Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-10018

Proposed Rule2023-10018

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

June 1, 2023

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended ("EPCA"), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including electric motors. In this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for electric motors identical to those set forth in a direct final rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register. If DOE receives an adverse comment and determines that such comment may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule, DOE will publish a notice withdrawing the direct final rule and will proceed with this proposed rule.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35765-35780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10018]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 35765]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

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

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Electric Motors

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including electric
motors. In this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation
standards for electric motors identical to those set forth in a direct
final rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register. If DOE
receives an adverse comment and determines that such comment may
provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule, DOE
will publish a notice withdrawing the direct final rule and will
proceed with this proposed rule.

DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this NOPR no later than September 19, 2023.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before July 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under docket
number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007, by any of the
following methods:
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a4f666f6947657e657879383a383a595e4e3a3a3a3d4a6f6f246e656f246d657c">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include the docket number
EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007 in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza, SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section V of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the
docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section V of this document for information on how to submit comments
through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Division at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#12777c7760756b3c6166737c7673607661526761767d783c757d64">[email&#160;protected]</a> on or
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this
proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#763706061a1f1718151325021718121704120527031305021f1918053613135812191358111900">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Mr. Matthew Ring, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-2555. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#307d5144445855471e62595e577058411e545f551e575f46">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#266756564a4f4748454375524748424754425577534355524f4948556643430842494308414950">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
III. Proposed Standards
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Electric Motor
Standards
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate

[[Page 35766]]

the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of
EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317). Such equipment includes electric
motors, the subject of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any
final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either
a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to
be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
Elsewhere in this Federal Register, DOE is issuing a direct final
rule amending the energy conservation standards for electric motors,
along with this proposed rule as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)(i)) The amended standard levels in that document were
submitted in a joint recommendation (the ``November 2022 Joint
Recommendation'') \3\ by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (``ACEEE''), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (``ASAP''),
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (``NEMA''), Natural
Resources Defense Council (``NRDC''), Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (``NEEA''), Pacific Gas & Electric Company (``PG&E''), San
Diego Gas & Electric (``SDG&E''), and Southern California Edison
(``SCE''), hereinafter referred to as ``the Electric Motors Working
Group.'' In a letter comment submitted December 12, 2022, the New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority (``NYSERDA'') expressed
its support of the November 2022 Joint Recommendation and urged DOE to
implement it in a timely manner. DOE has determined that the November
2022 Joint Recommendation complies with the requirements of EPCA for
issuance of a direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Joint comment response to the published Notification of a
webinar and availability of preliminary technical support document;
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0035">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0035</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes new and amended energy conservation
standards for electric motors. The proposed standards, which are
expressed in full-load efficiency, are shown in Table I.1, Table I.2
and Table I.3.

Table I.1--Proposed Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or
NY Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors and Air-Over Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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...................... 95.0 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 94.5 95.0
125/90...................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
150/110..................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.0 95.0
200/150..................... 95.8 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.4 95.0
250/186..................... 96.2 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.4 95.4
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 ......... ........ ......... ........
550/410..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
600/447..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
650/485..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
700/522..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
750/559..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 35767]]

Table I.2--Proposed Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or
NY Standard Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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...................... 95.0 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 94.5 95.0
125/90...................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
150/110..................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.0 95.0
200/150..................... 95.8 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.4 95.0
250/186..................... 96.2 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.4 95.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.3--Proposed Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or
NY Specialized Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75....................... 74.0 ........ 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 ......... ........
15/11....................... 90.2 89.5 91.0 91.0 ......... ........ ......... ........
20/15....................... 90.2 90.2 91.0 91.0 ......... ........ ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C \4\ of EPCA added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve the energy efficiency of certain types
of industrial equipment, including electric motors, the subject of this
proposed rule. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). The Energy Policy Act of 1992
(``EPACT 1992'') (Pub. L. 102-486 (Oct. 24, 1992)) further amended EPCA
by establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures for
certain commercial and industrial electric motors that are manufactured
alone or as a component of another piece of equipment. In December
2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(``EISA 2007'') (Pub. L. 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007)). Section 313(b)(1) of
EISA 2007 updated the energy conservation standards for those electric
motors already covered by EPCA and established energy conservation
standards for a larger scope of motors not previously covered by
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) EISA 2007 also revised certain
statutory definitions related to electric motors. See EISA 2007, sec.
313 (amending statutory definitions related to electric motors at 42
U.S.C. 6311(13)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314),

[[Page 35768]]

labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42; U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption
waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers
of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis
for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the
applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations
about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment
complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for electric motors
appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part
431, subpart B, appendix B.
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment, including electric motors. Any
new or amended standard for a covered product must 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would
not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain
products, including electric motors, if no test procedure has been
established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the
standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a
proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether
the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the
standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable,
water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'')
considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

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 a product complying
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) 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 in any
covered product 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of products that has the same function or intended use, if DOE
determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
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. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE
authority to issue a final rule (i.e., a ``direct final rule'')
establishing an energy conservation standard on receipt of a statement
submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative
of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers
of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined
by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with respect to an
energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine whether a jointly-
submitted recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard
satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.
The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a NOPR
that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is
identical

[[Page 35769]]

to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must
provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Based on the comments received during
this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE
will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if (1) one
or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those
comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the
direct final rule, provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), or
any other applicable law. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an
alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the same manner. Id. After withdrawing a
direct final rule, DOE must proceed with the notice of proposed
rulemaking published simultaneously with the direct final rule and
publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule
was withdrawn. Id.
Typical of other rulemakings, it is the substance, rather than the
quantity, of comments that will ultimately determine whether a direct
final rule will be withdrawn. To this end, the substance of any adverse
comment(s) received will be weighed against the anticipated benefits of
the jointly-submitted recommendations and the likelihood that further
consideration of the comment(s) would change the results of the
rulemaking. DOE notes that, to the extent an adverse comment had been
previously raised and addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a
submission will not typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a
direct final rule.

B. Background

In the May 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI, DOE stated that it was
initiating an early assessment review to determine whether any new or
amended standards would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a
new or amended energy conservation standard for electric motors and
sought information related to that effort. Specifically, DOE sought
data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether
DOE should propose a ``no new standard'' determination because a more
stringent standard: (1) would not result in a significant savings of
energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically
justified; or (4) any combination of the foregoing. 85 FR 30878, 30879.
On March 2, 2022, DOE published the preliminary analysis for
electric motors. 87 FR 11650 (``March 2022 Preliminary Analysis''). In
conjunction with the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE published a
technical support document (``March 2022 Prelim TSD'') which presented
the results of the in-depth technical analyses in the following areas:
(1) Engineering; (2) markups to determine equipment price; (3) energy
use; (4) life cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP''); and
(5) national impacts. The results presented included the current scope
of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, in addition to an
expanded scope of motors, including electric motors above 500
horsepower, air-over electric motors, and small, non-small-electric-
motor, electric motors (``SNEM''). See Chapter 2 of the March 2022
Prelim TSD.
By letter dated on November 15, 2022, DOE received a joint
recommendation for energy conservation standards for electric motors
(``November 2022 Joint Recommendation''). The November 2022 Joint
Recommendation represented the motors industry, energy efficiency
organizations and utilities (collectively, ``the Electric Motors
Working Group'').\5\ The November 2022 Joint Recommendation addressed
energy conservation standards for medium electric motors that are 1-750
hp and polyphase, and air-over medium electric motors. On December 9,
2022, DOE received a supplemental letter to the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation from the Electric Motors Working Group. The supplemental
letter provided additional guidance on the recommended levels for open
medium electric motors rated 100 hp to 250 hp, and a recommended
compliance date for standards presented in the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation. A summary of the specific recommendations contained in
the November 2022 Joint Recommendation may be found in the direct final
rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The members of the Electric Motors Working Group included
ACEEE, ASAP, NEMA, NRDC, NEEA, PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After carefully considering the November 2022 Joint Recommendation
and supplement for amending the energy conservation standards for
electric motors submitted by the Electric Motors Working Group, DOE has
determined that these recommendations are in accordance with the
statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a
direct final rule.
More specifically, these recommendations comprise a statement
submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of
relevant points of view on this matter. In appendix A to subpart C of
10 CFR part 430 (``appendix A''), DOE explained that to be ``fairly
representative of relevant points of view,'' the group submitting a
joint statement must, where appropriate, include larger concerns and
small business in the regulated industry/manufacturer community, energy
advocates, energy utilities, consumers, and States. However, it will be
necessary to evaluate the meaning of ``fairly representative'' on a
case-by-case basis, subject to the circumstances of a particular
rulemaking, to determine whether fewer or additional parties must be
part of a joint statement in order to be ``fairly representative of
relevant points of view.'' Section 10 of appendix A. In reaching this
determination, DOE took into consideration the fact that the Joint
Recommendation was signed and submitted by a broad cross-section of
interests, including a manufacturers' trade association, environmental
and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, and electric utility
companies. NYSERDA, a state organization, also submitted a letter
supporting the Joint Recommendation. DOE notes that these organizations
include the relevant points of view specifically identified by
Congress: manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency
advocates. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A))
DOE has evaluated the November 2022 Joint Recommendation and
believes that it meets the EPCA requirements for issuance of a direct
final rule. As a result, DOE published a direct final rule establishing
energy conservation standards for electric motors elsewhere in this
Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse comments that may provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal and withdraws the direct final rule,
DOE will consider those comments and any other comments received in
determining how to proceed with this proposed rule.
For further background information on these proposed standards and
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this Federal Register. That document, and the accompanying
technical support document (``TSD''), include additional discussion of
the EPCA requirements for promulgation of energy conservation
standards; the history of the standards rulemaking for electric motors;
and information on the test procedures used to measure the energy

[[Page 35770]]

efficiency of electric motors. Those documents also contain an in-depth
discussion of the analyses conducted in support of this proposed
rulemaking, the methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses,
and the analytical results.

III. Proposed Standards

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Electric Motor Standards

Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize the quantitative impacts
estimated for each TSL for electric motors. The national impacts are
measured over the lifetime of electric motors purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended
standards (2027-2056). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and
value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results.

Table III.1--Summary of Analytical Results for Electric Motors TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads....................................................... 0.1 3.0 10.4 23.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)................................... 4.42 91.69 319.24 725.80
CH4 (thousand tons)......................................... 32.75 690.10 2,379.75 5,415.99
N2O (thousand tons)......................................... 0.04 0.82 2.90 6.59
NOX (thousand tons)......................................... 7.13 148.74 516.00 1,173.58
SO2 (thousand tons)......................................... 1.71 35.12 122.75 278.95
Hg (tons)................................................... 0.01 0.23 0.80 1.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings............................. 0.51 8.82 34.86 73.26
Climate Benefits *.......................................... 0.19 3.14 13.49 30.07
Health Benefits **.......................................... 0.33 5.72 23.16 51.90
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................... 1.04 17.68 71.50 155.23
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]................. 0.18 1.35 39.70 84.56
Consumer Net Benefits....................................... 0.33 7.47 -4.85 -11.30
Total Net Benefits.......................................... 0.85 16.33 31.80 70.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings............................. 0.21 2.95 13.44 27.14
Climate Benefits *.......................................... 0.19 3.14 13.49 30.07
Health Benefits **.......................................... 0.12 1.76 8.19 18.13
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................... 0.53 7.85 35.11 75.34
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]................. 0.10 0.72 21.03 44.80
Consumer Net Benefits....................................... 0.11 2.23 -7.60 -17.67
Total Net Benefits.......................................... 0.43 7.13 14.08 30.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2027-2056. These
results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together,
these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated
with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single
central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted
the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary
injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's
order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined
the defendants in that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim
estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the
injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes
the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

Table III.2--Summary of Analytical Results for Electric Motor TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2021$) (No-new- 4,896-4,899 4,690-4,720 3,659-4,681 (6,066)-(3,840)
standards case INPV = 5,023).......
Industry NPV (% change)............. (2.5) (6.6)-(6.0) (27.2)-(6.8) (220.8)-(176.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 35771]]

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RU1................................. N/A N/A -101.8 -276.4
RU2................................. N/A N/A -336.9 -309.4
RU3................................. N/A N/A -916.7 -1,439.6
RU4................................. N/A 567.1 567.1 -2,541.1
RU5................................. N/A N/A -945.5 -5,257.2
RU6................................. 2,550.1 2,550.1 -2,287.8 -6,710.3
RU7................................. 57.6 57.6 -39.2 -156.5
RU8................................. 472.4 472.4 -160.8 -105.5
RU9 *............................... ................. ................. -930.5 -1,795.0
RU10................................ 608.8 930.7 930.7 -1,846.6
RU11................................ 49.9 49.9 2.5 -153.2
Shipment-Weighted Average **........ 159.8 337.4 -196.2 -404.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Simple PBP (Years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RU1................................. N/A N/A 16.7 20.3
RU2................................. N/A N/A 15.4 11.9
RU3................................. N/A N/A 30.2 20.6
RU4................................. N/A 4.1 4.1 18.1
RU5................................. N/A N/A 11.8 17.7
RU6................................. 3.7 3.7 9.6 12.6
RU7................................. 4.0 4.0 6.5 9.0
RU8................................. 1.6 1.6 5.9 6.1
RU9 *............................... ................. ................. 9.0 10.6
RU10................................ 6.1 4.9 4.9 10.1
RU11................................ 4.1 4.1 5.6 7.9
Shipment-Weighted Average **........ 3.8 3.9 15.6 16.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RU1................................. N/A N/A 64.1 95.9
RU2................................. N/A N/A 82.2 75.0
RU3................................. N/A N/A 88.4 90.5
RU4................................. N/A 20.2 20.2 89.1
RU5................................. N/A N/A 66.9 89.0
RU6................................. 2.1 2.1 58.3 83.2
RU7................................. 10.3 10.3 62.9 80.7
RU8................................. 0.9 0.9 73.9 64.5
RU9 *............................... ................. ................. 99.9 96.4
RU10................................ 6.3 11.7 11.7 79.0
RU11................................ 32.1 32.1 53.4 74.5
Shipment-Weighted Average **........ 10.9 14.9 70.6 86.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entry ``N/A'' means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain TSLs.
* No impact because there are no shipments below the efficiency level corresponding to TSL1 and TSL2 for RU9.
** Weighted by shares of each equipment class in total projected shipments in 2027 for impacted consumers.

DOE first considered TSL 4, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels. At this level, DOE expects that all equipment
classes would require 35H210 silicon steel and die-cast copper rotors.
DOE estimates that approximately 0.34 percent of annual shipments
across all electric motor equipment classes currently meet the max-tech
efficiencies required. TSL 4 would save an estimated 23.6 quads of
energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of
consumer benefit would be -$17.67 billion using a discount rate of 7
percent, and -$11.30 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 725.80 Mt of
CO<INF>2</INF>, 278.95 thousand tons of SO<INF>2</INF>, 1,173.58
thousand tons of NO<INF>X</INF>, 1.82 tons of Hg, 5,415.99 thousand
tons of CH<INF>4</INF>, and 6.59 thousand tons of N<INF>2</INF>O. The
estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG
emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount
rate) at TSL 4 is $30.07 billion. The estimated monetary value of the
health benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions at TSL 4 is $18.13 billion using a 7-percent discount rate
and $51.90 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $30.54
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $70.67 billion.
At TSL 4, for the largest equipment class group and horsepower
ranges, which are represented by RU1 and RU2, which together represent
approximately 90 percent of annual shipments, there is a life cycle
cost savings of -$276.4 and -$309.4 and a payback period of 20.3 years
and 11.9 years, respectively. For these equipment classes, the fraction
of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 95.9 percent and 75.0
percent due to increases in total installed cost of $434.7 and
$1,003.0, respectively. Overall, for the remaining equipment class
groups

[[Page 35772]]

and horsepower ranges, a majority of electric motor consumers (84.5
percent) would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings would
be negative for all remaining equipment class groups and horsepower
ranges.
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$11,090 million to a decrease of $8,863 million, which corresponds to
decreases of 220.8 percent and 176.4 percent, respectively. DOE
estimates that industry must invest $13,516 million to comply with
standards set at TSL 4. The significant increase in product and capital
conversion costs is because DOE assumes that electric motor
manufacturers will need to use die-cast copper rotors for most, if not
all, electric motors manufactured to meet this TSL. This technology
requires a significant level of investment because almost all existing
electric motor production machinery would need to be replaced or
significantly modified. Based on the shipments analysis used in the
NIA, DOE estimates that approximately 0.3 percent of all electric motor
shipments will meet the efficiency levels required at TSL 4, in the no-
new-standards case in 2027, the compliance year of new and amended
standards.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 4 for electric motors, the
benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and the estimated
monetary value of the emissions reductions are outweighed by the
negative NPV of consumer benefits, economic burden on many consumers,
and the impacts on manufacturers, including the extremely large
conversion costs, profit margin impacts that will result in a negative
INPV, and the lack of manufacturers currently offering products meeting
the efficiency levels required at this TSL. A majority of electric
motor consumers (86.3 percent) would experience a net cost and the
average LCC savings for each representative unit DOE examined is
negative. In both manufacturer markup scenarios, INPV is negative at
TSL 4, which implies that manufacturers would never recover the
conversion costs they must make to produce electric motors at TSL 4.
Consequently, the Secretary concludes that TSL 4 is not economically
justified.
DOE then considered TSL 3, which represents a level corresponding
to the IE4 level, except for AO-polyphase specialized frame size
electric motors, where it corresponds to a lower level of efficiency
(i.e., NEMA Premium level). TSL 3 would save an estimated 10.4 quads of
energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of
consumer benefit would be -$7.60 billion using a discount rate of 7
percent, and -$4.85 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 319.24 Mt of
CO<INF>2</INF>, 122.75 thousand tons of SO<INF>2</INF>, 516.00 thousand
tons of NO<INF>X</INF>, 0.80 tons of Hg, 2,379.75 thousand tons of
CH<INF>4</INF>, and 2.90 thousand tons of N<INF>2</INF>O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 3 is $13.49 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions at
TSL 3 is 8.19 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $23.16
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $14.08
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $31.80 billion.
At TSL 3, for the largest equipment class group and horsepower
ranges, which are represented by RU1 and RU2, there is a life cycle
cost savings of -$101.8 and -$336.9 and a payback period of 16.7 and
15.4, respectively.\6\ For these equipment classes, the fraction of
customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 64.1 percent and 82.2 percent
due to increases in total installed cost of $171.3 and $690.5,
respectively. Overall, for the remaining equipment class groups and
horsepower ranges, a majority of electric motor consumers (55.5
percent) would experience a net cost and the shipments-weighted average
LCC savings would be negative for all remaining equipment class groups
and horsepower ranges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ For RU1 and RU2, EL1 = EL2. See section IV.C.1.c. of the
associated direct final rule published elsewhere in this Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$1,364 million to a decrease of $342 million, which correspond to
decreases of 27.2 percent and 6.8 percent, respectively. DOE estimates
that industry must invest $1,618 million to comply with standards set
at TSL 3. Based on the shipments analysis used in the NIA, DOE
estimates that approximately 13.3 percent of all electric motor
shipments will meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 3,
in the no-new-standards case in 2027, the compliance year of new and
amended standards.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 3 for electric motors, the
benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and the estimated
monetary value of the emissions reductions are outweighed by the
negative NPV of consumer benefits, economic burden on many consumers,
and the impacts on manufacturers, including the large conversion costs,
profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV,
and the lack of manufacturers currently offering products meeting the
efficiency levels required at this TSL. A majority of electric motor
consumers (70.6 percent) would experience a net cost and the average
LCC savings would be negative. The potential reduction in INPV could be
as high as 27.2 percent. Consequently, the Secretary concludes that TSL
3 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 2, the standard levels recommended in the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation by the Electric Motors Working
Group. TSL 2 would also align with the EU Ecodesign Directive 2019/
1781, which requires IE4 levels for 75-200 kW motors.\7\ TSL 2 would
save an estimated 3.0 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers
significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $2.23
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $7.47 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ In terms of standardized horsepowers, this would correspond
to 100-250 hp when applying the from 10 CFR 431.25(k) (and new 10
CFR 431.25(q)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 91.69 Mt of
CO<INF>2</INF>, 35.12 thousand tons of SO<INF>2</INF>, 148.74 thousand
tons of NO<INF>X</INF>, 0.23 tons of Hg, 690.10 thousand tons of
CH<INF>4</INF>, and 0.82 thousand tons of N<INF>2</INF>O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 2 is $3.14 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions at
TSL 2 is $1.76 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $5.72
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $7.13
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $16.33 billion.
At TSL 2, for the largest equipment class group and horsepower
ranges, which are represented by RU1 and RU2, there would be no changes
in the standards. Overall, for the remaining

[[Page 35773]]

equipment class groups and horsepower ranges, 14.9 percent of electric
motor consumers would experience a net cost and the shipments-weighted
average LCC savings would be positive for all remaining equipment class
groups and horsepower ranges.
At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$333 million to a decrease of $303 million, which correspond to
decreases of 6.6 percent and 6.0 percent, respectively. DOE estimates
that industry must invest $468 million to comply with standards set at
TSL 2. Based on the shipments analysis used in the NIA, DOE estimates
that approximately 96.2 percent of all electric motor shipments will
meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 2, in the no-new-
standards case in 2027, the compliance year of new and amended
standards.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens, the Secretary concludes that a standard set at TSL 2 for
electric motors would be economically justified. At this TSL, the
average LCC savings is positive. Only an estimated 14.9 percent of
electric motor consumers experience a net cost. The FFC national energy
savings are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive
using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the
benefits to consumers vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers.
Notably, at TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the
more conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 6 times higher
than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard
levels at TSL 2 are economically justified even without weighing the
estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions
reductions are included--representing $3.14 billion in climate benefits
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and
$5.72 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $1.76 billion (using
a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--the rationale becomes
stronger still.
As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under
EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative
analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of
energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically
justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 70892, 70908.
Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select the
energy conservation standards, DOE notes that as compared to TSL 3 and
TSL 4, TSL 2 has higher average LCC savings for consumers,
significantly smaller percentages of electric motor consumers
experiencing a net cost, a lower maximum decrease in INPV, and lower
manufacturer conversion costs.
Although DOE considered amended standard levels for electric motors
by grouping the efficiency levels for each equipment class groups and
horsepower ranges into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency
levels in its analysis. For all equipment class groups and horsepower
ranges, TSL 2 represents the maximum energy savings that does not
result in the majority of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost. The
ELs at the proposed TSL result in average positive LCC savings for all
equipment class groups and horsepower ranges, significantly reduce the
number of consumers experiencing a net cost, and reduce the decrease in
INPV and conversion costs to the point where DOE has concluded they are
economically justified, as discussed for TSL 2 in the preceding
paragraphs.
Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to
adopt the energy conservation standards for electric motors at TSL 2.
The proposed amended energy conservation standards for electric motors,
which are expressed as full-load efficiency, are shown in Table I.1,
Table I.2, and Table I.3.

B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2021$) of the
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy,
minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized
monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission
reductions.
Table III.3 shows the annualized values for electric motors under
TSL 2, expressed in 2021$. The results under the primary estimate are
as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
standards for electric motors is $62.1 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $254.8 million
from reduced equipment operating costs, $164.8 million from GHG
reductions, and $151.4 million from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to
$508.9 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the standards for electric motors is $71.0 million
per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $463.6 million in reduced operating costs, $164.8 million
from GHG reductions, and $300.7 million from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to
$858.2 million per year.

Table III.3--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors
[TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2021$/year
--------------------------------------------------------
Low-net-benefits High-net-benefits
Primary estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 463.6 405.1 542.9
Climate Benefits*...................................... 164.8 148.0 186.5
Health Benefits**...................................... 300.7 269.5 341.0
Total Benefits [dagger]................................ 929.1 822.5 1070.4
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger].......... 71.0 73.7 73.0

[[Page 35774]]

Net Benefits........................................... 858.2 748.8 997.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 254.8 225.3 293.6
Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate)................... 164.8 148.0 186.5
Health Benefits **..................................... 151.4 137.1 169.5
Total Benefits [dagger]................................ 571.0 510.4 649.6
Consumer Incremental Product Costs..................... 62.1 63.8 63.9
Net Benefits........................................... 508.9 446.6 585.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2027-2056. These
results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056. The
Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the
AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition,
incremental equipment costs reflect a constant rate in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low Net
Benefits Estimate, and a declining rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive
projected price trends are explained in section IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may
not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-
GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal
government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the
absence of further intervening court orders, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and
presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule, except for
the Regulatory Flexibility Act discussed in section IV.A, are identical
to those conducted for the direct final rule published elsewhere in
this Federal Register. Please see the direct final rule for further
details.

A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and
policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of
its rules on small entities are properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website
(<a href="http://www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel">www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel</a>). DOE has prepared the
following IRFA for the products that are the subject of this proposed
rulemaking.
For manufacturers of electric motors, the 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. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The
size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification
System (``NAICS'') code and industry description and are available at
<a href="http://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards">www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards</a>. Manufacturing of
electric motors is classified under NAICS 335312, ``Motor and Generator
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer
for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of
any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish
either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not
need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).
(42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Additionally, under the
authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing a direct
final rule establishing energy conservation standards for electric
motors These standard levels were submitted jointly to DOE on November
15, 2022, by groups representing manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, and consumer groups (the Electric Motors
Working Group).\8\ This collective set of

[[Page 35775]]

comments, the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, recommends specific
energy conservation standards for electric motors that DOE has
determined satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ The Electric Motors working Group includes the American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (``ACEEE''), Appliance
Standards Awareness Project (``ASAP''), National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (``NEMA''), Natural Resources Defense
Council (``NRDC''), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (``NEEA''),
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (``PG&E''), San Diego Gas & Electric
(``SDG&E''), and Southern California Edison (``SCE''). In a letter
comment submitted December 12, 2022, the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority (``NYSERDA'') expressed its
support of the November 2022 Joint Recommendation and urged DOE to
implement it in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C \9\ of EPCA added by Pub. L. 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve the energy efficiency of certain types
of industrial equipment, including electric motors, the subject of this
proposed rule. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). DOE has previously established
energy conservation standards for electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25.
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish
either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not
need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new
proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE must follow
specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards
for covered equipment, including electric motors. Any new or amended
standard for a covered equipment must 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
As noted previously, DOE has the authority to issue a final rule (i.e.,
a ``direct final rule'') establishing an energy conservation standard
on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that
are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and
efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary, that contains
recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation
standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C.
6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignaated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
To estimate the number of companies that could be small business
manufacturers of electric motors covered by this proposed rulemaking,
DOE conducted a market survey using publicly available information.
DOE's research involved DOE's publicly available Compliance
Certification Database (``CCD''), industry trade association membership
directories (including NEMA), and information from previous
rulemakings. DOE also asked stakeholders and industry representatives
if they were aware of any other small manufacturers during manufacturer
interviews and DOE working groups. DOE used information from these
sources to create a list of companies that potentially manufacture
electric motors covered by this proposed 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 foreign owned and operated.
DOE initially identified approximately 74 unique potential
manufacturers of electric motors sold in the U.S that are covered by
this proposed rulemaking. DOE screened out companies that had more than
1,250 employees or companies that were completely foreign owned and
operated. Of the 74 manufacturers that potentially manufacture electric
motors covered by this proposed rulemaking, DOE identified 11 companies
that meet SBA's definition of a small business.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
Six major manufacturers supply approximately 90 percent of the
market for electric motors covered by this proposed rulemaking. None of
the major electric motor manufacturers covered by this proposed
rulemaking are a small business. DOE is adopting new energy
conservation standards for some AO electric motors and NEMA Design A
and B electric motors between 500 hp and 75 hp. Additionally, DOE is
amending energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A and B electric
motors between 100 hp and 250 hp. Based on a review on the 11 small
businesses' equipment offerings online, DOE was not able to identify
any small business electric motor manufacturer that manufactures AO
electric motors covered by this proposed rulemaking. Therefore, the
remainder of the discussion in this section focuses on NEMA Design A
and B electric motors between 100 hp and 250 hp and NEMA Design A and B
electric motors between 500 hp and 750 hp that are covered by this
proposed rulemaking.
Most of the identified small businesses primarily focus on selling
application specific motors to OEMs (which are then embedded in the
OEM's machinery). DOE estimates that approximately 97 percent of NEMA
Design A and B electric motor sales covered by this proposed rulemaking
are between 1-100 hp or 250-500 hp. DOE is not proposing to amend
energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A and B electric motors
between these horsepower ranges. Therefore, the majority of the NEMA
Design A and B electric motors that are manufactured by the identified
small businesses will not need to be remodeled in order to meet the
proposed energy conservation standards.
The primary value added by these small businesses is creating
electric motors that fit the application specific purpose that the OEMs
require. This includes combining an electric motor with specific
mechanic couplings, weatherproofing, or controls to suit the OEM's
needs. Most small businesses manufacturer the motor housing and
couplings, but do not manufacture the rotors and stators used in the
electric motors they sell. While these small businesses may have to
create new electric motor housings and/or couplings if the frame size
or stack length of an electric motor changes in response to energy
conservation standards, DOE was not able to identify any small
businesses that own their own lamination dies sets and winding machines
that are used to manufacture electric motor rotors and stators.
The primary investment that electric motor manufacturers will have
to make is to upgrade or replace lamination die sets and winding
machines and to have engineers develop equipment designs to create more
efficient electric motors. These investments (both capital and product
conversion costs) would only be for electric motor manufacturers that
manufacture electric motor rotors and stators. Electric motor
manufacturers that do not manufacture the rotors and

[[Page 35776]]

stators of an electric motor and instead purchase these components from
other electric motor manufacturers would not need to purchase the
machinery necessary to manufacture these components (i.e., would not
need to purchase costly lamination dies sets and winding machines) nor
would they need to spend R&D efforts to develop electric motor designs
to meet energy conservation standards. Instead, these small
manufacturers might have to create new moldings for larger electric
motor housings (if the size of the motor core increases in response to
energy conservation standards).
DOE estimates the average small business would have to redesign
four electric motor housings. DOE estimates this will cost
approximately $50,000 in molding equipment per electric motor housing;
$35,314 in engineering design effort per electric motor housing; \10\
and $10,000 in testing costs per electric motor housing. Based on these
estimates, each electric motor housing that will need to be redesigned
would cost small businesses approximately $95,314, or $381,254 to
redesign four electric motor housings per small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ DOE estimated that it would take approximately three months
of engineering time to redesign each electric motor housing. Based
on data from BLS, the mean hourly wage of an electrical engineer is
$51.87 (<a href="http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172071.htm">www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172071.htm</a>) and wages comprise
70.5 percent of an employee's total compensation (<a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_12152022.pdf">www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_12152022.pdf</a>).
$51.87 (hourly wage) / 0.705 (wage as a percentage of total
compensation) = $73.57 (fully burdened hourly labor rate).
$73.57 x 8 (hours in a workday) x 20 (working days in a month) x
3 (months) = $35,314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE displays in Table VI-1 the estimated average conversion costs
per small business compared to the annual revenue for each small
business. DOE used D&B Hoovers \11\ to estimate the annual revenue for
each small business. Manufacturers will have 4 years between
publication of the direct final rule and compliance with the energy
conservation standards. Therefore, DOE presents the estimated
conversion costs and testing costs as a percent of the estimated 4
years of annual revenue for each small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ <a href="http://app.avention.com">app.avention.com</a>.

Table VI-1--Estimated Conversion Costs and Annual Revenue for Each Small Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion costs
Manufacturer Total conversion Annual revenue 4-Years of as a % of 4-years
and testing costs annual revenue of annual revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business 1.................... $250,000 $78,000,000 $312,000,000 0.1
Small Business 2.................... 250,000 60,000,000 240,000,000 0.1
Small Business 3.................... 250,000 30,000,000 120,000,000 0.2
Small Business 4.................... 250,000 29,000,000 116,000,000 0.2
Small Business 5.................... 250,000 25,000,000 100,000,000 0.3
Small Business 6.................... 250,000 23,000,000 92,000,000 0.3
Small Business 7.................... 250,000 11,000,000 44,000,000 0.6
Small Business 8.................... 250,000 10,000,000 40,000,000 0.6
Small Business 9.................... 250,000 10,000,000 40,000,000 0.6
Small Business 10................... 250,000 4,600,000 18,400,000 1.4
Small Business 11................... 250,000 3,300,000 13,200,000 1.9
Average Small Business.............. 2,750,000 283,900,000 1,135,600,000 0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. 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.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small
businesses that would result from DOE's proposal, represented by TSL 2,
as recommended in the November 2022 Joint Recommendation. In reviewing
alternatives to the rule, DOE examined energy conservation standards
set at lower efficiency levels. While TSL 1 would reduce the impacts on
small business manufacturers, it would come at the expense of a
reduction in energy savings. TSL 1 achieves 97 percent lower energy
savings and 96 percent lower consumer NPV compared to the energy
savings and consumer NPV at TSL 2.
Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 2
balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 2 with the potential
burdens placed on electric motors manufacturers, including small
business manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does not adopt one of the
other TSLs considered in the analysis.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. Manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may
apply to DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief
under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part
430, subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

V. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule until the date provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. The
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment.

[[Page 35777]]

Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. If
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).

B. Public Meeting

If DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere in this
Federal Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a
public meeting to allow for additional comment on this proposed rule.
DOE will publish notice of any meeting in the Federal Register.
NEMA MG 1-2016 was previously approved for incorporation by
reference in the section where it appears in this proposed rule and no
change to the standard is made.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Signing Authority

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 1,
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.

Signed in Washington, DC, on May 5, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
431 of chapter II of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as
set forth below:

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Amend Sec. 431.12 by adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for
``Specialized frame size'' and ``Standard frame size,'' to read as
follows:

Sec. 431.12 Definitions.

* * * * *
Specialized frame size means an electric motor frame size for which
the rated output power of the motor exceeds the motor frame size limits
specified for standard frame size. Specialized frame sizes have maximum
diameters corresponding to the following NEMA Frame Sizes:

[[Page 35778]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum NEMA frame diameters
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75....................... 48 ........ 48 48 48 48 140 140
1.5/1.1..................... 48 48 48 48 140 140 140 140
2/1.5....................... 48 48 48 48 140 140 180 180
3/2.2....................... 140 48 140 140 180 180 180 180
5/3.7....................... 140 140 140 140 180 180 210 210
7.5/5.5..................... 180 140 180 180 210 210 210 210
10/7.5...................... 180 180 180 180 210 210 ......... ........
15/11....................... 210 180 210 210 ......... ........ ......... ........
20/15....................... 210 210 210 210 ......... ........ ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard frame size means a motor frame size that aligns with the
specifications in NEMA MG 1-2016, section 13.2 for open motors, and
NEMA MG 1-2016, section 13.3 for enclosed motors (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.15).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 431.25 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text; and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (m) through (r).
The revision and additions read as follows:

Sec. 431.25 Energy conservation standards and effective dates.

* * * * *
(h) Each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design B motor, and IEC Design N
(including NE, NEY, or NY variants) 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) on or after June 1, 2016, but before [date 4 years
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], shall
have a nominal full-load efficiency of not less than the following:
* * * * *
(m) The standards in tables 8 through 10 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 four-digit NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive
NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);
(8) Produce at least one horsepower (0.746 kW) but not greater than
750 horsepower (559 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, NE, NEY, NY or H, HE, HEY, HY motor.
(n) Starting on [date 4 years after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design B
motor, and IEC Design N (including NE, NEY, or NY variants) motor that
is an electric motor meeting the criteria in paragraph (m) of this
section and with a power rating from 1 horsepower through 750
horsepower, but excluding fire pump electric motors and air-over
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 8 to Paragraph (n)--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE,
NEY or NY Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors and Air-Over Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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...................... 95.0 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 94.5 95.0
125/90...................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0

[[Page 35779]]

150/110..................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.0 95.0
200/150..................... 95.8 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.4 95.0
250/186..................... 96.2 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.4 95.4
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 ......... ........ ......... ........
550/410..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
600/447..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
650/485..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
700/522..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
750/559..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(o) Starting on [date 4 years after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design B
motor, and IEC Design N (including NE, NEY, or NY variants) motor that
is an air-over electric motor meeting the criteria in paragraph (m) of
this section and with a power rating from 1 horsepower through 250
horsepower, built in a standard frame size, 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 9 to Paragraph (o)--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE,
NEY or NY Standard Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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...................... 95.0 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 94.5 95.0
125/90...................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
150/110..................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.0 95.0
200/150..................... 95.8 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.4 95.0
250/186..................... 96.2 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.4 95.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(p) Starting on [date 4 years after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design B
motor, and IEC Design N (including NE, NEY, or NY variants) motor that
is an air-over electric motor meeting the criteria in paragraph (m) of
this section and with a power rating from 1 horsepower through 20
horsepower, built in a specialized frame size, 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:

[[Page 35780]]

Table 10 to Paragraph (p)--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE,
NEY or NY Specialized Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75....................... 74.0 ........ 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 ......... ........
15/11....................... 90.2 89.5 91.0 91.0 ......... ........ ......... ........
20/15....................... 90.2 90.2 91.0 91.0 ......... ........ ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(q) 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 (n) through (p)
through 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
paragraphs (q)(1) or (2) of this section, whichever applies.
(r) The standards in tables 8 through 10 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) Component sets of an electric motor;
(2) Liquid-cooled electric motors;
(3) Submersible electric motors; and
(4) Inverter-only electric motors.

[FR Doc. 2023-10018 Filed 5-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on June 1, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.