Vol. 79 Thursday, 

No. 103 May 29, 2014 

Part II 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Part 431 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 

Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors; Final Rule 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30934 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027] 

RIN 1904–AC28 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Commercial and Industrial Electric 

Motors 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including commercial and industrial 

electric motors. EPCA also requires the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to 

determine whether more-stringent, 

amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. In this 

final rule, DOE establishes energy 

conservation standards for a number of 

different groups of electric motors that 

DOE has not previously regulated. For 

those groups of electric motors currently 

regulated, today’s rulemaking would 

maintain the current energy 

conservation standards for some electric 

motor types and amend the energy 

conservation standards for other electric 

motor types. DOE has determined that 

the new and amended energy 

conservation standards for this 

equipment would result in significant 

conservation of energy, and are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

July 28, 2014. Compliance with the 

standards established for commercial 

and industrial electric motors in today’s 

final rule is required starting on June 1, 

2016. 

The incorporation by reference of a 

certain publication listed in this rule 

was approved by the Federal Register 

on May 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!

docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD0027. This Web page will contain a link 

to the docket for this rule on the 

regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov 

Web page will contain simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8654. Email: 

medium_electric_motors@ee.doe.gov. 

Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–5709. Email: 

Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Electric Motors 

3. Process for Setting Energy Conservation 

Standards 

III. General Discussion 

A. Compliance Date 

B. Test Procedure 

1. Vertical Electric Motors 

C. Current Equipment Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

D. Updated Equipment Classes and Scope 

of Coverage 

E. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

F. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

G. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Current Scope of Electric Motors Energy 

Conservation Standards 

2. Expanded Scope of Electric Motor 

Energy Conservation Standards 

a. Summary 

b. Definitions, Terminology, and 

Regulatory Language 

c. Horsepower Rating 

d. High-Horsepower Six- and Eight-Pole 

Motors 

e. Frame Size 

f. IEC Motors 

g. Frequency 

h. Random Winding 

i. Duty Cycle 

j. Gear Motors 

k. Partial Electric Motors 

l. Certification Considerations Related to 

Expanded Scope 

m. Electric Motors With Separately 

Powered Blowers 

3. Advanced Electric Motors 

4. Equipment Class Groups and Equipment 

Classes 

a. U-Frame Motors 

b. Electric Motor Design Letter 

c. Fire Pump Electric Motors 

d. Brake Electric Motors 

e. Horsepower Rating 

f. Pole Configuration 

g. Enclosure Type 

h. Other Motor Characteristics 

5. Technology Assessment 

a. Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of 

Copper in the Stator Slots 

b. Decrease the Length of Coil Extensions 

c. Die-Cast Copper Rotor Cage 

d. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of Rotor 

Conductor Bars 

e. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of End 

Rings 

f. Electrical Steel With Lower Losses 

g. Thinner Steel Laminations 

h. Increase Stack Length 

i. Optimize Bearing and Lubrication 

j. Improve Cooling System 

k. Reduce Skew on Conductor Cage 

l. Improve Rotor Bar Insulation 

m. Technology Options Not Considered 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. Technology Options Not Screened Out 

of the Analysis 

a. Die-Cast Copper Rotors 

b. Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of 

Copper in the Stator Slots 

c. Power Factor 

2. Technology Options Screened Out of the 

Analysis 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Engineering Analysis Methodology 

2. Representative Units 

a. Electric Motor Design Type 

b. Horsepower Rating 

c. Pole-Configuration 

d. Enclosure Type 

3. Efficiency Levels Analyzed 

4. Testing and Teardowns 

5. Software Modeling 

6. Cost Model 

a. Copper Pricing 

b. Labor Rate and Non-Production Markup 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30935 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112–210 (December 18, 2012). 

c. Catalog Prices 

d. Product Development Cost 

7. Engineering Analysis Results 

8. Scaling Methodology 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Equipment Costs 

2. Installation Costs 

3. Maintenance Costs 

4. Repair Costs 

5. Unit Energy Consumption 

6. Electricity Prices and Electricity Price 

Trends 

7. Lifetime 

8. Discount Rate 

9. Base Case Market Efficiency 

Distributions 

10. Compliance Date 

11. Payback Period Inputs 

12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

13. Comments on Other Issues 

G. Shipments Analysis 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Electric Motor Weights 

4. Equipment Price Forecast 

5. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Manufacturer Production Costs 

2. Shipment Projections 

3. Markup Scenarios 

4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

5. Other Comments from Interested Parties 

a. Manufacturer Markups used in the MIA 

versus the NIA 

b. Potential Trade Barriers 

6. Manufacturer Interviews 

K. Emissions Analysis 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon 

Values 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

O. Other Comments Received 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Customers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

b. Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Sub-Group of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and 

Benefits 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

7. Summary of National Economic Impacts 

8. Other Factors 

C. Conclusions 

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard 

Levels Considered for Electric Motors 

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of Today’s Standards 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

a. Manufacturer Participation 

b. Electric Motor Industry Structure and 

Nature of Competition 

c. Comparison Between Large and Small 

Entities 

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

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 

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its 

Benefits 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 

6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’), Public Law 94– 

163, sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency. 

Part C of title III, which for editorial 

reasons was re-designated as Part A–1 

upon incorporation into the U.S. Code 

(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317), establishes the 

‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment,’’ 

including certain electric motors.1

(Within this preamble, DOE will use the 

terms ‘‘electric motors’’ and ‘‘motors’’ 

interchangeably as today’s rulemaking 

only pertains to electric motors.) 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended 

energy conservation standard must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

DOE determines is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) 

Furthermore, the new or amended 

standards must result in significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)) 

In accordance with these and other 

statutory provisions discussed in this 

final rule, DOE is adopting new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for electric motors by applying the 

standards currently in place to a wider 

scope of electric motors that DOE does 

not currently regulate. In setting these 

standards, DOE is addressing a number 

of different groups of electric motors 

that have, to date, not been required to 

satisfy the energy conservation 

standards currently set out in 10 CFR 

part 431. In addition, today’s rule, 

would require all currently regulated 

motors, with the exception of fire pump 

electric motors, to satisfy the efficiency 

levels (ELs) prescribed in Table 12–12 of 

National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) Standards 

Publication MG 1–2011, ‘‘Motors and 

Generators;’’ fire pump motors would 

continue to meet the current standards 

that apply. All other electric motors 

covered in today’s rulemaking would 

also need to meet the efficiency levels 

found in MG 1–2011, Table 12–12. As 

a practical matter, most currently 

regulated motors would continue to be 

required to meet the same standards that 

they are already required to meet, but 

certain motors, such as those that satisfy 

the general purpose electric motors 

(subtype II) (i.e. ‘‘subtype II’’) or that are 

NEMA Design B (or equivalent IEC 

Design N) motors with a power rating of 

more than 200 horsepower, but not 

greater than 500 horsepower, would 

now be required to meet the more 

stringent levels prescribed by MG 1– 

2011, Tables 12–12. These adopted 

efficiency levels (depicted here as trial 

standard levels or ‘‘TSLs’’) and the 

motor types to which they apply are 

shown in Table I.1. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30936 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE I.1—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS

[Compliance starting June 1, 2016] 

Equipment 

class group 

Electric motor 

design type 

Horsepower 

rating 

Pole 

configuration Enclosure Adopted TSL** 

1 .................. NEMA Design A & B* .................. 1–500 2, 4, 6, 8 Open ............................................ 2 

Enclosed ...................................... 2 

2 .................. NEMA Design C* ......................... 1–200 4, 6, 8 Open ............................................ 2 

Enclosed ...................................... 2 

3 .................. Fire Pump* ................................... 1–500 2, 4, 6, 8 Open ............................................ 2 

Enclosed ...................................... 2 

*Indicates International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) equivalent electric motors are included. Also, due to the elimination of an equipment class for brake motors, previously reported brake motor results are now reported in Equipment Class Group 1 (ECG 1). 

**Tables I.2 through I.4 detail the various standard levels that compose TSL 2. Table I.2 applies to NEMA Design A & B, Table I.3 applies to 

NEMA Design C and Table I.4 applies to fire pump electric motors. 

In determining where a particular 

motor with a certain horsepower (hp) or 

kilowatt (kW) rating would fall within 

the requirements, today’s final rule 

establishes the same approach provided 

in current regulations to determine 

which rating would apply for 

compliance purposes. Namely: 

1. A horsepower at or above the 

midpoint between the two consecutive 

horsepowers shall be rounded up to the 

higher of the two horsepowers; 

2. A horsepower below the midpoint 

between the two consecutive 

horsepowers shall be rounded down to 

the lower of the two horsepowers; and 

3. A kilowatt rating shall be directly 

converted from kilowatts to horsepower 

using the formula 1 kilowatt = (1/0.746) 

horsepower. The conversion should be 

calculated to three significant decimal 

places, and the resulting horsepower 

shall be rounded in accordance with the 

rules listed in (1) and (2). 

TABLE I.2—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR NEMA DESIGN A AND NEMA DESIGN B MOTORS (EXCLUDING

FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS) 

[Compliance starting June 1, 2016] 

Motor horsepower/standard 

kilowatt 

equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

(percent) 

2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

1/.75 ................. 77.0 77.0 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5 

1.5/1.1 .............. 84.0 84.0 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0 

2/1.5 ................. 85.5 85.5 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5 

3/2.2 ................. 86.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5 

5/3.7 ................. 88.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5 

7.5/5.5 .............. 89.5 88.5 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5 

10/7.5 ............... 90.2 89.5 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2 

15/11 ................ 91.0 90.2 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2 

20/15 ................ 91.0 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0 

25/18.5 ............. 91.7 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0 

30/22 ................ 91.7 91.7 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7 

40/30 ................ 92.4 92.4 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7 

50/37 ................ 93.0 93.0 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4 

60/45 ................ 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0 

75/55 ................ 93.6 93.6 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1 

100/75 .............. 94.1 93.6 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1 

125/90 .............. 95.0 94.1 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1 

150/110 ............ 95.0 94.1 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1 

200/150 ............ 95.4 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1 

250/186 ............ 95.8 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0 

300/224 ............ 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ...................... ......................

350/261 ............ 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ...................... ......................

400/298 ............ 95.8 95.8 96.2 95.8 ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................

450/336 ............ 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ...................... ...................... ......................

500/373 ............ 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30937 

TABLE I.3—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR NEMA DESIGN C MOTORS

[Compliance starting June 1, 2016] 

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

(percent) 

4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

1/.75 ..................................................................... 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5 

1.5/1.1 .................................................................. 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0 

2/1.5 ..................................................................... 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5 

3/2.2 ..................................................................... 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5 

5/3.7 ..................................................................... 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5 

7.5/5.5 .................................................................. 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5 

10/7.5 ................................................................... 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2 

15/11 .................................................................... 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2 

20/15 .................................................................... 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0 

25/18.5 ................................................................. 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0 

30/22 .................................................................... 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7 

40/30 .................................................................... 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7 

50/37 .................................................................... 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4 

60/45 .................................................................... 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0 

75/55 .................................................................... 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1 

100/75 .................................................................. 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1 

125/90 .................................................................. 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1 

150/110 ................................................................ 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1 

200/150 ................................................................ 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1 

TABLE I.4—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS

[Compliance starting June 1, 2016] 

Motor horsepower/standard 

kilowatt 

equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

(percent) 

2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

1/.75 ................. 75.5 ...................... 82.5 82.5 80.0 80.0 74.0 74.0 

1.5/1.1 .............. 82.5 82.5 84.0 84.0 85.5 84.0 77.0 75.5 

2/1.5 ................. 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 86.5 85.5 82.5 85.5 

3/2.2 ................. 85.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 84.0 86.5 

5/3.7 ................. 87.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 87.5 

7.5/5.5 .............. 88.5 87.5 89.5 88.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 88.5 

10/7.5 ............... 89.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 90.2 88.5 89.5 

15/11 ................ 90.2 89.5 91.0 91.0 90.2 90.2 88.5 89.5 

20/15 ................ 90.2 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 91.0 89.5 90.2 

25/18.5 ............. 91.0 91.0 92.4 91.7 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2 

30/22 ................ 91.0 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.7 92.4 91.0 91.0 

40/30 ................ 91.7 91.7 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 91.0 91.0 

50/37 ................ 92.4 92.4 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.7 

60/45 ................ 93.0 93.0 93.6 93.6 93.6 93.6 91.7 92.4 

75/55 ................ 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.1 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.6 

100/75 .............. 93.6 93.0 94.5 94.1 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.6 

125/90 .............. 94.5 93.6 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 93.6 93.6 

150/110 ............ 94.5 93.6 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.5 93.6 93.6 

200/150 ............ 95.0 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.1 93.6 

250/186 ............ 95.4 94.5 95.0 95.4 95.0 95.4 94.5 94.5 

300/224 ............ 95.4 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.4 ...................... ......................

350/261 ............ 95.4 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.4 ...................... ......................

400/298 ............ 95.4 95.4 95.4 95.4 ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................

450/336 ............ 95.4 95.8 95.4 95.8 ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................

500/373 ............ 95.4 95.8 95.8 95.8 ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................

Note: Energy conservation standards for fire pump electric motors have not changed and remain at the current efficiency levels. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30938 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2All monetary values in this section are 

expressed in 2013 dollars and are discounted to 

2014. 

3The agency also conducted the site energy 

analysis as well (see TSD chapter 10). One quad 

(quadrillion Btu) is the equivalent of 293 billion 

kilowatt hours (kWh) or 172.3 million barrels of oil. 

4Based on U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration, Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO) 2013 data. 

5The analytic timeframe includes motors shipped 

each year from 2016 to 2045. 

6A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short tons. 

7 DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to 

the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Reference 

case, which generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations for which 

implementing regulations were available as of 

December 31, 2012. 

8Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 

2013; revised November 2013. http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/

inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf. 

9 DOE is currently investigating valuation of 

avoided Hg and SO2 emissions. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I.5 presents DOE’s evaluation of 

the economic impacts of today’s 

standards on consumers of electric 

motors, as measured by the weighted 

average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and 

the median payback period. The average 

LCC savings are positive for all 

equipment classes for which consumers 

are impacted by the standards. 

TABLE I.5—IMPACTS OF TODAY’S

STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF

ELECTRIC MOTORS

Equipment class 

group 

Weighted 

average 

LCC 

savings* 

(2013$) 

Weighted 

median 

payback 

period* 

(years) 

1 .............................. 160 .......... 2.9 

2 .............................. 53 ............ 4.5 

3 .............................. N/A** ....... N/A** 

* The results for each equipment class 

group (ECG) are a shipment weighted average of results for the representative units in 

the group. ECG 1: Representative units 1, 2, 

3, 9, and 10; ECG 2: Representative units 4 

and 5; ECG 3: Representative units 6, 7, and 

8. The weighted average lifetime in each 

equipment class is 15 years and ranges from 

8 to 29 years, depending on the motor horsepower and application. 

** For the ECG 3 motor, the standard level 

is the same as the baseline; thus, no customers are affected. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value (INPV) 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(2014 to 2045). Using a real discount 

rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that 

the industry net present value (INPV) 

for manufacturers of electric motors is 

$3,478 million in 2013$. Under today’s 

standards, DOE expects that 

manufacturers may lose up to 10.0 

percent of their INPV, which is 

approximately $348 million. 

Additionally, based on DOE’s 

interviews with the manufacturers of 

electric motors, DOE does not expect 

any plant closings or significant loss of 

employment based on the energy 

conservation standards chosen in 

today’s rule. 

C. National Benefits and Costs 2

DOE’s analyses indicate that today’s 

standards would save a significant 

amount of energy. Estimated lifetime 

savings for electric motors purchased 

over the 30-year period that begins in 

the year of compliance with new and 

amended standards (2016–2045) would 

amount to 7.0 quads (full-fuel-cycle 

energy).3 The annualized energy savings 

(0.23 quad) is equivalent to one percent 

of total U.S. industrial primary energy 

consumption in 2013.4

The estimated cumulative net present 

value (NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings attributed to today’s standards 

for electric motors ranges from $11.3 

billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to 

$28.8 billion (at a 3-percent discount 

rate). This NPV expresses the estimated 

total value of future operating-cost 

savings minus the estimated increased 

equipment costs for equipment 

purchased in 2016–2045.5

In addition, today’s standards would 

have significant environmental benefits 

across the entire analysis period. 

Estimated energy savings would result 

in cumulative greenhouse gas emission 

reductions of approximately 395 million 

metric tons (Mt) 6 of carbon dioxide 

(CO2), 1,883 thousand tons of methane, 

673 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), 498 thousand tons of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and 0.8 tons of mercury 

(Hg).7 The cumulative reduction in CO2

emissions through 2030 amounts to 96 

Mt. 

The value of the CO2 reductions is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 

the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) 

developed by a recent Federal 

interagency process.8 The derivation of 

the SCC values is discussed in section 

IV.L. Using discount rates appropriate 

for each set of SCC values, DOE 

estimates that the present monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reductions is 

between $2.7 billion and $38.3 billion. 

DOE also estimates that the present 

monetary value of the NOX emissions 

reductions is $0.3 billion at a 7-percent 

discount rate, and $0.7 billion at a 3- 

percent discount rate.9

Table I.6 summarizes the national 

economic costs and benefits expected to 

result from today’s standards for electric 

motors. 

TABLE I.6—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ELECTRIC MOTORS ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS, PRESENT VALUE FOR MOTORS SHIPPED IN 2016–2045 IN BILLION 2013$ * 

Category 

Present 

value 

billion 

2013$ 

Discount 

rate 

% 

Benefits 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................. 18.2 7 

41.4 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) ** 2.7 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) ** 12.4 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) ** 19.7 2.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) ** 38.3 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) ** .................................................................................... 0.3 7 

0.7 3 

Total Benefits † ..................................................................................................................................... 30.9 7 

54.4 3 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30939 

10 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2014, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of three and seven percent for all costs and 

benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For 

the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 

shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE 

then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30- 

year period (2016 through 2045) that yields the 

same present value. The fixed annual payment is 

the annualized value. Although DOE calculated 

annualized values, this does not imply that the 

time-series of cost and benefits from which the 

annualized values were determined is a steady 

stream of payments. 

TABLE I.6—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ELECTRIC MOTORS ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS, PRESENT VALUE FOR MOTORS SHIPPED IN 2016–2045 IN BILLION 2013$ *—Continued 

Category 

Present 

value 

billion 

2013$ 

Discount 

rate 

% 

Costs 

Consumer Incremental Installed Costs ....................................................................................................... 6.9 7 

12.5 3 

Net Benefits 

Including CO2 and NOX Reduction Monetized Value ................................................................................. 24.0 7 

41.9 3 

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2016–2045. These results include benefits to customers 

which accrue after 2045 from the equipment purchased in 2016–2045. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred 

by manufacturers due to the amended standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for this final rule. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The 

first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporates an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to SCC value of $40.5/t in 2015. 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

standards for electric motors, sold in 

2016–2045, can also be expressed in 

terms of annualized values. The 

annualized monetary values are the sum 

of: (1) The annualized national 

economic value of the benefits from 

operation of the commercial and 

industrial equipment that meet the 

standards (consisting primarily of 

operating cost savings from using less 

energy, minus increases in equipment 

purchase and installation costs, which 

is another way of representing consumer 

NPV); and (2) the annualized monetary 

value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission 

reductions.10

Although combining the value of 

operating savings and CO2 emissions 

reductions provides a useful 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions, while the value 

of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and CO2 savings 

are performed with different methods 

that use different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured over the lifetime of 

electric motors shipped in years 2016– 

2045. The SCC values, on the other 

hand, reflect the present value of some 

future climate-related impacts resulting 

from the emission of one ton of carbon 

dioxide in each year. These impacts 

continue well beyond 2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of today’s standards are shown in 

Table I.8. The results under the primary 

estimate are as follows. Using a 7- 

percent discount rate for benefits and 

costs other than CO2 reduction (for 

which DOE used a 3-percent discount 

rate along with the average SCC series 

that uses a 3-percent discount rate) the 

cost of the standards in today’s rule is 

$517 million per year in increased 

equipment costs (incremental installed 

costs), while the estimated benefits are 

$1,367 million per year in reduced 

equipment operating costs, $614 million 

in CO2 emission reductions, and $23.3 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefits would amount 

to $1,488 million per year. Using a 3- 

percent discount rate for all benefits and 

costs and the average SCC series, the 

estimated cost of the standards in 

today’s rule is $621 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated benefits are $2,048 million 

per year in reduced operating costs, 

$614 million in CO2 emission 

reductions, and $32.9 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit would amount to 

approximately $2,074 million per year. 

TABLE I.8—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS

[Million 2013$/year] 

Discount rate Primary estimate * Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

Benefits 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................... 7% 1,367 1,134 1,664 

3% 2,048 1,684 2,521 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) * ................... 5% 166 143 192 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) * ................... 3% 614 531 712 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) * ................... 2.5% 920 795 1,066 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) * .................... 3% 1,899 1,641 2,200 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) ** ................ 7% 23.3 20.1 26.8 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30940 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

11All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (December 18, 

2012). 

TABLE I.8—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS— 

Continued 

[Million 2013$/year] 

Discount rate Primary estimate * Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

3% 32.9 28.4 38.0 

Total Benefits † ........................................................................ 7% plus CO2

range 

1,556 to 3,289 1,297 to 2,795 1,882 to 3,890 

7% 2,005 1,685 2,402 

3% plus CO2

range 

2,247 to 3,980 1,855 to 3,353 2,750 to 4,758 

3% 2,696 2,243 3,270 

Costs 

Incremental Installed Costs ..................................................... 7% 517 582 503 

3% 621 697 616 

Net Benefits 

Total † ...................................................................................... 7% plus CO2

range 

1,039 to 2,772 716 to 2,213 1,380 to 3,388 

7% 1,488 1,103 1,900 

3% plus CO2

range 

1,626 to 3,359 1,158 to 2,656 2,134 to 4,143 

3% 2,074 1,546 2,654 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2016–2045. These results include benefits to 

consumers which accrue after 2045 from the equipment purchased in years 2016–2045. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may 

be incurred in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The Primary, 

Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates are in view of projections of energy prices from the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Reference 

case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium constant projected equipment 

price in the Primary Estimate, a declining rate for projected equipment price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and an increasing rate for projected equipment price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The 

first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount 

rate. In the rows labeled ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled 

discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

D. Conclusion 

DOE has concluded that the standards 

in today’s final rule represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in significant conservation 

of energy. DOE further notes that 

equipment achieving these standard 

levels is already commercially available 

for most equipment classes covered by 

today’s final rule. Based on the analyses 

described above, DOE has concluded 

that the benefits of the standards to the 

Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, consumer LCC 

savings, and emission reductions) 

would outweigh the burdens (loss of 

INPV for manufacturers and LCC 

increases for some consumers). 

DOE also considered more-stringent 

energy efficiency levels as trial standard 

levels. However, DOE has concluded 

that the potential burdens of the morestringent energy efficiency levels would 

outweigh the projected benefits. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying today’s final rule, as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for electric motors. 

A. Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 

6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’), Public Law 94– 

163, sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency. 

Part C of title III, which for editorial 

reasons was re-designated as Part A–1 

upon incorporation into the U.S. Code 

(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as codified), 

establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment,’’ including certain electric 

motors.11 The Energy Policy Act of 1992 

(EPACT 1992) (Pub. L. 102–486) 

amended EPCA by establishing energy 

conservation standards and test 

procedures for certain commercial and 

industrial electric motors (in context, 

‘‘motors’’) manufactured (alone or as a 

component of another piece of 

equipment) after October 24, 1997. In 

December 2007, Congress enacted the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA 2007) (Pub. L. 110–140). 

Section 313(b)(1) of EISA 2007 updated 

the energy conservation standards for 

those electric motors already covered by 

EPCA and established energy 

conservation standards for a larger 

scope of motors not previously covered 

by standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

equipment consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards; and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. For those electric motors for 

which Congress established standards, 

or for which DOE amends or establishes 

standards, the required test procedure is 

found at 10 CFR part 431, subpart B. 

The test procedure is subject to review 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30941 

12 DOE also added Canadian Standards 

Association (CSA) CAN/CSA C390–93, ‘‘Energy 

Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction 

Motors’’ as an equivalent and acceptable test 

method, which aligns with industry practices. 

and revision by the Secretary in 

accordance with certain criteria and 

conditions. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) 

As required by section 343(a)(5)(A) of 

EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A), DOE’s 

electric motors test procedures are those 

procedures specified in two documents: 

National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) Standards 

Publication MG 1 and Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

(IEEE) Standard 112 (Test Method B) for 

motor efficiency.12

Manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use these methods, as described in 

appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 

431as the basis for certifying to DOE 

that their equipment complies with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA and 

when making representations to the 

public regarding the energy use or 

efficiency of such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these 

test procedures to determine whether 

the equipment complies with standards 

adopted pursuant to EPCA. 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new and 

amended standards for covered 

equipment. In the case of electric 

motors, the criteria set out in relevant 

subsections of 42 U.S.C. 6295 apply to 

the setting of energy conservation 

standards for motors via 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a). As indicated above, new and 

amended standards must be designed to 

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)) 

Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any 

standard that would not result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6316(a)) 

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard: (1) For certain commercial 

and industrial equipment, including 

electric motors, if no test procedure has 

been established for the equipment, or 

(2) if DOE determines by rule that the 

new and amended standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B) 

and 6316(a)) In deciding whether a new 

and amended standard is economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its 

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

6316(a)) DOE must make this 

determination after receiving comments 

on the proposed standard, and by 

considering, to the greatest extent 

practicable, the following seven factors: 

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, or as applicable, water, 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 and 

water conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

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

6316(a)) 

EPCA, as codified, also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any new or amended 

standard that either increases the 

maximum allowable energy use or 

decreases the minimum required energy 

efficiency of a covered product or piece 

of equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 

6316(a)) Also, the Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard 

if interested persons have established by 

a preponderance of the evidence that 

the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States of 

any covered product- or equipment-type 

(or class) of performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

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

6295(o)(4) and 6316(a)) 

Further, EPCA, as codified, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing 

equipment 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. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a)) 

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1), as 

applied to covered equipment via 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a), specifies requirements 

when promulgating a standard for a type 

or class of covered equipment that has 

two or more subcategories. DOE must 

specify a different standard level than 

that which applies generally to such 

type or class of equipment for any group 

of covered equipment that have the 

same function or intended use if DOE 

determines that equipment within such 

group: (A) Consumes a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered equipment within such type (or 

class); or (B) has a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

equipment within such type (or class) 

does not have and such feature justifies 

a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1) and 6316(a)) In determining 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies a different standard for a group 

of equipment, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

such a feature and other factors DOE 

deems appropriate. Id. Any rule 

prescribing such a standard must 

include an explanation of the basis on 

which such higher or lower level was 

established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2) and 

6316(a)) 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

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

6316(a)) DOE may, however, grant 

waivers of Federal preemption for 

particular State laws or regulations, in 

accordance with the procedures and 

other provisions set forth under 42 

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

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

An electric motor is a device that 

converts electrical power into rotational 

mechanical power. The outside 

structure of the motor is called the 

frame, which houses a rotor (the 

spinning part of the motor) and the 

stator (the stationary part that creates a 

magnetic field to drive the rotor). 

Although many different technologies 

exist, DOE’s rulemaking is concerned 

with squirrel-cage induction motors, 

which represent the majority of electric 

motor energy use. In squirrel-cage 

induction motors, the stator drives the 

rotor by inducing an electric current in 

the squirrel-cage, which then reacts 

with the rotating magnetic field to 

propel the rotor in the same way a 

person can repel one handheld magnet 

with another. The squirrel-cage used in 

the rotor of induction motors consists of 

longitudinal conductive bars (rotor bars) 

connected at both ends by rings (end 

rings) forming a cage-like shape. Among 

other design parameters, motors can 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30942 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

13The members of the Motor Coalition include: 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to 

Save Energy, Earthjustice, Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, 

and Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 

14The Petition is available at: http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE2010-BT-STD-0027-0035. 

15 DOE’s final rule differs from the Motor 

Coalition’s proposal in that DOE’s rule covers all 

types of brake electric motors and does not set 

separate, lower standards for U-frame motors and 

does not cover open, special- and definite-purpose 

56-frame motors. 

vary in horsepower, number of ‘‘poles’’ 

(which determines how quickly the 

motor rotates), and torque 

characteristics. Most motors have 

‘‘open’’ frames that allow cooling 

airflow through the motor body, though 

some have enclosed frames that offer 

added protection from foreign 

substances and bodies. DOE regulates 

various motor types from between 1 and 

500 horsepower, with 2, 4, 6, and 8 

poles, and with both open and enclosed 

frames. 

EPACT 1992 amended EPCA by 

establishing energy conservation 

standards and test procedures for 

certain commercial and industrial 

electric motors manufactured either 

alone or as a component of another 

piece of equipment on or after October 

24, 1997. Section 313 of EISA 2007 

amended EPCA by: (1) Striking the 

definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ provided 

under EPACT 1992, (2) setting forth 

definitions for ‘‘general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II),’’ and (3) 

prescribing energy conservation 

standards for ‘‘general purpose electric 

motors (subtype I),’’ ‘‘general purpose 

electric motors (subtype II),’’ ‘‘fire pump 

electric motors,’’ and ‘‘NEMA Design B 

general purpose electric motors’’ with a 

power rating of more than 200 

horsepower but not greater than 500 

horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13) and 

6313(b)) The current standards for these 

motors (available at 10 CFR 431.25(a)– 

(e)), which are reproduced in the 

regulatory text at the end of this 

rulemaking, are divided into four tables 

that prescribe specific efficiency levels 

for each of those groups of motors. 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Electric Motors 

On October 5, 1999, DOE published in 

the Federal Register, a final rule to 

codify the EPACT 1992 electric motor 

requirements. See 64 FR 54114. After 

EISA 2007’s enactment, DOE updated, 

among other things, the corresponding 

electric motor regulations at 10 CFR part 

431 by incorporating the new 

definitions and energy conservation 

standards that the law established. See 

74 FR 12058 (March 23, 2009). DOE 

subsequently updated its test 

procedures for electric motors and small 

electric motors, see 73 FR 78220 

(December 22, 2008), and later finalized 

key provisions related to small electric 

motor testing. See 74 FR 32059 (July 7, 

2009). Further updates to the test 

procedures for electric motors and small 

electric motors followed when DOE 

issued a rule that primarily focused on 

updating various definitions and 

incorporations by reference related to 

the current test procedure. See 77 FR 

26608 (May 4, 2012). That rule defined 

the term ‘‘electric motor’’ to account for 

EISA 2007’s removal of the previous 

statutory definition of ‘‘electric motor’’. 

DOE also clarified definitions related to 

those motors that EISA 2007 laid out as 

part of EPCA’s statutory framework, 

including motor types that DOE had not 

previously regulated. See generally, id. 

at 26613–26619. DOE also published a 

new test procedure on December 13, 

2013, that further refined various 

electric motor definitions and added 

certain definitions and test procedure 

preparatory steps to address a wider 

variety of electric motor types than are 

currently regulated, including those 

electric motors that are largely 

considered to be special-or definitepurpose motors. 78 FR 75961. 

DOE received numerous comments 

from interested parties who provided 

significant input to DOE in response to 

DOE’s framework document and 

preliminary analysis for this 

rulemaking. See 75 FR 59657 

(September 28, 2010) (framework 

document notice of availability) and 77 

FR 43015 (July 23, 2012) (preliminary 

analysis notice of availability). All such 

comments were addressed in the 

December 6, 2013, notice of proposed 

rulemaking (standards NOPR). 78 FR 

73589 During the framework document 

comment period, several interested 

parties urged DOE to consider including 

additional motor types currently 

without energy conservation standards 

in DOE’s analyses and establishing 

standards for such motor types. In the 

commenters’ view, this approach would 

more effectively increase energy savings 

than setting more stringent standards for 

currently regulated electric motors. In 

response, DOE published a Request for 

Information (RFI) seeking public 

comments from interested parties 

regarding establishment of energy 

conservation standards for several types 

of definite and special purpose motors 

for which EISA 2007 did not provide 

energy conservation standards. 76 FR 

17577 (March 30, 2011) DOE received 

comments responding to the RFI 

advocating that DOE regulate many of 

the electric motors discussed in the RFI, 

as well as many additional motor types. 

Then, on August 15, 2012, a group of 

interested parties (the ‘‘Motor 

Coalition’’ 13) submitted the ‘‘Joint 

Petition to Adopt Joint Stakeholder 

Proposal As it Relates to the Rulemaking 

on Energy Conservation Standards for 

Electric Motors’’ (the ‘‘Petition’’) to DOE 

asking the agency to adopt a consensus 

stakeholder proposal that would amend 

the energy conservation standards for 

electric motors.14 The Motor Coalition’s 

proposal advocated expanding the scope 

of coverage to a broader range of motors 

than what DOE currently regulates and 

it recommended that energy 

conservation standards for all covered 

electric motors be set at levels that are 

largely equivalent to what DOE adopts 

in today’s notice (i.e., efficiency levels 

in NEMA MG 1–2011 Tables 12–12).15

(Motor Coalition, No. 35 at pp. 1–3) 

Several interested parties submitted 

comments supporting the Petition, 

including: U.S. Senators Lisa 

Murkowski and Jeff Bingaman, BBF and 

Associates, the Air Movement and 

Control Association International, Inc., 

the Hydraulic Institute, the Arkansas 

Economic Development and 

Commission—Energy Office, and the 

Power Transmission Distributors 

Association. 

3. Process for Setting Energy 

Conservation Standards 

Section 325(o) of EPCA (as applied to 

covered equipment via 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a)), provides criteria for 

prescribing new or amended standards 

which are designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency and for which the Secretary of 

Energy determines are technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

Consequently, DOE must consider, to 

the greatest extent practicable, the seven 

factors listed at 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII) (as applied to 

commercial equipment via 6316(a)). 

Other statutory requirements are set 

forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)–(2)(A), 

(2)(B)(ii)–(iii), and (3)–(4). These criteria 

apply to the setting of standards for 

electric motors through 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a). 

The Motor Coalition expressed 

concern that much of the relevant 

information regarding electric motors 

spans various rulemaking documents. It 

requested that DOE consolidate all 

documents related to electric motors at 

one place, which can serve as a quick 

and easy reference for any consumer or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30943 

manufacturer in the U.S or outside the 

U.S. (Motor Coalition, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 

87 at p. 20–21) Baldor expressed similar 

concerns and suggested that DOE clearly 

state in the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) whatever information 

manufacturers need to comply with 

standards. (Baldor, No. 100 at p. 2) 

NEMA commented that the notice needs 

to be clearer and unambiguous so that 

it is easier for anyone (such as offshore 

suppliers) to follow it. It added that the 

final rule should include all required 

information. (NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 

87 at p. 46–47) 

First, DOE notes that its regulatory 

requirements are incorporated into the 

CFR. The regulations laid out in the CFR 

comprise the official set of requirements 

that a regulated entity must follow. 

While any member of the public 

(including manufacturers) may seek 

guidance from DOE, the requirements 

laid out in the CFR provide the 

regulatory framework that 

manufacturers must follow and apply 

when determining which (if any) 

requirements a given motor must meet. 

DOE may issue related guidance 

documents, if needed, which are 

available on its Web site at http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/

default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1. Finally, it 

is worth noting that the division of 

regulations in 10 CFR 431.25(a)–(f) (for 

currently regulated electric motors) and 

10 CFR 431.25(g)–(l) (for newly 

regulated electric motors) was 

developed as a mechanism to 

demonstrate the upcoming change in 

standards without creating confusion 

about existing standards. At some point 

in the future after the new standards 

being adopted in this final rule have 

been in effect for some time, DOE 

anticipates removing the standards 

currently at 10 CFR 431.25(a)–(f), as 

DOE has done in the past. 

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed today’s rule after 

considering input, including verbal and 

written comments, data, and 

information from interested parties that 

represent a variety of interests. All 

commenters, along with their 

corresponding abbreviations and 

affiliations, are listed in Table III.1 

below. The issues raised by these 

commenters are addressed in the 

discussions that follow. 

TABLE III.1—SUMMARY OF COMMENTERS

Company or organization Abbreviation Affiliation 

Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc. ..... AMCAI ................... Trade Association. 

Alliance to Save Energy .......................................................... ASE ....................... Energy Efficiency Advocates. 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ............... ACEEE .................. Energy Efficiency Advocates. 

American Forest & Paper Association .................................... AF&PA .................. Trade Association. 

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers ..................... AFPM .................... Trade Association. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project ................................ ASAP .................... Energy Efficiency Advocates. 

Baldor Electric Co. .................................................................. Baldor .................... Manufacturers. 

BBF & Associates ................................................................... BBF ....................... Representative for Trade Association. 

California Energy Commission ................................................ CEC ...................... State Government Agency. 

California Investor Owned Utilities .......................................... CA IOUs ................ Utilities. 

Cato Institute ........................................................................... Cato ...................... Public Interest Group. 

China WTO/TBT National Notification & Enquiry Center ....... China WTO/TBT ... Chinese Government Agency. 

Copper Development Association ........................................... CDA ...................... Trade Association. 

Earthjustice .............................................................................. Earthjustice ........... Energy Efficiency Advocates. 

Edison Electric Institute ........................................................... EEI ........................ Association of U.S. investor-owned electric companies. 

Electric Apparatus Service Association .................................. EASA .................... Trade Association. 

European Committee of Manufacturers of Electrical Machines and Power Electronics.CEMEP ................. Trade Association. 

Flolo Corporation ..................................................................... Flolo ...................... Electromechanical Repairer. 

Greg Gerritsen ........................................................................ Gerritsen ............... Individual. 

Industrial Energy Consumers of America ............................... IECA ...................... Trade Association. 

Motor Coalition* ....................................................................... MC ........................ Energy Efficiency Advocates, Trade Associations, Manufacturers, Utilities. 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association ........................ NEMA .................... Trade Association. 

Natural Resources Defense Council ....................................... NRDC .................... Energy Efficiency Advocates. 

Nidec Corporation ................................................................... Nidec ..................... Manufacturer. 

NORD Gear Corporation ......................................................... NORD Gear .......... Manufacturer. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ..................................... NEEA .................... Energy Efficiency Advocates. 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships .............................. NEEP .................... Energy Efficiency Advocates. 

Northwest Power & Conservation Council .............................. NPCC .................... Utilities. 

Oakland University .................................................................. OU ......................... Academic Institution. 

PlasticMetal ............................................................................. PlasticMetal ........... Non-motor Manufacturer. 

Regal Beloit ............................................................................. Regal Beloit .......... Manufacturer. 

Scott Mohs .............................................................................. Scott ...................... Individual. 

SEW-Eurodrive, Inc. ................................................................ SEWE ................... Manufacturer. 

Siemens .................................................................................. Siemens ................ Manufacturer. 

Southern California Edison ..................................................... SCE ....................... Utility. 

UL LLC .................................................................................... UL ......................... Testing Laboratory. 

University of Michigan ............................................................. UMI ....................... Academic Institution. 

WEG Electric Corporation ....................................................... WEG ..................... Manufacturer. 

* The members of the Motor Coalition include: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), and Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council (NPCC). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30944 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

16For the purposes of this document, ‘‘Joint 

Advocates’’ is a term used to describe NPCC, NEEA, 

ACEEE, ASAP, Earthjustice, ASE, NRDC, and NEEP, 

who commented jointly. 

A. Compliance Date 

During the NOPR public meeting and 

in written comments, many interested 

parties, including the Motor Coalition, 

requested that DOE provide at least two 

years for compliance from the date of 

publication of the final rule. (Motor 

Coalition, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 

21–22; NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at 

p. 29; CA IOUs, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 

at p. 31; ASAP, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at 

p. 32; CEMEP, No. 89 at p. 2; Joint 

Advocates, 16 No. 97 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 

93 at p. 7; CA IOUs, No. 99 at p. 2; 

Nidec, No. 98 at pp. 2–3; SCE, No. 101 

at p. 2) 

DOE received other comments on the 

proposed compliance date for the newly 

covered equipment requesting that DOE 

provide more than two years after 

publication of the final rule for newly 

covered motors to comply with today’s 

standards because such motors may 

require testing and/or modification of 

original equipment manufacturer (OEM) 

equipment within which these motors 

are used. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 7; NEMA, 

Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 30–31) Regal 

Beloit commented that manufacturers of 

these newly covered motors should be 

given 48 months for compliance, 

whereas EEI argued for a three-year lead 

time for such motors. (Regal Beloit, Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 34–35; EEI, Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 24–25, 33) EEI 

also noted that many manufacturers 

should be fine with a two-year 

compliance lead time for alreadycovered equipment since they 

anticipated the change in regulatory 

requirements coming after EISA 2007. 

(EEI, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 24–25, 

33) DOE notes that NEMA, as part of the 

Motor Coalition, had commented earlier 

in the Petition that a two-year 

compliance lead time would be 

sufficient for all motors covered by 

today’s rule and this stance was 

reiterated by the Motor Coalition 

representative at the NOPR public 

meeting and NEMA in their NOPR 

comments. (Motor Coalition, Pub. Mtg. 

Tr., No. 87 at pp. 21–22; Motor 

Coalition, No. 35 at p. 9; NEMA, No. 93 

at p. 7) 

Regarding the compliance date that 

would apply to the requirements of 

today’s rule, the energy conservation 

standards established under EISA 2007 

went into effect after the three-year 

period beginning on the date of 

enactment of EISA 2007. Under 42 

U.S.C. § 6313(b)(4)(B), EPCA directs the 

Secretary of Energy to publish a final 

rule amending such standards and to 

apply the rule to electric motors 

manufactured five years after the 

effective date EISA 2007. DOE is relying 

on the Congressionally established twoyear spread between the effective date of 

the latest amendments to electric motor 

energy conservation standards and the 

date by which DOE must amend such 

standards to arrive at the two-year leadtime for manufacturers to comply with 

today’s rule after its date of issuance. 

See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b). 

B. Test Procedure 

On June 26, 2013, DOE published a 

notice that proposed to incorporate 

definitions for certain motor types not 

currently subject to energy conservation 

standards (78 FR 38456). The notice also 

proposed to clarify several definitions 

for motor types currently regulated by 

energy conservation standards and add 

some necessary steps to facilitate the 

testing of certain motor types that DOE 

does not currently require to meet 

standards. During the preliminary 

analysis stage, DOE received comments 

concerning definitions and test 

procedure set-up steps suggested for 

testing motors under an expanded scope 

approach. DOE addressed the comments 

as part of the test procedure NOPR. See 

78 FR 38456. 

On December 13, 2013, DOE 

published a test procedure final rule 

(2013 test procedure) that incorporated 

comments from the test procedure 

NOPR and added and clarified both 

definitions and testing instructions for a 

variety of electric motors that DOE was 

considering for regulation under this 

standards rulemaking. 78 FR 75961. The 

test procedure changes published in the 

2013 final test procedure allow DOE to 

require testing and compliance to meet 

the energy conservation standards 

established today. 

Commenting on DOE’s recent round 

of electric motor rulemakings, Baldor 

raised concerns that developing the 

standards rulemaking and test 

procedures rulemaking in parallel has 

caused inconsistencies that need to be 

resolved. For example, the 2013 test 

procedure used the term ‘‘brake electric 

motor’’ to refer jointly to what the 

standards NOPR published earlier had 

called ‘‘integral’’ and ‘‘non-integral’’ 

brake electric motors. Baldor suggested 

that definitions for NEMA Design A and 

B motors in the 2013 test procedure 

should refer to nine characteristics for 

covered equipment that are laid out in 

the NOPR. (Baldor, No. 100 at p. 7) 

Inconsistencies, if any, are resolved in 

today’s rule. DOE developed the nine 

criteria in 10 CFR 431.25(g) below to 

characterize all of the newly covered 

and currently covered motor types. 

Therefore, adding these characteristics 

to the definitions for motor types is 

unnecessary. Moreover, as described 

earlier, the regulatory structure 

proposed by DOE and adopted in this 

rule preserves the existing standards 

and structure for currently regulated 

motors while providing a new section 

for new standards for motors being 

regulated for the first time and amended 

standards for currently regulated 

motors. 

CEC recommended that DOE should 

add definitions of continuous duty and 

duty type S1 (IEC) in 10 CFR 431.12. It 

also recommended that DOE revise the 

current definitions of NEMA Design A, 

B, and C motors to update the reference 

from NEMA MG 1–2009 to the revised 

document ANSI/NEMA MG 1–2011. 

(CEC, No. 96 at p. 3) 

DOE understands that ‘‘continuous’’ 

and ‘‘S1’’ are terms well understood by 

the motor industry, and DOE has 

therefore not established definitions for 

these terms. DOE clarifies in this rule 

that these terms are used to designate a 

motor that can operate indefinitely in 

rated conditions and reaches thermal 

equilibrium. This stands in contrast to 

motors that may be rated for 

intermittent operation or with specific 

loading, braking, or starting restrictions. 

With respect to the MG 1 publication 

version, DOE notes that the terms 

mentioned by CEC are identical in both 

versions of MG 1. DOE, therefore, finds 

there is no reason to amend the 

reference. 

1. Vertical Electric Motors 

NEMA and Nidec both suggested 

several modifications in the test 

procedure for vertical electric motors 

and expressed concern that, without 

these changes, it will be difficult for 

manufacturers to test vertical electric 

motors correctly for compliance 

purposes. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 29; 

Nidec, No. 98 at p. 9–10) 

DOE recognizes the desire for 

clarification in the 2013 test procedure 

for vertical electric motors, but notes 

that the rule has now gone into effect 

and the changes suggested by 

commenters are beyond the scope of 

today’s energy conservation standard. 

Based on stakeholder concerns, 

however, DOE will evaluate whether 

further clarification on the testing of 

vertical electric motors is necessary. 

C. Current Equipment Classes and 

Scope of Coverage 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered equipment into 

equipment classes by the type of energy 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30945 

17EPCA specifies the types of industrial 

equipment that can be classified as covered in 

addition to the equipment enumerated in 42 U.S.C. 

6311(1). This equipment includes ‘‘other motors’’ 

(to be codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)). Industrial 

equipment must also, without regard to whether 

such equipment is in fact distributed in commerce 

for industrial or commercial use, be of a type that: 

(1) In operation consumes, or is designed to 

consume, energy in operation; (2) to any significant 

extent, is distributed in commerce for industrial or 

commercial use; and (3) is not a covered product 

as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2) of EPCA, other 

than a component of a covered product with respect 

to which there is in effect a determination under 42 

U.S.C. 6312(c). (42 U.S.C. 6311 (2)(A).) Data from 

the 2002 United States Industrial Electric Motor 

Systems Market Opportunities Assessment 

estimated total energy use from industrial motor 

systems to be 747 billion kWh. Based on the 

expansion of industrial activity, it is likely that 

current annual electric motor energy use is higher 

than this figure. Electric motors are distributed in 

commerce for both the industrial and commercial 

sectors. According to data provided by the Motor 

Coalition, the number of electric motors 

manufactured in, or imported into, the United 

States is over five million electric motors annually, 

including special and definite purpose motors. 

Finally, special and definite purpose motors are not 

currently regulated under Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, part 430 (10 CFR Part 430). 

To classify equipment as covered commercial or 

industrial equipment, the Secretary must also 

determine that classifying the equipment as covered 

equipment is necessary for the purposes of Part A– 

1 of EPCA. The purpose of Part A–1 is to improve 

the efficiency of electric motors, pumps and certain 

other industrial equipment to conserve the energy 

resources of the nation. (42 U.S.C. 6312(a)–(b)) In 

today’s rule, DOE has determined that the 

regulation of special and definite purpose motors is 

necessary to carry out the purposes of part A–1 of 

EPCA because regulating these motors will promote 

the conservation of energy supplies. Efficiency 

standards that may result from coverage would help 

to capture some portion of the potential for 

improving the efficiency of special and definite 

purpose motors. 

used or by capacity or other 

performance-related features that would 

justify a different standard. In making a 

determination whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different 

standard, DOE must consider factors 

such as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q) and 6316(a)) 

Existing energy conservation 

standards cover electric motors that fall 

into four categories based on design 

features of the motor. These four 

categories are: General purpose electric 

motors (subtype I), general purpose 

electric motors (subtype II), fire pump 

electric motors, and NEMA Design B 

motors (with a horsepower rating from 

201 through 500). Definitions for each of 

these terms can be found at 10 CFR 

431.12. 

D. Updated Equipment Classes and 

Scope of Coverage 

DOE has the authority to set energy 

conservation standards for a wider range 

of electric motors than those classified 

as general purpose electric motors (e.g., 

definite or special purpose motors). 

EPACT 1992 first provided DOE with 

the statutory authority to regulate 

‘‘electric motors,’’ which were defined 

as including certain ‘‘general purpose’’ 

motors. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) 

In addition to defining this term, 

Congress prescribed specific energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors (i.e., general purpose electric 

motors (subtype I). EPACT 1992 also 

defined the terms ‘‘definite purpose 

motors’’ and ‘‘special purpose motor’’. 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C) and (D) (1992)) 

EPACT 1992 explicitly excluded 

definite purpose and special purpose 

motors from the prescribed standards. 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (1992)) However, 

EISA 2007 struck the narrow EPACT 

1992 definition of ‘‘electric motor’’. (42 

U.S.C. 6311(13)) With the removal of 

this definition, the term ‘‘electric 

motor’’ became broader in scope. As a 

result of these changes, both definite 

and special purpose motors fell under 

the broad heading of ‘‘electric motors’’ 

that previously only applied to ‘‘general 

purpose’’ motors. While EISA 2007 

prescribed standards for general 

purpose motors, it did not apply those 

standards to definite or special purpose 

motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b) (2012)) 

Consistent with EISA 2007’s 

reworking of the ‘‘electric motor’’ 

definition, the 2012 test procedure 

broadly defined the term ‘‘electric 

motor’’. 77 FR 26608 (codified at 10 CFR 

431.12). In view of the changes 

introduced by EISA 2007 and the 

absence of energy conservation 

standards for special purpose and 

definite purpose motors, it is DOE’s 

view that both of these motors are 

categories of ‘‘electric motors’’ covered 

under EPCA, as currently amended. 

Accordingly, DOE added the term 

‘‘electric’’ to the definitions of ‘‘special 

purpose motor’’ and ‘‘definite purpose 

motor’’ in the 2013 test procedure. See 

78 FR 75994. Today’s rule amends and 

establishes standards for a variety of 

electric motors, including certain 

definite purpose and special purpose 

motors. DOE is setting energy 

conservation standards for any electric 

motor exhibiting all of the following 

nine characteristics: 

(1) Is a single-speed, induction motor, 

(2) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 

1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC), 

(3) Contains a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or 

cage (IEC) rotor, 

(4) Operates on polyphase alternating 

current 60-hertz sinusoidal line power, 

(5) Is rated 600 volts or less, 

(6) Has a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole 

configuration, 

(7) Is built in a three-digit or four-digit 

NEMA frame size (or IEC metric 

equivalent), including those designs 

between two consecutive NEMA frame 

sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an 

enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC 

metric equivalent), 

(8) Produces at least 1 horsepower 

(0.746 kW) but not greater than 500 

horsepower (373 kW), and 

(9) Meets all of the performance 

requirements of a NEMA Design A, B, or 

C motor or of an IEC Design N or H 

motor. 

However, the updated standards 

specifically do not apply to the 

following equipment: 

• Air-over electric motors; 

• Component sets of an electric 

motor; 

• Liquid-cooled electric motors; 

• Submersible electric motors; and 

• Inverter-only electric motors. 

To facilitate the potential application 

of energy conservation standards to 

special and definite purpose motors, 

DOE defined certain motors and 

provided certain preparatory test 

procedure steps in the 2013 test 

procedure. See 78 FR 75961. DOE chose 

not to establish standards for the 

component sets of an electric motor, 

liquid-cooled, submersible, and 

inverter-only electric motors listed 

above because of the current absence of 

a reliable and repeatable method to test 

them for efficiency. If a test procedure 

becomes available, DOE may consider 

setting standards for these motors at that 

time. For air-over electric motors, 

during the course of the test procedure 

rulemaking, DOE learned about a 

possible test procedure for such motors 

but DOE does not currently have enough 

information to support the 

establishment of a test method. 78 FR 

75975. 

Finally, as discussed in the NOPR, 

although DOE believes that EPCA, as 

amended through EISA 2007, provides 

sufficient statutory authority to regulate 

a wider variety of electric motors 

(including those commonly referred to 

as special purpose or definite purpose 

motors) than those already regulated as 

‘‘electric motors,’’ DOE notes that 

section 10 of the American Energy 

Manufacturing Technical Corrections 

Act (‘‘AEMTCA’’), Public Law 112–210 

(December 18, 2012), amended DOE’s 

authority to regulate commercial and 

industrial equipment by including 

‘‘other motors,’’ in addition to ‘‘electric 

motors’’. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(xiii).) 

Therefore, even if special and definite 

purpose motors were not ‘‘electric 

motors,’’ special and definite purpose 

motors would be considered as ‘‘other 

motors’’ that EPCA already treats as 

covered industrial equipment.17


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30946 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

18 DOE notes that ‘‘NEMA Premium’’ is a 

registered trademark of NEMA. NEMA has removed 

the term ‘‘NEMA’’ from the title of MG 1–2011, 

Table 12–12. Unless indicated otherwise, in the 

remainder of this document, any reference to 

‘‘premium’’ standards should be considered a 

reference to MG 1–2011, Table 12–12. 

In response to the NOPR, the Motor 

Coalition recognized that DOE’s 

proposed broadening of the scope of 

motors that would be covered at TSL 2 

efficiency levels is consistent with the 

Petition. (Motor Coalition, Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

No. 87 at pp. 18–19) NEMA agreed with 

DOE’s proposed expansion of scope of 

coverage, noting that it is largely 

consistent with the Petition. (NEMA, 

No. 93 at p. 3) Nidec commented that 

DOE’s proposal presents a sufficiently 

broad scope of coverage and that no 

further adjustment is needed. (Nidec, 

No. 98 at p. 5) The CA IOUs supported 

DOE in adopting TSL 2 for most 

equipment class groups. (CA IOUs, No. 

99 at pp. 1–2) The Joint Advocates 

supported the proposed standards, 

noting that the standards will save 7 

quads of energy over thirty years of 

equipment sales and will significantly 

contribute to the President’s Climate 

Action Plan goal for new standards. It 

urged DOE to complete the final rule by 

May 2014 as previously committed to 

the Attorneys General of several states. 

(Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 2) The 

European Committee of Manufacturers 

of Electrical Machines and Power 

Electronics (CEMEP) expressed support 

for increasing certain motor efficiency 

standards to TSL 2, or NEMA Table 12– 

12. CEMEP noted that DOE is 

appropriately considering impacts on 

and perspectives of OEMs and end 

users, as well as global harmonization 

issues. (CEMEP, No. 89 at p. 2) Gerritsen 

supported the proposed standards, 

noting that is the standards are essential 

to curb carbon dioxide emissions. 

(Gerritsen, No. 81 at p. 1) Southern 

California Edison commented that they 

support DOE in adopting TSL 2, i.e., 

NEMA Premium®18 levels, noting that 

these will lead to ‘‘the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified’’ as well as 

significant energy savings. In view of 

significant energy savings and general 

stakeholder support, SCE requested that 

DOE publish final rule soon. (SCE, No. 

101 at pp. 1–2) 

The Copper Development Association 

(CDA) supported DOE’s current 

rulemaking and the inclusion of 

additional motor categories and 

requiring motors that operate at 201 hp 

through 500 hp to meet premium 

standards. CDA suggested that DOE 

investigate covering motors over 500 hp 

and currently uncovered motors 1 hp 

through 500 hp for future rulemaking. 

CDA noted that motors over 500 hp 

consume 27 percent of all U.S. energy 

consumed by motors in operation. 

Noting that some manufacturers even 

currently offer motors significantly 

above premium efficiency levels, CDA 

suggested that DOE investigate the 

development of a new even higher 

energy efficiency category—‘‘super 

premium’’ above the current premium 

efficiencies. (CDA, No. 90 at pp. 1–2) 

DOE may consider expanding the 

scope of its regulations to large motors, 

which carry different technologies and 

usage patterns, in future updates to the 

rule. At that time, DOE would consider 

any efficiency levels beyond premium 

efficiency in place and evaluate them 

for standards. 

E. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

EPCA requires that any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

that DOE prescribes shall be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that DOE determines 

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

6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)). In each 

standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a 

screening analysis based on information 

gathered on all current technology 

options and prototype designs that 

could improve the efficiency of the 

products or equipment that are the 

subject of the rulemaking. As the first 

step in such an analysis, DOE develops 

a list of technology options for 

consideration in consultation with 

manufacturers, design engineers, and 

other interested parties. DOE then 

determines which of those means for 

improving efficiency are technologically 

feasible. 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

view of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, or service; (2) 

adverse impacts on equipment utility or 

availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. Section IV.B of this rule 

discusses the results of the screening 

analysis for electric motors, particularly 

the designs DOE considered, those it 

screened out, and those that are the 

basis for the trial standard levels (TSLs) 

in this rulemaking. For further details 

on the screening analysis for this 

rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final 

TSD. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE adopts a new or amended 

standard for a type or class of covered 

equipment, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) This requirement also 

applies to DOE proposals to amend the 

standards for electric motors. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a)) Accordingly, in its engineering 

analysis, DOE determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficiency for 

electric motors, using the design 

parameters for the most efficient motors 

available on the market or in working 

prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the final 

TSD.) The max-tech levels that DOE 

determined for this rulemaking are 

described in section IV.C.3 of this final 

rule. 

In response to the NOPR, CEC 

claimed that DOE has not provided the 

technological feasibility and economic 

justification as required by statute for 

updating the existing energy 

consumption standards for general 

purpose electric motors (subtype I or II) 

that are not NEMA Design A, B, or C, 

or IEC Design N or H, and for polyphase 

motors rated between 1 and 250 hp (2 

poles) and motors between 1 and 350 hp 

(8 poles). It further stated that DOE did 

not provide market and technology 

analysis for motors greater than 500 hp, 

motors with more than 8 poles and 

shaded pole motors. (CEC, No. 96 at pp. 

1, 3) 

DOE acknowledges that the motors in 

the scope of today’s rulemaking are not 

the only possible motors for which 

standards may produce economically 

justified energy savings. As detailed 

above, DOE’s electric motor regulations 

came about due to statutory 

requirements that initially included a 

narrow scope of electric motors that 

DOE could regulate, but that has become 

increasingly broad with the changes 

brought about by EISA 2007 and 

AEMTCA. As that universe of electric 

motors that DOE is authorized to 

regulate expands, DOE considers other 

motor types that it may regulate under 

the statute and considers what types of 

electric motors use large amounts of 

energy, are produced in large volume, 

and have opportunities for efficiency 

gains. DOE may consider future 

regulation of some of the motor types 

which CEC mentions and welcomes 

data that illustrates savings potential of 

currently unregulated technologies. 

The University of Michigan and 

Oakland University (UMI & OU) 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30947 

19 In the past DOE, presented energy savings 

results for only the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance. In the calculation of economic 

impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost 

savings measured over the entire lifetime of 

equipment purchased in the 30-year period. DOE 

has chosen to modify its presentation of national 

energy savings to be consistent with the approach 

used for its national economic analysis. 

20 ‘‘Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-FuelCycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE 

Building Appliance Energy-Efficiency Standards,’’ 

(Academy report) was completed in May 2009 and 

included five recommendations. A copy of the 

study can be downloaded at: http://www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=12670. 

suggested that before finalizing the 

current rulemaking, DOE should 

conduct a study to update National 

Electrical Code Table 430.250, which is 

used to design circuits of motors 

covered by current regulation. UMI & 

OU suggested that before finalizing the 

current rulemaking, a study should be 

conducted to determine the optional 

method of establishing the nameplate 

ratings of combination HVAC 

equipment rated according to running 

load amperes. (UMI & OU, No. 92 at pp. 

1–2) 

DOE understands that NEC Table 

430.250, mentioned by UMI & OU, helps 

engineers specify wiring in building by 

providing current as a function of motor 

power, voltage, and power factor. DOE 

understands that more efficient motors 

may cause application engineers to 

differently design building circuits 

which contain electric motors. If such 

changes brought by a technology have 

adverse impacts to safety or equipment 

utility, DOE may opt to remove that 

technology from consideration in its 

screening analysis. Presently, DOE has 

not learned of any such expected 

impacts resulting from the standard 

levels selected in today’s rule. 

Moreover, the National Electrical Code 

is developed by the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) and DOE 

has no authority to change this code. 

F. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

Section 325(o) of EPCA also provides 

that any new or amended energy 

conservation standard that DOE 

prescribes shall be designed to achieve 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE determines is 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)–(B) and 6316(a)) In 

addition, in determining whether such 

standard is technologically feasible and 

economically justified, DOE may not 

prescribe standards for certain types or 

classes of electric motors if such 

standards would not result in significant 

energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) 

and 6316(a)) For each TSL, DOE 

projected energy savings from the 

motors that would be covered under this 

rulemaking and that would be 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the year of compliance with 

the new and amended standards (2016– 

2045). The savings are measured over 

the entire lifetime of equipment 

purchased in the 30-year period.19 DOE 

quantified the energy savings 

attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case. The base case represents a 

projection of energy consumption in the 

absence of new or amended mandatory 

efficiency standards, and considers 

market forces and policies that affect 

demand for more efficient equipment. 

DOE used its national impact analysis 

(NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate 

energy savings from new and amended 

standards for electric motors subject to 

this rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet 

model (described in section IV.H of this 

rule) calculates energy savings in site 

energy, which is the energy directly 

consumed by motors at the locations 

where they are used. For electricity, 

DOE reports national energy savings in 

terms of the savings in the energy that 

is used to generate and transmit the site 

electricity, which is referred to as 

primary energy. To convert electricity in 

kWh to primary energy units, on-site 

electricity consumption is multiplied by 

the site-to-power plant energy use factor 

(see TSD chapter 10). The site-to-power 

plant energy use factor is defined as the 

ratio of the marginal change in total 

primary energy consumption by the 

electric power sector (in quadrillion 

Btu’s) divided by the change in total 

electricity generation due to a standard. 

DOE derives site-to-power plant energy 

use factors from the model used to 

prepare the Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO). 

DOE also estimates full-fuel-cycle 

energy savings. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 

2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 

(August 17, 2012). The full-fuel-cycle 

(FFC) metric includes the energy 

consumed in extracting, processing, and 

transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, 

natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus 

presents a more complete picture of the 

impacts of energy efficiency standards. 

DOE’s evaluation of FFC savings is 

driven in part by the National Academy 

of Science’s (NAS) report on FFC 

measurement approaches for DOE’s 

Appliance Standards Program.20 The 

NAS report discusses that FFC was 

primarily intended for energy efficiency 

standards rulemakings where multiple 

fuels may be used by a particular 

product or piece of equipment. In the 

case of this rulemaking pertaining to 

electric motors, only a single fuel— 

electricity—is consumed by the 

equipment. DOE’s approach is based on 

the calculation of an FFC multiplier for 

each of the energy types used by 

covered equipment. Although, the 

addition of FFC energy savings in the 

rulemakings is consistent with the 

recommendations, the methodology for 

estimating FFC does not project how 

fuel markets would respond to this 

particular standard rulemaking. The 

FFC methodology simply estimates how 

much additional energy, and in turn 

how many tons of emissions, may be 

displaced if the estimated fuel were not 

consumed by the equipment covered in 

this rulemaking. It is also important to 

note that inclusion of FFC savings does 

not affect DOE’s choice of standards. 

2. Significance of Savings 

As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) (as applied to equipment 

via 6316(a)) prevents DOE from 

adopting a standard for a covered 

product unless such standard would 

result in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. 

Although the term ‘‘significant’’ is not 

explicitly defined in EPCA, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 

1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated 

that Congress intended ‘‘significant’’ 

energy savings in this context to be 

savings that were not ‘‘genuinely 

trivial’’. DOE believes that the energy 

savings for all of the TSLs considered in 

this rulemaking (presented in section 

V.A) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE 

considers them ‘‘significant’’ within the 

meaning of section 325 of EPCA. 

G. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

EPCA provides seven factors to be 

evaluated in determining whether a 

potential energy conservation standard 

is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i) (as applied to 

equipment via 6316(a))) The following 

sections discuss how DOE has 

addressed each of those seven factors in 

this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a 

standard on manufacturers, DOE first 

uses an annual cash-flow approach to 

determine the quantitative impacts. This 

step includes both a short-term 

assessment—based on the cost and 

capital requirements during the period 

between when a regulation is issued and 

when entities must comply with the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30948 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

21 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that 

considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year 

period. 

regulation—and a long-term assessment 

over a 30-year period.21 The industrywide impacts analyzed include industry 

net present value (INPV), which values 

the industry on the basis of expected 

future cash flows; cash flows by year; 

changes in revenue and income; and 

other measures of impact, as 

appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and 

reports the impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including impacts on 

small manufacturers. Third, DOE 

considers the impact of standards on 

domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of various DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback 

period (PBP) associated with new or 

amended standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value of the economic impacts 

applicable to a particular rulemaking. 

DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of 

potential standards on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers that may be 

affected disproportionately by a national 

standard. 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

equipment compared to any increase in 

the price of the covered equipment that 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 6316(a)) DOE 

conducts this comparison in its LCC and 

PBP analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a piece of equipment (including 

its installation) and the operating 

expense (including energy, 

maintenance, and repair expenditures) 

discounted over the lifetime of the 

equipment. To account for uncertainty 

and variability in specific inputs, such 

as equipment lifetime and discount rate, 

DOE uses a distribution of values, with 

probabilities attached to each value. For 

its analysis, DOE assumes that 

consumers will purchase the covered 

equipment in the first year of 

compliance with amended standards. 

The LCC savings for the considered 

efficiency levels are calculated relative 

to a base case that reflects projected 

market trends in the absence of 

amended standards. 

DOE identifies the percentage of 

consumers estimated to receive LCC 

savings or experience an LCC increase, 

in addition to the average LCC savings 

associated with a particular standard 

level. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for imposing an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA 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 6316(a)) As discussed in section 

IV.H, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to 

project national site energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing classes of equipment, 

and in evaluating design options and 

the impact of potential standard levels, 

DOE evaluates standards that would not 

lessen the utility or performance of the 

considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6316(a)) As 

noted earlier, the substance of this 

provision applies to the equipment at 

issue in today’s rule as well. DOE has 

determined that the standards in today’s 

notice will not reduce the utility or 

performance of the equipment under 

consideration in this rulemaking. 

Currently, many motors are already 

commonly being sold at the selected 

levels (i.e., ‘‘premium efficiency’’ 

designation). In addition, the selected 

standards closely track the 

recommendations of NEMA, a trade 

association that represents electric 

motor manufacturers. DOE assumes that 

NEMA would not recommend efficiency 

levels that would harm electric motor 

performance or utility. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition 

that is likely to result from the 

imposition of a standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 6316(a)) It also 

directs the Attorney General of the 

United States to determine the impact, 

if any, of any lessening of competition 

likely to result from a standard and to 

transmit such determination to the 

Secretary of Energy within 60 days of 

the publication of a proposed rule, 

together with an analysis of the nature 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To assist 

the Attorney General in making a 

determination for electric motor 

standards, DOE provided the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) with copies 

of the NOPR and the TSD for review. 

DOE received no adverse comments 

from DOJ regarding the proposal. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

The energy savings from today’s 

standards are likely to provide 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

also may result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

nation’s needed power generation 

capacity. 

Today’s standards also are likely to 

result in environmental benefits in the 

form of reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases 

associated with energy production. DOE 

reports the emissions impacts from 

today’s standards, and from each TSL it 

considered, in section V.B.4 of this rule. 

DOE also reports estimates of the 

economic value of emissions reductions 

resulting from the considered TSLs. 

g. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, 

in determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any 

other factors that the Secretary deems to 

be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6316(a)) In 

developing this final rule, DOE has also 

considered the submission of the 

Petition, which DOE believes sets forth 

a statement by interested persons that 

are representative of relevant points of 

view (including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered equipment, 

and efficiency advocates) and contains 

recommendations with respect to an 

energy conservation standard. DOE has 

encouraged the submission of consensus 

agreements as a way to bring diverse 

interested parties together, to develop 

an independent and probative analysis 

useful in DOE standard setting, and to 

expedite the rulemaking process. DOE 

also believes that standard levels 

recommended in the Petition may 

increase the likelihood for regulatory 

compliance, while decreasing the risk of 

litigation. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30949 

22BT stands for DOE’s Building Technologies 

Program. 

23The EIA allows the use of the name ‘‘NEMS’’ 

to describe only an AEO version of the model 

without any modification to code or data. Because 

the present analysis entails some minor code 

modifications and runs the model under various 

policy scenarios that deviate from AEO 

assumptions, the name ‘‘NEMS–BT’’ refers to the 

model as used here. For more information on 

NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling 

System: An Overview, DOE/EIA–0581 (98) 

(February 1998), available at: http://

tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/

058198.pdf. 

24For the purposes of determining compliance, 

DOE assesses a motors horsepower rating according 

to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.25(e). 

consumer of a product or piece of 

equipment that meets the standard is 

less than three times the value of the 

first year’s energy savings resulting from 

the standard, as calculated under the 

applicable DOE test procedure. DOE’s 

LCC and PBP analyses generate values 

used to calculate the effect potential 

amended energy conservation standards 

would have on the payback period for 

consumers. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to consumers, manufacturers, 

the nation, and the environment, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section IV.F.12 of this final 

rule. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

DOE used four spreadsheet tools to 

estimate the impact of today’s 

standards. The first spreadsheet 

calculates LCCs and PBPs of potential 

new energy conservation standards. The 

second provides shipments forecasts 

and the third calculate national energy 

savings and net present value impacts of 

potential new energy conservation 

standards. The fourth tool helps assess 

manufacturer impacts, largely through 

use of the Government Regulatory 

Impact Model (GRIM). 

Additionally, DOE estimated the 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards for electric motors on utilities 

and the environment. DOE used a 

version of EIA’s National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility 

and environmental analyses. The NEMS 

model simulates the energy sector of the 

U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to 

prepare its Annual Energy Outlook 

(AEO), a widely known energy forecast 

for the United States. The version of 

NEMS used for standards analysis is 

called NEMS–BT22 and is based on the 

AEO version with minor 

modifications.23

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

For the market and technology 

assessment, 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, 

equipment classes, types of equipment 

sold and offered for sale, and technology 

options that could improve the energy 

efficiency of the equipment under 

examination. Chapter 3 of the TSD 

contains additional discussion of the 

market and technology assessment. 

1. Current Scope of Electric Motors 

Energy Conservation Standards 

EISA 2007 amended EPCA to 

prescribe energy conservation standards 

for four categories of electric motors: 

General purpose electric motors 

(subtype I) (hereinafter, ‘‘subtype I’’), 

general purpose electric motors (subtype 

II) (hereinafter, ‘‘subtype II’’), fire pump 

electric motors, and NEMA Design B, 

general purpose electric motors that also 

meet the subtype I or subtype II 

definitions and are rated above 200 

horsepower through 500 horsepower. 

DOE’s 2012 test procedure added clarity 

to the definitions for each of these motor 

categories, which are now codified at 10 

CFR 431.12. 77 FR 26608. 

DOE understands that an IEC frame 

motor could be treated as either a 

subtype I or subtype II motor depending 

on its other characteristics. Having an 

IEC frame alone does not dictate 

whether a motor is a general purpose 

subtype I or subtype II motor; rather, 

other characteristics provided in the 

definitions of general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I or subtype II) at 10 CFR 

431.12 determine whether an IEC motor 

should be considered subtype I or II. All 

of these elements flow directly from the 

statutory changes enacted by EISA 2007. 

Currently, electric motors are required 

to meet energy conservation standards 

as follows: 

TABLE IV.1—CURRENT ELECTRIC MOTOR ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS 24

Electric motor category Horsepower range Energy conservation 

standard level 

General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype I) ................................................ 1 to 200 (inclusive) ............................ MG 1–2011 Table 12–12. 

General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype II) ............................................... 1 to 200 (inclusive) ............................ MG 1–2011 Table 12–11. 

NEMA Design B and IEC Design N Motors ................................................... 201 to 500 (inclusive) ........................ MG 1–2011 Table 12–11. 

Fire Pump Electric Motors .............................................................................. 1 to 500 (inclusive) ............................ MG 1–2011 Table 12–11. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

commented that the proposed standards 

do not resolve the confusion regarding 

IEC electric motors. NEMA explained 

that it is not clear whether an electric 

motor in an IEC frame size that meets 

the other criteria of a general purpose 

electric motor (subtype I) would be 

classified as equivalent to a T-frame, 

hence subtype I, or U-frame, hence 

subtype II. Therefore, NEMA suggested 

that IEC frame sizes be considered 

equivalent to NEMA T-frames. NEMA 

suggested that the pertinent portion of 

the definition of ‘‘general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II)’’ in 10 CFR 

431.12 should be revised from ‘‘(i) A UFrame motor’’ to read ‘‘(i) Is built in 

accordance with NEMA U-frame 

dimensions as described in NEMA MG 

1–1967 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.15), including a frame size that is 

between two consecutive NEMA frame 

sizes.’’ (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 3–5, 32) 

Changes to the applicability of the 

electric motor standards currently in 

effect are outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. Additionally, DOE notes 

that NEMA’s proposed changes to the 

definition of ‘‘general purpose electric 

motor (subtype II)’’ reflect that it may 

have been looking at an older version of 

the definition rather than the current 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30950 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

definition found at 10 CFR 431.12. DOE 

notes that the current definition of 

‘‘general purpose electric motor 

(subtype II)’’ already includes the 

language being suggested by NEMA. 

2. Expanded Scope of Electric Motor 

Energy Conservation Standards 

a. Summary 

As referenced above, on August 15, 

2012, the Motor Coalition petitioned 

DOE to adopt the Coalition’s consensus 

agreement, which, in part, formed the 

basis for today’s rule. The Motor 

Coalition petitioned DOE to simplify 

coverage to address a broad array of 

electric motors with a few clearly 

identified exceptions. The Motor 

Coalition advocated this approach to 

simplify manufacturer compliance and 

to help facilitate DOE’s enforcement 

efforts. The Petition highlighted 

potential energy savings that would 

result from expanding the scope of 

covered electric motors. (Motor 

Coalition, No. 35 at pp. 1–30) 

DOE is now requiring electric motor 

types beyond those currently covered to 

meet energy conservation standards. 

DOE’s proposed expansion is similar to 

the approach recommended by the 

Motor Coalition in its Petition (Motor 

Coalition, No. 35 at pp. 1–3). DOE 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for electric motors that exhibit 

all of the characteristics listed in Table 

IV.2, with a limited number of 

exceptions, listed in Table IV.4. 

TABLE IV.2—CHARACTERISTICS OF

MOTORS REGULATED UNDER EXPANDED SCOPE OF COVERAGE

Motor characteristic 

Is a single-speed, induction motor, 

Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation 

or for duty type S1 (IEC), 

Contains a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage 

(IEC) rotor, 

Operates on polyphase alternating current 

60-hertz sinusoidal power, 

Is rated for 600 volts or less, 

TABLE IV.2—CHARACTERISTICS OF

MOTORS REGULATED UNDER EXPANDED SCOPE OF COVERAGE— 

Continued 

Motor characteristic 

Is built with a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration, 

Is built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA 

frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric 

equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA 

frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), 

Produces at least 1 horsepower (0.746 kW) 

but not greater than 500 horsepower (373 

kW) and 

Meets all of the performance requirements of 

a NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or of an 

IEC Design N or H electric motor. 

Table IV.3 lists the formerly 

unregulated electric motor types that 

will be covered by today’s rule. Further 

details and definitions for the specific 

motor types can be found in DOE’s 2013 

test procedure. 78 FR 75961. 

TABLE IV.3—CURRENTLY UNREGULATED MOTOR TYPES THAT ARE COVERED BY THIS RULE

Electric Motor Type 

NEMA Design A from 201 to 500 horsepower Electric motors with non-standard endshields or flanges. 

Electric motors with moisture resistant windings Electric motors with non-standard bases. 

Electric motors with sealed windings Electric motors with special shafts. 

Partial electric motors Vertical hollow-shaft electric motors. 

Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) electric motors Electric motors with sleeve bearings. 

Immersible electric motors Electric motors with thrust bearings. 

Brake electric motors Electric motors with encapsulated windings. 

Electric motors with separately powered blowers 

However, the new standards 

specifically do not apply to the 

following equipment: 

TABLE IV.4—EQUIPMENT SPECIFICALLY

EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE

Electric Motor Type 

Air-over electric motors. 

Component sets of an electric motor. 

Liquid-cooled electric motors. 

Submersible electric motors. 

Inverter-only electric motors. 

Additionally, DOE is clarifying the 

design, construction, and performance 

characteristics of covered electric 

motors. Specifically, DOE is clarifying 

that only motors rated from 1 to 500 

horsepower (inclusive), or their IEC 

equivalents, would be covered by the 

standards established in today’s 

rulemaking. Finally, with regard to IECframe motors, DOE’s standards would 

not regulate IEC motors on the singular 

basis of frame size, but would regulate 

such motors if they meet all the criteria 

of Table IV.2. In other words, an IECframe motor that meets these nine 

criteria and does not fit within one of 

the five exceptions would have to meet 

today’s final standards. 

In response to the NOPR, DOE 

received several comments on its scope 

criteria. CEMEP supported the nine 

characteristics to define electric motors, 

noting that using those criteria to define 

covered motors will lead to huge energy 

savings by covering millions of units. 

CEMEP believed that the nine 

characteristics definition can be applied 

by customs and other enforcement 

officers to improve overall enforcement 

activities. (CEMEP, No. 89 at p. 2). 

Nidec commented that DOE should 

bring more clarity to characteristic #8 

(i.e., 1–500 hp as proposed as (g)(8)) by 

including kilowatt values corresponding 

to the given horsepower values (e.g., 500 

horsepower (343 kilowatts), 1 

horsepower (0.75 kilowatt). (Nidec, No. 

98 at pp. 2, 7–8) DOE believes this is a 

helpful suggestion that comports with 

the inclusion of IEC motors in today’s 

rulemaking and is incorporating the 

suggestion into today’s rule. 

NEMA sought clarification regarding 

whether solid shaft medium and high 

thrust motors are included in the scope 

of coverage. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 27) 

During the NOPR public meeting, CEC 

and EEI requested clarification on 

whether pool pump motors are covered 

under new standards or by the Small 

Electric Motors regulations. (CEC, Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 55) The CA IOUs 

commented during the public meeting 

that most pump motors are single-phase 

and, sometimes, variable-speed, both of 

which would disqualify motors from 

coverage. (CA IOUs, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 

87 at pp. 55–56). Nidec added its belief 

that the small motor rule does not cover 

variable speed motors. (Nidec, Pub. Mtg. 

Tr., No. 87 at p.56). 

Any motor that meets the nine criteria 

as given in paragraph (g) and which is 

not explicitly exempted by criteria given 

in paragraph (m) is covered under the 

current rulemaking. Both single-phase 

and variable speed motors are not 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30951 

covered in today’s rule, and so any 

motor with those qualities would not be 

subject to today’s standards. 

b. Definitions, Terminology, and 

Regulatory Language 

In response to the NOPR, DOE 

received a number of comments 

requesting clarification on its choice of 

terminology. 

‘‘Motor’’ and ‘‘Electric Motor’’ 

Baldor commented that the use of the 

terms ‘‘motor’’ and ‘‘electric motor’’ 

interchangeably in the NOPR is very 

confusing. DOE understands that the 

terms ‘‘motor’’ and ‘‘electric motor’’ may 

refer to a variety of machines outside of 

its regulatory context. In the NOPR, 

DOE used the terms to mean the same 

thing. 78 FR 73589. In addition, because 

there are no NEMA Design B motors, for 

example, that are not electrically driven, 

in DOE’s view, the potential for 

ambiguity is minimal. 

The Department chose to not include 

the term ‘‘electric’’ in the NEMAdesignated motor types to be consistent 

with NEMA’s definitions. In the 

regulatory context, however, DOE does 

not consider there to be any difference 

between the two terms and notes that all 

motors currently regulated under 10 

CFR part 431, subpart B, are electric 

motors as stated in the title to 10 CFR 

part 431, subpart B and the purpose and 

scope section at 10 CFR 431.11. 

Moreover, NEMA itself uses the term 

‘‘motor’’ in MG 1 to refer to electric 

motors. 

Specificity of Definitions 

Baldor stated that the definitions for 

‘‘NEMA Design A motor’’ and ‘‘NEMA 

Design B motor’’ in 2013 test procedure 

does not make reference to nine 

characteristics listed in paragraph (g) 

and, thus, implies that it includes multispeed motors, motors rated for voltages 

greater than 600 volts, motors rated for 

only 50 Hz, and motors constructed 

with more than 8 poles. According to 

Baldor, this conflicts with DOE’s 

proposed scope of coverage in Table 4 

and Table 5 of the NOPR. It noted that 

paragraph (i) and Table 6 for NEMA 

Design C motor are similarly confusing. 

(Baldor, No. 100 at pp. 2–4) 

DOE agrees with Baldor that 

minimizing ambiguity in regulatory text 

is critical. In this case, however, DOE 

does not see the potential for confusion. 

DOE believes that today’s regulatory text 

is of sufficient clarity that stakeholders 

will understand that the new standards 

apply only to those motors that meet the 

nine criteria in the new 10 CFR 

431.25(g). 

NEMA Design A, B or C motors are 

not defined to include these nine 

characteristics, which DOE is using to 

narrow the scope of covered electric 

motors. The definition of NEMA Design 

A may include multi-speed motors, 

motors rated for voltages greater than 

600 volts, motors rated for only 50 Hz, 

and motors constructed with more than 

8 poles. However, only NEMA Design A 

motors meeting all nine characteristics 

in § 431.25(g) are covered under today’s 

rule. DOE’s regulatory structure 

maintains the current standards at 10 

CFR 431.25(a)–(f) while adding broader 

coverage in new paragraphs (g) through 

(l). The structure that DOE chose 

preserves the current regulatory text and 

allows DOE to use the same definitions 

for all motors covered under 10 CFR 

431.25. 

‘‘NEMA Design A Motor’’ Correction 

NEMA commented that the definition 

for NEMA Design A motor needs to be 

corrected by replacing the phrase ‘‘has 

a locked rotor current not to exceed’’ the 

values shown in NEMA MG 1–2009, as 

proposed in the NOPR with ‘‘has a 

locked rotor current higher than’’ the 

values shown in NEMA MG 1–2009. 

(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 29) The Joint 

Advocates requested that DOE consider 

NEMA’s comments on definitions to 

bring clarity to the covered motors. 

(Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 3) 

DOE agrees with NEMA that the 

Department inadvertently used the 

incorrect phrase when discussing the 

locked rotor current in the definition of 

a ‘‘NEMA Design A motor’’. As 

evidenced in the preamble of the 2013 

test procedure (78 FR 75968) and the 

preamble and regulatory text of the 

proposed test procedure (78 FR 38462, 

38481), DOE intended to include locked 

rotor current that exceeds the maximum 

locked rotor current established for a 

NEMA Design B motor in the ‘‘NEMA 

Design A motor’’ definition. In today’s 

rule, DOE is modifying the regulatory 

text accordingly. 

‘‘NEMA Design C Motor’’ Correction 

NEMA suggested DOE revise 

paragraph (i) and the title of Table 6 of 

the proposed 10 CFR 431.25 by 

replacing ‘‘NEMA Design C electric 

motor’’ with ‘‘NEMA Design C motor’’ 

for consistency with DOE’s regulatory 

definitions. 

As described above, DOE agrees, and 

has made the corresponding change in 

the regulatory text for consistency with 

the definitions adopted in the 2013 test 

procedure. DOE notes that it has further 

corrected the reference to ‘‘NEMA 

Design A and B motors’’ in the title of 

Table 5 to be consistent with the DOE 

regulatory definitions. 

‘‘Inverter-Only Electric Motor’’ 

Definition 

Baldor and NEMA raised concerns 

that DOE has defined ‘‘inverter-only 

electric motor’’ and not ‘‘definitepurpose, inverter-fed electric motors’’ 

which is the term that the NOPR 

referenced. Baldor noted that the term 

‘‘definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric 

motors’’ is preferred and recognized by 

the motor industry as given in Part 31 

of the NEMA MG 1 standard. (Baldor, 

No. 100 at p. 6; NEMA at pp. 2–3) 

Although DOE has previously used 

the term ‘‘definite-purpose, inverter-fed 

electric motor,’’ DOE instead adopted 

the term ‘‘inverter-only electric motor’’ 

in its 2013 test procedure because 

’’definite-purpose’’’ is a term that has 

meaning in the context of many other 

motor types which DOE does not wish 

to be confused with those requiring 

inverters. DOE also wishes to define 

these motors in terms of their actual 

capabilities instead of design intent. See 

78 FR 75989. 

c. Horsepower Rating 

DOE’s proposed standards include 

only motors rated from 1–500 

horsepower, inclusive. In its comments, 

NEMA agreed with DOE’s decision not 

to cover fractional hp motors, noting 

that these motors do not fall within the 

scope of rating for which NEMA Design 

A, B and C performance standards are 

defined. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 15) 

Consequently, DOE is continuing not to 

regulate fractional horsepower, 

enclosed, 56-frame motors in today’s 

notice. 

d. High-Horsepower Six- and Eight-Pole 

Motors 

NEMA noted that Table 2 does not 

contain the higher horsepower ratings 

for large motors in 6 and 8 poles that are 

added in Table 7 and it suggested that 

DOE conform Table 7 to Table 2. 

(NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 23–26) Baldor 

made a similar comment. (Baldor, No. 

100 at p. 4) 

In keeping with the Motor Coalition’s 

Petition and with MG 1–2009, DOE had 

proposed standards for motors with 

certain high horsepower and pole 

ratings (8-pole above 250 hp and 6-pole 

above 350 hp) that NEMA commented 

do not exist under MG 1’s medium 

motors designations. For example, it is 

impossible to produce a NEMA Design 

A 6-pole motor of 400 hp because the 

criteria required to qualify a medium 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30952 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

25As described in both MG 1–2009 and 10 CFR 

431.12. 

26See 10 CFR 431.442. 

motor as Design A 25 do not extend to 

such a high horsepower motor. NEMA 

notes that the table in the 2011 version 

of MG 1 has corrected the mistake of 

MG 1–2009 and moved these higher 

horsepower motors to the large motor 

Table 20–20 of MG 1. In its written 

comments in response to the NOPR, 

NEMA asked DOE not to adopt 

standards for motors of this pole and 

horsepower configuration because 

NEMA Design A and B types are not 

defined for and are not applicable to 

large motors. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 23– 

26) Accordingly, DOE has removed 

several efficiency levels that were 

proposed in table 5. As the eliminated 

ratings are nonexistent—it is not 

possible to build motors meeting such 

specifications—motors shipments 

analyses used in today’s rule are 

unaffected. 

e. Frame Size 

In response to the NOPR, DOE 

received a number of comments related 

to frame size. 

Scope Characteristic #7 

NEMA requested that DOE amend the 

nine characteristics of regulated motor 

to include four-digit frame sizes because 

500 hp and 6- and 8-pole motors only 

come in frame sizes larger than threedigit frame sizes. (NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

No. 87 at pp. 42–43; NEMA, No. 93 at 

p 26) 

NEMA also noted that IEC does not 

put design specifications on the motor, 

especially for larger-sized motors. 

Therefore, it requested that DOE use 

language that will include all such 

motors (through 500 hp) equivalent to 

covered NEMA motors. (NEMA, Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 42–44; NEMA, 

No. 93 at p. 26) 

Nidec added that the higher 

horsepower ratings as shown in table 4 

of the NOPR are above current threedigit frame size. (Nidec, Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

No. 87 at p. 45) Secondly, Nidec 

commented that while the proposed 

standard helps clarify the IEC motor 

coverage, removing characteristic #7 

from the nine characteristics in 

paragraph (g) of 10 CFR 431.25 would 

remove any confusion about motor size. 

It commented that DOE may add electric 

motors covered by the regulations for 

small electric motors to the list of 

exempted motors in paragraph (m) of 

the proposed 10 CFR 431.25. 

DOE agrees with the above 

commenters that it was DOE’s intent to 

ensure that four-digit frame size motors 

and IEC equivalents of covered motors 

are covered by these new standards and 

has adopted revised language in 

paragraph (g)(7) of § 431.25 to reflect 

that fact. The updated language covers 

three-digit frame sizes, four-digit frame 

sizes, IEC equivalents, and equivalents 

between NEMA frame sizes. 

NEMA 56-Frame Motors Coverage 

NEMA 56-frame motors at 1 hp or 

greater have been the subject of 

considerable discussion, due to the fact 

that they may be covered as a small 

electric motor under subpart X of 10 

CFR part 431, or as an electric motor 

under subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 

depending on whether they are generalpurpose, definite or special purpose, or 

have an open or enclosed frame. 

Currently, 56-frame motors are covered 

as small electric motors if the motor is 

an open, general-purpose motor that 

meets the ‘‘small electric motor’’ 

definition at 10 CFR 431.442. The NOPR 

proposed to extend coverage to 56-frame 

enclosed motors rated at 1 hp or greater. 

78 FR 73589. For 56-frame open, special 

and definite purpose motors, the NOPR 

stated that DOE was considering 

establishing standards for these motor 

types as well, but requested additional 

information on those motor types. 78 FR 

73606, 73679. Today’s rule covers 

enclosed 56-frame motors rated at 1 hp 

or greater but does not establish 

standards for 56-frame open, definite or 

special purpose motors. DOE notes that, 

because today’s rule covers all enclosed 

56-frame motors, both general purpose 

and special and definite purpose 

enclosed 56-frame motors are covered 

under today’s rule. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

provided detailed comments about how 

DOE should rephrase characteristic #7 

and add a sixth exemption to 10 CFR 

431.25 if DOE chose to include 56-frame 

open, definite or special purpose 

motors. This would also eliminate any 

confusion regarding covering all IEC 

frame sizes and all frame sizes between 

two consecutive NEMA or IEC frame 

sizes. It also commented that it is 

ambiguous as to whether a 56-frame, 

open general purpose motor has 

different efficiency levels and 

nameplate markings as compared to the 

56-frame open, special and definite 

purpose motors. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 

14–15; NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at 

p. 61) NEMA noted that the current 

rulemaking cannot be compared with 

the small motors rule in terms of 

efficiency requirements and ELs, 

because the small motor rule 

requirements are based on average 

efficiency while electric motor rule are 

based on nominal full-load efficiency. 

(NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 28–29) 

DOE agrees that coverage of 56-frame, 

open, special- and definite-purpose 

motors would require coordination with 

DOE’s small electric motor 

requirements. In the NOPR, DOE 

requested additional data on this subset 

of 56-frame motors to allow DOE to fully 

assess these motor types. No commenter 

provided DOE such data. As a result of 

these complications and the need for 

more data, DOE does not cover them in 

today’s rule, but may consider covering 

such motors in a future rulemaking. As 

explained in the ‘‘Scope Characteristic 

#7’’ section of this section, IVA.2.e, DOE 

has modified Characteristic #7 

accordingly. Table IV.5 provides a 

summary of respective coverage of 56- 

frame electric motors. 

TABLE IV.5—56-FRAME REGULATION, 1 HORSEPOWER AND GREATER

Open Enclosed 

General Purpose ............................. Covered as a ‘‘small electric motor’’ up to 3 hp.26 Not currently covered; covered by 

this rule. 

Special/Definite Purpose ................. Not currently covered; not covered by this rule .................................... Not currently covered; covered by 

this rule. 

f. IEC Motors 

NEMA noted that: (1) There is no oneto-one correspondence between NEMA 

frame sizes and IEC metric equivalents; 

(2) the phrase ‘‘NEMA frame’’ refers to 

specific NEMA T-frame sizes; and (3) 

IEC 100 frames are currently exempt but 

should be covered. Based on the above, 

NEMA commented that DOE has 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30953 

removed nearly all IEC motors from any 

requirement to meet efficiency 

standards. In order to effectively include 

standards for IEC motors, it suggested 

DOE to change the titles of table 5 and 

6 and the contents of paragraphs (h) and 

(i) within 10 CFR 431.25 to reflect that 

they included the IEC equivalents. 

(NEMA, No. 93 at p 4) DOE agrees that 

it was the intent to cover these motors 

and has amended the regulatory 

language to make this clear. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

commented that it believed DOE may be 

of the opinion that because, in DOE’s 

proposed rule, reference is no longer 

being made to T-frames and all covered 

frame sizes would have three digits, that 

DOE no longer needs the text ‘‘including 

a frame size that is between two 

consecutive NEMA frame sizes or their 

IEC metric equivalents’’ when 

describing coverage. NEMA noted, 

however, that manufacturers may 

mistakenly equate ‘‘NEMA frame’’ with 

‘‘T-frame,’’ and mistakenly conclude 

that certain IEC motors (e.g., IEC 100 

frame) were uncovered. To remedy this 

ambiguity, NEMA suggested that DOE 

modify scope Characteristic #7. (NEMA, 

No. 93 at p. 26) 

DOE appreciates the need to clarify 

coverage of NEMA versus IEC motors 

and their equivalents and, consistent 

with its stated intentions in the NOPR 

to cover IEC-equivalents of all covered 

motors, has modified characteristic #7 

to make coverage of IEC equivalents 

more explicit. See 78 FR 73589. 

g. Frequency 

NEMA noted that characteristic #4 in 

paragraph (g) is described as ‘‘operate 

on polyphase alternating current 60- 

hertz line power’’. NEMA acknowledged 

that DOE has explained that this is 

intended to cover electric motors rated 

at 60 Hz and 50/60 Hz; however, as 

written, the provision could be read as 

requiring coverage of 50 Hz motors that 

are operated on 60 Hz. It is not clear 

from the proposed standards whether an 

efficiency standard would apply to a 

motor’s operation at the frequency or 

frequencies marked on the nameplate of 

the electric motor or to operation just at 

60 Hz. NEMA suggested that DOE add 

‘‘at 60 Hz’’ to all efficiency table titles 

to make clear that the covered motors 

were required to meet the efficiency 

standard while operating at 60 Hz. 

(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 5) 

DOE agrees that the suggestion brings 

clarity to the regulations and reflects 

DOE’s intent in the NOPR. Therefore, 

corresponding changes were made in 

the regulatory text. Although the 

efficiency values apply at 60 Hz only, 

DOE points out that the ability to 

operate at other frequencies (e.g., 50 Hz) 

in addition to 60 Hz does not, itself, 

exclude a motor from coverage. 

h. Random Winding 

Noting that DOE has established the 

efficiency levels based on NEMA MG 1 

Table 12–12, Nidec raised concern that 

Table 12–12 is intended only for 

random wound motors and, therefore, 

DOE, should amend characteristic #5 to 

include only electric motors that 

contain a random wound stator 

winding. (Nidec, No. 98 at pp. 2, 7–8) 

DOE is not aware of any particular 

winding technique that would make it 

significantly more difficult for a motor 

to meet standards and has received no 

comment suggesting as much. DOE’s 

understanding is that random winding 

is mostly done automatically to reduce 

assembly cost, and that more strategic 

winding (e.g., on a form) is generally 

done for increased insulation 

performance at higher voltages. Hand 

winding is considered in DOE’s analysis 

and generally exhibits performance 

superior to random winding and would 

more easily reach higher efficiencies. As 

a result, DOE perceives no reason to 

further constrain scope and does not 

alter scope with respect to the winding 

method in today’s rule. 

i. Duty Cycle 

DOE’s proposed standards applied 

only to motors rated for continuous 

duty, which means that a motor may 

operate indefinitely without pausing for 

heat to dissipate. 

CEC suggested that DOE revise the 

criterion in proposed section 

431.25(g)(2) such that motors not rated 

for continuous duty are also subject to 

standards. It suggested that both motors 

rated or not rated for continuous duty 

can meet the nominal full-load 

efficiency standards. (CEC, No. 96 at p. 

3) 

Although DOE did not receive data on 

the relative usages of continuous vs. 

intermittent duty motors, it understands 

that continuous duty motors account for 

the majority of the energy consumption 

of motors investigated within this 

rulemaking. Due to their inherent 

limitations, intermittent duty motors are 

more likely to be used in applications 

with a lower fraction of the time spent 

switched on. As a result, these motors 

use less energy than continuous duty 

motors. Although DOE has thus far 

focused its efforts on continuous duty 

motors, it remains possible that other 

motor types may achieve cost-effective 

energy savings through standards, and 

DOE may consider exploring their 

future inclusion. DOE notes that the 

scope of the MG 1 sections to which the 

standards listed in Tables 12–10, 12–11, 

and 12–12 apply is continuous duty 

motors. DOE also notes that today’s rule 

represents an evolution of existing 

standards for General Purpose Electric 

Motors (Subtypes I and II), which are 

defined in 10 CFR part 431, subpart B 

to have continuous ratings. 

j. Gear Motors 

Presently, DOE does not define ‘‘gear 

motor’’ or ‘‘gearmotor,’’ but understands 

that these are motors that have gears 

attached to the motor body, usually for 

the purpose of trading speed for torque. 

Depending on the exact configuration, 

the motor may meet the definition of 

‘‘partial electric motor’’ as defined in 10 

CFR 431.12. In the NOPR, DOE stated 

that it believed that certain gearmotors 

could be tested as partial electric motors 

by first removing the gearbox, so that 

manufacturers could certify the partial 

electric motor and be freed from 

certifying every conceivable motor/

gearbox combination. 78 FR 73647. In 

the 2013 test procedure, DOE 

specifically addressed integral gear 

motors and how to test such motors if 

they meet DOE’s definition of ‘‘partial 

electric motor’’. See 78 FR 75979, 

75994. 

Baldor raised concern that the scope 

of coverage of integral gear motors (or 

other integral motors under the 

groupings of ‘‘partial electric motors’’) is 

not clear. Moreover, DOE did not define 

or propose test procedures for ‘‘integral 

gearmotors’’ in the 2013 test procedure. 

(Baldor, No. 100 at p. 5–6) In response, 

DOE reiterates that it does not, at this 

time, treat gear motors as a distinct 

category of equipment. Gear motors 

would be subject to standards if they 

meet the definition of ‘‘partial electric 

motor’’ or of another type of equipment 

subject to standards. In those cases, gear 

motors would be required to certify 

using whichever test instructions were 

applicable to that type of motor. DOE 

notes that manufacturers may apply for 

a test procedure waiver if their 

equipment cannot be tested under the 

methods found in 10 CFR part 431, 

subpart B. 

NORD Gear Corp. recommended that 

integral gear motors be excluded from 

the coverage as they do not meet the 

statutory definition of ‘‘electric motor’’. 

It commented that if gearmotors are 

subject to rulemaking, it would require 

the NORD gear motors to be heavier due 

to the increased copper, steel and 

aluminum content. It will also require 

an increase in frame size for some 

motors and, thus, will prevent the 

combination of some gearmotors that are 

currently in use, leading to a product 

gap in the market for significant amount 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30954 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

of time and creating undue economic 

burden on gearmotor end users. Further, 

if gear motors are redesigned to meet the 

standard, millions of combinations of 

motors and gearboxes will have to be 

tested and this would place an undue 

economic burden on gearbox 

manufacturers. (NORD Gear, No. 91 at p. 

2) 

DOE understands that an investment 

of time and capital may be required by 

the imposition of any standard, and has 

attempted to discuss, quantify and 

consider those investments in its 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis in 

section IV.J. DOE believes that there 

should be sufficient time for 

manufacturers to make changes in 

designs (if needed) to comply with 

standards and make the integral gear 

motors available in the market. With 

respect to the question of statutory 

authority, DOE believes that EPCA, as 

amended through EISA 2007, provides 

sufficient statutory authority for the 

regulation of a wide variety of electric 

motors as described in detail in section 

II.A. 

k. Partial Electric Motors 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

raised concern that it is not clear 

whether the proposed standards in 

Tables 5 through 8 apply to partial 

electric motors. To clarify, NEMA 

recommended that DOE either revise 

paragraph (g) in 10 CFR 431.15 or add 

a tenth characteristic to include ‘‘partial 

electric motors’’. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 

26–27) Baldor raised concerns that the 

content of Table IV of the NOPR implies 

that DOE intends to cover partial 

electric motors, however, these motors 

are neither mentioned in the NOPR nor 

are efficiency standard levels proposed 

for them. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 26–27) 

Under the new regulatory scheme in 

today’s final rule, DOE considers partial 

electric motors to be electric motors 

subject to the new requirements listed 

in 10 CFR 431.25(h)–(l) if they meet the 

nine criteria specified in paragraph (g) 

of the new § 431.25. DOE’s 2013 test 

procedure provides instructions for 

testing these motor types to ensure their 

nominal full-load efficiency can be 

assessed. 78 FR 75961. To make the 

inclusion of these motor types 

abundantly clear, DOE has taken 

NEMA’s suggestion of modifying the 

regulatory text in 10 CFR 431.25(g) to 

expressly state that partial electric 

motors are included. 

Additionally, DOE now refers in the 

to ‘‘special-purpose’’ and ‘‘definitepurpose’’ ‘‘electric motors’’. The word 

‘‘electric’’ was added in the 2013 test 

procedure. 78 FR 75961. 

Finally, DOE notes that it has updated 

the definition of ‘‘partial electric motor’’ 

found in 10 CFR 431.12 to correct a 

typographical error: Repetition of the 

word ‘‘an’’ before ‘‘electric motor’’. 

l. Certification Considerations Related to 

Expanded Scope 

Baldor sought clarification on which 

manufacturer should be responsible to 

file compliance certification report with 

DOE. Baldor asked whether it should be 

the manufacturer of the partial electric 

motor or if instead the manufacturer of 

the electric motor or assembly of which 

the partial electric motor is a component 

must certify it. (Baldor, No. 100 at pp. 

5–7) 

DOE noted in the 2011 certification, 

compliance and enforcement rule that it 

intends to undertake a rulemaking to 

moving and harmonize, where possible, 

the certification, compliance, and 

enforcement provisions for electric 

motors into Part 429. 76 FR 12422, 

12447. DOE will address the party 

responsible for certifying in that 

rulemaking. 

m. Electric Motors With Separately 

Powered Blowers 

In its comments, NEMA provides an 

‘‘Appendix B’’ in which it outlines the 

‘‘industry interpretation’’ of which 

motor types are covered by the rule. 

DOE notes that NEMA lists electric 

motors with separately powered blowers 

under the ‘‘not a covered product’’ 

category. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 37) 

In the 2013 test procedure, DOE 

established a method of testing for this 

type of motor and stated that at least 

some non-immersible motors that are 

furnished with separately-powered 

blowers would meet the same nine 

criteria that DOE was, at that time, 

considering applying with respect to its 

standards rulemaking. 78 FR 75986. 

Moreover, DOE did not propose to 

exempt these types of motors from 

standards in the standards NOPR. 78 FR 

73681. DOE maintains its position that 

electric motors with separately powered 

blowers that meet the requirements in 

the new 10 CFR 431.25(g) are covered in 

today’s rule. 

3. Advanced Electric Motors 

In its final rule analysis, DOE 

addressed various ‘‘advanced electric 

motor’’, which included those listed in 

Table IV.6. While DOE recognizes that 

such motors could offer improved 

efficiency, regulating them would 

represent a significant shift for DOE, 

which has primarily focused on the 

efficiency of polyphase, single-speed 

induction motors. 

TABLE IV.6—ADVANCED ELECTRIC

MOTORS

Motor Description 

Inverter drives. 

Permanent magnet motors. 

Electrically commutated motors. 

Switched-reluctance motors. 

At this time, DOE has chosen not to 

regulate advanced motors and knows of 

no established definitions or test 

procedures that could be applied to 

them. Because DOE agrees that 

significant energy savings may be 

possible for some advanced motors, 

DOE plans to keep abreast of changes to 

these technologies and their use within 

industry, and may consider regulating 

them in the future. 

4. Equipment Class Groups and 

Equipment Classes 

When DOE prescribes or amends an 

energy conservation standard for a type 

(or class) of covered equipment, it 

considers: (1) The type of energy used; 

(2) the capacity of the equipment; or (3) 

any other performance-related feature 

that justifies different standard levels, 

such as features affecting consumer 

utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and 6316(a)) 

Due to the large number of 

characteristics involved in electric 

motor design, DOE has developed both 

‘‘equipment class groups’’ and 

‘‘equipment classes’’. An equipment 

class represents a unique combination 

of motor characteristics for which DOE 

is establishing a specific energy 

conservation standard. There are 482 

potential equipment classes that consist 

of all permutations of electric motor 

design types (i.e., NEMA Design A & B, 

NEMA Design C (and IEC equivalents), 

and fire pump electric motor), standard 

horsepower ratings (i.e., standard 

ratings from 1 to 500 horsepower), pole 

configurations (i.e., 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole), 

and enclosure types (i.e., open or 

enclosed). An equipment class group is 

a collection of equipment classes that 

share a common motor design type. The 

NEMA Standards Publication MG 1– 

2011, ‘‘Motors and Generators,’’ defines 

a series of standard electric motor 

designs (i.e., Designs A, B and C) that 

are differentiated by variations in 

performance requirements. DOE chose 

to use these design types to establish 

equipment class groups because design 

types affect an electric motor’s utility 

and efficiency. 

In the NOPR, DOE had divided 

electric motors into four groups based 

on three main characteristics: NEMA (or 

IEC) design letter, whether the motor 

met the definition of ‘‘fire pump electric 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30955 

27At its core, the equipment class concept, which 

is being applied only as a structural tool for 

purposes of this rulemaking, is equivalent to a 

‘‘basic model’’. See 10 CFR 431.12. The 

fundamental difference between these concepts is 

that a ‘‘basic model’’ pertains to an individual 

manufacturer’s equipment class. Each equipment 

class for a given manufacturer would comprise a 

basic model for that manufacturer. 

28The terms ‘‘U-frame’’ and ‘‘T-frame’’ refer to 

lines of frame size dimensions, with a T-frame 

motor having a smaller frame size for the same 

horsepower rating as a comparable U-frame motor. 

In general, ‘‘T’’ frame became the preferred motor 

design around 1964 because it provided more 

horsepower output in a smaller package. 

Under EPACT 1992, the only covered electric 

motors were T-frame electric motors. See 42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)(A)(1992). These motors were redefined to 

be ‘‘general purpose electric motor (subtype I)’’ 

under EISA 2007, which, at the time, DOE defined 

as a motor that can be used in most general purpose 

applications and that meets standard operating 

characteristics and mechanical construction for use 

under usual or unusual service conditions in 

accordance with specific provisions of NEMA MG 

1–1993. That version of MG 1 only included 

specifications for T-frame motors because the last 

version of MG 1 to contain U-frame dimensions was 

published in 1967. See 77 FR 266.8. 

29Several manufacturers provide premium 

efficient U-frame motors. See, for example, http:// 

www.usmotors.com/Our-Products/∼/media/

USMotors/Documents/Literature/Datasheets/PDS/

PDS_PREMIUM_EFFICIENT.ashx. 

30See, for example, http://www.overlyhautz.com/ 

adaptomounts1.html. 

motor,’’ and whether the motor had a 

brake. Within each of these groups, DOE 

utilized combinations of other pertinent 

motor characteristics to enumerate 

individual equipment classes. To 

illustrate the differences between the 

two terms, consider the following 

example. A NEMA Design B, 50 

horsepower, two-pole enclosed electric 

motor and a NEMA Design B, 100 

horsepower, six-pole open electric 

motor would be in the same equipment 

class group (ECG 1), but each would 

represent a unique equipment class that 

will ultimately have its own efficiency 

standard.27

At the NOPR stage, brake electric 

motors were separated out because DOE 

was concerned that the presence of a 

brake (which provides utility in the 

form of hastened stopping of the motor) 

might cause additional losses, thereby 

reducing the motors’ ability to meet 

standards cost-effectively. In its 2013 

test procedure, however, DOE 

established a method of testing brake 

motors that allowed exclusion of losses 

attributable to the brake, thereby 

allowing brake electric motors to be 

tested without regard to the brake. 78 FR 

75995. 

For today’s final rule, then, DOE 

divided electric motors into three 

groups based on two main 

characteristics: NEMA (or IEC) design 

letter and whether the motor met the 

definition of a fire pump electric motor. 

DOE’s three resulting equipment class 

groups are: NEMA Design A and B and 

IEC Design N motors (ECG 1), NEMA 

Design C and IEC Design H motors (ECG 

2), and fire pump electric motors (ECG 

3). Table IV.7 outlines the relationships 

between equipment class groups and the 

characteristics used to define equipment 

classes. 

TABLE IV.7—ELECTRIC MOTOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUPS FOR THE FINAL RULE ANALYSIS

Equipment 

class group Electric motor design Horsepower Poles Enclosure 

1 ................... NEMA Design A & B* ...................................... 1–500 2, 4, 6, 8 Open. 

Enclosed. 

2 ................... NEMA Design C* ............................................. 1–200 4, 6, 8 Open. 

Enclosed. 

3 ................... Fire Pump* ....................................................... 1–500 2, 4, 6, 8 Open. 

Enclosed. 

* Including IEC equivalents. 

a. U-Frame Motors 

EISA 2007 prescribed energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors built with a U-frame, whereas 

previously, only electric motors built 

with a T-frame were covered.28

(Compare 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)(1992) 

with 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B)(2011)) In 

general, for the same combination of 

horsepower rating and pole 

configuration, an electric motor built in 

a U-frame is built with a larger ‘‘D’’ 

dimension than an electric motor built 

in a T-frame. The ‘‘D’’ dimension is a 

measurement of the distance from the 

centerline of the shaft to the bottom of 

the mounting feet. Consequently, Uframe motors should be able to reach 

efficiencies as high, or higher, than Tframe motors with similar ratings (i.e., 

horsepower, pole-configuration, and 

enclosure) because the larger frame size 

allows for more active materials, such as 

copper wiring and electrical steel, 

which help reduce I2R (i.e., losses 

arising from the resistivity of the 

current-carrying material) and core 

losses (i.e., losses that result from 

magnetic field stability changes).29

Furthermore, U-frame motors do not 

have any unique utility relative to 

comparable T-frame motors. In general, 

a T-frame design could replace an 

equivalent U-frame design with minor 

modification of the mounting 

configuration for the driven equipment. 

By comparison, a U-frame design that is 

equivalent to a T-frame design could 

require substantial modification to the 

mounting configuration for the same 

piece of driven equipment because of its 

larger size. DOE’s research indicated 

that manufacturers sell conversion 

brackets for installing T-frame motors 

into applications where a U-frame motor 

had previously been used.30 In the 

NOPR, DOE proposed standards for both 

T-frame and U-frame motors. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA and 

the Joint Advocates recommended that 

DOE keep the standards for U-frame 

motors at current EPACT 1992 (NEMA 

MG 1–2011,Table 12–11) levels. These 

commenters argued that U-frame motors 

are a legacy design used only in the 

automotive manufacturing industry and 

that their market share is small and 

declining; according to these 

commenters, re-designing of U-frame 

motors would entail huge costs. NEMA 

commented that new U-frame motors 

are not being designed currently, and 

the old designs primarily cater to the 

replacement market. According to 

NEMA, there are no suppliers of Uframe general purpose motors (subtype 

II) at premium efficiency levels, and its 

review showed that only one 

manufacturer of U-frame general 

purpose electric motors (subtype II) 

would be impacted by the proposed 

change in efficiency standards. NEMA 

also stated that the cost of U-frame 

motors is generally significantly higher 

than T-frame motors of the same rating, 

as indicative of the larger size of the Uframe motor and the costs associated 

with maintaining of production 

equipment for old designs. Therefore, it 

would be highly unlikely that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30956 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

31See, for example: http://www.marathonelectric. 

com/motors/docs/manuals/SB547.pdf. 

32For instructions on how to access the TSD, visit 

the rulemaking page at: http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_

standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/42. 

consumers would increase purchases of 

U-frame motors of lower efficiency as 

substitutes for T-frame motors. NEMA 

claimed that DOE did not evaluate the 

cost burden on manufacturers from redesigning old U-frame motors, and if it 

did, the results would not support the 

increase in efficiency standards 

proposed in the NOPR. The Joint 

Advocates commented that leaving Uframe motor standards unchanged 

would enable manufacturers to direct 

scarce product design resources to 

product types with larger market shares. 

(NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 69– 

70; NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 27–28; Joint 

Advocates, No. 97 at p. 2) 

By contrast, Nidec supported DOE’s 

proposal to raise efficiency standards of 

U-frame motors to EL2 (i.e., Table 12– 

12) levels, noting that it is 

technologically feasible to increase the 

efficiency level of these motors. (Nidec, 

No. 98 at p. 5) 

DOE understands NEMA’s concerns 

regarding the diminishing market size of 

U-frame motors. However, DOE has 

determined that a complete phase-out of 

U-frame motors would not be the result 

of an efficiency standard that is 

technologically infeasible for U-frame 

motors, but because U-frame motors 

offer no unique utility relative to Tframe motors. Furthermore, DOE has 

concluded that the updated standards 

are unlikely to result in the 

unavailability of U-frame motors. Based 

on catalog data from several large 

electric motor manufacturers, DOE has 

observed manufacturer offerings of 

premium efficiency U-frame motors on 

the market today.31 DOE sees no 

technical reason why U-frame 

manufacturers would not be able to 

comply with standards corresponding to 

TSL 2. DOE notes that it requested, but 

did not receive, data suggesting that Uframe motors would be eliminated from 

the market under the standard levels 

adopted in today’s final rule. See 78 FR 

73610. 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), as applied 

to commercial and industrial equipment 

via 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), DOE cannot 

prescribe a standard that would result in 

the ‘‘unavailability in the United States 

in any covered equipment type (or class) 

of performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States at the time 

of the Secretary’s finding’’. However, 

DOE notes that this statutory provision 

does not require the continued 

protection of particular classes or types 

of equipment—in this case, electric 

motors—if the same utility continues to 

be available to consumers. 

Consequently, based on available 

information, DOE continues to believe 

that U-frame motors fail to merit a 

separate equipment class with lower 

standards and has not created one for 

them in this final rule. 

b. Electric Motor Design Letter 

The first criterion that DOE 

considered when disaggregating 

equipment class groups was based on 

the NEMA (and IEC) design letter. The 

NEMA Standards Publication MG 1– 

2011, ‘‘Motors and Generators,’’ defines 

a series of standard electric motor 

designs that are differentiated by 

variations in performance requirements. 

These designs are designated by letter— 

Designs A, B, and C. (See NEMA MG 1– 

2011, paragraph 1.19.1). These designs 

are categorized by performance 

requirements for full-voltage starting 

and developing locked-rotor torque, 

breakdown torque, and locked-rotor 

current, all of which affect an electric 

motor’s utility and efficiency. DOE is 

regulating the efficiency of motors of 

each of these design types. 

The primary difference between a 

NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B 

motor is that they have different lockedrotor current requirements. NEMA 

Design B motors must not exceed the 

applicable locked-rotor current level 

specified in NEMA MG 1–2011, 

paragraph 12.35.1. NEMA Design A 

motors, on the other hand, do not have 

a maximum locked-rotor current limit. 

In most applications, NEMA Design B 

motors are generally preferred because 

locked-rotor current is constrained to 

established industry standards, making 

it easier to select suitable motor-starting 

devices. However, certain applications 

have special load torque or inertia 

requirements, which result in a design 

with high locked-rotor current (NEMA 

Design A). When selecting starting 

devices for NEMA Design A motors, 

extra care must be taken in properly 

sizing electrical protective devices to 

avoid nuisance tripping during motor 

startup. The distinction between NEMA 

Design A and NEMA Design B motors is 

important to applications that are 

sensitive to high locked-rotor current; 

however, both NEMA Design A and 

Design B motors have identical 

performance requirements in all other 

metrics, which indicates that they offer 

similar levels and types of utility. Given 

these similarities, DOE is grouping these 

motors together into a single equipment 

class group for the purposes of this 

rulemaking. 

In contrast, DOE believes that the 

different torque requirements for NEMA 

Design C motors represent a change in 

utility that can affect efficiency 

performance. NEMA Design C motors 

are characterized by high starting 

torques. Applications that are hard to 

start, such as heavily loaded conveyors 

and rock crushers, require this higher 

starting torque. The difference in torque 

requirements will restrict which 

applications can use which NEMA 

Design types. As a result, NEMA Design 

C motors cannot always be replaced 

with NEMA Design A or B motors, or 

vice versa. Therefore, as in the 

preliminary analysis and NOPR, DOE 

has analyzed NEMA Design C motors in 

an equipment class group separate from 

NEMA Design A and B motors. 

In chapter two, ‘‘Analytical 

Framework,’’ of the technical support 

document, DOE noted numerous 

instances where manufacturers were 

marketing electric motors rated greater 

than 200 horsepower as NEMA Design 

C motors. (see Chapter 2 of TSD) 32 DOE 

understands that NEMA MG 1–2011 

specifies Design C performance 

requirements for motors rated 1–200 hp 

in four-, six-, and eight-pole 

configurations—a motor rated above 200 

hp or using a two-pole configuration 

would not meet the Design C 

specifications. DOE understands that 

without established performance 

standards that form the basis for a twopole NEMA Design C motor or a NEMA 

Design C motor with a horsepower 

rating above 200, motors labeled as such 

would not meet the regulatory 

definition for ‘‘NEMA Design C motor’’ 

as provided in the 2013 test procedure. 

78 FR 75994. DOE considers motors at 

these ratings to be improperly labeled if 

they are name-plated as NEMA Design 

C. Mislabeled NEMA Design C motors, 

however, are still subject to energy 

conservation standards if they meet the 

definitions and performance standards 

for a regulated motor—e.g., NEMA 

Design A or B. And since these motors 

either need to meet the same efficiency 

levels or would be required by 

customers to meet specific performance 

criteria expected of a given design letter 

(i.e., Design A, B, or C), DOE does not 

foresee at this time any incentive that 

would encourage a manufacturer to 

identify a Design A or B motor as a 

Design C motor for standards 

circumvention purposes. DOE 

understands, however, that NEMA 

Design C motors as a whole constitute 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30957 

33For example, some conveyor and other 

material-handling applications require motors to 

stop quickly. 

an extremely small percentage of motor 

shipments—less than two percent of 

shipments—covered by this rulemaking, 

which would appear to create an 

unlikely risk that mislabeling motors as 

NEMA Design C will be used as an 

avenue to circumvent standards. In 

addition, DOE received no comments 

suggesting this would be likely. 

Nevertheless, DOE will monitor the 

potential presence of such motors and 

may reconsider standards for them 

provided such practice becomes 

prevalent. 

c. Fire Pump Electric Motors 

In addition to considering the NEMA 

design type when establishing 

equipment class groups, DOE 

considered whether an electric motor is 

a fire pump electric motor. EISA 2007 

prescribed energy conservation 

standards for fire pump electric motors 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) and, 

subsequently, DOE adopted a definition 

for the term ‘‘fire pump electric motor,’’ 

which incorporated portions of National 

Fire Protection Association Standard 

(NFPA) 20, ‘‘Standard for the 

Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire 

Protection’’ (2010). (See 77 FR 26608 

(codified at 10 CFR 431.12)) Pursuant to 

NFPA 20, a fire pump electric motor 

must comply with NEMA Design B 

performance standards and must 

continue to operate in spite of any risk 

of damage stemming from overheating 

or continuous operation. The additional 

requirements for a fire pump electric 

motor are intended to further the 

purpose of public safety and constitute 

a change in utility that DOE believes 

could also affect its performance and 

efficiency. Therefore, DOE established a 

separate equipment class group for such 

motors in the preliminary analysis to 

account for the special utility offered by 

these motors and maintained that 

practice through the NOPR and today’s 

final rule. 

Regarding the ‘‘fire pump electric 

motor’’ definition, as detailed in the 

2012 test procedure (77 FR 26608), DOE 

intends its ‘‘fire pump electric motor’’ 

definition to cover both NEMA Design 

B motors and IEC-equivalents that meet 

the requirements of section 9.5 of NFPA 

20. See 77 FR 26617–26618. As stated 

in the 2012 test procedure, DOE believes 

that IEC-equivalent motors should be 

included within the scope of the 

definition of ‘‘fire pump electric motor,’’ 

although NFPA 20 does not explicitly 

recognize the use of IEC motors with fire 

pumps. Id. DOE realizes that section 9.5 

of NFPA 20 specifically requires that 

fire pump motors shall be marked as 

complying with NEMA Design B. The 

fire pump electric motor definition that 

DOE created focuses on ensuring that 

compliance with the energy efficiency 

requirements are applied in a consistent 

manner. DOE believes that there are IEC 

motors that can be used in fire pump 

applications that meet both NEMA 

Design B and IEC Design N criteria, as 

well as NEMA MG 1 service factors. 

DOE’s definition encompasses both 

NEMA Design B motors and IECequivalents. To the extent that there is 

any ambiguity as to how DOE would 

apply this definition, in DOE’s view, 

any Design B or IEC-equivalent motor 

that otherwise satisfies the relevant 

NFPA requirements would meet the fire 

pump electric motor definition in 10 

CFR 431.12. See the standards NOPR for 

a historical discussion of comments 

related to fire pump electric motors. 78 

FR 73623. 

NEMA suggested that DOE should 

change the title of Table 7 and the 

content of paragraph (j) to specifically 

refer to NEMA Design B fire pump 

electric motors. NEMA commented that 

although DOE has stated that the 

standards for fire pump electric motors 

are based on NEMA Design B types, that 

fact it is not clear in the definition of 

‘‘fire pump electric motor’’ in 10 CFR 

431.12. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 5) Baldor 

also raised concern that the scope of 

coverage of fire pump electric motors is 

not clear from only referring to the 

definition proposed in 10 CFR 431.12., 

nothing that it had to go through several 

documents to determine that fire pump 

electric motors that meet nine criteria 

and are limited to NEMA Design B and 

IEC equivalents are covered. (Baldor, 

No. 100 at p. 4) 

Pursuant to NFPA 20, a fire pump 

electric motor must comply with NEMA 

Design B performance standards and 

must continue to run in spite of any risk 

of damage stemming from overheating 

or continuous operation. Therefore, 

DOE considers it unnecessary to add 

further restrictions in its regulatory text. 

DOE also wishes to avoid the 

implication that IEC equivalents would 

not be covered. Regarding having to 

review the nine criteria in the new 10 

CFR 431.25(g) to know if a fire pump 

motor is covered, as DOE explained 

above, the regulatory scheme used in 

the new regulations was chosen to 

maintain the existing regulations for 

currently regulated electric motors 

while providing the criteria that all 

motors must meet if they are regulated 

motors under the new standards. 

NEMA commented that it is aware of 

few entities that have listed IEC motors 

for application with fire pumps in the 

U.S. It also commented that there is 

confusion regarding the coverage of the 

efficiency standards for fire pump 

electric motors. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 14) 

By contrast, Nidec provided a link to 

data on companies that have a UL 

certification for IEC motors for fire 

pump applications. (Nidec, No. 98 at p. 

5) 

Regarding IEC fire pump motors, DOE 

views Nidec’s comment and the fact that 

IEC motors can be built to very similar 

specifications as Design B motors (even 

though they may not be labeled as such) 

as sufficient cause to maintain the 

requirement that IEC designs comply 

with fire pump motor standards as well. 

Specifically regarding standards for 

fire pump electric motors, NEMA and 

Baldor both raised concerns that the 

proposed standards for fire pump 

electric motors in Table 7 were not 

consistent with the current standards for 

fire pump electric motors in Table 2, as 

suggested in the Petition and as DOE 

intended to propose (see 78 FR 73592). 

(NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 23, 26; Baldor, 

No. 100 at p. 4) 

Finally, the NOPR had mistakenly 

listed a standard for 1 hp, 2 pole, open 

fire pump electric motors even though 

no standard for this configuration is 

currently in effect, as evidenced by the 

absence of a standard for this rating in 

DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 431.25(b). 

This standard has been removed from 

the final rule. 

d. Brake Electric Motors 

In its final rule analyses, DOE 

considered whether brake electric 

motors (both integral brake electric 

motors and non-integral brake electric 

motors). In the 2013 test procedure, 

DOE adopted a definition for brake 

electric motors. 78 FR 75993 In the 

NOPR, the two types of brake electric 

motor were contained in one equipment 

class group as separate from the 

equipment class groups established for 

NEMA Design A and B motors, NEMA 

Design C motors, and fire pump electric 

motors. 

DOE understands that brake electric 

motors contain multiple features that 

can affect both utility and efficiency. In 

most applications, electric motors are 

not required to stop immediately. 

Instead, electric motors typically slow 

down and gradually stop after power is 

removed from the motor due to a 

buildup of friction and windage from 

the internal components of the motor. 

However, some applications 33 require 

electric motors to stop quickly. Motors 

used in such applications may employ 

a brake component that, when engaged, 

abruptly slows or stops shaft rotation. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30958 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

The brake component attaches to one 

end of the motor and surrounds a 

section of the motor’s shaft. During 

normal operation of the motor, the brake 

is disengaged from the motor’s shaft—it 

neither touches nor interferes with the 

motor’s operation. However, under 

normal operating conditions, the brake 

is drawing power from the electric 

motor’s power source and may also be 

contributing to windage losses, because 

the brake is an additional rotating 

component on the motor’s shaft. When 

power is removed from the electric 

motor (and therefore the brake 

component), the brake component deenergizes and engages the motor shaft, 

quickly slowing or stopping rotation of 

the rotor and shaft components. Because 

of these utility related features that 

affect efficiency, DOE had proposed to 

establish a separate equipment class 

group for electric motors with a brake. 

During the NOPR public meeting, 

NEMA argued that DOE has captured 

most standard stock available and 

agreed with DOE’s decision to limit 

standards for brake motors to 1–30 hp 

and 4-, 6- and 8-pole configurations. It 

commented that larger brake motors are 

generally design D or intermittent-duty 

motors for cranes and hoists, which are 

currently out of the scope of coverage. 

(NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 70– 

71) In its written comments, NEMA 

noted that brakes can be treated as an 

accessory because in DOE’s test 

procedure for brake motors, brake 

electrical losses are not included in the 

efficiency calculation. Therefore, it 

suggested that brake motors should not 

be put in separate equipment class but 

should be included in tables 5 and 6. 

(NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 7–8) 

The Joint Advocates stated that they 

support inclusion of integral brake 

motors in the scope of coverage. 

However, they commented that 

establishing a separate class and table of 

standards for brake motors is 

unnecessary, because DOE has proposed 

setting standards for brake motors 

identical to other motors. Moreover, it 

requested that DOE include brake 

motors above 30 hp since there are some 

motors sold above 30 hp, and capping 

the brake motors coverage at 30 hp may 

create confusion about scope of 

coverage. (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 

2) 

The Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP) commented that if brake 

motors have the same standards as other 

motors, they would not require a 

separate equipment class group and 

would not only be regulated at the 

limited horsepower range proposed. 

(ASAP, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 74) 

Regarding the brake motor standards 

proposed, Baldor raised concern that the 

title of table 8 does not fully identify the 

type of integral brake electric motors 

and non-integral brake electric motors to 

which the proposed standards apply. 

Baldor raised concern that DOE has not 

defined integral and non-integral brake 

motors in 10 CFR 431.12, even though 

it makes reference to these motors in the 

NOPR. Baldor raised concern that the 

term ‘‘dedicated mechanism for speed 

reduction’’ used in the definition of 

brake electric motors is ambiguous, 

stating that it is not clear what DOE 

intends to cover other than a ‘‘brake’’. 

(Baldor, No. 100 at p. 5) 

WEG raised concern that even though 

a slight friction or windage adder needs 

to be considered due to brake, there is 

no need to create a separate equipment 

class group for brake motors because 

separate efficiency levels are not set for 

these motors. WEG commented that 

larger brake motors exist in the market, 

but most of them are special motors, 

which are out of scope of coverage. 

However, if any larger brake motor falls 

under the scope of coverage, the 

proposed standards (only up to 30 hp) 

may create a loophole. It commented 

that if it is a standard motor with a 

brake, the manufacturers would like to 

use same standard electrical design and 

not create special one to account for just 

a few losses. Therefore, it requested that 

DOE consider exclusion of the brake 

losses in the criteria. (WEG, Pub. Mtg. 

Tr., No. 87 at pp. 72–73, 75) 

In response, DOE notes that as per the 

updated test procedures for brake 

motors, only power used to drive the 

motor is included in the efficiency 

calculation, and the power supplied to 

prevent the brake from engaging is not 

considered. Through that lens, the 

efficiency determination for brake 

motors is similar to that for any motor. 

Therefore, DOE has removed the 

separate equipment class group for 

brake motors in the final rule. DOE 

understands that most brake motors sold 

in the market would fall into ECG 1, but 

notes that a brake motor could be 

constructed such that it fell into other 

equipment classes, or none at all. For 

the purposes of analytical results, 

however, DOE is still reporting brake 

motors separately as equipment class 

subgroup 1b. Results of the former ECG 

1 (NEMA Design A and Design B) are 

now reported as equipment class 

subgroup 1a. DOE notes that in the final 

rule, it is not segregating brake motors 

into ‘‘integral brake motors’’ and ‘‘nonintegral brake motors’’ because it is not 

necessary for testing. Under this same 

logic, larger brake motors (i.e., above 30 

hp) are now also subject to coverage if 

rated from 1–500 hp, just as would any 

other motor type in ECG 1. 

With respect to Baldor’s concern on 

terminology, DOE’s definition makes 

reference to a ‘‘dedicated mechanism for 

speed reduction’’ to clarify what is 

meant by a ‘‘brake’’. The definition aims 

to maintain the general sense of the term 

to avoid any loophole that may arise 

with an unnecessarily narrow 

definition. 

The Chinese WTO/TBT National 

Notification & Enquiry Center 

acknowledged the energy conservation 

efforts of United States and requested 

more clarification about the efficiency 

values for brake motors given in Table 

I.5 of NOPR, particularly for 8-pole 

brake motors, 4-pole open brake motors 

and 6-pole closed brake motors. (China 

WTO/TBT NNEC, No. 104 at p. 3) 

DOE notes that the confusion around 

Table I.5 in the NOPR is due to the 

formatting issues. For the final rule, 

DOE has deleted what was previously 

Table I.5 because brake motors are no 

longer in a separate equipment class 

group. Depending on the specific 

characteristics and configuration of a 

brake motor, it may fall under any ECG 

category and be subject to the 

corresponding efficiency standards. 

e. Horsepower Rating 

In its preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered three criteria when 

differentiating equipment classes. The 

first criterion was horsepower, a critical 

performance attribute of an electric 

motor that is directly related to the 

capacity of an electric motor to perform 

useful work and that generally scales 

with efficiency. For example, a 50- 

horsepower electric motor would 

generally be considered more efficient 

than a 10-horsepower electric motor. In 

view of the direct correlation between 

horsepower and efficiency, DOE 

preliminarily used horsepower rating as 

a criterion for distinguishing equipment 

classes in the framework document. In 

today’s rule, DOE continues to use 

horsepower as an equipment classsetting criterion. 

f. Pole Configuration 

The number of poles in an induction 

motor determines the synchronous 

speed (i.e., revolutions per minute) of 

that motor. There is an inverse 

relationship between the number of 

poles and a motor’s speed. As the 

number of poles increases from two to 

four to six to eight, the synchronous 

speed drops from 3,600 to 1,800 to 1,200 

to 900 revolutions per minute, 

respectively. In addition, manufacturer 

comments and independent analysis 

performed on behalf of DOE indicate 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30959 

34Quenching is rapid cooling, generally by 

immersion in a fluid instead of allowing the rotor 

temperature to equalize to ambient temperature. 

that the number of poles has a direct 

impact on the electric motor’s 

performance and achievable efficiency 

because some pole configurations utilize 

the space inside of an electric motor 

enclosure more efficiently than other 

pole configurations. For example, eight 

pole motors have twice as many poles 

as four-pole motors and, 

correspondingly, less space for 

efficiency improvements. Two-pole 

motors have more internal space, but 

carry a greater magnetic field spacing 

which yields inherently less-efficient 

operation. DOE used the number of 

poles as a means of differentiating 

equipment classes in the preliminary 

analysis. In today’s rule, DOE continues 

to use pole-configuration as an 

equipment class-setting criterion. 

g. Enclosure Type 

EISA 2007 prescribes separate energy 

conservation standards for open and 

enclosed electric motors. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(b)(2)) Electric motors 

manufactured with open construction 

allow a free interchange of air between 

the electric motor’s interior and exterior. 

Electric motors with enclosed 

construction have no direct air 

interchange between the motor’s interior 

and exterior (but are not necessarily airtight) and may be equipped with an 

internal fan for cooling. Whether an 

electric motor is open or enclosed 

affects its utility; open motors are 

generally not used in harsh operating 

environments, whereas totally enclosed 

electric motors often are. The enclosure 

type also affects an electric motor’s 

ability to dissipate heat, which directly 

affects efficiency. For these reasons, 

DOE used an electric motor’s enclosure 

type (open or enclosed) as an equipment 

class setting criterion in the preliminary 

analysis. DOE received no related 

comments during the NOPR. In today’s 

rule, DOE is continuing to use separate 

equipment class groups for open and 

enclosed electric motors but is declining 

to further break out separate equipment 

classes for different types of open or 

enclosed enclosures because DOE does 

not have data supporting such 

separation. 

h. Other Motor Characteristics 

In its analysis, DOE addressed various 

other motor characteristics, but did not 

use them to disaggregate equipment 

classes. In the final TSD, DOE provided 

its rationale for not disaggregating 

equipment classes for vertical electric 

motors, electric motors with thrust or 

sleeve bearings, close-coupled pump 

motors, or by rated voltage or mounting 

feet. DOE believes that none of these 

electric motor characteristics provide 

any special utility that would impact 

efficiency and justify separate 

equipment classes. 

5. Technology Assessment 

The technology assessment provides 

information about existing technology 

options and designs used to construct 

more energy-efficient electric motors. 

Electric motors have four main types of 

losses that can be reduced to improve 

efficiency: Losses due to the resistance 

of conductive materials (stator and rotor 

I2R losses), core losses, friction and 

windage losses, and stray load losses. 

These losses are interrelated such that 

measures taken to reduce one type of 

loss can result in an increase in another 

type of losses. In consultation with 

interested parties, DOE identified 

several technology options that could be 

used to reduce such losses and improve 

motor efficiency. These technology 

options are presented in Table IV.8. (See 

chapter 3 of the TSD for details.) 

TABLE IV.8—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

TO INCREASE ELECTRIC MOTOR EFFICIENCY

Type of loss to 

reduce Technology option 

Stator I2R 

Losses.

Increase cross-sectional 

area of copper in stator 

slots. 

Decrease the length of coil 

extensions. 

Rotor I2R 

Losses.

Use a die-cast copper rotor 

cage. 

Increase cross-sectional 

area of rotor conductor 

bars. 

Increase cross-sectional 

area of end rings. 

Core Losses ... Use electrical steel laminations with lower losses 

(watts/lb). 

Use thinner steel laminations 

Increase stack length (i.e., 

add electrical steel laminations). 

Friction and 

Windage 

Losses.

Optimize bearing and lubrication selection. 

Improve cooling system design. 

Stray-Load 

Losses.

Reduce skew on rotor cage. 

Improve rotor bar insulation. 

DOE made several changes to the 

technology options considered and how 

they are analyzed between the NOPR 

TSD and the final rule TSD. First, DOE 

notes the listed option of ‘‘improved 

rotor insulation’’ refers to increasing the 

resistance between the rotor squirrelcage and the rotor laminations. 

Manufacturers use different methods to 

insulate rotor cages, such as applying an 

insulating coating on the rotor slot prior 

to die-casting or heating and 

quenching 34 the rotor to separate rotor 

bars from rotor laminations after diecasting. DOE has updated the discussion 

in the TSD chapter 3 to clarify that there 

are multiple ways to implement this 

technology option. 

Second, DOE notes that increasing the 

cross-sectional area of copper in the 

stator is synonymous with reducing the 

stator resistance, and has updated the 

discussion in TSD chapter 3 for clarity. 

Third, DOE notes that increasing rotor 

slot size is a technique that reduces 

rotor resistivity. DOE also considered 

other techniques to reduce rotor 

resistivity such as increasing the volume 

of the rotor end rings and using die-cast 

copper rotors. For the sake of clarity, 

DOE has replaced the technology option 

‘‘reduce rotor resistance’’ in the TSD 

discussion with the specific techniques 

that DOE considered in its analysis: 

Increasing the cross-sectional area of the 

rotor conductor bars, increasing the 

cross-sectional area of the end rings, and 

using a die-cast copper rotor cage. 

Fourth, with regard to increasing the 

flux density in the air gap, DOE 

consulted with its subject matter expert 

(SME) 35 and acknowledges that this 

approach is not necessarily an 

independently adjustable design 

parameter used to increase motor 

efficiency and has removed it from its 

discussion in chapters 3 and 4 of the 

TSD. DOE notes that it understands that 

the technology options that it discusses 

do have limits, both practical limits in 

terms of manufacturing and design 

limits in terms of their effectiveness. 

DOE also understands that a 

manufacturer must balance any options 

to improve efficiency against the 

possible impacts on the performance 

attributes of its motor designs. 

Other technology options considered 

are described in detail below. 

a. Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of 

Copper in the Stator Slots 

A manufacturer may increase the total 

cross-section of copper in the stator 

slots by either increasing slot fill or by 

increasing the number of stator slots. 

Increasing Slot Fill 

Increasing the slot fill by either 

adding windings or changing the gauge 

of wire used in the stator winding can 

also increase motor efficiency. Motor 

design engineers can achieve this by 

manipulating the wire gauges to allow 

for a greater total cross-sectional area of 

wire to be incorporated into the stator 

slots. This could mean either an 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30960 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

36See TSD at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/

ruleid/42. 

increase or decrease in wire gauge, 

depending on the dimensions of the 

stator slots and insulation thicknesses. 

As with the benefits associated with 

larger cross-sectional area of rotor 

conductor bars, using more total crosssectional area in the stator windings 

decreases the winding resistance and 

associated losses. However, this change 

could affect the slot fill factor of the 

stator. The stator slot openings must be 

able to fit the wires so that automated 

machinery or manual labor can pull (or 

push) the wire into the stator slots. In 

the preliminary analysis, DOE increased 

the cross-sectional area of copper in the 

stator slots of the representative units by 

employing a combination of additional 

windings, thinner gauges of copper 

wire, and larger slots. 

As described in the NOPR, DOE 

calculated the slot fill by measuring the 

total area of the stator slot and then 

subtracting the cross-sectional area for 

the slot insulation. This method gave 

DOE a net area of the slot available to 

house copper winding. DOE then 

identified the slot with the most 

windings and found the cross-sectional 

area of the insulated copper wires to get 

the total copper cross sectional area per 

slot. DOE then divided the total copper 

cross-sectional area by the total slot area 

to derive the slot fill. 78 FR 73620– 

73621. DOE’s estimated slot fills for its 

teardowns and software models are all 

provided in chapter 5 of the TSD.36

DOE notes that the software designs 

exhibiting these changes in slot fill were 

used when switching from aluminum to 

a copper rotor design. Therefore, 

changing slot geometries impacted the 

design’s slot fill and the slot fill changes 

resulted from different motor designs. 

Consequently, a 3-percent increase in 

slot fill does not imply that this change 

was made to increase the efficiency of 

another design, but could have been 

made to change other performance 

criteria of the motor, such as lockedrotor current. 

DOE notes that motor design 

engineers can adjust slot fill by 

changing the gauge of wire used in 

fractions of half a gauge. DOE clarified 

that all the modeled motors utilized 

standard AWG wire sizes, either wholeor half-gauge sizes (i.e., 18 or 181⁄2). 

DOE clarifies that the statement of 

‘‘fractions of a half gauge’’ referred to 

sizes in between a whole gauge (i.e. 

181⁄2 of a gauge is a fraction of 18 gauge 

wire). DOE did not end up using 

fractions consisting of a half gauge of 

wire sizes to conduct its modeling, but 

did indicate that this was a design 

option used by the motor industry. 

DOE is aware of the extra time 

involved with hand winding and has 

attempted to incorporate this time into 

efficiency levels that it believes would 

require hand winding. DOE added 

additional labor hours accounted for 

hand winding in its engineering 

analysis. DOE reiterates that should the 

increase in infrastructure, manpower, or 

motor cost increase beyond a reasonable 

means, then ELs utilizing this 

technology will be screened out during 

the downstream analysis. 

DOE captured the impact of jobs 

shifting out of the country if hand 

winding became more widespread 

during the manufacturer impact analysis 

(MIA) portion of DOE’s analysis. Please 

see section IV.J for a discussion of the 

manufacturer impact analysis. 

Increase the Number of Stator Slots 

Increasing the number of stator slots 

associated with a given motor design 

can, in some cases, improve motor 

efficiency. Similar to increasing the 

amount of copper wire in a particular 

slot, increasing the number of slots may 

in some cases permit the manufacturer 

to incorporate more copper into the 

stator slots. This option would decrease 

the losses in the windings, but can also 

affect motor performance. Torque, speed 

and current can vary depending on the 

combination of stator and rotor slots 

used. 

With respect to stator slot numbers, 

DOE understands that a motor 

manufacturer would not add stator slots 

without any appreciation of the impacts 

on the motor’s performance. DOE also 

understands that there is an optimum 

combination of stator and rotor slots for 

any particular frame size and 

horsepower combination. DOE 

consulted with its SME and understands 

that optimum stator and rotor slot 

combinations have been determined by 

manufacturers and are already currently 

in use on existing production lines. DOE 

does not anticipate further efficiency 

gains from optimizing the combination 

of stator and rotor slots at the efficiency 

levels being considered for this 

rulemaking. Consequently, DOE 

removed this technology option from 

chapter 4 of the TSD in the NOPR. 

b. Decrease the Length of Coil 

Extensions 

One method of reducing resistance 

losses in the stator is by decreasing the 

length of the coil extensions at the end 

turns. Reducing the length of copper 

wire outside the stator slots not only 

reduces the resistive losses, but also 

reduces the material cost of the electric 

motor because less copper is being used. 

DOE understands that there may be 

limited efficiency gains, if any, for most 

electric motors using this technology 

option. DOE also understands that 

electric motors have been produced for 

many decades and that many 

manufacturers have improved their 

production techniques to the point 

where certain design parameters may 

already be fully optimized. However, 

DOE maintains that this is a design 

parameter that affects efficiency and 

should be considered when designing 

an electric motor. DOE did not receive 

any additional comments regarding this 

technology option in response to the 

NOPR and continues to consider it for 

the final rule analysis. 

c. Die-Cast Copper Rotor Cage 

Copper offers lower resistivity than 

aluminum, as well as a potentially more 

compact design, both of which can 

contribute to higher efficiency. 

Manufacturers commonly use copper 

today to build high performance motors. 

Although a rotor of arbitrary size may be 

fabricated by hand, the economics of 

scale manufacturing demand die-casting 

of those wishing to produce at 

significant volumes. As a result, DOE 

considered die-cast copper only as a 

technology option. Die-cast copper 

rotors have been the subject of frequent 

comment and are more thoroughly 

discussed in the screening analysis 

section IV.B.1.a. 

d. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of 

Rotor Conductor Bars 

Increasing the cross-sectional area of 

the rotor bars, by changing the crosssectional geometry of the rotor, can 

improve motor efficiency. Increasing the 

cross-sectional area of the rotor bars 

reduces the resistance and thus lowers 

the I2R losses. However, changing the 

shape of the rotor bars may affect the 

size of the end rings and can also 

change the torque characteristics of the 

motor. 

DOE recognizes that increasing the 

cross-sectional area of a conductor rotor 

bar may yield limited efficiency gains 

for most electric motors. However, DOE 

maintains that this is a design parameter 

that affects efficiency and must be 

considered when designing an electric 

motor. Additionally, when creating its 

software models, DOE considered rotor 

slot design, including cross sectional 

areas, such that any software model 

produced was designed to meet the 

appropriate NEMA performance 

requirements for torque and locked rotor 

current. DOE did not receive any 

additional comments regarding this 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30961 

technology option in response to the 

NOPR and continues to consider it for 

the final rule analysis. 

e. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of End 

Rings 

End rings are the components of a 

squirrel-cage rotor that create electrical 

connections between the rotor bars. 

Increasing the cross-sectional area of the 

end rings reduces the resistance and, 

thus, lowers the I2R losses in the end 

rings. A reduction in I2R losses will 

occur only when any proportional 

increase in current as a result of an 

increase in the size of the end ring is 

less than the square of the proportional 

reduction in the end ring resistance. 

When developing its software models, 

DOE relied on the expertise of its SME. 

Generally, increases to end ring area 

were limited to 10–20 percent, which 

are unlikely to have significant negative 

impacts on the mechanical aspects of 

the rotor. Furthermore, DOE ensured 

that the appropriate NEMA performance 

requirements for torque and lockedrotor current were maintained with its 

software modeled motors. DOE did not 

receive any additional comments 

regarding this technology option in 

response to the NOPR and continues to 

consider it for the final rule analysis. 

f. Electrical Steel With Lower Losses 

Losses generated in the electrical steel 

in the core of an induction motor can be 

significant and are classified as either 

hysteresis or eddy current losses. 

Hysteresis losses are caused by magnetic 

domains resisting reorientation to the 

alternating magnetic field. Eddy 

currents are physical currents that are 

induced in the steel laminations by the 

magnetic flux produced by the current 

in the windings. Both of these losses 

generate heat in the electrical steel. 

In studying the techniques used to 

reduce steel losses, DOE considered two 

types of materials: Conventional silicon 

steels, and ‘‘exotic’’ steels, which 

contain a relatively high percentage of 

boron or cobalt. Conventional steels are 

commonly used in electric motors 

manufactured today. There are three 

types of steel that DOE considers 

‘‘conventional:’’ Cold-rolled magnetic 

laminations, fully processed nonoriented electrical steel, and semiprocessed non-oriented electrical steel. 

One way to reduce core losses is to 

incorporate a higher grade of core steel 

into the electric motor design (e.g., 

switching from an M56 to an M19 

grade). In general, higher grades of 

electrical steel exhibit lower core losses. 

Lower core losses can be achieved by 

adding silicon and other elements to the 

steel, thereby increasing its electrical 

resistivity. Lower core losses can also be 

achieved by subjecting the steel to 

special heat treatments during 

processing. 

The exotic steels are not generally 

manufactured for use specifically in the 

electric motors covered in this 

rulemaking. These steels include 

vanadium permendur and other alloyed 

steels containing a high percentage of 

boron or cobalt. These steels offer a 

lower loss level than the best electrical 

steels, but are more expensive per 

pound. In addition, these steels can 

present manufacturing challenges 

because they come in nonstandard 

thicknesses that are difficult to 

manufacture. 

In the NOPR, DOE noted that its 

computer software did not model 

general classes of electrical steel, but 

instead modeled vendor-specific 

electrical steel. DOE’s software utilized 

core loss vs. flux density curves 

supplied by an electrical steel vendor as 

one component of the core loss 

calculated by the program. A second 

component was also added to account 

for high frequency losses. DOE noted 

that relative performance derived from 

Epstein testing might not be indicative 

of relative performance in actual motor 

prototypes. DOE did not solely rely on 

relative steel grade when selecting 

electrical steels for its designs. To 

illustrate this point, DOE noted that 

almost all of its software modeled 

designs utilized M36 grade steel, even 

though it was not the highest grade of 

electrical steel considered in the 

analysis. When higher grade M15 steel 

was evaluated in DOE’s software 

modeled designs, the resulting 

efficiencies were actually lower than the 

efficiencies when using M36 grade steel 

for several reasons. The Epstein test 

results for various grades of steel 

provided in chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD 

were purely informational and intended 

to give an indication of the relative 

performance of a sample of electrical 

steels considered. That information was 

removed from chapter 3 of the NOPR 

TSD to avoid any further confusion. See 

78 FR 73614. 

DOE did not receive any additional 

comments regarding this technology 

option in response to the NOPR and 

continues to consider it for the final rule 

analysis. 

g. Thinner Steel Laminations 

As addressed earlier, there are two 

types of core losses that develop in the 

electrical steel of induction motors— 

hysteresis losses and losses due to eddy 

current. Electric motors can use thinner 

laminations of core steel to reduce eddy 

currents. The magnitude of the eddy 

currents induced by the magnetic field 

become smaller in thinner laminations, 

making the motor more energy efficient. 

In the technology analysis, DOE only 

considered conventional steels with 

standard gauges available in the market. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

regarding this technology option in 

response to the NOPR and continues to 

consider it for the final rule analysis. 

h. Increase Stack Length 

Adding electrical steel to the rotor 

and stator to lengthen the motor 

(axially) can also reduce the core losses 

in an electric motor. Lengthening the 

motor by increasing stack length 

reduces the magnetic flux density, 

which reduces core losses. However, 

increasing the stack length affects other 

performance attributes of the motor, 

such as starting torque. Issues can arise 

when installing a more efficient motor 

with additional stack length because the 

motor becomes longer and may not fit 

into applications with dimensional 

constraints. DOE did not receive any 

comments regarding this technology 

option in response to the NOPR and 

continues to consider it in the final rule 

analysis. 

i. Optimize Bearing and Lubrication 

DOE notes that bearings and 

lubrication can be optimized for cost, 

performance, maintenance, and other 

attributes depending on the design 

requirements. However, DOE is of the 

understanding that choice of bearing 

and lubricant is generally driven by 

considerations unrelated to efficiency 

for common motors, and so does not 

vary it as a design parameter in the 

engineering analysis. DOE received no 

comments regarding this technology in 

response to the NOPR and does not 

include performance gains due to 

advanced bearings or lubricants in the 

engineering analysis in today’s final 

rule. 

j. Improve Cooling System 

Optimizing a motor’s cooling system 

that circulates air through the motor is 

another technology option to improve 

the efficiency of electric motors. 

Improving the cooling system reduces 

air resistance and associated frictional 

losses and decreases the operating 

temperature (and associated electrical 

resistance) by cooling the motor during 

operation. This can be accomplished by 

changing the fan or adding baffles to the 

current fan to help redirect airflow 

through the motor. 

DOE notes that an improved cooling 

system may be more or less efficient, 

itself, as long losses within the motor atlarge decline. When the design of an 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30962 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

electric motor is changed, losses 

associated with the cooling system may 

increase in order to provide a decrease 

in losses associated with some other 

part of the design. DOE did not receive 

any comments regarding this technology 

option in response to the NOPR and 

continues to consider it for the final rule 

analysis. 

k. Reduce Skew on Conductor Cage 

In the rotor, the conductor bars are 

not straight from one end to the other, 

but skewed or twisted slightly around 

the axis of the rotor. Decreasing the 

degree of skew can improve a motor’s 

efficiency. The conductor bars are 

skewed to help eliminate harmonics 

that add cusps, losses, and noise to the 

motor’s speed-torque characteristics. 

Reducing the degree of skew can help 

reduce the rotor resistance and 

reactance, which helps improve 

efficiency. However, overly reducing the 

skew also may have adverse effects on 

starting, noise, and the speed-torque 

characteristics. 

DOE notes that all software designs 

used in the technology analysis had 

skewed rotor designs and, in general, 

the skews used were approximately 100 

percent of a stator or rotor slot pitch, 

whichever had the smaller number of 

slots. Additionally, DOE intended for 

the option of reducing the skew on the 

conductor cage to be an option 

associated with reducing stray load 

losses and has made the appropriate 

adjustments to its text and tables. (See 

TSD Chapter 4) 

l. Improve Rotor Bar Insulation 

In motors, rotor bars are usually 

insulated to contain current within the 

rotor. Because no insulation is ideal, 

some current will always leak and 

induce undesired stray losses in other 

parts of the motor. By improving rotor 

insulation, this effect may be reduced. 

Insulation, however, competes for space 

within the motor with conductor and 

electrical steel. Therefore, 

manufacturers look to balance 

insulation with preservation of volume. 

DOE received no comments in response 

to the NOPR and does not change 

insulation assumptions for the final 

rule. 

m. Technology Options Not Considered 

Variable-speed drives (VSDs) are 

solid-state electronic devices able to 

vary the voltage, current, and frequency 

of a motor’s input signal in order to vary 

(often continuously) vary torque and 

speed. DOE acknowledges that the 

ability to modulate motor output may 

produce energy savings in certain 

applications, if properly controlled. 

DOE does not consider this technology 

in today’s rule because the scope of 

coverage only pertains to single-speed 

motors. DOE notes that many motors 

within the scope of the rulemaking may 

be capable of operation with a VSD. 

Inverter-only motors, which are not able 

to operate on 60 Hz sinusoidal current, 

are not subject to today’s standards as 

today’s rule only applies to motors 

capable of operation at 60 Hz. 

In response to the NOPR, PlasticMetal 

commented that DOE should consider 

the use of syncrospeed VFD technology 

in reducing the energy consumed by 

motors, especially for motors used in 

injection molding machines. 

PlasticMetal noted that VFD technology 

can also be used for agricultural pump 

and hydraulic pump motors. 

(PlasticMetal, No. 80 at p. 1) 

Although DOE’s proposed standards 

were limited to single-speed motors, 

DOE recognizes that VFDs may offer 

further energy savings in injection 

molding (among other applications). 

DOE may consider exploring this 

technology further in a future 

rulemaking, but at present retains 

coverage of only single-speed motors. 

B. Screening Analysis 

After DOE identified the technologies 

that might improve the energy efficiency 

of electric motors, DOE conducted a 

screening analysis. The purpose of the 

screening analysis is to determine 

which options to consider further and 

which to screen out. DOE consulted 

with industry, technical experts, and 

other interested parties in developing a 

list of design options. DOE then applied 

the following set of screening criteria, 

under sections 4(a)(4) and 5(b) of 

appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 

430, ‘‘Procedures, Interpretations and 

Policies for Consideration of New or 

Revised Energy Conservation Standards 

for Consumer Products,’’ to determine 

which design options are unsuitable for 

further consideration in the rulemaking: 

• Technological Feasibility: DOE will 

consider only those technologies 

incorporated in commercial equipment 

or in working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 

• Practicability to Manufacture, 

Install, and Service: If mass production 

of a technology in commercial 

equipment and reliable installation and 

servicing of the technology could be 

achieved on the scale necessary to serve 

the relevant market at the time of the 

effective date of the standard, then DOE 

will consider that technology 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service. 

• Adverse Impacts on Equipment 

Utility or Equipment Availability: DOE 

will not further consider a technology if 

DOE determines it will have a 

significant adverse impact on the utility 

of the equipment to significant 

subgroups of customers. DOE will also 

not further consider a technology that 

will result in the unavailability of any 

covered equipment type with 

performance characteristics (including 

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 

and volumes that are substantially the 

same as equipment generally available 

in the United States at the time. 

• Adverse Impacts on Health or 

Safety: DOE will not further consider a 

technology if DOE determines that the 

technology will have significant adverse 

impacts on health or safety. 

Table IV.9 presents a general 

summary of potential methods that a 

manufacturer may use to reduce losses 

in electric motors. The approaches 

presented in this table refer either to 

specific technologies (e.g., aluminum 

versus copper die-cast rotor cages, 

different grades of electrical steel) or 

physical changes to the motor 

geometries (e.g., cross-sectional area of 

rotor conductor bars, additional stack 

height). For additional details on the 

screening analysis, please refer to 

chapter 4 of the final rule TSD. 

TABLE IV.9—SUMMARY LIST OF OPTIONS FROM TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Type of loss to 

reduce Technology option 

Stator I2R 

Losses.

Increase cross-sectional 

area of copper in stator 

slots. 

Decrease the length of coil 

extensions. 

Rotor I2R 

Losses.

Use a die-cast copper rotor 

cage. 

Increase cross-sectional 

area of rotor conductor 

bars. 

Increase cross-sectional 

area of end rings. 

Core Losses ... Use electrical steel laminations with lower losses 

(watts/lb). 

Use thinner steel laminations. 

Increase stack length (i.e., 

add electrical steel laminations). 

Friction and 

Windage 

Losses.

Optimize bearing and lubrication selection. 

Improve cooling system design. 

Stray-Load 

Losses.

Reduce skew on rotor cage. 

Improve rotor bar insulation. 

1. Technology Options Not Screened 

Out of the Analysis 

The technology options in this section 

are options that passed the screening 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30963 

criteria of the analysis. DOE considers 

the technology options in this section to 

be viable means of improving the 

efficiency of electric motors. 

In the NOPR, DOE stated that the 

notice provides detailed information 

about each technology option 

considered. With the exception of diecast copper rotors, which many 

manufacturers stated they would 

usually never consider when increasing 

efficiency for the reasons detailed 

below, DOE understands that each 

technology option that it has not 

screened out is a design option that a 

manufacturer would consider for each 

motor designed and built. DOE 

recognized that manufacturers design 

their motors to balance a number of 

competing and interrelated factors, 

including performance, reliability, and 

energy efficiency. Because the options 

DOE had identified can be modified to 

improve efficiency while maintaining 

performance, it was DOE’s view that at 

least some significant level of energy 

efficiency improvement is possible with 

each technology option not screened out 

by DOE. See 78 FR 73616. 

Furthermore, DOE noted that it did 

not explicitly use each of the technology 

options that passed the screening 

criteria in the engineering analysis. As 

discussed in section IV.C of the NOPR, 

DOE’s engineering analysis was a 

mixture of two approaches that DOE 

routinely uses in its engineering 

analysis methodology: The reverseengineering approach (in which DOE 

has no control over the design 

parameters) and the efficiency-level 

approach (in which DOE tried to 

achieve a certain level of efficiency, 

rather than applying specific design 

options). This hybrid of methods did 

not allow for DOE to fully control which 

design parameters were ultimately used 

for each representative unit in the 

analysis. Without the ability to apply 

specific design options, DOE could not 

include every option that was not 

screened out of the analysis. See 78 FR 

73616. 

In addition, in the NOPR, DOE noted 

that its analysis neither assumes nor 

requires manufacturers to use identical 

technology for all motor types, 

horsepower ratings, or equipment 

classes. In other words, DOE’s standards 

are technology-neutral and permit 

manufacturers design flexibility. See id. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

regarding the technology screening 

process in response to the NOPR and 

maintains this same approach in the 

final rule. 

a. Die-Cast Copper Rotors 

Aluminum is the most common 

material used today to create die-cast 

rotor bars for electric motors. Some 

manufacturers that focus on producing 

high-efficiency designs have started to 

offer electric motors with die-cast rotor 

bars made of copper. Copper can offer 

better performance than aluminum 

because it has better electrical 

conductivity (i.e., a lower electrical 

resistance). However, because copper 

also has a higher melting point than 

aluminum, the casting process becomes 

more difficult and is likely to increase 

both production time and cost. 

DOE acknowledges that using copper 

in rotors may require different design 

approaches and considerations. In its 

own modeling and testing of copper 

rotor motors, DOE ensured that 

performance parameters stayed within 

MG 1–2011 limits (i.e., met NEMA 

Design B criteria). 

DOE did not screen out copper as a 

die-cast rotor conductor material in the 

NOPR because it believed that it passed 

the four screening criteria. Because 

several manufacturers currently die-cast 

copper rotors, DOE concluded that this 

material is both technologically feasible 

and practicable to manufacture, install, 

and service. Additionally, 

manufacturers are already producing 

such equipment, with no known 

increase in accidents or other health/

safety problems. Finally, DOE’s own 

engineering analysis supports what it 

sees in the market for copper rotors— 

that copper rotor motors may require 

some design tradeoffs but that, in 

general, it is possible to use copper and 

remain within NEMA Design A, B, or C 

specifications. In addition, DOE notes 

that its analysis neither assumes nor 

requires manufacturers to use identical 

technology for all motor types, 

horsepower ratings, or equipment 

classes. Moreover, DOE does not believe 

that the TSL chosen for today’s standard 

would require most manufacturers to 

use copper rotor motors. 

DOE received considerable feedback 

concerning copper rotor technology 

both in response to the preliminary 

analysis and the NOPR. DOE addressed 

comments made on this topic at the 

preliminary analysis stage in the NOPR 

(see 78 FR 73616–73620). Here DOE 

responds to comments made on this 

topic in response to the NOPR and 

organizes its responses by the four 

screening criteria. Although it is welldocumented that die-cast copper rotors 

are available in the market to at least 30 

hp, they are not widely marketed at the 

higher horsepower ratings. It is not clear 

precisely why copper rotor motors are 

not marketed at horsepowers greater 

than 30. It is possible that because it is 

impracticable to die-cast copper at those 

rotor sizes or there is simply a lack of 

demand at higher horsepowers to justify 

investment in production capacity. 

As part of its analysis, DOE intends to 

ensure that utility, which includes 

frame size considerations, is 

maintained. Increased shipping costs 

are also taken into account in the 

national impact analysis (NIA) and the 

life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis portions of 

DOE’s analytical procedures. 

Technological Feasibility 

In the NOPR, DOE cited a number of 

high horsepower designs with copper 

rotors as evidence of technological 

feasibility, as well as observing that 

distribution transformers, another large 

industrial product that uses conductors 

around electrical steel, commonly 

improve efficiency by replacing 

aluminum with copper. 78 FR 73618. 

In response to the statements that 

DOE made in the NOPR (see 78 FR 

73618), NEMA pointed out that 

transformers and induction motors are 

not comparable because the 

performance tradeoff between efficiency 

and inrush current is different in both 

cases. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 10) Nidec 

commented that the examples of Tesla, 

REMY, and Oshkosh traction motors 

cited by DOE as evidence of the 

feasibility of copper die-cast rotors 

involved motors that operated at higher 

speeds and lower torques. 

Consequently, in its view, these 

comparisons were not an accurate 

representation of those motors that 

would be covered under DOE’s 

proposal. (Nidec, No. 98 at pp. 3–4) 

NEMA agreed with Nidec, and made the 

point that it is physical rotor size, and 

not horsepower, that sets limits on 

copper die-casting. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 

9) NEMA also noted that, from a 

manufacturer perspective, the issue of 

importance is not the feasibility of 

designing a suitable copper rotor, but 

rather the issue of whether copper rotors 

can be die-cast and mass-produced. 

(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 9) 

DOE recognizes that assessing the 

technological feasibility of highhorsepower copper die-cast rotors is 

made more complex by the fact that 

DOE believes that manufacturers do not 

offer them commercially. DOE 

acknowledges that the listed motor 

examples are of higher speed that those 

under consideration in this rule, and 

that horsepower must be discussed in 

the context of speed. DOE agrees with 

NEMA that the challenges with 

designing with copper rotor motors lie 

less in the feasibility of designing 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30964 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

37The parameters DOE believed to present the 

largest risk of rendering a motor noncompliant with 

NEMA MG 1–2011standards were those related to 

NEMA design letter, which were adhered to in 

DOE’s modeling efforts. 

38See http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/

commodity/copper/mcs-2012-coppe.pdf. 

copper rotor motors, and more in the 

die-casting of large copper rotors. As a 

result, DOE views the debate as residing 

chiefly in the domain of 

manufacturability, considered in the 

next section. Commenters have not 

demonstrated that it would be 

technologically infeasible to develop 

and incorporate copper die-cast rotors 

in lower-speed motors. Therefore, DOE 

does not screen out die-cast copper on 

the basis of technological feasibility. 

Practicability to Manufacture, Install, 

and Service 

In the NOPR, DOE stated that it was 

not able to conclude copper rotors were 

impracticable to manufacture because 

DOE identified parties already 

manufacturing copper rotor motors. 

DOE was able to purchase and tear 

down a copper rotor motor, which 

performed at DOE’s max-tech level at its 

horsepower (5 hp) and met NEMA 

Design B requirements. 78 FR 73617. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

maintained its position that copper diecast rotors should be screened out of the 

analysis for the current rulemaking. 

NEMA and Nidec argued that designs 

modeled by DOE for ECG 1 at EL 4 and 

ECG 2 at EL 2 used copper rotor 

technology and, thus, implied that 

copper rotor technology is a 

requirement to meet max-tech efficiency 

levels. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 8; Nidec, 

No. 98 at p. 3) Referring to the U.S. 

Department of the Army studies on diecast copper rotor motors that NEMA 

discussed in its preliminary analysis 

comments, NEMA raised concern that it 

is difficult to successfully die cast a 

copper rotors of the required size in 

mass production. NEMA commented 

that it is not aware of manufacturing, in 

the United States or outside, capable of 

mass production of copper die-cast 

rotors ‘‘on the scale necessary to serve 

the relevant market at the time of the 

effective date of the standard,’’ as 

proposed in the NOPR. NEMA stated 

that the challenge to design a motor 

when the material of the rotor is 

changed is not limited to meeting only 

a required value of efficiency and the 

limits on torques and current that DOE 

specifies in the definitions in 10 CFR 

431.12. Noting that particular TSL levels 

were developed based on the EL levels, 

NEMA commented that if the copper 

die-cast rotor technology were screened 

out, then EL 4 would not be included 

in the creation of any TSL level, and 

TSL 3 would represent the maximum 

technology designs. (NEMA, No. 93 at 

pp. 8–12) 

Baldor commented that the Motor 

Coalition has submitted earlier that they 

do not have the capacity to produce 

copper rotors at a volume of 5 million 

units per year. It raised concerns that it 

is challenging to manufacture a better 

design in actual production. (Baldor, 

Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 118–119) 

In contrast, CDA disagreed with the 

manufacturers’ claims that die-cast 

copper rotor motors are not 

commercially available. CDA 

commented that die-cast copper rotor 

motors—60 Hz ‘‘Ultra’’ motors 

manufactured by Siemens—have been 

commercially available at certain 

horsepower ratings in North America 

since February 2006. Siemens has 

copper rotor die-casting capabilities in 

Denver, Ohio, and Mexico. Multiple 

countries in Europe and Asia also have 

copper rotor die casters. Siemens 

produces 50 Hz motors in Germany, and 

SEW-Eurodrive produces 50 Hz and 60 

Hz motors for worldwide shipment. 

Therefore, CDA stated that die-cast 

copper rotors are commercially 

available, and DOE should continue to 

include them in their evaluations. (CDA, 

No. 90 at p. 2) 

Following publication of the NOPR, 

DOE was able to speak with a 

manufacturer of die-casting equipment 

who confirmed their ability to die-cast 

copper rotors in excess of 500 lbs in a 

single ‘‘shot’’. DOE has not been able to 

obtain written verification of this 

capability. If true, however, the question 

is whether such rotor size is sufficient 

to reach the limits of the horsepower 

scope of today’s rule. 

Although DOE did not directly model 

a copper rotor that large, DOE did 

purchase and tear down a 30 hp motor 

of specification within the scope of this 

rulemaking with a die-cast copper rotor 

and found the weight to be 29 lbs, or 

roughly 1 lb/hp. DOE understands that 

the active mass of a motor grows 

sublinearly with power, and by 

extension, that a 500 hp motor of similar 

design could be built with a copper 

rotor of less than 500 lbs. 

Although these figures are estimates, 

DOE believes there is evidence to 

suggest that copper die-cast rotor would 

be practicable to manufacture, install, or 

service and, consequently, this 

technology should not be screened out 

on that basis. DOE understands that fullscale deployment of copper would 

likely require considerable capital 

investment and that such investment 

could increase the production cost of 

large copper rotor motors considerably. 

DOE believes that its current 

engineering analysis reflects this 

likelihood. DOE acknowledges that if it 

were adopting a max-tech standard, the 

chance that any manufacturer would 

use copper die-cast rotors would be 

much greater than the chance that any 

manufacturer would choose to use this 

technology under the efficiency level 

chosen in today’s rule. 

Adverse Impacts on Equipment Utility 

or Equipment Availability 

For the NOPR, DOE acknowledged 

that the industry would need to make 

substantial investments in production 

capital to ensure the availability of 

motors at current production levels. 

DOE noted that, in some cases, 

redesigning equipment lines to use 

copper would entail substantial cost. 

DOE’s engineering analysis reflects its 

estimates of these costs and discusses 

them in detail in section IV.C. Although 

using copper in place of aluminum can 

require design changes in order to keep 

parameters such as locked-rotor current 

within rated limits, DOE was able to 

model copper rotor motors adhering to 

the specifications of NEMA Design B,37

including the reduced (relative to 

Design A) locked-rotor current. 

In response, to the NOPR, NEMA 

reiterated many of its concerns about 

production capability worldwide and 

that utility may be impacted with 

respect to torque/speed characteristics if 

copper becomes a de facto standard. 

(NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 11–13) 

Based on DOE’s own shipments 

analysis (see final TSD, Chapter 9) and 

estimates of worldwide annual copper 

production,38 DOE estimates that .01– 

.02 percent of worldwide copper supply 

would be required for electric motor 

manufacturers to use copper rotors for 

every single motor within DOE’s scope 

of coverage. DOE acknowledges the 

need to vary design parameters in order 

to maintain equipment utility through a 

transition to copper rotors, but does not 

believe commenters have demonstrated 

that it is infeasible, particularly when 

DOE has been able to procure and test 

equipment meeting Design B 

specification. At the present, DOE does 

not believe there is sufficient evidence 

to screen copper die-cast rotors from the 

analysis on the basis of adverse impacts 

to equipment utility or availability. 

Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety 

In the NOPR, DOE did not screen out 

copper die-casting on the basis of 

adverse impacts to health or safety. DOE 

is aware of the higher melting point of 

copper (1084 degrees Celsius versus 660 

degrees Celsius for aluminum) and the 

potential impacts this may have on the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30965 

39For example, http://www.baldor.com/support/

Literature/Load.ashx/FM1307?LitNumber=FM1307. 

40Taking the derivative suggests that power factor 

may scale inversely with efficiency raised to the ¥2 

power. 

41The current requirement for 1 horsepower, 8- 

pole, subtype II electric motors. 

health or safety of plant workers. 

However, DOE does not believe at this 

time that this potential impact is 

sufficiently adverse to screen out copper 

as a die-cast material for rotor 

conductors. The process for die-casting 

copper rotors involves risks similar to 

those of die-casting aluminum. DOE 

believes that manufacturers who diecast metal at 660 Celsius or 1085 Celsius 

(the respective temperatures required 

for aluminum and copper) would need 

to observe strict protocols to operate 

safely. DOE understands that many 

plants already work with molten 

aluminum die-casting processes and 

believes that similar processes could be 

adopted for copper. DOE has not 

received any supporting data about the 

increased risks associated with copper 

die-casting, and could not locate any 

studies suggesting that the die-casting of 

copper inherently represents 

incrementally more risks to worker 

safety and health. DOE notes that 

several OSHA standards relate to the 

safety of ‘‘Nonferrous Die-Castings, 

Except Aluminum,’’ of which die-cast 

copper is part. DOE did not receive 

comment on this topic specifically in 

response to the NOPR and maintains 

this approach for the final rule. 

b. Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of 

Copper in the Stator Slots 

DOE describes its approach for 

‘‘Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of 

Copper in the Stator Slots’’ in section 

IV.A.5.a. Considering the four screening 

criteria for this technology option, DOE 

did not screen out the possibility of 

changing gauges of copper wire in the 

stator as a means of improving 

efficiency. Motor design engineers 

adjust this option by using different 

wire gauges when manufacturing an 

electric motor to achieve desired 

performance and efficiency targets. 

Because this design technique is in 

commercial use today, DOE considers 

this technology option both 

technologically feasible and practicable 

to manufacture, install, and service. 

DOE is not aware of any adverse 

impacts on consumer utility, reliability, 

health, or safety associated with 

changing the wire gauges in the stator to 

obtain increased efficiency. Should the 

technology option prove to not be 

economical on a scale necessary to 

supply the entire industry, then this 

technology option would be likely not 

be selected for in the analysis, either in 

the LCC or MIA. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

commented that hand winding is not a 

viable technology to gain an increase in 

slot fill of less than 5% and thus 

suggested that hand winding should be 

screened out. NEMA stated that hand 

winding poses adverse impacts on 

manufacturing relative to mass 

production and may shift production of 

stators to cheaper labor locations 

outside of the United States. Hand 

winding also has adverse impacts on 

health and safety of personnel and on 

product utility and availability. Noting 

that none of the representative units are 

hand wound, it commented that the 

engineering analysis should not be 

based on stator slot fill levels which 

require hand winding (NEMA, No. 93 at 

pp. 12–13) 

DOE acknowledges that the industry 

is moving towards increased 

automation. However, hand winding is 

currently practiced by manufacturers, 

making it a viable option for DOE to 

consider as part of its engineering 

analysis. Furthermore, DOE is not aware 

of any data or studies suggesting handwinding leads to negative health 

consequences and notes that hand 

winding is currently practiced by 

industry. In response to the NOPR, DOE 

did not receive any comment on its cost 

estimates for hand-wound motors nor 

on studies suggesting any health 

impacts. DOE acknowledges that, were 

hand-winding to become widespread, 

manufacturers would need to hire more 

workers to perform hand-winding to 

maintain person-winding-hour 

equivalence and has accounted for the 

added costs of hand-winding in its 

engineering analysis. 

c. Power Factor 

Although not considered as a 

technology option per se, several 

commenters commented on power 

factor in response to DOE’s NOPR. 

Power factor is the ratio of real power 

to apparent power, or the fraction of 

power sent to a device divided by its 

actual power consumption. Power factor 

equals one for purely resistive loads, but 

falls for circuits with loads that are 

capacitive or (in the usual case of 

electric motors) inductive. Generally, 

low power factor is viewed as 

undesirable; it may force the use of 

larger conductors and hardware within 

a building. Furthermore, many 

industrial customers are charged more 

for electrical power by their utility as 

their net power factor falls. Because 

power factor has value to owners of 

electric motors, any standard that causes 

power factor to rise significantly could 

be said to negatively affected consumer 

utility. Several parties commented on 

power factor in response to DOE’s 

NOPR. 

The CA IOUs noted that energy saved 

in the motor can show up as energy lost 

in the building and utility distribution 

systems. (CA IOUs, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 

at p. 115) 

Baldor commented that it is 

challenging to get a higher efficiency 

motor along with good power factor and 

low inrush current. When a motor is 

redesigned for efficiency, power factor 

goes down when efficiency goes up and 

inrush current can rise and change 

motor design from Design B to Design A. 

(Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 

118–119) 

EEI expressed concern that larger 

industrial facilities (having heavy motor 

populations) may incur higher 

economic costs if higher efficiency 

requirements lead to lower power factor. 

This is because larger customers are 

metered for kVA and they are penalized 

if the facility power factor goes below a 

certain level. (EEI, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 

at pp. 120–121) 

DOE acknowledges that power factor 

is one parameter of many that requires 

supervision in redesigning motors for 

greater efficiency. Electric motors, by 

their very nature, are highly inductive 

loads with correspondingly low power 

factors. Facilities with large numbers of 

motors often choose to add capacitance 

in parallel with their inductive loads in 

order to correct power factor, and often 

be charged lower rates for electricity. 

Several motor manufacturers advocate 

power factor correction and advertise 

equipment to do it.39

Furthermore, DOE notes that MG 1– 

2009 characterizes the relationship 

between motor efficiency and power 

factor in paragraph 14.44.1. This 

relationship is nonlinear, but it can be 

used to show that 40 even when going 

from 74% motor efficiency 41 to the 

corresponding premium efficiency 

requirement of 82.5%, power factor falls 

by only 11% Higher horsepower motors 

would be predicted (by paragraph 

14.44.1) to experience smaller declines 

in power factor. Finally, Premium 

efficiency motors are in widespread use 

today, suggesting to DOE that the 

associated power factor considerations 

are not insurmountable. As a result, 

DOE does not view power factor as a 

significant obstacle in adopted of 

today’s standards. 

2. Technology Options Screened Out of 

the Analysis 

DOE developed an initial list of 

design options from the technologies 

identified in the technology assessment. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30966 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

42See Chapter 5 of the TSD for details. 

DOE reviewed the list to determine if 

the design options are practicable to 

manufacture, install, and service; would 

adversely affect equipment utility or 

equipment availability; or would have 

adverse impacts on health and safety. In 

the engineering analysis, DOE did not 

consider any of those options that failed 

to satisfy one or more of the screening 

criterion. The design options screened 

out are summarized in Table IV.10. 

TABLE IV.10—DESIGN OPTIONS SCREENED OUT OF THE ANALYSIS

Design option excluded Eliminating screening criterion 

Plastic Bonded Iron Powder (PBIP) ...................................................................................................................... Technological Feasibility. 

Amorphous Steels ................................................................................................................................................. Technological Feasibility. 

At the preliminary analysis stage, 

NEMA, Baldor, and NPCC agreed with 

DOE that plastic bonded iron powder 

has not been proven to be a 

technologically feasible method of 

construction of stator and rotor cores in 

induction motors, and that amorphous 

metal laminations are not a type of 

material that lends itself to use in 

electric motors in the foreseeable future. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 63–64; Baldor, 

Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at p. 108; 

Advocates, No. 56 at p. 3) 

As DOE did in the NOPR, DOE is 

continuing to screen out both of these 

technology options from further 

consideration in the engineering 

analysis in the final rule. See 78 FR 

73622. Additionally, DOE understands 

the concerns expressed by NEMA 

regarding technological feasibility, but 

DOE maintains that if a working 

prototype exists, which implies that the 

motor has performance characteristics 

consistent with other motors using a 

different technology, then that 

technology would be deemed 

technologically feasible. However, that 

fact would not necessarily mean that a 

technology option would pass all three 

of the remaining screening criteria. 

Chapter 4 of the TSD discusses each 

of these screened out design options in 

more detail, as well as the design 

options that DOE considered in the 

electric motor engineering analysis. 

DOE did not receive additional 

comments on the technology options 

screened out in response to the NOPR. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The engineering analysis develops 

cost-efficiency relationships for the 

equipment that are the subject of a 

rulemaking by estimating manufacturer 

costs of achieving increased efficiency 

levels. DOE uses manufacturing costs to 

determine retail prices for use in the 

LCC analysis and MIA. In general, the 

engineering analysis estimates the 

efficiency improvement potential of 

individual design options or 

combinations of design options that 

pass the four criteria in the screening 

analysis. The engineering analysis also 

determines the maximum 

technologically feasible energy 

efficiency level. 

When DOE adopts a new or amended 

standard for a type or class of covered 

equipment, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1) and 6316(a)) Accordingly, in 

the engineering analysis, DOE 

determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficiency for 

electric motors, using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

equipment available on the market or in 

working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of 

the TSD) The max-tech levels that DOE 

determined for this rulemaking are 

described in IV.3 of this rule. 

In general, DOE used three 

methodologies to generate the 

manufacturing costs needed for the 

engineering analysis. These methods 

are: 

(1) The design-option approach— 

reporting the incremental costs of 

adding design options to a baseline 

model; 

(2) the efficiency-level approach— 

reporting relative costs of achieving 

improvements in energy efficiency; and 

(3) the reverse engineering or cost 

assessment approach—involving a 

‘‘bottoms up’’ manufacturing cost 

assessment based on a detailed bill of 

materials derived from electric motor 

teardowns. 

1. Engineering Analysis Methodology 

DOE’s analysis for the electric motor 

rulemaking is based on a combination of 

the efficiency-level approach and the 

reverse engineering approach. Primarily, 

DOE elected to derive its production 

costs by tearing down electric motors 

and recording detailed information 

regarding individual components and 

designs. DOE used the costs derived 

from the engineering teardowns and the 

corresponding nameplate nominal 

efficiency of the torn down motors to 

report the relative costs of achieving 

improvements in energy efficiency. DOE 

derived material prices from current, 

publicly available data, as well as input 

from SMEs and manufacturers. For most 

representative units analyzed, DOE was 

not able to test and teardown a max-tech 

unit, because such units are generally 

cost-prohibitive and are not readily 

available. Therefore, DOE supplemented 

the results of its test and teardown 

analysis with software modeling. 

When developing its engineering 

analysis for electric motors, DOE 

divided covered equipment into 

equipment class groups. As discussed 

above, there are three electric motor 

equipment class groups: ECG 1: NEMA 

Design A and B motors, ECG 2: NEMA 

Design C motors, and ECG 3: Fire pump 

electric motors. The motors within these 

ECGs are further divided into 

equipment classes based on poleconfiguration, enclosure type, and 

horsepower rating. For DOE’s 

rulemaking, there are 482 equipment 

classes. 

2. Representative Units 

Due to the high number of equipment 

classes for electric motors, DOE selected 

and analyzed only a few representative 

units from each ECG and based its 

overall analysis for all equipment 

classes within that ECG on those 

representative units. Results are scaled 

to equipment classes not directly 

analyzed.42 During the final rule 

analysis, DOE selected three units to 

represent ECG 1 and two units to 

represent ECG 2. DOE based the analysis 

of ECG 3 on the representative units for 

ECG 1 because of the low shipment 

volume and run time of fire pump 

electric motors. When selecting 

representative units for each ECG, DOE 

considered NEMA design type, 

horsepower rating, pole-configuration, 

and enclosure. 

a. Electric Motor Design Type 

For ECG 1, which includes all NEMA 

Design A and B motors, DOE only 

selected NEMA Design B motors as 

representative units to analyze in the 

engineering analysis. DOE chose NEMA 

Design B motors because NEMA Design 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30967 

43With the exception of having a thermal shutoff 

switch, which could prevent a fire pump motor 

from performing its duty in hot conditions, NFPA 

20 also excludes several motor types not considered 

in this rulemaking from the NEMA Design B 

requirement. They are direct current, high-voltage 

(over 600 V), large-horsepower (over 500 hp), 

single-phase, universal-type, and wound-rotor 

motors. 

44 77 FR 26608. 

45 ‘‘D’’ dimension is the length from the centerline 

of the shaft to the mounting feet of the motor, and 

impacts how large the motor’s laminations can be, 

impacting the achievable efficiency of the motor. 

‘‘D’’ dimensions are designated in NEMA MG 1– 

2011 Section 4.2.1, Table 4–2. 

B motors have slightly more stringent 

performance requirements, namely their 

locked-rotor current has a maximum 

allowable level for a given rating. 

Consequently, NEMA Design B motors 

are slightly more restricted in terms of 

their maximum efficiency levels. 

Therefore, by analyzing a NEMA Design 

B motor, DOE could ensure 

technological feasibility for all designs 

covered in ECG 1. Additionally, NEMA 

Design B units have much higher 

shipment volumes than NEMA Design A 

motors because most motor driven 

equipment is designed (and UL listed) 

to run with NEMA Design B motors. 

As mentioned for ECG 2, DOE 

selected two representative units to 

analyze. Because NEMA Design C is the 

only NEMA design type covered by this 

ECG, DOE only selected NEMA Design 

C motors as its representative units. 

For ECG 3, which consists of fire 

pump electric motors, DOE based its 

engineering analysis on the NEMA 

Design B units analyzed for ECG 1. As 

noted above, in order to be in 

compliance with section 9.5 of National 

Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 

‘‘Standard for the Installation of 

Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection’’ 

Standard 20–2010, which is a 

requirement for a motor to meet DOE’s 

current definition of a ‘‘fire pump 

electric motor,’’ the motor must comply 

with NEMA Design B requirements.43

Although DOE understands that fire 

pump electric motors have additional 

performance requirements, DOE 

believed that analysis of the ECG 1 

motors would serve as a sufficient 

approximation for the cost-efficiency 

relationship for fire pump electric 

motors. The design differences between 

a NEMA Design B motor (or IECequivalent) and fire pump electric motor 

are small and unlikely to greatly affect 

incremental cost behavior. 

Regarding DOE’s ‘‘fire pump electric 

motor’’ definition, as detailed in the 

electric motors 2012 test procedure,44

DOE intends its ‘‘fire pump electric 

motor’’ definition to cover both NEMA 

Design B motors and IEC-equivalents 

that meet the requirements of section 

9.5 of NFPA 20. See 77 FR 26617–18. As 

stated in the 2012 test procedure, DOE 

agrees that IEC-equivalent motors 

should be included within the scope of 

the definition of ‘‘fire pump electric 

motor,’’ although NFPA 20 does not 

explicitly recognize the use of IEC 

motors with fire pumps. 77 FR 26617. 

DOE realizes that section 9.5 of NFPA 

20 specifically requires that fire pump 

motors shall be marked as complying 

with NEMA Design B. The ‘‘fire pump 

electric motor’’ definition that DOE 

created focuses on ensuring that 

compliance with the energy efficiency 

requirements are applied in a consistent 

manner. DOE believes that there are IEC 

motors that can be used in fire pump 

applications that meet both NEMA 

Design B and IEC Design N criteria, as 

well as NEMA MG 1 service factors. 

DOE’s definition encompasses both 

NEMA Design B motors and IECequivalents. To the extent that there is 

any ambiguity as to how DOE would 

apply this definition, in DOE’s view, 

any Design B or IEC-equivalent motor 

that otherwise satisfies the relevant 

NFPA requirements would meet the 

‘‘fire pump electric motor’’ definition in 

10 CFR 431.12. See the standards NOPR 

for a historical discussion of comments 

related to fire pump electric motors. 78 

FR 73623. 

ECG 4 proposed in the NOPR 

consisted of brake electric motors and 

was also based on ECG 1, because DOE 

is only aware of brake motors being 

built to NEMA Design B specifications. 

Furthermore, DOE understands that 

there is no fundamental difference in 

design between brake and non-brake 

electric motors, other than the presence 

of the brake. Therefore, the same design 

options could be used on both sets of 

electric motors, and both motor types 

are likely to exhibit similar cost versus 

efficiency relationships. In today’s final 

rule, brake motors no longer constitute 

a separate equipment class group and, 

therefore, brake motors fall into 

equipment classes based on their other 

characteristics (e.g., pole count, design 

type). 

b. Horsepower Rating 

Horsepower rating is an important 

equipment class setting criterion. When 

DOE selected its preliminary analysis 

representative units, DOE chose those 

horsepower ratings that constitute a 

high volume of shipments in the market 

and provide a wide range upon which 

DOE could reasonably base a scaling 

methodology. For NEMA Design B 

motors, for example, DOE chose 5-, 

30-, and 75-horsepower-rated electric 

motors to analyze as representative 

units. DOE selected the 5-horsepower 

rating because these motors have the 

highest shipment volume of all motors. 

DOE selected the 30-horsepower rating 

as an intermediary between the small 

and large frame number series electric 

motors. Finally, DOE selected a 75- 

horsepower unit because there is 

minimal variation in efficiency for 

motors with horsepower ratings above 

75-horsepower. Based on this fact, DOE 

determined it was unnecessary to 

analyze a higher horsepower motor. 

Additionally, as horsepower levels 

increase, shipments typically decrease. 

Therefore, DOE believed there would be 

minimal gains to its analysis had it 

examined a higher horsepower 

representative unit. 

DOE selected the 5-horsepower motor 

for multiple reasons. The 5-horsepower 

unit had the highest percentage of 

shipments for all covered electric 

motors, which ensured that there would 

be multiple efficiency levels from 

multiple manufacturers available for 

comparison during the teardown 

analysis. In addition, because DOE later 

employed scaling to establish efficiency 

levels for all equipment classes, it 

attempted to find a frame series and Ddimension 45 that could serve as a strong 

basis from which to scale to a relatively 

small set of unanalyzed frame series. 

The standard NEMA MG 1–2011 frame 

series for the 5-horsepower enclosed 

motor was a midpoint between the 

standard frame series for 1 horsepower 

and 10-horsepower motors, which was 

the group of ratings covered by the 5- 

horsepower representative unit. A larger 

representative unit would have meant a 

larger range of frame series on which to 

apply the scaling methodology. 

As to DOE’s selection of the 75- 

horsepower representative unit as a 

maximum, DOE understands that the 

75-horsepower motor is not built in the 

largest NEMA MG 1–2011 frame series 

covered, but maintains that its selection 

is appropriate for this analysis. As 

stated previously, efficiency changes 

slowly when approaching the highest 

horsepower ratings, and choosing a 

higher horsepower rating would not 

have provided any appreciable 

improvement over the data DOE already 

developed for its analysis. DOE has 

found minimal variation in efficiency 

for motors above 75-horsepower. 

Because the change in efficiency 

diminishes with increasing horsepower, 

one may achieve a similar level of 

analytical accuracy with fewer data 

points at higher horsepower. Stated 

inversely, one needs more data points to 

accurately characterize a curve where it 

has a greater rate of change, such as 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30968 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

46This part provides standardized frame sizing by 

horsepower and speed for integral horsepower AC 

induction motors. 47See 78 FR 73625. 

48See 78 FR 73625. 

49See 78 FR 73625. 

lower horsepower. Finally, DOE notes 

that its scaling methodology mirrors the 

scaling methodology used in NEMA’s 

MG 1–2011 tables of efficiencies, 

including the rate of change in 

efficiency with horsepower. 

DOE also notes that part 13 46 of 

NEMA MG 1–2011 does not standardize 

frame series for NEMA Design B motors 

at the highest horsepower levels covered 

in today’s rule. Therefore, motors with 

the highest capacity have variability in 

their frame series. This added flexibility 

would give manufacturers more options 

to improve the efficiency of their largest 

motors covered by this rulemaking. 

Although altering the frame size of a 

motor may be costly, DOE believes that 

its selection of a 75-hp representative 

unit for higher horsepower motors is 

appropriate for scaling higher 

horsepower efficiency levels and the 

efficiency levels examined are 

technologically feasible for the largest 

capacity motors. 

For NEMA Design C motors, DOE 

again selected the 5-horsepower rating 

because of its prevalence. In addition, 

DOE selected a 50-horsepower rating as 

an incrementally higher representative 

unit. DOE only selected two horsepower 

ratings for these electric motors because 

of their low shipment volumes. For 

more information on how DOE selected 

these horsepower ratings see chapter 5 

of the TSD. 

In its preliminary analysis comments 

NEMA questioned DOE’s selection of 

the 50-horsepower representative unit 

for the NEMA Design C equipment class 

group because the NEMA T-frame size 

for such a rating is three NEMA T-frame 

number series below the largest frame 

number series and the fact that the 2011 

shipment data that DOE used to select 

its representative units was not broken 

down by NEMA design type. (NEMA, 

No. 54 at p. 66) 

As stated in the NOPR and as DOE 

maintains in this final rule, as with ECG 

1, DOE selected representative units that 

fell in the middle of the range of ratings 

covered in this rulemaking and not 

necessarily the largest frame size 

covered in the rulemaking. Furthermore, 

as discussed earlier, NEMA Design C 

motors are produced in a smaller range 

of horsepower ratings than NEMA 

Design B motors (1 to 200 rather than 1 

to 500). With this smaller horsepower 

range, a correspondingly smaller range 

of representative units is needed. 

Therefore, DOE selected a slightly lower 

rating as its maximum for ECG 2. See 78 

FR 73625. As for the shipments data 

used to select the 5-hp representative 

unit, DOE did not separate the data by 

design type within an ECG because the 

same standard applies to motors of any 

design type (e.g., ‘‘Design A’’) within an 

ECG, and has revised the text for the 

final TSD to clarify that fact. See id. 

However, DOE still maintains that the 

prevalence of 5-hp units make it an 

appropriate selection as a representative 

unit. DOE did not receive further 

comments on representative units in 

response to the NOPR and has 

maintained its approach for the final 

rule. 

c. Pole-Configuration 

Pole-configuration is another 

important equipment class setting 

criterion that DOE had to consider when 

selecting its representative units. For the 

preliminary analysis, DOE selected 4- 

pole motors for all of its representative 

units. DOE chose 4-pole motors because 

they represent the highest shipment 

volume of motors compared to other 

pole configurations. DOE chose not to 

alternate between pole configurations 

for its representative units because it 

wanted to keep as many design 

characteristics constant as possible. 

Doing so allowed DOE to more 

accurately identify how design changes 

affect efficiency across horsepower 

ratings. Additionally, DOE believed that 

the horsepower rating-versus-efficiency 

relationship is the most important 

(rather than pole-configuration and 

enclosure type-versus-efficiency) 

because there are significantly more 

horsepower ratings to consider. 

In the preliminary analysis, NEMA 

and Baldor commented that scaling 

across pole configurations will lead to 

inaccurate results. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 

26, 66–67; Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 

at pp. 130, 131) 

As mentioned earlier, DOE assessed 

energy conservation standards for 482 

equipment classes. As described in the 

NOPR47 and as DOE retains in today’s 

rule, analyzing each of the classes 

individually is not feasible, which 

requires DOE to select representative 

units on which to base its analysis. DOE 

understands that different poleconfigurations have different design 

constraints. Originally, DOE selected 

only 4-pole motors to analyze because 

they were the most common, allowing 

DOE to most accurately characterize 

motor behavior at the pole configuration 

consuming the majority of motor energy. 

Additionally, by holding poleconfiguration constant across its 

representative units, DOE would be able 

to develop a baseline from which to 

scale. By maintaining this baseline and 

holding all other variables constant, 

DOE is able to modify the horsepower 

of the various representative units and 

isolate which efficiency effects are due 

to size. 

Also as described in the NOPR48 and 

as DOE retains in today’s rule, as 

discussed in section IV.C.8, DOE has 

used the simpler of two scaling 

approaches presented in the preliminary 

analysis because both methods had 

similar results. This simpler approach 

does not require DOE to develop a 

relationship for 4-pole motors from 

which to scale. Furthermore, DOE notes 

that the scaling approach it selected 

mirrors the scaling laid out in NEMA’s 

MG 1–2011 tables, in which at least a 

subset of the motors industry has 

already presented a possible 

relationship between efficiency and 

pole count. DOE has continued to 

analyze 4-pole electric motors because 

they are the most common and DOE 

believes that all of the efficiency levels 

it has developed are technologically 

feasible. 

d. Enclosure Type 

The final equipment class setting 

criterion that DOE considered when 

selecting its representative units was 

enclosure type. For the preliminary 

analysis, DOE elected to analyze electric 

motors with enclosed designs rather 

than open designs for all of its 

representative units. DOE selected 

enclosed motors because, as with poleconfigurations, these motors have higher 

shipments than open motors. Again, 

DOE did not alternate between the two 

design possibilities for its representative 

units because it sought to keep design 

characteristics as constant as possible in 

an attempt to more accurately identify 

the reasons for efficiency improvements. 

At the preliminary analysis stage, 

NEMA and Baldor commented that 

DOE’s analysis did not consider the 

significance of enclosure type as it 

relates to efficiency as there is generally 

a lower efficiency level designated for 

open-frame motors. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 

68; Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at p. 

131) 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE 

analyzed only electric motors with 

totally enclosed, fan-cooled (TEFC) 

designs rather than open designs for all 

of its representative units. DOE selected 

TEFC motors because, as with pole 

configurations, DOE wanted as many 

design characteristics to remain 

constant as possible. The Department 

used the same approach for the NOPR49


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30969 

50For the purposes of the final rule, the term 

‘‘efficiency level’’ (EL) is equivalent to that of 

Candidate Standard Level (CSL) in the preliminary 

analysis. 

51EPACT 1992 only established efficiency 

standards for motors up to and including 200 hp. 

Eventually, NEMA MG 1–2011 added a table, 20– 

A, which functioned as an extension of Table 12– 

11. So, although EPACT 1992 is a slight misnomer, 

DOE is using it to refer to those ELs that were based 

on Table 12–11. 

52Because motor efficiency varies from unit to 

unit, even within a specific model, NEMA has 

established a list of standardized efficiency values 

that manufacturers use when labeling their motors. 

Each incremental step, or ‘‘band,’’ constitutes a 10 

percent change in motor losses. NEMA MG 1–2011 

Table 12–10 contains the list of NEMA nominal 

efficiencies. 

and today’s final rule. DOE believed 

then and still believes that such an 

approach allows it to more accurately 

pinpoint the factors that affect 

efficiency. While DOE only analyzed 

one enclosure type, it notes that its 

scaling follows NEMA’s efficiency 

tables (Table 12–11 and Table 12–12), 

which already map how efficiency 

changes with enclosure type. Finally, 

TEFC electric motors represented more 

than three times the shipment volume of 

open motors. DOE chose ELs that 

correspond to the tables of standards 

published in NEMA’s MG 1–2011 and to 

efficiency bands derived from those 

tables, preserving the relationship 

between NEMA’s standards for open 

and enclosed motors. 

DOE did not receive additional 

comments on enclosure type as an 

equipment class setting criterion in 

response to the NOPR. 

3. Efficiency Levels Analyzed 

After selecting its representative units 

for each electric motor equipment class 

group, DOE examined the impacts on 

the cost of improving the efficiency of 

each of the representative units to 

evaluate the impact and assess the 

viability of potential energy 

conservation standards. As described in 

the technology assessment and 

screening analysis, there are numerous 

design options available for improving 

efficiency and each incremental 

improvement increases the electric 

motor efficiency along a continuum. 

The engineering analysis develops cost 

estimates for several efficiency levels 50

along that continuum. 

ELs are often based on: (1) Efficiencies 

available in the market; (2) voluntary 

specifications or mandatory standards 

that cause manufacturers to develop 

equipment at particular efficiency 

levels; and (3) the max-tech level. 

Currently, there are two energy 

conservation standard levels that apply 

to various types of electric motors. In 

ECG 1, some motors currently must 

meet efficiency standards that 

correspond to NEMA MG 1–2011 Table 

12–11 (i.e., EPACT 1992 levels 51), 

others must meet efficiency standards 

that correspond to NEMA MG 1–2011 

Table 12–12 (i.e., premium efficiency 

levels), and some are not currently 

required to meet any energy 

conservation standard levels. DOE 

cannot establish energy conservation 

standards that are less efficient than 

current standards (i.e., the ‘‘antibacksliding’’ provision at 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1) as applied via 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a)). ECG 1 includes both currently 

regulated and unregulated electric 

motors. For the baseline, DOE selected 

the lowest efficiency level available for 

unregulated motors for all motors in this 

group rather than applying the current 

standard requirements to an ECG that 

includes unregulated motors. However, 

in estimating the base case efficiency 

distribution, DOE accounted for the fact 

that the regulated motors are already at 

least at the current standard 

requirements. For ECG 1, DOE 

established an EL that corresponded to 

each of these levels, with EL 0 as the 

baseline (i.e., the lowest efficiency level 

available for unregulated motors), EL 1 

as equivalent to EPACT 1992 levels, and 

EL 2 as equivalent to premium 

efficiency levels for ECG 1 motors. 

Additionally, DOE analyzed two ELs 

above EL 2. One of these levels was the 

max-tech level, denoted as EL 4 and one 

was an incremental level that 

approximated a best-in-market 

efficiency level (EL 3). For all 

equipment classes within ECG 1, EL 3 

was a one ‘‘band’’ increase in NEMA 

nominal efficiency relative to premium 

efficiency and EL 4 was a two ‘‘band’’ 

increase.52 For ECG 3 and 4, DOE used 

the same ELs with one exception for 

ECG 3. Because fire pump electric 

motors are required to meet EPACT 

1992 efficiency levels and those are the 

only motors in that equipment class 

group, EPACT 1992 levels were used as 

the baseline efficiency level, which 

means that fire pump electric motors 

have one fewer EL than ECG 1 for 

purposes of DOE’s analysis. Following 

the preliminary analysis, DOE adjusted 

one max-tech Design B representative 

unit level (5 hp) after receiving 

additional data in order to base that 

level on a physical unit in place of 

modeling. Table IV.11 and Table IV.12 

show the ELs for ECGs 1 and 3. 

TABLE IV.11—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 1** 

Representative unit 

EL 0 

(baseline) 

(percent) 

EL 1 

(EPACT 1992) 

(percent) 

EL 2 

(premium 

efficiency) 

(percent) 

EL 3 

(best-inmarket*) 

(percent) 

EL 4 

(max-tech) 

(percent) 

5 hp (ECG 1) ....................................................................... 82.5 87.5 89.5 90.2 91.0 

30 hp (ECG 1) ..................................................................... 89.5 92.4 93.6 94.1 94.5 

75 hp (ECG 1) ..................................................................... 93.0 94.1 95.4 95.8 96.2 

* Best-in-market represents the best or near best efficiency level at which current manufacturers are producing electric motors. Although these 

efficiencies represent the best-in-market values found for the representative units, but when efficiency was scaled to the remaining equipment 

classes, the scaled efficiency was sometimes above and sometimes below the best-in-market value for a particular rating. 

** ECG 1 includes both currently regulated and unregulated electric motors. For the baseline, DOE selected the lowest efficiency level available 

for unregulated motors for all motors in this group rather than applying the current standard requirements to an ECG that includes unregulated 

motors. However, in estimating the base case efficiency distribution, DOE accounted for the fact that the regulated motors are already at least at 

the current standard requirements. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30970 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

53 DOE understands that this is not true for every 

equipment classes covered by this rulemaking, but 

has not seen evidence to suggest that the absence 

of equipment in any particular classes is not due 

to lack of market demand instead of technological 

limitations. 

TABLE IV.12—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 3 

Representative unit 

EL 0 

(EPACT 1992) 

(percent) 

EL 1 

(premium 

efficiency) 

(percent) 

EL 2 

(best-inmarket *) 

(percent) 

EL 3 

(max-tech) 

(percent) 

5 hp .................................................................................................................. 87.5 89.5 90.2 91.0 

30 hp ................................................................................................................ 92.4 93.6 94.1 94.5 

75 hp ................................................................................................................ 94.1 95.4 95.8 96.2 

For ECG 2, DOE took a similar 

approach in developing its ELs as it did 

for ECG 1, but with two primary 

differences. First, when DOE examined 

catalog data, it found that no NEMA 

Design C motors had efficiencies below 

EPACT 1992 levels, which is the current 

standard for all covered NEMA Design 

C motors. For DOE’s representative 

units, it also found no catalog listings 

above the required EPACT 1992 levels. 

Additionally, when DOE’s SME 

modeled NEMA Design C motors, the 

model would only generate designs at 

premium efficiency levels and one 

incremental level above that while 

maintaining proper performance 

standards. Therefore, ECG 2 only 

contains three ELs: EPACT 1992 (EL 0), 

premium efficiency (EL 1), and a maxtech level (EL 2). 

These ELs differed slightly from the 

CSLs presented in the preliminary 

analysis for ECG2. In the preliminary 

analysis, a CSL for the 50 hp unit 

existed between two industry standard 

levels in order to provide greater 

resolution in selection of a standard 

(NEMA MG 1 Table 12–11 and Table 

12–12). For the final rule analysis, this 

level was removed so that the ELs 

analyzed would align with Tables 12–11 

and 12–12. For the 5 hp representative 

unit, DOE also removed one preliminary 

analysis CSL, which was intended to 

represent the ‘‘best in market’’ level in 

the preliminary analysis. After further 

market research, DOE found that few 

Design C motors are offered above the 

baseline, and those that were mainly 

met the premium efficiency level, 

without going higher in efficiency. It 

determined that for the final rule 

analysis, the previously designated 

‘‘max in market’’ level was not 

applicable. The ELs analyzed for ECG2 

are shown in Table IV.13. 

TABLE IV.13—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 2 

Representative unit 

EL 0 

(EPACT 1992) 

(percent) 

EL 1 

(premium 

efficiency) 

(percent) 

EL 2 

(max-tech) 

(percent) 

5 hp .............................................................................................................................................. 87.5 89.5 91.0 

50 hp ............................................................................................................................................ 93.0 94.5 95.0 

DOE has found many instances of 

electric motors being sold and marketed 

one or two NEMA bands of efficiency 

above premium efficiency, which 

suggests that manufacturers have 

extended technological performance 

where they perceived market demand 

for higher efficiencies. In other words, 

DOE has seen no evidence suggesting 

that the absence of equipment on the 

market at any given EL implies that 

such equipment could not be 

developed, were there sufficient 

demand. DOE contends that all of the 

ELs analyzed in its engineering analysis 

are viable because equipment is 

currently commercially available at 

such levels 53 and, to the extent 

possible, has been included in DOE’s 

analysis. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA and 

Baldor both raised concern that it is not 

clear what horsepower rated motors in 

6 and 8 poles are covered because 

NEMA Design A and B are not defined 

under MG 1 for large motors. This is 

because motors of higher horsepower 

rating in 6 and 8 poles are covered by 

the standards for large motors in Part 20 

of NEMA MG 1. However, DOE defined 

NEMA Design A and Design B types in 

10 CFR 431.12 with respect to the 

standards in Part 12 of NEMA MG 1 and 

not with respect to Part 20. NEMA noted 

that DOE took Table 5 values for large 

motors from an incorrect table (i.e., 

Table 12–12) that was submitted to DOE 

previously in the Petition. NEMA 

commented that in order to align Table 

12–12 with the scope of Part 12, it has 

removed the ratings for large motors 

from Table 12–12 and has included 

them in premium efficiency standards 

in Part 20 for large motors. NEMA and 

Baldor suggested that DOE either 

remove standards for higher horsepower 

rating 6 and 8 poles motors from Table 

5 of the proposed rule to properly 

represent only ratings for which Design 

A and B standards apply. NEMA also 

suggested that DOE could modify 10 

CFR 431.12 to define large motors 

covered by the standards and 10 CFR 

431.25 to include efficiency standards 

for these new covered large motors. 

(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 22; NEMA, Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 48–50, Baldor, 

No. 100 at p. 4) 

DOE agrees with NEMA and Baldor 

that large motors given in NEMA MG 1 

Part 20 (i.e. 6-pole motors with 

horsepower ratings greater than 400 hp 

and 8-pole motors with horsepower 

ratings greater than 300 hp) are not 

defined for NEMA Design A and B. 

Therefore, DOE has modified the 

efficiency tables as suggested. See 

Section IV.A.2.c for further detail. DOE 

notes that the standards adopted today, 

as well as those proposed in the NOPR, 

as well as those suggested by the Motor 

Coalition, still contain efficiency values 

for 300 and 350 hp 6 pole motors which 

are the same as their corresponding 250 

hp values and which are not found on 

MG 1–2011’s Table 12–12. 

In response to the NOPR, CEC sought 

clarification on the efficiency levels 

selected by DOE for Design C motors. 

CEC commented that it expected DOE to 

choose a baseline above the current 

market minimum. Second, CEC asked 

for clarification regarding the selected 

ECG 2 representative unit picked to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30971 

54The Center for Electromechanics at the 

University of Texas at Austin, a 140,000 sq. ft. lab 

with 40 years of operating experience, performed 

the teardowns, which were overseen by Dr. Angelo 

Gattozzi, an electric motor expert with previous 

industry experience. DOE also used Advanced 

Energy Corporation of North Carolina to perform 

some of the teardowns. 

represent the efficiency levels and noted 

that the baseline level was below the 

EPACT 1992 level for the 50 horsepower 

motor. Third, CEC asked clarification 

regarding the EL numbering for ECG 2 

in Table IV.11 of the NOPR. (CEC, No. 

96 at p. 3) 

Both ECG 1 and ECG 2 contain 

currently regulated and unregulated 

electric motors. For the baseline, DOE 

selected the lowest efficiency level 

available for unregulated motors for all 

motors in this group rather than 

applying the current standard 

requirements to an ECG that includes 

unregulated motors. However, in 

estimating the base case efficiency 

distribution, DOE accounted for the fact 

that the regulated motors are already at 

least at the current standard 

requirements. See Chapter 10 of the TSD 

for details. 

With respect to the EL numbering in 

Table IV.10 of the NOPR, DOE notes 

that the table’s values should have 

begun at EL 0 (instead of EL 1) and 

reached EL 2 (instead of EL 3). DOE 

always labels its baseline ‘‘EL 0’’ in this 

rulemaking, and the error was limited to 

mislabeling of the table in question 

rather than a more fundamental mistake 

in the analysis. In other words, there are 

no representative units for which the 

analysis should be at EL 1, as had been 

indicated in the NOPR’s Table V.10. 

This mislabeling was confined to the 

table in question and has been fixed for 

the final rule. 

4. Testing and Teardowns 

Whenever possible, DOE attempted to 

base its engineering analysis on actual 

electric motors being produced and sold 

in the market today. First, DOE 

identified electric motors in 

manufacturer catalogs that represented a 

range of efficiencies corresponding to 

the ELs discussed in the previous 

sections. Next, DOE had the electric 

motors shipped to a certified testing 

laboratory where each was tested in 

accordance with IEEE Standard 112 

(Test Method B) to verify its nameplaterated efficiency. After testing, DOE 

derived production and material costs 

by having a professional motor 

laboratory 54 disassemble and inventory 

the purchased electric motors. For ECG 

1, DOE obtained tear-down results for 

all of the 5-horsepower ELs and all of 

the 30- and 75-horsepower ELs except 

the max-tech levels. For ECG 2, DOE 

obtained tear-down results only for the 

baseline EL, which corresponds to 

EPACT 1992 efficiency levels. 

These tear-downs provided DOE with 

the necessary data to construct a bill of 

materials (BOM), which, along with a 

standardized cost model and markup 

structure, DOE could use to estimate a 

manufacturer selling price (MSP). DOE 

paired the MSP derived from the teardown with the corresponding nameplate 

nominal efficiency to report the relative 

costs of achieving improvements in 

energy efficiency. DOE’s estimates of 

material prices came from a 

combination of current, publicly 

available data, manufacturer feedback, 

and conversations with its SME. DOE 

supplemented the findings from its tests 

and tear-downs through: (1) a review of 

data collected from manufacturers about 

prices, efficiencies, and other features of 

various models of electric motors, and 

(2) interviews with manufacturers about 

the techniques and associated costs 

used to improve efficiency. 

As discussed earlier, DOE’s 

engineering analysis documents the 

design changes and associated costs 

when improving electric motor 

efficiency from the baseline level up to 

a max-tech level. This includes 

considering improved electrical steel for 

the stator and rotor, interchanging 

aluminum and copper rotor bar 

material, increasing stack length, and 

any other applicable design options 

remaining after the screening analysis. 

As each of these design options are 

added, the manufacturer’s cost increases 

and the electric motor’s efficiency 

improves. 

At the preliminary analysis stage, 

DOE received multiple comments 

regarding its test and tear-down 

analysis. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 27, 74– 

75) In its NOPR response, DOE stated 

that it accurately captured such changes 

because electric motor was torn down, 

components such as electrical steel and 

copper wiring were weighed. 78 FR 

73629. 

DOE noted in the NOPR and re-assert 

today that an increased sample size 

would improve the value of efficiency 

used in its analysis, but only if DOE 

were using an average full-load 

efficiency value, as it did for the small 

electric motors rulemaking engineering 

analysis, which did not have the benefit 

of NEMA-developed nominal efficiency 

values. See 78 FR 73629. For the 

analysis in the NOPR and the final rule, 

DOE did not use the tested efficiency 

value and believes that to do so would 

be erroneous precisely because it only 

tested and tore down one unit for a 

given representative unit and EL. Rather 

than using an average efficiency of a 

sample of multiple units that is likely to 

change with each additional motor 

tested, DOE elected to use the 

nameplate NEMA nominal efficiency 

given. DOE understands that this value, 

short of testing data, is the most 

accurate value to use to describe a 

statistically valid population of motors 

of a given design; that is, in part, why 

manufacturers use NEMA nominal 

efficiencies on their motors’ nameplates. 

Also, DOE believes that the bill of 

materials generated is more is likely to 

be representative of the motor’s nominal 

efficiency value rather efficiency than 

as-tested. DOE believes that the variance 

from unit-to-unit, in terms of materials, 

is likely to be insignificant because 

manufacturers have an incentive to 

produce equipment with consistent 

performance (i.e., characteristics other 

than efficiency). Changes in the tested 

efficiency are likely to occur because of 

variations in production that motor 

manufacturers have less control over 

(e.g., the quality of the electrical steel). 

DOE does not believe that the amount 

of material (in particular, electrical 

steel, copper wiring, and die-cast 

material) from unit-to-unit for a given 

design is likely to change significantly, 

if at all, because manufacturers have 

much greater control of those 

production variables. Therefore, 

additional tests and tear-downs are 

unlikely to change the MSP estimated 

for a given motor design and DOE 

believes that its sample size of one is 

appropriate. 

In the preliminary engineering 

analysis, DOE replaced a tear-down 

result with a software model for CSL 2 

of its 30-horsepower representative unit 

because it believed that it had 

inadvertently tested and torn down a 

motor with an efficiency equivalent to 

CSL 3. DOE noted that it removed the 

tear-down because there was conflicting 

efficiency information on the Web site, 

in the catalog, and on the physical 

nameplate. Subsequently, NEMA and 

Baldor commented that the 30- 

horsepower, CSL 2 motor should not 

have been replaced with a softwaremodeled motor, stating that the test 

result was statistically viable. (NEMA, 

No. 54 at pp. 76–79; Baldor, Pub. Mtg. 

Tr., No. 60 at pp. 150–155) NEMA and 

Baldor also asserted that DOE had 

placed emphasis on the use of 

purchased motors in its analysis only 

when the tested value of efficiency was 

less than or not significantly greater 

than the marked value of NEMA 

efficiency. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 80; 

Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at pp. 156, 

157) 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30972 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

55 Dr. Howard Jordan, Ph.D., an electric motor 

design expert with over 40 years of industry 

experience, served as DOE’s subject matter expert. 

56 VICA stands for ‘‘Veinott Interactive Computer 

Aid’’. 

57The ‘‘C’’ dimension of an electric motor is the 

length of the electric motor from the end of the shaft 

to the end of the opposite side’s fan cover guard. 

Essentially, the ‘‘C’’ dimension is the overall length 

of an electric motor including its shaft extension. 

58For example, locked-rotor current or lockedrotor torque. 

DOE understands that the test result 

may have been viable for either of the 

efficiency ratings that the manufacturer 

had assigned. Given the uncertainty, 

however, DOE elected to replace the 

motor. For its updated NOPR 

engineering analysis, DOE has tested 

and torn down a new 30-horsepower 

motor to describe CSL 2. As stated 

previously, DOE always prefers to base 

its analysis using motors purchased in 

the market when possible. 

After DOE’s tear-down lab determined 

that the torn-down motors were 

machine-wound, a precise measurement 

of the slot fill was not taken. Although 

the actual measurement of slot fill has 

no bearing on the estimates of the MSP, 

because the actual copper weights were 

measured and not calculated, DOE did 

ask its lab to provide actual 

measurements of slot fill on any 

subsequent tear-downs and has 

included the data in chapter 5 of the 

TSD. 

5. Software Modeling 

DOE worked with technical experts to 

develop certain ELs, in particular, the 

max-tech efficiency levels for each 

representative unit analyzed. To this 

end, DOE retained an electric motors 

(SME 55 with significant experience in 

terms of both design and related 

software, who prepared a set of electric 

motor designs with increasing 

efficiency. The software program used 

for this analysis is a proprietary 

software program called VICA.56 The 

SME also checked his designs against 

tear-down data and calibrated the 

software using the relevant test results. 

As new designs were created, DOE’s 

SME ensured that the critical 

performance characteristics that define a 

NEMA design letter (e.g., locked-rotor 

torque, breakdown torque, pull-up 

torque, and locked-rotor currents) were 

maintained. For a given representative 

unit, DOE ensured that the modeled 

electric motors met the same set of 

torque and locked-rotor current 

requirements as the purchased electric 

motors. This was done to ensure that the 

utility of the baseline unit was 

maintained as efficiency improved, and 

that the unit in question did not meet 

the criteria of a different equipment 

class. Additionally, DOE limited its 

modeled stack length increases based on 

teardown data and maximum ‘‘C’’ 

dimensions found in manufacturer’s 

catalogs, also to ensure the utility of the 

baseline units was maintained 57 DOE 

has provided comparisons of software 

estimates and tested efficiencies in 

Appendix 5C of the TSD. 

During the preliminary analysis, DOE 

approached motor laboratories in an 

attempt to build physical prototypes of 

its software models. DOE was unable to 

identify a laboratory that could 

prototype its software-modeled motors 

in a manner that would exactly replicate 

the designs produced (i.e., they could 

not die-cast copper). Consequently, DOE 

did not build a prototype of its software 

models. However, DOE was able to 

procure a 5-horsepower NEMA Design B 

die-cast copper rotor motor with an 

efficiency two NEMA bands above the 

premium efficiency level. Therefore, 

DOE elected to use this design to 

represent the max-tech EL for the 5- 

horsepower representative unit in 

equipment class group 1, rather than the 

software-modeled design used in the 

preliminary analysis. DOE’s SME used 

information gained from testing and 

tearing down this motor to help 

corroborate the software modeling. 

Since that time, DOE has conducted 

further calibration of its software 

program using data obtained from motor 

teardowns, has provided comparisons of 

software estimates, and tested 

efficiencies for both aluminum and 

copper rotor motors in Appendix 5C of 

the TSD. DOE eliminated designs from 

its preliminary analysis because of 

concerns regarding the feasibility of 

certain efficiency levels. Regarding 

performance parameters beyond 

efficiency,58 DOE understands that 

these characteristics must be maintained 

when improving an electric motor’s 

efficiency. However, the performance 

parameters DOE believed to present the 

largest risk of rendering a motor 

noncompliant with NEMA MG 1–2011 

standards were those related to NEMA 

design letter, and these were adhered to 

in DOE’s modeling efforts. Based on 

comparisons of motor teardowns and 

software estimates, DOE has no reason 

at this time to believe that its modeled 

designs would violate the additional 

performance parameters. 

DOE’s SME, who has been designing 

electric motors for several decades, is 

well qualified to understand the design 

tradeoffs that must be considered. 

Although the SME’s primary task was to 

design a more-efficient motor using 

various technologies, it was of critical 

importance that the designs be feasible. 

Even though DOE was unable to 

prototype its modeled designs, DOE has 

conducted comparisons of software 

estimates and tested efficiencies for both 

aluminum and copper rotor motors and 

has concluded that these actions 

corroborate the modeled designs. Based 

on this work and its total analysis, 

which included input from its SME, 

DOE has concluded that it has 

developed a sufficiently robust set of 

technically feasible efficiency levels for 

its engineering analysis. 

In the final rule TSD, DOE also shows 

that any increase in stack length would 

fit into the existing frame designation 

for that particular motor rating. (DOE 

noted that the frame designation does 

not limit frame length, but rather frame 

diameter.) DOE understands that 

manufacturers have fixed-length frames 

that they use when manufacturing 

motors. In addition to generating perunit costs associated with redesigning 

motors with new frames at all ELs above 

the premium efficiency levels (see 

section IV.C.6), DOE sought to maintain 

motor length by limiting how much it 

would modify stack dimensions to 

improve efficiency. First, the software 

models created by DOE used lamination 

diameters observed during teardowns, 

which ensured that the softwaremodeled designs would fit into existing 

frame designations. However, for some 

designs, DOE increased the number of 

laminations (i.e., length of the stack of 

laminations, or stack length) beyond the 

stack lengths observed during the motor 

teardowns in order to achieve the 

desired efficiency gains. 

DOE limited the amount by which it 

would increase the stack length of its 

software-modeled electric motors in 

order to preserve the motor’s utility. The 

maximum stack lengths used in the 

software-modeled ELs were determined 

by first analyzing the stack lengths and 

‘‘C’’ dimensions of torn-down electric 

motors. Then, DOE analyzed the ‘‘C’’ 

dimensions of various electric motors in 

the marketplace conforming to the same 

design constraints as the representative 

units (same horsepower rating, NEMA 

frame size, enclosure type, and pole 

configuration). For each representative 

unit, DOE found the largest ‘‘C’’ 

dimension currently available on the 

marketplace and estimated a maximum 

stack length based on the stack length to 

‘‘C’’ dimension ratios of motors it tore 

down. The resulting equipment served 

as the basis for the maximum stack 

length value that DOE used in its 

software-modeled designs, although 

DOE notes that it did not always model 

a motor with that maximum stack 

length. In most instances, the SME was 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30973 

59Based on manufacturer product offerings. See 

Chapter 5 of the TSD for details. 

able to achieve the desired improvement 

in efficiency with a stack length shorter 

than DOE’s estimated maximum. Table 

IV.14 presents the estimated maximum 

stack length,59 the maximum stack 

length found during tear-downs, and the 

maximum stack length modeled for a 

given representative unit. DOE notes 

that the 5-horsepower Design B 

representative unit is not shown 

because modeling was not performed, as 

described earlier. 

TABLE IV.14—MAXIMUM STACK LENGTH DATA

Representative unit Estimated maximum stack length Maximum stack length of a torn down 

motor 

Maximum 

stack length 

modeled 

30 Horsepower Design B ........................ 8.87 in ..................................................... 8.02 in. (EL 2) ......................................... 7.00 in. 

75 Horsepower Design B ........................ 13.06 in ................................................... 11.33 in. (EL 3) ....................................... 12.00 in. 

5 Horsepower Design C .......................... 5.80 in ..................................................... 4.75 in. (EL 0) ......................................... 5.32 in. 

50 Horsepower Design C ........................ 9.55 in ..................................................... 8.67 in. (EL 0) ......................................... 9.55 in. 

During the NOPR public meeting, 

several parties commented with respect 

to modeling. Noting that all the 

components of loss are first calculated 

and summed together to obtain 

efficiency, Nidec sought clarification as 

to how friction and windage component 

losses (mechanical loss), I2R losses and 

stray losses were obtained. Nidec also 

sought clarification on how the area of 

conductors was calculated to obtain slot 

fill. (Nidec, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 

103–108) Regal Beloit commented that 

the VICA program used by DOE’s SME 

to model efficiency may be over ten 

years old. (Regal Beloit, Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

No. 87 at p. 110) 

DOE responded that the friction and 

windage losses were input items into 

the VICA program and were obtained as 

average values from data on various 

frame sizes. I2R losses and stray losses 

were also input items into VICA. Stray 

losses were obtained as a percentage of 

the full-load value. DOE performed 

correlations of the estimated value and 

the values obtained from the testing of 

motors. DOE found that the estimated 

value was very close to the average of 

tested values. DOE also noted that the 

square method was used to calculate the 

area of the conductor. The number of 

conductors in the slot was multiplied by 

the square of the conductor diameter. 

6. Cost Model 

When developing manufacturer 

selling prices (MSPs) for the motor 

designs obtained from DOE’s tear-downs 

and software models, DOE used 

modeling to generate a more accurate 

approximation of the costs necessary to 

improve electric motor efficiency. DOE 

derived the manufacturer’s selling price 

for each design in the engineering 

analysis by considering the full range of 

production and non-production costs. 

The full production cost is a 

combination of direct labor, direct 

materials, and overhead. The overhead 

contributing to full production cost 

includes indirect labor, indirect 

material, maintenance, depreciation, 

taxes, and insurance related to company 

assets. Non-production cost includes the 

cost of selling, general and 

administrative items (market research, 

advertising, sales representatives, 

logistics), research and development 

(R&D), interest payments, warranty and 

risk provisions, shipping, and profit 

factor. Because profit factor is included 

in the non-production cost, the sum of 

production and non-production costs is 

an estimate of the MSP. DOE utilized 

various markups to arrive at the total 

cost for each component of the electric 

motor, which are detailed in chapter 5 

of the final rule TSD. The following 

subsections discuss specific features of 

the DOE’s cost model. 

a. Copper Pricing 

DOE conducted the engineering 

analysis using material prices based on 

manufacturer feedback, industry 

experts, and publicly available data. In 

the preliminary analysis, most material 

prices were based on 2011 prices, with 

the exception of cast copper and copper 

wire pricing, which were based on a 

five-year (2007–2011) average price. 

Noting the comments of interested 

parties during the preliminary analysis 

phase, DOE slightly modified its 

approach in the NOPR. First, DOE 

added updated data for 2012 pricing. 

Second, rather than a five-year average, 

DOE changed to a three-year average 

price for copper materials. DOE made 

this modification based on feedback 

received during manufacturer 

interviews. By reducing to a three-year 

average, DOE eliminated data from 2008 

and 2009, which manufacturers 

believed were unrepresentative data 

points due to the recession. Data from 

those two years had the effect of 

depressing the five-year average 

calculated. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

raised concern about the potential for 

copper price volatility. (NEMA, No. 93 

at p. 12) 

DOE acknowledges that price 

volatility can affect the economic results 

of a standards rulemaking, either in the 

positive or negative direction depending 

on the relative movement of raw 

materials and energy. To diminish the 

effect of volatility on the engineering 

analysis results, DOE used a 3-year 

average for copper, from 2010–2012. 

DOE’s understanding is that 

manufacturers may choose to use 

financial instruments in cases where 

raw material volatility is exceptionally 

high in order to guarantee margins. 

Although DOE has not published a 

formal materials price sensitivity in this 

rulemaking, it observes that for the 

highest ELs examined across all 

representative units, copper cost 

amount to roughly 3 percent of the 

installed price. At these levels, copper 

would have to more than quadruple in 

price in order to increase installed price 

by 10 percent. At the levels being 

adopted in today’s rule, however, DOE’s 

engineering analysis does not suggest 

significantly increased demand for 

copper and, therefore, does not suggest 

significantly increased exposure to 

volatility in copper price. DOE 

discusses material pricing in greater 

detail in Appendix 5A of the final rule 

TSD. 

b. Labor Rate and Non-Production 

Markup 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

looked at the percentage of electric 

motors imported into the U.S. and the 

percentage of electric motors built 

domestically and calculated the ratio of 

foreign and domestic labor rates on 

these percentages. During the 

preliminary analysis public meeting, 

Nidec commented that the labor rate 

DOE used in its analysis seems high if 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30974 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

60A measure of how efficiently conductor is 

packed into the stator slots, which affects 

efficiency. 

61Labor costs may rise starkly at max-tech levels, 

where hand-winding is employed in order to 

maximize slot fill. DOE’s engineering analysis 

reflects this fact. 62See 78 FR 73633. 63The ‘‘per-unit adder’’ discussed in this section 

refers to a fixed adder for each motor that varies 

based on horsepower and NEMA design letter. Each 

representative unit has their own unique ‘‘per-unit 

adder’’ that is fixed for the analysis. 

that number is weighted towards 

offshore labor. Nidec agreed with DOE’s 

smaller markup on the lowerhorsepower motors, but commented that 

the overall markups seem to be high. 

(Nidec, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at p. 184) 

WEG commented that DOE was 

adequately addressing the cost structure 

variations among the different motor 

manufacturers. Additionally, WEG 

stated that basing a labor rate on both 

foreign and domestic labor rates 

increases accuracy of the analysis, but 

that it could encourage production 

moving outside the United States. 

(WEG, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at pp. 184– 

186) 

In the NOPR, and again in today’s 

final rule, DOE elected to keep the same 

labor rates and markups as were used in 

the preliminary analysis. DOE is basing 

this decision on additional feedback 

received during interviews with 

manufacturers (which suggested that 

DOE’s labor rates and markups are 

appropriate) and the absence of any 

alternative labor rate or markups to 

apply. DOE does not expect that use of 

the most accurate labor rates possible in 

its analyses will contribute to 

outsourcing of jobs in the electric 

motors industry. 

Finally, DOE is aware of potential cost 

increases caused by increased slot fill,60

including the transition to hand-wound 

stators in motors requiring higher slot 

fills. In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

assigned a higher labor hour to any teardown motor which it determined to be 

hand-wound. DOE found that none of 

the tear-down motors were handwound, and, therefore, no hand-winding 

labor-hour amounts were assigned. This 

has been clarified in the final rule 

analysis. Additionally, DOE has 

assumed that all of its max-tech 

software models require hand-winding, 

which is reflected in its increased labor 

time assumptions for those motors. For 

additional details, please see chapter 5 

of the final rule TSD. 

DOE understands that lower-volume 

equipment will often realize higher perunit costs, and has concluded that this 

reality is common to most or all 

manufacturing processes in general. 

Because DOE’s analysis focuses on the 

differential impacts on cost due to 

energy conservation standards, and 

because DOE has no evidence to suggest 

a significant market shift to lower 

production volume equipment in a poststandards scenario, DOE expects that 

the relative mix of high-volume and 

low-volume production would be 

preserved. Indeed, because DOE is 

expanding the scope of coverage and 

bringing many previously excluded 

motor types to premium efficiency 

levels, DOE sees the possibility that 

standardization may increase and that 

average production volume may, in fact, 

rise.61

c. Catalog Prices 

At the preliminary analysis stage, 

NEMA requested that DOE publish the 

purchase price for its torn-down motors, 

so that they could be compared to the 

MSPs DOE derived from its motor teardowns. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 27; Baldor, 

Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at pp. 181, 182) As 

stated in the NOPR62 and reaffirmed 

today, DOE elects not to include the 

purchase price for its torn-down motors. 

DOE believes that such information is 

not relevant and could lead to erroneous 

conclusions. Some of the purchased 

motors were more expensive to 

purchase based on certain features that 

do not affect efficiency, which could 

skew the price curves incorrectly and 

indicate incorrect trends. For these 

reasons, in the engineering analysis, 

DOE develops its own cost model so 

that a consistent cost structure can be 

applied to similar equipment. The 

details of this model are available in 

Appendix 5A of the final rule TSD. 

Because DOE purchased electric motors 

that were built by different 

manufacturers and sold by different 

distributors, who all have different costs 

structures, DOE does not believe that 

such a comparison as NEMA suggests 

would provide a meaningful evaluation. 

d. Product Development Cost 

DOE’s preliminary analysis cost 

model included an incremental markup 

used to account for higher production 

costs associated with manufacturing 

copper die-cast rotors. Although DOE 

used this incremental markup in the 

preliminary analysis, after conducting 

manufacturer interviews, it determined 

that additional cost adders were 

warranted for the examined ELs that 

exceeded the premium efficiency level. 

For the NOPR and final rule, DOE 

developed a per-unit adder 63 for the 

manufacturer production costs (MPCs) 

intended to capture one-time increased 

equipment development and capital 

conversion costs that would likely result 

if an energy conservation standard with 

an efficiency level above premium 

efficiency levels were established. 

DOE’s per-unit adder reflects the 

additional cost passed along to the 

consumer by manufacturers attempting 

to recover the costs incurred from 

having to redevelop their equipment 

lines as a result of higher energy 

conservation standards. The conversion 

costs incurred by manufacturers include 

capital investment (e.g., new tooling and 

machinery), equipment development 

(e.g., reengineering each motor design 

offered), plus testing and compliance 

certification costs. 

The conversion cost adder was only 

applied to ELs above premium 

efficiency based on manufacturer 

feedback. Most manufacturers now offer 

premium efficiency motors for a 

significant portion of their equipment 

lines as a result of EISA 2007, which 

required manufacturers to meet this 

level. Many manufacturers also offer 

certain ratings with efficiency levels 

higher than premium efficiency. 

However, DOE is not aware of any 

manufacturer with a complete line of 

motors above premium efficiency. 

Consequently, DOE believes that energy 

conservation standards above premium 

efficiency would result in 

manufacturers incurring significant 

conversion costs to bring offerings of 

electric motors up to the higher 

standard. 

DOE developed the various 

conversion costs from data collected 

during manufacturer interviews that 

were conducted for the Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis (MIA). For more 

information on the MIA, see chapter 12 

of the final rule TSD. DOE used the 

manufacturer-supplied data to estimate 

industry-wide capital conversion costs 

and equipment conversion costs for 

each EL above premium efficiency. DOE 

then assumed that manufacturers would 

mark up their motors to recover the total 

conversion costs over a seven-year 

period. By dividing industry-wide 

conversion costs by seven years of 

expected industry-wide revenue, DOE 

obtained a percentage estimate of how 

much each motor would be marked up 

by manufacturers. The conversion costs 

as a percentage of seven-year revenue 

that DOE derived for each NEMA band 

above premium efficiency are shown 

below. Details on these calculations are 

shown in Chapter 5 of the final rule 

TSD. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30975 

TABLE IV.15—PRODUCT CONVERSION

COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF 7- 

YEAR REVENUE

NEMA Bands above 

premium efficiency 

Conversion costs 

as a percentage 

of 7-year revenue 

1 ...................................... 4.1% 

2 ...................................... 6.5% 

The percentage markup was then 

applied to the full production cost 

(direct material + direct labor + 

overhead) at the premium efficiency 

levels to derive the per-unit adder for 

levels above premium efficiency (see 

Table IV.16). DOE received no 

comments in response to the NOPR and 

maintained its approach for the final 

rule. 

TABLE IV.16—PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS FOR EFFICIENCY LEVELS ABOVE PREMIUM EFFICIENCY

Representative unit 

Per-unit adder 

for 1 band above 

premium efficiency (2013$) 

Per-unit adder 

for 2 bands 

above premium 

efficiency 

(2013$) 

5 hp, Design B ................................................................................................................................................. $11.06 $17.36 

30 hp, Design B ............................................................................................................................................... 32.89 51.61 

75 hp, Design B ............................................................................................................................................... 66.18 103.86 

5 hp, Design C ................................................................................................................................................. 10.68 16.75 

50 hp, Design C ............................................................................................................................................... 60.59 95.08 

7. Engineering Analysis Results 

The results of the engineering analysis 

are reported as cost-versus-efficiency 

data in the form of MSP (in dollars) 

versus nominal full-load efficiency (in 

percentage). These data form the basis 

for subsequent analyses in today’s 

notice. Table IV.17 through Table IV.21 

show the results of DOE’s updated 

engineering analysis. 

Results for Equipment Class Group 1 

(NEMA Design A and B Motors) 

TABLE IV.17—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 5-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT

Efficiency level Efficiency 

(%) 

Manufacturer 

selling price 

(2013$) 

EL 0 (Baseline) ................................................................................................................................................ 82.5 333 

EL 1 (EPACT 1992) ......................................................................................................................................... 87.5 344 

EL 2 (Premium Efficiency) ............................................................................................................................... 89.5 371 

EL 3 (Best-in-Market) ...................................................................................................................................... 90.2 406 

EL 4 (Max-Tech) .............................................................................................................................................. 91.0 677 

TABLE IV.18—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 30-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT

Efficiency level Efficiency 

(%) 

Manufacturer 

selling price 

(2013$) 

EL 0 (Baseline) ................................................................................................................................................ 89.5 856 

EL 1 (EPACT 1992) ......................................................................................................................................... 92.4 1,096 

EL 2 (Premium Efficiency) ............................................................................................................................... 93.6 1,168 

EL 3 (Best-in-Market) ...................................................................................................................................... 94.1 1,308 

EL 4 (Max-Tech) .............................................................................................................................................. 94.5 2,077 

TABLE IV.19—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 75-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT

Efficiency level Efficiency 

(%) 

Manufacturer 

selling price 

(2013$) 

EL 0 (Baseline) ................................................................................................................................................ 93.0 1,910 

EL 1 (EPACT 1992) ......................................................................................................................................... 94.1 2,068 

EL 2 (Premium Efficiency) ............................................................................................................................... 95.4 2,351 

EL 3 (Best-in-Market) ...................................................................................................................................... 95.8 2,804 

EL 4 (Max-Tech) .............................................................................................................................................. 96.2 3,656 

Results for Equipment Class Group 2 

(NEMA Design C Motors) 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30976 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.20—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 5-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT

Efficiency level Efficiency 

(%) 

Manufacturer 

selling price 

(2013$) 

EL 0 (Baseline/EPACT 1992) .......................................................................................................................... 87.5 334 

EL 1 (Premium Efficiency) ............................................................................................................................... 89.5 358 

EL 2 (Max-Tech) .............................................................................................................................................. 91.0 627 

TABLE IV.21—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 50-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT

Efficiency level Efficiency 

(%) 

Manufacturer 

selling price 

(2013$) 

EL 0 (Baseline/EPACT 1992) .......................................................................................................................... 93.0 1,552 

EL 1 (Premium Efficiency) ............................................................................................................................... 94.5 2,152 

EL 2 (Max-Tech) .............................................................................................................................................. 95.0 2,612 

Results for Equipment Class Group 3 

(Fire Pump Electric Motors) 

TABLE IV.22—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 5-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT

Efficiency level Efficiency 

(%) 

Manufacturer 

selling price 

(2013$) 

EL 0 (Baseline/EPACT 1992) .......................................................................................................................... 87.5 344 

EL 1 (Premium Efficiency) ............................................................................................................................... 89.5 371 

EL 2 (Best-in-Market) ...................................................................................................................................... 90.2 406 

EL 3 (Max-Tech) .............................................................................................................................................. 91.0 677 

TABLE IV.23—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 30-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT

Efficiency level Efficiency 

(%) 

Manufacturer 

selling price 

(2013$) 

EL 0 (Baseline/EPACT 1992) .......................................................................................................................... 92.4 1,096 

EL 1 (Premium Efficiency) ............................................................................................................................... 93.6 1,168 

EL 2 (Best-in-Market) ...................................................................................................................................... 94.1 1,308 

EL 3 (Max-Tech) .............................................................................................................................................. 94.5 2,077 

TABLE IV.24—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 75-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT

Efficiency level Efficiency 

(%) 

Manufacturer 

selling price 

(2013$) 

EL 0 (Baseline/EPACT 1992) .......................................................................................................................... 94.1 2,068 

EL 1 (Premium Efficiency) ............................................................................................................................... 95.4 2,351 

EL 2 (Best-in-Market) ...................................................................................................................................... 95.8 2,804 

EL 3 (Max-Tech) .............................................................................................................................................. 96.2 3,656 

8. Scaling Methodology 

Once DOE has identified costefficiency relationships for its 

representative units, it must 

appropriately scale the efficiencies 

analyzed for its representative units to 

those equipment classes not directly 

analyzed. DOE recognizes that scaling 

motor efficiencies is a complicated 

proposition that has the potential to 

result in efficiency standards that are 

not evenly stringent across all 

equipment classes. However, between 

DOE’s three ECGs, there are 482 

equipment classes, reflecting the various 

combinations of horsepower rating, pole 

configuration, and enclosure. Within 

these combinations, there are a large 

number of standardized frame number 

series. Given the sizable number of 

frame number series and equipment 

classes, DOE cannot feasibly analyze all 

of these variants directly, hence, the 

need for scaling. Thus, scaling across 

horsepower ratings, pole configurations, 

enclosures, and frame number series is 

a necessity. 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered two methods to scaling, one 

that develops a set of power law 

equations based on the relationships 

found in the EPACT 1992 and Premium 

tables of efficiency in MG 1, and one 

based on the incremental improvement 

in motor losses. As discussed in the 

preliminary analysis, DOE did not find 

a large discrepancy between the results 

of the two approaches and, therefore, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30977 

64RS Means (2013), Electrical Cost Data, 36th 

Annual Edition (Available at: http://

www.rsmeans.com). 

65 Database of motor nameplate and field 

measurement data compiled by the Washington 

State University Extension Energy Program (WSU) 

and Applied Proactive Technologies (APT) under 

contract with the New York State Energy Research 

and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2011. 

used the simpler, incremental 

improvement in motor losses approach 

in its final rule analysis. 

As discussed in section IV.C.3, some 

of the ELs analyzed by DOE were based 

on existing efficiency standards (i.e., 

EPACT 1992 and premium efficiency). 

Additionally, the baseline EL is based 

on the lowest efficiency levels found for 

each horsepower rating, pole 

configuration, and enclosure type 

observed in motor catalog data. 

Therefore, DOE only required the use of 

scaling when developing the two ELs 

above premium efficiency (only one EL 

above premium efficiency for ECG 2). 

For the higher ELs in ECG 1, DOE’s 

scaling approach relies on NEMA MG 

1–2011 Table 12–10 of nominal 

efficiencies and the relative 

improvement in motor losses of the 

representative units. As has been 

discussed, each incremental 

improvement in NEMA nominal 

efficiency (or NEMA band) corresponds 

to roughly a 10-percent reduction in 

motor losses. After ELs 3 and 4 were 

developed for each representative unit, 

DOE applied the same reduction in 

motor losses (or the same number of 

NEMA band improvements) to various 

segments of the market based on its 

representative units. DOE assigned a 

segment of the electric motors market, 

based on horsepower ratings, to each 

representative unit analyzed. DOE’s 

assignments of these segments of the 

markets were in part based on the 

standardized NEMA frame number 

series that NEMA MG 1–2011 assigns to 

horsepower and pole combinations. In 

the end, EL 3 corresponded to a one 

band improvement relative to premium 

efficiency level, and EL 4 corresponded 

to a two-band improvement relative to 

premium efficiency level. 

DOE maintains that scaling is a tool 

necessary to analyze the potential 

effects of energy conservation standards 

above premium efficiency levels. As 

stated earlier, DOE is evaluating energy 

conservation standards for 482 

equipment classes. DOE acknowledges 

that analyzing every one of these classes 

individually is not feasible, which 

requires DOE to choose representative 

units on which to base its analysis. 

Consequently, DOE has concluded that 

scaling is necessary and suitable for 

establishing appropriate efficiency 

levels for new or amended energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors. 

However, DOE notes that its analysis 

neither assumes nor requires 

manufacturers to use identical 

technology for all motor types and 

horsepower ratings. In other words, 

although DOE may choose a certain set 

of technologies to estimate cost behavior 

at varying efficiencies, DOE’s standards 

are technology-neutral and permit 

manufacturers design flexibility. DOE 

clarifies that the national impacts 

analysis is one of the primary ways in 

which DOE analyses those potential 

efficiency levels and determines if they 

would be economically justified. As 

DOE has stated, it is also important that 

the levels be technically feasible. In 

order to maintain technical feasibility, 

DOE has maintained the scaling 

approach that it developed for the 

preliminary analysis, which 

accomplishes that objective while 

maintaining the use of NEMA nominal 

efficiencies. For each incremental EL 

above the premium efficiency level, 

DOE has incremented possible 

efficiency levels by just one band of 

efficiency. Through the use of this 

conservative approach to scaling, DOE 

believes that it has helped ensure the 

technological feasibility of each of its 

ELs to the greatest extent practicable. 

DOE received no comments in response 

to the NOPR on this issue and has 

maintained its approach for the final 

rule. 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups in the distribution 

chain to convert the estimates of 

manufacturer selling price derived in 

the engineering analysis to customer 

prices (the term ‘‘customer’’ refers to 

purchasers of the equipment being 

regulated). For the NOPR, DOE 

determined the distribution channels for 

electric motors, the percentage of 

shipments sold through either of these 

channels, and the markups associated 

with the main parties in the distribution 

chain (distributors and contractors). 

Several stakeholders, including 

NEMA and NEEA, commented that the 

OEM distribution channel 

(manufacturer to OEM to end-user), 

which represents the distribution 

channel for 50 percent of shipments, is 

further divided into shipments going 

directly to the user (25 percent) and 

shipments going through a distributor 

and then to the customer (25 percent). 

(WEG, NEMA, NEEA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 

87 at p. 131) For the final rule, DOE 

modified its distribution channels in 

accordance with the channels and 

shares described by the commenters. 

DOE developed average distributor 

and contractor markups by examining 

the contractor cost estimates provided 

by RS Means Electrical Cost Data 

2013.64 DOE calculates baseline and 

overall incremental markups based on 

the equipment markups at each step in 

the distribution chain. The incremental 

markup relates the change in the 

manufacturer sales price of higherefficiency models (the incremental cost 

increase) to the change in the customer 

price. Chapter 6 of the final rule TSD 

addresses estimating markups. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

The energy use analysis provides 

estimates of the annual energy 

consumption of commercial and 

industrial electric motors at the 

considered efficiency levels. DOE uses 

these values in the LCC and PBP 

analyses and in the NIA. DOE 

developed energy consumption 

estimates for all equipment analyzed in 

the engineering analysis. 

The annual energy consumption of an 

electric motor that has a given nominal 

full-load efficiency depends on the 

electric motor’s sector (industry, 

agriculture, or commercial) and 

application (compressor, fans, pumps, 

material handling, fire pumps, and 

others), which in turn determine the 

electric motor’s annual operating hours 

and load. 

To calculate the annual kilowatthours (kWh) consumed at each 

efficiency level in each equipment class, 

DOE used the nominal efficiencies at 

various loads from the engineering 

analysis, along with estimates of 

operating hours and electric motor load 

for electric motors in various sectors 

and applications. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE used 

statistical information on annual electric 

motor operating hours and load derived 

from a database of more than 15,000 

individual motor field assessments 

obtained through the Washington State 

University and the New York State 

Energy Research and Development 

Authority 65 to determine the variation 

in field energy use in the industrial 

sector. For the agricultural and the 

commercial sectors, DOE relied on data 

found in the literature. 

As part of its NOPR analysis, for the 

industrial sector, DOE re-examined its 

initial usage profiles and recalculated 

motor distribution across applications, 

operating hours, and load information 

based on additional motor field data 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30978 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

66Strategic Energy Group (January, 2008), 

Northwest Industrial Motor Database Summary. 

From Regional Technical Forum. Retrieved March 

5, 2013 from http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/

subcommittees/osumotor/Default.htm. 

67 Vaughen’s (2011, 2013), Vaughen’s Motor & 

Pump Repair Price Guide, 2011, 2013 Edition. 

http://www.vaughens.com/. 

compiled by the Industrial Assessment 

Center at the University of Oregon,66

which includes over 20,000 individual 

motor records. For the agricultural 

sector, DOE revised its average annual 

operating hours assumptions based on 

additional data found in the literature. 

No changes were made to the 

commercial sector average annual 

operating hours. 

In response to the NOPR, DOE did not 

receive any comments regarding the 

energy use analysis and retained the 

same approach for the final rule. 

Chapter 7 of the final rule TSD describes 

the energy use analysis in further detail. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

For each representative unit analyzed 

in the engineering analysis, DOE 

conducts LCC and PBP analyses to 

evaluate the economic impacts on 

individual customers of potential energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors. The LCC is the total customer 

expense over the life of the motor, 

consisting of equipment and installation 

costs plus operating costs over the 

lifetime of the equipment (expenses for 

energy use, maintenance and repair). 

DOE discounts future operating costs to 

the time of purchase using customer 

discount rates. The PBP is the estimated 

amount of time (in years) it takes 

customers to recover the increased total 

installed cost (including equipment and 

installation costs) of a more efficient 

type of equipment through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in total installed 

cost (normally higher) due to a standard 

by the change in annual operating cost 

(normally lower) which results from the 

standard. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the PBP and the change in 

LCC relative to an estimate of the basecase efficiency levels. The base-case 

estimate reflects the market in the 

absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards, including the 

market for equipment that exceeds the 

current energy conservation standards. 

For each representative unit, DOE 

calculated the LCC and PBP for a 

distribution of individual electric 

motors across a range of operating 

conditions. DOE used Monte Carlo 

simulations to model the distributions 

of inputs. The Monte Carlo process 

statistically captures input variability 

and distribution without testing all 

possible input combinations. Therefore, 

while some atypical situations may not 

be captured in the analysis, DOE 

believes the analysis captures an 

adequate range of situations in which 

electric motors operate. 

The following sections contain brief 

discussions of comments on the inputs 

and key assumptions of DOE’s LCC and 

PBP analysis and explain how DOE took 

these comments into consideration. 

1. Equipment Costs 

In the LCC and PBP analysis, the 

equipment costs faced by electric motor 

purchasers are derived from the MSPs 

estimated in the engineering analysis 

and the overall markups estimated in 

the markups analysis. 

To forecast a price trend for the NOPR 

analysis, DOE derived an inflationadjusted index of the producer price 

index (PPI) for integral horsepower 

motors and generators manufacturing 

from 1969 to 2011. These data show a 

long-term decline in the PPI from 1985 

to 2003, and a steep increase in the PPI 

since then. DOE also examined a 

forecast based on the ‘‘chained price 

index—industrial equipment’’ that was 

forecasted for AEO2013 out to 2040. 

This index is the most disaggregated 

category that includes electric motors. 

These data show a short-term increase 

in the PPI from 2011 to 2015, and then 

a steep decrease. DOE believes that 

there is considerable uncertainty as to 

whether the recent increasing trend has 

peaked, and would be followed by a 

return to the previous long-term 

declining trend, or whether the recent 

trend represents the beginning of a longterm rising trend due to global demand 

for electric motors and rising 

commodity costs for key motor 

components. Given the uncertainty, 

DOE chose to use constant prices for 

both its LCC and PBP analysis and the 

NIA. For the NIA, DOE also analyzed 

the sensitivity of results to alternative 

electric motor price forecasts. 

DOE did not receive comments on the 

trend it used for electric motor prices, 

and it retained the approach used in the 

NOPR analysis for the final rule. 

2. Installation Costs 

In the NOPR analysis, the engineering 

analysis showed that for some 

representative units, increased 

efficiency led to increased stack length. 

However, the electric motor frame 

remained in the same NEMA frame size 

requirements as the baseline electric 

motor, and the motor’s ‘‘C’’ dimension 

remained fairly constant across 

efficiency levels. In addition, electric 

motor installation cost data from RS 

Means Electrical Cost Data 2013 showed 

a variation in installation costs by 

horsepower (for three-phase electric 

motors), but not by efficiency. 

Therefore, in the NOPR analysis, DOE 

assumed there is no variation in 

installation costs between a baseline 

efficiency electric motor and a higher 

efficiency electric motor. 

DOE did not receive comments on the 

installation costs it used for electric 

motors, and it retained the approach 

used in the NOPR analysis for the final 

rule. 

3. Maintenance Costs 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE did not 

find data indicating a variation in 

maintenance costs between a baseline 

efficiency and higher efficiency electric 

motor. According to data from 

Vaughen’s Price Publishing Company,67

which publishes an industry reference 

guide on motor repair pricing, the price 

of replacing bearings, which is the most 

common maintenance practice, is the 

same at all efficiency levels. Therefore, 

DOE did not consider maintenance costs 

for electric motors. DOE did not receive 

comments on this issue and retained the 

approach used for the NOPR analysis for 

the final rule. 

4. Repair Costs 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE accounted 

for the differences in repair costs of a 

higher efficiency motor compared to a 

baseline efficiency motor and defined a 

repair as including a rewind and 

reconditioning. Based on data from 

Vaughen’s, DOE derived a model to 

estimate repair costs by horsepower, 

enclosure and pole, for each EL. 

The Electrical Apparatus Service 

Association (EASA), which represents 

the electric motor repair service sector, 

noted that DOE should clarify the 

definition of repair as including 

rewinding and reconditioning. (EASA, 

No. 86 at p. 1) DOE agrees with this 

suggestion and defines a motor repair as 

repair including rewinding and 

reconditioning. 

5. Unit Energy Consumption 

The analysis used in the final rule 

uses the same approach for determining 

unit energy consumptions (UECs) as the 

NOPR analysis. The UEC was 

determined for each application and 

sector based on estimated load points 

and annual operating hours. 

6. Electricity Prices and Electricity Price 

Trends 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE derived 

sector-specific weighted average 

electricity prices for four different U.S. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30979 

68U.S. Department of Energy Information 

Administration (2003), Commercial Buildings 

Energy Consumption Survey, http://www.eia.gov/

consumption/commercial/data/2003/pdf/a4.pdf. 

69Robert Boteler, USA Motor Update 2009, 

Energy Efficient Motor Driven Systems Conference 

(EEMODS) 2009. 

Bureau of the Census (Census) regions 

(Northeast, Midwest, South, and West) 

using data from the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA Form 861). For 

each utility in a region, DOE used the 

average industrial or commercial price, 

and then weighted the price by the 

number of customers in each sector for 

each utility. 

For each representative motor, DOE 

assigned electricity prices using a Monte 

Carlo approach that incorporated 

weightings based on the estimated share 

of electric motors in each region. The 

regional shares were derived based on 

indicators specific to each sector (e.g., 

commercial floor space from the 

Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey for the commercial 

sector 68) and assumed to remain 

constant over time. To estimate future 

trends in energy prices, DOE used 

projections from the EIA’s Annual 

Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO 2013). DOE 

did not receive any comments regarding 

the electricity prices and today’s 

rulemaking retains the same approach 

for determining electricity prices. 

7. Lifetime 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE estimated 

the mechanical lifetime of electric 

motors in hours (i.e., the total number 

of hours an electric motor operates 

throughout its lifetime), depending on 

its horsepower size and sector of 

application. DOE then developed 

Weibull distributions of mechanical 

lifetimes. The lifetime in years for a 

sampled electric motor was then 

calculated by dividing the sampled 

mechanical lifetime by the sampled 

annual operating hours of the electric 

motor. DOE did not receive any 

comments regarding lifetimes and 

retained the same approach and lifetime 

assumptions for the final rule. 

8. Discount Rate 

DOE did not receive any comments 

regarding discount rates and retained 

the same approach as used in the NOPR 

for the final rule. The discount rate is 

the rate at which future expenditures 

are discounted to estimate their present 

value. The cost of capital commonly is 

used to estimate the present value of 

cash flows to be derived from a typical 

company project or investment. Most 

companies use both debt and equity 

capital to fund investments, so the cost 

of capital is the weighted-average cost to 

the firm of equity and debt financing. 

DOE uses the capital asset pricing 

model (CAPM) to calculate the equity 

capital component, and financial data 

sources to calculate the cost of debt 

financing. 

For today’s rulemaking, DOE 

estimated a statistical distribution of 

industrial and commercial customer 

discount rates by calculating the average 

cost of capital for the different types of 

electric motor owners (e.g., chemical 

industry, food processing, and paper 

industry). For the agricultural sector, 

DOE assumed similar discount rates as 

in industry. More details regarding 

DOE’s estimates of motor customer 

discount rates are provided in chapter 8 

of the TSD. 

9. Base Case Market Efficiency 

Distributions 

For the LCC analysis, DOE analyzed 

the considered motor efficiency levels 

relative to a base case (i.e., the case 

without new or amended energy 

efficiency standards). This requires an 

estimate of the distribution of 

equipment efficiencies in the base case 

(i.e., what consumers would have 

purchased in the compliance year in the 

absence of new standards). DOE refers 

to this distribution of equipment energy 

efficiencies as the base case efficiency 

distribution. 

Data on motor sales by efficiency are 

not available. In the preliminary 

analysis, DOE used the number of 

models meeting the requirements of 

each efficiency level from six major 

manufacturers and one distributor’s 

catalog data to develop the base-case 

efficiency distributions. The 

distribution is estimated separately for 

each equipment class group and 

horsepower range and was assumed 

constant and equal to 2012 throughout 

the analysis period. 

For the NOPR, DOE retained the same 

approach to estimate the base case 

efficiency distribution in 2012, but it 

updated the base case efficiency 

distributions to account for the NOPR 

engineering analysis (revised ELs) and 

for the update in the scope of electric 

motors considered in the analysis. 

Beyond 2012, DOE assumed the 

efficiency distributions for equipment 

class group 1 and 4 vary over time based 

on historical data 69 for the market 

penetration of Premium motors within 

the market for integral alternating 

current induction motors. For 

equipment class groups 2 and 3, which 

represent a very minor share of the 

market (less than 0.2 percent), DOE 

believes the overall trend in efficiency 

improvement for the total integral AC 

induction motors may not be 

representative, so DOE kept the base 

case efficiency distributions in the 

compliance year equal to 2012 levels. 

DOE did not receive additional 

comments and retained the same 

approach for the final rule. 

10. Compliance Date 

DOE calculated customer impacts as if 

each new electric motor purchase 

occurs in the year that manufacturers 

must comply with the standard. As 

discussed in section III.A, any amended 

standard for electric motors shall apply 

to electric motors manufactured on or 

after June 1, 2016. DOE has chosen to 

retain the same compliance date for 

both the amended and new energy 

conservation standards to simplify the 

requirements and to avoid any potential 

confusion for manufacturers. 

11. Payback Period Inputs 

The payback period is the amount of 

time it takes the consumer to recover the 

additional installed cost of more 

efficient equipment, compared to 

baseline equipment, through energy cost 

savings. Payback periods are expressed 

in years. Payback periods that exceed 

the life of the equipment mean that the 

increased total installed cost is not 

recovered in reduced operating 

expenses. DOE did not receive any 

comments regarding the PBP 

calculation. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation are 

the total installed cost of the equipment 

to the customer for each efficiency level 

and the average annual operating 

expenditures for each efficiency level. 

The PBP calculation uses the same 

inputs as the LCC analysis, except that 

discount rates are not needed as it only 

takes into account the totaled installed 

costs and the first year of operating 

expenses. 

12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

EPCA establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing equipment 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy (and, as 

applicable, water) savings during the 

first year that the consumer will receive 

as a result of the standard, as calculated 

under the test procedure in place for 

that standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a)) For each 

considered efficiency level, DOE 

determines the value of the first year’s 

energy savings by calculating the 

quantity of those savings in accordance 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30980 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

70 DOE assumed that 60 percent of pumps, fans 

and compressor applications are variable torque 

applications. Of these 60 percent, DOE assumed 

that all fans and a majority (70 percent) of 

compressors and pumps would be negatively 

impacted by higher operating speeds; and that 30 

percent of compressors and pumps would not be 

negatively impacted from higher operating speeds 

as their time of use would decrease as the flow 

increases with the speed (e.g. a pump filling a 

reservoir). 

71 IMS Research (February 2012), The World 

Market for Low Voltage Motors, 2012 Edition 

(Available at: http://www.imsresearch.com/report/

Motor_Drives_Low_Voltage_World_2012). 72Bureau of Economic Analysis (March 1, 2012), 

Private Fixed Investment in Equipment and 

Software by Type and Private Fixed Investment in 

Structures by Type (Available at: http://

www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=12&step=1). 73Business Trend Analysts, The Motor and 

Generator Industry, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau 

(November 2004), Motors and Generators— 

2003.MA335H(03)–1 (Available at: http://

www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/

discontinued/ma335h/index.html); and U.S. Census 

Bureau (August 2003), Motors and Generators— 

2002.MA335H(02)–1 (Available at: http://

www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/

discontinued/ma335h/ma335h02.xls). 

74 DOE’s use of spreadsheet models provides 

interested parties with access to the models within 

a familiar context. In addition, the TSD and other 

documentation that DOE provides during the 

rulemaking help explain the models and how to use 

them, and interested parties can review DOE’s 

analyses by changing various input quantities 

within the spreadsheet. 

with the applicable DOE test procedure, 

and multiplying that amount by the 

average energy price forecast for the 

year in which compliance with the new 

or amended standards would be 

required. 

13. Comments on Other Issues 

In response to DOE’s request for 

comments regarding whether there are 

features or attributes of the more 

efficient electric motors that could 

impact how customers use their 

equipment. NEMA commented that 

higher efficiency motors could have 

increased inrush currents, reduced 

starting torque, longer frames, and 

higher speeds. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 15). 

DOE acknowledges that some 

manufacturers may choose to produce 

higher efficiency motors in a way that 

could impact the inrush current, starting 

torque, frame size, and speed. However, 

in the engineering analysis, for all 

efficiency levels, DOE analyzed motors 

that remain within the NEMA Design B 

design requirements for inrush currents 

and torque characteristics and kept the 

frame size constant. Therefore, DOE 

maintained installation costs constant 

across all efficiency levels (see section 

IV.F.2) 

With respect to the potential for 

higher efficiency motors having higher 

speed, DOE acknowledges that this 

could occur and affect the benefits 

gained by using efficient electric motors. 

Although it is possible to quantify this 

impact for an individual motor, DOE 

was not able to extend this analysis to 

the national level because DOE does not 

have robust data related to the overall 

share of motors that would be negatively 

impacted by higher speeds. Instead, 

DOE developed assumptions 70 and 

estimated the effects of higher operating 

speeds as a sensitivity analysis in the 

LCC spreadsheet (see appendix 7–A of 

the final TSD). 

G. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of equipment 

shipments to calculate the national 

impacts of standards on energy use, 

NPV, and future manufacturer cash 

flows. DOE develops shipment 

projections based on historical data and 

an analysis of key market drivers for 

each type of equipment. 

To populate the model with current 

data, DOE used data from a market 

research report,71 confidential inputs 

from manufacturers, trade associations, 

and other interested parties’ responses 

to the 2011 RFI. DOE then used 

estimates of market distributions to 

redistribute the shipments across pole 

configurations, horsepower, and 

enclosures within each electric motor 

equipment class and also by sector. 

DOE’s shipments projection assumes 

that electric motor sales are driven by 

machinery production growth for 

equipment, including motors. DOE 

estimated that growth rates for total 

motor shipments correlate to growth 

rates in fixed investment in equipment 

and structures including motors, which 

is provided by the U.S. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis (BEA).72 Projections 

of real gross domestic product (GDP) 

from AEO 2013 for 2015–2040 were 

used to project fixed investments in 

equipment and structures including 

motors. The current market 

distributions are maintained over the 

forecast period. 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE 

collected data on historical series of 

shipment quantities and values for the 

1990–2003 period, but concluded that 

the data were not sufficient to estimate 

motor price elasticity.73 Consequently, 

DOE assumed zero price elasticity for all 

efficiency standards cases and did not 

estimate any impact of potential 

standards levels on shipments. DOE 

requested stakeholder recommendations 

on data sources to help better estimate 

the impacts of increased efficiency 

levels on shipments. DOE did not 

receive further comments on this issue 

and retained the same approach for the 

final rule. 

Including the NOPR’s proposed 

expansion of motor coverage, DOE 

estimates total in-scope shipments were 

5.43 million units in 2011. DOE did not 

receive any NOPR comments on 

shipments and maintained the same 

estimate for the final rule. For further 

information on DOE’s shipments 

analysis, see chapter 9 of the final rule 

TSD. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the national energy 

savings (NES) and the national NPV of 

total customer costs and savings that 

would be expected to result from new 

and amended standards at specific 

efficiency levels. 

To make the analysis more accessible 

and transparent to all interested parties, 

DOE used a spreadsheet model to 

calculate the energy savings and the 

national customer costs and savings 

from each TSL.74 The NES and NPV are 

based on the annual energy 

consumption and total installed cost 

data from the energy use analysis and 

the LCC analysis. DOE forecasted the 

lifetime energy savings, energy cost 

savings, equipment costs, and NPV of 

customer benefits for each equipment 

class for equipment sold from 2016 

through 2045. In addition, DOE 

analyzed scenarios that used inputs 

from the AEO 2013 Low Economic 

Growth and High Economic Growth 

cases. These cases have higher and 

lower energy price trends compared to 

the reference case. 

DOE evaluated the impacts of 

potential new and amended standards 

for electric motors by comparing basecase projections with standards-case 

projections. The base-case projections 

characterize energy use and customer 

costs for each equipment class in the 

absence of new and amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE compared 

these projections with projections 

characterizing the market for each 

equipment class if DOE were to adopt 

new or amended standards at specific 

energy efficiency levels (i.e., the 

standards cases) for that class. 

Table IV.25 summarizes all the major 

NOPR analysis inputs to the NIA and 

whether those inputs were revised for 

the final rule. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30981 

TABLE IV.25—INPUTS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Input NOPR Analysis description Changes for final rule 

Shipments ...................................... Annual shipments from shipments model. ............................................. No change. 

Compliance date of standard ......... 2016 ........................................................................................................ No change. 

Equipment Classes ........................ Four separate equipment class groups for NEMA Design A and B motors, NEMA Design C motors, Fire Electric Pump Motors, and brake 

motors.

Three separate equipment class 

groups. Brake motors were 

added to ECG 1 (NEMA Design 

A and B motors). 

Base case efficiencies ................... Constant efficiency from 2015 through 2044 for ECG 2 and 3.Trend 

for the efficiency distribution of ECG 1 and 4.

No change in methodology. Constant efficiency from 2016 

through 2045 for ECG 2 and 

3.Trend for the efficiency distribution of ECG 1. 

Standards case efficiencies ........... Constant efficiency from 2015 through 2044 for ECG 2 and 3.Trend 

for the efficiency distribution of ECG 1 and 4.

No change in methodology. Constant efficiency from 2016 

through 2045 for ECG 2 and 

3.Trend for the efficiency distribution of ECG 1. 

Annual energy consumption per 

unit.

Average unit energy use data are calculated for each horsepower rating and equipment class based on inputs from the Energy use analysis..No change. 

Total installed cost per unit ............ Based on the MSP and weight data from the engineering, and then 

scaled for different hp and enclosure categories..

No change. 

Electricity expense per unit ............ Annual energy use for each equipment class is multiplied by the corresponding average energy price..No change. 

Escalation of electricity prices ........ AEO 2013 forecasts (to 2035) and extrapolation for 2044 and beyond. No change. 

Electricity site-to-primary conversion.A time series conversion factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and distribution losses..No change. 

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

Present year ................................... 2013. ....................................................................................................... 2014. 

1. Efficiency Trends 

As explained in section IV.F, for the 

NOPR, DOE assumed that the efficiency 

distributions in the base case for ECGs 

1 changes over time. The projected 

share of 1 to 5 horsepower Premium 

motors (EL 2) for equipment class 

subgroup 1.a. grows from 36.6 percent 

to 45.5 percent over the analysis period, 

and for equipment class subgroup 1.b., 

it grows from 30.0 percent to 38.9 

percent. For ECG 2 and 3, DOE assumed 

that the efficiency remains constant 

from 2016 to 2045. 

In the standards cases, equipment 

with efficiency below the standard 

levels ‘‘roll up’’ to the standard level in 

the compliance year. Thereafter, for ECG 

1, DOE assumed that the level 

immediately above the standard would 

show a similar increase in market 

penetration as the Premium motors in 

the base case. 

The Joint Advocates commented that 

DOE’s ‘‘rollup’’ scenario will lead to 

conservative energy saving estimates 

and given that some manufacturers 

already offer motors with efficiency 

levels above Premium, one would 

expect that the adoption of standards at 

or above Premium would accelerate the 

interest in more efficient motor designs. 

(Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 3) 

The ‘‘rollup’’ scenario was used to 

establish the efficiency distributions in 

the compliance year. Thereafter, for 

ECGs 1, DOE used a shift scenario and 

assumed that the level immediately 

above the standard would show a 

similar increase in market penetration 

as the Premium motors in the base case. 

This approach aligns with the Joint 

Advocates’ suggestion. DOE did not 

receive any other comments on 

efficiency trends and, consequently, 

retained the same approach for the final 

rule. The assumed efficiency trends in 

the base case and standards cases are 

described in chapter 10 of the TSD. 

2. National Energy Savings 

For each year in the forecast period, 

DOE calculates the national energy 

savings for each standard level by 

multiplying the shipments of electric 

motors affected by the energy 

conservation standards by the per-unit 

lifetime annual energy savings. 

Cumulative energy savings are the sum 

of the NES for all motors shipped during 

the analysis period, 2016–2045. 

DOE estimated energy consumption 

and savings based on site energy and 

converted the electricity consumption 

and savings to primary energy (power 

plant energy use) using annual 

conversion factors derived from the 

AEO 2013 version of the NEMS. 

DOE has historically presented NES 

in terms of primary energy savings. In 

response to the recommendations of a 

committee on ‘‘Point-of-Use and FullFuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to 

Energy Efficiency Standards’’ appointed 

by the National Academy of Science, 

DOE announced its intention to use fullfuel-cycle (FFC) measures of energy use 

and greenhouse gas and other emissions 

in the national impact analyses and 

emissions analyses included in future 

energy conservation standards 

rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (August 18, 

2011). After evaluating the approaches 

discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, 

DOE published a statement of amended 

policy in the Federal Register in which 

DOE explained its determination that 

NEMS is the most appropriate tool for 

its FFC analysis and its intention to use 

NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 

(August 17, 2012). The approach used 

for today’s final rule, and the FFC 

multipliers that were applied, are 

described in appendix 10–C of the final 

TSD. 

3. Electric Motor Weights 

NEMA commented that motors vary 

greatly when it comes to frame length, 

thickness, material and weights for 

comparable ratings. It disagreed a with 

the motor weight estimates as performed 

by DOE. NEMA stated that there are too 

many variables to accurately determine 

weights relative to motor performance 

attributes. NEMA listed variables such 

as the construction material for the 

frame (iron, steel, and aluminum), the 

casting variations (robust, thin), the 

inclusion of packaging weight in the 

total weight, and other variations in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30982 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

75For example, in the case of a 50 horsepower 

motor, a standard deviation equal to 18 percent of 

the average weight was observed. 

76OMB Circular A–4, section E (September 17, 

2003). http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4. 

construction practices. NEMA did not 

provide an alternative method or 

additional information that could be 

used to refine the approach DOE used 

for estimating weights. (NEMA, No. 93 

at pp. 6–7) 

Weight data are used to estimate 

shipping costs, which are a component 

of the total installed cost used to 

calculate the life cycle cost. The LCC 

results show that the average shipping 

costs represent a small fraction of the 

total installed costs (about 15 percent) 

and less than one percent of the total 

life cycle cost. While manufacturer 

catalogs contain weight data, these data 

showed some variations in weights.75

To account for these variations, DOE 

performed a sensitivity analysis to 

evaluate the impacts of lower and 

higher weight assumptions. Since the 

shipping costs are such a small fraction 

of the LCC, the variations in weights did 

not significantly impact the results. 

Therefore, DOE retained the same 

approach for establishing weights for 

motors configurations not directly 

analyzed in the engineering analysis. 

4. Equipment Price Forecast 

As noted in section IV.F.2, DOE 

assumed no change in electric motor 

prices over the 2016–2045 period. In 

addition, DOE conducted a sensitivity 

analysis using alternative price trends. 

DOE developed one forecast in which 

prices decline after 2011, and one in 

which prices rise. These price trends, 

and the NPV results from the associated 

sensitivity cases, are described in 

appendix 10–B of the TSD. 

5. Net Present Value of Customer 

Benefit 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers of 

considered equipment are: (1) Total 

annual installed cost; (2) total annual 

savings in operating costs; and (3) a 

discount factor. DOE calculates the 

lifetime net savings for motors shipped 

each year as the difference between the 

base case and each standards case in 

total lifetime savings in lifetime 

operating costs and total lifetime 

increases in installed costs. DOE 

calculates lifetime operating cost 

savings over the life of each motor 

shipped during the forecast period. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. DOE estimates the 

NPV using both a 3-percent and a 7- 

percent real discount rate, in accordance 

with guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to 

Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis.76 The 7-percent real 

value is an estimate of the average 

before-tax rate of return to private 

capital in the U.S. economy. The 3- 

percent real value represents the ‘‘social 

rate of time preference,’’ which is the 

rate at which society discounts future 

consumption flows to their present 

value. 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impacts of 

new or amended standards, DOE 

evaluates impacts on identifiable groups 

(i.e., subgroups) of customers that may 

be disproportionately affected by a 

national standard. For the final rule, 

DOE evaluated impacts on various 

subgroups (e.g., customer from the 

agricultural, commercial, and industrial 

sector; customers with lower electricity 

prices) using the LCC spreadsheet 

model. DOE did not receive any 

comments on its consumer subgroup 

analysis in response to the NOPR. The 

customer subgroup analysis is discussed 

in detail in chapter 11 of the final rule 

TSD. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

DOE conducted an MIA to estimate 

the financial impact of new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of covered electric 

motors. The MIA also estimates the 

impact standards could have on direct 

employment, manufacturing capacity, 

manufacturer subgroups, and the 

cumulative regulatory burden. The MIA 

has both quantitative and qualitative 

aspects. The quantitative aspect of the 

MIA primarily relies on the GRIM, an 

industry cash-flow model customized 

for electric motors covered in this 

rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs are 

data on the industry cost structure, 

MPCs, shipments, and assumptions 

about manufacturer markups and 

conversion costs. The key MIA output is 

INPV. DOE used the GRIM to calculate 

cash flows using standard accounting 

principles and to compare changes in 

INPV between a base case and various 

TSLs (the standards case). The 

difference in INPV between the base and 

standards cases represents the financial 

impact of standards on manufacturers of 

covered electric motors. DOE employed 

different assumptions about 

manufacturer markups to produce 

ranges of results that represent the 

uncertainty about how electric motor 

manufacturers will respond to 

standards. The qualitative part of the 

MIA addresses factors such as 

manufacturing capacity; characteristics 

of, and impacts on, any particular 

subgroup of manufacturers; impacts on 

competition; and the cumulative 

regulatory burden of electric motor 

manufacturers. 

DOE outlined its complete 

methodology for the MIA in the 

previously published NOPR. Also the 

complete MIA is presented in chapter 

12 of this final TSD. 

1. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing more efficient 

equipment is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing baseline equipment 

due to the need for more costly 

components and more extensive R&D to 

reduced motor losses. The resulting 

changes in the MPCs of the analyzed 

equipment can affect the revenues, gross 

margins, and cash flows of 

manufacturers. DOE strives to 

accurately model the potential changes 

in these equipment costs, as they are a 

key input for the GRIM and DOE’s 

overall analysis. For the final rule, DOE 

only updated the dollar year of the 

MPCs from 2012$, the dollar year used 

in the NOPR, to 2013$. For a complete 

description of the how the MPCs were 

created see section IV.C of this final 

rule. 

2. Shipment Projections 

Changes in sales volumes and 

efficiency distribution of equipment 

over time can significantly affect 

manufacturer finances. The GRIM 

estimates manufacturer revenues based 

on total unit shipment projections and 

the distribution of shipments by 

efficiency level. For the final rule, DOE 

slightly altered the distribution of 

shipments across pole configuration at 

the highest horsepower ratings based on 

stakeholder comments. This had a 

negligible effect on the MIA results. For 

the MIA, the GRIM used the NIA’s 

annual shipment projections from 2014, 

the base year, to 2045, the end of the 

analysis period. For a complete 

description of the shipment analysis see 

section IV.G of this final rule. 

3. Markup Scenarios 

For the MIA, DOE modeled three 

standards case markup scenarios to 

represent the uncertainty regarding the 

potential impacts on prices and 

profitability for manufacturers following 

the implementation of new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards: (1) A flat, or preservation of 

gross margin, markup scenario; (2) a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30983 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario; and (3) a two-tiered markup 

scenario. These scenarios lead to 

different manufacturer markup values, 

which when applied to the inputted 

MPCs, result in varying revenue and 

cash-flow impacts. 

The Joint Advocates commented that 

the lower bound markup scenarios 

overstated the negative impacts to 

electric motor manufacturers. They also 

stated that manufacturer support for the 

standards proposed in the NOPR 

suggests that the lower bound markup 

scenario is unrealistic. (Joint Advocates, 

No. 97 at p. 4) DOE presents an upper 

bound to manufacturer impacts, which 

are positive for all TSLs, and a lower 

bound to manufacturer impacts, which 

are negative for all TSLs. This range of 

possible manufacturer impacts 

represents the uncertainty of 

manufacturers’ profitability following 

standards. The lower bound to 

manufacturer impacts represents a 

worst-case scenario for manufacturers 

and does not imply that this will be the 

markup scenario manufacturers will 

face following standards. Just as the 

upper bound markup scenario 

represents a best-case scenario for 

manufacturers and again does not imply 

that this will be the markup scenario 

manufacturers will face following 

standards. Therefore, DOE believes that 

the lower bound markup scenario 

presented in this final rule is an 

appropriate worst-case scenario for 

manufacturers and is not intended to 

represent the true outcome for all 

electric motor manufacturers following 

standards, simply the lower bound of a 

range of possible outcomes. 

NEEA commented that since there is 

an enormous range of electric motor 

types covered in this rulemaking (e.g., 

horsepower, pole configuration) and 

since there are several distribution 

channels these motors could be sold 

through, different markup scenarios 

might apply to different motor sizes, 

different markets, and different 

distribution channels. (NEEA, Pub. Mtg. 

Tr., No. 87 at p. 172) DOE agrees with 

this assessment of the market as various 

manufacturers could markup various 

motors differently following new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. The upper and lower bound 

markup scenarios represent this range of 

various markup options that 

manufacturers will pursue following 

standards given the unique 

circumstances each manufacture faces. 

For the final rule, DOE did not alter 

the markup scenarios or the 

methodology used to calculate the 

markup values from those used in the 

NOPR analysis. 

4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

New and amended energy 

conservation standards will cause 

manufacturers to incur one-time 

conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and equipment 

designs into compliance. For the MIA, 

DOE classified these one-time 

conversion costs into two major groups: 

(1) Product conversion costs and (2) 

capital conversion costs. Product 

conversion costs are one-time 

investments in R&D, testing, 

compliance, marketing, and other noncapitalized costs necessary to make 

equipment designs comply with 

standards. Capital conversion costs are 

one-time investments in property, plant, 

and equipment necessary to adapt or 

change existing production facilities 

such that new equipment designs can be 

fabricated and assembled. For the 

preliminary analysis NEMA commented 

that electric motors at ELs above 

premium efficiency levels, and 

especially at ELs requiring die-cast 

copper rotors, would require 

manufacturers to make significant 

capital investments and significant time 

to redesign, test, and certify their entire 

production lines. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 

4 & 11) For the NOPR analysis, DOE 

incorporated NEMA’s comment when 

creating the conversion costs for electric 

motors at ELs requiring die-cast copper 

rotors. For the final rule, DOE only 

updated the dollar year of the 

conversion costs from 2012$, the dollar 

year used in the NOPR, to 2013$. 

5. Other Comments From Interested 

Parties 

During the NOPR public meeting and 

comment period, interested parties 

commented on the assumptions, 

methodology, and results of the NOPR 

MIA. DOE received comments about the 

manufacturer markups used in the MIA 

versus the NIA and potential trade 

barriers. These comments are addressed 

in the following sections. 

a. Manufacturer Markups Used in the 

MIA Versus the NIA 

The Joint Advocates commented that 

while the MIA presents a range of 

potential changes to manufacturers’ 

INPV by altering the manufacturer 

markups, the NIA only uses one 

manufacturer markup when analyzing 

the impacts to customers. Further, they 

state that the manufacturer markup that 

is used in the NIA typically yields a 

higher customer purchase price for more 

efficient equipment analyzed in the 

rulemaking. (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at 

p. 4) Based on manufacturer interviews 

and DOE’s understanding of the electric 

motor market, DOE believes that 

manufacturers might not be able to 

maintain their gross margin on all 

motors sold if the MPCs for those 

motors increased significantly due to 

standards. Therefore, the MIA 

conducted a sensitivity analysis around 

the manufacturer markup by modeling a 

lower bound manufacturer markup 

where manufacturers must compress 

their manufacturer markup to maintain 

market competition. This lower bound 

represents a worse-case scenario for 

manufacturer profitability. The NIA, 

which looks at the impacts of standards 

on customers, only models the scenario 

where manufacturers are able to 

maintain their manufacturer markup 

(the upper bound manufacturer markup 

scenario in the MIA). This manufacturer 

markup used in the NIA is the most 

conservative estimate for the purchase 

price that customers would pay for the 

equipment. Since there is uncertainty 

regarding how manufacturers would 

markup specific equipment following 

standards, DOE uses the most 

conservative estimates for the impacts to 

customers and manufacturers in the NIA 

and MIA respectively. 

b. Potential Trade Barriers 

Baldor commented that if electric 

motor energy conservation standards are 

set above the rest of the world’s 

standards, it could be a potential trade 

barrier for foreign motor manufacturer 

trying to sell electric motors in the 

United States. Baldor states that there 

are a lot of small foreign motor 

manufacturers, so they might not have 

the resources to manufacture separate 

motor production lines specifically to 

comply with U.S. electric motor 

standards. (Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 

at p. 176–177) DOE acknowledge that 

manufacturers selling motors in the 

United States and other countries with 

standards below the United States could 

be required to operate motor production 

lines specifically for the U.S. market. 

However, DOE does not believe that 

setting electric motor standards above 

other countries’ standards would 

constitute a potential trade barrier 

because all motor sold in the United 

States must comply with U.S. standards 

regardless if the motor is manufactured 

domestically or abroad. Also, DOE is not 

adopting standards above premium 

efficiency levels, which are the 

standards other countries have recently 

adopted for electric motors (e.g., the 

European Union). 

6. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE interviewed manufacturers 

representing more than 75 percent of 

covered electric motor sales in the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30984 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

77Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. 

Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, 

D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn,G. Raga, 

M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007: Changes in 

Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. 

In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. 

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, 

M.Tignor and H.L. Miller, Editors. 2007. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and 

New York, NY, USA. p. 212. 

78See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 79See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 

696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 81 

U.S.L.W. 3567, 81 U.S.L.W. 3696, 81 U.S.L.W. 3702 

(U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12–1182). 

United States. The NOPR interviews 

were in addition to the preliminary 

interviews DOE conducted as part of the 

preliminary analysis. DOE outlined the 

key issues for the rulemaking for electric 

motor manufacturers in the NOPR. DOE 

considered the information received 

during these interviews in the 

development of the NOPR and this final 

rule. Comments on the NOPR regarding 

the impact of standards on 

manufacturers were discussed in the 

preceding sections. DOE did not 

conduct interviews with manufacturers 

between the publication of the NOPR 

and this final rule. Also, DOE did not 

receive any comments on the key issues 

identified in the NOPR. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

In the emissions analysis, DOE 

estimates the reduction in power sector 

emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), and mercury (Hg) from potential 

energy conservation standards for 

electric motors. In addition, DOE 

estimates emissions impacts in 

production activities (extracting, 

processing, and transporting fuels) that 

provide the energy inputs to power 

plants. These are referred to as 

‘‘upstream’’ emissions. Together, these 

emissions account for the full-fuel-cycle 

(FFC). In accordance with DOE’s FFC 

Statement of Policy (76 FR 51282 

(August 18, 2011) as amended at 77 FR 

49701 (August 17, 2012), the FFC 

analysis includes impacts on emissions 

of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide 

(N2O), both of which are recognized as 

greenhouse gases. 

DOE primarily conducted the 

emissions analysis using emissions 

factors for CO2 and other gases derived 

from data in AEO 2013, supplemented 

by data from other sources. DOE 

developed separate emissions factors for 

power sector emissions and upstream 

emissions. The method that DOE used 

to derive emissions factors is described 

in chapter 13 of the TSD. 

For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated 

emissions reduction in tons and also in 

terms of units of carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted 

to CO2eq by multiplying the physical 

units by the gas’ global warming 

potential (GWP) over a 100 year time 

horizon. Based on the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change,77 DOE used GWP values of 25 

for CH4 and 298 for N2O. 

EIA prepares the Annual Energy 

Outlook using the National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS). Each annual 

version of NEMS incorporates the 

projected impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO 2013 

generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations, 

including recent government actions, for 

which implementing regulations were 

available as of December 31, 2012. 

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States (42 U.S.C. 7651 et 

seq.) and the District of Columbia (DC). 

SO2 emissions from 28 eastern states 

and DC were also limited under the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR; 70 FR 

25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an 

allowance-based trading program. CAIR 

was remanded to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit but it 

remained in effect.78See North Carolina 

v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008); 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). In 2011, EPA issued a 

replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21, 

2012, the DC Circuit issued a decision 

to vacate CSAPR.79The court ordered 

EPA to continue administering CAIR. 

The AEO 2013 emissions factors used 

for today’s final rule assumes that CAIR 

remains a binding regulation through 

2040. 

The attainment of emissions caps is 

typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of tradable 

emissions allowances. Under existing 

EPA regulations, any excess SO2

emissions allowances resulting from the 

lower electricity demand caused by the 

adoption of a new or amended 

efficiency standard could be used to 

allow offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by any regulated EGU. In past 

rulemakings, DOE recognized that there 

was uncertainty about the effects of 

efficiency standards on SO2 emissions 

covered by the existing cap-and-trade 

system, but it concluded that negligible 

reductions in power sector SO2

emissions would occur as a result of 

standards. 

Beginning in 2015, however, SO2

emissions will fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 

(February 16, 2012). In the final MATS 

rule, EPA established a standard for 

hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for 

acid gas hazardous air pollutants (HAP), 

and also established a standard for SO2

(a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative 

equivalent surrogate standard for acid 

gas HAP. The same controls are used to 

reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; 

thus, SO2 emissions will be reduced as 

a result of the control technologies 

installed on coal-fired power plants to 

comply with the MATS requirements 

for acid gas. AEO 2013 assumes that, in 

order to continue operating, coal plants 

must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

systems installed by 2015. Both 

technologies, which are used to reduce 

acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2

emissions. Under the MATS, NEMS 

shows a reduction in SO2 emissions 

when electricity demand decreases (e.g., 

as a result of energy efficiency 

standards). Emissions will be far below 

the cap that would be established by 

CAIR, so it is unlikely that excess SO2

emissions allowances resulting from the 

lower electricity demand would be 

needed or used to allow offsetting 

increases in SO2 emissions by any 

regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes 

that efficiency standards will reduce 

SO2 emissions in 2015 and beyond. 

CAIR established a cap on NOX

emissions in 28 eastern States and the 

District of Columbia. Energy 

conservation standards are expected to 

have little effect on NOX emissions in 

those States covered by CAIR because 

excess NOX emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand could be used to allow 

offsetting increases in NOX emissions. 

However, standards would be expected 

to reduce NOX emissions in the States 

not affected by the caps, so DOE 

estimated NOX emissions reductions 

from the standards considered in 

today’s final rule for these States. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE 

estimated mercury emissions reduction 

using emissions factors based on AEO 

2013, which incorporates the MATS. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30985 

80National Research Council. Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use. 2009. National Academies 

Press: Washington, DC. 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of today’s 

rule, DOE considered the estimated 

monetary benefits from the reduced 

emissions of CO2 and NOX that are 

expected to result from each of the TSLs 

considered. In order to make this 

calculation analogous to the calculation 

of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE 

considered the reduced emissions 

expected to result over the lifetime of 

equipment shipped in the forecast 

period for each TSL. This section 

summarizes the basis for the monetary 

values used for each of these emissions 

and presents the values considered in 

this final rule. 

For today’s final rule, DOE is relying 

on a set of values for the SCC that was 

developed by a Federal interagency 

process. The basis for these values is 

summarized below, and a more detailed 

description of the methodologies used is 

provided as an appendix to chapter 14 

of the final rule TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

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. Estimates of the 

SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of carbon dioxide. 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. 

Under section 1(b) of Executive Order 

12866, agencies must, to the extent 

permitted by law, ‘‘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 

monetized social benefits of reducing 

CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses 

of regulatory actions. 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 

increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

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. 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of carbon 

dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a 

number of challenges. A report from the 

National Research Council 80 points out 

that any assessment will suffer from 

uncertainty, speculation, and lack of 

information about (1) future emissions 

of GHGs, (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 questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be 

viewed as provisional. 

Despite the limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing CO2

emissions. The agency can estimate the 

benefits from reduced (or costs from 

increased) emissions in any future year 

by multiplying the change in emissions 

in that year by the SCC values 

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. 

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 

improves over time. In the meantime, 

the interagency group will continue to 

explore the issues raised by this analysis 

and consider public comments as part of 

the ongoing interagency process. 

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon 

Values 

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 

Federal 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$) of $55, 

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

CO2. These interim values represented 

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. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

After the release of the interim values, 

the interagency group reconvened on a 

regular basis to generate improved SCC 

estimates. Specially, the group 

considered public comments and 

further explored the technical literature 

in relevant fields. The interagency group 

relied on three integrated assessment 

models commonly used to estimate the 

SCC: The FUND, DICE, and PAGE 

models. These models are frequently 

cited in the peer-reviewed literature and 

were used in the last assessment of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). Each model was given 

equal weight in the SCC values that 

were developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different 

approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic 

damages. A key objective of the 

interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three 

models, while respecting the different 

approaches to quantifying damages 

taken by the key modelers in the field. 

An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of 

input parameters for these models: 

climate sensitivity, socio-economic and 

emissions trajectories, and discount 

rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30986 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

81 It is recognized that this calculation for 

domestic values is approximate, provisional, and 

highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why 

domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 

net global damages over time. 

82Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United 

States Government, February 2010. 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/

inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-forRIA.pdf. 

83Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 

2013; revised November 2013. http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/

inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf 

input into all three models. In addition, 

the interagency group used a range of 

scenarios for the socio-economic 

parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features 

were left unchanged, relying on the 

model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments. 

The interagency group selected four 

sets of SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three sets of values are based 

on the average SCC from the three IAMs, 

at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. 

The fourth set, which represents the 

95th percentile SCC estimate across all 

three models at a 3-percent discount 

rate, was included to represent higher 

than expected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the 

SCC distribution. The values grow in 

real terms over time. Additionally, the 

interagency group determined that a 

range of values from 7 percent to 23 

percent should be used to adjust the 

global SCC to calculate domestic 

effects,81 although preference is given to 

consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. Table IV.26 

presents the values in the 2010 

interagency group report,82 which is 

reproduced in appendix 14–A of the 

TSD. 

TABLE IV.26—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2010 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate % 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

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 

The SCC values used for today’s 

notice were generated using the most 

recent versions of the three integrated 

assessment models that have been 

published in the peer-reviewed 

literature.83 Table IV.27 shows the 

updated sets of SCC estimates in 5-year 

increments from 2010 to 2050. The full 

set of annual SCC estimates between 

2010 and 2050 is reported in appendix 

14B of the DOE final rule TSD. The 

central value that emerges is the average 

SCC across models at the 3 percent 

discount rate. However, for purposes of 

capturing the uncertainties involved in 

regulatory impact analysis, the 

interagency group emphasizes the 

importance of including all four sets of 

SCC values. 

TABLE IV.27—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate % 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

2010 ......................................................................................... 11 32 51 89 

2015 ......................................................................................... 11 37 57 109 

2020 ......................................................................................... 12 43 64 128 

2025 ......................................................................................... 14 47 69 143 

2030 ......................................................................................... 16 52 75 159 

2035 ......................................................................................... 19 56 80 175 

2040 ......................................................................................... 21 61 86 191 

2045 ......................................................................................... 24 66 92 206 

2050 ......................................................................................... 26 71 97 220 

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 2009 National 

Research Council report mentioned 

above points out that there is tension 

between the goal of producing 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30987 

84AF&PA and AFPM pointed to more detailed 

comments that were filed by AFPM and several 

other trade associations on DOE’s Energy 

Conservation Standards for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment. http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE2010-BT-STD-0003-0079. 

85For additional information, refer to U.S. Office 

of Management and Budget, 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. 

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 analytic challenges that are 

being addressed by the research 

community, including research 

programs housed in many of the Federal 

agencies participating in the interagency 

process to estimate the SCC. The 

interagency group intends to 

periodically review and reconsider 

those estimates to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

values from the 2013 interagency report 

adjusted to 2012$ using the GDP price 

deflator. For each of the four sets of SCC 

values, the values for emissions in 2015 

were $11.8, $39.7, $61.2, and $117 per 

metric ton avoided (values expressed in 

2012$). DOE derived values after 2050 

using the relevant growth rates for the 

2040–2050 period in the interagency 

update. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SCC value for that year in each of the 

four cases. To calculate a present value 

of the stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

four cases using the specific discount 

rate that had been used to obtain the 

SCC values in each case. 

NEMA provided a lengthy critique of 

the integrated assessment models 

(IAMs) that were utilized by the 

Interagency Working Group to 

projecting future damages from CO2

emissions, pointing out that there is 

enormous uncertainty in the models. 

(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 16) The Cato 

Institute stated that the determination of 

the SCC is discordant with the best 

scientific literature on the equilibrium 

climate sensitivity and the fertilization 

effect of carbon dioxide—two critically 

important parameters for establishing 

the net externality of carbon dioxide 

emissions, at odds with existing OMB 

guidelines for preparing regulatory 

analyses, and founded upon the output 

of IAMs that encapsulate such large 

uncertainties as to provide no reliable 

guidance as to the sign, much less the 

magnitude of the social cost of carbon. 

(Cato Institute, No. 94 at p. 1) 

NEMA stated that the monetized 

benefits of carbon emission reductions 

are informative at some level, but 

should not be considered as 

determinative in the Secretary’s 

decision-making under EPCA. NEMA 

believes that DOE should base its net 

benefit determination for justifying a 

particular energy conservation standard 

on the traditional criteria relied upon by 

DOE—impacts on manufacturers, 

consumers, employment, energy 

savings, and competition. (NEMA, No. 

93 at p. 16) The American Forest & 

Paper Association (AF&PA) and the 

American Fuel & Petrochemical 

Manufacturers (AFPM) stated that the 

SCC calculation should not be used in 

any rulemaking and/or policymaking 

until it undergoes a more rigorous 

notice, review and comment process.84

(AF&PA and AFPM, No. 95 at p. 1) 

Similarly, the Cato Institute stated that 

the SCC should not be used in this or 

other rulemakings. (Cato Institute, No. 

94 at p. 1) In contrast, the Joint 

Advocates and CA IOUs expressed 

support for the use of the updated SCC 

values that are based on the interagency 

working group’s most recent review of 

peer-reviewed models on the subject. 

(Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 4; CA 

IOUs, No. 99 at p. 2) 

In response to the comments on the 

SCC values, DOE acknowledges the 

limitations in the SCC estimates, which 

are discussed in detail in the 2010 

interagency group report. Specifically, 

uncertainties in the assumptions 

regarding climate sensitivity, as well as 

other model inputs such as economic 

growth and emissions trajectories, are 

discussed and the reasons for the 

specific input assumptions chosen are 

explained. However, the three 

integrated assessment models used to 

estimate the SCC are frequently cited in 

the peer-reviewed literature and were 

used in the last assessment of the IPCC. 

In addition, new versions of the models 

that were used in 2013 to estimate 

revised SCC values were published in 

the peer-reviewed literature (see 

appendix 14B of the final rule TSD for 

discussion). Although uncertainties 

remain, the revised estimates that were 

issued in November, 2013 are based on 

the best available scientific information 

on the impacts of climate change. The 

current estimates of the SCC have been 

developed over many years, using the 

best science available, and with input 

from the public. In November 2013, 

OMB announced a new opportunity for 

public comment on the interagency 

technical support document underlying 

the revised SCC estimates. See 78 FR 

70586. The comment period for the 

OMB announcement closed on February 

26, 2014. OMB is currently reviewing 

comments and considering whether 

further revisions to the 2013 SCC 

estimates are warranted. DOE stands 

ready to work with OMB and the other 

members of the interagency working 

group on further review and revision of 

the SCC estimates as appropriate. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

DOE investigated the potential 

monetary benefit of reduced NOX

emissions from the TSLs it considered. 

As noted above, DOE has taken into 

account how new or amended energy 

conservation standards would reduce 

NOX emissions in those 22 states not 

affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated the 

monetized value of NOX emissions 

reductions resulting from each of the 

TSLs considered for today’s rule based 

on estimates found in the relevant 

scientific literature. Estimates of 

monetary value for reducing NOX from 

stationary sources range from $476 to 

$4,893 per ton (2013$).85 DOE 

calculated monetary benefits using a 

medium value for NOX emissions of 

$2,684 per short ton (in 2014$), and real 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent. 

DOE is evaluating appropriate 

monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg 

emissions in energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. It has not 

included monetization in the current 

analysis. 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

several effects on the power generation 

industry that would result from the 

adoption of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. In the utility 

impact analysis, DOE analyzes the 

changes in installed electricity capacity 

and generation that would result for 

each trial standard level. The utility 

impact analysis uses NEMS–BT to 

account for selected utility impacts of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE’s analysis consists of a 

comparison between model results for 

the most recent AEO Reference case and 

for cases in which energy use is 

decremented to reflect the impact of 

potential standards. The energy savings 

inputs associated with each TSL come 

from the NIA. Chapter 15 of the final 

rule TSD describes the utility impact 

analysis in further detail. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30988 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

86See Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, Current Employment Statistics (Available 

at: http://www.bls.gov/ces/.) 

87 78 FR 73679. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

Employment impacts from new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

include direct and indirect impacts. 

Direct employment impacts are any 

changes in the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the equipment subject 

to standards; the MIA addresses those 

impacts. Indirect employment impacts 

are changes in national employment 

that occur due to the shift in 

expenditures and capital investment 

caused by the purchase and operation of 

more-efficient equipment. Indirect 

employment impacts from standards 

consist of the 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; (2) reduced 

spending on new energy supply by the 

utility industry; (3) increased consumer 

spending on the purchase of new 

equipment; and (4) the effects of those 

three factors throughout the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS 86). 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. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing consumer utility bills. 

Because 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 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and service sectors). Thus, based on the 

BLS data alone, DOE believes net 

national employment may increase 

because of shifts in economic activity 

resulting from new and amended 

standards. 

For the standard levels considered, 

DOE estimated indirect national 

employment impacts using an input/

output model of the U.S. economy 

called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies, Version 3.1.1 (ImSET). 

ImSET is a special purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (I–O) model, which was 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model having structural coefficients that 

characterize economic flows among the 

187 sectors. ImSET’s national economic 

I–O structure is based on a 2002 U.S. 

benchmark table, specially aggregated to 

the 187 sectors most relevant to 

industrial, commercial, and residential 

building energy use. DOE notes that 

ImSET is not a general equilibrium 

forecasting model, and understands the 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may over-estimate actual job impacts 

over the long run. For the final rule, 

DOE did not receive any comments and 

retained the same approach using 

ImSET only to estimate short-term 

employment impacts. 

For more details on the employment 

impact analysis, see chapter 16 of the 

final rule TSD. 

O. Other Comments Received 

In response to the NOPR, interested 

parties submitted additional comments 

on a variety of general issues. CEC and 

NEMA both pointed out a table 

formatting error that appeared in Table 

4 on p. 73679 the Federal Register 

version of the NOPR.87 (CEC, No. 96 at 

p. 3, NEMA, No. 93 at p. 30) DOE notes 

that this error was corrected in the CFR 

and future versions of the table. The 

Office of the Federal Register published 

a correction to the table on February 14, 

2014. See 79 FR 8309. 

In response to the NOPR, Scott Mohs 

raised concern about loss of wildlife 

habitat due to corn acreage. (Scott Mohs, 

No. 102 at p. 1) This issue is beyond the 

scope of the electric motors rulemaking, 

and, accordingly, DOE does not discuss 

corn acreage in today’s final rule. 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE ordinarily considers several Trial 

Standard Levels (TSLs) in its analytical 

process. TSLs are formed by grouping 

different Efficiency Levels (ELs), which 

are standard levels for each Equipment 

Class Grouping (ECG) of motors. Within 

each equipment class grouping, DOE 

established equipment classes based on 

pole configuration, horsepower rating, 

and enclosure, leading to a total of 482 

equipment classes (see section IV.A.4). 

DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens 

of the TSLs developed for today’s final 

rule. DOE examined four TSLs for 

electric motors. Table V.1 presents the 

TSLs analyzed and the corresponding 

efficiency level for each equipment class 

group. 

The efficiency levels in each TSL can 

be characterized as follows: TSL 1 

represents each equipment class group 

moving up one efficiency level from the 

current baseline, with the exception of 

fire-pump motors, which remain at their 

baseline level; TSL 2 represents 

Premium levels for all equipment class 

groups with the exception of fire-pump 

motors, which remain at the baseline; 

TSL 3 represents one NEMA band above 

Premium for all groups except firepump motors, which move up to 

Premium; and TSL 4 represents the 

maximum technologically feasible level 

(max-tech) for all equipment class 

groups.1 Because today’s final rule 

includes equipment class groups 

containing both currently regulated 

motors and newly regulated motors, at 

certain TSLs, an equipment class group 

may encompass different standard 

levels, some of which may be above one 

EL above the baseline. For example, at 

TSL1, EL1 is being selected for 

equipment class group 1. However, a 

large number of motors in equipment 

class group 1 already have to meet EL2. 

If TSL1 was selected, these motors 

would continue to be required to meet 

the standards at TSL2, while currently 

un-regulated motors would be regulated 

to TSL1 (see TSD chapter 10). 

TABLE V.1—SUMMARY OF TSLS

Equipment class group TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

1 ..................................................................... EL 1 ........................... EL 2 ........................... EL 3 ........................... EL 4. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30989 

TABLE V.1—SUMMARY OF TSLS—Continued 

Equipment class group TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

2 ..................................................................... EL 1 ........................... EL 1 ........................... EL 2 ........................... EL 2. 

3 ..................................................................... EL 0 ........................... EL 0 ........................... EL 1 ........................... EL 3. 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

As discussed in section II.A, EPCA 

provides seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)– 

(VII) as applied to equipment via 

6316(a)) The following sections 

generally discuss how DOE is 

addressing each of those seven factors in 

this rulemaking. 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Customers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on electric motor customers by looking 

at the effects standards would have on 

the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined 

the rebuttable presumption payback 

periods for each equipment class, and 

the impacts of potential standards on 

customer subgroups. These analyses are 

discussed below. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

To evaluate the net economic impact 

of standards on electric motor 

customers, DOE conducted LCC and 

PBP analyses for each TSL. In general, 

higher-efficiency equipment would 

typically affect customers in two ways: 

(1) Annual operating expense would 

decrease, and (2) purchase price would 

increase. Section IV.F of this rule 

discusses the inputs DOE used for 

calculating the LCC and PBP. The LCC 

and PBP results are calculated from 

electric motor cost and efficiency data 

that are modeled in the engineering 

analysis (section IV.C). 

For each representative unit, the key 

outputs of the LCC analysis are a mean 

LCC savings and a median PBP relative 

to the base case, as well as the fraction 

of customers for which the LCC will 

decrease (net benefit), increase (net 

cost), or exhibit no change (no impact) 

relative to the base-case product 

forecast. No impacts occur when the 

base-case efficiency equals or exceeds 

the efficiency at a given TSL. Table V.2 

show the key shipment-weighted 

average of results for the representative 

units in each equipment class group. 

TABLE V.2—SUMMARY LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 1 

Trial Standard Level * 1 2 3 4 

Efficiency Level 1 2 3 4 

Customers with Net LCC Cost (%) ** .............................................................................................. 0.3 7.8 34.8 83.3 

Customers with Net LCC Benefit (%) ** .......................................................................................... 10.9 34.3 44.7 9.4 

Customers with No Change in LCC (%) ** ...................................................................................... 88.8 57.9 20.4 7.3 

Mean LCC Savings ($) .................................................................................................................... $55 $160 $98 ¥$409 

Median PBP (Years) ........................................................................................................................ 1.0 2.9 6.0 26.5 

* The results for equipment class group 1 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative units 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10. 

** Rounding may cause some items to not total 100 percent. 

TABLE V.3—SUMMARY LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 2 

Trial Standard Level * 1 2 3 4 

Efficiency Level 1 1 2 2 

Customers with Net LCC Cost (%) ** .............................................................................................. 18.6 18.6 92.8 92.8 

Customers with Net LCC Benefit (%) ** .......................................................................................... 71.5 71.5 7.2 7.2 

Customers with No Change in LCC (%) ** ...................................................................................... 9.8 9.8 0.0 0.0 

Mean LCC Savings ($) .................................................................................................................... $53 $53 ¥$280 ¥$280 

Median PBP (Years) ........................................................................................................................ 4.5 4.5 20.7 20.7 

* The results for equipment class group 2 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative units 4 and 5. 

** Rounding may cause some items to not total 100 percent. 

TABLE V.4—SUMMARY LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 3 

Trial Standard Level * 1 2 3 4 

Efficiency Level 0 0 1 3 

Customers with Net LCC Cost (%) ** .............................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 81.7 100.0 

Customers with Net LCC Benefit (%) ** .......................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Customers with No Change in LCC (%) ** ...................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 

Mean LCC Savings ($) .................................................................................................................... N/A *** N/A *** ¥$64.6 ¥$807 

Median PBP (Years) ........................................................................................................................ N/A *** N/A *** 3016 11632 

* The results for equipment class group 3 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative units 6, 7, and 8. 

** Rounding may cause some items to not total 100 percent. 

*** For equipment class group 3, TSLs 1 and 2 are the same as the baseline; thus, no customers are affected. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30990 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In the customer subgroup analysis, 

DOE estimated the LCC impacts of the 

electric motor TSLs on various groups of 

customers. Table V.5 and Table V.6 

compare the weighted average mean 

LCC savings and median payback 

periods for ECG 1 at each TSL for 

different customer subgroups. Chapter 

11 of the TSD presents the detailed 

results of the customer subgroup 

analysis and results for the other 

equipment class groups. 

TABLE V.5—SUMMARY LIFE-CYCLE COST RESULTS FOR SUBGROUPS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 1: AVERAGE LCC 

SAVINGS

EL TSL 

Average LCC savings (2013$) * 

Reference 

scenario 

Low energy 

price 

Small 

business 

Industrial 

sector only 

Commercial 

sector only 

Agricultural 

sector only 

1 ................................................. 1 55 55 49 65 52 20 

2 ................................................. 2 160 160 141 195 148 11 

3 ................................................. 3 98 97 76 136 85 ¥100 

4 ................................................. 4 ¥409 ¥410 ¥439 ¥355 ¥428 ¥701 

* The results for equipment class group 1 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative units 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10. 

TABLE V.6—SUMMARY LIFE-CYCLE COST RESULTS FOR SUBGROUPS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 1: MEDIAN

PAYBACK PERIOD

EL TSL 

Median payback period 

(years)* 

Reference 

scenario 

Low energy 

price 

Small 

business 

Industrial 

sector only 

Commercial 

sector only 

Agricultural 

sector only 

1 ................................................. 1 1.0 1 1 1 1 3 

2 ................................................. 2 2.9 3 3 2 3 7 

3 ................................................. 3 6.0 6 6 4 7 23 

4 ................................................. 4 26.5 26 27 18 30 126 

* The results for equipment class group 1 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative units 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10. 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section IV.F.12, EPCA 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that an energy conservation standard is 

economically justified if the increased 

purchase cost for equipment that meets 

the standard is less than three times the 

value of the first-year energy savings 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a)) DOE 

calculated a rebuttable-presumption 

PBP for each TSL to determine whether 

DOE could presume that a standard at 

that level is economically justified. DOE 

based the calculations on average usage 

profiles. As a result, DOE calculated a 

single rebuttable-presumption payback 

value, and not a distribution of PBPs, for 

each TSL. Table V.7 shows the 

rebuttable-presumption PBPs for the 

considered TSLs. The rebuttable 

presumption is fulfilled in those cases 

where the PBP is three years or less. 

However, DOE routinely conducts an 

economic analysis that considers the 

full range of impacts to the customer, 

manufacturer, Nation, and environment, 

as required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i) as applied to equipment 

via 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). The results of that 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

definitively evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level (thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any three-year PBP 

analysis). Section V.C addresses how 

DOE considered the range of impacts to 

select today’s final rule. 

TABLE V.7—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS (YEARS) 

Equipment 

class group* 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

1 .................. 0.5 0.8 1.2 4.0 

2 .................. 1.6 1.6 7.3 7.3 

3 .................. N/A** N/A** 817 4,991 

*The results for each equipment class group (ECG) are a shipment weighted average of results for the representative units in the group. ECG 

1: Representative units 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10; ECG 2: Representative units 4 and 5; ECG 3: Representative units 6, 7, and 8. 

**For equipment class group 3, TSLs 1 and 2 are the same as the baseline; thus, no customers are affected. 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of new and amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of covered electric 

motors. The following section describes 

the expected impacts on manufacturers 

at each TSL. Chapter 12 of this final rule 

TSD explains the analysis in further 

detail. 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

The results below show three INPV 

tables representing the three markup 

scenarios used for the analysis. The first 

table reflects the flat, or gross margin, 

markup scenario, which is the upper 

(less severe) bound of impacts. To assess 

the lower end of the range of potential 

impacts, DOE modeled two potential 

markup scenarios, a two-tiered markup 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30991 

scenario and a preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario. The two-tiered 

markup scenario assumes manufacturers 

offer two different tiers of markups— 

one for lower efficiency levels and one 

for higher efficiency levels. Meanwhile 

the preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario assumes that in the 

standards case, manufacturers would be 

able to earn the same operating margin 

in absolute dollars in the standards case 

as in the base case. In general, the larger 

the MPC price increases, the less likely 

manufacturers are able to fully pass 

through additional costs due to 

standards calculated in the flat markup 

scenario. 

Table V.8, Table V.9, and Table V.10 

present the results for all electric motors 

under the flat, two-tiered, and 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenarios. DOE examined all three ECGs 

(Design A and B motors, Design C 

motors, fire pump motors) together. 

TABLE V.8—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS—FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .......................................................... (2013$ millions) ................ $3,478.0 $3,486.4 $3,870.6 $4,541.9 $5,382.1 

Change in INPV ........................................ (2013$ millions) ................ .................... $8.4 $392.6 $1,063.9 $1,904.1 

................................................................... (%) .................................... .................... 0.2% 11.3% 30.6% 54.7% 

Product Conversion Costs ........................ (2013$ millions) ................ .................... $6.2 $58.0 $618.1 $627.4 

Capital Conversion Costs ......................... (2013$ millions) ................ .................... $0.0 $26.6 $222.8 $707.2 

Total Conversion Costs ............................ (2013$ millions) ................ .................... $6.2 $84.6 $841.0 $1,334.6 

TABLE V.9—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS—TWO-TIERED MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .......................................................... (2013$ millions) ................ $3,478.0 $3,481.6 $3,130.4 $2,928.3 $3,282.0 

Change in INPV ........................................ (2013$ millions) ................ .................... $3.6 $¥347.7 $¥549.7 $¥196.0 

................................................................... (%) .................................... .................... 0.1% ¥10.0% ¥15.8% ¥5.6% 

Product Conversion Costs ........................ (2013$ millions) ................ .................... $6.2 $58.0 $618.1 $627.4 

Capital Conversion Costs ......................... (2013$ millions) ................ .................... $0.0 $26.6 $222.8 $707.2 

Total Conversion Costs ............................ (2013$ millions) ................ .................... $6.2 $84.6 $841.0 $1,334.6 

TABLE V.10—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING PROFIT

MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .......................................................... (2013$ millions) ................ $3,478.0 $3,461.3 $3,643.0 $3,362.0 $2,048.3 

Change in INPV ........................................ (2013$ millions) ................ .................... $¥16.7 $165.0 $¥116.0 $¥1,429.8 

................................................................... (%) .................................... .................... ¥0.5% 4.7% ¥3.3% ¥41.1% 

Product Conversion Costs ........................ (2013$ millions) ................ .................... $6.2 $58.0 $618.1 $627.4 

Capital Conversion Costs ......................... (2013$ millions) ................ .................... $0.0 $26.6 $222.8 $707.2 

Total Conversion Costs ............................ (2013$ millions) ................ .................... $6.2 $84.6 $841.0 $1,334.6 

TSL 1 represents EL 1 for ECG 1 and 

ECG 2 motors and baseline for ECG 3 

motors. At TSL 1, DOE estimates 

impacts on INPV to range from $8.4 

million to ¥$16.7 million, or a change 

in INPV of 0.2 percent to ¥0.5 percent. 

At this TSL, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

1 percent to $164.3 million, compared 

to the base case value of $166.1 million 

in 2015. 

The INPV impacts at TSL 1 range 

from slightly positive to slightly 

negative. Consequently, DOE does not 

anticipate that manufacturers would 

lose a significant portion of their INPV 

at this TSL. This is because the vast 

majority of shipments already meets or 

exceeds the efficiency levels prescribed 

at TSL 1. DOE estimates that in the year 

of compliance (2016), 90 percent of all 

electric motor shipments (91 percent of 

ECG 1a, 68 percent of ECG 1b, 8 percent 

of ECG 2, and 100 percent of ECG 3 

shipments) would already meet the 

efficiency levels at TSL 1 or higher in 

the base case. Since ECG 1a shipments 

account for over 97 percent of all 

electric motor shipments, the effects on 

those motors are the primary driver for 

the impacts at this TSL. Only a few ECG 

1a shipments not currently covered by 

the existing electric motor standard and 

a small amount of ECG 1b and ECG 2 

shipments would need to be converted 

to comply with efficiency standards 

prescribed at TSL 1. 

DOE expects conversion costs to be 

small compared to the industry value 

because most of the electric motor 

shipments, on a volume basis, already 

meet the efficiency levels analyzed at 

this TSL. DOE estimates product 

conversion costs of $6.2 million due to 

the expanded scope of motors covered 

by this rulemaking, which includes 

motors previously not covered by the 

existing electric motor energy 

conservation standards. DOE believes 

that at this TSL, there will be some 

engineering costs, as well as testing and 

certification costs associated with this 

scope expansion. DOE estimates the 

capital conversion costs to be minimal 

at TSL 1. This is mainly because almost 

all manufacturers currently produce 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30992 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

88See http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/

asm/index.html. 

some motors that are compliant at TSL 

1 efficiency levels, and it would not be 

much of a capital investment to bring all 

motor production to this efficiency 

level. 

TSL 2 represents EL 2 for ECG 1a and 

ECG 1b motors, EL 1 for ECG 2 motors, 

and baseline for ECG 3 motors. At TSL 

2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to 

range from $392.6 million to ¥$347.7 

million, or a change in INPV of 11.3 

percent to ¥10.0 percent. At this TSL, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 17 percent to 

$137.1 million, compared to the base 

case value of $166.1 million in 2015. 

The INPV impacts at TSL 2 range 

from moderately positive to slightly 

negative. DOE estimates that in the year 

of compliance (2016), 60 percent of all 

electric motor shipments (60 percent of 

ECG 1a, 31 percent of ECG 1b, 8 percent 

of ECG 2, and 100 percent of ECG 3 

shipments) would already meet the 

efficiency levels at TSL 2 or higher in 

the base case. The majority of shipments 

are currently covered by an electric 

motors standard that requires general 

purpose Design A and B motors to meet 

the efficiency levels at this TSL. 

Therefore, only previously non-covered 

Design A and B motors and most ECG 

1b and ECG 2 motors would need to be 

converted to comply with efficiency 

standards prescribed at TSL 2. 

At TSL 2, DOE expects conversion 

costs to increase significantly from TSL 

1. However, these conversion costs do 

not represent a large portion of the base 

case INPV, since the majority of electric 

motor shipments already meet the 

efficiency levels required at this TSL. 

DOE estimates product conversion costs 

of $58.0 million due to the expanded 

scope of this rulemaking, which 

includes motors not previously covered 

by the existing electric motor energy 

conservation standards and the 

inclusion of ECG 1b and ECG 2 motors. 

DOE believes there will be moderate 

engineering costs, as well as testing and 

certification costs at this TSL associated 

with this scope expansion. DOE 

estimates the capital conversion costs to 

be approximately $26.6 million at TSL 

2. While most manufacturers already 

produce at least some motors that are 

compliant at TSL 2, these manufacturers 

would likely have to invest in 

machinery to bring all motor production 

to these efficiency levels. 

TSL 3 represents EL 3 for ECG 1a and 

ECG 1b motors, EL 2 for ECG 2 motors, 

and EL 1 for ECG 3 motors. At TSL 3, 

DOE estimates the impacts on INPV to 

range from $1,063.9 million to ¥$549.7 

million, or a change in INPV of 30.6 

percent to ¥15.8 percent. At this TSL, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 170 percent 

to ¥$116.0 million, compared to the 

base case value of $166.1 million in 

2015. 

The INPV impacts at TSL 3 range 

from significantly positive to 

moderately negative. DOE estimates that 

in the year of compliance (2016), 23 

percent of all electric motor shipments 

(24 percent of ECG 1a, 4 percent of ECG 

1b, less than 1 percent of ECG 2, and 19 

percent of ECG 3 shipments) would 

already meet the efficiency levels at TSL 

3 or higher in the base case. The 

majority of shipments would need to be 

converted to comply with efficiency 

standards prescribed at TSL 3. 

DOE expects conversion costs to 

increase significantly at TSL 3 and 

become a substantial investment for 

manufacturers. DOE estimates product 

conversion costs of $618.1 million at 

TSL 3, since most electric motors in the 

base case do not exceed the current 

motor standards set at premium 

efficiency levels for Design A and B 

motors, which represents EL 2 for ECG 

1a. DOE believes there would need to be 

a massive reengineering effort that 

manufacturers would have to undergo to 

have all motors meet this TSL. 

Additionally, motor manufacturers 

would have to increase the efficiency 

levels for ECG 1b, ECG 2, and ECG 3 

motors. DOE estimates the capital 

conversion costs to be approximately 

$222.8 million at TSL 3. Most 

manufacturers would have to make 

significant investments to their 

production facilities in order to convert 

all their motors to be compliant at TSL 

3. 

TSL 4 represents EL 4 for ECG 1a and 

ECG 1b motors, EL 2 for ECG 2 motors, 

and EL 3 for ECG 3 motors. At TSL 4, 

DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range 

from $1,904.1 million to ¥$1,429.8 

million, or a change in INPV of 54.7 

percent to ¥41.1 percent. At this TSL, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 303 percent 

to ¥$336.6 million, compared to the 

base case value of $166.1 million in 

2015. 

The INPV impacts at TSL 4 range 

from significantly positive to 

significantly negative. DOE estimates 

that in the year of compliance (2016) 

only 8 percent of all electric motor 

shipments (9 percent of ECG 1a, less 

than 1 percent of ECG 1b, less than 1 

percent of ECG 2, and no ECG 3 

shipments) would meet the efficiency 

levels at TSL 2 or higher in the base 

case. Almost all shipments would need 

to be converted to comply with 

efficiency standards prescribed at TSL 

4. 

DOE expects conversion costs again to 

increase significantly from TSL 3 to TSL 

4. Conversion costs at TSL 4 now 

represent a massive investment for 

electric motor manufacturers. DOE 

estimates product conversion costs of 

$627.4 million at TSL 4, which are only 

slightly more than at TSL 3. DOE 

believes that manufacturers would need 

to completely reengineer almost all 

electric motors sold, as well as test and 

certify those motors. DOE estimates 

capital conversion costs of $707.2 

million at TSL 4. This is a significant 

increase in capital conversion costs 

from TSL 3, since manufacturers would 

need to adopt copper die-casting at TSL 

4. This technology requires a significant 

level of investment because the majority 

of manufacturers’ machinery would 

need to be replaced or significantly 

modified. 

b. Impacts on Employment 

DOE quantitatively assessed the 

impact of new and amended energy 

conservation standards on direct 

employment in the electric motors 

industry. DOE used the GRIM to 

estimate the domestic labor 

expenditures and number of domestic 

production workers in the base case and 

at each TSL from the announcement of 

standards in 2014 (i.e., the publication 

of this final rule) to the end of the 

analysis period in 2045. DOE used 

statistical data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s 2011 Annual Survey of 

Manufacturers 88 (ASM), the results of 

the engineering analysis, and interviews 

with manufacturers to determine the 

inputs necessary to calculate industrywide labor expenditures and domestic 

employment levels. Labor expenditures 

involved with the manufacturing of 

electric motors are a function of the 

labor intensity of the equipment, the 

MPC of the equipment, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages 

remain fixed in real terms over time. 

In the GRIM, DOE used the labor 

content of the equipment and the MPCs 

to estimate the annual labor 

expenditures of the industry. DOE used 

Census data and interviews with 

manufacturers to estimate the portion of 

the total labor expenditures attributable 

to domestic labor. 

The production worker estimates in 

this employment section cover only 

workers up to the line-supervisor level 

who are directly involved in fabricating 

and assembling an electric motor within 

a motor facility. Workers performing 

services that are closely associated with 

production operations, such as material 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30993 

handling with a forklift, are also 

included as production labor. DOE’s 

estimates account for only production 

workers who manufacture the specific 

equipment covered by this rulemaking. 

For example, a worker on an electric 

motor production line manufacturing a 

fractional horsepower motor (i.e., a 

motor with less than one horsepower) 

would not be included with this 

estimate of the number of electric motor 

workers, since fractional motors are not 

covered by this rulemaking. 

The employment impacts shown in 

the tables below represent the potential 

production employment impact 

resulting from new and amended energy 

conservation standards. The upper 

bound of the results estimates the 

maximum change in the number of 

production workers that could occur 

after compliance with standards when 

assuming that manufacturers continue 

to produce the same scope of covered 

equipment in the same production 

facilities. It also assumes that domestic 

production does not shift to lower-laborcost countries. Because there is a real 

risk of manufacturers evaluating 

sourcing decisions in response to 

standards, the lower bound of the 

employment results includes the 

estimated total number of U.S. 

production workers in the industry who 

could lose their jobs if some or all 

existing production were moved outside 

of the U.S. While the results present a 

range of employment impacts following 

2016, the following sections also 

include qualitative discussions of the 

likelihood of negative employment 

impacts at the various TSLs. Finally, the 

employment impacts shown are 

independent of the indirect employment 

impacts from the broader U.S. economy, 

which are documented in chapter 16 of 

this final rule TSD. 

Based on 2011 ASM data and 

interviews with manufacturers, DOE 

estimates approximately 60 percent of 

electric motors sold in the U.S. are 

manufactured domestically. Using this 

assumption, DOE estimates that in the 

absence of new and amended energy 

conservation standards, there would be 

approximately 7,313 domestic 

production workers involved in 

manufacturing all electric motors 

covered by this rulemaking in 2016. 

Table V.11 shows the range of potential 

impacts of standards on U.S. production 

workers in the electric motor industry. 

However, because ECG 1a motors 

comprise more than 97 percent of the 

electric motors covered by this 

rulemaking, DOE believes that potential 

changes in domestic employment will 

be driven primarily by the standards 

that are selected for ECG 1a (i.e., Design 

A and B motors). 

TABLE V.11—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ALL DOMESTIC ELECTRIC MOTOR PRODUCTION WORKERS

IN 2016 

Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

Total Number of Domestic Production 

Workers in 2016 (upper bound: without 

changes in production locations) ............. 7,313 7,346 7,498 8,374 16,049 

Total Number of Domestic Production 

Workers in 2016 (lower bound: with 

changes to off-shore production locations) ......................................................... 7,313 7,313 6,947 3,657 0 

Potential Changes in Domestic Production 

Workers in 2016* ...................................... ........................ 33 to 0 185 to ¥366 1,061 to ¥3,656 8,736 to ¥7,313 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. 

Most manufacturers agree that any 

standard that involves expanding the 

scope of equipment required to meet 

premium efficiency levels for ECG 1a 

motors would not significantly change 

domestic employment levels. For 

standards that required ECG 1a motors 

to be at premium efficiency levels (the 

efficiency levels required for ECG 1a 

motors at TSL 2), most large 

manufacturers would not need to make 

major modifications to their production 

lines nor would they have to undertake 

new manufacturing processes. A few 

small manufacturers who primarily 

make electric motors outside the scope 

of coverage for the existing electric 

motor standards, but whose equipment 

would be covered by these electric 

motor standards, could be impacted by 

efficiency standards at TSL 2. These 

impacts to small manufacturers, 

including employment impacts, are 

discussed in more detail in section VI.B 

of today’s final rule. 

Overall, DOE believes there would not 

be a significant decrease in domestic 

employment levels at TSL 2, the 

selected TSL in today’s final rule. DOE 

created a lower bound of the potential 

loss of domestic employment at 366 

employees for TSL 2. DOE based this 

lower bound estimate on the fact that 

approximately 5 percent of the electric 

motor market is comprised of 

manufacturers that do not currently 

produce any motors at Premium 

efficiency levels. Therefore, DOE 

estimated that at most 5 percent of 

domestic electric motor employment in 

the base case in 2016 could potentially 

move abroad or exit the market entirely. 

However, DOE similarly estimated that 

all electric motor manufacturers 

produce some electric motors at or 

above TSL 1 efficiency levels. Therefore, 

DOE does not believe that any potential 

loss of domestic employment would 

occur at TSL 1. 

Manufacturers, however, cautioned 

that any energy conservation standard 

set above premium efficiency levels 

would require major changes to 

production lines, large investments in 

capital and labor, and would result in 

extensive stranded assets. This is largely 

because manufacturers would have to 

design and build motors with larger 

frame sizes and could potentially have 

to use copper, rather than aluminum 

rotors. Several manufacturers pointed 

out that this would require extensive 

retooling, vast engineering resources, 

and would ultimately result in a more 

labor-intensive production process. 

Manufacturers generally agreed that a 

shift toward copper rotors would cause 

companies to incur higher labor costs. 

These factors could cause manufacturers 

to consider moving production offshore 

in an attempt to reduce labor costs or 

they may choose to exit the market 

entirely. Therefore, DOE believes it is 

more likely that efficiency standards set 

above premium efficiency levels could 

result in a decrease of labor. 

Accordingly, DOE set the lower bound 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30994 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

on the potential loss of domestic 

employment at 50 percent of the 

domestic labor market in the base case 

in 2016 for TSL 3 and 100 percent for 

TSL 4. However, these values represent 

the worst-case scenario DOE modeled. 

Manufacturers also stated that larger 

motor manufacturing (i.e., the 

manufacturing of motors above 200 

horsepower) would be very unlikely to 

move abroad, because the shipping costs 

associated with those motors are very 

large. Consequently, DOE believes that 

standards set at TSL 3 and TSL 4 would 

not necessarily result in the large losses 

of domestic employment suggested by 

the lower bound of DOE’s direct 

employment analysis. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

Most manufacturers agree that any 

standard expanding the scope of 

equipment required to meet premium 

efficiency levels would not have a 

significant impact on manufacturing 

capacity. Manufacturers pointed out, 

however, that standards that required 

them to use copper rotors would 

severely disrupt manufacturing 

capacity. Baldor commented that motor 

manufacturers do not have the capacity 

to produce 5 million copper rotors per 

year. They stated it is challenging to 

manufacture better motor designs in 

actual production, compared to what 

can be obtained on paper. (Baldor, Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 118–119) Most 

manufacturers emphasized they do not 

currently have the machinery, 

technology, or engineering resources to 

produce copper rotors in-house. Some 

manufacturers claim that the few 

manufacturers that do have the 

capability of producing copper rotors 

are not able to produce these motors in 

volumes sufficient to meet the demands 

of the entire market. For manufacturers 

to either completely redesign their 

motor production lines or significantly 

expand their fairly limited copper rotor 

production line would require a massive 

retooling and engineering effort, which 

could take several years to complete. 

Most manufacturers stated they would 

have to outsource copper rotor 

production because they would not be 

able to modify their facilities and 

production processes to produce copper 

rotors in-house within a two year time 

period. Most manufacturers agree that 

outsourcing copper rotor die-casting 

would constrain capacity by creating a 

bottleneck in copper rotor production, 

as there are very few companies that 

produce copper rotors. 

Manufacturers also pointed out that 

there is substantial uncertainty 

surrounding the global availability and 

price of copper, which has the potential 

to constrain capacity. NEMA 

commented they are concerned about 

the potential price volatility with any 

standards requiring copper rotors. 

(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 12) DOE 

acknowledges that it is likely that there 

could be copper capacity concerns at 

any TSL requiring copper rotor motors. 

Currently, there is only a limited 

amount of copper die-casting machinery 

and companies with experience diecasting copper today. In addition, there 

could be significant fluctuations in the 

price of copper in the near term, which 

could lead to supply chain problems. 

Because the TSL selected in today’s 

final rule (TSL 2) does not require the 

use of copper rotors for any motors, 

DOE does not anticipate that today’s 

electric motor standards will cause any 

manufacturing capacity constraints. 

d. Impacts on Sub-Group of 

Manufacturers 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop industry cash-flow estimates 

may not adequately assess differential 

impacts among manufacturer subgroups. 

Small manufacturers, niche equipment 

manufacturers, and manufacturers 

exhibiting cost structures substantially 

different from the industry average 

could be affected disproportionately. 

DOE analyzed the impacts to small 

businesses in section VI.B and did not 

identify any other adversely impacted 

electric motor subgroups for this 

rulemaking based on the results of the 

industry characterization. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

While any one regulation may not 

impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

recent or impending regulations may 

have serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon production lines 

or markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing equipment. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis 

of cumulative regulatory burden as part 

of its rulemakings pertaining to 

equipment efficiency. 

During previous stages of this 

rulemaking, DOE identified a number of 

requirements, in addition to new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for electric motors, that manufacturers 

will face for equipment they 

manufacture approximately three years 

prior to, and three years after, the 

compliance date of the standards 

selected in today’s final rule, such as the 

small electric motors standard (75 FR 

10874) and the distribution transformers 

standard (78 FR 23336). The following 

section briefly addresses comments DOE 

received with respect to cumulative 

regulatory burden. 

Baldor commented that DOE should 

try to harmonize electric motor 

standards with the rest of the world. 

Baldor stated that the European Union’s 

(EU’s) electric motor standards will be 

set at premium efficiency levels in the 

next few years, so having U.S. electric 

motor standards at premium efficiency 

levels would harmonize U.S. electric 

motor standards with the EU’s 

standards. Baldor also stated that no 

other country is setting electric motor 

standards above premium efficiency 

levels, so any U.S. standards set above 

premium efficiency levels would cause 

the U.S. motor market to be out of 

synchronization with the rest of the 

world’s standards. Also, there is an 

ongoing effort to develop global 

markings for electric motors so that 

manufacturers do not have to conduct 

separate compliance testing and 

approvals for each country. Therefore, 

standards that are harmonized with the 

rest of the world’s standards would 

benefit manufacturers. (Baldor, Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 176–180) The 

standards adopted in today’s final rule 

do not require motor manufacturers to 

exceed premium efficiency levels for 

any motors. Therefore, the U.S. 

standards prescribed in today’s final 

rule would keep U.S. standards in 

harmony with the rest of the world and 

would not significantly add to the motor 

manufacturers’ cumulative regulatory 

burden from a global standards 

perspective. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings for electric motors purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance with new and 

amended standards (2016–2045). The 

savings are measured over the entire 

lifetime of equipment purchased in the 

30-year period. DOE quantified the 

energy savings attributable to each TSL 

as the difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case. Table V.12 presents the 

estimated primary energy savings for 

each considered TSL, and Table V.13 

presents the estimated FFC energy 

savings for each considered TSL. The 

approach for estimating national energy 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30995 

89EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at 

least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain 

products, a 3-year period after any new standard is 

promulgated before compliance is required, except 

that in no case may any new standards be required 

within 6 years of the compliance date of the 

previous standards. While adding a 6-year review 

to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, 

DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any 

time within the 6 year period and that the 3-year 

compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. 

A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate 

given the variability that occurs in the timing of 

standards reviews and the fact that for some 

consumer products, the compliance period is 5 

years rather than 3 years. 

savings is further described in section 

IV.H. 

TABLE V.12—CUMULATIVE PRIMARY ENERGY SAVINGS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS

SOLD IN 2016–2045 

Equipment class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

quads 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 1.08 6.83 10.54 13.42 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 

3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total all classes ................................................................................................................................ 1.10 6.85 10.57 13.45 

TABLE V.13—CUMULATIVE FULL-FUEL-CYCLE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR

UNITS SOLD IN 2016–2045 

Equipment class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

quads 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 1.10 6.95 10.72 13.64 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 

3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total all classes ................................................................................................................................ 1.12 6.97 10.75 13.67 

OMB Circular A–4 requires agencies 

to present analytical results, including 

separate schedules of the monetized 

benefits and costs that show the type 

and timing of benefits and costs. 

Circular A–4 also directs agencies to 

consider the variability of key elements 

underlying the estimates of benefits and 

costs. For this rulemaking, DOE 

undertook a sensitivity analysis using 

nine rather than 30 years of equipment 

shipments. The choice of a nine-year 

period is a proxy for the timeline in 

EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of and compliance with such 

revised standards.89 DOE notes that the 

review timeframe established in EPCA 

generally does not overlap with the 

equipment lifetime, equipment 

manufacturing cycles, or other factors 

specific to electric motors. Thus, this 

information is presented for 

informational purposes only and is not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology. The NES 

results based on a 9-year analytical 

period are presented in Table V.14. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

electric motors purchased in 2016–2024. 

TABLE V.14—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS

SOLD IN 2016–2024 

Equipment class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

quads 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.42 1.59 2.35 3.05 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 

3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total all classes ................................................................................................................................ 0.43 1.59 2.36 3.06 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30996 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

90OMB Circular A–4, section E (September 17, 

2003), available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

omb/circulars_a004_a-4. 

b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for customers 

that would result from the TSLs 

considered for electric motors. In 

accordance with OMB’s guidelines on 

regulatory analysis,90 DOE calculated 

the NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent real discount rate. The 7-percent 

rate is an estimate of the average beforetax rate of return on private capital in 

the U.S. economy, and it reflects the 

returns on real estate and small business 

capital as well as corporate capital. This 

discount rate approximates the 

opportunity cost of capital in the private 

sector (OMB analysis has found the 

average rate of return on capital to be 

near this rate). The 3-percent rate 

reflects the potential effects of standards 

on private consumption (e.g., through 

higher prices for equipment and 

reduced purchases of energy). This rate 

represents the rate at which society 

discounts future consumption flows to 

their present value. It can be 

approximated by the real rate of return 

on long-term government debt (i.e., 

yield on United States Treasury notes), 

which has averaged about 3-percent for 

the past 30 years. 

TABLE V.15—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR

UNITS SOLD IN 2016–2045 

[Billion 2013$] 

Equipment class Discount 

rate % 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

1 ......................................................................................................................... 6.91 28.75 8.61 ¥39.27 

2 ......................................................................................................................... 0.06 0.06 ¥0.02 ¥0.02 

3 ......................................................................................................................... 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 ¥0.03 

Total All Classes ......................................................................................... 6.97 28.81 8.59 ¥39.32 

1 ......................................................................................................................... 3.34 11.27 ¥1.50 ¥31.29 

2 ......................................................................................................................... 0.02 0.02 ¥0.03 ¥0.03 

3 ......................................................................................................................... 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 ¥0.02 

Total All Classes ......................................................................................... 3.36 11.29 ¥1.54 ¥31.34 

The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical period are 

presented in Table V.16. The impacts 

are counted over the lifetime of 

equipment purchased in 2016–2024. 

The review timeframe established in 

EPCA is generally not synchronized 

with the product lifetime, product 

manufacturing cycles, or other factors 

specific to electric motors. As 

mentioned previously, this information 

is presented for informational purposes 

only and is not indicative of any change 

in DOE’s analytical methodology or 

decision criteria. 

TABLE V.16—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR

UNITS SOLD IN 2016–2024 

[Billion 2013$] 

Equipment class Discount 

rate % 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

1 ......................................................................................................................... 3.15 8.81 4.79 ¥11.60 

2 ......................................................................................................................... 0.01 0.01 ¥0.01 ¥0.01 

3 ......................................................................................................................... 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 ¥0.01 

Total All Classes ......................................................................................... 3.17 8.83 4.78 ¥11.61 

1 ......................................................................................................................... 1.95 5.02 1.04 ¥12.94 

2 ......................................................................................................................... 0.01 0.01 ¥0.02 ¥0.02 

3 ......................................................................................................................... 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 ¥0.01 

Total All Classes ......................................................................................... 1.95 5.02 1.03 ¥12.97 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

DOE expects energy conservation 

standards for electric motors to reduce 

energy costs for equipment owners, with 

the resulting net savings being 

redirected to other forms of economic 

activity. Those shifts in spending and 

economic activity could affect the 

overall domestic demand for labor. As 

described in section IV.N, DOE used an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

to estimate indirect employment 

impacts of the TSLs that DOE 

considered in this rulemaking. DOE 

understands that there are uncertainties 

involved in projecting employment 

impacts, especially changes in the later 

years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE 

generated results for near-term time 

frames (2016–2021), where these 

uncertainties are reduced. 

The results suggest that today’s 

standards are likely to have negligible 

impact on the net demand for labor in 

the economy. The net change in jobs is 

so small that it would be imperceptible 

in national labor statistics and might be 

offset by other, unanticipated effects on 

employment. Chapter 16 of the TSD 

presents detailed results. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30997 

91These values reflect the latest SCC values 

developed by interagency process (November 2013) 

(see IV.L.1). 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance 

DOE believes that today’s standards 

will not lessen the utility or 

performance of electric motors. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE has also considered any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from new and amended energy 

conservation standards. The Attorney 

General determines the impact, if any, 

of any lessening of competition likely to 

result from a proposed standard, and 

transmits such determination in writing 

to the Secretary, together with an 

analysis of the nature and extent of such 

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

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

To assist the Attorney General in 

making such determination, DOE 

transmitted a copy of its proposed rule 

and NOPR TSD to the Attorney General 

with a request that the Department of 

Justice (DOJ) provide its determination 

on this issue. DOJ’s response, that the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

are unlikely to have a significant 

adverse impact on competition, is 

reprinted at the end of this rule. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

Enhanced energy efficiency, where 

economically justified, improves the 

Nation’s energy security, strengthens the 

economy, and reduces the 

environmental impacts or costs of 

energy production. Reduced electricity 

demand due to energy conservation 

standards is also likely to reduce the 

cost of maintaining and increase the 

reliability of the electricity system, 

particularly during peak-load periods. 

As a measure of this reduced demand, 

chapter 15 in the TSD presents the 

estimated reduction in the growth of 

generating capacity in 2044 for the TSLs 

that DOE considered in this rulemaking. 

Energy savings from energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors could also produce 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with 

electricity production. Table V.17 

provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative 

emissions reductions projected to result 

from the TSLs considered in this 

rulemaking. DOE reports annual 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

chapter 13 of the TSD. 

TABLE V.17—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

Primary Energy Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .......................................................................................................... 62.7 373 574 731 

NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................... 106 668 1,032 1,312 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................ 33.6 196 301 383 

Hg (tons) .................................................................................................................................. 0.132 0.819 1.26 1.61 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................ 1.24 8.30 12.9 16.3 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................ 7.38 46.2 71.4 90.7 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .......................................................................................................... 3.55 22.0 33.9 43.1 

NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................... 0.761 4.71 7.26 9.23 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................ 48.8 302 466 593 

Hg (tons) .................................................................................................................................. 0.002 0.012 0.018 0.023 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................ 0.036 0.221 0.341 0.433 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................ 296 1,837 2,834 3,604 

Full-Fuel-Cycle Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .......................................................................................................... 66.2 395 608 774 

NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................... 107 673 1,039 1,321 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................ 82.5 498 767 977 

Hg (tons) .................................................................................................................................. 0.134 0.831 1.28 1.63 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................ 1.27 8.52 13.2 16.8 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................ 304 1,883 2,905 3,695 

As part of the analysis for this rule, 

DOE estimated monetary benefits likely 

to result from the reduced emissions of 

CO2 and NOX that DOE estimated for 

each of the TSLs considered. As 

discussed in section IV.L, DOE used 

values for the SCC developed by an 

interagency process. The four sets of 

SCC values resulting from that 

process 91 (expressed in 2013$) are 

represented in today’s rule as the value 

of emission reductions in 2015 by 

$12.0/metric ton (the average value from 

a distribution that uses a 5-percent 

discount rate), $40.5/metric ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 3-percent discount rate), $62.4/

metric ton (the average value from a 

distribution that uses a 2.5-percent 

discount rate), and $119 metric ton (the 

95th-percentile value from a 

distribution that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate). These values correspond 

to the value of emission reductions in 

2015; the values for later years are 

higher due to increasing damages as the 

projected magnitude of climate change 

increases. 

Table V.18 presents the global value 

of CO2 emissions reductions at each 

TSL. For each of the four cases, DOE 

calculated a present value of the stream 

of annual values using the same 

discount rate as was used in the studies 

upon which the dollar-per-ton values 

are based. DOE calculated domestic 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30998 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

values as a range from 7 percent to 23 

percent of the global values, and these 

results are presented in chapter 14 of 

the final rule TSD. 

TABLE V.18—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER ELECTRIC MOTORS TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS

[Million 2013$] 

TSL 

SCC Case * 

5% discount 

rate, average * 

3% discount 

rate, average * 

2.5% discount 

rate, average * 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile * 

Primary Energy Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 465 2,070 3,269 6,373 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 2,529 11,720 18,651 36,225 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 3,870 17,985 28,633 55,600 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 4,939 22,923 36,488 70,858 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 25.7 116 183 357 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 146 682 1,087 2,110 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 223 1,049 1,673 3,246 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 285 1,335 2,129 4,132 

Full-Fuel-Cycle Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 491 2,185 3,452 6,730 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 2,675 12,402 19,738 38,335 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 4,094 19,033 30,306 58,845 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 5,223 24,258 38,618 74,991 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton (2013$). 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other 

greenhouse gas (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 on 

reducing CO2 emissions in this 

rulemaking 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. 

DOE also estimated a range for the 

cumulative monetary value of the 

economic benefits associated with NOX

emissions reductions anticipated to 

result from new and amended standards 

for electric motors. The low and high 

dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are 

discussed in section IV.L. Table V.19 

presents the estimated cumulative 

present values of NOX emissions 

reductions for each TSL calculated 

using seven-percent and three-percent 

discount rates. 

TABLE V.19—ESTIMATES OF PRESENT

VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER ELECTRIC MOTORS

TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

[Million 2013$] 

TSL 3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ................ 52.1 28.8 

2 ................ 269 131 

3 ................ 410 197 

4 ................ 524 253 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ................ 71.5 36.9 

2 ................ 396 179 

3 ................ 606 272 

4 ................ 773 348 

Full-Fuel-Cycle Emissions 

1 ................ 124 65.8 

2 ................ 664 310 

3 ................ 1,016 469 

4 ................ 1,297 601 

7. Summary of National Economic 

Impacts 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the customer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. Table V.20 presents the 

NPV values that result from adding the 

estimates of the potential economic 

benefits resulting from reduced CO2 and 

NOX emissions in each of four valuation 

scenarios to the NPV of customer 

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 to 

the four sets of SCC values discussed 

above. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30999 

TABLE V.20—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER SAVINGS COMBINED WITH NET PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED

BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

[Billion 2013$] 

TSL 

SCC Case 

$12.0/metric ton 

CO2* and Low 

Value for NOX** 

SCC Case 

$40.5/metric ton 

CO2* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX** 

SCC Case 

$62.4/metric ton 

CO2* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX** 

SCC Case $119/

metric ton CO2* 

and High Value 

for NOX** 

Customer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with: 

1 ....................................................................................................... 7.5 9.3 10.6 13.9 

2 ....................................................................................................... 31.6 41.9 49.2 68.4 

3 ....................................................................................................... 12.9 28.6 39.9 69.3 

4 ....................................................................................................... ¥33.9 ¥13.8 0.6 38.0 

Customer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with: 

1 ....................................................................................................... 3.9 5.6 6.9 10.2 

2 ....................................................................................................... 14.0 24.0 31.3 50.2 

3 ....................................................................................................... 2.6 18.0 29.2 58.2 

4 ....................................................................................................... ¥26.0 ¥6.5 7.9 44.7 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2013$. 

** Low Value corresponds to $476 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,684 per ton, and High Value corresponds to 

$4,893 per ton. 

Although adding the value of 

customer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

cost savings are domestic U.S. customer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions, while the value 

of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and the SCC are 

performed with different methods that 

use quite different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

equipment shipped in 2016–2045. The 

SCC values, on the other hand, reflect 

the present value of future climaterelated impacts resulting from the 

emission of one metric ton of CO2 in 

each year. These impacts continue well 

beyond 2100. 

8. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, may consider 

any other factors that the Secretary 

deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) DOE has considered 

the submission of the Petition under 

this factor. As described previously, 

DOE believes the Petition sets forth a 

statement by interested persons that are 

fairly representative of relevant points 

of view (including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered equipment, 

efficiency advocates, and others) and 

contains recommendations with respect 

to an energy conservation standard that 

are technologically feasible, 

economically justified, and likely to 

save significant energy. DOE encourages 

the submission of such consensus 

agreements as a way to bring diverse 

interested parties together, to develop 

an independent and probative analysis 

useful in DOE standard setting, and to 

expedite the rulemaking process. DOE 

also believes that standard levels 

recommended in the Petition may 

increase the likelihood for regulatory 

compliance, while decreasing the risk of 

litigation. 

C. Conclusions 

When considering standards, the new 

or amended energy conservation 

standard that DOE adopts for any type 

(or class) of covered equipment shall be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary of Energy determines 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, the Secretary 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens to the 

greatest extent practicable, considering 

the seven statutory factors discussed 

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

and 6316(a)) The new or amended 

standard must also ‘‘result in significant 

conservation of energy’’. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)) 

For today’s final rule, DOE considered 

the impacts of standards at each TSL, 

beginning with the max-tech level, to 

determine whether that level was 

economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not justified, DOE then 

considered the next most efficient level 

and undertook the same evaluation until 

it reached the highest efficiency level 

that is technologically feasible, 

economically justified, and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

Throughout this process, DOE also 

considered the consensus 

recommendations made by the Motors 

Coalition and the views of other 

stakeholders in their submitted 

comments. 

To aid the reader in understanding 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

tables in this section summarize the 

quantitative analytical results for each 

TSL, based on the assumptions and 

methodology discussed herein. The 

efficiency levels contained in each TSL 

are described in section V.A. In addition 

to the quantitative results presented in 

the tables, DOE also considers other 

burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification. These include 

the impacts on identifiable subgroups of 

customers who may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard, and impacts on employment. 

Section V.B.1.b presents the estimated 

impacts of each TSL for the considered 

subgroup. DOE discusses the impacts on 

employment in the electric motor 

manufacturing sector in section V.B.2.b, 

and discusses the indirect employment 

impacts in section V.B.3.c 

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial 

Standard Levels Considered for Electric 

Motors 

Table V.21 and Table V.22 summarize 

the quantitative impacts estimated for 

each TSL for electric motors. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
31000 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.21—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

National Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Savings quads 

1.1 7.0 10.7 13.7 

NPV of Consumer Benefits 2013$ billion 

3% discount rate ....................................................................................... 7.0 28.8 8.6 ¥39.3 

7% discount rate ....................................................................................... 3.4 11.3 ¥1.5 ¥31.3 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions) 

CO2 million metric tons ............................................................................. 66.2 395 608 774 

SO2 thousand tons ................................................................................... 107 673 1,039 1,321 

NOX thousand tons .................................................................................. 82.5 498 767 977 

Hg tons ..................................................................................................... 0.134 0.831 1.28 1.63 

N2O thousand tons ................................................................................... 1.27 8.52 13.2 16.8 

CH4 thousand tons ................................................................................... 304 1,883 2,905 3,695 

Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions) 

CO2 2013$ million* ................................................................................... 491 to 6,730 2,675 to 

38,335 

4,094 to 

58,845 

5,233 to 

74,991 

NOX—3% discount rate 2013$ million ..................................................... 124 664 1,016 1,297 

NOX—7% discount rate 2013$ million ..................................................... 66 310 469 601 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

TABLE V.22—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Manufacturer Impacts 

INPV (2013$ million) (Base Case INPV of $3,478.0) ..................................... 3,486.4 to 

3,461.3 

3,870.6 to 

3,130.4 

4,541.9 to 

2,928.3 

5,382.2 to 

2,048.3 

INPV (change in 2013$) .................................................................................. 8.4 to ¥16.7 392.6 to 

¥347.7 

1,063.9 to 

¥549.7 

1,904.1 to 

¥1,429.8 

INPV (% change) ............................................................................................. 0.2 to ¥0.5 11.3 to ¥10.0 30.6 to ¥15.8 54.7 to ¥41.1 

Consumer Mean LCC Savings * 2013$ 

Equipment Class Group 1 ............................................................................... 55 160 98 ¥409 

Equipment Class Group 2 ............................................................................... 53 53 ¥280 ¥280 

Equipment Class Group 3 ............................................................................... N/A ** N/A ** ¥65 ¥807 

Consumer Median PBP * years 

Equipment Class Group 1 ............................................................................... 1.0 2.9 6.0 26.5 

Equipment Class Group 2 ............................................................................... 4.5 4.5 20.7 20.7 

Equipment Class Group 3 ............................................................................... N/A ** N/A ** 3,016 11,632 

Equipment Class Group 1 

Net Cost % ...................................................................................................... 0.3 7.8 34.8 83.3 

Net Benefit % ................................................................................................... 10.9 34.3 44.7 9.4 

No Impact % .................................................................................................... 88.8 57.9 20.4 7.3 

Equipment Class Group 2 

Net Cost % ...................................................................................................... 18.6 18.6 92.8 92.8 

Net Benefit % ................................................................................................... 71.5 71.5 7.2 7.2 

No Impact % .................................................................................................... 9.8 9.8 0.0 0.0 

Equipment Class Group 3 

Net Cost (%) .................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 81.7 100.0 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

No Impact (%) .................................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0

* The results for each equipment class group (ECG) are a shipment weighted average of results for the representative units in the group. ECG 

1: Representative units 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10; ECG 2: Representative units 4 and 5; ECG 3: Representative units 6, 7, and 8. 

** For equipment class group 3, TSL 1 and 2 are the same as the baseline; thus, no customers are affected. 

First, DOE considered TSL 4, the most 

efficient level (max-tech), which would 

save an estimated total of 13.7 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. TSL 4 has an estimated NPV 

of customer benefit of ¥31.3 billion 

using a 7-percent discount rate, and 

¥39.3 billion using a 3-percent 

discount rate. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 774 million metric tons of 

CO2, 977 thousand tons of NOX, 1,321 

thousand tons of SO2, and 1.6 tons of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4 

ranges from $5,233 million to $74,991 

million. 

At TSL 4, the weighted average LCC 

impact ranges from $¥807 for ECG 3 to 

$¥280 for ECG 2. The weighted average 

median PBP ranges from 20.7 years for 

ECG 2 to 11,632 years for ECG 3. The 

weighted average share of customers 

experiencing a net LCC benefit ranges 

from 0-percent for ECG 3 to 9.4-percent 

for ECG 1. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $1,429.8 

million to an increase of $1,904.1 

million. If the decrease of $1,429.8 

million were to occur, TSL 4 could 

result in a net loss of 41.1 percent in 

INPV to manufacturers of covered 

electric motors. 

Based on the foregoing, DOE 

concludes that, at TSL 4 for electric 

motors, the benefits of energy savings, 

generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

potential multi-billion dollar negative 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31001 

net economic cost; the economic burden 

on customers as indicated by the 

increase in customer LCC (negative 

savings), large PBPs, the large 

percentage of customers who would 

experience LCC increases; the increase 

in the cumulative regulatory burden on 

manufacturers; and the capital and 

engineering costs that could result in a 

large reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers at TSL 4. Additionally, 

DOE believes that efficiency standards 

at this level could result in significant 

impacts on OEMs due to larger and 

faster motors. Although DOE has not 

quantified these potential OEM impacts, 

DOE believes that it is possible that 

these impacts could be significant and 

further reduce any potential benefits of 

standards established at this TSL. 

Consequently, DOE has concluded that 

TSL 4 is not economically justified. 

Next, DOE considered TSL 3, which 

would save an estimated total of 10.7 

quads of energy, an amount DOE 

considers significant. TSL 3 has an 

estimated NPV of customer benefit of 

$¥1.5 billion using a 7-percent 

discount rate, and $8.6 billion using a 

3-percent discount rate. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 608 million metric tons of 

CO2, 767 thousand tons of NOX, 1,039 

thousand tons of SO2, and 1.3 tons of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4 

ranges from $4,094 million to $58,845 

million. 

At TSL 3, the weighted average LCC 

impact ranges from $¥280 for ECG 2 to 

$98 for ECG 1. The weighted average 

median PBP ranges from 6 years for ECG 

1 to 3,016 years for ECG 3. The share of 

customers experiencing a net LCC 

benefit ranges from 0-percent for ECG 3 

to 44.7-percent for ECG 1. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $549.7 

million to an increase of $1,063.9 

million. If the decrease of $549.7 

million were to occur, TSL 3 could 

result in a net loss of 15.8 percent in 

INPV to manufacturers of covered 

electric motors. 

Based on the foregoing, DOE 

concludes that, at TSL 3 for electric 

motors, the benefits of energy savings, 

positive weighted average customer LCC 

savings for some ECGs, generating 

capacity reductions, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary 

value of the emissions reductions would 

be outweighed by the potential negative 

net economic cost; the economic burden 

on customers as indicated by the 

increase in weighted average LCC for 

some ECGs (negative savings), large 

PBPs, the large percentage of customers 

who would experience LCC increases; 

the increase in the cumulative 

regulatory burden on manufacturers; 

and the capital and engineering costs 

that could result in a large reduction in 

INPV for manufacturers at TSL 3. 

Additionally, DOE believes that 

efficiency standards at this level could 

result in significant impacts on OEMs 

due to larger and faster motors. 

Although DOE has not quantified these 

potential OEM impacts, DOE believes 

that it is possible that these impacts 

could be significant and further reduce 

any potential benefits of standards 

established at this TSL. Consequently, 

DOE has concluded that TSL 3 is not 

economically justified. 

Next, DOE considered TSL 2, which 

would save an estimated total of 7.0 

quads of energy, an amount DOE 

considers significant. TSL 2 has an 

estimated NPV of customer benefit of 

$11.3 billion using a 7-percent discount 

rate, and $28.8 billion using a 3-percent 

discount rate. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 2 are 395 million metric tons of 

CO2, 498 thousand tons of NOX, 673 

thousand tons of SO2, and 0.8 tons of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4 

ranges from $2,675 million to $38,335 

million. 

At TSL 2, the weighted average LCC 

impact ranges from no impacts for ECG 

3 to $160 for ECG 1. The weighted 

average median PBP ranges from 0 years 

for ECG 3 to 4.5 years for ECG 2. The 

share of customers experiencing a net 

LCC benefit ranges from 0-percent for 

ECG 3 to 71.5-percent for ECG 2.The 

share of motors already at TSL2 

efficiency levels varies by equipment 

class group and by horsepower range 

(from 0- to 57.9-percent). For ECG 1, 

which represents the most significant 

share of the market, about 30-percent of 

motors already meet the TSL levels. 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $347.7 

million to an increase of $392.6 million. 

If the decrease of $347.7 million were to 

occur, TSL 2 could result in a net loss 

of 10.0 percent in INPV to 

manufacturers of covered electric 

motors. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and the burdens, 

DOE has concluded that at TSL 2 for 

electric motors, the benefits of energy 

savings, positive NPV of customer 

benefit, positive impacts on consumers 

(as indicated by positive weighted 

average LCC savings for all ECGs 

impacted at TSL 2), favorable PBPs, the 

large percentage of customers who 

would experience LCC benefits, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the emissions 

reductions would outweigh the slight 

increase in the cumulative regulatory 

burden on manufacturers and the risk of 

small negative impacts if manufacturers 

are unable to recoup investments made 

to meet the standard. In particular, the 

Secretary of Energy has concluded that 

TSL 2 would save a significant amount 

of energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. 

In addition, DOE notes that TSL 2 

most closely corresponds to the 

standards that were proposed by the 

Motor Coalition, as described in section 

II.B.2. Based on the above 

considerations, DOE today adopts the 

energy conservation standards for 

electric motors at TSL 2. Table V.23 

through Table V.25 present the energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors. 

TABLE V.23—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR NEMA DESIGN A AND NEMA DESIGN B MOTORS

[Compliance starting June 1, 2016] 

Motor horsepower/ 

standard kilowatt 

equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency (%) 

2-Pole 4-Pole 6-Pole 8-Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

1/.75 ................................. 77.0 77.0 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5 

1.5/1.1 .............................. 84.0 84.0 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0 

2/1.5 ................................. 85.5 85.5 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5 

3/2.2 ................................. 86.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5 

5/3.7 ................................. 88.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5 

7.5/5.5 .............................. 89.5 88.5 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
31002 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.23—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR NEMA DESIGN A AND NEMA DESIGN B MOTORS—Continued 

[Compliance starting June 1, 2016] 

Motor horsepower/ 

standard kilowatt 

equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency (%) 

2-Pole 4-Pole 6-Pole 8-Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

10/7.5 ............................... 90.2 89.5 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2 

15/11 ................................ 91.0 90.2 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2 

20/15 ................................ 91.0 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0 

25/18.5 ............................. 91.7 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0 

30/22 ................................ 91.7 91.7 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7 

40/30 ................................ 92.4 92.4 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7 

50/37 ................................ 93.0 93.0 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4 

60/45 ................................ 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0 

75/55 ................................ 93.6 93.6 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1 

100/75 .............................. 94.1 93.6 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1 

125/90 .............................. 95.0 94.1 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1 

150/110 ............................ 95.0 94.1 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1 

200/150 ............................ 95.4 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1 

250/186 ............................ 95.8 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0 

300/224 ............................ 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 .................... ....................

350/261 ............................ 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 .................... ....................

400/298 ............................ 95.8 95.8 96.2 95.8 .................... .................... .................... ....................

450/336 ............................ 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 .................... .................... .................... ....................

500/373 ............................ 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 .................... .................... .................... ....................

TABLE V.24—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR NEMA DESIGN C MOTORS

[Compliance starting June 1, 2016] 

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency (%) 

4-Pole 6-Pole 8-Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

1/.75 ................................................................................. 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5 

1.5/1.1 .............................................................................. 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0 

2/1.5 ................................................................................. 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5 

3/2.2 ................................................................................. 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5 

5/3.7 ................................................................................. 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5 

7.5/5.5 .............................................................................. 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5 

10/7.5 ............................................................................... 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2 

15/11 ................................................................................ 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2 

20/15 ................................................................................ 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0 

25/18.5 ............................................................................. 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0 

30/22 ................................................................................ 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7 

40/30 ................................................................................ 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7 

50/37 ................................................................................ 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4 

60/45 ................................................................................ 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0 

75/55 ................................................................................ 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1 

100/75 .............................................................................. 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1 

125/90 .............................................................................. 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1 

150/110 ............................................................................ 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1 

200/150 ............................................................................ 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1 

TABLE V.25—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS

[Compliance starting June 1, 2016] 

Motor horsepower/ 

standard kilowatt 

equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency (%) 

2-Pole 4-Pole 6-Pole 8-Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

1/.75 ................................. 75.5 .................... 82.5 82.5 80.0 80.0 74.0 74.0 

1.5/1.1 .............................. 82.5 82.5 84.0 84.0 85.5 84.0 77.0 75.5 

2/1.5 ................................. 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 86.5 85.5 82.5 85.5 

3/2.2 ................................. 85.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 84.0 86.5 

5/3.7 ................................. 87.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 87.5 

7.5/5.5 .............................. 88.5 87.5 89.5 88.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 88.5 

10/7.5 ............................... 89.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 90.2 88.5 89.5 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31003 

92 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2014, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of three and seven percent for all costs and 

benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For 

the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 

shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE 

then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30- 

year period (2016 through 2045) that yields the 

same present value. The fixed annual payment is 

the annualized value. Although DOE calculated 

annualized values, this does not imply that the 

time-series of cost and benefits from which the 

annualized values were determined is a steady 

stream of payments. 

TABLE V.25—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS—Continued 

[Compliance starting June 1, 2016] 

Motor horsepower/ 

standard kilowatt 

equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency (%) 

2-Pole 4-Pole 6-Pole 8-Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

15/11 ................................ 90.2 89.5 91.0 91.0 90.2 90.2 88.5 89.5 

20/15 ................................ 90.2 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 91.0 89.5 90.2 

25/18.5 ............................. 91.0 91.0 92.4 91.7 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2 

30/22 ................................ 91.0 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.7 92.4 91.0 91.0 

40/30 ................................ 91.7 91.7 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 91.0 91.0 

50/37 ................................ 92.4 92.4 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.7 

60/45 ................................ 93.0 93.0 93.6 93.6 93.6 93.6 91.7 92.4 

75/55 ................................ 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.1 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.6 

100/75 .............................. 93.6 93.0 94.5 94.1 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.6 

125/90 .............................. 94.5 93.6 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 93.6 93.6 

150/110 ............................ 94.5 93.6 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.5 93.6 93.6 

200/150 ............................ 95.0 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.1 93.6 

250/186 ............................ 95.4 94.5 95.0 95.4 95.0 95.4 94.5 94.5 

300/224 ............................ 95.4 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.4 .................... ....................

350/261 ............................ 95.4 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.4 .................... ....................

400/298 ............................ 95.4 95.4 95.4 95.4 .................... .................... .................... ....................

450/336 ............................ 95.4 95.8 95.4 95.8 .................... .................... .................... ....................

500/373 ............................ 95.4 95.8 95.8 95.8 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of Today’s Standards 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

standards, for equipment sold in 2016– 

2045, can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of: (1) The 

annualized national economic value of 

the benefits from consumer operation of 

equipment that meet the standards 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in equipment purchase and 

installation costs, which is another way 

of representing consumer NPV), and (2) 

the annualized monetary value of the 

benefits of emission reductions, 

including CO2 emission reductions.92

Although combining the values of 

operating savings and CO2 emission 

reductions provides a useful 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions while the value 

of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and CO2 savings 

are performed with different methods 

that use different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

electric motors shipped in 2016–2045. 

The SCC values, on the other hand, 

reflect the present value of some future 

climate-related impacts resulting from 

the emission of one ton of carbon 

dioxide in each year. These impacts 

continue well beyond 2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of today’s standards for electric 

motors are shown in Table V.26. The 

results under the primary estimate are 

as follows. Using a 7-percent discount 

rate for benefits and costs other than 

CO2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3- 

percent discount rate along with the 

average SCC series that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate, the cost of today’s 

standards is $517 million per year in 

increased equipment costs; while the 

estimated benefits are $1,367 million 

per year in reduced equipment 

operating costs, $614 million per year in 

CO2 reductions, and $23.3 million per 

year in reduced NOX emissions. In this 

case, the net benefit would amount to 

$1,488 million per year. Using a 3- 

percent discount rate for all benefits and 

costs and the average SCC series, the 

estimated cost of today’s standards is 

$621 million per year in increased 

equipment costs; while the estimated 

benefits are $2,048 million per year in 

reduced operating costs, $614 million 

per year in CO2 reductions, and $32.9 

million per year in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

would amount to approximately $2,074 

million per year. 

TABLE V.26—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS

[Million 2013$/year] 

Discount rate Primary estimate * Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

Benefits 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................... 7% ......................... 1,367 ..................... 1,134 ..................... 1,664 

3% ......................... 2,048 ..................... 1,684 ..................... 2,521 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) * .......... 5% ......................... 166 ........................ 143 ........................ 192 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) * .......... 3% ......................... 614 ........................ 531 ........................ 712 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
31004 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.26—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS—Continued 

[Million 2013$/year] 

Discount rate Primary estimate * Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) * .......... 2.5% ...................... 920 ........................ 795 ........................ 1,066 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value $119/t case) * ............ 3% ......................... 1,899 ..................... 1,641 ..................... 2,200 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) ** ...... 7% ......................... 23.3 ....................... 20.1 ....................... 26.8 

3% ......................... 32.9 ....................... 28.4 ....................... 38.0 

Total Benefits † ........................................................ 7% plus CO2 range 1,556 to 3,289 ....... 1,297 to 2,795 ....... 1,882 to 3,890 

7% ......................... 2,005 ..................... 1,685 ..................... 2,402 

3% plus CO2 range 2,247 to 3,980 ....... 1,855 to 3,353 ....... 2,750 to 4,758 

3% ......................... 2,696 ..................... 2,243 ..................... 3,270 

Costs 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ...................... 7% ......................... 517 ........................ 582 ........................ 503 

3% ......................... 621 ........................ 697 ........................ 616 

Net Benefits 

Total † ...................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range 1,039 to 2,772 ....... 716 to 2,213 .......... 1,380 to 3,388 

7% ......................... 1,488 ..................... 1,103 ..................... 1,900 

3% plus CO2 range 1,626 to 3,359 ....... 1,158 to 2,656 ....... 2,134 to 4,143 

3% ......................... 2,074 ..................... 1,546 ..................... 2,654 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2016–2045. These results include benefits to 

consumers which accrue after 2044 from the equipment purchased in years 2016–2045. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may 

be incurred in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The Primary, 

Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates are in view of projections of energy prices from the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Reference 

case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium constant projected equipment 

price in the Primary Estimate, a decline rate for projected equipment price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and an increasing rate for projected equipment price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1. 

** The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average SCC 

from the three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth set, 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. The values in parentheses represent the SCC in 2015. The SCC time series incorporate 

an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount 

rate. In the rows labeled ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled 

discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

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 that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that today’s 

standards address are as follows: There 

are external benefits resulting from 

improved energy efficiency of covered 

electric motors which are not captured 

by the users of such equipment. These 

benefits include externalities related to 

environmental protection and energy 

security that are not reflected in energy 

prices, such as emissions of greenhouse 

gases. DOE attempts to quantify some of 

the external benefits through use of 

Social Cost of Carbon values. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

today’s regulatory action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f)(1) Executive Order 12866. 

DOE presented to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the OMB for review the draft 

rule and other documents prepared for 

this rulemaking, including the RIA, and 

has included these documents in the 

rulemaking record. The assessments 

prepared pursuant to Executive Order 

12866 can be found in the technical 

support document for this rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281 

(January 21, 2011). EO 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, OIRA has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE believes 

that today’s final rule is consistent with 

these principles, including the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, benefits justify costs 

and that net benefits are maximized. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31005 

93http://www.nema.org/Products/Pages/Motorand-Generator.aspx. 

94http://www.hoovers.com. 

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 (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

and a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) for any such rule that an agency 

adopts as a final rule, 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://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). 

DOE reviewed the December 2013 

NOPR (78 FR 73590) and today’s final 

rule under the provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. 

As a result of this review, DOE has 

prepared a FRFA for electric motors. As 

presented and discussed in the 

following section, the FRFA describes 

impacts on electric motor manufacturers 

and discusses alternatives that could 

minimize these impacts. A statement of 

the reasons for establishing the 

standards in today’s final rule, and the 

objectives of, and legal basis for these 

standards, are set forth elsewhere in the 

preamble and not repeated here. 

Chapter 12 of the TSD contains more 

information about the impact of this 

rulemaking on manufacturers. 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

For manufacturers of electric motors, 

the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has set a size threshold, which 

defines those entities classified as 

‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of 

the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small 

business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of 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 North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code and 

industry description and are available at 

http://www.sba.gov/content/table-smallbusiness-size-standards. Electric motor 

manufacturing is classified under 

NAICS 335312, ‘‘Motor and Generator 

Manufacturing’’. The SBA sets a 

threshold of 1,000 employees or less for 

an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

To estimate the number of companies 

that could be small business 

manufacturers of equipment covered by 

this rulemaking, DOE conducted a 

market survey using publicly available 

information. DOE’s research involved 

industry trade association membership 

directories (including NEMA 93), 

information from previous rulemakings, 

UL qualification directories, individual 

company Web sites, and market 

research tools (e.g., Hoover’s reports 94). 

DOE also asked stakeholders and 

industry representatives if they were 

aware of any other small manufacturers 

during manufacturer interviews and 

DOE public meetings. DOE used 

information from these sources to create 

a list of companies that could 

potentially manufacture electric motors 

covered by this rulemaking. As 

necessary, DOE contacted companies to 

determine whether they met the SBA’s 

definition of a small business 

manufacturer. DOE screened out 

companies that do not offer equipment 

covered by this rulemaking, do not meet 

the definition of a ‘‘small business,’’ or 

are completely foreign-owned and 

-operated. 

DOE initially identified 60 potential 

manufacturers of electric motors sold in 

the United States. After reviewing 

publicly available information on these 

potential electric motor manufacturers, 

DOE determined that 33 were either 

large manufacturers or manufacturers 

that did not sell electric motors covered 

by this rulemaking. DOE then contacted 

the remaining 27 companies to 

determine whether they met the SBA 

definition of a small business and 

whether they manufactured the 

equipment that would be affected by 

today’s standards. Based on these 

efforts, DOE estimates that there are 13 

small business manufacturers of electric 

motors covered by this rulemaking in 

the United States. 

a. Manufacturer Participation 

As stated in the December 2013 NOPR 

(78 FR at 73670), DOE attempted to 

contact the 13 identified small 

businesses to invite them to take part in 

a small business manufacturer impact 

analysis interview. Of the electric motor 

manufacturers DOE contacted, 10 

responded, and three did not. Eight of 

the 10 responding manufacturers 

declined to be interviewed. Therefore, 

DOE was able to reach and discuss 

potential standards with two of the 13 

small business manufacturers. DOE also 

obtained information about small 

business manufacturers and potential 

impacts while interviewing large 

manufacturers. 

b. Electric Motor Industry Structure and 

Nature of Competition 

Eight major manufacturers supply 

approximately 90 percent of the market 

for electric motors. None of the major 

manufacturers of electric motors 

covered in this rulemaking is a small 

business. DOE estimates that 

approximately 50 percent of the market 

is served by imports. Many of the small 

businesses that compete in the electric 

motor market produce specialized 

motors, many of which have not been 

regulated under previous standards. 

Most of these low-volume 

manufacturers do not compete directly 

with large manufacturers and tend to 

occupy niche markets for their 

equipment, which are currently not 

required to comply with existing 

electric motor standards but would be 

required to comply with the standards 

in this final rule. There are a few small 

business manufacturers that produce 

general purpose motors; however, these 

motors already meet premium efficiency 

levels, which correspond to the 

efficiency levels being selected for the 

majority of electric motors covered in 

today’s final rule. 

c. Comparison Between Large and Small 

Entities 

For electric motors, small 

manufacturers differ from large 

manufacturers in several ways that 

affect the extent to which a 

manufacturer would be impacted by 

selected standards. Characteristics of 

small manufacturers include: lower 

production volumes, fewer engineering 

resources, less technical expertise, and 

less access to capital. 

A lower-volume manufacturer’s 

conversion costs would need to be 

spread over fewer units than a larger 

competitor. Smaller companies are also 

more likely to have more limited 

engineering resources, and they often 

operate with lower levels of design and 

manufacturing sophistication. Smaller 

companies typically also have less 

experience and expertise in working 

with more advanced technologies. 

Standards that required these 

technologies could strain the 

engineering resources of these small 

manufacturers, if they chose to maintain 

a vertically integrated business model. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
31006 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Small manufacturers of electric motor 

can also be at a disadvantage due to 

their lack of purchasing power for highperformance materials. For example, 

more expensive low-loss steels are 

needed to meet higher efficiency 

standards, and steel cost grows as a 

percentage of the overall equipment 

cost. Small manufacturers who pay 

higher per-pound prices would be 

disproportionately impacted by these 

prices. Lastly, small manufacturers 

typically have less access to capital, 

which may be needed by some to cover 

the conversion costs associated with 

new technologies. 

2. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

In its market survey, DOE identified 

three categories of small manufacturers 

of electric motors that may be impacted 

differently by today’s final rule. The 

first group, which includes 

approximately five of the 13 small 

businesses, consists of manufacturers 

that produce specialty motors that were 

not required to meet previous Federal 

standards, but would need to do so 

under the expanded scope of today’s 

final rule. DOE believes that this group 

would likely be the most impacted by 

expanding the scope of equipment 

required to meet premium efficiency 

levels. The second group, which 

includes approximately five different 

small businesses, consists of 

manufacturers that produce a small 

amount of covered equipment and 

primarily focus on other types of motors 

not covered in this rulemaking, such as 

single-phase or direct-current motors. 

Because generally less than 10 percent 

of these manufacturers’ revenue comes 

from covered equipment, DOE does not 

believe new standards will substantially 

impact their business. The third group, 

which includes approximately three 

small businesses, consists of 

manufacturers that already offer 

premium efficiency general purpose and 

specialty motors. DOE expects these 

manufacturers to face conversion costs 

similar to large manufacturers, in that 

they will not experience high capital 

conversion costs as they already have 

the design and production experience 

necessary to bring their motors up to 

premium efficiency levels. It is likely, 

however, that some of the specialty 

equipment these manufacturers produce 

will be included in the expanded scope 

of this rule and is likely to result in 

these small businesses incurring 

additional certification and testing 

costs. These manufacturers could also 

face equipment development costs if 

they have to redesign any motors that 

are not currently meeting the premium 

level. 

At TSL 2, the level adopted in today’s 

notice, DOE estimates capital 

conversion costs of $1.88 million and 

equipment conversion costs of $3.75 

million for a typical small manufacturer 

in the first group (manufacturers that 

produce specialized motors previously 

not covered by Federal standards). 

Meanwhile, DOE estimates a typical 

large manufacturer would incur capital 

and equipment conversion costs of 

$3.29 million and $7.25 million, 

respectively, at the same TSL. Small 

manufacturers that predominately 

produce specialty motors would face 

higher relative capital conversion costs 

at TSL 2 than large manufacturers 

because large manufacturers have been 

independently pursuing higher 

efficiency motors as a result of the 

efficiency standards prescribed by EISA 

2007 (10 CFR 431.25) and, 

consequently, have built up more design 

and production experience. Large 

manufacturers have also been 

innovating as a result of the small 

electric motors rulemaking at 75 FR 

10874 (March 9, 2010). This rule did not 

apply to non-general purpose small 

electric motors that many of these small 

business manufacturers produce. Many 

large manufacturers of general purpose 

motors offer equipment that was 

covered by the 2010 small electric 

motors rule, as well as equipment that 

falls under this rule. Small 

manufacturers pointed out that this fact 

would give large manufacturers an 

advantage in that they already have 

experience with the technology 

necessary to redesign their equipment 

and are familiar with the steps they will 

have to take to upgrade their 

manufacturing equipment and 

processes. Small manufacturers, whose 

specialized motors were not required to 

meet the standards prescribed by the 

small electric motors rule and EISA 

2007 have not undergone these 

processes and, therefore, would have to 

put more time and resources into 

redesign efforts. 

The small businesses whose 

equipment lines consist of a high 

percentage of equipment that are not 

currently required to meet efficiency 

standards would need to make 

significant capital investments relative 

to large manufacturers to upgrade their 

production lines with equipment 

necessary to produce motors that can 

satisfy the levels being adopted today. 

As Table VI.1 illustrates, these 

manufacturers would have to drastically 

increase their capital expenditures to 

purchase new lamination die sets, and 

new winding and stacking equipment. 

For small manufacturers in the second 

group (manufacturers whose revenue 

from covered equipment in this 

rulemaking is less than 10 percent of 

total company revenue), DOE believes 

that these small manufacturers would 

lose no more than 10 percent of their 

company revenue. This lower bound is 

because these manufacturers could 

always choose not to make the 

investments necessary to convert the 

newly covered electric motors subject to 

standards in today’s final rule. This 

lower bound is similar to the lower 

bound estimate of the entire electric 

motor industry at TSL 2, the TSL 

adopted in this final rule. 

For small manufacturers in the third 

group (manufacturer that produces 

general purpose motors currently 

covered by Federal standards), DOE 

predicts that these small manufacturers 

would not have any conversion costs or 

decrease in revenue since they already 

manufacture electric motors that are 

compliant with the standards being 

adopted for this final rule. 

TABLE VI.1—ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ANNUAL CAPITAL

EXPENDITURES AND R&D EXPENSE

Capital conversion 

cost as a 

percentage of 

annual capital 

expenditures 

(percent) 

Product 

conversion cost 

as a percentage 

of annual 

R&D expense 

(percent) 

Total conversion 

cost as a 

percentage of 

annual revenue 

(percent) 

Typical large manufacturer ........................................................................................ 14 31 2 

Typical small manufacturer that produces specialty motors previously not covered 

by Federal standards ............................................................................................. 188 490 75 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31007 

TABLE VI.1—ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ANNUAL CAPITAL

EXPENDITURES AND R&D EXPENSE—Continued 

Capital conversion 

cost as a 

percentage of 

annual capital 

expenditures 

(percent) 

Product 

conversion cost 

as a percentage 

of annual 

R&D expense 

(percent) 

Total conversion 

cost as a 

percentage of 

annual revenue 

(percent) 

Typical small manufacturer who revenue from covered equipment is less than 

10% of total company revenue .............................................................................. NA NA * ≤ 10 

Typical small manufacturer that produces general purpose motors currently covered by Federal standards ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 

* The most these manufacturers would lose is 10% of their annual revenue if they choose not to invest in upgrading the equipment they currently manufacture, which is not covered by Federal energy conservation standards, but that would now be covered by the standards prescribed 

in this final rule. 

Table VI.1 also illustrates that small 

manufacturers whose equipment lines 

contain many motors that are not 

currently required to meet Federal 

standards face high relative equipment 

conversion costs compared to large 

manufacturers, despite the lower dollar 

value. In interviews, these small 

manufacturers expressed concern that 

they would face a large learning curve 

relative to large manufacturers, due to 

the fact that many of the equipment 

types have not had to meet Federal 

standards. In its market survey, DOE 

learned that for some manufacturers, the 

expanded scope of specialized motors 

that would have to meet the levels 

adopted by today’s rule could affect 

nearly half the equipment they offer. 

They would need to hire additional 

engineers and would have to spend 

considerable time and resources 

redesigning their equipment and 

production processes. DOE does not 

expect the small businesses that already 

manufacture motors meeting the levels 

adopted by today’s rule or those small 

businesses that offer very few 

alternating-current motors to incur these 

high costs. 

Manufacturers also expressed concern 

about testing and certification costs 

associated with new standards. They 

pointed out that these costs are 

particularly burdensome on small 

businesses that produce a wide variety 

of specialized equipment. As a result of 

the wide variety of equipment they 

produce and their relatively low output, 

small manufacturers are forced to certify 

multiple small batches of motors, the 

costs of which are spread out over far 

fewer units than large manufacturers. 

Small manufacturers that produce 

equipment not currently required to 

meet efficiency standards also pointed 

out that they would face significant 

challenges supporting current business 

while making changes to their 

production lines. While large 

manufacturers could shift production of 

certain equipment to different plants or 

equipment lines while they made 

updates, small businesses would have 

limited options. Most of these small 

businesses have only one plant and 

would have to find a way to continue 

to fulfill customer needs while 

redesigning production lines and 

installing new equipment. In interviews 

with DOE, small manufacturers said that 

it would be difficult to quantify the 

impacts that downtime and the possible 

need for external support could have on 

their businesses. 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict With the rule being considered 

today. 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

Section VI.B.2 analyzes impacts on 

small businesses that would result from 

DOE’s adopted final rule. Though TSLs 

lower than the one serving as the basis 

for today’s final rule would be likely to 

reduce the impacts on small entities, 

DOE is required by EPCA to establish 

standards that achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

are technically feasible and 

economically justified, and result in a 

significant conservation of energy. 

Therefore, DOE rejected the lower TSLs 

it had been considering. 

In addition to the other TSLs that 

DOE considered, the final rule TSD 

includes a regulatory impact analysis 

(RIA). For electric motors, the RIA 

discusses the following policy 

alternatives: (1) Consumer rebates, (2) 

consumer tax credits, (3) manufacturer 

tax credits, (4) voluntary energy 

efficiency targets, (5) early replacement, 

and (6) bulk government purchases. 

While these alternatives may mitigate to 

some varying extent the economic 

impacts on small entities compared to 

the standards, DOE determined that the 

energy savings of these alternatives are 

significantly smaller than those that 

would be expected to result from the 

adopted standard levels. Accordingly, 

DOE is declining to adopt any of these 

alternatives and is adopting the 

standards set forth in this rulemaking. 

(See chapter 17 of this final TSD for 

further detail on the policy alternatives 

DOE considered.) 

DOE only received one public 

comment regarding the impact of the 

rule on small manufacturers. Baldor 

asked why DOE does not consider 

impacts on the many small 

manufacturers outside of the U.S. 

(Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 

176–177). Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ is defined by reference to 

SBA’s regulations. SBA’s regulations 

state that a small business concern is ‘‘a 

business entity organized for profit, 

with a place of business located in the 

United States, and which operates 

primarily within the United States or 

which makes a significant contribution 

to the U.S. economy through payment of 

taxes or use of American products, 

materials or labor’’. 13 CFR 

121.105(a)(1). As a result, under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, DOE must 

assess impacts on domestic small 

businesses. DOE did not receive any 

comments suggesting that small 

business manufacturers would not be 

able to achieve the efficiency levels 

required at TSL 2, the selected 

standards in today’s final rule. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of electric motors that 

are currently subject to energy 

conservation standards must certify to 

DOE that their equipment complies with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their 

equipment according to the DOE test 

procedures for electric motors, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
31008 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

including any amendments adopted for 

those test procedures. The collection-ofinformation requirement for the 

certification and recordkeeping is 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 20 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

DOE intends to address revised 

certification requirements for electric 

motors in a separate rulemaking. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, DOE has determined that the rule 

fits within the category of actions 

included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) 

B5.1 and otherwise meets the 

requirements for application of a CX.(10 

CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 

1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)–(5)). 

The rule fits within the category of 

actions because it is a rulemaking that 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment, and for which 

none of the exceptions identified in CX 

B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made 

a CX determination for this rulemaking, 

and DOE does not need to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

this rule. DOE’s CX determination for 

this rule is available at http://

cxnepa.energy.gov/. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August10, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism 

implications. The Executive Order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the equipment 

that is the subject of today’s final rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6297) No further action is 

required by 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,’’ 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. 61 FR 4729 

(February 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this final 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For the 

new and amended regulatory action 

likely to result in a rule that may cause 

the expenditure by State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector of $100 million or 

more in any one year (adjusted annually 

for inflation), section 202 of UMRA 

requires a Federal agency to publish a 

written statement that estimates the 

resulting costs, benefits, and other 

effects on the national economy. (2 

U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also 

requires a Federal agency to develop an 

effective process to permit timely input 

by elected officers of State, local, and 

Tribal governments on a ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at http://

energy.gov/gc/downloads/unfundedmandates-reform-actintergovernmental-consultation. 

DOE has concluded that this final rule 

would likely require expenditures of 

$100 million or more. Such 

expenditures may include: (1) 

Investment in research and 

development and in capital 

Expenditures by electric motor 

manufacturers in the years between the 

final rule and the compliance date for 

the new standards, and (2) incremental 

additional expenditures by consumers 

to purchase higher-efficiency electric 

motors, starting at the compliance date 

for the applicable standard. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the final rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The 

content requirements of section 202(b) 

of UMRA relevant to a private sector 

mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

today’s final rule and the ‘‘Regulatory 

Impact Analysis’’ section of the TSD 

accompanying the final rule respond to 

those requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31009 

2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

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. As required by 42 

U.S.C. 6295(d), (f), and (o) and 6316(a), 

today’s final rule would establish energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors that are designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE has determined to 

be both technologically feasible and 

economically justified. A full discussion 

of the alternatives considered by DOE is 

presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis’’ section of the TSD for today’s 

final rule. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

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 Federal 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 OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any significant energy 

action, the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that today’s 

regulatory action, which sets forth 

energy conservation standards for 

electric motors, is not a significant 

energy action because the new and 

amended standards are not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, 

nor has it been designated as such by 

the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on the final rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (January14, 2005).The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions. 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to its effective date. 

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). 

VII. 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, 

Commercial and industrial Equipment, 

Imports, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Small businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2014. 

David T. Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 431 of 

chapter II of title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 431—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

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. Amend § 431.12 by revising the 

definitions of ‘‘NEMA Design A motor’’ 

and ‘‘partial electric motor’’ to read as 

follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
31010 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 431.12 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

NEMA Design A motor means a 

squirrel-cage motor that: 

(1) Is designed to withstand fullvoltage starting and developing lockedrotor torque as shown in NEMA MG 1– 

2009, paragraph 12.38.1 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.15); 

(2) Has pull-up torque not less than 

the values shown in NEMA MG 1–2009, 

paragraph 12.40.1; 

(3) Has breakdown torque not less 

than the values shown in NEMA MG 1– 

2009, paragraph 12.39.1; 

(4) Has a locked-rotor current higher 

than the values shown in NEMA MG 1– 

2009, paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 

NEMA MG 1–2009, paragraph 12.35.2 

for 50 hertz; and 

(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 

5 percent for motors with fewer than 10 

poles. 

* * * * * 

Partial electric motor means an 

assembly of motor components 

necessitating the addition of no more 

than two endshields, including 

bearings, to create an electric motor 

capable of operation in accordance with 

the applicable nameplate ratings. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 431.25 to read as follows: 

§ 431.25 Energy conservation standards 

and effective dates. 

(a) Except as provided for fire pump 

electric motors in paragraph (b) of this 

section, each general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I) with a power rating of 

1 horsepower or greater, but not greater 

than 200 horsepower, including a 

NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC 

Design N motor that is a general purpose 

electric motor (subtype I), manufactured 

(alone or as a component of another 

piece of equipment) on or after 

December 19, 2010, but before June 1, 

2016, shall have a nominal full-load 

efficiency that is not less than the 

following: 

TABLE 1—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF GENERAL PURPOSE ELECTRIC MOTORS (SUBTYPE I), EXCEPT FIRE

PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS

Motor horsepower/Standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

Open motors 

(number of poles) 

Enclosed motors 

(number of poles) 

6 4 2 6 4 2 

1/.75 ......................................................................................................... 82.5 85.5 77.0 82.5 85.5 77.0 

1.5/1.1 ...................................................................................................... 86.5 86.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 84.0 

2/1.5 ......................................................................................................... 87.5 86.5 85.5 88.5 86.5 85.5 

3/2.2 ......................................................................................................... 88.5 89.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 

5/3.7 ......................................................................................................... 89.5 89.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 

7.5/5.5 ...................................................................................................... 90.2 91.0 88.5 91.0 91.7 89.5 

10/7.5 ....................................................................................................... 91.7 91.7 89.5 91.0 91.7 90.2 

15/11 ........................................................................................................ 91.7 93.0 90.2 91.7 92.4 91.0 

20/15 ........................................................................................................ 92.4 93.0 91.0 91.7 93.0 91.0 

25/18.5 ..................................................................................................... 93.0 93.6 91.7 93.0 93.6 91.7 

30/22 ........................................................................................................ 93.6 94.1 91.7 93.0 93.6 91.7 

40/30 ........................................................................................................ 94.1 94.1 92.4 94.1 94.1 92.4 

50/37 ........................................................................................................ 94.1 94.5 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.0 

60/45 ........................................................................................................ 94.5 95.0 93.6 94.5 95.0 93.6 

75/55 ........................................................................................................ 94.5 95.0 93.6 94.5 95.4 93.6 

100/75 ...................................................................................................... 95.0 95.4 93.6 95.0 95.4 94.1 

125/90 ...................................................................................................... 95.0 95.4 94.1 95.0 95.4 95.0 

150/110 .................................................................................................... 95.4 95.8 94.1 95.8 95.8 95.0 

200/150 .................................................................................................... 95.4 95.8 95.0 95.8 96.2 95.4 

(b) Each fire pump electric motor that 

is a general purpose electric motor 

(subtype I) or general purpose electric 

motor (subtype II) manufactured (alone 

or as a component of another piece of 

equipment) on or after December 19, 

2010, but before June 1, 2016, shall have 

a nominal full-load efficiency that is not 

less than the following: 

TABLE 2—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

Open motors 

(number of poles) 

Enclosed motors 

(number of poles) 

8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2 

1/.75 ................................................................. 74.0 80.0 82.5 ................ 74.0 80.0 82.5 75.5 

1.5/1.1 .............................................................. 75.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 77.0 85.5 84.0 82.5 

2/1.5 ................................................................. 85.5 85.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 86.5 84.0 84.0 

3/2.2 ................................................................. 86.5 86.5 86.5 84.0 84.0 87.5 87.5 85.5 

5/3.7 ................................................................. 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 

7.5/5.5 .............................................................. 88.5 88.5 88.5 87.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 

10/7.5 ............................................................... 89.5 90.2 89.5 88.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 

15/11 ................................................................ 89.5 90.2 91.0 89.5 88.5 90.2 91.0 90.2 

20/15 ................................................................ 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 89.5 90.2 91.0 90.2 

25/18.5 ............................................................. 90.2 91.7 91.7 91.0 89.5 91.7 92.4 91.0 

30/22 ................................................................ 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.0 91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31011 

TABLE 2—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS—Continued 

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

Open motors 

(number of poles) 

Enclosed motors 

(number of poles) 

8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2 

40/30 ................................................................ 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 

50/37 ................................................................ 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4 

60/45 ................................................................ 92.4 93.6 93.6 93.0 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 

75/55 ................................................................ 93.6 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.0 93.6 94.1 93.0 

100/75 .............................................................. 93.6 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.6 

125/90 .............................................................. 93.6 94.1 94.5 93.6 93.6 94.1 94.5 94.5 

150/110 ............................................................ 93.6 94.5 95.0 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 

200/150 ............................................................ 93.6 94.5 95.0 94.5 94.1 95.0 95.0 95.0 

250/186 ............................................................ 94.5 95.4 95.4 94.5 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.4 

300/224 ............................................................ ................ 95.4 95.4 95.0 ................ 95.0 95.4 95.4 

350/261 ............................................................ ................ 95.4 95.4 95.0 ................ 95.0 95.4 95.4 

400/298 ............................................................ ................ ................ 95.4 95.4 ................ ................ 95.4 95.4 

450/336 ............................................................ ................ ................ 95.8 95.8 ................ ................ 95.4 95.4 

500/373 ............................................................ ................ ................ 95.8 95.8 ................ ................ 95.8 95.4 

(c) Except as provided for fire pump 

electric motors in paragraph (b) of this 

section, each general purpose electric 

motor (subtype II) with a power rating 

of 1 horsepower or greater, but not 

greater than 200 horsepower, including 

a NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC 

Design N motor that is a general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II), 

manufactured (alone or as a component 

of another piece of equipment) on or 

after December 19, 2010, but before June 

1, 2016, shall have a nominal full-load 

efficiency that is not less than the 

following: 

TABLE 3—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF GENERAL PURPOSE ELECTRIC MOTORS (SUBTYPE II), EXCEPT FIRE

PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS

Motor horsepower/ 

Standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

Open motors 

(number of poles) 

Enclosed motors 

(number of poles) 

8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2 

1/.75 ................................................................. 74.0 80.0 82.5 ................ 74.0 80.0 82.5 75.5 

1.5/1.1 .............................................................. 75.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 77.0 85.5 84.0 82.5 

2/1.5 ................................................................. 85.5 85.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 86.5 84.0 84.0 

3/2.2 ................................................................. 86.5 86.5 86.5 84.0 84.0 87.5 87.5 85.5 

5/3.7 ................................................................. 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 

7.5/5.5 .............................................................. 88.5 88.5 88.5 87.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 

10/7.5 ............................................................... 89.5 90.2 89.5 88.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 

15/11 ................................................................ 89.5 90.2 91.0 89.5 88.5 90.2 91.0 90.2 

20/15 ................................................................ 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 89.5 90.2 91.0 90.2 

25/18.5 ............................................................. 90.2 91.7 91.7 91.0 89.5 91.7 92.4 91.0 

30/22 ................................................................ 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.0 91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0 

40/30 ................................................................ 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 

50/37 ................................................................ 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4 

60/45 ................................................................ 92.4 93.6 93.6 93.0 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 

75/55 ................................................................ 93.6 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.0 93.6 94.1 93.0 

100/75 .............................................................. 93.6 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.6 

125/90 .............................................................. 93.6 94.1 94.5 93.6 93.6 94.1 94.5 94.5 

150/110 ............................................................ 93.6 94.5 95.0 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 

200/150 ............................................................ 93.6 94.5 95.0 94.5 94.1 95.0 95.0 95.0 

(d) Each NEMA Design B or an 

equivalent IEC Design N motor that is a 

general purpose electric motor (subtype 

I) or general purpose electric motor 

(subtype II), excluding fire pump 

electric motors, with a power rating of 

more than 200 horsepower, but not 

greater than 500 horsepower, 

manufactured (alone or as a component 

of another piece of equipment) on or 

after December 19, 2010, but before June 

1, 2016 shall have a nominal full-load 

efficiency that is not less than the 

following: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
31012 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN B GENERAL PURPOSE ELECTRIC MOTORS (SUBTYPE I 

AND II), EXCEPT FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS

Motor horsepower/ 

standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

Open motors 

(number of poles) 

Enclosed motors 

(number of poles) 

8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2 

250/186 ............................................................ 94.5 95.4 95.4 94.5 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.4 

300/224 ............................................................ ................ 95.4 95.4 95.0 ................ 95.0 95.4 95.4 

350/261 ............................................................ ................ 95.4 95.4 95.0 ................ 95.0 95.4 95.4 

400/298 ............................................................ ................ ................ 95.4 95.4 ................ ................ 95.4 95.4 

450/336 ............................................................ ................ ................ 95.8 95.8 ................ ................ 95.4 95.4 

500/373 ............................................................ ................ ................ 95.8 95.8 ................ ................ 95.8 95.4 

(e) For purposes of determining the 

required minimum nominal 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 energy 

conservation standards in paragraphs (a) 

through (d) 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 

horsepowers shall be rounded up to the 

higher of the two horsepowers; 

(2) A horsepower below the midpoint 

between the two consecutive 

horsepowers shall be rounded down to 

the lower of the two horsepowers; or 

(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly 

converted from kilowatts to horsepower 

using the formula 1 kilowatt = ( 1/0.746) 

horsepower. The conversion should be 

calculated to three significant decimal 

places, and the resulting horsepower 

shall be rounded in accordance with 

paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section, 

whichever applies. 

(f) The standards in Table 1 through 

Table 4 of this section do not apply to 

definite purpose electric motors, special 

purpose electric motors, or those motors 

exempted by the Secretary. 

(g) The standards in Table 5 through 

Table 7 of this section apply only to 

electric motors, including partial 

electric motors, that satisfy the 

following criteria: 

(1) Are single-speed, induction 

motors; 

(2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 

1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC); 

(3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or 

cage (IEC) rotor; 

(4) Operate on polyphase alternating 

current 60-hertz sinusoidal line power; 

(5) Are rated 600 volts or less; 

(6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole 

configuration, 

(7) Are built in a three-digit or fourdigit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric 

equivalent), including those designs 

between two consecutive NEMA frame 

sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an 

enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC 

metric equivalent), 

(8) Produce at least one horsepower 

(0.746 kW) but not greater than 500 

horsepower (373 kW), and 

(9) Meet all of the performance 

requirements of one of the following 

motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or 

C motor or an IEC Design N or H motor. 

(h) Starting on June 1, 2016, each 

NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design 

B motor, and IEC Design N motor that 

is an electric motor meeting the criteria 

in paragraph (g) of this section and with 

a power rating from 1 horsepower 

through 500 horsepower, but excluding 

fire pump electric motors, manufactured 

(alone or as a component of another 

piece of equipment) shall have a 

nominal full-load efficiency of not less 

than the following: 

TABLE 5—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN A, NEMA DESIGN B AND IEC DESIGN N MOTORS

(EXCLUDING FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS) AT 60 HZ

Motor horsepower/ 

standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency (%) 

2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

1/.75 ................................................................. 77.0 77.0 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5 

1.5/1.1 .............................................................. 84.0 84.0 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0 

2/1.5 ................................................................. 85.5 85.5 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5 

3/2.2 ................................................................. 86.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5 

5/3.7 ................................................................. 88.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5 

7.5/5.5 .............................................................. 89.5 88.5 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5 

10/7.5 ............................................................... 90.2 89.5 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2 

15/11 ................................................................ 91.0 90.2 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2 

20/15 ................................................................ 91.0 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0 

25/18.5 ............................................................. 91.7 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0 

30/22 ................................................................ 91.7 91.7 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7 

40/30 ................................................................ 92.4 92.4 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7 

50/37 ................................................................ 93.0 93.0 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4 

60/45 ................................................................ 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0 

75/55 ................................................................ 93.6 93.6 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1 

100/75 .............................................................. 94.1 93.6 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1 

125/90 .............................................................. 95.0 94.1 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1 

150/110 ............................................................ 95.0 94.1 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1 

200/150 ............................................................ 95.4 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1 

250/186 ............................................................ 95.8 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31013 

TABLE 5—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN A, NEMA DESIGN B AND IEC DESIGN N MOTORS

(EXCLUDING FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS) AT 60 HZ—Continued 

Motor horsepower/ 

standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency (%) 

2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

300/224 ............................................................ 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ................ ................

350/261 ............................................................ 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ................ ................

400/298 ............................................................ 95.8 95.8 96.2 95.8 ................ ................ ................ ................

450/336 ............................................................ 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ................ ................ ................ ................

500/373 ............................................................ 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ................ ................ ................ ................

(i) Starting on June 1, 2016, each 

NEMA Design C motor and IEC Design 

H motor that is an electric motor 

meeting the criteria in paragraph (g) of 

this section and with a power rating 

from 1 horsepower through 200 

horsepower manufactured (alone or as a 

component of another piece of 

equipment) shall have a nominal fullload efficiency that is not less than the 

following: 

TABLE 6—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN C AND IEC DESIGN H MOTORS AT 60 HZ

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency (%) 

4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

1/.75 ................................................................................. 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5 

1.5/1.1 .............................................................................. 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0 

2/1.5 ................................................................................. 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5 

3/2.2 ................................................................................. 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5 

5/3.7 ................................................................................. 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5 

7.5/5.5 .............................................................................. 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5 

10/7.5 ............................................................................... 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2 

15/11 ................................................................................ 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2 

20/15 ................................................................................ 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0 

25/18.5 ............................................................................. 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0 

30/22 ................................................................................ 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7 

40/30 ................................................................................ 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7 

50/37 ................................................................................ 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4 

60/45 ................................................................................ 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0 

75/55 ................................................................................ 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1 

100/75 .............................................................................. 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1 

125/90 .............................................................................. 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1 

150/110 ............................................................................ 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1 

200/150 ............................................................................ 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1 

(j) Starting on June 1, 2016, each fire 

pump electric motor meeting the criteria 

in paragraph (g) of this section and with 

a power rating of 1 horsepower through 

500 horsepower, manufactured (alone or 

as a component of another piece of 

equipment) shall have a nominal fullload efficiency that is not less than the 

following: 

TABLE 7—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS AT 60 HZ

Motor horsepower/ 

standard kilowatt 

equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency (%) 

2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

1/.75 ................................. 75.5 .................... 82.5 82.5 80.0 80.0 74.0 74.0 

1.5/1.1 .............................. 82.5 82.5 84.0 84.0 85.5 84.0 77.0 75.5 

2/1.5 ................................. 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 86.5 85.5 82.5 85.5 

3/2.2 ................................. 85.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 84.0 86.5 

5/3.7 ................................. 87.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 87.5 

7.5/5.5 .............................. 88.5 87.5 89.5 88.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 88.5 

10/7.5 ............................... 89.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 90.2 88.5 89.5 

15/11 ................................ 90.2 89.5 91.0 91.0 90.2 90.2 88.5 89.5 

20/15 ................................ 90.2 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 91.0 89.5 90.2 

25/18.5 ............................. 91.0 91.0 92.4 91.7 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2 

30/22 ................................ 91.0 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.7 92.4 91.0 91.0 

40/30 ................................ 91.7 91.7 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 91.0 91.0 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
31014 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 7—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS AT 60 HZ—Continued 

Motor horsepower/ 

standard kilowatt 

equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency (%) 

2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

50/37 ................................ 92.4 92.4 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.7 

60/45 ................................ 93.0 93.0 93.6 93.6 93.6 93.6 91.7 92.4 

75/55 ................................ 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.1 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.6 

100/75 .............................. 93.6 93.0 94.5 94.1 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.6 

125/90 .............................. 94.5 93.6 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 93.6 93.6 

150/110 ............................ 94.5 93.6 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.5 93.6 93.6 

200/150 ............................ 95.0 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.1 93.6 

250/186 ............................ 95.4 94.5 95.0 95.4 95.0 95.4 94.5 94.5 

300/224 ............................ 95.4 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.4 .................... ....................

350/261 ............................ 95.4 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.4 .................... ....................

400/298 ............................ 95.4 95.4 95.4 95.4 .................... .................... .................... ....................

450/336 ............................ 95.4 95.8 95.4 95.8 .................... .................... .................... ....................

500/373 ............................ 95.4 95.8 95.8 95.8 .................... .................... .................... ....................

(k) For purposes of determining the 

required minimum nominal 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 energy 

conservation standards in paragraphs 

(h) through (l) 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 

horsepowers shall be rounded up to the 

higher of the two horsepowers; 

(2) A horsepower below the midpoint 

between the two consecutive 

horsepowers shall be rounded down to 

the lower of the two horsepowers; or 

(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly 

converted from kilowatts to horsepower 

using the formula 1 kilowatt = ( 1/ 0.746) 

horsepower. The conversion should be 

calculated to three significant decimal 

places, and the resulting horsepower 

shall be rounded in accordance with 

paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this section, 

whichever applies. 

(l) The standards in Table 5 through 

Table 7 of this section do not apply to 

the following electric motors exempted 

by the Secretary, or any additional 

electric motors that the Secretary may 

exempt: 

(1) Air-over electric motors; 

(2) Component sets of an electric 

motor; 

(3) Liquid-cooled electric motors; 

(4) Submersible electric motors; and 

(5) Inverter-only electric motors. 

[Note: The following letter from the 

Department of Justice will not appear in the 

Code of Federal Regulations.] 

APPENDIX TO FINAL RULE 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Antitrust Division 

William J. Baer 

Assistant Attorney General 

RFK Main Justice Building 

950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. 

Washington, DC 20530–0001 

(202) 514–2401/(202) 616–2645 (Fax) 

February 3, 2014 

Eric J. Fygi 

Deputy General Counsel 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

Dear Deputy General Counsel Fygi: 

I am responding to your December 11, 2013 

letter seeking the views of the Attorney 

General about the potential impact on 

competition of proposed energy conservation 

standards for certain types of commercial and 

industrial electric motors. Your request was 

submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 

amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(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 

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, by placing certain manufacturers at 

an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or 

by inducing avoidable inefficiencies in 

production or distribution of particular 

products. A lessening of competition could 

result in higher prices to manufacturers and 

consumers, and perhaps thwart the intent of 

the revised standards by inducing 

substitution to less efficient products. 

We have reviewed the proposed standards 

contained in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (78 Fed. Reg. 235, December 6, 

2013). We have also reviewed supplementary 

information submitted to the Attorney 

General by the Department of Energy, 

including a transcript of the public meeting 

held on the proposed standards on December 

11, 2013. Based on this review, our 

conclusion is that the proposed energy 

conservation standards for certain 

commercial and industrial electric motors 

can advance the Department of Energy’s goal 

of energy conservation without causing a 

significant adverse impact on competition. 

Sincerely, 

William J. Baer. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11201 Filed 5–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2