

to the analysis to account for updates to 

the engineering analysis and energy 

price trends and to analyze the 

sensitivity of the results using the 

survey data NEMA provided. Chapter 8 

of the TSD contains detailed discussion 

of the methodology utilized for the LCC 

and PBP analyses as well as the inputs 

developed for the analyses. 

TABLE IV.16—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSES

Inputs NOPR Changes for the Final Rule 

Affecting Installed Costs 

Equipment Price ...................................... Derived by multiplying manufacturer cost by manufacturer, distributor and OEM markups, and 

sales tax.

No change. 

Installation Cost ....................................... Based on data from RSMeans .............................. No change. 

Affecting Operating Costs 

Annual Energy Use ................................. Derived by multiplying hours of operation by 

losses, accounting for motor loading. Reactive 

power demand calculated from power factor.

No change in operating hours in the reference 

case; changes to operating hours of compressors in the sensitivity cases. Losses, loading 

and reactive power changed slightly, as a result of the updated engineering analysis. 

Energy Prices .......................................... Electricity: Distribution of values for each sector, 

updated using EIA’s 2007 Form 861 data.

No change. 

Energy Price Trends ................................ Energy: Reference Case forecast updated with 

EIA’s AEO 2009 April Release. High-Price and 

Low-Price forecasts updated with EIA’s AEO 

2009 March Release. Carbon Cap and Trade 

case from Lieberman-Warner.

AEO 2010 for the reference; ratios from AEO 

2009 March release used for high and low. 

Repair and Maintenance Costs ............... Unchanging with efficiency .................................... No change. 

Affecting Present Value of Annual Operating Cost Savings 

Equipment Lifetime .................................. Mean of 7 and 9 years. Lifetime is correlated with 

annual hours of operation.

No change. 

Discount Rates ........................................ Approach based on cost of capital of publicly 

traded firms in the sectors that purchase small 

electric motors. Primary data source is 

Damodaran Online.14

No change. 

Affecting Installed and Operating Costs 

Space Constraints ................................... Assumed 20% of motors in OEM applications 

face space constraints.

No change in reference case; analyzed 62% and 

95% sensitivity cases. 

Effective Date of New Standard .............. 2015 ....................................................................... No change. 

1. Installation Cost 

Installation costs include labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts. For the NOPR and 

today’s final rule, DOE used data from 

the RS Means Mechanical Cost Data, 

2008 on labor requirements to estimate 

installation costs for small electric 

motors. DOE estimates that installation 

costs do not increase with equipment 

efficiency. 

2. Energy Prices 

For both the NOPR and today’s final 

rule, DOE developed nationally 

representative distributions of 

electricity prices for different customer 

categories (industrial, commercial, and 

residential) from 2007 Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) Form 

861 data, the most recent data available. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10901 

15All AEO publications are available online at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/. 

DOE estimates that marginal energy 

prices for electric motors are close to 

average prices, which vary by customer 

type and utility. The average prices (in 

2009$) for each sector are 7.5 cents for 

the industrial and agricultural sectors, 

10.4 cents for the commercial sector, 

and 11.7 cents for the residential sector. 

DOE also estimated an average reactive 

power charge of $0.51 per kilovolt-amps 

reactive (kVAr) per month using survey 

data provided in written comments 

submitted during the preliminary 

analysis stage of the rulemaking by 

Edison Electric Institute. The data 

identified those customers who are 

subject to a reactive power charge. (EEI, 

No. 14 at p. 6) 

3. Energy Price Trend 

To estimate the trends in electricity 

prices for the NOPR, DOE used the price 

forecasts in the 2009 Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO 2009) April Release.15 To 

arrive at prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied the average prices described 

above by the forecast of annual average 

price changes. Because the AEO 2009 

forecasts prices only to 2030, DOE 

followed past guidelines provided to the 

Federal Energy Management Program by 

EIA and used the average rate of change 

during 2020–2030 to estimate the price 

trends beyond 2030. For today’s final 

rule, DOE had updated its analysis to 

use the price forecasts in the AEO 2010 

Early Release, which includes price 

forecasts until 2035. DOE used the 

average rate of change from 2025 to 

2035 to estimate price trends beyond 

2035. 

The spreadsheet tools used to conduct 

the LCC and PBP analysis allow users to 

select either the AEO’s high-price case 

or low-price case price forecasts to 

estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and 

PBP to different energy price forecasts. 

The AEO 2009 April Release and AEO 

2010 Early Release only provide 

forecasts for the Reference Case. 

Therefore, for the NOPR, DOE used the 

AEO 2009 March Release high-price or 

low-price forecasts directly to estimate 

high-price and low-price trends. For 

today’s final rule, DOE updated the lowprice ad high-price forecasts to be based 

on the ratio between the AEO 2009 

March Release low- or high-price 

forecasts and the AEO 2009 March 

Release reference case. DOE then 

applied these ratios to the AEO 2010 

Early Release reference case to construct 

its high-price and low-price forecasts. 

4. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

Small electric motors are not usually 

repaired, because they often outlast the 

equipment in which they are installed. 

DOE found no evidence that repair or 

maintenance costs would increase with 

higher motor energy efficiency. In 

response to the preliminary analysis, no 

interested parties provided any 

comments or data indicating that 

maintenance or repair costs are likely to 

change with motor efficiency. Thus, in 

today’s final rule DOE did not change 

the repair and maintenance costs for 

motors that are more efficient than 

baseline products that were presented in 

the NOPR. 

5. Equipment Lifetime 

For the NOPR and today’s final rule, 

DOE developed motor lifetime 

distributions for each motor application, 

with a mean of seven years for 

capacitor-start motors and a mean of 

nine years for polyphase motors. Each 

distribution incorporates a correlation 

between the motor annual hours of 

operation and the motor lifetime. Motor 

lifetime is governed by two Weibull 

distributions. One characterizes the 

motor lifetime in total operating hours 

while the other characterizes the 

lifetime in years of use in the 

application. Motors are retired from 

service at the age when they reach either 

of these limits. 

6. Discount Rates 

The discount rate is the rate at which 

future expenditures are discounted to 

estimate their present value. DOE used 

the classic economic definition that 

discount rates are equal to the cost of 

capital. The cost of capital is a 

combination of debt interest rates and 

the cost of equity capital to the affected 

firms and industries. For each end-use 

sector, DOE developed a distribution of 

discount rates. DOE’s methodology and 

inputs for calculating discount rates are 

unchanged from the NOPR (74 FR 

61440), and details are available in 

chapter 8 of the TSD. In response to the 

NOPR, DOE did not receive any 

comments regarding customer discount 

rates. 

7. Space-Constrained Applications and 

the After-Market 

Comments at the NOPR public 

meeting (WEG, Emerson, and RegalBeloit, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20.4 at pp. 184–85, 191–92), and in 

written comments (NEMA, No. 24 at 

p. 19; DOJ, No. 29 at p. 2), expressed 

concerns regarding the challenges faced 

by users who purchase motors to 

replace existing motors within their 

applications. (This market is referred to 

as the ‘‘after-market.’’) In particular, 

these customers might face difficulty 

replacing motors in space-constrained 

applications with new motors of 

different size. Motors are sold to these 

customers through distributors or 

OEMs. DOE was unable to obtain data 

on the size and structure of the spaceconstrained portion of this market. 

However, DOE’s motor lifetime 

function, which differentiates between 

motors retired due to mechanical failure 

and motors retired when the application 

in which they reside is retired, indicates 

that approximately 25-percent of small 

electric motors retire because of 

mechanical failure. Only users of these 

motors would be participants in the 

after-market, as other users replace their 

complete application rather than the 

motor alone. DOE has assumed that 20- 

percent of motor application are spaceconstrained, indicating that 

approximately 5-percent of motors are 

both space-constrained and retire due to 

mechanical failure—these users would 

participate in the after-market. 

As discussed above in section IV.E, 

the NEMA survey reported on the 

fraction of motors purchased by OEMs 

that face space constraints inside their 

application. NEMA reported that 62 

percent of the OEMs responding to the 

survey stated that any increase in size 

would negatively impact their ability to 

use the motor in their current 

applications, and that 33-percent stated 

that their applications could accept 

‘‘only a slight increase’’ in size; only 5 

percent stated that their application had 

few space constraints. 

While DOE appreciates the 

information provided by NEMA, the 

agency has concerns regarding how well 

the sample represents total U.S. small 

motor shipments and possible survey 

response bias. In addition, as part of its 

written comments, NEMA has proposed 

alternative standards. These alternative 

standards appear to indicate that if 

nearly all OEMs face space constraints 

for motors in their products, it would be 

difficult for motor manufacturers to 

achieve the efficiency level called for in 

the NEMA standard levels without large 

cost increases. For these reasons, DOE 

has retained its assumption that 20- 

percent of the small motors are installed 

in applications that cannot 

accommodate any size increases. 

OEMs that manufacture applications 

with space constraints on their motors 

have several options: (1) Redesign their 

application to accommodate a motor 

with a longer stack and/or a run 

capacitor; (2) purchase a stockpile of 

motors not covered by today’s rule to 

install in future production of their 

application; (3) replace a less efficient 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10902 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

CSIR motor with a more efficient CSCR 

motor without increasing stack length; 

or (4) replace their motor with a motor 

not covered by today’s rule. DOE 

estimates the likelihood and effect of 

each of these outcomes in its analysis of 

national impacts, by: Increasing the 

OEM baseline and incremental markups 

by 2 percent to either pay for redesign 

of their products to accommodate larger 

motors or purchase a stockpile of 

existing motors of the correct size; 

applying a model that estimates the 

migration from CSIR to CSCR motors, 

based on the relative difference in 

equipment and operating costs of the 

two types of motors and the assumed 

fraction that are space-constrained; and 

changing the assumption in the 

reference case regarding the elasticity of 

demand for small electric motors to a 

change in purchase price (from zero, or 

inelastic, to ¥0.25), thereby increasing 

the number of motors expected to 

migrate to totally enclosed motors not 

covered by today’s rule. These 

assumptions result in nearly the entire 

CSIR market migrating to CSCR motors 

under the proposed standards, with net 

benefits to the average motor customer. 

In response to this comment, DOE 

analyzed the impact of increasing the 

space-constrained fraction to 62 percent 

and to 95 percent of all motors in its 

sensitivity case (the additional 2-percent 

markup is not included in these two 

scenarios). These results are 

summarized in section VI below. 

Emerson also pointed out that the 

OEMs whose products have space 

constraints are typically smaller 

companies that have a hard time reengineering their product when changes 

in size occur. (Emerson, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 83–85) DOE 

recognizes that smaller OEMs that 

manufacture products which cannot 

readily be altered to accommodate a 

larger motor may be adversely affected 

by today’s rule. In analyzing the 

potential impact of today’s standards on 

customers, DOE evaluated the impact on 

identifiable groups of end-use motor 

customers (i.e., subgroups), such as 

small businesses, that may not be 

equally affected by a national standard 

level. The results of the subgroup 

analysis for small businesses can be 

found in section VI.C.1.b of this notice. 

8. Standard Compliance Date 

The date by which all small electric 

motor manufacturers must manufacture 

motors that satisfy the new standards 

announced in today’s rule is statutorilyprescribed under EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 

6317(b). Therefore, the effective date of 

any new energy conservation standards 

for these products will be February 

2015. DOE calculated the LCC for all 

end users assuming that each one would 

purchase a new piece of equipment in 

the year the standard takes effect. 

G. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. General 

DOE’s National Impact Analysis (NIA) 

assesses the national energy savings, as 

well as the national Net Present Value 

(NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings, expected to result from new 

standards at specific efficiency levels. 

DOE applied the NIA spreadsheet to 

perform calculations of energy savings 

and NPV, using the annual energy 

consumption and total installed cost 

data from the LCC analysis. DOE 

forecasted the energy savings, energy 

cost savings, equipment costs, and NPV 

for each equipment class from 2015 to 

2045. The forecasts provide annual and 

cumulative values for all four 

parameters. In addition, DOE 

incorporated into its NIA spreadsheet 

the capability to analyze the sensitivity 

of the results to forecasted energy prices 

and equipment efficiency trends. Table 

IV.17 summarizes the approach and 

data DOE used to derive the inputs to 

the NES and NPV analyses for the 

NOPR. It also summarizes the changes 

DOE made in this analysis for today’s 

final rule. These changes are described 

in the following sections, and more 

details are available in chapter 11 of the 

final rule TSD. 

TABLE IV.17—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NPV 

ANALYSES

Inputs 2009 NOPR description Changes for the final rule 

Shipments ............................ Annual shipments from Shipments Model. Shipments 

inelastic to changes in motor price. Two CSIR–CSCR 

cross-elasticity cases.

Updated shipments drivers to AEO 2010 for reference 

case. Total shipments elasticity changed from 0 to 

¥0.25. Single cross-elasticity case in which market 

shares are fixed beginning in 2015. 

Space Constraints ................ Assumed 20% of motors in OEM applications face 

space constraints.

No change in reference case; analyzed 62% and 95% 

sensitivity cases. 

Effective Date of Standard ... 2015 ................................................................................ No change. 

Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies.Efficiency distribution determined by the number of currently available models meeting the efficiency requirements of each TSL.Efficiency distribution updated to reflect changes in engineering analysis, including the additional polyphase 

motor design 

Standards-Case Forecasted 

Efficiencies.

Roll-up scenario. Efficiency distribution held constant 

over forecast period.

No change. 

Annual Energy Consumption 

per Unit.

Annual weighted-average values as a function of efficiency distribution.Updated to account for correlation between average 

energy use and motor age. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average values as a function of efficiency distribution.No change. 

Energy Cost per Unit ........... Annual weighted-average values a function of the annual energy consumption per unit and energy prices.No change. 

Repair Cost and Maintenance Cost per Unit.None ................................................................................ No change. 

Escalation of Energy Prices Energy Prices: AEO 2009 April Release forecasts for 

the Reference Case. AEO 2009 April Release does 

not provide High-Price and Low-Price forecasts; used 

AEO 2009 March Release High-Price and Low-Price 

forecasts to estimate high- and low-growth price 

trends.

Updated to AEO 2010 Early Release forecasts for the 

Reference Case. High-Price and Low-Price forecasts 

created using ratios of AEO 2009 March release 

High- and Low-Price forecasts to the AEO 2009 

March Reference Case. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10903 

TABLE IV.17—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NPV 

ANALYSES—Continued 

Inputs 2009 NOPR description Changes for the final rule 

Energy Site-to-Source Conversion.Conversion varies yearly and is generated by DOE/ 

EIA’s NEMS program (a time-series conversion factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and 

distribution losses).

No change. 

Effect of Standards on Energy Prices.Determined but found not to be significant ..................... No change. 

Discount Rate ...................... 3% and 7% real .............................................................. No change. 

Present Year ........................ Future expenses discounted to year 2009 ..................... Future expenses discounted to year 2010. 

2. Shipments 

The shipments portion of the NIA 

spreadsheet is a shipments model based 

on macroeconomic drivers for small 

electric motor shipments. In the NOPR, 

DOE estimated that shipments to the 

industrial sector are proportional to the 

manufacturing output, shipments to the 

commercial sector are proportional to 

commercial floor-space, and shipments 

to the residential sector are proportional 

to the number of households. DOE used 

the AEO 2009 April Release to forecast 

these three drivers. For today’s final 

rule, DOE has updated the drivers in the 

reference case to the AEO 2010 Early 

Release. 

In the NOPR, DOE examined three 

alternate shipments scenarios. Two of 

these scenarios were based on the AEO 

2009 March Release High-Growth and 

Low-Growth cases, while the third was 

a ‘‘falling market share’’ case, in which 

forecast shipments remain constant at 

their 2008 levels independent of 

economic growth. The NEEA/NPCC 

commented that DOE should retain the 

falling market share case because of 

uncertainties regarding the size of the 

future demand for small motors covered 

by this rule, as well as the current 

economic climate. NEEA/NPCC added 

that DOE should give additional weight 

to this scenario when making its policy 

decision (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 10). These 

shipments scenarios are presented in 

Chapter 9 of the TSD. 

In its analysis for the NOPR, DOE 

assumed that customers would not 

respond to standards by changing to 

enclosed motors, due to different 

ventilation requirements, and analyzed 

two different elasticities to enclosed 

motors, ¥0.25 and ¥0.5, as 

sensitivities. Several comments 

(Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 20.4 at pp. 176–77; NEEA/NPCC, 

No. 27 at pp. 5–6; NEMA, No. 24 at p. 

19), pointed out that if, as a result of 

standards, open-construction motors 

become more expensive than enclosed 

motors, customers may choose to 

purchase enclosed motors. DOE’s 

analysis indicates that enclosed small 

electric motors are, on average, 18- 

percent more expensive than open 

motors. For today’s final rule, DOE has 

changed its reference scenario to the 

¥0.25 elasticity scenario for both 

polyphase and capacitor-start motors. 

As a result, DOE estimates that, 

depending on the TSL selected, up to 12 

percent of the capacitor-start motor 

market might migrate to enclosed 

motors; however, today’s rule would 

result in a reduction of less than 1 

percent for the capacitor-start motor 

market. DOE has retained the inelastic 

and ¥0.5 elasticity scenarios as 

sensitivities. 

For the NOPR, DOE developed a 

cross-elasticity model to forecast the 

impact of standards on the relative 

market shares of CSIR and CSCR motors 

within each combination on motor 

horsepower and number of poles. DOE 

used this model to develop two 

reference cases for the NIA analysis. 

One case assumed that the market share 

shift described by the model would be 

complete by 2015, the date by which 

manufacturers must comply with the 

standard, while the other case arbitrarily 

assumed that the transition would begin 

in 2015 and be complete by 2025. At the 

December 17, 2009, Public Meeting, 

WEG Electric commented that their 

engineers had examined motor designs 

necessary to meet the CSIR and CSCR 

standard levels proposed in the NOPR. 

Their engineers concluded that motors 

meeting these efficiencies were 

manufacturable, but that the designs 

would include a run capacitor (making 

them all CSCR motors) that might 

present another issue for space 

constrained applications. (WEG, Public 

Meeting Transcript No. 20.4 at pp. 185– 

86) 

When examining the cross-elasticity 

between CSIR and CSCR motors, DOE 

built a demand-based model that 

assumed that manufacturers would 

produce the products demanded by the 

modeled motor customer behavior. This 

model has significant uncertainty 

because of the difficulty in predicting 

the extent and timeframe of the market 

response to standards and an absence of 

data on changes in the small electric 

motor market. However, in view of 

WEG’s comment, DOE has placed 

greater emphasis on the influence of 

decisions made by manufacturers on 

market share. In particular, in cases 

where DOE’s model predicts that the 

market will result in a complete or 

nearly complete shift from CSIR to 

CSCR motors, DOE expects that the 

market share shift will take place prior 

to the introduction of standards in 2015 

because manufacturers will change their 

production by that date. Therefore, for 

today’s final rule, DOE has decided to 

use the scenario in which the market 

share shift is complete by 2015 as its 

single reference case for the shipments 

model. 

NEMA disagreed with DOE’s 

statement that the standard levels 

proposed in the NOPR would ‘‘maintain 

a supply of both categories of motors 

(CSIR and CSCR) in the single-phase 

motor market,’’ especially since DOE 

was estimating that the purchase price 

of a CSIR motor would increase 

dramatically over that of the baseline 

motor. DOE wishes to clarify that the 

NOPR analysis predicted that nearly all, 

but not the entire, CSIR market would 

migrate to CSCR motors under the 

proposed standard level, TSL 7. DOE’s 

elasticity model for capacitor-start 

motors incorporates both elasticity to 

products not covered by today’s final 

rule (enclosed motors) and crosselasticity between CSIR and CSCR 

motors. DOE expects that the openconstruction CSIR motor market will 

migrate to open CSCR motors, rather 

than enclosed CSIR motors, because 

enclosed CSIR motors are only less 

expensive than open CSCR motors in 

the case of relatively inefficient 

enclosed CSIR motors. 

Chapter 9 of the TSD describes the 

shipments and elasticity models and 

their results in detail. 

3. Space Constraints 

As discussed above in Section F, DOE 

retained its assumption that 20-percent 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10904 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

of the small motors are installed in 

applications that cannot accommodate 

any size increases. DOE has added 2- 

percent to the OEM markups in its 

reference case to account for estimated 

increases in OEM costs to redesign their 

products to accommodate larger, more 

efficient motors, or to purchase a 

stockpile of replacement motors of the 

correct size. In addition, in response to 

the survey results presented by NEMA, 

DOE has analyzed the impact of 

increasing the space-constrained 

fraction from 20 percent to 62 percent 

and to 95 percent of all motors in a pair 

of sensitivity case (the additional 2 

percent markup is not included in these 

two scenarios). These sensitivity cases 

have little impact on the national 

impacts for capacitor-start motors 

because at the capacitor-start efficiency 

levels in today’s rule, DOE estimates 

that 97 percent of the CSIR market will 

migrate to CSCR motors assuming only 

20 percent of the market is spaceconstrained. Therefore, increasing the 

assumption of the fraction of spaceconstrained CSIR motors to 95-percent 

only affects the 3-percent of the CSIR 

market that had not already migrated to 

CSCR motors under DOE’s reference 

case, and has little effect on the 

estimates of national energy savings. 

Appendices 9A and 10A of the TSD 

present the results of this and other 

sensitivity cases in more detail. 

4. Base-Case and Standards-Case 

Efficiency Distributions 

In its analysis for the NOPR, DOE 

developed base-case and standards-case 

efficiency distributions based on the 

distribution of currently available 

models for which motor catalogs list 

efficiency. In preparing today’s final 

rule, DOE developed new scaling 

relationships governing the relationship 

between the efficiency of each product 

class to the efficiency of the 

representative product class for its 

motor category. These changes resulted 

in some motor models that met the 

criteria for one TSL in the NOPR 

analysis also meeting the criteria for a 

different TSL in the analysis for today’s 

rule. The resulting base-case efficiency 

distributions are shown in Table IV.18 

DOE’s use of a roll-up method to 

determine the efficiency in the 

standards-cases is unchanged from the 

NOPR to the final rule analysis. 

TABLE IV.18—BASE CASE EFFICIENCY MARKET SHARES BY MOTOR TYPE

Motor type 

Base Case Market Share (%) by Efficiency Level Baseline EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 4b EL 5 EL 6 EL 7 

Polyphase .................................................................................. 54 6 13 7 12 5 3 0 0 

Baseline EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5 EL 6 EL 7 EL 8 

CSIR ........................................................................................... 40 30 13 15 2 0 0 0 NA 

CSCR ......................................................................................... 37 33 4 11 11 0 4 0 0 

5. Annual Energy Consumption per Unit 

In the analysis conducted for the 

NOPR, DOE developed a model for 

motor lifetime that incorporates a 

correlation between annual hours of 

motor operation and the lifetime of the 

motor. This correlation was 

incorporated into the life-cycle cost 

analysis, which provides average energy 

use values for the NIA. In the analysis 

developed for today’s final rule, DOE 

added a correction factor related to this 

correlation to its NIA model. This 

correction factor accounts for the higher 

removal rate of motors with higher 

annual energy usage levels when 

compared to motors with lower annual 

energy usage levels. This relationship is 

reflected in DOE’s lifetime model. 

H. Customer Sub-Group Analysis 

For the NOPR and today’s final rule, 

DOE analyzed the potential effects of 

small electric motor standards on two 

subgroups: (1) Customers with spaceconstrained applications, and (2) small 

businesses. For customers with spaceconstrained applications, DOE used the 

price and energy use estimates 

developed for space-constrained designs 

from the engineering analysis to 

conduct its life-cycle cost analysis. For 

small businesses, DOE analyzed the 

potential impacts of standards by 

conducting the analysis with different 

discount rates, because small businesses 

do not have the same access to capital 

as larger businesses. DOE estimated that 

for businesses purchasing small electric 

motors, the average discount rate for 

small companies is 4.2 percent higher 

than the industry average. Due to the 

higher costs of conducting business, as 

evidenced by their higher discount 

rates, the benefits of small electric motor 

standards for small businesses are 

estimated to be slightly lower than for 

the general population of small electric 

motor owners. 

More details on the consumer 

subgroup analysis can be found in 

chapter 12 of the final rule TSD. 

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

DOE conducted a manufacturer 

impact analysis (MIA) to estimate the 

financial impact of new energy 

conservation standards on small electric 

motors manufacturers, and to calculate 

the impact of such standards on 

domestic manufacturing employment 

and capacity. The MIA has both 

quantitative and qualitative aspects. The 

quantitative part of the MIA primarily 

relies on the GRIM—an industry-cashflow model customized for this 

rulemaking. The GRIM inputs are data 

characterizing the industry cost 

structure, investments, shipments, and 

revenues. The key output is the industry 

net present value (INPV). Different sets 

of assumptions (scenarios) produce 

different results. The qualitative part of 

the MIA addresses factors such as 

equipment characteristics, market and 

equipment trends, as well as an 

assessment of the impacts of standards 

on subgroups of manufacturers. DOE 

outlined its methodology for the MIA in 

the NOPR. 74 FR 61442–46. The 

complete MIA for the NOPR is 

presented in chapter 12 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

For today’s final rule, DOE updated 

the MIA to reflect changes in the 

outputs of two other key DOE analyses, 

which feed into the GRIM. In the 

Engineering Analysis, DOE updated 

manufacturer production costs (MPCs) 

and inflated them to 2009$ from 2008$ 

using the producer price index (PPI). In 

the NIA, DOE updated its shipment 

forecasts and efficiency distributions. In 

turn, DOE updated the GRIM for these 

new estimates. DOE also inflated its 

capital and equipment conversion costs 

to 2009$ from 2008$ using the PPI for 

Motor and Generator Manufacturing 

(North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) 335312). Based on 

these changes, DOE used the GRIM to 

revise the MIA results from the NOPR. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10905 

For direct employment calculations, 

DOE revised the GRIM to include the 

U.S. Census information that was 

revised for 2007. 

The following sections discuss 

interested parties comments on the 

NOPR MIA. In general, the format is as 

follows: DOE provides background on 

an issue that was raised by interested 

parties, summarizes the interested 

parties’ comment, and discusses 

whether and how DOE modified its 

analysis in light of the comments. 

1. Capital Conversion and Equipment 

Conversion Costs 

For the NOPR, DOE estimated capital 

conversion costs for a typical 

manufacturer using estimates provided 

by manufacturers and information 

provided by industry experts. DOE 

estimated the tooling cost for each 

separate design at each incremental 

efficiency level. In addition to these 

capital expenditures, DOE also 

estimated equipment conversion 

expenses such as research and 

development, testing, and product 

literature development associated with 

new energy conservation standards. 

Because DOE did not receive specific 

feedback from all manufacturers in the 

industry, DOE then scaled these costs 

from a typical manufacturer to account 

for the entire industry where 

appropriate. 

More specifically, DOE estimated the 

tooling costs for: (1) Total number of 

laminations over baseline designs; (2) 

grade of steel including the use of 

premium electrical steels; (3) increases 

in stack length; (4) necessary rewiring; 

(5) replacement of end rings; and (6) 

rotor redesigns to use copper (if 

applicable). For rotor redesigns to use 

copper, DOE estimated the costs to 

purchase new presses, new end rings, 

and additional tooling. For changes to 

the grade of steel, DOE estimated the 

costs for punch press dyes. For 

increases in stack length, DOE estimated 

the costs of switching more production 

equipment to accommodate a higher 

volume of larger sized small electric 

motors. For necessary rewiring, DOE 

estimates the cost of crimp tools. For 

replacement of end rings, DOE 

estimated the tooling changes for 

different dimensional changes to the 

end rings. For increases in laminations, 

DOE estimated the purchase of presses 

and tooling for winding machinery. 

In written comments, NEMA stated 

that the capital conversion costs DOE 

assumed in the NOPR represent only 25- 

to 30-percent of the capital investments 

required by manufacturers at the 

proposed level for CSCR and CSIR. 

Specifically, NEMA argued that DOE 

did not account for progressive lam 

dies, new winding retooling, and other 

equipment conversion costs (e.g., 

engineering time, and manufacture and 

customer agency approvals). (NEMA, 

No. 24 at p.18) Emerson and A.O. Smith 

added that such investments needed to 

reach the proposed standards could 

cause manufacturers to exit the small 

electric motors market. (Emerson, No. 

28 at p. 1; A.O. Smith, No. 27 at p. 2) 

As discussed above, in the NOPR and 

in today’s final rule, DOE accounts for 

lam dies, new winding retooling and 

other capital investments at the TSLs 

that require such tooling. DOE also 

notes that equipment conversion costs 

associated with R&D, testing, and other 

non-capital expenses are included in its 

equipment conversion costs 

assumptions. However, in part because 

the proposed TSL did not require 

copper rotors or premium electric steel 

for the CSCR or polyphase markets, DOE 

cannot reconcile its investment totals at 

TSL 7 for CSCR and CSIR with the $150 

million to $180 million range implied 

by NEMA’s comment. However, in 

response to other comments, discussed 

immediately below, DOE has modified 

its approach to calculating the 

investments required of a typical 

manufacturer producing space 

constrained and non-space constrained 

motors. 

In the NOPR, DOE examined the 

complete tooling requirements 

necessary for both space-constrained 

and non-space constrained designs. 

That is, DOE first calculated tooling 

costs assuming shipments were 100- 

percent space constrained, then 

calculated tooling costs assuming 

shipments were 100-percent non-space 

constrained. Next, DOE calculated the 

overall tooling costs by weighting these 

values by the fraction of shipments 

dedicated to space-constrained and nonspace-constrained applications as 

forecast in the shipments model (20- 

percent and 80-percent, respectively). 

Emerson and NEMA commented that 

the proposed TSLs require the use of 

different materials for electrical steel 

and rotors for different types of motors, 

which will lead to high capital costs. 

(Emerson, No. 28 at p. 1; NEMA, No. 24 

at p. 18). Baldor Electric commented 

that manufacturers would lose 

economies of scope at the proposed 

TSLs because they would not be able to 

standardize along one type of steel for 

different classes of motors. Combined 

with the high capital costs, particularly 

for CSIR, this lack of standardization 

may lead manufacturers to choose to 

exit portions of the market. (Baldor 

Electric, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20.4 at pp. 246–47; Emerson, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 248) 

For today’s final rule, DOE modified 

its calculation of investments based on 

changes to the shipments forecasts 

related to the split between spaceconstrained and non-space constrained 

motors. For many manufacturers, it will 

not be possible to invest in tooling 

equipment for space constrained and 

non-space-constrained motors in a 

manner that is proportional to the 

relative market share of the two types of 

motors. Particularly given the 

uncertainty with regard to the future 

market demand and the resulting 

product mix, DOE believes it is more 

appropriate to look at the specific 

investment needs of a typical 

manufacturer at each TSL for both space 

constrained and non-space constrained 

investments for each motor design. For 

many design options, this leads to 

investments that are additive—not 

weighted by shipment share—across 

space-constrained and non-space 

constrained motors. Furthermore, DOE 

does not assume economies of scope in 

its assumptions regarding capital 

investments among the three classes of 

motors. That is, DOE assumed 

investment in each class independently 

and assumed they were additive when 

appropriate across the classes. To be 

clear, DOE is not modifying the 

shipments scenarios from the NIA in 

this scenario. It is modifying the capital 

investment assumptions to more 

completely capture the business 

decisions firms will likely have to make. 

As mentioned in the comments 

referenced above, the business case for 

making the large capital investments 

required for certain types of motors 

becomes less compelling as shipment 

volumes decrease at higher TSLs 

(including the TSL established in 

today’s final rule). DOE agrees with 

Emerson and A.O. Smith that some 

manufacturers are likely to exit this 

portion of their market, as is reflected by 

the shipments analysis, which shows a 

dramatic migration away from CSIR 

motors. For space-constrained motors 

within the CSIR class DOE projects no 

shipments after standards take effect. To 

capture this dynamic, at certain TSLs 

DOE calculated investments to include 

those associated with the CSCR line and 

the CSIR non-space constrained line. 

Without forecasting a significant volume 

of space-constrained CSIR shipments, it 

would be inappropriate to assume all 

manufacturers would invest in the 

premium electrical steel and copper 

technologies required to meet the 

standard level. For further details of the 

investments, see chapter 12 of the TSD 

and or section IV.I of today’s notice. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10906 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

In written comment, Emerson further 

argues that the exit of the market by 

certain manufacturers in response to 

amended standards would reduce 

competition and domestic employment. 

(Emerson, No. 28 at p. 1) 

As previously discussed, DOE 

believes that some manufacturers could 

exit the small electric motors market 

segment covered by this rule in 

response to amended standards. 

However, it should be noted that 

covered small electric motors comprise 

only a small portion of overall motor 

sales for these companies. At the 

efficiency levels established by this final 

rule, DOE’s analysis and manufacturer 

interviews indicated that the majority of 

manufacturers would likely remain in 

the small electric motors market 

following the implementation of 

amended standards. Additionally, DOE 

learned that a number of covered motors 

are already manufactured overseas and 

that foreign competition continues to 

make inroads into the covered motors 

segment. As for a potential reduction in 

domestic employment, DOE’s analysis 

indicates that even with the potential 

departure by some manufacturers from 

segments of the small electric motors 

market, overall direct employment will 

remain relatively constant due to the 

increased labor content of more efficient 

motors. 

2. Manufacturer Selling Prices 

In the NOPR, DOE calculated 

weighted manufacturer selling prices 

(MSPs) based on a shipments split of 20- 

percent space-constrained and 80- 

percent non-space constrained motors. 

However, the shipments analysis in 

today’s final rule models a mix of spaceconstrained and non-space constrained 

motors that varies by TSL. As such, DOE 

has updated its MSPs in the GRIM using 

the same shipment weights used in the 

shipments analysis at each TSL. For 

further information on the shipment 

analysis, see chapter 9 of the TSD. 

3. Markup Scenarios 

In the NOPR, DOE analyzed two 

markup scenarios in the MIA: the 

preservation-of-return-on-investedcapital scenario and the preservation-ofoperating-profits scenario. These 

scenarios reflected the upper and lower 

bounds of industry profitability, 

respectively. In written comments, 

NEMA contended that DOE had 

inappropriately discounted the 

likelihood of the lower-bound scenario 

occurring when it stated its belief that 

design changes necessary for TSL 5 

would not force all manufacturers to 

significantly redesign all of their 

polyphase small electric motors and 

production processes. (NEMA, No. 24 at 

p. 16) 

In response, DOE first clarifies that it 

did not and is not assigning 

probabilities to the preservation of 

operating profit scenario or the 

preservation of return on invested 

capital scenario. The two markup 

scenarios are meant to estimate the 

range of potential impacts. Second, in 

the NOPR, and for this final rule, DOE 

accounted for equal investments in the 

GRIM under both the lower and upper 

bound profitability scenarios. Therefore, 

changes in markup assumptions—not 

changes in investments—drive the 

profitability difference between the 

scenarios. For example, in this final rule 

DOE assumes industry wide capital 

conversion investments for TSL 5 of 

approximately $7.1 million for 

polyphase small motors in each markup 

scenario. Thus, the likelihood of either 

scenario occurring with respect to the 

other is independent of the investment 

level assumed in the GRIM. 

NEMA further argued that in 

discounting the likelihood of the lowerbound profitability scenario, DOE 

ignored cost increases and equipment 

investments associated with specialty 

steels and copper rotors necessary for 

polyphase motors to meet TSL 5. 

(NEMA, No. 24 at p. 16). 

DOE disagrees with NEMA’s 

suggestion that TSL 5 requires copper 

rotors and premium electrical steels 

(such as Hiperco) for polyphase motor 

designs. DOE continues to believe, as 

discussed in the Engineering Analysis, 

that both space-constrained and nonspace constrained motors can achieve 

TSL 5 through the use of additional 

laminations. As discussed above, DOE 

included the attendant costs of the 

additional lams, steel-grade lam dies, 

end ring investment for both space 

constrained and non-space constrained 

motors, and a crimping tool. No 

investments for copper rotors design 

were assumed at TSL 5 for polyphase 

motors. NEMA ostensibly agreed that 

the proposed TSL did not require 

copper rotors when it commented that 

the ‘‘proposed standards for polyphase 

and CSCR small electric motors are 

based on the use of cast aluminum 

rotors.’’ (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 18) 

Baldor and NEMA stated that the 

proposed levels of efficiency in the 

NOPR are based on the assumption that 

manufacturers must use three different 

types of electrical steel including 

24M19, 29M15, and Hiperco 50. 

According to NEMA, each type of 

electrical steel requires different 

methods for processing the rolled steel 

into laminations acceptable for use in 

electric motors. NEMA further adds that 

to remain competitive, manufacturers 

must minimize the number of different 

types of materials and processes used in 

a manufacturing facility and suggested 

that DOE adopt a standard level that is 

achievable with the same electrical steel 

for all motor categories. (Baldor, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 246– 

47; NEMA, No. 24 at p. 17. 

In the NOPR, DOE predicted that 

manufacturers would achieve the 

proposed efficiency levels with three 

types of steels including 24M19, 29M15, 

and Hiperco 50. During manufacturer 

interviews, DOE requested information 

on the type of processes needed to 

achieve each efficiency level, as well as 

the costs associated with each process. 

In regard to types of steel used and the 

cost of switching from one steel process 

to another, all interviewed 

manufacturers reported the use of 

additional lamination dies to 

accommodate the different thickness of 

steel. Accordingly, DOE included 

additional lamination dies per 

manufacturer in its estimates whenever 

a change of steel grade was applicable, 

as described in chapter 12 of the TSD. 

The cost per die was derived based on 

manufacturer’s estimates and 

information provide by industry 

experts. See chapter 12 of the TSD for 

additional details on each type of 

investment at each efficiency level 

including all design options analyzed. 

DOE acknowledges that manufacturers 

in general, regardless of industry, 

reduce the number of manufacturing 

processes to lower costs and thus 

increase margins. For today’s amended 

standards, DOE does not prescribe 

designs nor how manufacturers achieve 

each efficiency level. Because DOE 

accounts for all the relevant costs 

associated with using the various steel 

types in both the engineering analysis 

and MIA, it believes it accurately 

captures the potential costs to 

manufacturers in using different steel 

grades. Therefore, DOE believes that 

potential burden on manufacturers has 

been accounted for in today’s final rule. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

commented that manufacturers are not 

aware of any other pathways to 

achieving the proposed efficiencies for 

space constrained CSIR motors but the 

ones analyzed in this rulemaking. 

NEMA argued that because there are no 

other pathways to achieving the 

proposed efficiencies, DOE is dictating 

that manufacturers use different 

electrical steels and different materials 

for the rotor construction in order to 

meet the proposed efficiencies for the 

three motor types. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 

16). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10907 

DOE acknowledges that TSL 7 reflects 

the max-tech efficiency levels for CSIR; 

as such, DOE estimates manufacturers 

may have to employ both copper rotors 

and premium electrical steels to achieve 

that level. In the engineering analysis, 

which subsequently carries over to the 

MIA, DOE models a pathway for spaceconstrained and non-space constrained 

application motors with the use of these 

technologies. However, in setting new 

standards for small electric motors, as 

described in today’s notice, DOE selects 

efficiency levels for each motor category 

and does not prescribe designs. 

4. Premium Electrical Steels 

In response to the NOPR, Regal-Beloit 

and NEMA argue that DOE proposed an 

efficiency level for motors that would 

force manufacturers to utilize specific 

electrical steels that are in scarce 

supply. NEMA further argues that DOE 

should not establish standards that 

require manufacturers to use materials 

that are supply constrained. NEMA 

stated that a market analysis for the 

scarce materials is needed to prove 

otherwise. (Regal-Beloit, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 245–46; 

NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 17–18). Similarly, 

NEMA asked DOE to consider any 

spillover effects on the supply of steel 

for medium electric motors. (NEMA, No. 

24 at p.18) 

DOE acknowledges the concern that 

Hiperco may be supply constrained in 

the short run should manufacturers 

pursue that design option. As such, to 

investigate these steel concerns, DOE 

contacted Hiperco 50 steel and other 

premium electrical steel suppliers and 

used steel manufacturer’s annual reports 

to examine past shipment volumes of 

premium steels. DOE then compared 

estimated shipments of these steel to 

volumes that would be necessary for 

motors if should the base case mix of 

space constrained and non space 

constrained persist at all TSLs. Based on 

that analysis, DOE estimates that the 

entire small electric motor industry 

would need approximately 1.3 million 

pounds of premium steels (such as 

Hiperco) in 2015 for the level 

established by this rule. For the steel 

manufacturer that had available annual 

reports, the estimated pounds of 

premium steels needed by the motor 

manufacturers constitutes less than one 

percent of total steel shipments for 

2008. How much of that volume reflects 

premium steels is not publically 

available. However, annual reports for 

the publicly traded manufacturer of 

premium steels suggest that shipments 

of these steels have decreased by close 

to 20 percent from the previous year, 

suggesting this manufacturer has over 

capacity and the ability to meet the 

possible increase in demand of 

premium steels. Given the time lag for 

the market to prepare for the 

compliance date of the standard and the 

low volumes of motors that may require 

premium steel, DOE believes that the 

proposed standard level will not 

threaten the supply of the steel, even if 

manufacturers decide to pursue this 

option. DOE’s analysis does not forecast 

shipments of motors that require 

premium steel and, as a result, DOE 

does not believe that, based on the 

available data, there will be a significant 

impact (‘‘spillover’’) on the medium 

motor market due to higher demand of 

the material in the small motor market. 

NEMA stated that the proposed 

efficiency level mandates the use of 

copper rotor casting technology along 

with aluminum rotor casting technology 

in the same manufacturing facilities. 

NEMA argued that copper rotor casting 

technology is in its infancy and is not 

a fully developed process that can be 

adapted in all present facilities where 

small electric motors are built. 

Additionally, NEMA and A.O. Smith are 

concerned that copper rotor casting 

technology has significant safety issues 

related to the high temperatures needed 

for the process. According to NEMA, 

manufacturers may be required to use a 

few outside companies that may not 

have sufficient capacity to meet all of 

the copper rotor volume required to 

meet the needs for all of the CSIR small 

electric motors. Additionally, NEMA 

argues that standards must be based on 

the use of aluminum rotors only. (A.O. 

Smith, No. 26 at p. 2; NEMA, No. 24 at 

p. 18) 

DOE acknowledges manufacturers’ 

concerns related to the processes for 

die-casting copper rotors. In its analysis, 

DOE accounted for the increased capital 

requirements as they would likely occur 

depending on the efficiency level and 

motor type at issue. As stated in the 

NOPR, the use of copper rotors could 

lead manufacturers to outsource their 

die-casting processes, as indicated by 

NEMA in its comments. (74 FR 61467– 

68). Ultimately, this is a business 

decision. In its engineering analysis for 

this rulemaking, DOE included a copper 

rotor design at efficiency level 6 or 

above for polyphase motors, efficiency 

level 5 or above for CSIR motors, and 

efficiency level 4 or above for CSCR 

motors. The inclusion of copper rotor 

designs at each efficiency level varies 

depending on the necessary efficiency 

and space constraints. However, DOE 

reiterates that different manufacturers 

will not necessarily employ the same 

design options to make their motors 

achieve higher efficiency levels where 

DOE estimates copper rotors may be 

used, with the exception of the maxtech efficiency levels. In fact, for the 

NOPR and today’s final rule, DOE has 

analyzed motors up to efficiency level 5 

for CSIR motors and efficiency level 6 

for CSCR motors that use an aluminum 

die-cast rotor. 

J. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a proposed standard. 

Employment impacts include direct and 

indirect impacts. Direct employment 

impacts are changes in the number of 

employees for manufacturers of 

equipment subject to standards, their 

suppliers, and related service firms. The 

MIA addresses these impacts. 

Indirect employment impacts from 

standards consist of the net jobs created 

or eliminated in the national economy, 

other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, due to: (1) Reduced 

spending by end users on energy 

(electricity, gas (including liquefied 

petroleum gas), and oil); (2) reduced 

spending on new energy supply by the 

utility industry; (3) increased spending 

on the purchase price of new 

equipment; and (4) the effects of those 

three factors throughout the economy. 

DOE expects the net monetary savings 

from standards to be redirected to other 

forms of economic activity. DOE also 

expects these shifts in spending and 

economic activity to affect the demand 

for labor in the short term, as explained 

below. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

employment statistics in different 

economic sectors, which are compiled 

and published by the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS). The BLS regularly 

publishes its estimates of the number of 

jobs per million dollars of economic 

activity in different sectors of the 

economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy. There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital intensive and less 

labor intensive than other sectors. (See 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional 

Multipliers: A User Handbook for the 

Regional Input-Output Modeling System 

(RIMS II), Washington, DC, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1992.) 

Efficiency standards have the effect of 

reducing consumer utility bills. Because 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10908 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

16More information regarding ImSET is available 

online at: http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/ 

external/technical_reports/PNNL-15273.pdf. 

reduced consumer expenditures for 

energy likely lead to increased 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy, the general effect of efficiency 

standards is to shift economic activity 

from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., 

the utility sector) to more laborintensive sectors (e.g., the retail and 

manufacturing sectors). Thus, based on 

the BLS data alone, DOE believes net 

national employment will increase due 

to shifts in economic activity resulting 

from standards for small electric motors. 

In developing the NOPR, DOE 

estimated indirect national employment 

impacts using an input/output model of 

the U.S. economy called Impact of 

Sector Energy Technologies (ImSET).16

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (I–O) model designed to 

estimate the national employment and 

income effects of energy-saving 

technologies. The ImSET software 

includes a computer-based I–O model 

with structural coefficients to 

characterize economic flows among 188 

sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use. For today’s final rule, DOE 

has made no change to its method for 

estimating employment impacts. For 

further details, see chapter 15 of the 

final rule TSD. 

K. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

the change in the forecasted power 

generation capacity for the Nation that 

would be expected to result from 

adoption of new standards. For the 

NOPR and today’s final rule, DOE 

calculated this change using the NEMS– 

BT computer model. NEMS–BT models 

certain policy scenarios such as the 

effect of reduced energy consumption 

by fuel type. The analysis output 

provides a forecast for the needed 

generation capacities at each TSL. While 

DOE was able to use the forecasts from 

the AEO 2010 Early Release for energy 

prices and macroeconomic indicators, 

the NEMS–BT model corresponding to 

this case is not yet available. The 

estimated net benefit of the standard in 

today’s final rule is the difference 

between the forecasted generation 

capacities by NEMS–BT and the AEO 

2009 April Release Reference Case. DOE 

obtained the energy savings inputs 

associated with efficiency 

improvements to small electric motors 

from the NIA. These inputs reflect the 

effects of both fuel (natural gas) and 

electricity consumption savings. 

Chapter 14 of the final rule TSD 

presents results of the utility impact 

analysis. 

NEEA/NPCC claimed that only a 

small fraction of the total costs of 

avoided generation are currently 

counted in any rulemaking. They note 

that DOE uses the NEMS–BT model to 

calculate the avoided generation 

facilities produced by a standard and 

that the cost of construction and 

operation of these plants are rolled into 

average rates that all electricity 

consumers must pay, not just those 

purchasing the product in question. As 

a result, they believe that the NPV 

difference in the value of total 

electricity sales between the NEMS–BT 

forecasts with and without the 

standards may serve as a reasonable 

proxy for the economic value to all 

electricity consumers of the proposed 

standards. The difference value of total 

retail electricity sales is necessary to 

capture all of the cost of the avoided 

generation, since as noted above, users 

of small general purpose motors 

impacted by the standard will pay only 

a portion of those cost at embedded 

rates. (NEEA/NPPC, No. 27, p. 7–8) 

DOE investigated the possibility of 

estimating the impact of specific 

standard levels on electricity prices in 

its rulemaking for general service 

fluorescent lamps and incandescent 

reflector lamps. (See U.S. Department of 

Energy—Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy: Energy Conservation 

Standards for General Service 

Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent 

Reflector Lamps; Proposed Rule, 74 FR 

16920, 16978–979 (April 13, 2009).) It 

concluded that caution is warranted in 

reporting impacts of appliance 

standards on electricity prices due to 

the complexity of the power industry 

(including the variety of utility 

regulation in the U.S.) and the relatively 

small impact of equipment efficiency 

standards on demand. In addition, 

electricity price reductions cannot be 

viewed as equivalent to societal benefits 

because part of the price reductions 

result from transfers from producers to 

consumers. The electric power industry 

is a complex mix of fuel suppliers, 

producers, and distributors. While the 

distribution of electricity is regulated 

everywhere, its institutional structure 

varies, and upstream components are 

complex. Because of the difficulty in 

accurately estimating electricity price 

impacts, and the uncertainty with 

respect to transfers from producers to 

consumers, DOE did not estimate the 

value of potentially reduced electricity 

costs for all consumers associated with 

standards for small electric motors. 

L. Environmental Assessment 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI), DOE 

prepared a draft environmental 

assessment (EA) of the potential impacts 

of the standards for small electric 

motors in today’s final rule, which it has 

included as chapter 15 of the TSD. DOE 

found that the environmental effects 

associated with the standards for small 

electric motors were not significant. 

Therefore, DOE is issuing a Finding of 

No Significant Impact (FONSI), 

pursuant to NEPA, the regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508), and DOE’s 

regulations for compliance with NEPA 

(10 CFR part 1021). The FONSI is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

In the EA, DOE estimated the 

reduction in power sector emissions of 

CO2, NOX, and Hg using the NEMS–BT 

computer model. In the EA, NEMS–BT 

is run similarly to the AEO NEMS, 

except that small electric motor energy 

use is reduced by the amount of energy 

saved (by fuel type) due to the TSLs. 

The inputs of national energy savings 

come from the NIA analysis; the output 

is the forecasted physical emissions. 

The estimated net benefit of the 

standard in today’s final rule is the 

difference between the forecasted 

emissions by NEMS–BT at each TSL 

and the AEO 2009 April Early Release 

Reference Case. NEMS–BT tracks CO2

emissions using a detailed module that 

provides results with broad coverage of 

all sectors and inclusion of interactive 

effects. 

DOE has determined that sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emissions from affected 

Electric Generating Units (EGUs) are 

subject to nationwide and regional 

emissions cap and trading programs that 

create uncertainty about the impact of 

energy conservation standards on SO2

emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air Act 

sets an annual emissions cap on SO2 for 

all affected EGUs. SO2 emissions from 

28 eastern States and the District of 

Columbia (D.C.) are also limited under 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 12, 2005; 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 

2005), which creates an allowancebased trading program that will 

gradually replace the Title IV program 

in those States and D.C. (The recent 

legal history surrounding CAIR is 

discussed below.) The attainment of the 

emissions caps is flexible among EGUs 

and is enforced through the use of 

emissions allowances and tradable 

permits. Energy conservation standards 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10909 

could lead EGUs to trade allowances 

and increase SO2 emissions that offset 

some or all SO2 emissions reductions 

attributable to the standard. DOE is not 

certain that there will be reduced 

overall SO2 emissions from the 

standards. The NEMS–BT modeling 

system that DOE uses to forecast 

emissions reductions currently indicates 

that no physical reductions in power 

sector emissions would occur for SO2. 

The above considerations prevent DOE 

from estimating SO2 reductions from 

standards at this time. 

Even though DOE is not certain that 

there will be reduced overall emissions 

from the standard, there may be an 

economic benefit from reduced demand 

for SO2 emission allowances. Electricity 

savings from standards decrease the 

generation of SO2 emissions from power 

production, which can lessen the need 

to purchase emissions allowance 

credits, and thereby decrease the costs 

of complying with regulatory caps on 

emissions. 

Much like SO2 emissions, NOX

emissions from 28 eastern States and the 

District of Columbia (D.C.) are limited 

under the CAIR. Although CAIR has 

been remanded to EPA by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit), it will remain in 

effect until it is replaced by a rule 

consistent with the Court’s July 11, 

2008, opinion in North Carolina v. EPA. 

531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008); see also 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). These court positions 

were taken into account in the analysis 

conducted for the NOPR and in today’s 

final rule. Because all States covered by 

CAIR opted to reduce NOX emissions 

through participation in cap and trade 

programs for electric generating units, 

emissions from these sources are capped 

across the CAIR region. 

In the 28 eastern States and D.C. 

where CAIR is in effect, DOE’s forecasts 

indicate that no NOX emissions 

reductions will occur due to energy 

conservation standards because of the 

permanent cap. Energy conservation 

standards have the potential to produce 

an economic impact in the form of 

lower prices for NOX emissions 

allowances, if their impact on electricity 

demand is large enough. However, DOE 

has concluded that the standards in 

today’s final rule will not have such an 

effect because the estimated reduction 

in electricity demand in States covered 

by the CAIR cap would be too small to 

affect allowance prices for NOX under 

the CAIR. 

New or amended energy conservation 

standards would reduce NOX emissions 

in those 22 States that are not affected 

by the CAIR. DOE used the NEMS–BT 

to forecast emission reductions from the 

small electric motor standards in today’s 

final rule. 

Similar to emissions of SO2 and NOX, 

future emissions of Hg would have been 

subject to emissions caps. The Clean Air 

Mercury Rule (CAMR) would have 

permanently capped emissions of 

mercury from new and existing coalfired plants in all States beginning in 

2010 (70 FR 28606). However, the 

CAMR was vacated by the D.C. Circuit 

in its decision in New Jersey v. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 517 F 

3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Thus, DOE was 

able to use the NEMS–BT model to 

estimate the changes in Hg emissions 

resulting from the proposed rule. 

NEMA noted that the TSD for the 

NOPR provides a qualitative assessment 

of upstream emissions (i.e., emissions 

from energy losses during coal and 

natural gas production) in addition to 

quantifying the emissions at power 

plants. NEMA states that if DOE is 

making an assessment of upstream 

emissions, it should also account for the 

emissions related to the construction of 

more efficient small electric motors, 

such as those related to the mining of 

additional raw materials, processing of 

the additional materials, transportation 

of the additional materials, and the 

manufacture of the motor itself. (NEMA, 

No. 24 at p. 22) 

As noted in the TSD for the NOPR, 

DOE developed qualitative estimates of 

affects on upstream fuel-cycle emissions 

because NEMS–BT does a thorough 

accounting only of emissions at the 

power plant due to downstream energy 

consumption. In other words, NEMS– 

BT does not account for upstream 

emissions. Therefore, the Environmental 

Assessment for today’s final rule reports 

only power plant emissions. 

When setting performance standards 

for industrial equipment, EPCA 

prescribes that an energy efficiency 

standard be a minimum level of energy 

efficiency or maximum allowable 

energy use. EPCA defines the term 

‘‘energy use’’ within this limited context 

for commercial and industrial 

equipment as being the quantity of 

energy directly consumed by an article 

of industrial equipment at the point of 

use. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(4). In 

ascertaining the appropriate level of 

efficiency, DOE must balance seven 

criteria to develop a standard that is 

economically justified and technically 

feasible. While DOE believes that the 

majority of the energy and other costs 

associated with the manufacturing of 

more efficient motors are reflected in its 

analysis, some of the costs associated 

with certain environmental impacts and 

other externalities are not incorporated. 

Even though DOE estimates and 

considers the impacts of standards on 

the energy and emissions associated 

with electricity generation, it does not 

specifically assess the energy and 

emissions associated with the 

manufacturing of more efficient motors 

or the manufacturing of the equipment 

required to produce and supply energy. 

The main reason for not assessing such 

indirect costs and benefits is the 

absence of a reliable and comprehensive 

method of doing so. Such an assessment 

would require accounting for a variety 

of variables, including the energy 

required to build and service the energy 

production, generation, and 

transmission infrastructure needed to 

deliver the energy, as well as accounting 

for the energy expended to manufacture 

energy-using equipment. 

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and 

Other Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

final rule, DOE considered the estimated 

monetary benefits likely to result from 

the reduced emissions of CO2 and other 

pollutants that are expected to result 

from each of the Trial Standard Levels 

considered. This section summarizes 

the basis for the estimated monetary 

values used for each of these emissions 

and presents the benefits estimates 

considered. 

For today’s final rule, DOE is relying 

on a new set of values for the social cost 

of carbon SCC that were recently 

developed by an interagency process. A 

summary of the basis for these new 

values is provided below, and a more 

detailed description of the 

methodologies used is provided as an 

Annex to Chapter 15 of the Technical 

Support Document. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

agencies are required, to the extent 

permitted by law, ‘‘to assess both the 

costs and the benefits of the intended 

regulation and, recognizing that some 

costs and benefits are difficult to 

quantify, propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that the benefits of the intended 

regulation justify its costs.’’ The purpose 

of the SCC estimates presented here is 

to allow agencies to incorporate the 

social benefits of reducing CO2

emissions into cost-benefit analyses of 

regulatory actions that have small, or 

‘‘marginal,’’ impacts on cumulative 

global emissions. The estimates are 

presented with an acknowledgement of 

the many uncertainties involved and 

with a clear understanding that they 

should be updated over time to reflect 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10910 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

17 In this document, DOE presents all values of 

the SCC as the cost per metric ton of CO2 emissions. 

Alternatively, one could report the SCC as the cost 

per metric ton of carbon emissions. The multiplier 

for translating between mass of CO2 and the mass 

of carbon is 3.67 (the molecular weight of CO2

divided by the molecular weight of carbon = 44/12 

= 3.67). 

increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

The SCC is an estimate of the 

monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 

to include (but is not limited to) changes 

in net agricultural productivity, human 

health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services due to climate 

change. 

As part of the interagency process that 

developed these SCC estimates, 

technical experts from numerous 

agencies met on a regular basis to 

consider public comments, explore the 

technical literature in relevant fields, 

and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. The main objective of this 

process was to develop a range of SCC 

values using a defensible set of input 

assumptions grounded in the existing 

scientific and economic literatures. In 

this way, key uncertainties and model 

differences transparently and 

consistently inform the range of SCC 

estimates used in the rulemaking 

process. 

The interagency group selected four 

SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three values are based on the 

average SCC from three integrated 

assessment models, at discount rates of 

2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth value, 

which represents the 95th percentile 

SCC estimate across all three models at 

a 3 percent discount rate, is included to 

represent higher-than-expected impacts 

from temperature change further out in 

the tails of the SCC distribution. 

TABLE IV.19—SOCIAL COST OF CO2, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars] 

Discount year 5% 

Avg 

3% 

Avg 

2.5% 

Avg 

3% 

95th 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

The ‘‘social cost of carbon’’ (SCC) is an 

estimate of the monetized damages 

associated with an incremental increase 

in carbon emissions in a given year. It 

is intended to include (but is not limited 

to) changes in net agricultural 

productivity, human health, property 

damages from increased flood risk, and 

the value of ecosystem services. 

Estimates of the social cost of carbon are 

provided in dollars per metric ton of 

carbon dioxide.17

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of carbon 

dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a 

number of serious challenges. A recent 

report from the National Academies of 

Science (Hidden Costs of Energy: 

Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use. National 

Academies Press. 2009) points out that 

any assessment will suffer from 

uncertainty, speculation, and lack of 

information about (1) future emissions 

of greenhouse gases, (2) the effects of 

past and future emissions on the climate 

system, (3) the impact of changes in 

climate on the physical and biological 

environment, and (4) the translation of 

these environmental impacts into 

economic damages. As a result, any 

effort to quantify and monetize the 

harms associated with climate change 

will raise serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be 

viewed as provisional. 

Despite the serious limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing carbon 

dioxide emissions. Under Executive 

Order 12866, agencies are required, to 

the extent permitted by law, ‘‘to assess 

both the costs and the benefits of the 

intended regulation and, recognizing 

that some costs and benefits are difficult 

to quantify, propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs.’’ 

The purpose of the SCC estimates 

presented here is to make it possible for 

agencies to incorporate the social 

benefits from reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions into cost-benefit analyses of 

regulatory actions that have small, or 

‘‘marginal,’’ impacts on cumulative 

global emissions. Most Federal 

regulatory actions can be expected to 

have marginal impacts on global 

emissions. 

For such policies, the benefits from 

reduced (or costs from increased) 

emissions in any future year can be 

estimated by multiplying the change in 

emissions in that year by the SCC value 

appropriate for that year. The net 

present value of the benefits can then be 

calculated by multiplying each of these 

future benefits by an appropriate 

discount factor and summing across all 

affected years. This approach assumes 

that the marginal damages from 

increased emissions are constant for 

small departures from the baseline 

emissions path, an approximation that 

is reasonable for policies that have 

effects on emissions that are small 

relative to cumulative global carbon 

dioxide emissions. For policies that 

have a large (non-marginal) impact on 

global cumulative emissions, there is a 

separate question of whether the SCC is 

an appropriate tool for calculating the 

benefits of reduced emissions; we do 

not attempt to answer that question 

here. 

An interagency group convened on a 

regular basis to consider public 

comments, explore the technical 

literature in relevant fields, and discuss 

key inputs and assumptions in order to 

generate SCC estimates. Agencies that 

actively participated in the interagency 

process include the Environmental 

Protection Agency, and the Departments 

of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, 

Transportation, and Treasury. This 

process was convened by the Council of 

Economic Advisers and the Office of 

Management and Budget, with active 

participation and regular input from the 

Council on Environmental Quality, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10911 

National Economic Council, Office of 

Energy and Climate Change, and Office 

of Science and Technology Policy. The 

main objective of this process was to 

develop a range of SCC values using a 

defensible set of input assumptions that 

are grounded in the existing literature. 

In this way, key uncertainties and 

model differences can more 

transparently and consistently inform 

the range of SCC estimates used in the 

rulemaking process. 

The interagency group selected four 

SCC estimates for use in regulatory 

analyses. For 2010, these estimates are 

$5, $21, $35, and $65 (in 2007 dollars). 

The first three estimates are based on 

the average SCC across models and 

socio-economic and emissions scenarios 

at the 5, 3, and 2.5 percent discount 

rates, respectively. The fourth value is 

included to represent the higher-thanexpected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the 

SCC distribution. For this purpose, we 

use the SCC value for the 95th 

percentile at a 3 percent discount rate. 

The central value is the average SCC 

across models at the 3 percent discount 

rate. For purposes of capturing the 

uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, we emphasize the 

importance and value of considering the 

full range. These SCC estimates also 

grow over time. For instance, the central 

value increases to $24 per ton of CO2 in 

2015 and $26 per ton of CO2 in 2020. 

See Appendix A of the Annex to 

Chapter 15 of the Technical Support 

Document for the full range of annual 

SCC estimates from 2010 to 2050. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science 

and economic understanding of climate 

change and its impacts on society 

improve over time. Specifically, we 

have set a preliminary goal of revisiting 

the SCC values within two years or at 

such time as substantially updated 

models become available, and to 

continue to support research in this 

area. In the meantime, we will continue 

to explore the issues raised by this 

analysis and consider public comments 

as part of the ongoing interagency 

process. 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

To date, economic analyses for 

Federal regulations have used a wide 

range of values to estimate the benefits 

associated with reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. In the final model year 2011 

CAFE rule, the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) used both a 

‘‘domestic’’ SCC value of $2 per ton of 

CO2 and a ‘‘global’’ SCC value of $33 per 

ton of CO2 for 2007 emission reductions 

(in 2007 dollars), increasing both values 

at 2.4 percent per year. It also included 

a sensitivity analysis at $80 per ton of 

CO2. A domestic SCC value is meant to 

reflect the value of damages in the 

United States resulting from a unit 

change in carbon dioxide emissions, 

while a global SCC value is meant to 

reflect the value of damages worldwide. 

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT 

assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per 

ton CO2 (in 2006 dollars) for 2011 

emission reductions (with a range of $0– 

$14 for sensitivity analysis), also 

increasing at 2.4 percent per year. A 

regulation finalized by DOE in October 

of 2008 used a domestic SCC range of 

$0 to $20 per ton CO2 for 2007 emission 

reductions (in 2007 dollars). In addition, 

EPA’s 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gases 

identified what it described as ‘‘very 

preliminary’’ SCC estimates subject to 

revision. EPA’s global mean values were 

$68 and $40 per ton CO2 for discount 

rates of approximately 2 percent and 3 

percent, respectively (in 2006 dollars for 

2007 emissions). 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. To ensure consistency in 

how benefits are evaluated across 

agencies, the Administration sought to 

develop a transparent and defensible 

method, specifically designed for the 

rulemaking process, to quantify avoided 

climate change damages from reduced 

CO2 emissions. The interagency group 

did not undertake any original analysis. 

Instead, it combined SCC estimates from 

the existing literature to use as interim 

values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. 

The outcome of the preliminary 

assessment by the interagency group 

was a set of five interim values: global 

SCC estimates for 2007 (in 2006 dollars) 

of $55, $33, $19, $10, and $5 per ton of 

CO2. The $33 and $5 values represented 

model-weighted means of the published 

estimates produced from the most 

recently available versions of three 

integrated assessment models—DICE, 

PAGE, and FUND—at approximately 3 

and 5 percent discount rates. The $55 

and $10 values were derived by 

adjusting the published estimates for 

uncertainty in the discount rate (using 

factors developed by Newell and Pizer 

(2003)) at 3 and 5 percent discount 

rates, respectively. The $19 value was 

chosen as a central value between the $5 

and $33 per ton estimates. All of these 

values were assumed to increase at 3 

percent annually to represent growth in 

incremental damages over time as the 

magnitude of climate change increases. 

These interim values represent the 

first sustained interagency effort within 

the U.S. government to develop an SCC 

for use in regulatory analysis. The 

results of this preliminary effort were 

presented in several proposed and final 

rules and were offered for public 

comment in connection with proposed 

rules, including the joint EPA–DOT fuel 

economy and CO2 tailpipe emission 

proposed rules. 

c. Approach and Key Assumptions 

Since the release of the interim 

values, the interagency group 

reconvened on a regular basis to 

generate improved SCC estimates 

considered for this final rule. 

Specifically, the group considered 

public comments and further explored 

the technical literature in relevant 

fields. 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

since they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The National Academy 

of Science (2009) points out that there 

is tension between the goal of producing 

quantified estimates of the economic 

damages from an incremental ton of 

carbon and the limits of existing efforts 

to model these effects. There are a 

number of concerns and problems that 

should be addressed by the research 

community, including research 

programs housed in many of the 

agencies participating in the interagency 

process to estimate the SCC. 

The U.S. Government will 

periodically review and reconsider 

estimates of the SCC used for costbenefit analyses to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. In this 

context, statements recognizing the 

limitations of the analysis and calling 

for further research take on exceptional 

significance. The interagency group 

offers the new SCC values with all due 

humility about the uncertainties 

embedded in them and with a sincere 

promise to continue work to improve 

them. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

most recent values identified by the 

interagency process, adjusted to 2009$ 

using the standard GDP deflator values 

for 2008 and 2009. For each of the four 

cases specified, the values for emissions 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10912 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

18Trasande, L., et al., ‘‘Applying Cost Analyses to 

Drive Policy that Protects Children,’’ 1076 Ann. 

N.Y. Acad. Sci. 911 (2006). 

19Ted Gayer and Robert Hahn, ‘‘Designing 

Environmental Policy: Lessons from the Regulation 

of Mercury Emissions,’’ Regulatory Analysis 05–01, 

AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 

Washington, DC (2004). A version of this paper was 

published in the Journal of Regulatory Economics 

in 2006. The estimate was derived by backcalculating the annual benefits per ton from the net 

present value of benefits reported in the study. 

in 2010 used were approximately $5, 

$22, $36, and $67 per metric ton 

avoided (values expressed in 2009$). To 

monetize the CO2 emissions reductions 

expected to result from amended 

standards for small electric motors in 

2015–2045, DOE used the values 

identified in Table A1 of the ‘‘Social 

Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866,’’ 

which is reprinted as an Annex to 

Chapter 15 of the Technical Support 

Document, appropriately escalated to 

2009$. 

2. Monetary Values of Non-Carbon 

Emissions 

As previously stated, DOE’s analysis 

assumed the presence of nationwide 

emission caps on SO2 and caps on NOX

emissions in the 28 States covered by 

CAIR. In the presence of these caps, the 

NEMS–BT modeling system that DOE 

used to forecast emissions reduction 

indicated that no physical reductions in 

power sector emissions would occur 

(although there remains uncertainty 

about whether physical reduction of 

SO2 will occur), but that the standards 

could put slight downward pressure on 

the prices of emissions allowances in 

cap-and-trade markets. Estimating this 

effect is very difficult because factors 

such as credit banking can change the 

trajectory of prices. From its modeling 

to date, DOE is unable to estimate a 

benefit from energy conservation 

standards on the prices of emissions 

allowances at this time. See the 

environmental assessment in the final 

rule TSD for further details. 

DOE also investigated the potential 

monetary benefit of reduced NOX and 

Hg emissions from the TSLs it 

considered. As noted above, new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

would reduce NOX emissions in those 

22 States that are not affected by CAIR, 

in addition to the reduction in site NOX

emissions nationwide. DOE estimated 

the monetized value of NOX emissions 

reductions resulting from each of the 

TSLs considered for today’s final rule 

based on environmental damage 

estimates from the literature. Available 

estimates suggest a very wide range of 

monetary values for NOX emissions, 

ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per 

ton of NOX from stationary sources, 

measured in 2001$ (equivalent to a 

range of $447 to $4,591 per ton in 

2009$). Refer to the OMB, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

‘‘2006 Report to Congress on the Costs 

and Benefits of Federal Regulations and 

Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, 

and Tribal Entities,’’ Washington, DC, 

for additional information. 

For Hg emissions reductions, DOE 

estimated the national monetized values 

resulting from the TSLs considered for 

today’s rule based on environmental 

damage estimates from the literature. 

The impact of mercury emissions from 

power plants on humans is considered 

highly uncertain. However, DOE 

identified two estimates of the 

environmental damage of Hg based on 

estimates of the adverse impact of 

childhood exposure to methyl mercury 

on IQ for American children, and 

subsequent loss of lifetime economic 

productivity resulting from these IQ 

losses. The high-end estimate of $1.3 

billion per year in 2000$ (which works 

out to $33.7 million per ton emitted per 

year in 2009$) is based on an estimate 

of the current aggregate cost of the loss 

of IQ in American children that results 

from exposure to Hg of U.S. power plant 

origin.18 DOE’s low-end estimate of 

$0.66 million per ton emitted in 2004$ 

($0.764 million per ton in 2008$) was 

derived from an evaluation of mercury 

control that used different methods and 

assumptions from the first study, but 

was also based on the present value of 

the lifetime earnings of children 

exposed to Hg.19

V. Discussion of Other Comments 

Since DOE opened the docket for this 

rulemaking, it has received more than 

20 comments from a diverse set of 

parties, including manufacturers and 

their representatives, States, energy 

conservation advocates, and electric 

utilities. Section IV of this preamble 

discusses comments DOE received on 

the analytical methodologies it has used 

in this rulemaking. Additional 

comments DOE received in response to 

the NOPR addressed the information 

DOE used in its analyses, results of and 

inferences drawn from the analyses, 

impacts of standards, the merits of the 

different TSLs and standards options 

DOE considered, other issues affecting 

adoption of standards for small electric 

motors, and the DOE rulemaking 

process. DOE addresses these comments 

below. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

In selecting the proposed energy 

conservation standards for both classes 

of small electric motors for 

consideration in today’s final rule, DOE 

started by examining the standard levels 

with the highest energy savings, and 

determined whether those levels were 

economically justified. If DOE found 

those levels not to be justified, DOE 

considered TSLs sequentially lower in 

energy savings until it reached the level 

with the greatest energy savings that 

was both technologically feasible and 

economically justified. In the NOPR 

document, DOE proposed TSL 5 for 

polyphase motors and TSL 7 for singlephase motors. 

Emerson commented that while it is 

in favor of efficiency standards in 

general, it is not in favor of the proposed 

standards for small electric motors. This 

is because it diverts a manufacturer’s 

attention and funding away from other 

energy efficient technologies that it is 

developing, which are actually being 

used to replace these covered motors. In 

its written comments, Emerson asked 

that DOE not regulate small electric 

motors. (Emerson, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 267–69; 

Emerson, No. 28 at p. 3) Underwriters 

Laboratories (UL) submitted written 

comments stating that over the past five 

years the majority of fractional 

horsepower motors it has seen have 

been electronically commutated motors 

(ECM), which reach efficiency levels in 

the high 90 percent range. However, UL 

continued on to state that DOE should 

not set efficiency levels for the covered 

motors that reinforce the status quo, but 

rather encourage greater efficiency, 

which it states the proposed standard 

levels would not achieve. (UL, No. 21 at 

pp. 1–2) QM Power added that high 

standards would cause alternative 

technologies to be sold in higher 

volumes and as a result bring their 

relative prices down. (QM Power, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 290– 

91) Finally, a joint comment submitted 

by PG&E, SCE, SCGC, and SDGE 

indicated support for the standard levels 

chosen by DOE in the NOPR phase. 

(Joint Comment, No. 23 at 

p. 2) 

DOE notes that it is legally required 

to issue standards for small electric 

motors and reiterates that it selects the 

standard level with the highest energy 

savings that is both technologically 

feasible and economically justified. The 

standards set in today’s final rule 

represent the efficiency level with the 

greatest energy savings that is both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. While other 

classes of motors, such as electronically 

commutated motors (ECMs) may offer 

higher efficiency levels than the levels 

selected by DOE in today’s rulemaking, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10913 

DOE must consider and evaluate the 

covered motors when selecting 

efficiency levels. 

NEMA commented that a statement in 

the NOPR indicated that the proposed 

polyphase standard was closely aligned 

with the EPACT 1992 efficiency levels. 

NEMA was confused by this statement 

because the levels proposed in the 

NOPR were greater than the EPACT 

1992 levels. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 22) 

NEMA also stated that the NOPR 

indicates ‘‘TSL 7 corresponds to the 

NEMA Premium equivalent efficiency 

for CSCR motors,’’ (74 FR 61469) but 

that there is no defined level of NEMA 

Premium efficiency for any 

3⁄4-horsepower, four-pole motor. 

(NEMA, No. 24 at p. 24) 

DOE would like to clarify these 

statements. In the NOPR, DOE stated 

‘‘DOE proposes a standard for polyphase 

small motors * * * that is closely 

aligned with the EPACT 1992 standard 

for medium motors.’’ 74 FR 61419–20. 

This text should have read that DOE 

proposed efficiency levels (TSL 5) for 

polyphase small electric motors are 

closely aligned with the NEMA 

Premium efficiency levels for 

1-horsepower, four-pole medium 

electric motors. This statement was 

restated and asserted at other times 

throughout the NOPR document and 

DOE regrets any confusion it may have 

caused. 

In this final rule, due to revisions in 

the baseline efficiencies, modeling of 

higher efficiency motor designs, and 

scaling analysis, TSL 4b now most 

closely aligns with NEMA Premium 

efficiency levels (and medium electric 

motor standards) for motors greater than 

1 horsepower. DOE recognizes the value 

to manufacturers of having a single 

efficiency requirement for similar 

models of motors. Because some 

efficiency values associated with TSL 4b 

are slightly higher than the NEMA 

Premium efficiency requirements, DOE 

is reducing these values to harmonize 

with NEMA Premium efficiency. DOE 

does not anticipate that this reduction 

will result in a significant loss of energy 

savings. For this reason, DOE is 

implementing this change after 

conducting its analyses and in the final 

stage of standard-setting. For further 

detail on the polyphase efficiencies 

analyzed for TSL 4b, see chapter 5 of the 

TSD. 

DOE also understands that NEMA 

Premium levels exist neither for any 

3⁄4-horsepower, four-pole motors nor 

single-phase. DOE drew this comparison 

to NEMA Premium because 

manufacturers had recommended, 

during the preliminary analysis, that 

DOE examine such a standard level for 

its CSCR motor with the aforementioned 

ratings, and the manufacturers used that 

terminology when providing their 

recommendations to DOE. 

In addition, Regal-Beloit and A.O. 

Smith commented that a CSCR motor 

should be able to generate a higher 

efficiency level than a comparable CSIR 

motor, but pointed out that DOE’s NOPR 

proposed efficiency levels would 

require CSIR motors to have higher 

efficiencies than corresponding CSCR 

motors. (Regal-Beloit, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 107–08; A.O. 

Smith, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20.4 at p. 108) NEMA also questioned 

the validity of DOE’s scaling analysis, 

citing the fact that the proposed CSIR 

levels were in fact slightly higher than 

the proposed CSCR levels. (NEMA, No. 

24 at pp. 9–10) They added that though 

DOE indicated that the proposed 

efficiency levels for CSIR and CSCR 

were the same, they were not exactly 

equivalent. (NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 25–26) 

DOE would like to clarify that it was 

not alleging that CSCR motors cannot be 

as efficient as CSIR motors. DOE is 

aware that CSCR motors are inherently 

more efficient than CSIR motors, as 

indicated by the NOPR and final rule’s 

max-tech efficiency levels for these two 

types of motors. DOE had proposed a 

standard level where the pairing of 

efficiency standards for both motor 

categories were approximately 

equivalent. DOE analyzed several TSLs 

for single-phase motors, some of which 

result in higher minimum efficiency 

requirements for CSCR motors than 

CSIR motors. However, as discussed in 

section VI.D, TSL 7, which adopt levels 

for CSIR and CSCR that are 

approximately equivalent, has been 

determined to the level that achieves the 

maximum energy savings, while being 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

In consideration of the comments 

received regarding the exact equivalence 

of the CSIR and CSCR levels, DOE 

believes it appropriate to harmonize the 

levels of the two categories of motors for 

the standard selected in today’s final 

rule. Because the TSL 7 represents the 

maximum technologically feasible level 

for CSIR motors, DOE has opted to 

lower these levels to equal the CSCR 

standard levels for TSL 7. DOE does not 

expect that this shift in CSIR motor 

efficiency will have a significant impact 

on the comparative economics or energy 

savings of the varying TSLs, and thus 

will not change the decision of which 

TSL to adopt. For this reason, DOE has 

decided to apply this efficiency shift at 

the standard-setting phase of the 

analyses. For further detail on the CSIR 

efficiencies analyzed for TSL 7, see 

chapter 5 of the TSD. 

B. Enforcement 

Thus far in the rulemaking process, 

DOE has not laid out any plans for the 

enforcement of efficiency standards for 

small electric motors. Typically, 

efficiency standard rulemakings do not 

outline a plan for enforcement, which 

occurs independently from the 

rulemaking process. 

DOE received a number of comments 

pertaining to the enforcement of today’s 

final rule and what steps DOE will take 

to enforce these efficiency standards. 

Regal-Beloit, A.O. Smith, and WEG all 

expressed the concern that some 

manufacturers, most notably from 

overseas, may not comply with the 

standards, and they wished to see a plan 

for how these standards would be 

enforced. (Regal-Beloit, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 182–83; A.O. 

Smith, No. 26 at p. 3; WEG, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 261– 

66) A joint comment submitted by 

PG&E, SCE, SCGC, and SDGE also 

stressed the importance of developing a 

plan for enforcement. (Joint Comment, 

No. 23 at p. 2) Emerson agreed with the 

joint commenters that a lack of 

enforcement would put the domestic 

manufacturers who comply with today’s 

standard at a disadvantage in the 

marketplace because they would incur 

the costs necessary to increase 

efficiency. (Joint Comment, No. 23 at 

p. 2; Emerson, No. 28 at p. 2) 

Additionally, DOE received 

comments offering suggestions for how 

to improve the enforcement of today’s 

rule. Both Regal-Beloit commented that 

DOE should require a marking on the 

motor to indicate that it complies with 

the efficiency standard, such as is done 

with NEMA Premium motors. (RegalBeloit, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20.4 at pp. 229–30) Regal-Beloit also 

suggested that DOE perform some sort of 

audit of the motors on the market to 

ensure compliance with today’s rule. 

(Regal-Beloit, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at p. 230) Finally, 

Earthjustice requested that today’s final 

rule outline a specific date on which 

DOE will layout plans for enforcement 

of the small electric motors standards. 

(Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 20.4 at pp. 20–21) 

NEMA’s written comment reiterated 

these concerns about enforcement, and 

outlined several steps DOE should take 

to ensure proper compliance. First, it 

recommended that DOE expand its 

present Compliance Certification 

number system that is used for electric 

motors to include small electric motors. 

Second, it recommended a means to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10914 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

notify DOE of potential violations. 

Third, it suggested maintaining a Web 

site that lists manufacturers and OEMs 

who have submitted compliance 

certificates. Fourth, it supported 

penalties for repeat violations of the 

law. Finally, it stressed the importance 

of securing the appropriate funds for 

implementing and maintaining an 

enforcement program. (NEMA, No. 24 at 

pp. 26–27) NEEA and NPCC also 

commented on the importance of 

appropriating funds for enforcement of 

today’s standards. (NEEA/NPCC, No. 27 

at p. 7) 

Additionally, NEMA’s written 

comment indicated that DOE must 

publish the small electric motors 

SNOPR soon in order for manufacturers 

to have sufficient time to ensure 

compliance with today’s standards. 

(NEMA, No. 24 at p. 25) 

DOE agrees that the plans for 

enforcing today’s final rule are very 

important, and appreciates the 

suggestions provided by manufacturers. 

While it is uncommon for a standard 

rulemaking to address issues of 

enforcement, DOE would like to 

highlight its intention to outline 

concrete steps for enforcing today’s 

efficiency standards. Given the 

numerous rulemakings that the agency 

must promulgate pursuant to its court 

consent decree and statutory 

requirements, DOE plans to issue this 

supplemental notice as expeditiously as 

possible to invite comment from 

interested parties and to ensure that the 

motor industry has sufficient time to 

adjust to any new provisions that DOE 

proposes. 

C. Nominal Full-Load Efficiency 

As discussed in section IV.C.2 of 

today’s final rule, it is common in the 

motor industry to observe variation in 

motor performance for a population of 

motors of identical designs, including 

tested efficiency. This variation can be 

due to variations in material quality, 

manufacturing processes, and even 

testing equipment. NEMA has 

established the term ‘‘nominal full-load 

efficiency’’ and uses the term for 

medium electric motors customers with 

a guaranteed efficiency given the 

variations in motor manufacturing and 

testing. As the tolerances due to 

manufacturing and testing variations 

guaranteed by NEMA’s definition of 

nominal full load efficiency are based 

on test procedures and data for medium 

electric motors, DOE elected to alter the 

definition in its NOPR and as it pertains 

to small electric motors. In the NOPR, 

DOE defined the term nominal full-load 

efficiency as the arithmetic mean of the 

full load efficiency of a population of 

motors of duplicate design. 

At the NOPR public meeting, Baldor 

made several comments regarding 

DOE’s proposed definition for ‘‘nominal 

full-load efficiency’’ pertaining to small 

electric motors. First, Baldor 

commented that the proposed definition 

was too similar to the existing definition 

for ‘‘average full-load efficiency,’’ and 

that it differed from the definition in 

NEMA MG–1, which would create 

confusion for users. (Baldor, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 112, 

126–27) Next, Baldor commented that 

the proposed definition provided no 

stipulation for what constitutes a 

population of motors, and suggested 

that the term be clarified. (Baldor, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at 

pp. 112–13) These two comments were 

reiterated by NEMA in its written 

comments. (NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 10–16) 

Finally, Baldor commented that the 

proposed definition infers that the 

arithmetic mean of the full-load 

efficiencies of the population of motors 

is known and that the nominal full-load 

efficiency must be specified to be equal 

to the arithmetic mean, which would 

provide no limit to the number of 

different values of efficiency that might 

be marked on nameplates. As such, 

Baldor requested further clarification on 

the determination of any relationship 

between nominal full-load efficiency 

and calculated efficiency. (Baldor, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at 

pp. 114, 125) 

Additionally, Baldor recommended 

improvements to DOE’s usage of 

nominal full-load efficiency. Baldor 

stated that the standard levels set by 

DOE should follow a pattern similar to 

the one already established in Table 12– 

6(a), which provides a logical sequence 

of numbers, and is familiar to motor 

users. (Baldor, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 129–31) 

Baldor also pointed out that DOE is able 

to use the nominal values in Table 12– 

6(a) without using the minimum values, 

which are just provided for user 

information but not for compliance. 

(Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20.4 at pp. 142–43) Again, NEMA 

supported these statements in its 

written comments. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 

14) Finally, Baldor and NEMA stated 

that DOE does not need to establish 

energy conservation standards in terms 

of nominal efficiency, but rather 

identify the characteristic of the 

efficiency value assigned to a motor to 

which a value in the table applies. 

(Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20.4 at pp. 134–35; NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 

15–16) 

DOE considered all of these 

comments when it established energy 

conservation standards for small electric 

motors in today’s final rule. DOE agrees 

with NEMA and Baldor that its energy 

efficiency standards are not mandated to 

be in terms of nominal full-load 

efficiency. Instead, DOE believes that 

nominal efficiency is an issue more 

related to certifying compliance. 

Therefore, DOE has elected to establish 

energy conservation standards in terms 

of average full-load efficiency. DOE will 

address comments related to nominal 

efficiency and propose provisions for 

certifying compliance with small 

electric motor energy efficiency 

standards in its supplemental test 

procedure NOPR for electric motors. 

VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE examined eight TSLs for 

polyphase small electric motors and 

eight for capacitor-start small motors. 

Table VI.1 and Table VI.2 present the 

TSLs and the corresponding efficiencies 

for the three representative product 

classes analyzed for today’s final rule. 

TSL 8 is the max-tech efficiency level 

for the polyphase motors, and TSL 7 is 

the max-tech level for the capacitor-start 

motors. 

TABLE VI.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

FOR POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC

MOTORS * 

Polyphase 

four-pole 

1-horsepower 

% 

TSL 1 .................................... 77.3 

TSL 2 .................................... 78.3 

TSL 3 .................................... 80.5 

TSL 4 .................................... 81.1 

TSL 4b .................................. 83.5 

TSL 5 .................................... 85.2 

TSL 6 .................................... 86.2 

TSL 7 .................................... 87.7 

* Standard levels are expressed in terms of 

full-load efficiency. 

DOE’s polyphase TSLs represent the 

increasing efficiency of the range of 

motors DOE modeled in its engineering 

analysis. DOE incorporated one 

additional TSL since the NOPR, which 

is the new TSL 4b. This TSL 

approximately aligns with the efficiency 

values proposed by NEMA in their 

written comments. 

TSLs 1, 2, and 3 represent 

incremental improvements in efficiency 

as a result of increasing the stack height 

and the slot fill percentage. TSL 4 

represents the efficiency level possible 

by increasing stack height by 20 percent 

while maintaining the baseline steel 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10915 

grade and an aluminum rotor. TSL 4b 

approximately aligns with the efficiency 

levels proposed by NEMA in its written 

comment, and for the representative 

product class is comparable to the 

efficiency of a three-digit frame series 

medium electric motor that meets the 

efficiency requirements of EPCA. TSL 5 

represents the highest efficiency value 

for a space-constrained design before 

switching to a copper rotor. TSL 6 

represents a level at which DOE has 

reached the 20 percent limit of 

increased stack height, increased grades 

of steel and included a copper die-cast 

rotor. Also, TSL 6 is comparable to the 

efficiency standard of a three-digit frame 

series medium electric motor that meets 

the NEMA Premium level, which 

Congress has set as an energy 

conservation standard for medium 

motors through section 313(b) of EISA 

2007. At TSL 7, the max-tech efficiency 

level, for the restricted designs DOE has 

reached the design limit using the 

maximum increase in stack height of 20 

percent and increased grades of steel. At 

this level, DOE has also implemented a 

premium steel type (Hiperco 50), a 

copper die-cast rotor, a maximum slot 

fill percentage of nearly 65 percent. For 

the lesser space-constrained design, 

DOE has decreased the stack height 

from the design used at TSL 6. This 

design incorporates a copper rotor while 

reaching the design limitation 

maximum slot fill percentage. 

TABLE VI.2—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

FOR CAPACITOR-START SMALL

ELECTRIC MOTORS* 

Capacitorstart, induction-run 

4-pole 0.50 

horsepower 

motors 

(%) 

Capacitorstart, capacitor-run 

4-pole 0.75 

horsepower 

motors 

(%) 

TSL 1 ........ 70.5 (EL 4) 79.5 (EL 2) 

TSL 2 ........ 70.5 (EL 4) 81.7 (EL 3) 

TSL 3 ........ 71.8 (EL 5) 81.7 (EL 3) 

TSL 4 ........ 73.1 (EL 6) 82.8 (EL 4) 

TSL 5 ........ 73.1 (EL 6) 81.7 (EL 3) 

TSL 6 ........ 77.6 (EL 7) 87.9 (EL 8) 

TSL 7 ........ 77.6 (EL 7) 81.7 (EL 3) 

TSL 8 ........ 77.6 (EL 7) 86.7 (EL 7) 

* Standard levels are expressed in terms of 

full-load efficiency. 

Each TSL for capacitor-start small 

motors consists of a combination of 

efficiency levels for induction-run and 

capacitor-run motors. CSIR and CSCR 

motors are used in similar applications 

and generally can be used 

interchangeably provided the 

applications are not bound by strict 

space constraints and will allow the 

presence of a second capacitor housing 

of the motor. DOE believes that the 

standards set by today’s rule will impact 

the relative market share of CSIR and 

CSCR motors for general-purpose singlephase applications by changing the 

upfront cost of motors as well as their 

estimated losses. Section IV.G of this 

final rule and chapter 9 of the TSD 

describe DOE’s model of this market 

dynamic. 

DOE developed seven possible 

efficiency levels for CSIR motors and 

eight possible efficiency levels for CSCR 

motors. Rather than present all possible 

combinations of these efficiency levels, 

DOE chose a representative set of 8 

TSLs that span the range from low 

energy savings to the maximum national 

energy savings. Because of the 

interaction between the CSIR and CSCR 

market share, there is no simple 

relationship between the combination of 

efficiency levels and the resulting 

energy savings. DOE’s capacitor-start 

cross-elasticity model was used to 

evaluate the impacts of each TSL on 

motor shipments in each product class. 

The model predicts that TSLs 1 through 

5 result in relatively minor changes in 

product class market shares, while TSLs 

6, 7, and 8 result in more significant 

changes. Uncertainties in the crosselasticity model, and in the timescale of 

market share response to standards, lead 

to greater uncertainty in the national 

impacts of TSLs 6, 7, and 8, than with 

TSLs 1 through 5. A summary of results 

for all combinations of CSIR and CSCR 

efficiency levels is presented in chapter 

10 of the TSD. 

TSL 1 is a combination consisting of 

the fourth efficiency level analyzed for 

CSIR motors and the second efficiency 

level for CSCR motors. This TSL uses 

similar engineering design options for 

both CSIR and CSCR motors and 

corresponds to an efficiency level 

roughly equivalent to the standards 

levels recommend for 42/48-frame-size 

CSIR motors and 56-frame size CSCR 

motors by NEMA. TSL 2 increases the 

efficiency level of the CSCR motor to the 

third efficiency level, which 

corresponds to the minimum life-cycle 

cost. The efficiency level for the CSIR 

motor remains the same as in TSL 1. 

TSL 3 raises the CSIR efficiency level, 

which DOE’s model meets by 

implementing a copper die-cast rotor, 

increasing slot fill, and reaching the 20 

percent limit on increased stack height, 

or by doubling the original stack height 

and increasing slot fill. However, the 

CSCR efficiency level remains at the 

minimum LCC. 

TSLs 4 and 5 both show the same 

efficiency level for CSIR motors, but 

different efficiency levels for CSCR 

motors. To obtain the efficiency level for 

CSIR motors, DOE had to use either a 

copper rotor in combination with a 

thinner and higher grade of steel and a 

stack increase of 20 percent, or only a 

higher grade of steel with a stack 

exceeding a 20-percent increase but no 

longer than a 100-percent increase. The 

82.2-percent efficiency level for CSCR 

motors in TSL 5 corresponds again to 

the same design and efficiency level for 

TSL 2 and 3. To achieve the 83.2- 

percent efficiency level for CSCR motors 

in TSL 4, DOE created designs with a 

20-percent increase in stack height and 

a higher grade of steel or used a copper 

rotor with a stack height above a 20- 

percent increase. TSL 4 represents the 

combination of the highest CSIR and 

CSCR levels that have more customers 

who benefit than customers who do not 

according to DOE’s LCC analysis. TSL 5 

increases energy savings relative to TSL 

4 because DOE anticipates there will be 

a greater CSCR market share, and the 

CSCR efficiency level again corresponds 

with the minimum LCC. 

TSL 6 represents max-tech efficiency 

levels for CSIR and CSCR motors, as 

determined by DOE’s engineering 

analysis; at this level CSCR motors are 

very expensive relative to CSIR motors, 

and DOE forecasts a nearly complete 

market shift to CSIR motors. TSLs 7 and 

8 represent cases in which CSIR motors 

are, on average, very expensive relative 

to CSCR motors as a result of standards, 

and DOE forecasts near-to-complete 

market shifts to CSCR motors in both of 

its reference scenarios. Because CSCR 

motors are more efficient at these levels, 

national energy savings are increased 

beyond that of the max-tech efficiency 

level, TSL 6. TSL 7 pairs the max-tech 

efficiency requirements for CSIR motors 

with the minimum LCC efficiency level 

for CSCR motors, while TSL 8 pairs 

max-tech CSIR efficiency requirements 

with the second-highest CSCR motor 

efficiency level that DOE analyzed. The 

ordering of TSLs 5, 6, 7, and 8, with 

respect to energy savings is robust in the 

face of uncertainties in the inputs to, 

and the parameters of, DOE’s crosselasticity model. 

B. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

through year 2045 from potential 

standards, DOE compared the energy 

consumption attributable to small 

electric motors under the base case (no 

new standards) to energy consumption 

attributable to this equipment under 

each standards case (each TSL that DOE 

has considered). Table VI.3 and Table 

VI.4 show DOE’s national energy 

savings estimates, which are based on 

the AEO 2010 Early Release, for each 

TSL for polyphase and capacitor-start 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10916 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

small electric motors, respectively. 

Chapter 10 of the TSD describes these 

estimates in more detail. DOE reports 

both undiscounted and discounted 

values of energy savings. Discounted 

energy savings represent a policy 

perspective where energy savings 

farther in the future are less significant 

than energy savings closer to the 

present. 

Estimating the energy savings due to 

revised and new energy efficiency 

standards required DOE to compare the 

energy consumption of small electric 

motors under the base case to energy 

consumption of these products under 

the trial standard levels. As described in 

section IV.G DOE used scaling relations 

for energy use and equipment price to 

extend its average energy use and price 

for representative product classes 

(analyzed in the LCC analysis) to all 

product classes, and then developed 

shipment-weighted sums to estimate the 

national energy savings. As described in 

section IV.G, DOE conducted separate 

national impact analyses for polyphase 

and capacitor-start (single-phase) 

motors. Efficiency standards for CSIR 

and CSCR motors are reflected in the 

capacitor-start energy savings and NPV 

results, which account for the 

interchangeability of CSIR and CSCR 

motors in many applications. 

Table VI.3 and Table VI.4 show the 

forecasted national energy savings 

through year 2045 at each of the TSLs. 

The tables also show the magnitude of 

the energy savings if the savings are 

discounted at rates of seven and three 

percent. The energy savings 

(undiscounted) from implementing 

standards for polyphase small electric 

motors range from 0.05 to 0.37 quad and 

the savings for capacitor-start small 

electric motors range from 1.18 to 2.33 

quads. 

TABLE VI.3—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

[Energy savings between 2015 and 2045] 

Trial standard level 

National energy savings (quads) 

Not discounted Discounted at 3% Discounted at 7% 

1 ................................................................................................................................. 0.05 0.03 0.01 

2 ................................................................................................................................. 0.09 0.05 0.02 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 0.17 0.09 0.04 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 0.19 0.10 0.05 

4b ............................................................................................................................... 0.29 0.15 0.07 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 0.34 0.18 0.09 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 0.37 0.19 0.09 

7 ................................................................................................................................. 0.37 0.20 0.09 

TABLE VI.4—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CAPACITOR-START SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

[Energy savings between 2015 and 2045] 

Trial standard level 

National energy savings (quads) 

Not discounted Discounted at 3% Discounted at 7% 

1 ................................................................................................................................. 1.18 0.63 0.31 

2 ................................................................................................................................. 1.19 0.64 0.31 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 1.36 0.73 0.36 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 1.47 0.79 0.39 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 1.47 0.79 0.39 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 1.61 0.87 0.43 

7 ................................................................................................................................. 1.91 1.03 0.51 

8 ................................................................................................................................. 2.33 1.25 0.62 

DOE conducted a wide range of 

sensitivity analyses, including scenarios 

demonstrating the effects of variation in 

shipments, response of customers to 

higher motor prices, the cost of 

electricity due to a carbon cap and trade 

regime, reactive power costs, and (for 

capacitor-start motors) the dynamics of 

CSIR/CSCR consumer choice. These 

scenarios show a range of possible 

outcomes from projected energy 

conservation standards, and illustrate 

the sensitivity of these results to 

different input and modeling 

assumptions. In general, however, they 

do not dramatically change the 

relationship between results at one TSL 

with those at another TSL and the 

relative economic savings and energy 

savings of different TSLs remain 

roughly the same. The estimated overall 

magnitude of savings, however, can 

change substantially, which can be due 

to a change in the estimated total 

number of small electric motors in use. 

Details of each scenario are available in 

chapter 10 of the TSD and its 

appendices, along with the national 

energy savings estimated for each 

scenario. 

Customers currently appear to favor 

CSIR motors over CSCR motors, even if 

their initial costs and losses are almost 

identical. DOE’s market-share model 

includes an ‘‘unfamiliarity cost’’ 

parameter that attempts to account for 

this observed behavior. For the 

shipments sensitivity analysis, DOE 

analyzed the total energy savings from 

capacitor-start motors when this 

unfamiliarity cost is significantly lower 

(high CSCR model) or higher (low CSCR 

model) than DOE’s reference case. These 

scenarios can have a significant impact 

on the relative energy savings in 

different TSLs. Table VI.5 shows the 

results for the national energy savings 

(through year 2045) in these scenarios. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10917 

TABLE VI.5—UNDISCOUNTED CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CAPACITOR-START SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

UNDER DIFFERENT CSIR/CSCR MARKET SHARE SCENARIOS

[Energy savings between years 2015 and 2045] 

Trial standard level 

National energy savings quads 

Low CSCR 

scenario 

Reference 

scenario 

High CSCR 

scenario 

1 ................................................................................................................................. 1.17 1.18 1.30 

2 ................................................................................................................................. 1.17 1.19 1.38 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 1.34 1.36 1.52 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 1.43 1.47 1.67 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 1.43 1.47 1.65 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 1.61 1.61 1.62 

7 ................................................................................................................................. 1.87 1.91 1.92 

8 ................................................................................................................................. 2.17 2.33 2.37 

C. Economic Justification 

In examining the potential for energy 

savings for small electric motors, DOE 

analyzed whether standards would be 

economically justified. As part of this 

examination, a variety of elements were 

examined. These elements are based on 

the various criteria specified in EPCA. 

See generally, 42 U.S.C. 6295. 

1. Economic Impact on Motor 

Customers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on small electric motor customers by 

looking at the effects standards would 

have on the LCC, PBP, and on various 

subgroups. DOE also examined the 

effects of the rebuttable presumption 

payback period set out in 42 U.S.C. 

6295. All of these analyses are discussed 

below. 

a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period 

Customers of equipment affected by 

new or amended standards usually 

experience higher purchase prices and 

lower operating costs. Generally, these 

impacts are best captured by changes in 

life-cycle costs. Therefore, DOE 

calculated the LCC and PBP for the 

standards levels considered in this 

proceeding. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses provided five key outputs for 

each TSL, which are reported in Table 

VI.6 through Table VI.8 below. The first 

three outputs are the proportion of small 

motor purchases where the purchase of 

a design that complies with the TSL 

would create a net life-cycle cost, no 

impact, or a net life-cycle savings for the 

consumer. The fourth output is the 

average net life-cycle savings from the 

purchase of a complying design. 

Finally, the fifth output is the average 

PBP for the consumer purchase of a 

design that complies with the TSL. The 

PBP is the number of years it would take 

for the customer to recover, as a result 

of energy savings, the increased costs of 

higher-efficiency equipment, based on 

the operating cost savings from the first 

year of ownership. The payback period 

is an economic benefit-cost measure that 

uses benefits and costs without 

discounting. DOE’s PBP analysis and its 

analysis under the rebuttable 

presumption test both address the 

payback period for a standard. DOE 

based its estimates of the average PBPs 

for small electric motors on energy 

consumption under conditions of actual 

use of these motors and also analyzed 

the amount of energy consumption for 

purposes of the rebuttable presumption 

calculations using the conditions 

prescribed by the DOE test procedure. 

See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii). 

Moreover, as discussed above, while 

DOE examined the rebuttablepresumption criteria (see TSD section 

VI.C.1.d), it determined today’s standard 

levels to be economically justified 

through a more detailed analysis of the 

economic impacts of increased 

efficiency pursuant to section 

325(o)(2)(B)(i) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) Detailed information on 

the LCC and PBP analyses can be found 

in TSD Chapter 8. 

DOE analyzed the life-cycle cost for 

three representative motors, as shown in 

Table VI.6 through Table VI.8. A Monte 

Carlo simulation was performed to 

incorporate uncertainty and variability 

into the analysis. A random sample of 

10,000 motors was drawn from the 

distributions of current national 

shipments by motor type, application, 

owner type, operating hours, and other 

inputs, using Crystal Ball, a 

commercially available software 

program. The model calculated the LCC 

and PBP for equipment at each 

efficiency level for each of the 10,000 

motors sampled. For a 1-horsepower 

polyphase motor, customers experience 

net LCC savings, on average, through 

efficiency level 4b. Efficiency level 3 

has the minimum average life-cycle 

cost. For a 1⁄2-horsepower CSIR motor, 

customers experience net LCC savings, 

on average, through efficiency level 6. 

CSIR efficiency level 4 has the 

minimum average life-cycle cost. For a 

3⁄4-horsepower CSCR motor, customers 

experience net LCC savings, on average, 

through efficiency level 5. CSCR 

efficiency level 3 has the greatest 

average life-cycle cost savings. The 

average payback periods in the tables 

are substantially longer than the median 

payback periods because a fraction of 

customers run their motors very few 

hours per year. This results in 

extraordinarily long payback periods for 

this fraction of customers and results in 

average payback periods that far exceed 

the median payback period. DOE 

believes that the median payback period 

represents the anticipated experience of 

the typical customer more accurately 

than the average payback period. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10918 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.6—POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR A ONE

HORSEPOWER MOTOR

Energy efficiency level Efficiency 

% 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy 

use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost 

$ 

Average 

savings 

$ 

Customers with 

Net cost Average Median 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

Baseline ..................................... 74.0 517 1,892 130 1,268 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1 ................................................ 76.1 530 1,729 127 1,261 8 46.8 53.2 21.8 7.1 

2 ................................................ 77.7 537 1,686 123 1,249 19 41.3 58.7 17.8 5.8 

3 ................................................ 79.4 549 1,630 119 1,237 31 40.6 59.4 17.7 5.6 

4 ................................................ 80.1 558 1,615 118 1,240 29 45.1 54.9 20.4 6.5 

4b .............................................. 82.6 589 1,540 113 1,240 28 51.2 48.8 24.8 7.8 

5 ................................................ 84.4 655 1,508 110 1,291 ¥23 65.8 34.3 41.5 12.4 

6 ................................................ 85.3 711 1,488 109 1,339 ¥71 77.4 22.6 54.2 16.9 

7 ................................................ 87.0 1,477 1,462 107 2,095 ¥827 96.8 3.2 243.0 51.1 

TABLE VI.7—CAPACITOR-START INDUCTION-RUN MOTORS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR A

ONE-HALF HORSEPOWER MOTOR

Energy efficiency level Efficiency 

% 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost 

$ 

Average 

savings 

$ 

Customers with 

Net cost Average Median 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

Baseline ..................................... 59.0 494 1,250 91 915 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1 ................................................ 62.2 502 1,170 85 896 19 27 73 8.6 2.7 

2 ................................................ 64.5 508 1,116 81 884 31 28 72 8.8 2.8 

3 ................................................ 66.7 511 1,064 77 869 46 24 76 7.5 2.3 

4 ................................................ 71.5 529 976 71 857 58 32 68 10.5 3.2 

5 ................................................ 72.7 549 951 69 868 47 42 58 15.1 4.7 

6 ................................................ 74.0 593 920 67 902 13 55 45 24.9 7.2 

7 ................................................ 78.4 996 860 63 1,285 ¥369 66 34 108.2 12.4 

TABLE VI.8—CAPACITOR-START CAPACITOR-RUN MOTORS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR A

THREE-QUARTER HORSEPOWER MOTOR

Energy efficiency level Efficiency 

% 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy 

use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost 

$ 

Average 

savings 

$ 

Customers with 

Net cost Average Median 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

Baseline ..................................... 72.0 548 1,425 104 1,026 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1 ................................................ 75.7 559 1,360 99 1,014 12 36 64 13.4 4.3 

2 ................................................ 80.0 587 1,250 91 1,005 21 46 54 18.5 5.8 

3 ................................................ 82.2 599 1,205 88 1,002 24 48 52 19.1 5.9 

4 ................................................ 83.2 612 1,214 88 1,015 11 55 45 24.4 7.8 

5 ................................................ 84.5 630 1,201 88 1,029 ¥3 62 38 29.5 9.4 

6 ................................................ 85.2 670 1,179 86 1,062 ¥36 70 30 40.3 11.8 

7 ................................................ 87.1 697 1,146 84 1,078 ¥52 75 25 43.5 13.1 

8 ................................................ 88.4 1,485 1,115 81 1,856 ¥830 99 1 250.0 49.0 

DOE analyzed the average life-cycle 

cost for a shipment-weighted 

distribution of product classes, as 

shown in Table VI.9, Table VI.10 and 

Table VI.11. The results in these tables 

account for motors of different 

horsepower and pole configuration from 

the three representative motors shown 

in Table VI.6 through Table VI.8. 

TABLE VI.9—POLYPHASE MOTORS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR A SHIPMENT-WEIGHTED

PRODUCT CLASS DISTRIBUTION

Energy efficiency level Efficiency 

% 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost 

$ 

Average 

savings 

$ 

Customers with 

Net cost Average Median 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

Baseline ..................................... 78.8 515 1934 139.52 1,323 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1 ................................................ 80.6 528 1883 135.85 1,314 9 44.7 55.3 21.1 6.6 

2 ................................................ 82.0 535 1836 132.45 1,302 22 39.2 60.8 17.2 5.3 

3 ................................................ 83.4 547 1775 128.07 1,287 36 38.7 61.3 17.1 5.2 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10919 

TABLE VI.9—POLYPHASE MOTORS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR A SHIPMENT-WEIGHTED

PRODUCT CLASS DISTRIBUTION—Continued 

Energy efficiency level Efficiency 

% 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy 

use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost 

$ 

Average 

savings 

$ 

Customers with 

Net cost Average Median 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

4 ................................................ 84.0 556 1759 126.91 1,289 34 42.7 57.3 19.6 6.0 

4b .............................................. 86.1 587 1678 121.06 1,288 36 49.2 50.8 23.9 7.3 

5 ................................................ 87.6 651 1643 118.52 1,337 ¥13 63.2 36.8 39.1 11.5 

6 ................................................ 88.4 707 1622 116.99 1,383 ¥60 74.8 25.2 51.8 15.7 

7 ................................................ 89.7 1,465 1594 114.96 2,131 ¥808 96.2 3.8 220.4 47.8 

TABLE VI.10—CAPACITOR-START INDUCTION-RUN MOTORS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR A

SHIPMENT-WEIGHTED PRODUCT CLASS DISTRIBUTION

Energy efficiency level 

Average 

efficiency 

% 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost 

$ 

Average 

savings 

$ 

Customers with 

Net cost Average Median 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

Baseline ..................................... 49.9 496 1265 92.12 920 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1 ................................................ 53.2 504 1182 86.03 900 20 26.9 73.1 8.5 2.5 

2 ................................................ 55.7 510 1125 81.89 888 33 27.7 72.3 8.7 2.6 

3 ................................................ 58.1 513 1071 77.96 871 49 24.0 76.0 7.4 2.2 

4 ................................................ 63.5 531 979 71.28 859 62 30.7 69.3 10.4 3.1 

5 ................................................ 64.8 551 953 69.40 870 51 40.2 59.8 14.9 4.5 

6 ................................................ 66.3 595 920 67.00 903 17 54.1 45.9 24.5 7.0 

7 ................................................ 71.5 1,000 858 62.48 1,287 ¥367 65.1 34.9 104.4 11.7 

TABLE VI.11—CAPACITOR-START CAPACITOR-RUN MOTORS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR A

SHIPMENT-WEIGHTED PRODUCT CLASS DISTRIBUTION

Energy efficiency level 

Average 

efficiency 

% 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost 

$ 

Average 

savings 

$ 

Customers with 

Net cost Average Median 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

Baseline ..................................... 73.2 582 2310 167.38 1,349 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1 ................................................ 76.7 594 2208 160.02 1,325 24 29.3 70.7 10.9 3.3 

2 ................................................ 80.9 626 2036 147.55 1,299 50 38.4 61.6 14.9 4.4 

3 ................................................ 83.0 639 1965 142.43 1,289 60 39.7 60.3 15.4 4.6 

4 ................................................ 84.0 653 1979 143.43 1,304 45 46.1 53.9 19.8 5.9 

5 ................................................ 85.2 673 1959 141.96 1,318 32 52.6 47.4 23.9 7.2 

6 ................................................ 85.9 719 1923 139.37 1,351 ¥1 60.2 39.9 32.5 8.9 

7 ................................................ 87.8 749 1873 135.72 1,364 ¥15 65.1 35.0 35.1 10.1 

8 ................................................ 89.0 1,629 1824 132.17 2,228 ¥879 94.7 5.3 200.0 36.4 

b. Life-Cycle Cost Sensitivity 

Calculations 

DOE made sensitivity calculations for 

the case where CSIR motor owners 

switch to CSCR motors. DOE reports the 

details of the sensitivity calculations in 

chapter 8 of the TSD and the 

accompanying appendices. Section 

VI.C.1.a above describes the relationship 

between efficiency levels for the two 

categories of capacitor-start motors and 

the TSLs. For TSLs where there is a 

large increase in first cost for CSIR 

motors and only a moderate increase in 

price for CSCR motors, DOE forecasts 

that a large fraction of CSIR motor 

customers will switch to CSCR motors. 

Table VI.12 shows the shipmentsweighted average of the LCC for CSIR 

motors including those users that switch 

to CSCR. The table shows that a 

negative average LCC is forecast for TSL 

6, the level at which both CSIR and 

CSCR motors are at the maximum 

technologically feasible efficiency for 

space-constrained designs, and at TSL 8, 

the level with the greatest energy 

savings. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10920 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.12—CAPACITOR-START INDUCTION-RUN MOTORS: SHIPMENT-WEIGHTED LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK

PERIOD RESULTS FOR A ONE-HALF HORSEPOWER MOTOR WITH SWITCHING TO CSCR 

Trial standard level 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy 

use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average life 

cycle cost 

$ 

Average 

savings 

$ 

Customers with 

Net cost 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

Baseline 

1 ................................................. 528 969 70.8 854 58 32.5 67.5 

2 ................................................. 528 969 70.8 854 58 32.5 67.5 

3 ................................................. 547 945 69.0 865 47 41.7 58.3 

4 ................................................. 590 913 66.7 897 15 55.0 45.0 

5 ................................................. 589 913 66.7 897 15 55.0 45.0 

6 ................................................. 994 854 62.4 1,282 ¥370 66.0 34.0 

7 ................................................. 601 863 63.1 891 23 53.7 46.3 

8 ................................................. 633 847 61.9 917 ¥3 60.6 39.4 

Additional sensitivity analyses 

examined the magnitude by which the 

estimates varied when the results of the 

NEMA survey of OEMs (motor 

distributions by application and sector, 

operating hours, and the fraction of 

motors that are space-constrained in 

their applications) were used. Other 

sensitivities were conducted by varying 

inputs such as the cost of electricity, the 

purchase year of the motor, the motor 

capacity, the number of poles and other 

inputs and assumptions of the analysis. 

DOE reports the details of all of the 

sensitivity calculations in chapter 8 of 

the TSD and the accompanying 

appendices. 

As discussed in section IV.E.1 above, 

NEMA submitted the results of a survey 

of their OEM customers that install 

motors covered by today’s rule in their 

products. The survey reports 

distributions by application and owner 

type, estimates of annual hours of 

operation, and the fraction of motors 

that are space-constrained. NEMA also 

provided information on a sixth 

application not included in DOE’s 

NOPR, service industry motors. DOE ran 

a sensitivity analysis using the data 

NEMA provided on motor distributions. 

Under this sensitivity, LCC savings are 

reduced and payback periods are 

increased for polyphase and CSCR 

motor customers, while LCC savings are 

increased and payback periods reduced 

for CSIR motor customers. This is the 

result of average operating hours of 

polyphase and CSCR motors being 

reduced by about 30 percent from the 

DOE reference case, while operating 

hours of CSIR motors are increased by 

about 10 percent. 

Details on these and other LCC 

sensitivity cases can be found in TSD 

appendix 8A. 

c. Customer Subgroup Analysis 

Using the LCC spreadsheet model, 

DOE estimated the impacts of the TSLs 

on the following customer subgroups: 

Small businesses and customers with 

space-constrained applications. DOE 

analyzed the small business subgroup 

because this group has typically had 

less access to capital than larger 

businesses, which results in higher 

financing costs and a higher discount 

rate than the industry average. 74 FR 

61442, 61459. DOE estimated the LCC 

and PBP for the small business 

subgroup, as shown in Table VI.13 

through Table VI.15. The analysis 

indicates that the small business 

subgroup is expected to have lower LCC 

savings and longer payback periods than 

the industry average. 

Chapter 12 of the TSD provides more 

detailed discussion on the LCC 

subgroup analysis and results. 

TABLE VI.13—POLYPHASE MOTORS: SMALL BUSINESS CUSTOMER SUBGROUP

Energy efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost savings 

$ 

Consumers with 

Net cost Average Median 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

Baseline ......................................................... 516 1888 137.84 1,192 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1 .................................................................... 529 1838 134.21 1,186 6 51.9 48.1 22.0 6.9 

2 .................................................................... 536 1792 130.85 1,177 15 46.1 54.0 18.0 5.6 

3 .................................................................... 548 1733 126.54 1,167 25 45.5 54.5 17.9 5.5 

4 .................................................................... 556 1718 125.39 1,170 22 49.7 50.3 20.6 6.3 

4b .................................................................. 588 1639 119.63 1,174 18 56.5 43.5 25.1 7.7 

5 .................................................................... 652 1604 117.13 1,226 ¥34 69.6 30.4 41.8 12.2 

6 .................................................................... 708 1584 115.60 1,274 ¥82 80.2 19.9 54.7 16.7 

7 .................................................................... 1,460 1557 113.63 2,017 ¥825 97.4 2.6 243.1 50.2 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10921 

TABLE VI.14—CAPACITOR-START INDUCTION RUN MOTORS: SMALL BUSINESS CUSTOMER SUBGROUP

Energy efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy 

use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost savings 

$ 

Consumers with 

Net cost Average Median 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

Baseline ......................................................... 497 1261 91.33 869 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1 .................................................................... 506 1178 85.28 852 16 31.3 68.7 8.5 2.6 

2 .................................................................... 512 1121 81.16 842 27 32.4 67.6 8.7 2.7 

3 .................................................................... 514 1067 77.25 828 41 28.0 72.0 7.4 2.3 

4 .................................................................... 533 976 70.63 819 50 35.8 64.2 10.4 3.2 

5 .................................................................... 553 950 68.75 832 37 45.3 54.7 14.9 4.6 

6 .................................................................... 597 917 66.37 866 3 58.6 41.4 24.7 7.1 

7 .................................................................... 995 855 61.89 1,246 ¥377 68.5 31.5 108.4 11.9 

TABLE VI.15 CAPACITOR-START CAPACITOR RUN MOTORS: SMALL BUSINESS CUSTOMER SUBGROUP

Energy efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost savings 

$ 

Consumers with 

Net cost Average Median 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

CSCR Baseline ............................................. 586 2339 169.80 1,273 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1 .................................................................... 598 2236 162.36 1,253 20 33.6 66.4 10.8 3.3 

2 .................................................................... 630 2062 149.73 1,234 39 43.4 56.6 15.0 4.4 

3 .................................................................... 643 1991 144.55 1,226 47 44.7 55.3 15.5 4.6 

4 .................................................................... 657 2005 145.59 1,241 32 51.1 48.9 19.7 6.0 

5 .................................................................... 678 1985 144.09 1,256 17 58.0 42.0 23.9 7.3 

6 .................................................................... 723 1949 141.51 1,290 ¥17 65.1 34.9 32.8 9.1 

7 .................................................................... 754 1898 137.82 1,306 ¥33 69.7 30.4 35.4 10.2 

8 .................................................................... 1,633 1849 134.23 2,171 ¥898 96.0 4.0 205.3 37.3 

DOE has analyzed customers with 

space-constrained applications, i.e., 

customers whose motor stack length can 

increase by no more than 20 percent, 

because they cannot realize the full 

economic benefit of efficiency 

improvements in small electric motors. 

Increasing the stack length of small 

motors is one way to improve their 

efficiency. But customers with spaceconstrained applications cannot 

increase the stack length of the motors 

they use without being subject to 

burdens to which other small motor 

users are not. Furthermore, although 

small electric motors without increased 

stack length could meet the TSLs DOE 

has evaluated in this rulemaking, such 

motors use other, more costly design 

options. Table VI.16 through Table 

VI.18 show the mean LCC savings and 

the mean PBP (in years) for equipment 

that meets the energy conservation 

standards in today’s final rule for the 

subgroup of customers with spaceconstrained applications. 

The analysis indicates that the 

economic benefits of efficiency 

improvements in small electric motors 

will be lower for customers subject to 

space constraints than for those who do 

not face such constraints, as well as for 

the industry average, particularly for 

motors at the higher efficiency levels. 

For the standard levels promulgated by 

today’s rule, customers will still realize 

net benefits from space-constrained 

polyphase and CSCR motors, but not 

from space-constrained CSIR motors. 

OEMs whose applications have space 

constraints can replace a less efficient 

CSIR motor with a more efficient CSCR 

motor without increasing stack length, 

and still realize net benefits, as shown 

in Table VI.12 above. If these 

applications cannot accommodate a 

motor with a run capacitor, OEMs can 

either redesign their application to 

accommodate a CSCR motor, purchase a 

stockpile of motors not covered by 

today’s rule to install in future 

production of their application, or 

replace their motor with a fully 

enclosed motor not covered by today’s 

rule. 

Chapter 11 of the TSD explains DOE’s 

method for conducting the customer 

subgroup analysis and presents the 

detailed results of that analysis. 

TABLE VI.16—POLYPHASE MOTORS: SPACE-CONSTRAINED APPLICATIONS SUBGROUP

Energy efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost savings 

$ 

Consumers with 

Net cost Average Median 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

Baseline ......................................................... 512 1903 140.60 1,318 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1 .................................................................... 524 1853 136.90 1,308 9 45.6 54.4 21.5 6.8 

2 .................................................................... 531 1807 133.49 1,296 22 40.2 59.8 17.5 5.5 

3 .................................................................... 543 1748 129.13 1,282 36 39.6 60.4 17.4 5.4 

4 .................................................................... 552 1732 127.96 1,284 34 43.7 56.3 20.0 6.3 

4b .................................................................. 582 1650 121.98 1,280 37 49.7 50.3 24.2 7.5 

5 .................................................................... 756 1610 119.00 1,437 ¥120 84.8 15.2 71.8 22.3 

6 .................................................................... 769 1590 117.55 1,441 ¥123 84.3 15.7 70.7 22.1 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10922 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.16—POLYPHASE MOTORS: SPACE-CONSTRAINED APPLICATIONS SUBGROUP—Continued 

Energy efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy 

use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost savings 

$ 

Consumers with 

Net cost Average Median 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

7 .................................................................... 3,548 1543 114.11 4,201 ¥2,883 100.0 0.0 728.2 226.0 

TABLE VI.17—CAPACITOR-START INDUCTION RUN MOTORS: SPACE-CONSTRAINED APPLICATIONS CUSTOMER SUBGROUP

Energy efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy 

use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost savings 

$ 

Consumers with 

Net cost Average Median 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

Baseline ......................................................... 494 1274 92.66 923 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1 .................................................................... 503 1190 86.56 903 20 26.7 73.3 8.5 2.6 

2 .................................................................... 509 1133 82.42 890 33 27.5 72.5 8.8 2.6 

3 .................................................................... 511 1079 78.48 873 49 23.6 76.4 7.5 2.2 

4 .................................................................... 539 976 71.00 867 56 37.2 62.8 12.9 3.9 

5 .................................................................... 544 955 69.45 864 58 38.0 62.0 13.4 4.0 

6 .................................................................... 665 925 67.28 976 ¥53 74.0 26.0 42.3 12.6 

7 .................................................................... 2,559 848 61.68 2,843 ¥1,921 100.0 0.0 418.9 124.7 

TABLE VI.18—CAPACITOR-START CAPACITOR RUN MOTORS: SPACE-CONSTRAINED APPLICATIONS CUSTOMER SUBGROUP

Energy efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average installed price 

$ 

Average annual energy 

use 

kWh 

Average annual operating cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost 

$ 

Average 

life-cycle 

cost savings 

$ 

Consumers with 

Net cost Average Median 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

Baseline ......................................................... 579 2313 167.74 1,355 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1 .................................................................... 591 2212 160.38 1,331 24 29.2 70.8 10.9 3.3 

2 .................................................................... 633 2053 148.85 1,320 35 47.4 52.6 19.0 5.8 

3 .................................................................... 645 1998 144.88 1,312 43 47.2 52.8 19.2 5.9 

4 .................................................................... 653 1991 144.36 1,316 40 49.3 50.7 21.1 6.5 

5 .................................................................... 671 1981 143.61 1,330 26 55.4 44.6 25.3 7.8 

6 .................................................................... 839 1914 138.80 1,476 ¥121 84.3 15.7 60.1 18.4 

7 .................................................................... 854 1862 135.02 1,473 ¥118 82.5 17.5 56.3 17.1 

8 .................................................................... 3,992 1815 131.61 4,597 ¥3,242 100.0 0.0 634.4 193.1 

d. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section III.D.2, EPCA 

provides a rebuttable presumption that, 

in essence, an energy conservation 

standard is economically justified if the 

increased purchase cost for a product 

that meets the standard is less than 

three times the value of the first-year 

energy savings resulting from the 

standard. However, DOE routinely 

conducts a full economic analysis that 

considers the full range of impacts, 

including those to the customer, 

manufacturer, Nation, and environment, 

as required under 42 U.S.C. 

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

6316(e)(1). The results of this analysis 

serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate 

definitively the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). 

For comparison with the more 

detailed analysis results, DOE 

calculated a rebuttable presumption 

payback period for each TSL. Table 

VI.19 and Table VI.20 show the 

rebuttable presumption payback periods 

for the representative product classes. 

No polyphase TSL has a rebuttable 

presumption payback period of less 

than 3 years. For CSIR and CSCR 

motors, TSLs 1 through 3 have 

rebuttable presumption payback periods 

of less than 3 years. 

TABLE VI.19—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS FOR REPRESENTATIVE POLYPHASE SMALL

ELECTRIC MOTORS (1 HP, 4 POLES) 

TSL Payback 

period years 

1 ............................................ 3.3 

2 ............................................ 3.0 

3 ............................................ 3.3 

4 ............................................ 3.8 

4b .......................................... 4.9 

5 ............................................ 7.9 

6 ............................................ 10.2 

7 ............................................ 45.7 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10923 

TABLE VI.20—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS FOR REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITOR-START SMALL ELECTRIC

MOTORS

TSL 

Induction-run (1⁄2 hp, 4 poles) Capacitor-run (3⁄4 hp 4 poles) 

CSIR level Payback period 

years CSCR level Payback period years 

1 ....................................................................................................... 4 1.7 2 1.5 

2 ....................................................................................................... 4 1.7 3 2.7 

3 ....................................................................................................... 5 2.5 3 2.7 

4 ....................................................................................................... 6 4.1 4 3.3 

5 ....................................................................................................... 6 4.1 3 2.7 

6 ....................................................................................................... 7 17.7 8 35.5 

7 ....................................................................................................... 7 17.7 3 2.7 

8 ....................................................................................................... 7 17.7 7 6.0 

2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

For the NOPR, DOE used the INPV in 

the MIA to compare the financial 

impacts of different TSLs on small 

electric motor manufacturers. 74 FR 

61464–69. The INPV is the sum of all 

net cash flows discounted by the 

industry’s cost of capital (discount rate). 

DOE used the GRIM to compare the 

INPV of the base case (no new energy 

conservation standards) to that of each 

TSL for the small electric motor 

industry. To evaluate the range of cashflow impacts on this industry, DOE 

constructed different scenarios using 

two different assumptions for 

manufacturer markups: (1) The 

preservation-of-return-on-investedcapital scenario, and (2) the 

preservation-of-operating-profit 

(absolute dollars) scenario. These two 

scenarios correspond to the range of 

anticipated market responses, and 

results in a unique set of cash flows and 

corresponding industry value at each 

TSL. These steps allowed DOE to 

compare the potential impacts on the 

industry as a function of TSLs in the 

GRIM. The difference in INPV between 

the base case and the standards case is 

an estimate of the economic impacts 

that implementing that standard level 

would have on the entire industry. For 

today’s notice, DOE continues to use the 

above methodology and presents the 

results in the subsequent sections. See 

chapter 12 of the TSD for additional 

information on MIA methodology and 

results. 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

Using the two different markup 

scenarios, DOE estimated the impact of 

new standards for small electric motors 

on the INPV of the small electric motors 

manufacturing industry. The impact 

consists of the difference between the 

INPV in the base case and the INPV in 

the standards case. INPV is the primary 

metric used in the MIA, and represents 

one measure of the fair value of the 

industry in today’s dollars. DOE 

calculated the INPV by summing all of 

the annual net cash flows, discounted at 

the small electric motor industry’s cost 

of capital or discount rate. 

To assess the lower end of the range 

of potential impacts for the small 

electric motor industry, DOE considered 

a scenario where a manufacturer’s 

percentage return on working capital 

and capital invested in fixed assets (net 

plant, property, and equipment), the 

year after the new energy conservation 

standards become effective, is the same 

as in the base case. This scenario is 

called the preservation-of-return-oninvested-capital scenario. To assess the 

higher end of the range of potential 

impacts for the small electric motor 

industry, DOE considered a scenario in 

which the absolute dollar amount of the 

industry’s base-case operating profit 

(earnings before interest and taxes) 

remains the same and does not increase 

in the year after implementation of the 

standards. This scenario is called the 

preservation-of-operating-profit 

(absolute dollars) scenario. For both 

markup scenarios, DOE considered the 

same reference shipment scenario found 

in the NIA. Table VI.21 through Table 

VI.24 show the range of changes in 

INPV that DOE estimates could result 

from the TSLs DOE considered for this 

final rule. The results present the 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards for polyphase small electric 

motors separately and combine the 

impacts for CSIR and CSCR small 

electric motors. The tables also present 

the equipment conversion costs and 

capital conversion costs that the 

industry would incur at each TSL. 

TABLE VI.21—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

[Preservation of return on invested capital markup scenario] 

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 4b 5 6 7 

INPV ........................................... 2009$ millions ........................... 70 69 70 71 70 73 82 88 165 

Change in INPV ......................... 2009$ millions ........................... ............ (0 .19) 0 .34 0 .98 0 .57 3 .37 12 .62 18 .54 95 .27 

% ............................................... ............ (0 .27) 0 .49 1 .41 0 .82 4 .84 18 .15 26 .65 136 .95 

Equipment Conversion Costs .... 2009$ millions ........................... ............ 1 .9 1 .9 1 .9 3 .8 3 .8 3 .8 5 .8 7 .7 

Capital Conversion Costs .......... 2009$ millions ........................... ............ 0 .4 0 .7 0 .7 0 .9 1 .9 7 .1 10 .7 37 .3 

Total Investment Required ........ 2009$ millions ........................... ............ 2 .3 2 .6 2 .7 4 .7 5 .7 10 .9 16 .5 45 .0 

TABLE VI.22—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

[Preservation of operating profit markup scenario] 

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 4b 5 6 7 

INPV ................................ 2009$ millions ................. 70 68 68 67 66 64 58 52 0 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10924 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.22—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS—Continued 

[Preservation of operating profit markup scenario] 

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 4b 5 6 7 

Change in INPV .............. 2009$ millions ................. ................ (1 .49) (1 .86) (2 .26) (3 .58) (5 .43) (11 .80) (17 .51) (69 .47) 

% ..................................... ................ (2 .15) (2 .67) (3 .25) (5 .15) (7 .80) (16 .96) (25 .16) (99 .85) 

Equipment Conversion 

Costs.

2009$ millions ................. ................ 1 .9 1 .9 1 .9 3 .8 3 .8 3 .8 5 .8 7 .7 

Capital Conversion Costs 2009$ millions ................. ................ 0 .4 0 .7 0 .7 0 .9 1 .9 7 .1 10 .7 37 .3 

Total Investment Required.2009$ millions ................. ................ 2 .3 2 .6 2 .7 4 .7 5 .7 10 .9 16 .5 45 .0 

TABLE VI.23—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CSIR AND CSCR SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

[Preservation of return on invested capital markup scenario] 

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

INPV ................................ 2009$ millions ................. 279 287 289 295 311 308 466 297 325 

Change in INPV .............. 2009$ millions ................. ................ 8 .40 9 .46 16 .27 32 .15 28 .48 186 .60 18 .40 46 .35 

% ..................................... ................ 3 .01 3 .39 5 .83 11 .52 10 .20 66 .87 6 .59 16 .61 

Equipment Conversion 

Costs.

2009$ millions ................. ................ 16 .7 16 .7 24 .9 25 .3 24 .9 33 .7 24 .9 25 .3 

Capital Conversion Costs 2009$ millions ................. ................ 9 .4 10 .5 16 .5 21 .7 18 .3 79 .9 20 .7 29 .0 

Total Investment Required.2009$ millions ................. ................ 26 .1 27 .2 41 .4 47 .0 43 .2 113 .6 45 .5 54 .3 

TABLE VI.24—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CSIR AND CSCR SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

[Preservation of operating profit markup scenario] 

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

INPV ................................ 2009$ millions ................. 279 259 258 247 236 239 127 245 226 

Change in INPV .............. 2009$ millions ................. ................ (19 .99) (20 .79) (32 .42) (43 .15) (40 .09) (152 .05) (34 .05) (52 .58) 

% ..................................... ................ (7 .16) (7 .45) (11 .62) (15 .46) (14 .37) (54 .49) (12 .20) (18 .84) 

Equipment Conversion 

Costs.

2009$ millions ................. ................ 16 .7 16 .7 24 .9 25 .3 24 .9 33 .7 24 .9 25 .3 

Capital Conversion Costs 2009$ millions ................. ................ 9 .4 10 .5 16 .5 21 .7 18 .3 79 .9 20 .7 29 .0 

Total Investment Required.2009$ millions ................. ................ 26 .1 27 .2 41 .4 47 .0 43 .2 113 .6 45 .5 54 .3 

Polyphase Small Electric Motors 

DOE estimated the impacts on INPV 

at TSL 1 to range from $0.19 million to 

¥$1.49 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥0.27 percent to ¥2.15 percent. At this 

level, industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 13.3 percent, to $4.84 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $5.58 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. TSL 1 represents an 

efficiency increase of 2 percent over the 

baseline for polyphase motors. The 

majority of manufacturers have motors 

that meet this efficiency level. All 

manufacturers that were interviewed 

stated that their existing motor designs 

allow for simple modifications that 

would require minor capital and 

equipment conversion costs to reach 

TSL 1. A possible modification analyzed 

in the engineering analysis is a roughly 

7 percent increase in the number of 

laminations within both spaceconstrained and non space-constrained 

motors. Manufacturers indicated that 

modifications like increased 

laminations could be made within 

existing baseline motor designs without 

significantly altering their size. In 

addition, these minor design changes 

will not raise the production costs 

beyond the cost of most motors sold 

today, resulting in minimal impacts on 

industry value. 

DOE estimated the impacts in INPV at 

TSL 2 to range from $0.34 million to 

¥$1.86 million, or a change in INPV of 

0.49 percent to 2.67 percent. At this 

level, industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 15.6 percent, to $4.71 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $5.58 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. TSL 2 represents an 

efficiency increase of 4 percent over the 

baseline for polyphase motors. Similar 

to TSL 1, at TSL 2 manufacturers stated 

that their existing motor designs allow 

for simple modifications that would 

entail only minor capital and equipment 

conversion costs. A possible 

modification analyzed in the 

engineering analysis increases the 

number of laminations by 

approximately 15 percent from the 

baseline within both space-constrained 

and non space-constrained motors. 

Manufacturers indicated that these 

modifications could be made within 

baseline motor designs without 

significantly changing their size. At TSL 

2, the production costs of standards 

compliant motors do not increase 

enough to significantly affect INPV. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from $0.98 million to 

¥$2.26 million, or a change in INPV of 

1.41 percent to ¥3.25 percent. At this 

level, industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 16.4 percent, to $4.67 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $5.58 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. TSL 3 represents an 

efficiency increase of 6 percent over the 

baseline for polyphase motors. Similar 

to TSL 1 and TSL 2, at TSL 3 

manufacturers stated that their existing 

motor designs would still allow for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10925 

simple modifications that would not 

require significant capital and 

equipment conversion costs. In the 

engineering analysis, standards 

compliant motors that meet the 

efficiency requirements at TSL 3 have 

17-percent increase in the number of 

laminations compared to the baseline 

design within both space-constrained 

and non space-constrained motors. 

These changes do not result in 

significant impacts on INPV. 

At TSL 4, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from $0.57 million to 

¥$3.58 million, or a change in INPV of 

0.82 percent to ¥5.15 percent. At this 

level, industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 27.7 percent, to $4.03 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $5.58 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. TSL 4 represents an 

efficiency increase of 7 percent over the 

baseline for polyphase motors. Most 

manufacturers that were interviewed are 

able to reach this level without 

significant redesigns. At TSL 4, a 

possible design pathway for 

manufacturers could be to increase the 

number of laminations by 

approximately 20 percent over the 

baseline designs within spaceconstrained and non space-constrained 

motors. 

At TSL 4b, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from $3.37 million to 

¥$5.43 million, or a change in INPV of 

4.84 percent to ¥7.80 percent. At this 

level, industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 36.0 percent, to $3.57 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $5.58 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. TSL 4b represents an 

efficiency increase of 8 percent over the 

baseline for polyphase motors. Most 

manufacturers that were interviewed are 

able to reach this level without 

significant redesigns. A possible 

redesign for non space-constrained 

motors would include increasing the 

number of laminations by 47 percent 

relative to the baseline motor design. 

For space-constrained motors, redesigns 

could require up to 20 percent more 

laminations of better grade electrical 

steel. However, manufacturers reported 

that efficiency levels similar to TSL 4b 

would be the highest achievable before 

required efficiencies could significantly 

change motor designs and production 

equipment. However, setting a level 

higher than TSL 4b may require 

significant motor size changes. 

At TSL 5, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from $12.62 million to 

¥$11.80 million, or a change in INPV 

of 18.15 percent to ¥16.96 percent. At 

this level industry cash flow decreases 

by approximately 77.7 percent, to $1.24 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $5.58 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. TSL 5 represents an 

efficiency increase of 10 percent over 

the baseline for polyphase motors. TSL 

5 is equivalent to the current NEMA 

premium level that manufacturers 

produce for medium-sized electric 

motors. 

Although some manufacturers 

reported having existing small electric 

motors that reach TSL 5, the designs 

necessary are more complex than their 

cost optimized designs at lower TSLs. A 

possible redesign for non spaceconstrained motors would include 

adding up to 49 percent more 

laminations relative to the baseline 

motor design and improving the grade 

of steel. For space-constrained motors, 

redesigns could require up to 114 

percent more laminations of a thinner 

and higher grade of steel. Manufacturers 

are concerned that redesigns at TSL 5 

could increase the size of the motors if 

they do not currently have motors that 

reach the NEMA premium efficiency 

levels. A shift to larger motors could be 

detrimental to sales due to the inability 

of OEMs to use standards-compliant 

motors as direct replacements in some 

applications. 

According to manufacturers, at TSL 5, 

the industry would incur significantly 

higher capital and equipment 

conversion costs in comparison to the 

lower efficiency levels analyzed. DOE 

estimates that the capital and equipment 

conversion costs required to make the 

redesigns at TSL 5 would be 

approximately four times the amount 

required to meet TSL 1. At TSL 5 

manufacturers would also be required to 

shift their entire production of baseline 

motors to higher priced and higher 

efficiency motors, making their current 

cost-optimized designs obsolete. These 

higher production costs could have a 

greater impact on the industry value if 

operating profit does not increase. 

Manufacturers indicated that setting 

energy conservation standards at TSL 5 

could cause some manufacturers to 

consider exiting the small electric motor 

market because of the lack of resources, 

potentially unjustifiable investments for 

a small segment of their business, and 

the possibility of lower revenues if 

OEMs will not accept large motors. 

At TSL 6, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from $18.54 million to 

¥$17.51 million, or a change in INPV 

of 26.65 percent to ¥25.16 percent. At 

this level industry cash flow decreases 

by approximately 117.2 percent, to 

¥$0.96 million, compared to the basecase value of $5.58 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. TSL 6 represents an 

efficiency increase of 12 percent over 

the baseline for polyphase motors. 

Currently, no small electric motors are 

rated above the equivalent to the NEMA 

premium standard (TSL 5). Possible 

redesigns for space-constrained motors 

at TSL 6 include the use of copper 

rotors and a 114-percent increase in the 

number of laminations of a thinner and 

higher grade of steel. These changes 

would cause manufacturers to incur 

significant capital and equipment 

conversion costs to redesign their spaceconstrained motors due to the lack of 

experience in using copper. 

According to manufacturers, copper 

tooling is significantly costlier and not 

currently used by any manufacturers for 

the production of small electric motors. 

If copper rotor designs are required, 

manufacturers with in-house die-casting 

capabilities will need completely new 

machinery to process copper. 

Manufacturers that outsource rotor 

production would pay higher prices for 

their rotor designs. In both cases, TSL 6 

results in significant equipment 

conversion costs to modify current 

manufacturing processes in addition to 

redesigning motors to use copper in the 

applications of general purpose small 

electric motors. Largely due to the 

significant changes to space-constrained 

motors, DOE estimates that at TSL 6 

manufacturers would incur close to 

seven times the total conversion costs 

required at TSL 1 (a total of 

approximately $16.5 million). However, 

for non space-constrained motors, 

manufacturers are able to redesign their 

existing motors without the use of 

copper rotors by using twice the number 

of laminations that are contained in the 

baseline design. Therefore, for non 

space-constrained motors the impacts at 

TSL 6 are significantly less because 

manufacturers can maintain existing 

manufacturing processes without the 

potentially significant changes 

associated with copper rotors. At TSL 6 

the impacts for non space-constrained 

motors are mainly due to higher motor 

costs and the possible decrease in 

profitability if manufacturers are unable 

to fully pass through their higher 

production costs. 

At TSL 7, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from $95.27 million to 

¥$69.47 million, or a change in INPV 

of 136.95 percent to ¥99.85 percent. At 

this level industry cash flow decreases 

by approximately 342.4 percent, to 

¥$13.52 million, compared to the basecase value of $5.58 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. TSL 7 represents an 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10926 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

efficiency increase of 14 percent over 

the baseline for polyphase motors. 

Currently, the market does not have 

any motors that reach TSL 7. At TSL 7, 

space-constrained motor designs may 

require the use of copper rotors and 

premium electrical steels, such as the 

Hiperco steel used in DOE’s design. 

There is some uncertainty about the 

magnitude of the impacts on the 

industry of using Hiperco steel. 

Manufacturers were unsure about the 

required conversion costs to reach TSL 

7 because of the unproven properties 

and applicability of the technology in 

the general purpose motors covered by 

this rulemaking. 

Significant R&D for both 

manufacturing processes and motor 

redesigns would be necessary to 

understand the applications of premium 

steels to general purpose small electric 

motors. According to manufacturers, 

requiring this technology could cause 

some competitors to exit the small 

electric motor market. If manufacturers’ 

concerns of having to use both copper 

rotors and new steels materialize, 

manufacturers could be significantly 

impacted. For non space-constrained 

motors, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers would require the use of 

copper rotors but not premium steels. If 

manufacturers are required to redesign 

non-spaced constrained motors with 

copper, the total conversion costs for the 

industry increases greatly because all 

motors require substantially different 

production equipment. Finally, the 

production costs of motors that meet 

TSL 7 could be up to 18 times higher 

than the production costs of baseline 

motors. The cost to manufacture 

standards-compliant motors could have 

a significant impact on the industry if 

operating profit does not increase with 

production costs. 

Capacitor-Start, Induction Run and 

Capacitor-Start, Capacitor-Run Small 

Electric Motors 

At TSL 1, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from $8.4 million to 

–$19.99 million, or a change in INPV of 

3.01 percent to –7.16 percent. At this 

level, industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 41.3 percent, to $13.13 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $22.38 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. TSL 1 represents an 

efficiency increase of 19-percent over 

the baseline for CSIR motors and 10- 

percent over the baseline for CSCR 

motors. At TSL 1 for CSIR motors, DOE 

estimates manufacturers would need to 

increase the number of laminations for 

space-constrained motors by 

approximately 33 percent and use a 

thinner and higher grade of steel. For 

non space-constrained CSIR motors, 

manufacturers could increase 

laminations by approximately 61 

percent with the use of a better grade of 

electric steel. For space-constrained 

CSCR motors, manufacturers could 

increase laminations by ten percent and 

use a higher grade of steel. For non 

space-constrained CSCR motors, 

manufacturers could increase 

laminations by approximately 37 

percent. For both CSIR and CSCR 

motors, the additional stack length 

needed to reach TSL 1 is still within the 

tolerances of many manufacturers’ 

existing motors. DOE estimates that 

these changes would cause the industry 

to incur capital and equipment 

conversion costs of approximately $26.1 

million to reach TSL 1. While TSL 1 

would increase production costs, the 

cost increases are not enough to severely 

affect INPV under the scenarios 

analyzed. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from $9.46 million to 

¥$20.79 million, or a change in INPV 

of 3.39 percent to –7.45 percent. At this 

level, industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 43.5 percent, to $12.65 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $22.38 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. TSL 2 represents an 

efficiency increase of 19 percent over 

the baseline for CSIR motors and 13- 

percent over the baseline for CSCR 

motors. For CSIR motors, the same 

changes to meet TSL 1 are necessary for 

TSL 2. For CSCR motors, TSL 2 

represents what manufacturers would 

consider a NEMA Premium equivalent 

efficiency level. The changes required 

for CSCR motors could cause 

manufacturers to incur additional 

capital conversion costs to 

accommodate the required increase in 

laminations. Imposing standards at TSL 

2 would increase production costs for 

both CSIR and CSCR motors, but the 

cost increases for both types of motors 

are not enough to severely affect INPV. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from $16.27 million to 

–$32.42 million, or a change in INPV of 

5.83 percent to –11.62 percent. At this 

level, industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 66.5 percent, to $7.51 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $22.38 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. TSL 3 represents an 

efficiency increase of 23 percent over 

the baseline for CSIR motors and 13 

percent over the baseline for CSCR 

motors. At TSL 3, space-constrained 

CSIR motors could require redesigns 

that use copper rotors. Using copper 

rotors for space-constrained CSIR 

motors could cause manufacturers to 

incur approximately $41.4 million in 

capital and equipment conversion costs, 

largely to purchase the equipment 

necessary to produce these redesigned 

motors. 

As with polyphase motors, 

manufacturers reported that copper 

rotor tooling is significantly costlier 

than traditional aluminum rotor tooling 

and not currently used by the industry 

for the production of small electric 

motors. Similarly, in-house die-casting 

capabilities would need completely new 

machinery to process copper and the 

alternative of outsourcing rotor 

production would greatly increase 

material costs. For non spaceconstrained CSIR motors, manufacturers 

could redesign motors by increasing the 

number of laminations without the use 

of copper rotors, resulting in 

significantly smaller impacts. At TSL 3, 

the impacts for non-space-constrained 

motors are mainly due to higher motor 

material costs and a possible decline in 

profit margins. TSL 3 represents what 

manufacturers would consider a NEMA 

Premium equivalent efficiency level for 

CSCR motors. The required efficiencies 

for space-constrained CSCR motors 

could be met by manufacturers by 

increasing the number of laminations by 

15 percent and using higher steel 

grades. The required efficiencies for 

non-spaced constrained CSCR motors 

could be met by increasing the number 

of laminations by 53 percent. Because 

the redesigns for CSCR motors are less 

substantial, the impacts at TSL 3 are 

driven largely by the required CSIR 

efficiencies. 

At TSL 4, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from $32.15 million to 

–$43.15 million, or a change in INPV of 

11.52 percent to ¥15.46 percent. At this 

level, industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 77.5 percent, to $5.02 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $22.38 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. TSL 4 represents an 

efficiency increase of 27 percent over 

the baseline for CSIR motors and 15 

percent over the baseline for CSCR 

motors. TSL 4 currently represents a 

NEMA premium equivalent level for 

CSIR motors. Possible redesigns for both 

CSIR and CSCR motors to meet TSL 4 

involve both increasing the number of 

laminations as well as using higher 

grades of steel. 

For space-constrained CSIR motors, 

redesigns could require the use of 

copper rotors. Because of these 

redesigns, standards-compliant motors 

at TSL 4 have significantly higher costs 

than manufacturers’ baseline motors. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10927 

These changes increase the engineering 

and capital resources that must be 

employed, especially for CSCR motors. 

The negative impacts at TSL 4 are 

driven by the conversion costs that 

potentially require some single-phase 

motors to use copper rotors, and the 

higher production costs of standardscompliant motors. 

At TSL 5, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from $28.48 million to 

–$40.09 million, or a change in INPV of 

10.20 percent to –14.37 percent. At this 

level, industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 70.2 percent, to $6.66 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $22.38 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. TSL 5 represents an 

efficiency increase of 27 percent over 

the baseline for CSIR motors and 13 

percent over the baseline for CSCR 

motors. TSL 5 represents NEMA 

premium equivalent efficiency levels for 

both CSIR and CSCR motors. 

At TSL 5, space-constrained CSIR 

motors could require the use of copper 

rotors. The required efficiencies for non 

space-constrained CSIR motors could be 

met by manufacturers by increasing the 

number of laminations by 82 percent 

and using a higher grade of steel. The 

required efficiencies for spaceconstrained CSCR motors could be met 

by manufacturers by increasing the 

number of laminations by 15 percent 

and using higher steel grades. The 

required efficiencies for non-spaced 

constrained CSCR motors could be met 

by increasing the number of laminations 

by 53 percent. 

Although manufacturers reported that 

meeting TSL 5 is feasible, the 

production costs of motors at TSL 5 

increase substantially and require 

approximately $43.2 million in total 

capital and equipment conversion costs. 

The negative impacts at TSL 5 are 

driven by these conversion costs that 

potentially require some CSIR motors to 

use copper rotors, and the impacts on 

profitability if the higher production 

costs of standards-compliant motors 

cannot be fully passed through to 

customers. 

At TSL 6, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from $186.60 million 

to –$152.05 million, or a change in 

INPV of 66.87 percent to –54.49 percent. 

At this level, industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 205.8 

percent, to –$22.67 million, compared 

to the base-case value of $22.38 million 

in the year leading up to the energy 

conservation standards. TSL 6 

represents an efficiency increase of 33 

percent over the baseline for CSIR 

motors and 23 percent over the baseline 

for CSCR motors. 

Currently, the market does not have 

any CSIR and CSCR motors that reach 

TSL 6. TSL 6 represents the max-tech 

efficiency level for both CSIR and CSCR 

motors. In addition to the possibility of 

using copper rotors for both CSIR and 

CSCR motors, at TSL 6, spaceconstrained motor designs could require 

premium steels, such as Hiperco. There 

is uncertainty about the impact of 

Hiperco steel on the industry, primarily 

due to uncertainty about capital 

conversion costs required to use a new 

type of steel. Significant R&D in 

manufacturing processes would be 

necessary to understand the 

applications of these premium steels in 

general purpose small electric motors. 

Because all space-constrained motors 

could require copper rotors and 

premium steels and all non-spaced 

constrained motors could require 

copper rotors, the capital conversion 

costs are a significant driver of INPV at 

TSL 6. Finally, the production costs of 

motors that meet TSL 6 can be as high 

as 13 times the production cost of 

baseline motors, which impact 

profitability if the higher production 

costs cannot be fully passed through to 

OEMs. Manufacturers indicated that the 

potentially large impacts on the 

industry at TSL 6 could force some 

manufacturers to exit the small electric 

motor market because of the lack of 

resources and what could be an 

unjustifiable investment for a small 

segment of their total business. 

At TSL 7, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from $18.40 million to 

–$34.05 million, or a change in INPV of 

6.59 percent to –12.20 percent. At this 

level, industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 74.7 percent, to $5.66 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $22.38 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. TSL 7 represents an 

efficiency increase of 33 percent over 

the baseline for CSIR motors and 13 

percent over the baseline for CSCR 

motors. 

TSL 7 corresponds to the NEMA 

premium equivalent efficiency for CSCR 

motors. The required efficiencies for 

space-constrained CSCR motors could 

be met by manufacturers by increasing 

the number of laminations by 15 percent 

and using higher steel grades. The 

required efficiencies for non spaceconstrained CSCR motors could be met 

by increasing the number of laminations 

by 53 percent. Consequently, the 

industry is not severely impacted by the 

CSCR efficiency requirements at TSL 7 

because these design changes could be 

met with relatively minor changes to 

baseline designs. 

However, there are no CSIR motors 

currently on the market that reach TSL 

7 (the max-tech efficiency level for 

CSIR). At TSL 7 space-constrained CSIR 

redesigns could require the use of both 

copper rotors and premium steels while 

non space-constrained CSIR motors 

could require only copper rotors. 

Manufacturers continue to have the 

same concerns about copper rotors and 

premium steels for CSIR motors as with 

other efficiency levels that may require 

these technologies. The impacts on 

INPV from CSIR motors are mainly 

associated with estimated shipments of 

non-space constrained CSIR motors and 

how investments exclude premium 

steels in motor redesigns. The INPV 

impacts for all single-phase motors at 

TSL 7 are less severe than at TSL 6 due 

to a change in balance of shipments 

between CSIR and CSCR motors. At TSL 

7, the possible high cost of CSIR motors 

would likely cause customers to migrate 

to CSCR motors. 

In its analysis, DOE assumed that 

manufacturers would not invest in all 

the alternative technologies for CSIR 

motors in light of the expected 

migration to CSCR motors. At TSL 7, the 

industry is impacted (though to a lesser 

extent than at TSL 6) by the high 

conversion costs for CSIR motors, for 

which manufacturers must invest even 

though these are a small portion of total 

shipments after standards. However, 

because the total volume of single-phase 

motors does not decline with the shift 

from CSIR to CSCR motors, the higher 

revenues from standards-compliant 

CSCR motors mitigate redesign costs for 

CSIR motors. 

At TSL 8, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from $46.35 million to 

–$52.58 million, or a change in INPV of 

13.07 percent to –16.17 percent. At this 

level, industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 92.1 percent, to $1.77 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $22.38 million in the year 

leading up to the compliance date for 

the energy conservation standards. TSL 

8 represents an efficiency increase of 33 

percent over the baseline for CSIR 

motors and 20 percent over the baseline 

for CSCR motors. 

As with TSL 7, CSIR motors are at the 

max-tech efficiency level at TSL 8. 

However, the impacts on INPV are 

worse at TSL 7 because the efficiency 

requirements for CSCR motors increase. 

At TSL 8, both space-constrained and 

non space-constrained CSCR motors 

could require the use of copper, which 

increases the total conversion costs for 

the industry. Manufacturers continue to 

share the same concerns about the 

copper and premium steel investments 

for CSCR and CSIR motors as at TSL 6 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10928 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

and TSL 7. Like TSL 7, TSL 8 causes a 

migration of CSIR motors to CSCR 

motors. DOE assumed that 

manufacturers would fully incur the 

required conversion costs for CSCR, but 

partially for CSIR motors, due to the low 

market share of CSIR motors after the 

energy conservation standards must be 

met. After these standards apply, the 

shift to CSCR motors increases total 

industry revenue and helps to mitigate 

impacts related to capital conversion 

costs necessary for CSIR motors to use 

alternative technologies. 

b. Impacts on Employment 

As discussed in the NOPR and for 

today’s final rule, DOE does not believe 

that standards would materially alter 

the domestic employment levels of the 

small electric motors industry under 

any of the TSLs considered for today’s 

final rule. 74 FR 61469. Even if DOE set 

new efficiency levels high enough to 

cause some manufacturers to exit the 

small electric motor market, the direct 

employment impact would likely be 

minimal. Id. Most covered small motors 

are manufactured on shared production 

lines and in factories that also produce 

a substantial number of other products. 

If a manufacturer decided to exit the 

market, these employees would likely 

be used in some other capacity, 

reducing the number of headcount 

reductions. These manufacturers 

estimated that no production jobs would 

be lost due to energy conservation 

standards, but rather the engineering 

departments could be reduced by up to 

one engineer per dropped product line. 

The employment impacts calculated 

by DOE are independent of the 

employment impacts from the broader 

U.S. economy, which are documented 

in chapter 15 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice and discussed in section 

VI.C.3. Based on available data and its 

analyses, DOE does not believe that the 

effects of today’s rule would 

substantially impact employment levels 

in the small electric motor industry. For 

further information and results on direct 

employment see chapter 12 of the TSD. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

As detailed in the NOPR, no change 

in the fundamental assembly of small 

electric motors would be required by 

DOE adoption of any of the TSLs 

considered for today’s rule, and none of 

the TSLs would require replacing or 

adding to existing facilities to 

manufacture. 74 FR 61469–70. For 

today’s final rule, DOE continues to 

believe manufacturers can use any 

available excess capacity to mitigate any 

possible capacity constraint as a result 

of energy conservation standards. In 

DOE’s view, it is more likely that some 

motors would be discontinued due to 

lower demand after the promulgation of 

a standard. For further explanation of 

the impacts on manufacturing capacity 

for small electric motors, see chapter 12 

of the TSD. 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

For the reasons stated in the NOPR, 

including its conclusion that no small 

manufacturers produced small electric 

motors, DOE did not analyze 

manufacturer subgroups in the small 

electric motor industry. 74 FR 61470. 

DOE did not receive further information 

or comment that would otherwise 

change its views. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

While any one regulation may not 

impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

several regulations may have serious 

consequences for some manufacturers, 

groups of manufacturers, or an entire 

industry. Assessing the impact of a 

single regulation may overlook this 

cumulative regulatory burden. 

DOE recognizes that each regulation 

can significantly affect manufacturers’ 

financial operations. Multiple 

regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can reduce manufacturers’ 

profits and may cause manufacturers to 

exit from the market. DOE did not 

identify any additional DOE regulations 

that would affect the manufacturers of 

small electric motors apart from the 

ones discussed in the NOPR. 74 FR 

61470. These included other DOE 

regulations and international standards. 

DOE recognizes that each regulation has 

the potential to impact manufacturers’ 

financial operations. For further 

information about the cumulative 

regulatory burden on the small electric 

motors industry, see chapter 12 of the 

TSD. 

3. National Net Present Value and Net 

National Employment 

The NPV analysis estimates the 

cumulative benefits or costs to the 

Nation, discounted to 2009$ in the year 

2010, of particular standard levels 

relative to a base case of no new 

standard. In accordance with OMB 

guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB 

Circular A–4, section E, September 17, 

2003), DOE estimated NPVs using both 

a 7 percent and 3 percent real discount 

rate. The 7 percent rate is an estimate of 

the average before tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy. 

This rate reflects the returns to real 

estate and small business capital as well 

as corporate capital. DOE used this 

discount rate to approximate the 

opportunity cost of capital in the private 

sector, since recent OMB analysis has 

found the average rate of return to 

capital to be near this rate. DOE also 

used the 3 percent discount rate to 

capture the potential effects of standards 

on private consumption (e.g., through 

higher prices for equipment and 

purchase of reduced amounts of energy). 

This rate represents the rate at which 

society discounts future consumption 

flows to their present value. This rate 

can be approximated by the real rate of 

return on long-term Government debt 

(e.g., the yield on Treasury notes minus 

the annual rate of change in the 

Consumer Price Index), which has 

averaged about 3 percent on a pre-tax 

basis for the last 30 years. 

The NPV was calculated using DOE’s 

reference shipments forecast, which is 

based on the AEO 2010 Early Release 

forecast. In this scenario, shipments 

display an elasticity of –0.25, which 

allows for a market shift to enclosed 

motors when open motors become more 

expensive than their enclosed 

equivalents. DOE used its calibrated 

reference model for the market 

dynamics of CSIR and CSCR motors. 

DOE’s reference scenario also includes 

100 percent of the cost or benefit from 

changes in reactive power charges, 

which are faced either by electricity 

customers or by utilities (which then 

include them in electricity rates). Table 

VI.25 and Table VI.26 show the 

estimated NPV at each of the TSLs for 

polyphase and capacitor-start small 

electric motors. For polyphase motors, 

the NPV is positive at TSLs 1 through 

5 using a 7-percent discount rate, and is 

positive for TSLs 1 through 6 using a 3- 

percent discount rate. For capacitor-start 

motors, NPV is positive at all TSLs 

except TSL 6. The latter TSL 

corresponds to max-tech efficiency 

levels for both CSIR and CSCR motors, 

which have high installed costs and 

negative lifecycle cost savings. See TSD 

Chapter 10 for more detailed NPV 

results. 

Across motors, for certain TSLs, DOE 

estimates there will be a net national 

savings or positive NPV from the 

standard, even though a majority of 

motor customers may face life-cycle cost 

increases. Life-cycle cost increases 

result from the large number of small 

electric motors installed in applications 

with very low operating hours. The 

consumers of these motors cannot 

recover the increased equipment costs 

through decreased electricity costs, thus 

experiencing life-cycle cost increases. 

On the other hand, a substantial 

minority of motors run at nearly all 

hours of the day and thus obtain 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10929 

relatively large savings from the 

standard. 

Table VI.25 and Table VI.26 show 

DOE’s estimates of net present value for 

each TSL DOE considered for this final 

rule. 

TABLE VI.25—CUMULATIVE NET

PRESENT VALUE FOR POLYPHASE

SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS (IMPACT

FOR EQUIPMENT SOLD FROM 2015 

TO 2045) 

Trial standard 

level 

Net present value 

billion 2009$ 

7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 

1 ........................ 0.10 0.26 

2 ........................ 0.22 0.55 

3 ........................ 0.41 1.01 

4 ........................ 0.42 1.05 

TABLE VI.25—CUMULATIVE NET

PRESENT VALUE FOR POLYPHASE

SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS (IMPACT

FOR EQUIPMENT SOLD FROM 2015 

TO 2045)—Continued 

Trial standard 

level 

Net present value 

billion 2009$ 

7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 

4b ...................... 0.54 1.44 

5 ........................ 0.16 0.77 

6 ........................ ¥0.22 0.06 

7 ........................ ¥6.82 ¥12.65 

TABLE VI.26—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR CAPACITOR-START SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS (IMPACT FOR

EQUIPMENT SOLD FROM 2015 TO 2045) 

Trial standard level 

Net present value 

billion 2009$ 

7% Discount 

rate 

3% Discount 

rate 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3.01 7.03 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3.05 7.13 

3 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2.83 6.87 

4 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1.97 5.35 

5 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2.08 5.57 

6 ............................................................................................................................................................................... ¥9.29 ¥16.23 

7 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4.74 11.08 

8 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3.03 8.14 

As discussed in section VI.C.1.b 

above, DOE estimated LCC and payback 

periods under a sensitivity case using 

data on motor shipments distributions 

provided by OEMs via a survey 

conducted by NEMA. Under this 

sensitivity case lifecycle costs increase 

for polyphase and CSCR motor users, 

but decrease for CSIR motor users. DOE 

estimates there is a net increase in 

national benefits from the standards 

promulgated in today’s rule using the 

new information provided by NEMA, 

with energy savings increasing from 

2.20 to 2.68 quads, and NPV increasing 

from $12.52 to $19.75 billion, using a 3 

percent discount rate. 

DOE also analyzed the effect of 

NEMA’s assertion that 95 percent of 

motors are used in space-constrained 

applications. However, at the capacitorstart efficiency levels in today’s rule, 

DOE estimates that 97 percent of the 

CSIR market will migrate to CSCR 

motors assuming only 20 percent of the 

market is space-constrained. Therefore, 

increasing the assumption of the 

fraction of CSIR motors that is spaceconstrained to 95-percent only affects 

the 3-percent of the CSIR market that 

had not already migrated to CSCR 

motors under DOE’s reference case, and 

has little effect on the estimates of 

national energy savings. 

Chapter 10 of the TSD has details on 

the national impacts for the reference 

case, while the national impacts for 

these sensitivity cases are presented in 

appendix 10A. 

DOE also estimated for each TSL the 

indirect employment impact of 

standards—the impact on the economy 

in general—in addition to considering 

the direct employment impacts on 

manufacturers of products covered in 

this rulemaking as discussed in section 

VI.C.2.b. DOE expects the net monetary 

savings from standards to be redirected 

to other forms of economic activity. 

DOE also expects these shifts in 

spending and economic activity to affect 

the demand for labor. As shown in 

Table VI.27 and Table VI.28, DOE 

estimates that net indirect employment 

impacts from energy conservation 

standards for small electric motors 

would be positive but very small 

relative to total national employment. 

Specifically, DOE’s analysis indicates 

that the number of jobs that may be 

generated by 2045 through indirect 

impacts ranges from 47 to 6,300 for the 

TSLs for polyphase small motors, and 

from 1,100 to 18,700 for the TSLs for 

capacitor-start small motors. These 

increases would likely be sufficient to 

offset fully any adverse impacts on 

employment that might occur in the 

small electric motors industry. For 

details on the employment impact 

analysis methods and results, see TSD 

Chapter 14. 

TABLE VI.27—NET INCREASE IN NATIONAL INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT UNDER POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTOR TRIAL

STANDARDS LEVELS

Trial standard level 2015 

thousands 

2020 

thousands 

2030 

thousands 

2045 

thousands 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.047 0.136 0.222 0.299 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.084 0.254 0.418 0.565 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.151 0.463 0.761 1.030 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.190 0.539 0.874 1.178 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10930 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.27—NET INCREASE IN NATIONAL INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT UNDER POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTOR TRIAL

STANDARDS LEVELS—Continued 

Trial standard level 2015 

thousands 

2020 

thousands 

2030 

thousands 

2045 

thousands 

4b ..................................................................................................................................... 0.356 0.915 1.446 1.942 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.661 1.347 2.016 2.668 

6 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.901 1.679 2.448 3.219 

7 ....................................................................................................................................... 2.349 3.621 4.921 6.343 

TABLE VI.28—NET INCREASE IN NATIONAL INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT UNDER CAPACITOR-START SMALL ELECTRIC MOTOR

TRIAL STANDARDS LEVELS

Trial standard level 2015 

thousands 

2020 

thousands 

2030 

thousands 

2045 

thousands 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 1.113 3.645 5.249 7.062 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 1.119 3.674 5.293 7.123 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 1.577 4.512 6.398 8.557 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 2.287 5.561 7.716 10.236 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 2.248 5.529 7.686 10.204 

6 ....................................................................................................................................... 8.042 12.159 15.350 19.569 

7 ....................................................................................................................................... 1.776 5.795 8.340 11.216 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 2.322 9.591 13.880 18.701 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

As explained in sections III.D.1.d and 

V.B.4 of the NOPR, users of these 

motors will not face a reduction in small 

electric motor utility or performance 

under the levels examined under this 

rulemaking. DOE has not received any 

additional information suggesting that 

such a reduction would occur. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that 

no lessening of the utility or 

performance of the small electric motors 

under consideration in this rulemaking 

would result from adoption of any of the 

TSLs considered for this final rule. 74 

FR 61419, 61476. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

As discussed in the November 2009 

NOPR, 74 FR 61419, 61476, and in 

section III.D.1.e of this final rule, DOE 

considers any lessening of competition 

that is likely to result from standards. 

The Attorney General determines the 

impact, if any, of any such lessening of 

competition. 

The DOJ concluded that the standards 

DOE proposed for small electric motors 

in the November 2009 NOPR could 

increase costs for consumers who need 

to replace either a polyphase or 

capacitor-start small electric motor in 

existing equipment. This is because 

compliance with these standards may 

require manufacturers to increase the 

size of their motors such that the larger 

motors may not fit into existing spaceconstrained equipment. In turn, owners 

with a broken motor may need to 

replace the entire piece of equipment or 

attempt to have the motor repaired, 

which could be costly. DOJ requested 

that DOE consider this impact, and, as 

warranted, consider exempting from the 

standard the manufacture and marketing 

of certain replacement small electric 

motors for a limited period of time. 

(DOJ, No. 29 at pp. 1–2) DOJ does not 

believe the proposed standard would 

likely lead to a lessening of competition. 

For its final rule on energy 

conservations standards for small 

electric motors, DOE considered the 

issue raised by DOJ. DOE believes it 

adequately accounts for the impacts on 

those consumers that purchase motors 

for space-constrained applications by 

developing motors with higher costs for 

what it estimates as space-constrained. 

Furthermore, DOE does not believe it is 

necessary to exempt motors 

manufactured to replace motors in 

space-constrained applications because 

these motors are not marketed as ‘‘for 

replacement purposes,’’ enforcing such a 

standard could be problematic. In 

addition, an exemption for replacement 

motors would also apply to motors in 

non-space constrained applications 

potentially significantly reducing energy 

savings of this rule. Lastly, DOE believes 

that the five-year period before the 

effective date will give customers or 

OEMs sufficient time to account for any 

changes to motor sizes or to stockpile 

replacement motors for their 

applications. 

The Attorney General’s response is 

reprinted at the end of this rule. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

Improving the energy efficiency of 

small electric motors, where 

economically justified, would likely 

improve the security of the Nation’s 

energy system by reducing overall 

demand for energy, thus reducing the 

Nation’s reliance on foreign sources of 

energy. Reduced electricity demand 

might also improve the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. As a measure of this 

reduced demand, DOE expects the 

energy savings from today’s standards to 

eliminate the need for approximately 

2.16 gigawatts (GW) of generating 

capacity by 2045 and in 2045, to save 

an amount of electricity greater than 

that generated by eight 250 megawatt 

power plants. 

Enhanced energy efficiency also 

produces environmental benefits in the 

form of reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases 

associated with energy production. 

Table VI.29 and Table VI.30 provide 

DOE’s estimate of cumulative CO2, NOX, 

and Hg emissions reductions that would 

result from the TSLs considered in this 

rulemaking. The expected energy 

savings from these standards may also 

reduce the cost of maintaining 

nationwide emissions standards and 

constraints. In the environmental 

assessment (EA; chapter 15 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice), DOE reports 

estimated annual changes in CO2, NOX, 

and Hg emissions attributable to each 

TSL. The cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg 

emissions reductions from polyphase 

motors range up to 23.2 Mt, 16.9 kt, and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10931 

0.12 ton, respectively, and up to 121.7 Mt, 88.9 kt, and 0.47 ton, respectively, 

from single-phase motors. 

TABLE VI.29—POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS: CUMULATIVE CO2 AND OTHER EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

[Cumulative reductions for products sold from 2015 to 2045] 

Trial standard level 

Emissions reductions 

CO2

Mt 

NOX

kt 

Hg 

tons 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 2.3 1.6 0.013 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 4.6 3.3 0.025 

3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 8.3 5.9 0.046 

4 ............................................................................................................................................................... 9.3 6.7 0.051 

4b ............................................................................................................................................................. 15.4 11.0 0.085 

5 ............................................................................................................................................................... 18.3 13.1 0.101 

6 ............................................................................................................................................................... 19.5 13.9 0.108 

7 ............................................................................................................................................................... 21.2 15.2 0.117 

TABLE VI.30—CAPACITOR-START SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS: CUMULATIVE CO2 AND OTHER EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

[Cumulative reductions for products sold from 2015 to 2045] 

Trial standard level 

Emissions reductions 

CO2

Mt 

NOX

kt 

Hg 

tons 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 62.9 45.1 0.265 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 63.5 45.5 0.267 

3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 71.7 51.4 0.302 

4 ............................................................................................................................................................... 80.5 57.7 0.339 

5 ............................................................................................................................................................... 81.0 58.1 0.341 

6 ............................................................................................................................................................... 88.5 63.5 0.373 

7 ............................................................................................................................................................... 96.8 69.5 0.408 

8 ............................................................................................................................................................... 111.4 80.0 0.469 

As noted in section IV.L of this final 

rule, DOE does not report SO2 emissions 

reductions from power plants because 

DOE is uncertain that an energy 

conservation standard would affect the 

overall level of U.S. SO2 emissions due 

to emissions caps. DOE also did not 

include NOX emissions reduction from 

power plants in states subject to CAIR 

because an energy conservation 

standard would likely not affect the 

overall level of NOX emissions in those 

states due to the emissions caps 

mandated by CAIR. 

In the NOPR, DOE also investigated 

and considered the potential monetary 

benefit of any reduced CO2, SO2, NOX, 

and Hg emissions that could result from 

the TSLs it considered. 74 FR 61448–53, 

61477–84. To estimate the likely 

monetary benefits of CO2 emission 

reductions associated with the potential 

standards, DOE valued the potential 

global benefits resulting from such 

reductions at the interim values of $5, 

$10, $20, $34 and $57 per metric ton in 

2007 (in 2008$), and also valued the 

domestic benefits at approximately $1 

per metric ton. 74 FR 61452. For today’s 

final rule DOE has updated its analysis 

to reflect the outcome of the most recent 

interagency process regarding the social 

cost of carbon dioxide emissions (SCC). 

See section IV.M for a full discussion. 

The four values of CO2 emissions 

reductions resulting from that process 

are $4.70/ton (the average value from a 

distribution that uses a 5% discount 

rate), $21.40/ton (the average value from 

a distribution that uses a 3% discount 

rate), $35.10/ton (the average value from 

a distribution that uses a 2.5% discount 

rate), and $65/ton (the 95th percentile 

value from a distribution that uses a 3% 

discount rate). These values are 

expressed in 2007$ and correspond to 

the value of emission reductions in 

2010; the values for later years are 

higher due to increasing damages as the 

magnitude of climate change increases. 

Table VI.31 and Table VI.32 present the 

global values of emissions reductions at 

each TSL. Domestic values are 

calculated as a range from 7% to 23% 

of the global values, and these results 

are presented in Table VI.33 and Table 

VI.34. 

TABLE VI.31—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PERIOD 2015–2045 

UNDER POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTOR TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT SCC-SCENARIO-CONSISTENT DISCOUNT RATE

TSL 

Estimated cumulative CO2 emission reductions, 

Mt 

Global value of CO2 emission reductions, million 2009$ 

5% discount rate, 

average* 

3% discount rate, 

average* 

2.5% discount 

rate, average* 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile* 

1 ............................................................. 2.3 8 40 68 122 

2 ............................................................. 4.6 16 81 138 248 

3 ............................................................. 8.3 28 146 248 445 

4 ............................................................. 9.3 32 165 280 502 

4b ........................................................... 15.4 52 272 462 828 

5 ............................................................. 18.3 62 323 550 986 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10932 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.31—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PERIOD 2015–2045 

UNDER POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTOR TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT SCC-SCENARIO-CONSISTENT DISCOUNT

RATE—Continued 

TSL 

Estimated cumulative CO2 emission reductions, 

Mt 

Global value of CO2 emission reductions, million 2009$ 

5% discount rate, 

average* 

3% discount rate, 

average* 

2.5% discount 

rate, average* 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile* 

6 ............................................................. 19.5 66 344 585 1049 

7 ............................................................. 21.2 72 375 638 1144 

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the social cost of emissions and whether it is an average value or drawn from a 

different part of the distribution. Values presented in the table are based on escalating 2007$ to 2009$ for consistency with other values presented in this notice, and incorporate the escalation of the SCC with each year. 

TABLE VI.32—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PERIOD 2015–2045 

UNDER CAPACITOR-START SMALL ELECTRIC MOTOR TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT SCC-SCENARIO-CONSISTENT DISCOUNT RATE

TSL 

Estimated cumulative CO2 emission reductions, 

Mt 

Global value of CO2 emission reductions, million 2009$ 

5% discount rate, 

average* 

3% discount rate, 

average* 

2.5% discount 

rate, average* 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile* 

1 ............................................................. 62.9 216 1118 1900 3410 

2 ............................................................. 63.5 218 1129 1918 3444 

3 ............................................................. 71.7 246 1275 2167 3890 

4 ............................................................. 80.5 277 1432 2432 4367 

5 ............................................................. 81.0 278 1441 2448 4394 

6 ............................................................. 88.5 304 1574 2674 4801 

7 ............................................................. 96.8 333 1722 2926 5253 

8 ............................................................. 111.4 383 1982 3368 6046 

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the social cost of emissions and whether it is an average value or drawn from a 

different part of the distribution. Values presented in the table are based on escalating 2007$ to 2009$ for consistency with other values presented in this notice, and incorporate the escalation of the SCC with each year. 

TABLE VI.33—ESTIMATES OF DOMESTIC PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PERIOD 2015–2045 

UNDER POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTOR TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT SCC-SCENARIO-CONSISTENT DISCOUNT RATE

TSL 

Domestic value of CO2 emission reductions, million 2009$ * 

5% discount rate, 

average** 

3% discount rate, 

average** 

2.5% discount 

rate, average** 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile** 

1 ............................................................................................... 0.5–1.8 2.8–9.2 4.8–15.7 8.5–28.1 

2 ............................................................................................... 1.1–3.6 5.7–18.7 9.7–31.8 17.3–57.0 

3 ............................................................................................... 2.0–6.4 10.2–33.5 17.4–57.1 31.1–102.3 

4 ............................................................................................... 2.2–7.3 11.5–37.9 19.6–64.4 35.1–115.5 

4b ............................................................................................. 3.7–12 19.0–62.5 32.3–106.3 58.0–190.5 

5 ............................................................................................... 4.3–14.3 22.6–74.4 38.5–126.5 69.0–226.8 

6 ............................................................................................... 4.6–15.2 24.1–79.1 41.0–134.6 73.4–241.2 

7 ............................................................................................... 5.0–16.6 26.3–86.3 44.7–146.7 80.1–263.0 

* Domestic values are presented as a range between 7% and 23% of the global values. 

** Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the social cost of emissions and whether it is an average value or drawn from a 

different part of the distribution. Values presented in the table are based on escalating 2007$ to 2009$ for consistency with other values presented in this notice, and incorporate the escalation of the SCC with each year. 

TABLE VI.34—ESTIMATES OF DOMESTIC PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PERIOD 2015–2045 

UNDER CAPACITOR-START SMALL ELECTRIC MOTOR TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT SCC-SCENARIO-CONSISTENT DISCOUNT RATE

TSL 

Domestic value of CO2 emission reductions, million 2009$ * 

5% discount rate, 

average** 

3% discount rate, 

average** 

2.5% discount 

rate, average** 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile** 

1 ............................................................................................... 15–50 78–257 133–437 239–784 

2 ............................................................................................... 15–50 79–260 134–441 241–792 

3 ............................................................................................... 17–57 89–293 152–498 272–895 

4 ............................................................................................... 19–64 100–329 170–559 306–1004 

5 ............................................................................................... 19–64 101–331 171–563 308–1011 

6 ............................................................................................... 21–70 110–362 187–615 336–1104 

7 ............................................................................................... 23–77 121–396 205–673 368–1208 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10933 

TABLE VI.34—ESTIMATES OF DOMESTIC PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PERIOD 2015–2045 

UNDER CAPACITOR-START SMALL ELECTRIC MOTOR TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT SCC-SCENARIO-CONSISTENT DISCOUNT RATE—Continued 

TSL 

Domestic value of CO2 emission reductions, million 2009$ * 

5% discount rate, 

average** 

3% discount rate, 

average** 

2.5% discount 

rate, average** 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile** 

8 ............................................................................................... 27–88 139–456 236–775 423–1391 

* Domestic values are presented as a range between 7% and 23% of the global values. 

** Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the social cost of emissions and whether it is an average value or drawn from a 

different part of the distribution. Values presented in the table are based on escalating 2007$ to 2009$ for consistency with other values presented in this notice, and incorporate the escalation of the SCC with each year. 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed in this rulemaking on 

reducing CO2 emissions is subject to 

change. DOE, together with other 

Federal agencies, will continue to 

review various methodologies for 

estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other GHG 

emissions. This ongoing review will 

consider the comments on this subject 

that are part of the public record for this 

and other rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues. 

However, consistent with DOE’s legal 

obligations, and taking into account the 

uncertainty involved with this 

particular issue, DOE has included in 

this rule the most recent values and 

analyses resulting from the ongoing 

interagency review process. 

DOE also estimated a range for the 

cumulative monetary value of the 

economic benefits associated with NOX

and Hg emissions reductions 

anticipated to result from amended 

standards for SEMs. The dollar per ton 

values that DOE used are discussed in 

section IV.M of this final rule. Table 

VI.35 through Table VI.38 present the 

estimates calculated using seven percent 

and three percent discount rates, 

respectively. 

TABLE VI.35—ESTIMATES OF VALUE OF REDUCTIONS OF NOX AND HG EMISSIONS UNDER POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC

MOTOR TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT A SEVEN PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Polyphase TSL 

Cumulative NOX

emission reductions, kt 

Value of NOX emission reductions, 

million 2009$ 

Cumulative Hg 

emission reductions, t 

Value of Hg 

emission 

reductions, 

million 2009$ 

1 .............................................................. 1.62 0.11 to 1.18 ............................................. 0.013 0.00 to 0.12. 

2 .............................................................. 3.29 0.23 to 2.39 ............................................. 0.025 0.01 to 0.25. 

3 .............................................................. 5.91 0.42 to 4.29 ............................................. 0.046 0.01 to 0.45. 

4 .............................................................. 6.67 0.47 to 4.84 ............................................. 0.051 0.01 to 0.51. 

4b ............................................................ 11.00 0.78 to 7.99 ............................................. 0.085 0.02 to 0.84. 

5 .............................................................. 13.09 0.92 to 9.51 ............................................. 0.101 0.02 to 1.00. 

6 .............................................................. 13.93 0.98 to 10.11 ........................................... 0.108 0.02 to 1.06. 

7 .............................................................. 15.19 1.07 to 11.03 ........................................... 0.117 0.03 to 1.16. 

TABLE VI.36—ESTIMATES OF VALUE OF REDUCTIONS OF NOX AND HG EMISSIONS UNDER POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC

MOTOR TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT A THREE PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Polyphase 

TSL 

Cumulative NOX

emission reductions, kt 

Value of NOX emission reductions, 

million 2009$ 

Cumulative Hg 

emission reductions, t 

Value of Hg 

emission 

reductions, 

million 2009$ 

1 .............................................................. 1.62 0.34 to 3.46 ............................................. 0.013 0.01 to 0.24. 

2 .............................................................. 3.29 0.68 to 7.01 ............................................. 0.025 0.01 to 0.48. 

3 .............................................................. 5.91 1.22 to 12.59 ........................................... 0.046 0.02 to 0.87. 

4 .............................................................. 6.67 1.38 to 14.21 ........................................... 0.051 0.02 to 0.98. 

4b ............................................................ 11.00 2.28 to 23.45 ........................................... 0.085 0.04 to 1.62. 

5 .............................................................. 13.09 2.71 to 27.90 ........................................... 0.101 0.04 to 1.93. 

6 .............................................................. 13.93 2.89 to 29.68 ........................................... 0.108 0.05 to 2.05. 

7 .............................................................. 15.19 3.15 to 32.37 ........................................... 0.117 0.05 to 2.24. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10934 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.37—ESTIMATES OF VALUE OF REDUCTIONS OF NOX AND HG EMISSIONS UNDER CAPACITOR-START SMALL

ELECTRIC MOTOR TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT A SEVEN PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Capacitor-start TSL 

Cumulative NOX

emission reductions, kt 

Value of NOX emission reductions, 

million 2009$ 

Cumulative Hg 

emission reductions, t 

Value of Hg 

emission 

reductions, 

million 2009$ 

1 .............................................................. 45.10 3.50 to 35.97 ........................................... 0.265 0.06 to 2.79. 

2 .............................................................. 45.54 3.53 to 36.23 ........................................... 0.267 0.06 to 2.82. 

3 .............................................................. 51.44 3.99 to 41.03 ........................................... 0.302 0.07 to 3.18. 

4 .............................................................. 57.74 4.48 to 46.05 ........................................... 0.339 0.08 to 3.57. 

5 .............................................................. 58.11 4.51 to 46.34 ........................................... 0.341 0.08 to 3.60. 

6 .............................................................. 63.48 4.93 to 50.63 ........................................... 0.373 0.09 to 3.93. 

7 .............................................................. 69.47 5.39 to 55.40 ........................................... 0.408 0.10 to 4.30. 

8 .............................................................. 79.95 6.20 to 63.76 ........................................... 0.469 0.11 to 4.95. 

TABLE VI.38—ESTIMATES OF VALUE OF REDUCTIONS OF NOX AND Hg EMISSIONS UNDER CAPACITOR-START SMALL

ELECTRIC MOTOR TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT A THREE PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Capacitor-start TSL 

Cumulative NOX

emission reductions (kt) 

Value of NOX emission 

reductions 

million 2009$ 

Cumulative Hg 

emission reductions (t) 

Value of Hg 

emission 

reductions 

million 2009$ 

1 .............................................................. 45.10 9.60 to 98.70 ........................................... 0.265 0.12 to 5.22. 

2 .............................................................. 45.54 9.69 to 99.66 ........................................... 0.267 0.12 to 5.27. 

3 .............................................................. 51.44 10.95 to 112.58 ....................................... 0.302 0.13 to 5.95. 

4 .............................................................. 57.74 12.29 to 126.37 ....................................... 0.339 0.15 to 6.68. 

5 .............................................................. 58.11 12.37 to 127.17 ....................................... 0.341 0.15 to 6.72. 

6 .............................................................. 63.48 13.52 to 138.94 ....................................... 0.373 0.17 to 7.34. 

7 .............................................................. 69.47 14.79 to 152.03 ....................................... 0.408 0.18 to 8.04. 

8 .............................................................. 79.95 17.02 to 174.97 ....................................... 0.469 0.21 to 9.25. 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. Table VI.40 through Table 

VI.43 present the NPV values for small 

electric motors that would result if DOE 

were to add the estimates of the 

potential benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions in 

each of four valuation scenarios to the 

NPV of consumer savings calculated for 

each TSL considered in this rulemaking, 

at both a seven percent and three 

percent discount rate. The CO2 values 

used in the columns of each table 

correspond with the four scenarios for 

the valuation of CO2 emission 

reductions presented in section IV.M. 

Table VI.39 shows an example of the 

calculation of the NPV including 

benefits from emissions reductions for 

the case of TSL 7 for capacitor-start 

motors and TSL 4b for polyphase 

motors. 

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, the following should be 

considered: (1) The national consumer 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings found in market 

transactions, while the values of 

emissions reductions are based on 

estimates of marginal social costs, 

which, in the case of CO2, are based on 

a global value. (2) The assessments of 

consumer savings and emission-related 

benefits are performed with different 

computer models, leading to different 

time frames for analysis. For small 

electric motors, the present value of 

national consumer savings is measured 

for the period in which units shipped 

from 2015 to 2045 continue to operate. 

However, the time frames of the benefits 

associated with the emission reductions 

differ. For example, the value of CO2

emissions reductions reflects the 

present value of all future climaterelated impacts due to emitting a ton of 

carbon dioxide in that year, out to 2300. 

TABLE VI.39—ESTIMATE OF ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS TO PRESENT VALUE OF GLOBAL MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2, NOX, AND Hg EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT TSL 7 FOR CAPACITOR-START MOTORS

AND TSL 4b FOR POLYPHASE MOTORS (2015–2045) 

Category Present value 

billion 2009$ 

Discount 

rate 

(percent) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................................................................................................................................................. 7 .6 7 

17 .1 3 

CO2 Monetized Value .................................................................................................................................................... ......................

(at $4.7/Metric Ton) * 0 .38 5 

CO2 Monetized Value .................................................................................................................................................... ......................

(at $21.4/Metric Ton) * 1 .99 3 

CO2 Monetized Value .................................................................................................................................................... ......................

(at $35.1/Metric Ton) * 3 .39 2.5 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10935 

TABLE VI.39—ESTIMATE OF ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS TO PRESENT VALUE OF GLOBAL MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2, NOX, AND Hg EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT TSL 7 FOR CAPACITOR-START MOTORS

AND TSL 4b FOR POLYPHASE MOTORS (2015–2045)—Continued 

Category Present value 

billion 2009$ 

Discount 

rate 

(percent) 

CO2 Monetized Value .................................................................................................................................................... ......................

(at $64.9/Metric Ton) * 6 .08 3 

NOX Monetized Value ................................................................................................................................................... ......................

(at $2,437/Metric Ton) 0 .03 7 

0 .10 3 

Hg Monetized Value ...................................................................................................................................................... ......................

(at $17 million/Metric Ton) 0 .003 7 

0 .005 3 

Total Monetary Benefits ** ............................................................................................................................................. 9 .7 7 

19 .2 3 

Costs 

Total Monetary Costs .................................................................................................................................................... 2 .4 7 

4 .5 3 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Including CO2, NOX, and Hg ** ...................................................................................................................................... 7 .3 7 

14 .6 3 

* These values represent global values (in 2007$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.7, 

$21.4, and $35.1 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of 

$64.9 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. See section IV.M for details. 

** Total Monetary Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of CO2 emissions calculated at a 3% discount rate (averaged across three IAMs), which is equal to $21.4/ton in 2010 (in 2007$). 

TABLE VI.40—ESTIMATES OF ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS (AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE) TO NET

PRESENT VALUE OF LOW, CENTRAL, AND HIGH-END GLOBAL MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2, NOX, AND Hg EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT ALL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS (2015–2045) 

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with: 

CO2 value of $4.7/metric 

ton CO2* and low values 

for NOX and Hg ** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 value of $21.4/metric 

ton CO2* and medium 

values for NOX and Hg *** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 value of $35.1/metric 

ton CO2* and medium 

values for NOX and Hg *** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 value of $64.9/metric 

ton CO2* and high values 

for NOX and Hg **** 

billion 2009$ 

1 ............................................... 0.11 0.14 0.17 0.22 

2 ............................................... 0.24 0.30 0.36 0.47 

3 ............................................... 0.44 0.56 0.66 0.86 

4 ............................................... 0.45 0.59 0.70 0.93 

4b ............................................. 0.59 0.82 1.01 1.38 

5 ............................................... 0.22 0.49 0.72 1.16 

6 ............................................... (0.15 ) 0.13 0.37 0.84 

7 ............................................... (6.75 ) (6.44 ) (6.18 ) (5.66 ) 

* These label values per ton represent the global negative externalities of CO2 in 2010, in 2007$. Their present values have been calculated 

with scenario-consistent discount rates. See section IV.M for a full discussion of the derivation of these values. 

** Low Values correspond to $447 per ton of NOX emissions and $0.764 million per ton of Hg emissions. 

*** Medium Values correspond to $2,519 per ton of NOX emissions and $17.2 million per ton of Hg emissions. 

**** High Values correspond to $4,591 per ton of NOX emissions and $33.7 million per ton of Hg emissions. 

TABLE VI.41—ESTIMATES OF ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS (AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE) TO NET

PRESENT VALUE OF LOW, CENTRAL, AND HIGH-END GLOBAL MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2, NOX, AND HG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT ALL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS (2015–2045) 

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

CO2 value of $4.7/metric 

ton CO2* and low values 

for NOX and Hg ** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 value of $21.4/metric 

ton CO2* and medium 

values for NOX and Hg *** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 value of $35.1/metric 

ton CO2* and medium 

values for NOX and Hg *** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 value of $64.9/metric 

ton CO2* and high values 

for NOX and Hg **** 

billion 2009$ 

1 ............................................... 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.39 

2 ............................................... 0.57 0.64 0.69 0.81 

3 ............................................... 1.04 1.16 1.27 1.47 

4 ............................................... 1.08 1.22 1.34 1.57 

4b ............................................. 1.49 1.73 1.92 2.29 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10936 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.41—ESTIMATES OF ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS (AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE) TO NET

PRESENT VALUE OF LOW, CENTRAL, AND HIGH-END GLOBAL MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2, NOX, AND HG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT ALL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS (2015–2045)— 

Continued 

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

CO2 value of $4.7/metric 

ton CO2* and low values 

for NOX and Hg ** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 value of $21.4/metric 

ton CO2* and medium 

values for NOX and Hg *** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 value of $35.1/metric 

ton CO2* and medium 

values for NOX and Hg *** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 value of $64.9/metric 

ton CO2* and high values 

for NOX and Hg **** 

billion 2009$ 

5 ............................................... 0.83 1.11 1.34 1.79 

6 ............................................... 0.13 0.42 0.66 1.14 

7 ............................................... (12.57 ) (12.26 ) (11.99 ) (11.47 ) 

* These label values per ton represent the global negative externalities of CO2 in 2010, in 2007$. Their present values have been calculated 

with scenario-consistent discount rates. See section IV.M for a full discussion of the derivation of these values. 

** Low Values correspond to $447 per ton of NOX emissions and $0.764 million per ton of Hg emissions. 

*** Medium Values correspond to $2,519 per ton of NOX emissions and $17.2 million per ton of Hg emissions. 

**** High Values correspond to $4,591 per ton of NOX emissions and $33.7 million per ton of Hg emissions. 

TABLE VI.42—ESTIMATES OF ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS (AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE) TO NET

PRESENT VALUE OF LOW, CENTRAL, AND HIGH-END GLOBAL MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2, NOX, AND HG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT ALL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CAPACITOR-START SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS (2015– 

2045) 

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with: 

CO2 value of $4.7/metric 

ton CO2* and low values 

for NOX and Hg ** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 value of $21.4/metric 

ton CO2* and medium 

values for NOX and Hg *** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 value of $35.1/metric 

ton CO2* and medium 

values for NOX and Hg *** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 value of $64.9/metric 

ton CO2* and high values 

for NOX and Hg **** 

billion 2009$ 

1 ............................................... 3.23 4.15 4.93 6.46 

2 ............................................... 3.27 4.20 4.99 6.53 

3 ............................................... 3.08 4.13 5.02 6.76 

4 ............................................... 2.25 3.43 4.43 6.39 

5 ............................................... 2.36 3.55 4.56 6.52 

6 ............................................... (8.98 ) (7.69 ) (6.59 ) (4.43 ) 

7 ............................................... 5.08 6.50 7.70 10.05 

8 ............................................... 3.42 5.05 6.44 9.14 

TABLE VI.43—ESTIMATES OF ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS (AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE) TO NET

PRESENT VALUE OF LOW, CENTRAL, AND HIGH-END GLOBAL MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2, NOX, AND HG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT ALL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CAPACITOR-START SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS (2015– 

2045) 

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

CO2 value of $4.7/metric 

ton CO2* and low values 

for NOX and Hg ** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 value of $21.4/metric 

ton CO2* and medium 

values for NOX and Hg *** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 value of $35.1/metric 

ton CO2* and medium 

values for NOX and Hg *** 

billion 2009$ 

CO2 Value of $64.9/metric ton CO2* and high values for NOX and Hg **** 

billion 2009$ 

1 ............................................... 7.26 8.21 8.99 10.54 

2 ............................................... 7.36 8.32 9.11 10.68 

3 ............................................... 7.13 8.21 9.10 10.88 

4 ............................................... 5.64 6.85 7.86 9.85 

5 ............................................... 5.86 7.08 8.09 10.10 

6 ............................................... (15.91 ) (14.58 ) (13.48 ) (11.28 ) 

7 ............................................... 11.43 12.89 14.09 16.49 

8 ............................................... 8.54 10.22 11.61 14.37 

* These label values per ton represent the global negative externalities of CO2 in 2010, in 2007$. Their present values have been calculated 

with scenario-consistent discount rates. See section IV.M for a full discussion of the derivation of these values. 

** Low Values correspond to $447 per ton of NOX emissions and $0.764 million per ton of Hg emissions. 

*** Medium Values correspond to $2,519 per ton of NOX emissions and $17.2 million per ton of Hg emissions. 

**** High Values correspond to $4,591 per ton of NOX emissions and $33.7 million per ton of Hg emissions. 

7. Other Factors 

In developing today’s standards, the 

Secretary took into consideration the 

following additional factors: (1) 

Harmonization of standards for small 

electric motors with existing standards 

under EPCA for medium-sized 

polyphase general purpose motors; (2) 

the impact, on consumers who need to 

use CSIR motors, of substantially higher 

prices for such motors caused by some 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10937 

potential standard levels; and (3) the 

potential for standards to reduce 

reactive power, and thereby cause lower 

costs for supplying electricity. 

D. Conclusion 

EPCA contains criteria for prescribing 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE must prescribe 

standards only for those small electric 

motors for which DOE: (1) Has 

determined that standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and would result 

in significant energy savings, and (2) has 

prescribed test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B), 6316(a), and 6317(b)) 

Moreover, any standards for this 

equipment must achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) In 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, DOE must 

determine whether the benefits of the 

standard exceed its burdens when 

considering the seven factors discussed 

in section III.D.1. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a)) 

In evaluating standards for small 

electric motors, DOE analyzed 

polyphase and capacitor-start motors 

independently of one another, and 

considered eight TSLs for polyphase 

equipment and eight TSLs for capacitorstart equipment. For reasons explained 

in the NOPR, DOE combined CSCR and 

CSIR motors into a single set of TSLs for 

capacitor-start motors, with each TSL 

being a combination of CSIR and CSCR 

efficiency levels. 74 FR 61484. 

In selecting today’s energy 

conservation standards for small electric 

motors, DOE started by examining the 

TSL with the highest energy savings, 

and determined whether that TSL was 

economically justified. Upon finding a 

TSL not to be justified, DOE considered 

sequentially lower TSLs until it 

identified the highest level that was 

economically justified. (Such level 

would necessarily also be 

technologically feasible and result in a 

significant conservation of energy 

because all of the TSLs considered for 

this final rule meet those criteria.) DOE 

notes that for polyphase small electric 

motors, the TSL with the highest energy 

savings is also the max-tech efficiency 

level, but, as explained in the NOPR, the 

same is not true for capacitor-start 

motors. 74 FR 61484. 

Table VI.44 and Table VI.45 

summarize the results of DOE’s 

quantitative analysis, based on the 

assumptions and methodology 

discussed above, of each TSL DOE 

considered for this rule. They will aid 

the reader in the discussion of costs and 

benefits of each TSL. In some cases, the 

tables present a range of results. The 

range of values reported for industry 

impacts represents the results for the 

two markup scenarios—preservation-ofreturn-on-invested-capital and 

preservation-of-operating-profit 

(absolute dollars)—that DOE used to 

estimate manufacturer impacts. 

In addition to the quantitative results, 

DOE also considers other burdens and 

benefits that affect economic 

justification. These include pending 

standards for medium motors as a result 

of EISA 2007. 

1. Polyphase Small Electric Motors 

Table VI.44 presents a summary of the 

quantitative analysis results for each 

TSL for polyphase small electric motors. 

TABLE VI.44—SUMMARY OF POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS ANALYTICAL RESULTS * 

Criteria 

Trial standard level 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 4b TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 

Primary Energy Savings 

(quads) ................................... 0.05 0.09 0.17 0.19 0.29 0.34 0.37 0.37 

@ 7% Discount Rate ......... 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 

@ 3% Discount Rate ......... 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.20 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) .................. 0.05 0.09 0.16 0.19 0.31 0.36 0.39 0.42 

NPV (2009$ billions) 

@ 7% discount ................... 0.10 0.22 0.41 0.42 0.54 0.16 (0.22) (6.82) 

@ 3% discount ................... 0.26 0.55 1.01 1.05 1.44 0.77 (0.06) (12.65) 

Industry Impacts 

Change in INPV (2009$ 

millions) .......................... (0.19)–(1.49) 0.34–(1.86) 0.98–(2.26) 0.57–(3.58) 3.37–(5.43) 12.62–(11.80) 18.54–(17.51) 95.27–(69.47) 

Change in INPV (%) .......... (0.27)–(2.15) 0.49–(2.67) 1.41–(3.25) 0.82–(5.15) 4.84–(7.80) 18.15–(16.96) 26.65–(25.16) 136.95–(99.85) 

Cumulative Emission Reduction 

CO2 (Mt) ............................. 2.3 4.6 8.3 9.3 15.4 18.3 19.5 21.2 

Value of CO2 reductions 

(2009$ millions) ** ........... 8–122 16–248 28–445 32–502 52–828 62–986 66–1049 72–1144 

NOX (kt) ............................. 1.6 3.3 5.9 6.7 11.0 13.1 13.9 15.2 

Value of NOX reductions at 

7% discount rate (2009$ 

millions) .......................... 0.11–1.18 0.23–2.39 0.42–4.29 0.47–4.84 0.78–7.99 0.92–9.51 0.98–10.11 1.07–11.03 

Value of NOX reductions at 

3% discount rate (2009$ 

millions) .......................... 0.34–3.46 0.68–7.01 1.22–12.59 1.38–14.21 2.28–23.45 2.71–27.90 2.89–29.68 3.15–32.37 

Hg (t) .................................. 0.013 0.025 0.046 0.051 0.085 0.101 0.108 0.117 

Value of Hg reductions at 

7% discount rate (2009$ 

millions) .......................... 0.00–0.12 0.01–0.25 0.01–0.45 0.01–0.51 0.02–0.84 0.02–1.00 0.02–1.06 0.03–1.16 

Value of Hg reductions at 

3% discount rate (2009$ 

millions) .......................... 0.01–0.24 0.01–0.48 0.02–0.87 0.02–0.98 0.04–1.62 0.04–1.93 0.05–2.05 0.05–2.24 

Life-cycle Cost of Rep. Product 

Class 

Customers with increase in 

LCC (%) .......................... 46.8 41.3 40.6 45.1 51.2 65.8 77.4 96.8 

Customers with savings in 

LCC (%) .......................... 53.2 58.7 59.4 54.9 48.8 34.3 22.6 3.2 

Mean LCC (2009$) ............ 1,261 1,249 1,237 1,240 1,240 1,291 1,339 2,095 

Mean LCC Savings 

(2009$) ........................... 8 19 31 29 28 (23) (71) (827) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10938 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.44—SUMMARY OF POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS ANALYTICAL RESULTS *—Continued 

Criteria 

Trial standard level 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 4b TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 

Life-cycle Cost of all Product 

Classes, Weighted by Shipments 

Customers with increase in 

LCC (%) .......................... 44.7 39.2 38.7 42.7 49.2 63.2 74.8 96.2 

Customers with savings in 

LCC (%) .......................... 55.3 69.8 61.3 57.3 50.8 36.8 25.2 3.8 

Mean LCC (2009$) ............ 1,314 1,302 1,287 1,289 1,288 1,337 1,383 2,131 

Mean LCC Savings 

(2009$) ........................... 9 22 36 34 36 (13) (60) (808) 

Payback Period (years) 

Average .............................. 21.1 17.3 17.2 19.8 24.1 40.2 52.6 234.6 

Median ............................... 6.7 5.4 5.3 6.2 7.4 11.7 16.1 48.7 

Employment Impact 

Indirect Impacts (2045) 

(jobs, ‘000) ...................... 0.30 0.57 1.03 1.18 1.94 2.67 3.22 6.34 

* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

** Range of global values for the SCC of emissions reductions, representing a range of scenarios as described in section IV.M and summarized in Table VI.31, with 

discount rates ranging from 2.5% to 5%. 

First, DOE considered TSL 7, the most 

efficient level for polyphase small 

electric motors. TSL 7 would save an 

estimated 0.37 quad of energy through 

2045, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Discounted at seven percent, 

the projected energy savings through 

2045 would be 0.09 quad. For the 

Nation as a whole, DOE projects that 

TSL 7 would result in a net decrease of 

$6.82 billion in NPV, using a discount 

rate of seven percent. The emissions 

reductions at TSL 7 are 21.2 Mt of CO2, 

up to 15.2 kt of NOX, and up to 0.117 

ton of Hg. These reductions have a value 

of up to $1,144 million for CO2 (using 

the 95th percentile value at a 3 percent 

discount rate), and a value of up to 

$11.0 million for NOX, and $1.16 

million for Hg at a discount rate of 

seven percent. At the central value for 

the social cost of carbon, the estimated 

monetized benefit of CO2 emissions 

reductions is $375 million at a discount 

rate of three percent. DOE also estimates 

that at TSL 7, total electric generating 

capacity in 2030 will decrease 

compared to the base case by 0.42 GW. 

At TSL 7, DOE projects that the 

average polyphase small electric motor 

customer purchasing equipment in 2015 

will experience an increase in LCC of 

$827 compared to the baseline. DOE 

estimates the fraction of customers 

experiencing LCC increases will be 96.8 

percent. The median PBP for the average 

polyphase small electric motor customer 

at TSL 7, 48.7 years, is projected to be 

substantially longer than the mean 

lifetime of the equipment. When all 

polyphase product classes are 

considered and weighted by shipments, 

DOE estimates that small electric motor 

customers experience slightly lower 

increases in LCC of $808. 

The projected change in industry 

value ranges from a decrease of $69.5 

million to an increase of $95.3 million. 

The impacts are driven primarily by the 

assumptions regarding the ability to 

pass on larger increases in MPCs to the 

customer. At TSL 7, DOE recognizes the 

risk of very large negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations about 

reduced profit margins are realized. In 

particular, if the high end of the range 

of impacts is reached as DOE expects, 

TSL 7 could result in a net loss of 99.9 

percent in INPV to the polyphase small 

motor industry. DOE believes 

manufacturers would likely have a more 

difficult time maintaining current gross 

margin levels with larger increases in 

manufacturing production costs, as 

standards increase the need for capital 

conversion costs, equipment retooling, 

and increased research and 

development spending. Specifically, at 

this TSL, the majority of manufacturers 

would need to significantly redesign all 

of their polyphase small electric motors. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 7, the Secretary has 

reached the following conclusion: At 

TSL 7, the benefits of energy savings, 

emissions reductions (both in physical 

reductions and the monetized value of 

those reductions), would be outweighed 

by the economic burden of a net cost to 

the Nation (over 30 years), the economic 

burden to customers (as indicated by the 

large increase in life-cycle cost) and the 

potentially large reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers resulting from large 

conversion costs and reduced gross 

margins. Consequently, the Secretary 

has concluded that trial standard level 

7 is not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 6, which 

would likely save an estimated 0.37 

quad of energy through 2045, an amount 

DOE considers significant. Discounted 

at seven percent, the projected energy 

savings through 2045 would be 0.09 

quad. For the Nation as a whole, DOE 

projects that TSL 6 would result in a net 

decrease of $220 million in NPV, using 

a discount rate of seven percent. The 

estimated emissions reductions at TSL 6 

are 19.5 Mt of CO2, up to 13.9 kt of NOX, 

and up to 0.108 ton of Hg. These 

reductions have a value of up to $1,049 

million for CO2 (using the 95th 

percentile value at a 3 percent discount 

rate), and a value of up to $10.1 million 

for NOX, and $1.06 million for Hg, at a 

discount rate of seven percent. At the 

central value for the social cost of 

carbon, the estimated monetized benefit 

of CO2 emissions reductions is $344 

million at a discount rate of three 

percent. Total electric generating 

capacity in 2030 is estimated to 

decrease compared to the base case by 

0.39 GW under TSL 6. 

At TSL 6, DOE projects that the 

average polyphase small electric motor 

customer purchasing equipment in 2015 

will experience an increase in LCC of 

$71 compared to the baseline. DOE 

estimates the fraction of customers 

experiencing LCC increases will be 

seven percent. The median PBP for the 

average polyphase small electric motor 

customer at TSL 6, 16.1 years, is 

projected to be substantially longer than 

the mean lifetime of the equipment. 

When all polyphase product classes are 

considered and weighted by shipments, 

DOE estimates that small electric motor 

customers experience slightly lower 

increases in LCC of $60. 

The projected change in industry 

value ranges from a decrease of $17.5 

million to an increase of $18.5 million. 

The impacts are driven primarily by the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10939 

assumptions regarding the ability to 

pass on larger increases in MPCs to the 

customer. At TSL 6, DOE recognizes the 

risk of very large negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations about 

reduced profit margins are realized. In 

particular, if the high end of the range 

of impacts is reached as DOE expects, 

TSL 6 could result in a net loss of 25.2 

percent in INPV to the polyphase small 

motor industry. DOE believes 

manufacturers would likely have a more 

difficult time maintaining current gross 

margin levels with larger increases in 

manufacturing production costs, as 

standards increase the need for capital 

conversion costs, equipment retooling, 

and increased research and 

development spending. Specifically, at 

this TSL, the majority of manufacturers 

would need to significantly redesign all 

of their polyphase small electric motors. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 6, the Secretary has 

reached the following conclusion: At 

TSL 6, the benefits of energy savings, 

emissions reductions (both in physical 

reductions and the monetized value of 

those reductions), would be outweighed 

by the economic burden of a net cost to 

the Nation (over 30 years), the economic 

burden to consumers (as indicated by 

the increased life-cycle cost), and the 

potential reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers resulting from large 

conversion costs and reduced gross 

margins. Consequently, the Secretary 

has concluded that trial standard level 

6 is not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 5, which 

provides for polyphase small electric 

motors the maximum efficiency level 

that the analysis showed to have 

positive NPV for the Nation. TSL 5 

would likely save an estimated 0.34 

quad of energy through 2045, an amount 

DOE considers significant. Discounted 

at seven percent, the projected energy 

savings through 2045 would be 0.09 

quad. For the Nation as a whole, DOE 

projects that TSL 5 would result in a net 

increase of $160 million in NPV, using 

a discount rate of seven percent. The 

estimated emissions reductions at TSL 5 

are 18.3 Mt of CO2, up to 13.1 kt of NOX, 

and up to 0.101 ton of Hg. These 

reductions have a value of up to $986 

million for CO2 (using the 95th 

percentile value at a 3 percent discount 

rate), and a value of up to $9.5 million 

for NOX, and $1.0 million for Hg, at a 

discount rate of seven percent. At the 

central value for the social cost of 

carbon, the estimated benefit of CO2

emissions reductions is $323 million at 

a discount rate of three percent. Total 

electric generating capacity in 2030 is 

estimated to decrease compared to the 

base case by 0.36 GW under TSL 5. 

At TSL 5, DOE projects that the 

average polyphase small electric motor 

customer purchasing the equipment in 

2015 will experience an increase in LCC 

of $23 compared to the baseline 

representative unit for analysis (1 hp, 4 

pole polyphase motor). This 

corresponds to approximately a 1.8 

percent increase in average LCC. Based 

on this analysis, DOE estimates that 

approximately 66 percent of customers 

would experience LCC increases and 

that the median PBP would be 11.7 

years, which is longer than the mean 

lifetime of the equipment. However, in 

consideration of the relatively small 

percentage increase in LCC at TSL 5, 

DOE examined sensitivity analyses to 

assess the likelihood of consumers in 

fact experiencing significant LCC 

increases. These included calculating a 

shipment-weighted LCC savings. 

At TSL 5, when accounting for the 

full-range of horsepowers and pole 

configurations of polyphase motors, the 

average LCC increase is reduced to $13. 

This corresponds to approximately 63 

percent of customers experiencing an 

increase in LCC, with the remaining 37 

percent, those with greater operating 

hours, realizing net savings. 

The projected change in industry 

value ranges from a decrease of $11.8 

million to an increase of $12.6 million. 

The impacts are driven primarily by the 

assumptions regarding the ability to 

pass on larger increases in MPCs to the 

customer. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes the 

risk of negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations about 

reduced profit margins are realized. If 

the high end of the range of impacts is 

reached, TSL 5 could result in a net loss 

of 17.0 percent in INPV to the polyphase 

small motor industry. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 5, the Secretary has 

reached the following conclusion: At 

TSL 5, the benefits of energy savings 

and emissions reductions (both in 

physical reductions and the monetized 

value of those reductions) would be 

outweighed by the economic burden to 

consumers (as indicated by the 

increased life-cycle cost). Consequently, 

the Secretary has concluded that trial 

standard level 5 is not economically 

justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 4b, which 

is at an efficiency level added to the 

analysis in response to comments 

presented on the NOPR. TSL 4b would 

likely save an estimated 0.29 quad of 

energy through 2045, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Discounted at 

seven percent, the projected energy 

savings through 2045 would be 0.07 

quad. For the Nation as a whole, DOE 

projects that TSL 4b would result in a 

net increase of $540 million in NPV, 

using a discount rate of seven percent. 

The estimated emissions reductions at 

TSL 4b are 15.4 Mt of CO2, up to 11.0 

kt of NOX, and up to 0.085 ton of Hg. 

These reductions have a value of up to 

$828 million for CO2 (using the 95th 

percentile value at a 3 percent discount 

rate), and a value of up to $8.0 million 

for NOX, and $0.8 million for Hg, at a 

discount rate of seven percent. At the 

central value for the social cost of 

carbon, the estimated benefit of CO2

emissions reductions is $272 million at 

a discount rate of three percent. Total 

electric generating capacity in 2030 is 

estimated to decrease compared to the 

base case by 0.31 GW under TSL 4b. 

At TSL 4b, DOE projects that the 

average polyphase small electric motor 

customer purchasing the equipment in 

2015 will experience a reduction in LCC 

of $28 compared to the baseline 

representative unit for analysis (1 hp, 4 

pole polyphase motor). This 

corresponds to approximately a 2.2 

percent reduction in average LCC. Based 

on this analysis, DOE estimates that 

approximately 51 percent of customers 

would experience LCC increases and 

that the median PBP would be 7.4 years, 

which is only slightly longer than the 

mean lifetime of the equipment. 

However, in consideration of the 

relatively small percentage decrease in 

LCC at TSL 4b, DOE examined 

sensitivity analyses to assess the 

likelihood of consumers experiencing 

significant LCC increases. These 

included calculating a shipmentweighted LCC savings. 

At TSL 4b, when accounting for the 

full-range of horsepowers and pole 

configurations of polyphase motors, the 

average LCC savings increase to $36. 

This corresponds to approximately 49 

percent of customers experiencing an 

increase in LCC, with the remaining 51 

percent realizing net savings. 

The projected change in industry 

value ranges from a decrease of $5.4 

million to an increase of $3.4 million. 

The impacts are driven primarily by the 

assumptions regarding the ability to 

pass on larger increases in MPCs to the 

customer. At TSL 4b, DOE recognizes 

the risk of negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations about 

reduced profit margins are realized. If 

the high end of the range of impacts is 

reached, TSL 4b could result in a net 

loss of 7.8 percent in INPV to the 

polyphase small motor industry. 

Trial standard level 4b has other 

advantages that are not directly 

economic. This level sets standards for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10940 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

many product classes that are 

approximately harmonized with the 

efficiency level for medium motors to be 

implemented in 2010 which requires 

four-pole, 1-hp polyphase motors to be 

at least 85.5% efficient. Since many— 

but not all—three digit frame size 

polyphase motors of this size can also 

be used in two-digit frames with 

minimal adjustment, DOE believes that 

there is a benefit to harmonizing small 

polyphase and medium polyphase 

motor efficiency standards in this size 

range. In particular, DOE does not 

believe the design changes necessary for 

TSL 4b would force all manufacturers to 

significantly redesign all of their 

polyphase small electric motors or their 

production processes. Therefore, DOE 

believes manufacturers are not at a 

significant risk to experience highly 

negative impacts. 

After considering the analysis and the 

benefits and burdens of trial standard 

level 4b, the Secretary has reached the 

following conclusion: Trial standard 

level 4b offers the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

The Secretary has reached the 

conclusion that the benefits of energy 

savings and emissions reductions (both 

in physical reductions and the 

monetized value of those reductions) 

outweigh the potential reduction in 

INPV for manufacturers and the 

economic burden on consumers, which 

is relatively small on average. Therefore, 

DOE today adopts the energy 

conservation standards for polyphase 

small electric motors at trial standard 

level 4b. 

2. Capacitor-Start Small Electric Motors 

Table VI.45 presents a summary of the 

quantitative analysis results for each 

TSL for capacitor-start small electric 

motors. 

TABLE VI.45—SUMMARY OF CAPACITOR-START SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS ANALYTICAL RESULTS * 

Criteria 

Trial standard level 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 TSL 8 

Primary Energy Savings 

(quads) ................................... 1.18 1.19 1.36 1.47 1.47 1.61 1.91 2.33 

@ 7% Discount Rate ......... 0.31 0.31 0.36 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.51 0.62 

@ 3% Discount Rate ......... 0.63 0.64 0.73 0.79 0.79 0.87 1.03 1.25 

Generation Capacity Reduction 

(GW) ...................................... 1.21 1.22 1.38 1.54 1.55 1.70 1.86 2.14 

NPV (2009$ billions) 

@ 7% discount ................... 3.01 3.05 2.83 1.97 2.08 (9.29) 4.74 3.03 

@ 3% discount ................... 7.03 7.13 6.87 5.35 5.57 (16.23) 11.08 8.14 

Industry Impacts 

Change in INPV (2009$ 

millions) .......................... 8.40–(19.99) 9.46–(20.79) 16.27– 

(32.42) 

32.15– 

(42.15) 

28.48– 

(40.09) 

186.60– 

(152.05) 

18.40–(34.05) 46.35–(52.58) 

Change in INPV (%) .......... 3.01–(7.16) 3.39–(7.45) 5.83–(11.62) 11.52– 

(15.46) 

10.20– 

(14.37) 

66.87–(54.49) 6.59–(12.20) 16.61–(18.84) 

Cumulative Emission Reduction 

CO2 (Mt) ............................. 6.29 63.5 71.7 80.5 81.0 88.5 96.8 111.4 

Value of CO2 reductions 

(2009$ millions) ** ........... 216–3410 218–3444 246–3890 277–4367 278–4394 304–4801 333–5253 383–6046 

NOX (kt) ............................. 45.1 45.54 51.44 57.74 58.11 63.48 69.47 79.95 

Value of NOX reductions at 

7% discount rate (2009$ 

millions) .......................... 3.5–36.0 3.5–36.2 4.0–41.0 4.5–46.0 4.5–46.3 4.9–50.6 5.4–55.4 6.2–63.8 

Value of NOX reductions at 

3% discount rate (2009$ 

millions) .......................... 9.6–98.7 9.7–100.0 11.0–112.6 12.3–126.4 12.4–127.2 13.5–138.9 14.8–152.0 17.0–175.0 

Hg (t) .................................. 0.265 0.267 0.302 0.339 0.341 0.373 0.408 0.469 

Value of Hg reductions at 

7% discount rate (2009$ 

millions) .......................... 0.06–2.79 0.06–2.82 0.07–3.18 0.08–3.57 0.08–3.60 0.09–3.93 0.10–4.30 0.11–4.95 

Value of Hg reductions at 

3% discount rate (2009$ 

millions) .......................... 0.12–5.22 0.12–5.27 0.13–5.95 0.15–6.68 0.15–6.72 0.17–7.34 0.18–8.04 0.21–9.25 

Life-cycle Cost of Rep. Product 

Class 

CSIR 

Customers with increase in LCC (%) .. 32.0 32.0 41.6 54.9 54.9 65.6 65.6 65.6 

Customers with savings in LCC (%) ....... 68.0 68.0 58.4 45.1 45.1 34.5 34.5 34.5 

Mean LCC (2009$) ..... 857 857 868 902 902 1,285 1,285 1,285 

Mean LCC Savings 

(2009$) .................... 58 58 47 13 13 (369) (369) (369) 

CSCR 

Customers with increase in LCC (%) .. 46.5 47.8 47.8 54.9 47.8 98.6 47.8 74.7 

Customers with savings in LCC (%) ....... 53.6 52.2 52.2 45.1 52.2 1.4 52.2 25.3 

Mean LCC (2009$) ..... 1,005 1,002 1,002 1,015 1,002 1,856 1,002 1,078 

Mean LCC Savings 

(2009$) .................... 21 24 24 11 24 (830) 24 (52) 

CSIR migrating to CSCR 

weighted results *** 

Customers with increase in 

LCC (%) .......................... 32.5 32.5 41.7 55.0 55.0 66.0 53.7 60.6 

Customers with savings in 

LCC (%) .......................... 67.5 67.5 58.3 45.0 45.0 34.0 46.3 39.4 

Mean LCC (2009$) ............ 854 854 865 899 899 1,282 891 917 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10941 

TABLE VI.45—SUMMARY OF CAPACITOR-START SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS ANALYTICAL RESULTS *—Continued 

Criteria 

Trial standard level 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 TSL 8 

Mean LCC Savings 

(2009$) ........................... 58 58 47 15 15 (370) 23 (3) 

Life-cycle Cost of all Product 

Classes, Weighted by Shipments 

CSIR 

Customers with increase in LCC (%) .. 30.7 30.7 40.2 54.1 54.1 65.1 65.1 65.1 

Customers with savings in LCC (%) ....... 69.3 69.3 59.8 45.9 45.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 

Mean LCC (2009$) ..... 859 859 870 903 903 1,287 1,287 1,287 

Mean LCC Savings 

(2009$) .................... 62 62 51 17 17 (367) (367) (367) 

CSCR 

Customers with increase in LCC (%) .. 38.4 39.7 39.7 46.1 39.7 94.7 39.7 65.0 

Customers with savings in LCC (%) ....... 61.6 60.3 60.3 53.9 60.3 5.3 60.3 35.0 

Mean LCC (2009$) ..... 1,299 1,289 1,289 1,304 1,289 2,228 1,289 1,364 

Mean LCC Savings 

(2009$) .................... 50 60 60 45 60 (879) 60 (15) 

Market Share ****—CSIR (%) ... 99 98 98 96 95 100 3 7 

Payback Period (years) 

CSIR 

Average ....................... 10.5 10.5 15.1 24.9 24.9 108.5 108.5 108.5 

Median ........................ 3.1 3.1 4.5 7.0 7.0 11.9 11.9 11.9 

CSCR 

Average ....................... 14.8 15.3 15.3 19.5 15.3 200.0 15.3 34.8 

Median ........................ 4.4 4.5 4.5 5.9 4.5 37.6 4.5 10.0 

Employment Impact 

Indirect Impacts (2045) 

(jobs, ‘000)¥ .................. 7.06 7.12 8.56 10.24 10.20 19.57 11.22 18.70 

* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

** Range of global values for the SCC of emissions reductions, representing a range of scenarios as described in section IV.M and summarized in Table VI.31, with 

discount rates ranging from 2.5% to 5%. 

*** Shipments-weighted based on market share product switching model. 

**** Base case market share is 95 percent CSIR and 5 percent CSCR. 

First, DOE considered TSL 8, the 

combination of CSIR and CSCR 

efficiency levels generating the greatest 

national energy savings. TSL 8 would 

likely save an estimated 2.33 quads of 

energy through 2045, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Discounted at 

seven percent, the projected energy 

savings through 2045 would be 0.62 

quad. For the Nation as a whole, DOE 

projects that TSL 8 would result in a net 

benefit of $3.03 billion in NPV, using a 

discount rate of seven percent. The 

estimated emissions reductions at TSL 8 

are up to 111.4 Mt of CO2, up to 80.0 

kt of NOX, and up to 0.469 ton of Hg. 

These reductions have a value of up to 

$6,046 million for CO2 (using the 95th 

percentile value at a 3 percent discount 

rate), and a value of up to $63.8 million 

for NOX, and $4.95 million for Hg at a 

discount rate of seven percent. At the 

central value for the social cost of 

carbon, the estimated benefit of CO2

emissions reductions is $1,982 million 

at a discount rate of three percent. DOE 

also estimates that at TSL 8, total 

electric generating capacity in 2030 will 

decrease compared to the base case by 

2.14 GW. 

At TSL 8, DOE projects that for the 

average customer, compared to the 

baseline, the LCC of a CSIR and CSCR 

motor will increase by $369 and $52, 

respectively. At TSL 8, DOE estimates 

the fraction of customers experiencing 

LCC increases will be 66 percent for 

CSIR motors and 75 percent for CSCR 

motors. The median PBP for the average 

capacitor-start small electric motor 

customers at TSL 8, 11.9 years for CSIR 

motors and 10.0 years for CSCR motors, 

is projected to be substantially longer 

than the mean lifetime of the 

equipment. DOE also considered market 

migration between CSIR and CSCR users 

and how that would affect the LCC of 

CSIR users at TSL 8. DOE estimates that 

at this TSL it will be more cost-effective 

for many CSIR consumers to purchase a 

CSCR motor instead, with only a slight 

$3 increase in the average LCC over that 

of the baseline CSIR motor. In total, 61 

percent of consumers who migrate from 

a CSIR to a CSCR motor will experience 

LCC increases. 

DOE also examined LCC savings using 

a full distribution of motor sizes and 

speeds. Under these conditions, for the 

average customer, the LCC of a CSIR and 

CSCR motor will increase by $367 and 

$15, respectively, compared to the 

baseline. At TSL 8, DOE estimates the 

fraction of customers experiencing LCC 

increases will be 65 percent for both 

CSIR and CSCR motors. 

The projected change in industry 

value ranges from a decrease of $52.58 

million to an increase of $46.35 million. 

The impacts are driven primarily by the 

assumptions regarding the ability to 

pass on larger increases in MPCs to the 

customer as well as the necessary 

estimated investments. At TSL 8, DOE 

recognizes the risk of negative impacts 

if manufacturers’ expectations about 

reduced profit margins are realized. In 

particular, if the high end of the range 

of impacts is reached as DOE expects, 

TSL 8 could result in a net loss of 18.84 

percent in INPV to the capacitor-start 

small motor industry. DOE believes 

manufacturers would likely have a more 

difficult time maintaining current gross 

margin levels with larger increases in 

manufacturing production costs, as 

standards increase the need for capital 

conversion costs, equipment retooling, 

and increased research and 

development spending. Specifically, at 

this TSL, the majority of manufacturers 

would need to significantly redesign all 

of their capacitor-start small electric 

motors. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10942 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

burdens of TSL 8, the Secretary has 

reached the following conclusion: At 

TSL 8, the benefits of energy savings, 

emissions reductions (both in physical 

reductions and the monetized value of 

those reductions), and the positive net 

economic savings (over 30 years) would 

be outweighed by the economic burden 

on existing CSCR customers and CSIR 

customers who do not migrate from 

CSIR to CSCR motors (as indicated by 

the large increase in LCC) and the 

potentially large reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers resulting from large 

conversion costs and reduced gross 

margins. Consequently, the Secretary 

has concluded that trial standard level 

8 is not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 7, which 

would likely save an estimated 1.91 

quads of energy through 2045, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Discounted at seven percent, the 

projected energy savings through 2045 

would be 0.51 quad. For the Nation as 

a whole, DOE projects that TSL 7 would 

result in a net benefit of $4.74 billion in 

NPV, using a discount rate of seven 

percent. The estimated emissions 

reductions at TSL 7 are up to 96.8 Mt 

of CO2, up to 69.5 kt of NOX, and up to 

0.408 ton of Hg. These reductions have 

a value of up to $5,253 million for CO2

(using the 95th percentile value at a 3 

percent discount rate), and a value of up 

to $55.4 million for NOX, and $4.30 

million for Hg at a discount rate of 

seven percent. At the central value for 

the social cost of carbon, the estimated 

benefit of CO2 emissions reductions is 

$1,722 million at a discount rate of three 

percent. Total electric generating 

capacity in 2030 is estimated to 

decrease compared to the base case by 

1.86 GW under TSL 7. 

At TSL 7, DOE projects that for the 

average customer, the LCC of capacitorstart small electric motors will increase 

by $369 for CSIR motors and decrease 

by $24 for CSCR motors compared to the 

baseline. At TSL 7, DOE estimates the 

fraction of CSIR customers experiencing 

LCC increases will be 66 percent, but 

only 48 percent for CSCR motor 

customers. However, DOE believes that 

at this TSL, which is the max-tech 

efficiency level for CSIR motors, the 

relative difference in cost between a 

CSIR motor and a CSCR motor becomes 

substantial and will have large effects 

on customers. Rather than buy an 

expensive CSIR motor, those customers 

whose applications permit them to will 

purchase a CSCR motor with the same 

number of poles and horsepower 

ratings. DOE is unsure of the magnitude 

of the migration of CSIR users to CSCR 

motors, but estimates that customers 

that purchase a CSCR motor rather than 

a CSIR motor will reduce their LCC by 

$23 on average, compared to the 

baseline CSIR motor. On a national 

level, DOE estimates that the market 

share of CSCR motors could grow from 

5 percent of all capacitor-start motors to 

97 percent once the compliance date for 

these standards is effective. Even though 

switching from a CSIR to a CSCR motor 

would result in a reduction in LCC on 

average, DOE estimates that 

approximately 54 percent of CSIR 

customers that switch would still 

experience an LCC increase. 

DOE also examined LCC savings with 

a full distribution of motor sizes and 

speeds. Under these conditions, for the 

average customer, compared to the 

baseline, the LCC of a CSIR and CSCR 

motor will increase by $367 and 

decrease by $60, respectively. DOE also 

examined what fraction of motors 

would have increases in LCC. At TSL 7, 

DOE estimates that 65 percent of CSIR 

motor customers who do not switch to 

CSCR motors, and 40 percent of CSCR 

motor customers, will experience 

increased LCC. 

The projected change in industry 

value ranges from a decrease of $34.05 

million to an increase of $18.40 million. 

The impacts are driven primarily by the 

assumptions regarding the ability to 

pass on larger increases in MPCs to the 

customer as well as the necessary 

estimated investments. At TSL 7, DOE 

recognizes the risk of negative impacts 

if manufacturers’ expectations about 

reduced profit margins are realized. In 

particular, if the high end of the range 

of impacts is reached as DOE expects, 

TSL 7 could result in a net loss of 12.20 

percent in INPV to the capacitor-start 

small motor industry. At this TSL, the 

combination of efficiency levels could 

cause a migration from CSIR motors to 

CSCR motors; however, DOE believes 

that the capital conversion costs, 

equipment retooling and R&D spending 

associated with this migration would 

not be severe. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 7, the Secretary has 

reached the following conclusion: Trial 

standard level 7 offers the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and will result in 

significant conservation of energy. The 

Secretary has reached the conclusion 

that the benefits of energy savings, 

emissions reductions (both in physical 

reductions and the monetized value of 

those reductions), the positive net 

economic savings to the Nation (over 30 

years) and the harmonization of 

efficiency requirements between CSIR 

and CSCR motors would outweigh the 

potential reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers and the economic burden 

on those CSIR customers who are 

unable to switch to CSCR motors. 

Further, benefits from carbon dioxide 

reductions (at a central value calculated 

using a three percent discount rate) 

would increase NPV by $1,722 million 

(2009$). These benefits from carbon 

dioxide emission reductions, when 

considered in conjunction with the 

consumer savings NPV and other factors 

described above support DOE’s tentative 

conclusion that trial standard level 7 is 

economically justified. Therefore, DOE 

today adopts the energy conservation 

standards for capacitor-start small 

electric motors at trial standard level 7. 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), 

requires each agency to identify the 

problem the agency intends to address 

that warrants new agency action 

(including, where applicable, the 

failures of private markets or public 

institutions), as well as assess the 

significance of that problem, to enable 

assessment of whether any new 

regulation is warranted. EPCA requires 

DOE to establish standards for the small 

motors covered in today’s rulemaking. 

In addition, today’s standards also 

address the following: (1) Misplaced 

incentives, which separate 

responsibility for selecting equipment 

and for paying their operating costs; and 

(2) Lack of consumer information and/ 

or information processing capability 

about energy efficiency opportunities. 

The market for small electric motors is 

dominated by the presence and actions 

of OEMs, who sell small electric motors 

to end-users as a component of a larger 

piece of equipment. There is a very large 

diversity of equipment types that use 

small electric motors and the market for 

any particular type of equipment may be 

very small. Consumers lack information 

and choice regarding the motor 

component. OEMs and consumers may 

be more concerned with other aspects of 

the application system than with 

selecting the most cost effective motor 

for the end user. Space constraints may 

also restrict the ability of the consumer 

to replace the motor with a more 

efficient model. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

today’s regulatory action is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f)(1) 

of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order 

required that DOE prepare a regulatory 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10943 

impact analysis (RIA) on today’s final 

rule and that the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the 

OMB review this rule. DOE presented to 

OIRA for review the final rule and other 

documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including the RIA, and has 

included these documents in the 

rulemaking record. They are available 

for public review in the Resource Room 

of DOE’s Building Technologies 

Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 

600, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586– 

2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

The NOPR contained a summary of 

the RIA, which evaluated the extent to 

which major alternatives to standards 

for small electric motors could achieve 

significant energy savings at reasonable 

cost, as compared to the effectiveness of 

the proposed rule. 74 FR 61493–96. The 

complete RIA (Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for Proposed Energy 

Conservation Standards for Small 

Electric Motors) is contained in the TSD 

prepared for today’s rule. The RIA 

consists of: (1) A statement of the 

problem addressed by this regulation 

and the mandate for government action, 

(2) a description and analysis of the 

feasible policy alternatives to this 

regulation, (3) a quantitative comparison 

of the impacts of the alternatives, and 

(4) the national economic impacts of 

today’s standards. 

The major alternatives DOE analyzed 

were: (1) No new regulatory action; (2) 

financial incentives, including tax 

credits and rebates; (3) revisions to 

voluntary energy efficiency targets; and 

(4) bulk government purchases. DOE 

evaluated each alternative in terms of its 

ability to achieve significant energy 

savings at reasonable costs, and 

compared it to the effectiveness of the 

proposed rule. 

TABLE VII.1—NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES FOR SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

Policy alternatives Energy savings 

quads * 

Net present value† 

billion $ 

7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 

No New Regulatory Action .................................................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Consumer Rebates at TSL 4b (Polyphase) and TSL 3 (Single-Phase) ............. 0.17 0.49 1.13 

Consumer Rebates at TSL 4b (Polyphase) and TSL 2 (Single-Phase) ............. 0.27 0.72 1.69 

Consumer Rebates at TSL 4b (Polyphase) and TSL 3 (Capacitor-Start Capacitor-Run Only) ................................................................................................... 0.60 1.76 4.03

Consumer Tax Credits ......................................................................................... 0.11 0.35 0.80 

Manufacturer Tax Credits .................................................................................... 0.07 0.25 0.56 

Voluntary Efficiency Targets ................................................................................ 0.42 0.95 2.29 

Bulk Government Purchases ............................................................................... 0.18 0.44 1.04 

Proposed Standards at TSL 4b (Polyphase) and TSL 7 (Capacitor-Start) ........ 2.20 5.28 12.52 

* Energy savings are in source quads from 2015 and 2045. 

† Net present value (NPV) is the value of a time series of costs and savings. DOE determined the NPV from 2015 to 2065 in billions of 2009$. 

The net present value amounts shown 

in Table VII.1 refer to the NPV for 

consumers. The costs to the government 

of each policy (such as rebates or tax 

credits) are not included in the costs for 

the NPV since, on balance, consumers 

are both paying for (through taxes) and 

receiving the benefits of the payments. 

For each of the policy alternatives other 

than standards, Table VII.1 shows the 

energy savings and NPV in the case 

where the CSIR and CSCR market share 

shift in response to the policy prior to 

2015, or immediately in 2015 when 

compliance with the standards would 

be required. The NES and NPV in the 

case of the proposed standard are shown 

as a range between this scenario and a 

scenario in which the market shift takes 

ten years to complete, and begins in 

2015 . The following paragraphs discuss 

each of the policy alternatives listed in 

Table VII.1. (For more details see TSD, 

RIA.) 

No new regulatory action. The case in 

which no regulatory action is taken with 

regard to small electric motors 

constitutes the ‘‘base case’’ (or ‘‘No 

Action’’) scenario. In this case, between 

2015 and 2045, capacitor-start small 

electric motors purchased in or after 

2015 are expected to consume 1.91 

quads of primary energy (in the form of 

losses), while polyphase small electric 

motors purchased in or after 2015 are 

expected to consume 0.29 quad of 

primary energy. Since this is the base 

case, energy savings and NPV are zero 

by definition. 

Rebates. DOE evaluated the possible 

effect of a rebate consistent with current 

motor rebate practices in the promotion 

of premium efficiency motors which 

cover a portion of the incremental price 

difference between equipment meeting 

baseline efficiency levels and 

equipment meeting improved efficiency 

requirements. The current average 

motor rebate for an efficient 1- 

horsepower motor is approximately $25, 

and DOE scaled this rebate to be 

approximately proportional to the retail 

price of the motor. DOE evaluated 

rebates targeting TSL 4b for polyphase 

motors, and evaluated several target 

efficiency levels for capacitor-start 

motors (including TSLs 7, 5, 3, and 2). 

Existing rebate programs for polyphase 

motors target three-digit frame series 

motors with efficiencies equivalent to 

TSL 4b for small polyphase motors. At 

rebate efficiency levels corresponding to 

TSL 7 and 5 for capacitor-start motors, 

DOE estimates that rebates consistent 

with current practice would have an 

insignificant impact on increasing the 

market share of CSIR motors. For this 

case, meeting the target level requires 

the purchase of a motor with a very high 

average first cost because for TSL 7, 

CSIR motors are at the maximum 

technologically feasible efficiency. As a 

result, rebates targeting TSLs 3 and 2 

have larger energy savings. TSLs 7, 5, 3, 

and 2 correspond to the same efficiency 

level (EL 3) for CSCR motors. 

For rebate programs targeting TSL 4b 

for polyphase motors and TSL 3 for 

capacitor start motors, DOE estimates 

the market share of equipment meeting 

the energy efficiency levels targeted 

would increase from 0 percent to 0.4 

percent for polyphase motors, from 0 

percent to 0.2 percent for capacitor-start, 

induction-run motors, and from 26.0 to 

42.6 percent for capacitor-start, 

capacitor-run motors. DOE assumed the 

impact of this policy would be to 

permanently transform the market so 

that the shipment-weighted efficiency 

gain seen in the first year of the program 

would be maintained throughout the 

forecast period. At the estimated 

participation rates, the rebates would 

provide 0.17 quad of national energy 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10944 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

savings and an NPV of $0.49 billion (at 

a 7-percent discount rate). 

DOE found that a rebate targeting the 

efficiency levels corresponding to TSL 2 

for capacitor-start motors would result 

in larger energy savings than one 

targeting the efficiency levels of TSL 3, 

TSL 5 or TSL 7. Such rebates would 

increase the market share among 

capacitor-start induction-run motors 

meeting the efficiency level 

corresponding to TSL 2 from 2.0 percent 

to 11.7 percent. Combined with 

unchanged polyphase motor rebates 

targeting TSL 4b, DOE estimates these 

rebates would provide 0.27 quad of 

national energy savings and an NPV of 

$0.72 billion (at a 7-percent discount 

rate). 

DOE also analyzed an alternative 

rebate program for capacitor-start 

motors which would give rebates of 

twice the value of the previouslyanalyzed rebate for CSCR motors which 

meet the requirements of TSL 7 (a $50 

rebate for a 1 HP motor, scaled to other 

product classes), and no rebates for 

CSIR motors. DOE estimates that these 

rebates would have no effect on the 

efficiency distribution of capacitor-start 

induction-run motors, and would 

increase the market share among 

capacitor-start capacitor-run motors 

meeting TSL 7 from 26.0 percent to 89.4 

percent. Combined with unchanged 

polyphase motor rebates at TSL 4b, DOE 

estimates these rebates would provide 

0.60 quad of national energy savings 

and an NPV of $1.76 billion (at a 7- 

percent discount rate). 

Although DOE estimates that rebates 

will provide national benefits, they are 

much smaller than the benefits resulting 

from national performance standards. 

Thus, DOE rejected rebates as a policy 

alternative to national performance 

standards. 

Consumer Tax Credits. If customers 

were offered a tax credit equivalent to 

the amount mentioned above for 

rebates, DOE’s research suggests that the 

number of customers buying a small 

electric motor that would take 

advantage of the tax credit would be 

approximately 60 percent of the number 

that would take advantage of rebates. 

Thus, as a result of the tax credit, the 

percentage of customers purchasing the 

products with efficiencies 

corresponding to TSL 4b or higher for 

polyphase motors would increase from 

8.0 percent to 15.0 percent; the market 

share of capacitor-start motors meeting 

TSL 3 would increase from 0 percent to 

0.1 percent for capacitor-start, 

induction-run motors, and from 26.0 

percent to 36.0 percent for capacitorstart, capacitor-run motors. DOE 

assumed the impact of this policy 

would be to permanently transform the 

market so that the shipment-weighted 

efficiency gain seen in the first year of 

the program would be maintained 

throughout the forecast period. DOE 

estimated that tax credits would yield a 

fraction of the benefits that rebates 

would provide. DOE rejected rebates, as 

a policy alternative to national 

performance standards, because the 

benefits that rebates provide are much 

smaller than those resulting from 

performance standards. Thus, because 

consumer tax credits provide even 

smaller benefits than rebates, DOE also 

rejected consumer tax credits as a policy 

alternative to national performance 

standards. 

Manufacturer Tax Credits. DOE 

believes even smaller benefits would 

result from availability of a 

manufacturer tax credit program that 

would effectively result in a lower price 

to the consumer by an amount that 

covers part of the incremental price 

difference between products meeting 

baseline efficiency levels and those 

meeting TSL 4b for polyphase small 

electric motors and TSL 3 for capacitorstart small electric motors. Because 

these tax credits would go to 

manufacturers instead of customers, 

DOE believes that fewer customers 

would be aware of this program relative 

to a consumer tax credit program. DOE 

assumes that 50 percent of the 

customers who would take advantage of 

consumer tax credits would buy moreefficient products offered through a 

manufacturer tax credit program. Thus, 

as a result of the manufacturer tax 

credit, the percentage of customers 

purchasing the more-efficient products 

would increase from 8.0 percent to 11.5 

percent (i.e., 50 percent of the impact of 

consumer tax credits) for polyphase 

motors, from 0 percent to 0.1 percent for 

capacitor-start, induction-run motors, 

and from 26.0 percent to 31.0 percent 

for capacitor-start, capacitor-run motors. 

DOE assumed the impact of this 

policy would be to permanently 

transform the market so that the 

shipment-weighted efficiency gain seen 

in the first year of the program will be 

maintained throughout the forecast 

period. DOE estimated that 

manufacturer tax credits would yield a 

fraction of the benefits that consumer 

tax credits would provide. DOE rejected 

consumer tax credits as a policy 

alternative to national performance 

standards because the benefits that 

consumer tax credits provide are much 

smaller than those resulting from 

performance standards. Thus, because 

manufacturer tax credits provide even 

smaller benefits than consumer tax 

credits, DOE also rejected manufacturer 

tax credits as a policy alternative to 

national performance standards. 

Voluntary Energy-Efficiency Targets. 

There are no current Federal or industry 

marketing efforts to increase the use of 

efficient small electric motors which 

meet the requirements of TSL 4b for 

polyphase small electric motors or TSL 

7 for capacitor-start small electric 

motors. NEMA and the Consortium for 

Energy Efficiency promote ‘‘NEMA 

Premium’’ efficient three-digit frame 

series motors, and DOE analyzed this 

program as a model for the market 

effects of a similar program for small 

electric motors. DOE evaluated the 

potential impacts of such a program that 

would encourage purchase of products 

meeting the trial standard level 

efficiency levels. DOE modeled the 

voluntary efficiency program based on 

this scenario and assumed that the 

resulting shipment-weighted efficiency 

gain would be maintained throughout 

the forecast period. DOE estimated that 

the enhanced effectiveness of voluntary 

energy-efficiency targets would provide 

0.42 quad of national energy savings 

and an NPV of $0.95 billion (at a 7- 

percent discount rate). Although this 

would provide national benefits, they 

are much smaller than the benefits 

resulting from national performance 

standards. Thus, DOE rejected use of 

voluntary energy-efficiency targets as a 

policy alternative to national 

performance standards. 

Bulk Government Purchases. Under 

this policy alternative, the government 

sector would be encouraged to purchase 

increased amounts of polyphase 

equipment that meet the efficiency 

levels in trial standard level 4b and 

capacitor-start equipment that meets the 

efficiency levels in trial standard level 

7. Federal, State, and local government 

agencies could administer such a 

program. At the Federal level, this 

would be an enhancement to the 

existing Federal Energy Management 

Program (FEMP). DOE modeled this 

program by assuming an increase in 

installation of equipment meeting the 

efficiency levels of the target standard 

levels among the commercial and public 

buildings and operations which are run 

by government agencies. DOE estimated 

that bulk government purchases would 

provide 0.18 quad of national energy 

savings and an NPV of $0.44 billion (at 

a 7-percent discount rate), benefits 

which are much smaller than those 

estimated for national performance 

standards. DOE rejected bulk 

government purchases as a policy 

alternative to national performance 

standards. 

National Performance Standards. 

None of the regulatory alternatives DOE 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10945 

examined would save as much energy or 

have an NPV as high as the standards in 

today’s final rule. Also, several of the 

alternatives would require new enabling 

legislation, because DOE does not have 

authority to implement those 

alternatives. Additional detail on the 

regulatory alternatives is found in the 

RIA chapter in the TSD. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis 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 

(August 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 Web site, http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed today’s final rule under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. A regulatory flexibility analysis 

examines the impact of the rule on 

small entities and considers alternative 

ways of reducing negative impacts. 

In the context of this rulemaking, 

‘‘small businesses,’’ as defined by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA), 

for the small electric motor 

manufacturing industry are 

manufacturing enterprises with 1,000 

employees or fewer. See http:// 

www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/ 

documents/sba_homepage/ 

serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. DOE used this 

small business definition to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

required to comply with the rule. (65 FR 

30836, 30850 (May 15, 2000), as 

amended at 65 FR 53533, 53545 

(September 5, 2000) and codified at 13 

CFR part 121. The size standards are 

listed by NAICS code and industry 

description. The manufacturers 

impacted by this rule are generally 

classified under NAICS 335312, ‘‘Motor 

and Generator Manufacturing,’’ which 

sets a threshold of 1,000 employees or 

less for an entity in this category to be 

considered a small business. 

As explained in the NOPR, DOE 

identified producers of equipment 

covered by this rulemaking, which have 

manufacturing facilities located within 

the United States and could be 

considered small entities, by two 

methods: (1) Asking larger 

manufacturers in MIA interviews to 

identify any competitors they believe 

may be a small business, and (2) 

researching NEMA-identified fractional 

horsepower motor manufacturers. DOE 

then looked at publicly-available data 

and contacted manufacturers, as 

necessary, to determine if they meet the 

SBA’s definition of a small 

manufacturing company. In total, DOE 

identified 11 companies that could 

potentially be small businesses. During 

initial review of the 11 companies in its 

list, DOE either contacted or researched 

each company to determine if it sold 

covered small electric motors. Based on 

its research, DOE screened out 

companies that did not offer motors 

covered by this rulemaking. 

Consequently, DOE estimated that only 

one out of 11 companies listed were 

potentially small business 

manufacturers of covered products. DOE 

then contacted this potential small 

business manufacturer and determined 

that the company’s equipment would 

not be covered by this proposed 

rulemaking. Thus, based on its initial 

screening and subsequent interviews, 

DOE did not identify any company as a 

small business manufacturer based on 

SBA’s definition of a small business 

manufacturer for this industry. (74 FR 

61410, 61496). For today’ final rule, 

DOE did not identify any additional 

companies that would be potential 

small business manufacturer based on 

SBA’s definition of a small business 

manufacturer for the small electric 

motor industry. 

DOE reviewed the standard levels 

considered in today’s final rule under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE 

reaffirms the certification. Therefore, 

DOE has not prepared a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis for this rule. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

This rulemaking imposes no new 

information or recordkeeping 

requirements. Accordingly, OMB 

clearance is not required under the 

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

3501, et seq.) 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

DOE prepared an environmental 

assessment of the impacts of today’s 

standards which it published as chapter 

15 within the TSD for the final rule. 

DOE found the environmental effects 

associated with today’s standard levels 

for small electric motors to be 

insignificant. Therefore, DOE is issuing 

a FONSI pursuant to NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), the regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508), and DOE’s 

regulations for compliance with NEPA 

(10 CFR part 1021). The FONSI is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

DOE reviewed this rule pursuant to 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 

FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), which 

imposes certain requirements on 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have federalism 

implications. In accordance with DOE’s 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

regulations that have federalism 

implications, 65 FR 13735 (March 14, 

2000), DOE examined the November 

2009 proposed rule and determined that 

the rule would not have a substantial 

direct effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of Government. See 74 FR 61497. 

DOE received no comments on this 

issue in response to the NOPR, and its 

conclusions on this issue are the same 

for the final rule as they were for the 

proposed rule. Therefore, DOE has taken 

no further action in today’s final rule 

with respect to Executive Order 13132. 

F. 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’’ (61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996)) 

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, and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10946 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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, the final 

regulations meet the relevant standards 

of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

As indicated in the NOPR, DOE 

reviewed the proposed rule under Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) (UMRA), 

which imposes requirements on Federal 

agencies when their regulatory actions 

will have certain types of impacts on 

State, local, and Tribal governments and 

the private sector. See 74 FR 61497. 

DOE concluded that this rule would not 

contain an intergovernmental mandate, 

but would likely result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more after 2015 for 

private sector commercial and industrial 

users of equipment with small electric 

motors. DOE estimated annualized 

impacts for the final standards using the 

results of the national impacts analysis. 

The national impact analysis results 

expressed as annualized values are 

$961–$1,146 million in total annualized 

benefits from the final rule, $264 

million in annualized costs, and $698– 

$882 million in annualized net benefits. 

Details are provided in chapter 10 of the 

TSD. Therefore, DOE must publish a 

written statement assessing the costs, 

benefits, and other effects of the rule on 

the national economy. 

Section 205 of UMRA also requires 

DOE to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives before promulgating a rule 

for which UMRA requires such a 

written statement. DOE must select from 

those alternatives the most cost-effective 

and least burdensome alternative that 

achieves the objectives of the rule, 

unless DOE publishes an explanation 

for doing otherwise or the selection of 

such an alternative is inconsistent with 

law. 

Today’s energy conservation 

standards for small electric motors 

would achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

DOE has determined to be both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. A discussion of 

the alternatives considered by DOE is 

presented in the regulatory impact 

analysis section of the TSD for this rule. 

Also, Section 202(c) of UMRA 

authorizes an agency to prepare the 

written statement required by UMRA in 

conjunction with or as part of any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) 

The TSD, preamble, and regulatory 

impact analysis for today’s final rule 

contain a full discussion of the rule’s 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy, and therefore satisfy 

UMRA’s written statement requirement. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

DOE determined that, for this 

rulemaking, it need not prepare a 

Family Policymaking Assessment under 

Section 654 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

(Pub. L. 105–277). See 74 FR 61497. 

DOE received no comments concerning 

Section 654 in response to the NOPR, 

and, therefore, has taken no further 

action in today’s final rule with respect 

to this provision. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE determined under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that today’s rule 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. See 74 FR 61497–98. DOE 

received no comments concerning 

Executive Order 12630 in response to 

the NOPR, and, therefore, has taken no 

further action in today’s final rule with 

respect to this Executive Order. 

J. 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 agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s final rule under the 

OMB and DOE guidelines and has 

concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

K. 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) a Statement of Energy Effects for 

any proposed significant energy action. 

DOE determined that today’s rule, 

which sets energy conservation 

standards for small electric motors, is 

not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within 

the meaning of Executive Order 13211. 

See 74 FR 61498. Accordingly, DOE did 

not prepare a Statement of Energy 

Effects on the proposed rule. DOE 

received no comments on this issue in 

response to the NOPR. As with the 

proposed rule, DOE has concluded that 

today’s final rule is not a significant 

energy action within the meaning of 

Executive Order 13211, and has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 

on the final rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

In consultation with the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), 

OMB issued on December 16, 2004, its 

‘‘Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review’’ (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664. 

(January 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. 

As set forth in the NOPR, DOE held 

formal in-progress peer reviews of the 

types of analyses and processes that 

DOE has used to develop the energy 

efficiency standards in today’s rule, and 

issued a report on these peer reviews. 

The report is available at http:// 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

See 74 FR 61498. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

submit to Congress a report regarding 

the issuance of today’s final rule prior 

to the effective date set forth at the 

outset of this notice. The report will 

state that it has been determined that 

the rule is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 

5 U.S.C. 804(2). DOE also will submit 

the supporting analyses to the 

Comptroller General in the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10947 

(GAO) and make them available to each 

House of Congress. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 22, 

2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

DOE amends part 431 of chapter II of 

title 10, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, to read as set forth below. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 431.446 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Energy Conservation Standards 

§ 431.446 Small electric motors energy 

conservation standards and their effective 

dates. 

(a) Each small electric motor 

manufactured (alone or as a component 

of another piece of non-covered 

equipment) after February 28, 2015, 

shall have an average full load 

efficiency of not less than the following: 

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 

Average full load efficiency 

Polyphase 

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 

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 

Average full load efficiency 

Capacitor-start capacitor-run and capacitor-start induction-run 

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 

(b) For purposes of determining the 

required minimum average full load 

efficiency of an electric motor that has 

a horsepower or kilowatt rating between 

two horsepower or two kilowatt ratings 

listed in any table of efficiency 

standards in paragraph (a) of this 

section, each such motor shall be 

deemed to have a listed horsepower or 

kilowatt rating, determined as follows: 

(1) A horsepower at or above the 

midpoint between the two consecutive 

horsepower ratings shall be rounded up 

to the higher of the two horsepower 

ratings; 

(2) A horsepower below the midpoint 

between the two consecutive 

horsepower ratings shall be rounded 

down to the lower of the two 

horsepower ratings; or 

(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly 

converted from kilowatts to horsepower 

using the formula 1 kilowatt = (1/0.746) 

hp, without calculating beyond three 

significant decimal places, and the 

resulting horsepower shall be rounded 

in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) or 

(b)(2) of this section, whichever applies. 

Appendix 

[The following letter from the Department 

of Justice will not appear in the Code of 

Federal Regulations.] 

Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 

Main Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530– 

0001, (202) 514–2401/(202) 616–2645(f), 

antitrust.atr@usdoj.gov, http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/atr. 

January 25, 2010. 

Robert H. Edwards, Jr., Deputy General 

Counsel for Energy Policy, Department of 

Energy, Washington, DC 20585. 

Dear Deputy General Counsel Edwards: I 

am responding to your November 19, 2009 

letter seeking the views of the Attorney 

General about the potential impact on 

competition of proposed energy conservation 

standards for small electric motors. Your 

request was submitted pursuant to Section 

325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended, (‘‘EPCA’’), 42 

U.S.C. § 6295(o)(B)(i)(V), which requires the 

Attorney General to make a determination of 

the impact of any lessening of competition 

that is likely to result from the imposition of 

proposed energy conservation standards. The 

Attorney General’s responsibility for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

10948 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

responding to requests from other 

departments about the effect of a program on 

competition has been delegated to the 

Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust 

Division in 28 CFR § 0.40(g). 

In conducting its analysis the Antitrust 

Division examines whether a proposed 

standard may lessen competition, for 

example, by substantially limiting consumer 

choice, leaving consumers with fewer 

competitive alternatives, placing certain 

manufacturers of a product at an unjustified 

competitive disadvantage compared to other 

manufacturers, or by inducing avoidable 

inefficiencies in production or distribution of 

particular products. 

We have reviewed the proposed standards 

contained in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’)(74 Fed. Reg. 61410) 

and attended the December 17, 2009 public 

hearing on the proposed standard. 

Based on our review of the record, the 

proposed standards for small electric motors 

could increase costs for consumers who need 

to replace small electric motors in existing 

equipment. Proposed Trial Standard Level 

(TSL) 5 for polyphase small electric motors 

and TSL 7 for all capacitor-start small electric 

motors apply to motors sold as replacements 

as well as to those built into original 

equipment. We understand that compliance 

with those standards could require 

manufacturers to increase the size of their 

motors such that the larger motors will not 

fit into existing space constrained equipment. 

In such a case, owners of existing equipment 

with a broken motor would have to either 

replace the entire piece of equipment or 

attempt to repair the motor. Such equipment 

owners would not have the option of simply 

replacing the existing small electric motor, 

thus limiting the range of competitive 

alternatives available to them. This may be 

quite onerous to consumers when the motor 

is only a small component of the total cost 

of the item and repairing the motor is 

difficult or costly. We ask the Department of 

Energy to take this possible impact into 

account and consider, as is warranted, 

exempting from the proposed standard the 

manufacture and marketing of certain 

replacement small electric motors for a 

limited period in time. 

Sincerely, 

Christine A. Varney, 

Assistant Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4358 Filed 3–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2