Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-20343

Rule2023-20343

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated Purpose Pool Pump 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

September 28, 2023

Effective

November 27, 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 dedicated purpose pool pump motors. When DOE is considering adopting energy conservation standards, EPCA requires that the standards be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency, which DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. In this final rule, DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards for dedicated purpose pool pump motors. It has determined that the new energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66966-67041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20343]

[[Page 66965]]

Vol. 88

Thursday,

No. 187

September 28, 2023

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Dedicated Purpose Pool Pump Motors; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 66966]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048]
RIN 1904-AF27

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Dedicated Purpose Pool Pump Motors

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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 dedicated
purpose pool pump motors. When DOE is considering adopting energy
conservation standards, EPCA requires that the standards be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency, which DOE
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. In
this final rule, DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards
for dedicated purpose pool pump motors. It has determined that the new
energy conservation standards for these products would result in
significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible
and economically justified.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is November 27, 2023. Compliance
with the new standards established for dedicated purpose pool pump
motors with motor total horsepower <0.5 THP in this final rule is
required on and after September 29, 2025. Compliance with the new
standards established for dedicated purpose pool pump motors with motor
total horsepower >=0.5 THP and <1.15 THP in this final rule is required
on and after September 28, 2027. Finally, compliance with the new
standards established for dedicated purpose pool pump motors with motor
total horsepower >=1.15 THP and <=5 THP in this final rule is required
on and after September 29, 2025. The incorporation of refence of
certain material listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on November 27 2023.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how to
access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e5a49595898c848b8680b691848b8184978196b4908096918c8a8b96a58080cb818a80cb828a93">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e6a796968a8f87888583b59287888287948295b7938395928f898895a68383c8828983c8818990">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#56373b333a3f3778213e3f223f3831163e277832393378313920">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE incorporates by reference the following
standard into parts 429 and 431:
UL 1004-10, Standard for Safety for Pool Pump Motors, Revised First
Edition, Dated March 24, 2022 (``UL 1004-10:2022'').
Copies of UL 1004-10:2022 can be obtained from: Underwriters
Laboratories (``UL''), 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, (841)
272-8800, or go to <a href="http://www.ul.com">www.ul.com</a>.
For a further discussion of this standard, see section VI.N of this
document.

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for DPPP Motors
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage and Definitions
2. Market Review
3. Equipment Classes
4. Technology Options
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Representative Units
b. Baseline Efficiency
c. Higher Efficiency Levels
2. Cost Analysis
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. DPPP Motor Applications
2. DPPP Motor Consumer Sample
3. Self-Priming and Non-Self-Priming Pool Pump Motor Input Power
4. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps Motor Input Power
5. Daily Operating Hours
6. Annual Days of Operation
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Costs
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Equipment Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
1. Base-Year Shipments
2. No-New-Standards Case Shipment Projections
3. Standards Case Shipment Projections
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Markup Scenarios
3. Manufacturer Interviews
4. Comments From Interested Parties
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

[[Page 66967]]

a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusion
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for DPPP Motor
Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14904
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Need for, Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
2. Significant Comments in Response to the IRFA
3. Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
4. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
5. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
M. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA) \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) Such equipment includes electric motors, which include dedicated-
purpose pool pump motors (``DPPP motors'' or ``DPPPMs'' or ``pool pump
motors''), the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). This
rulemaking does not concern standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps
(``DPPPs''), which are being addressed in a separate rulemaking.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
\3\ Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0001, which is maintained at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0001">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0001</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE is adopting new energy conservation standards for
DPPP motors. The adopted standards, which are expressed in full-load
efficiency and design requirements, are shown in Table I.1. DOE is
finalizing standards that apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the
dates provided in the table.

Table I.1--Energy Conservation Standards for DPPP Motors (TSL 7)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance
standard: full- Design requirement: Design requirement:
Motor total horsepower (THP) load speed capability freeze protection Compliance date
efficiency (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THP <0.5........................ 69% None............... None................ September 29, 2025.
0.5 <= THP < 1.15............... .............. Variable speed Only for DPPP motors September 28, 2025.
control *. with freeze
protection controls
**.
1.15 <= THP <= 5................ .............. Variable speed Only for DPPP motors September 29, 2025.
control *. with freeze
protection controls
**.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A variable speed motor is a DPPP motor that meets the definition of ``variable-speed control dedicated-purpose
pool pump motor'' as defined by UL 1004-10:2022.
** DPPP motors with freeze protection controls are to be shipped with the freeze protection feature disabled, or
with the following default, user-adjustable settings: (a) the default dry-bulb air temperature setting shall
be no greater than 40 [deg]F; (b) the default run time setting shall be no greater than 1 hour (before the
temperature is rechecked); and (c) the default motor speed in freeze protection mode shall not be more than
half of the maximum operating speed.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of
the adopted standards on consumers of DPPP motors, as measured by the
average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period
(``PBP'').\4\ The average LCC savings are positive for each equipment
class, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of DPPP motors,
which is estimated to be 4.5 years (see section IV.F of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the distribution of
purchased DPPP motors, and their associated energy efficiency,
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards
(see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative
to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document).

[[Page 66968]]

Table I.2--Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers
of DPPP Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Simple payback
DPPP Motors equipment class savings (2022$) period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra-small-size (THP <0.5)......... $3 0.9
Small-size (0.5 <= THP < 1.15)...... 4 3.4
Standard-size (1.15 <= THP <= 5).... 236 1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on consumers
is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry, which align with the industry
profits from producing DPPP motors, from the base year through the end
of the analysis period (2024-2055).\5\ Using a real discount rate of
7.2 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of DPPP
motors in the case without new standards is $661 million in 2022$.
Under the adopted standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range
from -32.4 percent to 12.0 percent, which is approximately -$214.2
million to $79.0 million change in profits. In order to bring products
into compliance with new standards, it is estimated that industry will
incur total conversion costs of $56.2 million.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ This time period captures manufacturers' profits starting
with the years leading up to the compliance date, at which time they
are making investments to comply with standards, and throughout the
30-year analysis period after the compliance date.
\6\ Conversion costs are included in the INPV calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on
manufacturers is described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021
dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2024 unless
explicitly stated otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation
standards for DPPP motors would save a significant amount of energy.
Relative to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy savings
for DPPP motors purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the
anticipated first full year of compliance with the new standards (2026-
2055),\8\ amount to 1.56 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''),
or quads.\9\ This represents a savings of 27.5 percent relative to the
energy use of these products in the case without new standards
(referred to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ DOE conducted the analysis over a 30-year period starting in
2026 (2026-2055). As discussed in section III.A of this document,
for all TSLs DOE considered a 2-year lead time resulting in a first
full year of compliance of 2026, except for small-size DPPP motors
at TSL 7 where DOE uses a 4-year compliance lead time, resulting in
a compliance year of 2028. In this case, DOE considered 28 years of
shipments (2028-2055).
\9\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings.
FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting,
processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas,
petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the
impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the
FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the standards for DPPP motors ranges from $5.4 billion (at
a 7-percent discount rate) to $10.2 billion (at a 3-percent discount
rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment and
installation costs for DPPP motors purchased in 2026-2055 relative to
the no-new-standards case.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ For small size DPPP motors, as noted previously, DOE
considered 28 years of shipments (2028-2055).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the adopted standards for DPPP motors are projected to
yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the
standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same
period as for energy savings) of 31.2 million metric tons (Mt) \11\ of
carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>), 9.8 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide
(SO<INF>2</INF>), 56.4 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(NO<INF>X</INF>), 247.2 thousand tons of methane (CH<INF>4</INF>), 0.32
thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N<INF>2</INF>O), and 0.07 tons of
mercury (Hg).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\12\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2023 (AEO2023). AEO2023 represents current Federal and State
legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time
of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for further
discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that effect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (GHG) using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<INF>2</INF> (SC-CO<INF>2</INF>), the social cost of methane
(SC-CH<INF>4</INF>), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (SC-
N<INF>2</INF>O). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (SC-
GHG). DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency
Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).\13\ The
derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L of this
document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated
with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate over the period of
analysis are estimated to be $2.0 billion. DOE 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 sets of SC-
GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February
2021 by the IWG. (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions, using benefit per ton estimates
from the Environmental Protection Agency,\14\ as discussed in section
IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health
benefits would be $2.0 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and
$3.9 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. DOE is currently only
monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate
matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) concentrations from two precursors
(SO<INF>2</INF> and (for NO<INF>X</INF>) and from changes in ambient
ozone from one precursor (NO<INF>X</INF>), but will continue to assess
the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from
reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing
Directly Emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors and
Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at <a href="http://www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors">www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.3 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to
result from the amended standards for DPPP motors. There are other
important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate
benefits,

[[Page 66969]]

unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air
pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits,
and distributional effects, among others.

Table I.3--Present Value in 2024 of Monetized Benefits and Costs of
Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for DPPP Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion 2022$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings....................... 14.0
Climate Benefits *.................................... 2.0
Health Benefits **.................................... 3.9
-----------------
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]................. 19.9
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger]......... 3.9
-----------------
Net Monetized Benefits............................ 16.0
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [dagger][dagger])... (0.21)-0.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings....................... 7.9
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................. 2.0
Health Benefits **.................................... 2.0
-----------------
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]................. 11.9
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger]......... 2.6
-----------------
Net Monetized Benefits............................ 9.3
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [dagger][dagger])... (0.21)-0.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the present value of the monetized costs and
benefits associated with product name shipped in 2026-2055, except for
small-size DPPP motors where shipments in 2028-2055 are considered.
These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits which
accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055 (or 2028-
2055).
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
(SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent
discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate) (see
section IV.L of this document). 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 DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support
Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim
Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by
the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(IWG).
** 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. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. 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 DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
installation costs.
[dagger][dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life
cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in
detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's NIA
includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution
chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to
manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price
experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed
analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J
of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers'
pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments,
conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of
impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change
in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow,
including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and
manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is calculated using the
industry weighted average cost of capital value of 7.2% that is
estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the Final Rule TSD for a
complete description of the industry weighted average cost of
capital). For DPPP motors, those values are -$214 million and $79
million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing
whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this
document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two
markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is
the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer
Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of
Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers
would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion
to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range
of estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained
further in Section IV.J of this document, to provide additional
context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to society,
including potential changes in production and consumption, which is
consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to
include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this final rule,
the net benefits would range from $15.79 billion to $16.08 billion at
3-percent discount rate and range from $9.09 billion to $9.38 billion
at 7-percent discount rate.

The benefits and costs of the standards can also be expressed in
terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total
annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs,
minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation
costs, plus (3) the monetized value of climate and health benefits of
emission reductions, all annualized.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2030 or 2040), and then discounted the present value from
each year to 2024. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the
compliance year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S.
consumer

[[Page 66970]]

monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered
products and are measured for the lifetime of DPPP motors shipped in
(2026-2055).\16\ The benefits associated with reduced emissions
achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based
on the lifetime of DPPP motors shipped in (2026-2055).\16\ Total
benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using
the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of
SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section
V.B.6 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ For small size DPPP motors, as noted previously, DOE
considered 28 years of shipments (2028-2055).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the standard, expressed in terms of annualized values.
The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated monetized cost of the
standards adopted in this rule is $221 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $684 million
in reduced equipment operating costs, $103 million in monetized climate
benefits, and $173 million in monetized health benefits. In this case,
the monetized net benefit would amount to $739 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated monetized cost of the standards is $204 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual monetized
benefits are $738 million in reduced operating costs, $103 million in
monetized climate benefits, and $205 million in monetized health
benefits. In this case, the monetized net benefit would amount to $841
million per year.

Table I.4--Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for DPPP Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2022$/year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Low-net-benefits High-net-benefits
Primary estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings............... 738 721 760
Climate Benefits *............................ 103 103 103
Health Benefits **............................ 205 205 205
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]......... 1,046 1029 1,068
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger]. 204 235 173
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits.................... 841 793 895
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV (17)-6 (17)-6 (17)-6
[dagger][dagger])............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings............... 684 671 703
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)......... 103 103 103
Health Benefits **............................ 173 173 173
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]......... 960 947 979
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger]. 221 250 190
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits.................... 739 696 790
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV (17)-6 (17)-6 (17)-6
[dagger][dagger])............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055, except for
small-size DPPP motors where shipments in 2028-2055 are considered. These results include consumer, climate,
and health benefits which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055 (or 2028-2055). The
Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the
AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition,
incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the
Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to
derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and 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 DOE 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 sets of SC-GHG
estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions this analysis uses the interim
estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).
** 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. 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 DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

[[Page 66971]]

[dagger][dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national
impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's NIA includes
all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the
manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer.
DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J
of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions
regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is
the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry
cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins.
Annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 7.2% that
is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the Final Rule TSD for a complete description of the industry
weighted average cost of capital). For DPPP motors, those values are -$17 million and $6 million. DOE accounts
for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this
document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of
Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating
Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed
manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in
manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above
table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context
for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to society, including potential changes in production and
consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into
the annualized net benefit calculation for this final rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $824
million to $847 million at 3-percent discount rate and range from $722 million to $745 million at 7-percent
discount rate.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is
described in sections IV.G.2, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

DOE concludes that the standards adopted in this final rule
represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result
in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, equipment are
able to achieve these standard levels using technology options
currently available in the DPPPM market. As for economic justification,
DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the standards exceed the
burdens of the standards.
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 monetized cost
of the standards for DPPP motors is $221 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual monetized benefits are $684
million in reduced equipment operating costs, $103 million in monetized
climate benefits, and $173 million in monetized ambient air pollutant
health benefits. The monetized net benefit amounts to $739 million per
year.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\17\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings \18\ of 1.56 quads FFC, the
equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 16.8 million homes. In
addition, they are projected to reduce CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 31.2
Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from
the standard levels adopted in this final rule are ``significant''
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed
discussion of the basis for these conclusions is contained in the
remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055, except
for small-size DPPP motors where shipments in 2028-2055 are
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment of standards for DPPP 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 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 energy efficiency. This equipment
includes those electric motors that are DPPP motors, the subject of
this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
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), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6316 (a); 42 U.S.C.
6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6297) There are currently no Federal energy
conservation standards for DPPP motors. DOE noted in the July 2021
Final Rule that efforts by States to set energy conservation standards,
test procedures, or labeling requirements for DPPP motors--or any other
electric motor--are preempted as a matter of law. 86 FR 40765, 40767.
Upon further consideration, however, DOE is clarifying here that
none of the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6313 apply to DPPP motors because,
although they are a category of electric motor, DPPPP motors are not
among the category of electric motors for which Congress established
standards and a rulemaking schedule in 42 U.S.C. 6313(b). Thus, State
DPPP motor standards are not already preempted as a matter of law. EPCA
outlines rules of preemption for State energy conservation standards
before a Federal standard promulgated becomes effective. 42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6297(b). Specifically, it provides that no State
regulation concerning energy efficiency or energy use of covered
equipment shall be effective with respect to the covered equipment--in
the absence of a Federal regulation--unless the State regulation is a
regulation regulating electric motors other than those to which 42
U.S.C. 6313 is applicable. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(7); 42 U.S.C. 6297(b)(4).
As discussed in

[[Page 66972]]

section III.A. of this document, DPPPM are a category of electric
motor, but are excepted from the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6313(b). See
42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). Further, there are no other provisions in 42
U.S.C. 6313 that would apply to DPPP motors. Therefore, any State
regulations establishing or amending standards for DPPPM are not
currently preempted.
Instead, under 42 U.S.C. 6297(c), upon the compliance date for the
Federal standards in this final rule, the Federal standards will
supersede the CEC standards requirements for replacement dedicated-
purpose pool pump motors (``RDPPPM'') for the first time. For extra-
small-size and standard-size DPPP motors, the CEC standards will be
superseded on the compliance date applicable to these DPPP motors,
which is 2 years after the publication of this final rule. For small-
size DPPP motors, which have an additional two-year lead time, the CEC
standards would be superseded on the compliance date applicable to
small-size DPPP motors, which is 4 years after the publication of this
final rule. 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. (See 42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (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 DPPP motors
appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') Sec.
431.484.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment, including DPPP 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 (``Secretary'') 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 DPPP 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)(3)(A)-(B)) 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 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))
DOE must also periodically evaluate the energy conservation
standards for certain covered equipment, including electric motors, and
publish either a notification of determination that the standards do
not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'')
that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to
a final rule, as appropriate). See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1).
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))

B. Background

1. Current Standards
DPPP motors are electric motors, which are defined as machines that
convert electrical power into rotational mechanical power. 10 CFR
431.12. DOE has established test procedures, labeling requirements, and
energy conservation standards for certain electric motors (10 CFR part
431, subpart B), but those

[[Page 66973]]

requirements do not apply to DPPP motors. DOE has separately
established a test procedure for DPPP motors in 10 CFR 431.484. The
scope of the DPPP motor definition includes DPPP motors regardless of
how the equipment is sold; i.e., incorporated in a DPPP or sold
separately.
Currently, DPPP motors that would be subject to the energy
conservation standards are not subject to any Federal energy
conservation standards or labeling requirements because they do not
fall within any of the specific classes of electric motors that are
currently regulated by DOE.\19\ However, DPPP motors are electric
motors and, therefore, are and have been among the types of industrial
equipment for which Congress has authorized DOE to establish applicable
regulations under EPCA without the need for DOE to undertake any
additional prior administrative action. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ The current energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25
apply to electric motors that satisfy nine criteria listed at 10 CFR
431.25(g), subject to the exemptions listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l). The
nine criteria are as follows: (1) are single-speed, induction
motors; (2) are rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation or for
duty type S1 (IEC); (3) contain a squirrel-cage (MG1) 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 3-digit or
4-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 1 horsepower (0.746 kW) but not
greater than 500 horsepower (373 kW), and; (9) meet all of the
performance requirements of one of the following motor types: A NEMA
Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design N or H motor. The
exemptions listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l) are: (1) air-over electric
motors; (2) component sets of an electric motor; (3) liquid-cooled
electric motors; (4) submersible electric motors; and (5) inverter-
only electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for DPPP Motors
On January 18, 2017, DOE published a direct final rule establishing
energy conservation standards for DPPPs. 82 FR 5650 (the ``January 2017
Direct Final Rule'').\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ DOE confirmed the adoption of the standards and the
effective date and compliance date in a notice published on May 26,
2017. 82 FR 24218. DOE also established a test procedure for DPPPs.
82 FR 36858 (August 7, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In comments submitted in response to the direct final rule, several
interested parties discussed the issue of the efficiency of electric
motors used in DPPPs. Comments were received from a broad range of
interested parties, including manufacturers, trade associations, and
energy efficiency advocacy organizations suggesting that energy
conservation standards were also needed for motors used in pool pumps.
Commenters wanted to ensure that consumers who purchased pool pumps
compliant with the new standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f), who subsequently
needed to replace their motor, would do so with a motor of equal or
greater efficiency. All comments received that discussed DPPP motors
supported further rulemaking to address these motors. (Docket No. EERE-
2015-BT-STD-0008; Regal Beloit Corporation (``Regal Beloit''), No. 122
at p. 1; Hayward Industries, Inc. (``Hayward''), No. 125 at p. 1;
Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. (``Pentair''), No. 132 at pp. 1-2;
Zodiac Pool Systems (``Zodiac''), No. 134 at pp. 1-2; Association of
Pool and Spa Professionals (``APSP''), No. 127 at p. 2; Appliance
Standards Awareness Project (``ASAP''), No. 133 at pp. 4-5; Natural
Resource Defense Council (``NRDC''), No. 121 at p. 4; California
Investor Owned Utilities (``CA IOUs''), No. 130 at p. 2)
Acknowledging comments received in response to the direct final
rule in support of regulating DPPP motors that would serve as
replacement motors to the regulated pool pumps, DOE published a notice
of public meeting on July 3, 2017 and held a public meeting on August
10, 2017 to consider potential scope, definitions, equipment
characteristics, and metrics for pool pump motors. 82 FR 30845. DOE
also requested comment on potential requirements for DPPP motors in a
request for information (``RFI'') pertaining to test procedures for
small electric motors and electric motors. 82 FR 35468 (July 31, 2017).
On August 14, 2018, DOE received a petition submitted by a variety of
entities (collectively, the ``Joint Petitioners'') \21\ requesting that
DOE issue a direct final rule to establish prescriptive standards and a
labeling requirement for DPPP motors (``Joint Petition'').\22\ The
Joint Petitioners stated that the motor on a pool pump will often fail
before the pump itself needs to be replaced, and motor-only
replacements are common. (Joint Petition, No. 14 at p. 2) They added
that without a complementary standard for DPPP motors, upon replacing a
pool pump motor, consumers may install replacement motors that are less
efficient than the motor with which the DPPP was originally equipped.
(Id.) To address this concern, the Joint Petitioners asked DOE to
establish a direct final rule establishing prescriptive standards and a
labeling requirement for DPPP motors. (Joint Petition, No. 14 at pp. 6-
9) The Joint Petitioners sought a compliance date of July 19, 2021, to
align with the standards compliance date for DPPPs. (Id.) See also 82
FR 24218 (May 26, 2017). DOE published a notice of the Joint Petition
and sought comment on whether to proceed with the proposal, as well as
any data or information that could be used in DOE's determination of
whether to issue a direct final rule. 83 FR 45851 (Sept. 11, 2018).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ The Joint Petitioners are: the Association of Pool & Spa
Professionals, Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project,
Arizona Public Service, California Energy Commission, California
Investor Owned Utilities, Consumer Federation of America, Florida
Consumer Action Network, Hayward Industries, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nidec
Motor Corporation, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Pentair
Water Pool and Spa, Regal Beloit Corporation, Speck Pumps, Texas
ROSE (Ratepayers' Organization to Save Energy), Waterway Plastics,
WEG Commercial Motors, and Zodiac Pool Systems.
\22\ The Joint Petition is available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048-0014">www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048-0014</a>.
\23\ Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048, available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048">www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On December 12, 2018, representatives from the Association of Pool
& Spa Professionals (``APSP''), the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (``NEMA''), Nidec Motors, Regal Beloit, and Zodiac met with
DOE to reiterate the need for implementation of the Joint Petition.
(December 2018 Ex Parte Meeting, No. 42 at p. 1) \24\ On February 5,
2019, APSP, NEMA, Hayward, Pentair, Nidec Motors, Regal Beloit, WEG
Commercial Motors, and Zodiac Pool Systems met with DOE to present an
alternative approach to the Joint Petition, suggesting DOE propose a
labeling requirement for DPPP motors. (February 2019 Ex Parte Meeting,
No. 43 at p. 1) \25\ These interested parties specifically requested
that DOE base the labeling requirement on a newly available industry
standard for pool pump motors published on July 1, 2019 (UL 1004-
10:2019, ``Pool Pump Motors''), a design standard that incorporates
some of the proposals

[[Page 66974]]

contained in the Joint Petition. (February 2019 Ex Parte Slides, No. 43
at pp. 9-10) A follow-up memorandum was submitted to DOE on March 1,
2019, providing additional information related to UL 1004-10:2019.
(March 2019 Ex Parte Memo, No. 44) The interested parties noted the
timelines and costs that would be involved in applying a label to the
affected pool pump motors and the impacts flowing from past labeling
efforts. (See generally Id. at 1-3.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ With respect to each of the ex parte communications noted
in this document, DOE posted a memorandum submitted by the
interested party/parties that summarized the issues discussed in the
relevant meeting as well as its date and attendees, in compliance
with DOE's Guidance on Ex Parte Communications. 74 FR 52795-52796
(Oct. 14, 2009). The memorandum of the meeting as well as any
documents given to DOE employees during the meeting were added to
the docket as specified in that guidance. See Id. at 74 FR 52796.
\25\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop the
test procedure and labeling requirements for DPPP motors. (Docket
No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048, which is maintained at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048</a>). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter, comment docket ID number, page
of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On April 7, 2020, the California Energy Commission (``CEC'')
adopted new regulations for RDPPPMs, with an effective date of July 19,
2021. The adopted standards included nominal efficiency at full-load
and maximum operating speed requirements, in addition to a requirement
that RDPPPMs with a total horsepower (``THP'') greater than or equal to
0.5 THP manufactured on or after July 19, 2021, must be variable-
speed.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ See Docket # 19-AAER-02 at <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-2">www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-2</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On October 5, 2020, in response to the Joint Petition and the
alternative recommendation presented by several of the Joint
Petitioners following submission of the Joint Petition, DOE published a
NOPR proposing to establish a test procedure and an accompanying
labeling requirement for DPPP motors. 85 FR 62816 (``October 2020
NOPR''). Specifically, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference UL
Standard 1004-10:2019 ``Outline of Investigation for Pool Pump Motors''
(``UL 1004-10:2019'') pertaining to DPPP motor definitions and marking
requirements; require the use of Canadian Standards Association
(``CSA'') C747-09 (R2014), ``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small
Motors'' (``CSA C747-09'') for testing the energy efficiency of DPPP
motors; require the nameplate of a subject DPPP motor (1) to include
the full-load efficiency of the motor as determined under the proposed
test procedure, and (2) if the DPPP motor is certified to UL-1004-
10:2019, to include the statement, ``Certified to UL 1004-10:2019'';
require that catalogs and marketing materials include the full-load
efficiency of the motor; require manufacturers to notify DOE of the
subject DPPP motor models in current production (according to the
manufacturer's model number) and whether the motor model is certified
to UL 1004-10:2019; and require manufacturers to report to DOE the
full-load efficiency of the subject DPPP motor models as determined
pursuant to the proposed test procedure. 85 FR 62816, 62820.
Additionally, if a DPPP motor model is certified to UL 1004-10:2019,
DOE proposed to require manufacturers to report the THP and speed
configuration of the motor model as provided on the nameplate pursuant
to the UL certification. Id.
On July 29, 2021, DOE published a final rule adopting a test
procedure for DPPP motors. 86 FR 40765. (``July 2021 Final Rule'').
Specifically, the test procedure requires use of CSA C747-09 (R2014),
``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors'' (``CSA C747-09'')
for testing the full-load efficiency of DPPP motors and incorporates by
reference UL 1004-10:2020 ``Standard for Pool Pump Motors'' (``UL 1004-
10:2020'') pertaining to definitions and scope. The new test procedure
is currently located at 10 CFR 431.484. 86 FR 40765, 40768. DOE did not
establish a labeling requirement and stated that it intends to address
any such labeling and/or energy conservation standards requirement in a
separate notification. Id.
On June 21, 2022, DOE published a NOPR proposing energy
conservation standards for DPPP motors. 87 FR 37122. (``June 2022
NOPR''). DOE proposed a performance standard for a class of DPPP motors
and design requirements for certain classes of DPPP motors.
Specifically, DOE proposed to require that DPPP motors less than 0.5
THP must have a full-load efficiency of 69 percent, and DPPP motors
greater than or equal to 0.5 THP must be variable speed control DPPP
motors. In addition, for DPPP motors greater than or equal to 0.5 THP,
DOE also proposed to implement freeze-protection requirements. 87 FR
37122, 37123-37124. On July 26, 2022, DOE presented the proposed
standards and accompanying analysis in a public meeting.
DOE received comments in response to the June 2022 NOPR from the
interested parties listed in Table II.1.

Table II.1--June 2022 NOPR Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. in
Commenter(s) Abbreviation the Docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous................................ Anonymous................. 89 .........................
Appliance Standards Awareness Project Joint Advocates........... 97 Efficiency Organizations.
(ASAP), American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy (ACEEE), National
Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its
low-income clients (NCLC), Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
(NEEA).
California Energy Commission and New York CEC and NYSERDA........... 94 State Agencies.
State Energy Research and Development
Authority.
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Joint SC-GHG Commenters... 95 Efficiency Organizations
Institute for Policy Integrity at New and Legal Institute.
York University School of Law, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club,
Union of Concerned Scientists.
Fluidra.................................. Fluidra................... 91, 101 Pool Pump Manufacturer.
Hayward Industries, Inc.................. Hayward................... 93 Pool Pump Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance..... NEEA...................... 99 Efficiency Organization.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), CA IOUs................... 96 Utilities.
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and
Southern California Edison (SCE).
Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc.......... Pentair................... 90 Pool Pump Manufacturer.
The Pool & Hot Tub Alliance and National PHTA and NEMA............. 92 Trade Associations.
Electrical Manufacturers Association.
The Pool & Hot Tub Alliance.............. PHTA...................... 100 Trade Association.
Regal Rexnord............................ Regal..................... 98 Motor Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 66975]]

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\27\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the July 26, 2022 public meeting, DOE cites the written comments
throughout this final rule. Any oral comments provided during the
webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are
summarized and cited separately throughout this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for DPPP motors. (Docket No. EERE-
2017-BT-STD-0048, which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this final rule after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues
raised by these commenters.

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested
parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.
In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed a performance standard (i.e.,
full-load efficiency) and design requirements (i.e., speed capability)
based on DPPP motor THP. Specifically, for motors <0.5 THP, DOE
proposed DPPP motors to meet a full-load efficiency of 69 percent. For
motors >=0.5 THP, DOE proposed variable speed control design
requirements, and freeze protection control requirements for DPPP
motors with freeze protection controls. 87 FR 37122, 37124.
Waterway Plastics commented that the proposal does not align with
CEC scope because that scope is only for replacement DPPP motors and
requested clarity on the scope of the June 2022 NOPR. (Waterway
Plastics, Public Meeting, No. 88 at p. 6) The scope of the final rule
includes DPPP motors regardless of how the equipment is sold i.e.,
incorporated in a DPPP or sold separately (i.e., as a replacement
motor).
One anonymous commenter stated that the proposed standard for DPPP
motors is more stringent than the standard for DPPPs that went into
effect in 2021 and would make the DPPP rule obsolete. Specifically, the
anonymous commenter stated that with the DPPP standard, a 1 hp single-
speed pump would still meet the weighted energy factor (``WEF'')
requirement, but this does not seem to be the case in the proposed DPPP
motor rule. In addition, the anonymous commenter stated that the WEF
DPPP standard was less stringent for non-self-priming pumps, whereas
the proposed DPPP motor level does not separate non-self-priming pumps
motors. The anonymous commenter stated that typically rules for
subcomponents (motors) would have less stringent or equal requirements
to the fully assembled product (i.e., pumps), otherwise the standard
for pool pumps would be obsolete due to the more stringent motor rule.
(Anonymous, No. 89 at p. 1) Waterway Plastics commented that the
proposal could affect the DPPPs that are being manufactured in the
United States, and that they had concerns that the June 2022 NOPR
proposal does not align with the DPPP standards. (Waterway Plastics,
Public Meeting, No. 88 at p. 6)
In addition to setting freeze protection requirements, the standard
for DPPPs at 10 CFR 431.465(f) would likely require DPPP motors sold in
DPPPs to be variable speed for standard-size self priming pool pumps
(using DPPP motors greater than or equal to 1.15 THP) \28\ and to have
a higher efficiency for small-size self priming pumps, non-self priming
pumps, and PCBPs.\29\ The DPPP standards apply to DPPPs only and do not
apply to DPPP motors sold alone as replacement motors. As stated
previously, motor-only replacements are common and comments were
received from a broad range of interested parties, including
manufacturers, trade associations, and energy efficiency advocacy
organizations suggesting that energy conservation standards were also
needed for motors used in pool pumps to ensure that consumers who
purchased pool pumps compliant with the new standards at 10 CFR
431.465(f), who subsequently needed to replace their motor, would do so
with a motor of equal or greater efficiency. In contrast, the CEC
standards apply to replacement DPPP motors only and would require
variable speed replacement DPPP motors at or above 0.5 THP, and also
sets requirements for nominal efficiency at full-load and maximum
operating speed.\30\ In this final rule, DOE establishes DPPP motor
standard for both motors sold in DPPPs and sold alone for replacement
purposes. While the motor improvements realized by this DPPP motor
final rule could be enough to improve a DPPP such that the DPPP would
meet the DPPP standard, DOE notes that the DPPP energy conservation
standards and the DPPP motor standards are complementary to help ensure
a harmonized approach to DPPP and DPPP motors that are replacements.
The DPPP standards includes the hydraulic efficiency of the pump, the
motor efficiency, and the efficiency of the associated controls and
drives supporting the DPPP. By contrast, the DPPP motor standard
focuses on just the motor aspect and is meant to complement the DPPP
standard by ensuring the replacement motors are at least as efficient
as originally intended by the DPPP manufacturer in the DPPP design.
Therefore, DOE does not agree with the commenter that these two
standards are overlapping. Instead, DOE believes it is addressing
complementary but different equipment regulations to help ensure the
efficiencies that consumers expect when purchasing their DPPPs are
maintained when replacing the motor. Since the regulations apply to
both domestically produced equipment and imported equipment and are
intended to be complementary by design, DOE does not agree with
Waterway Plastics that domestic manufacturers will be disadvantaged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ The 0.711 hhp threshold in the DPPP standards for self-
priming pool filter pumps aligns with a 1.15 THP motor threshold
(1.15 THP is roughly equivalent to 0.711 hhp). See section IV.A.3 of
this document.
\29\ The DPPP standard at 10 CFR 431.465(f) would likely require
DPPP motors sold in DPPPs to meet the requirements equivalent to TSL
6, while this DFR establishes standards at TSL 8 for DPPP motors,
regardless of how they are sold (i.e., incorporated in a DPPP or
sold separately). See section V.A of this document.
\30\ See Docket # 19-AAER-02 at <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-2">www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-2</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding pressure cleaner booster pumps (``PCBP''), Fluidra
recommended separating PCBP into their own equipment class, requiring
69-percent efficiency for motors less than 1.15 THP, and implementing
further review of energy use, efficiency, and cost effectiveness for
the motors at 1.15 to 5 THP. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2). PHTA and NEMA
recommended that if DOE confirms that a variable speed requirement is
not cost-effective for PCBP, DOE should not require variable speed for
PCBP motors below 1.15 THP. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 5)
On the other hand, CEC and NYSERDA supported DOE's proposed
standards, specifically the proposal to require variable-speed motors,
and encouraged that DOE finalize the rule as soon as possible. CEC and
NYSERDA stated that the proposed standards will

[[Page 66976]]

extend the 2017 DPPP final rule energy efficiency benefits to
replacement DPPP motors, which currently are unregulated on the Federal
level, and provide additional energy efficiency improvements to new
DPPPs. CEC and NYSERDA also stated that some of the energy savings in
this NOPR are already being realized in California through that State's
Replacement DPPP Motor Regulations, which went into effect July 19,
2021, and which are projected to provide 451 GWh in annual electricity
savings and $82 million in annual savings to California businesses and
individuals. (CEC and NYSERDA, No. 94 at p. 2) Further, CEC and NYSERDA
commented that variable-speed motors are extremely beneficial to
consumers, as DPPPs have different operational modes with different
speed requirements, and because real-world pool design complicates the
size selection of DPPP motors. Further, CEC and NYSERDA stated that the
benefit of variable-speed motors for PCBP applications, which is the
ability to adjust motor speed, will eliminate the need to use pressure
discs or pressure relief valves. (CEC and NYSERDA, No. 94 at p. 3)
The Joint Advocates commented that they support the proposed
standards for DPPP motors, which generally align with the existing
California standards for replacement DPPP motors, and would ensure that
all DPPP motors greater than or equal to 0.5 THP are variable-speed.
The Joint Advocates also supported the proposed freeze protection
control requirements. (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 1)
The CA IOUs supported DOE's proposal to adopt TSL 7 for DPPP
motors. The CA IOUs commented that they surveyed the CEC certifications
database and the DOE Compliance Certification Management System
(``CCMS'') database and noted that small-size DPPP motors represent
motors in PCBPs, small self-priming pool filter pumps, and small non-
self-priming pool filter pumps. The CA IOUs agreed that the 0.5 THP to
1.15 THP threshold is an appropriate range for the DOE analysis and
standard. Further, the CA IOUs commented that the standard-sized DPPP
motor range, between 1.15 to 5.0 THP, represents motors mostly found in
standard-size self-priming pool filter pump applications. (CA IOUs, No.
96 at pp. 1-2) The CA IOUs commented that the proposed standard for a
small-size DPPP motor will provide technically feasible and cost-
effective consumer savings through variable speed motor technology,
allowing consumers to choose the lowest speed that meets their pool
maintenance needs and reducing pressure head losses through the pump
affinity laws. The CA IOUs noted that this energy savings strategy is
consistent with the industry standard American National Standards
Institute/Pool and Hot Tub Alliance/International Code Council (ANSI/
PHTA/ICC)-15:2021, which recommends that ``for maximum energy
efficiency, pool filtration should be operated at the lowest possible
flowrate for a time period that provides sufficient water turnover for
clarity and sanitation.'' (CA IOUs, No. 96 at p. 2) Further, the CA
IOUs supported DOE's proposal to adopt freeze protection setting
requirements, which aligns with the requirements of the DPPP rule and
provides essential energy savings by ensuring that products shopped
with freeze protection have the appropriate settings to protect
equipment from freezing while not using excessive energy. (CA IOUs, No.
96 at p. 2)
Regal commented that they generally support DOE moving forward with
the DPPPM energy conservation standards rule. Regal commented that they
believe the proposed rule will enable the achievement of significant
energy savings, if careful consideration is given to the rule's
underlying technical analysis and the timeline for implementation.
(Regal, No. 98 at p.1) ASAP commented in support of DOE's proposed
standards for DPPP motors and noted that these generally align with the
existing standards in California. (ASAP, Public Meeting, No. 88 at p.5)
As part of this final rule, DOE considered comments received regarding
the technical analysis and made any needed updates, as discussed in
section IV of this document. DOE also updated the market data
information to match the current market of DPPP motors available, as
discussed in section IV.A.2 of this document. Finally, DOE notes that
DOE conducted DPPP motor manufacturer interviews as part of the June
2022 NOPR, as discussed in the manufacturer impact analysis, and
incorporated feedback to estimate the manufacturer impacts of setting
variable-speed requirements as standards. 87 FR 37122, 37154.
In regard to creating an equipment class for DPPP motors used in
PCBP applications, DOE generally does not consider end-use applications
(for DPPP motors, end-use would be DPPPs) when analyzing equipment
classes for covered equipment. See further discussion in IV.A.3 of this
document. DOE also notes that, assuming the same motor output power,
there are no technological features that distinguish a DPPP motor used
in a PCBP from a DPPP motor used in a self-priming or non-self-priming
application. As such, DOE continues to base the analysis in this final
rule only on DPPP motor equipment classes determined only by motor THP,
as defined in Table III.1 of this document.
DOE reviewed the cost-effectiveness of the trial standard levels
considered with the updates for this final rule and continues to
conclude that the proposal from the June 2022 NOPR is technologically
feasible and economically justified. See section V of this document for
analytical results. Section IV provides further details on the analysis
conducted, the analysis inputs, and responses to any analysis-specific
comments that were received regarding the June 2022 NOPR.
In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed that new standards would apply
to DPPP motors manufactured two years after the date on which any new
or amended standard is published.\31\ DOE estimated the publication of
a final rule in the second half of 2023. Therefore, in the June 2022
NOPR, for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2026 as the first full
year of compliance with any new standards for DPPP motors. 87 FR 37122,
37144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE followed the same 2-year lead
time. See 87 FR 37122, 37144 at FN67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several commenters recommended that DOE consider a two-step
approach to allow for further analysis and data collection and
coordinate between DPPP and DPPP motors. As a first step, PHTA, NEMA,
and Hayward recommended that DOE adopt a final rule as soon as possible
that would adopt and require a DPPP motor listing to UL 1004-10:2022
``Standard for Pool Pump Motors'' (``UL 1004-10:2022'') in its
entirety, which would provide alignment with the current DPPP rule and
a means for certification and labeling that will provide for easier
enforcement. Further, PHTA, NEMA, and Hayward noted that manufacturers
anticipated compliance with UL 1004-10, which was established in the
2018-2020 efforts to obtain a corresponding DPPP motor rule. Therefore,
PHTA, NEMA, and Hayward stated that manufacturers are ready and able to
provide compliant product 12 months after a final rule effective date.
As a second step, PHTA, NEMA, and Hayward commented that DOE should set
up a negotiation working group on both DPPP and DPPP motor rules to dig
deeper into the concerns highlighted in their comment submission and
ensure performance and timing alignments long term. PHTA, NEMA, and
Hayward commented that they are committed to initiating step two as
soon as possible and stated that if a two-step approach is unfeasible,
that

[[Page 66977]]

prior to issuing a final DPPP motor rule, the cost-effective concerns
laid out in their comments should be further analyzed and manufacturer
interviews conducted. PHTA, NEMA, and Hayward stated that although this
approach will slow down obtaining a final rule, the current NOPR
deviates from the Joint Petition and the commenters have provided
multiple concerns that require attention. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p.
9; Hayward, No. 93 at pp. 2-3)
In response, Fluidra requested a 5-year transition period to
implement compliance with the DPPP motor regulation proposal. Fluidra
noted that this transition period would give manufacturers adequate
time to develop, test, certify, launch, and transition product lines,
as well as educate distributors, pool builders, and consumers on this
product transition. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2) Hayward, PHTA, and NEMA
requested a compliance date of at least 5 years following the effective
date if DOE decides against the implementation of UL 1004-10 based
rule. Hayward, PHTA, and NEMA noted that more time is required to:
address the limited product that currently exists in the small
fractional motor category; find solutions to the design of other
products impacted by a DPPP motor rule; and provide better alignment
with any coming revisions to the current DPPP rule. (Hayward, No. 93 at
pp. 2-3; PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 9) PHTA stated that any final
DPPPM rule compliance date should be extended a minimum of 5 years to
allow manufacturers to recover investments made to comply with the pump
rule. (PHTA, No. 100 at p. 3) In addition, Hayward recommended the
alignment of the DPPP and DPPP motor implementation dates. (Hayward,
No. 93 at p. 2) Regal recommended that DOE endeavor to better align
both the performance requirements and compliance deadlines between the
DPPP and DPPP motor rules. Regal commented that this will allow for
maximizing energy savings, while avoiding unintended market disruptions
and significant fiscal impacts to industry and consumers. (Regal, No.
98 at p. 1) Specifically, PHTA and NEMA commented that they were
concerned the different implementation dates of the DPPP and DPPP motor
rules will cause confusion and difficulties for manufacturers and risk
the potential to undercut savings by unaligned implementation of the
two rules. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at pp. 2)
DOE notes that PHTA and NEMA's original recommendation to DOE was
to adopt UL 1004-10:2022 in its entirety (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p.
9, 10), which includes the requirement that DPPP motors rated greater
or equal to 1.15 THP shall not be marked for single-speed, two-speed,
or multi-speed (i.e., shall instead be marked for variable-speed).
(section 7.1(b) of UL 1004-10:2022). Further, PHTA and NEMA stated that
manufacturers were ready and able to provide products compliant with UL
1004-10:2022 12 months after a final rule effective date. (PHTA and
NEMA, No. 92 at p. 9) Finally, PHTA and NEMA suggested that DOE require
compliance with the entire UL 1004-10 standard and not just the scope
and definitions sections because doing so would better align and
provide consistency with the DPPP rule. They also stated that doing so
would provide an easier enforcement tool for DOE by requiring nameplate
markings on those motors captured in the scope of the NOPR and in UL
1004-10, and would also ensure products not within the scope, such as
rigid electric spa motors, be labelled for that intended use only.
(PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 10) This is an energy conservation
standard and not a labeling rulemaking. In this final rule, DOE is
requiring variable speed control for standard-size DPPP motors (i.e.,
1.15 <= THP <=5), consistent with UL 1004-10:2022. However, DOE is also
requiring variable-speed control for small-size DPPP motors (i.e., 0.5
<= THP <1.15), which is more stringent than UL 1004-10:2022. In this
final rule, DOE has concluded that the proposal from the June 2022 NOPR
is technologically feasible and economically justified. See section V
for analytical results.
As noted previously, PHTA, NEMA, and Hayward recommended a two-step
approach. In addition, most if not all comments to the June 2022 NOPR
concerned the transition to variable-speed for the small-size equipment
class.\32\ DOE reviewed the compliance dates proposed in the June 2022
NOPR with specific concern for the compliance dates applicable to that
class. In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE provided a two-year compliance
timeline for DPPP motors based on the statutorily mandated rulemaking
schedule provided in section 6313. See 87 FR 37122, 37144 at FN 67, and
37186. Upon further review, DOE has determined that the rulemaking
schedule provided in 42 U.S.C. 6313(b) does not apply to DPPPM. As
discussed in section II.A. of this document, DPPPM are a type of
electric motor, but not among the types of electric motor for which
Congress established standards and a rulemaking schedule in 42 U.S.C.
6313(b). DPPPM are definite purpose motors. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C).
As such, they are excepted from the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6313(b),
including the compliance deadlines provided in that section. Because 42
U.S.C. 6316(a) applies certain requirements of section 6295(l)-(s) of
EPCA to certain equipment, including electric motors, DOE considered
whether the compliance deadlines of section 6295(m)(4) applied to
DPPPM. Section 6295(m)(4)(A) defines compliance deadlines for specific
products. But electric motors and DPPPMs are not listed, nor does
section 6316 apply a cross reference on how to apply these paragraphs
to electric motors or DPPPMs. Accordingly, DOE determined that these
compliance deadlines do not apply to DPPPM. Additionally, DOE reviewed
section 6296(m)(4)(B), which states that DOE cannot apply new standards
to a product with respect to which other new standards have been
required in the prior 6-year period. As this is the first time DOE is
establishing standards for this product, this paragraph also does not
apply. As such, DOE has determined that it has discretion to establish
compliance deadlines for DPPPM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ See: (Anonymous, No. 89 at p. 1), (Pentair, No. 90 at p. 1,
3), (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2), (Hayward, No. 93 at p. 2), (CA IOUs,
No. 96 at p. 1-2), (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 1), (PHTA and
NEMA, No. 92 at p. 10), (PHTA, No. 100 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE notes CEC's standards for RDPPM, which include standards for
the small-size equipment class, require compliance beginning July of
2021. Docket #19-AAER-02. The CEC standards set a variable speed motor
requirement for motors at or above 0.5 THP as well as minimum motor
full-load efficiency requirements. 20 CA ADC 1605.3(g)(6)(B). DOE's
final rule matches the stringency of the California standards
(requiring variable speed controls for all motors over 0.5 THP) for
replacement DPPP motors but DOE's proposal extends the variable speed
requirement to all DPPP motors, regardless of whether they are sold
with a DPPP or on their own. DOE believes manufacturers are already
producing standard-size and extra-small DPPPMs that will have to comply
with DOE's standards in this final rule. In addition, some
manufacturers already produce small-size DPPPMs that align with CEC's
variable speed RDPPM standards.\33\ However, DOE understands that some
manufacturers may need additional time to scale up their

[[Page 66978]]

manufacturing lines, especially for the small-size DPPP motors.\34\
Therefore, DOE is adopting two different compliance dates in this final
rule depending on the total horsepower of the motor. Doing so will
allow DOE to begin the transition to a Federal standard for DPPP motors
quickly, which will help alleviate any circumvention and unintended
consequences that may be occurring because of the DPPP Federal
standard, while balancing the needs of industry to have additional time
to increase manufacturing scale of the small DPPP motors. Based on the
comments received, DOE has concluded that the need for additional time
is particularly relevant for small-size equipment. Accordingly, DOE is
extending the compliance timeline to 4 years, instead of the proposed
two years, for the small-size equipment class as DOE believes this
provides industry sufficient time to scale up their manufacturing
lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ <a href="https://www.regalrexnord.com/products/electric-motors/ac-motors-nema/pump-motors/pool-pump-motors/pool-pump-motor-01-85-hp-1-ph-60-hz-115-v-3600-rpm-48y-frame-tefc-elv08tb">https://www.regalrexnord.com/products/electric-motors/ac-motors-nema/pump-motors/pool-pump-motors/pool-pump-motor-01-85-hp-1-ph-60-hz-115-v-3600-rpm-48y-frame-tefc-elv08tb</a>.
\34\ DOE included the capital and product conversion costs
necessary for these DPPP motor manufacturers to introduce variable-
speed DPPP motor models for the small-size equipment class. See
section III.J of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the extra-small-size and standard-size equipment classes, DOE
is maintaining the two-year compliance timelines as proposed. For the
extra-small-size and standard-size equipment classes, the adopted TSL
(TSL7) aligns with the requirements in UL 1004-10:2022 and as noted by
PHTA and NEMA, manufacturers are ready and able to provide products
compliant with UL 1004-10:2022 12 months after a final rule effective
date. Therefore, for the extra-small-size and standard-size equipment
classes DOE has determined that two years provides sufficient lead
time.
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE update the DPPP ECS to align with
the proposed DPPP motor standards. The CA IOUs commented that the
proposed standard requires variable speed capability for small and
standard size DPPP motors, which will impact the motors installed in
DPPPs. The CA IOUs added that the non-self-priming pool filter pump and
PCBP WEF standards allow performance levels achievable by single-speed,
dual-speed, and variable-speed motors. (CA IOUs, No. 96 at p. 6) DOE
appreciates CA IOUs comments. However, because this rulemaking is
concerning DPPP motors only and not DPPPs, DOE may consider
coordinating compliance timelines as part of any upcoming DPPP
rulemakings.
Finally, Pentair stated that after the DPPP rule, it saw a large
increase in internet activity selling illegal pumps and motors that do
not meet DOE requirements. (Pentair, No. 90 at pp. 1-2) Fluidra
commented that American manufacturers may also be negatively impacted
by imports of non-compliant DPPPs and DPPP motors from foreign
manufacturers who unknowingly or knowingly disregard enforcement of
this regulation. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2) Based on input from five
manufacturers, PHTA and NEMA commented that they estimate approximately
5 percent of the current market to be made up of inexpensive imported
pumps sold through online retailers that likely do not comply with
DOE's current energy conservation standard. PHTA and NEMA commented
that these manufacturers have indicated that the current value (5
percent) is approximately double what it was prior to the compliance
date for the DPPP standard. PHTA and NEMA commented that the
manufacturers also estimate that a DPPP motor standard, established as
currently proposed by DOE, will double the percentage of the market
made up of non-compliant DPPPs, increasing it to 10 percent. (PHTA and
NEMA, No. 92 at pp. 7-8) PHTA and NEMA also stated that the
misalignment of the compliance dates for the DPPP energy conservation
standards and the proposed DPPP motor standards could cause confusion
for manufacturers and importers, potentially leading to more non-
compliant DPPP motors being imported. PHTA and NEMA reiterated NEMA's
concerns about port of entry enforcement that they have separately
commented on numerous times. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 8) Nidec
commented that they were concerned that because of the disconnect of
the proposal to the current DPPP regulations (DPPPMs between 0.5 to
1.15 THP), there may be issues with enforcement of pumps assembled
offshore and coming into the U.S. with non-compliant DPPPMs. Nidec
commented that because of the rulemaking, there is a high risk that
DPPPs may not get assembled anymore in the U.S. and instead will be
done offshore unless there is proper enforcement that brings the DPPP
regulations and the proposed DPPPM regulations into harmony. (Nidec,
Public Meeting, No. 88, at pp. 45-46) DOE currently does not have any
energy conservation standards for DPPP motors. This final rule will
finalize standards for DPPP motors and product-specific enforcement
requirements at Sec. 429.134. Any enforcement-related issues,
particularly compliance dates, regarding DPPPs will be addressed as
part of the DPPP rulemaking, or through a separate avenue.
Nidec requested comment on whether there are any other examples
where an end-product rule defines a lower threshold for compliance
versus a component threshold and how DOE has successfully managed that.
They stated that in their experience, the end-product generally
overrides the component standard, and for the DPPPM proposal, it would
not be the case. (Nidec, Public Meeting, No. 88 at p. 47) EPCA
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. This equipment
includes those electric motors that are DPPP motors, the subject of
this document, and also pumps (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) Accordingly, DOE
has the authority to regulate both a component (DPPPM) and the end-
product (DPPPs). Given the current misalignment amongst the Federal
DPPP standards and the CA DPPP replacement motor standards along with
DOE's authority for electric motors, DOE is taking an approach to
facilitate harmonization of the standards at the Federal level and
ensure a complimentary regulatory approach for DPPPs and replacement
DPPP motors which will help ensure energy savings are realized in the
field.
Scope of Coverage
This document covers equipment meeting the definition of a DPPP
motor as defined in Sec. 431.483 and the scope specified in 10 CFR
431.481(b). Specifically, the scope covers DPPP motors with a total THP
of less than or equal to 5, but does not apply to: (i) DPPP motors that
are polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and
distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase
power to polyphase power; (ii) waterfall pump motors; (iii) rigid
electric spa pump motors, (iv) storable electric spa pump motors; (v)
integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors; and (vi) integral sand-
filter pool pump motors.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ These terms are defined in UL 1004-10:2020, which is
incorporated by reference in DOE's test procedure at 10 CFR 431.484.
In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference the latest
version of the UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022; see discussion in
section III.A.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features, which other
products within such type (or class) do not have, that justify
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the

[[Page 66979]]

feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are
appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
DOE is establishing equipment classes for DPPP motors based on THP.
DOE is proposing an extra-small-size equipment class corresponding to
motors with a THP less than 0.5 THP, a small-size equipment class
corresponding to motors with a total horsepower rating greater than or
equal to 0.5 THP but less than 1.15 THP, and a standard-size equipment
class corresponding to a motor with a THP greater than or equal to 1.15
THP and less than or equal to 5 THP. Table III.1 provides a summary of
the equipment classes. See section IV.A.3 for further details on the
reasoning as to why DOE determined these equipment classes are
appropriate and justify having separate standards.

Table III.1--Equipment Classes for DPPP Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Motor total horsepower (Hp)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra-small-size.......................... THP <0.5.
Small-size................................ 0.5 <= THP < 1.15.
Standard-size............................. 1.15 <= THP <= 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the equipment
classes analyzed in this final rule.

B. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
The test procedure references UL 1004-10:2020 ``Standard for Safety
for Pool Pump Motors'' for the definitions (10 CFR 431.483) and
references CSA C747-09 as the energy efficiency test method for DPPP
motors (10 CFR 431.484(b)). The test procedure establishes full-load
efficiency as the metric for DPPP motors. 10 CFR 431.484(b). In this
final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference the latest version of the
UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022; further discussion on this topic and any
comments received are provided in section IV.A.1 of this document. In
addition, DOE is also finalizing product-specific enforcement
requirements at 10 CFR 429.134 that require DPPP motors to be tested in
accordance with UL 1004-10:2022 to verify variable-speed capability and
applicable freeze protection design requirements.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in
commercially available products or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4; sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1)
of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C (``appendix A'').
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10
CFR 431.4; section 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B of this
document discusses the results of the screening analysis for DPPP
motors, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out,
and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this
rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this
rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final rule technical support document
(``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1))
Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy
efficiency for DPPP motors, using the design parameters for the most
efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes.
The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are
described in section IV.C of this final rule and in chapter 5 of the
final rule TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to DPPP motors purchased in the 30-
year period that begins in the first full year of compliance with the
standards (2026-2055).\36\ The savings are measured over the entire
lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-year analysis period. DOE
quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the
difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the
no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a
product would likely evolve in the absence of energy conservation
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet models
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from standards for DPPP
motors. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.G.2 of this
document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is
the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they
are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms
of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is
used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas,
the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site
energy savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC'' energy
savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting,
processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas,
petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the
impacts of energy conservation standards.\37\ DOE's approach is based
on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types
used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC
energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE

[[Page 66980]]

must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\38\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into
account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the
cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the
global climate crisis, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated, the standard levels adopted in this final rule are
projected to result in national energy savings of 1.56 quads FFC, the
equivalent of the electricity use of 16.8 million homes in one year.
Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in
emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has
determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this
final rule are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has
addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of potential amended standards on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2)
cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and payback period (``PBP'') associated with new or
amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the
following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates
the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits
expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the
impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers
that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC
and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating cost (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the first full year of compliance with
new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.G.2 of this document,
DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing equipment classes, and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards
adopted in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of
the equipment under consideration in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)). It also directs the Attorney General to determine
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result
from a standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary
within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an
analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C.

[[Page 66981]]

6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) To assist the Department of Justice (``DOJ'') in
making such a determination, DOE transmitted copies of its proposed
rule and the NOPR TSD to the Attorney General for review, with a
request that the DOJ provide its determination on this issue. In its
assessment letter responding to DOE, DOJ noted the possibility of
anticompetitive effects stemming from the differences between the
energy conservation standards for DPPP motors and DPPPs, as well as the
high cost of compliance for domestic small businesses identified by
DOE. DOJ elaborated that the difference in standards between DPPP
motors and DPPPs would force domestic manufacturers to comply with both
standards while foreign manufacturers could import DPPPs that are
compliant with the DPPP rule but contain a non-compliant motor. DOJ
ultimately concluded that they do not have sufficient information to
conclude that the proposed energy conservation standards for DPPP motor
are likely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. DOE
notes that DPPP motors that are a component of an imported DPPP are
subject to energy conservation standards. DOE is publishing the
Attorney General's assessment at the end of this final rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the adopted standards are
likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the
Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also
may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the
Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation
capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases (``GHGs'') associated with energy
production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section
IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in
section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value
of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as
discussed in section IV.L this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant
information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the
other categories described previously, DOE could consider such
information under ``other factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation
standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the
equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate
values used to calculate the effect potential amended energy
conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers.
These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback
period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition,
DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full
range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the
environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for
DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard
level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary
determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption
payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F of this final rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regard to DPPP motors. Separate subsections address
each component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: <a href="http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=76">www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=76</a>.
Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy
Information Administration's (``EIA's'') Annual Energy Outlook
(``AEO'') for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope
of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of DPPP motors. The key
findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following
sections. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further discussion of
the market and technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage and Definitions
This document covers equipment meeting the definition of a DPPP
motor as defined in 10 CFR 431.483 and the scope specified in 10 CFR
431.481(b). Specifically, the scope covers DPPP motors with a THP of
less than or equal to 5, but does not apply to: (i) DPPP motors that
are polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and
distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase
power to polyphase power; (ii) waterfall pump motors; (iii) rigid
electric spa pump motors; (iv) storable electric spa pump motors; (v)
integral cartridge-filter pool

[[Page 66982]]

pump motors; and (vi) integral sand-filter pool pump motors.\39\ The
scope includes DPPP motors regardless of how the equipment is sold;
i.e., incorporated in a DPPP or sold separately. The DPPP motors in the
scope of this rule are used primarily in the residential sector and
light commercial applications, in self-priming pool filter pumps
(typically used in inground pools), non-self-priming pool filter pumps
(typically used in above-ground pools), and pressure cleaner booster
pumps (typically used for pressure-side pool cleaner applications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ These terms are defined in UL 1004-10:2020, which is
incorporated by reference in DOE's test procedure at 10 CFR 431.484.
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to reference the latest version of
the UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022; see discussion in section III.A.1
of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE received some comments on scope and definitions. PHTA and NEMA
commented that storable pools use non-integral pumps, which are
certified to DPPP, but the current direct motor replacements are not
variable-speed capable per what the NOPR would require. PHTA and NEMA
stated that the replacement motors made for this type of pool are
motors integrated with the control unit, and that these motors are
specific to a set pump for the storable pool and cannot be used in
other applications, as there is no way to (dis)connect them. PHTA and
NEMA further stated that these pools are purchased in retail stores,
and based on input from two manufacturers, have an average retail price
slightly over $400. Accordingly, PHTA and NEMA recommended that DOE
consider exempting this specific type of motor based on application and
obtain additional manufacturer information about this specific product
related to the current market, shipments, and pricing for this type of
pool, and to consider the limited use of replacement motors. (PHTA and
NEMA, No. 92 at p. 5)
DPPP motors in scope are those electric motors identified in
sections 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 of UL 1004-10:2022. 10 CFR 431.481(n), as
updated in this final rule. DOE notes that the DPPP definition
comprises self-priming pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter
pumps, waterfall pumps, PCBPs, integral sand-filter pool pumps,
integral-cartridge filter pool pumps, storable electric spa pumps, and
rigid electric spa pumps. 10 CFR 431.462. In addition, section 1.4 of
UL 1004-10:2022 specifically excludes DPPP motors that are polyphase
motors capable of operating without a drive and distributed in commerce
without a drive that converts single-phase power to polyphase power,
waterfall pump motors, rigid electric spa pump motors, storable
electric spa pump motors, integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors,
and integral sand-filter pool pump motors. As such, the example
application provided by PHTA and NEMA would need to meet the definition
of DPPP and not be one of the aforementioned exclusions to be
considered within the scope of DPPP motor.
As previously noted, storable electric spa pump motors are
specifically excluded from the scope of this rulemaking. Section 2 of
UL 1004-10:2022 defines storable electric spa pump motor as a DPPP
motor that is a component of a storable electric spa pump as defined 10
CFR 431.462, subpart Y, Pumps. Storable electric spa pumps are defined
to include an integral heater and an integral air pump. 10 CFR 431.462.
The example application provided by PHTA and NEMA specifically stated
that it has a non-integral pump. However, PHTA and NEMA did not provide
details on what type of DPPP the example would be considered to be.
As such, DOE attempted to determine what type of product PHTA and
NEMA were referring to and reviewed manufacturer data and specification
sheets to confirm what type of DPPP the example could be considered to
be. Based on DOE's review, DOE did not identify any DPPPs for storable
pumps that would not be applicable to variable-speed motors as defined
due to their integration with controls and other components, and not
already be excluded for other reasons. Specifically, of the examples
DOE was able to find of variable-speed motors integrated with
controllers, they were applicable to integral-cartridge or integral-
sand filter pumps, both of which are already excluded from DPPP motor
scope. Otherwise, DOE also reviewed an outlier filtration system for
storable pools, but could not identify any apparent integration of the
DPPP motor with controls, and there was also no indication that it
would not be able to be replaceable with a variable-speed option being
considered in this rulemaking. As such, DOE could not definitively
conclude that there is a need for the exclusion recommended by PHTA and
NEMA, and therefore maintains the scope from the June 2022 NOPR.
Regarding the variable-speed definition, CEC and NYSERDA
recommended that DOE update the definition to align with the definition
used in the California Code of Regulations, Title 20, section
1602(g)(4), instead of the current definition based on UL 1004-10:2022.
CEC and NYSERDA stated that with the current definition, at minimum,
only four operating speeds are required to meet the definition, whereas
the California code specifies ``operating at a variety of user-
determined speeds,'' which CEC and NYSERDA suggested described a truly
variable-speed motor and aligns with how variable-speed is understood
by consumers. CEC and NYSERDA noted that they were unaware of any DPPP
motors that meet the current definition of variable speed, but do not
meet the Title 20 California definition. However, CED and NYSERDA also
commented that if such a motor exists, having only four operating
speeds would constrain operational flexibility and lead to non-optimal
operation and unnecessary electricity consumption. CEC and NYSERDA
stated that allowing for the potential introduction of less energy
efficient ``variable-speed'' motors is unnecessary and might jeopardize
some of the energy savings associated with this proposed rule. (CEC and
NYSERDA, No. 94 at pp. 3-4)
DOE incorporated by reference UL 1004-10:2020, which includes a
definition of variable speed in the July 2021 Final Rule. 86 FR 40765,
40769-40770. UL 1004-10 is an industry standard specific to DPPP motors
and has been used by industry since 2019. In this final rule, DOE is
not considering any changes in scope; rather, this rulemaking is
finalizing standards based on the scope and definitions established in
the July 2021 Final Rule, and which are currently in 10 CFR 431.481.
Further, as noted by commenters, there are no DPPP motors that meet the
current definition of variable speed but do not meet the Title 20
California definition. As such, if there is any discrepancy in the
future, DOE may consider this issue in a future rulemaking.
In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE also proposed to update the UL 1004-10
reference to the latest version of the industry standard, from UL 1004-
10:2020 to UL 1004-10:2022, in sections 10 CFR 431.481(b), 10 CFR
431.482(c)(1), and 10 CFR 431.483. 87 FR 37122, 37133-37134. DOE
concluded that the only update was the addition of a glossary term for
``factory default setting'' in section 2.7A, which did not change the
content and requirements of UL 1004-10:2020, but only provided a
clarification regarding the factory default setting as it applies to
the industry standard. Id. Further, DOE also proposed product-specific
enforcement requirements at 10 CFR 429.134 that require DPPP motors be
tested in accordance with UL 1004-

[[Page 66983]]

10:2022 to verify variable-speed capability and applicable freeze
protection design requirements. 87 FR 37122, 37131.
In response, PHTA and NEMA supported the DOE's decision to update
from the 2020 to the 2022 version of the UL 1004-10 Standard. (PHTA and
NEMA, No. 92 at p. 10) In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by
reference the latest version of the UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022 to be
consistent with industry practice.
Separately, the Joint Advocates supported the proposed product-
specific enforcement provisions because they will provide clarity
regarding how DOE would determine whether a DPPP motor complies with
the requirements regarding variable-speed capability and freeze
protection design. (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 2) As such, DOE is
also finalizing the proposed product-specific enforcement requirements
at 10 CFR 429.134.
2. Market Review
In the June 2022 NOPR, to review the current market of DPPP motors
incorporated in DPPPs, DOE relied on information from the DOE
Compliance and Certification Database, the CEC, and the ENERGY STAR
program. (``2021 DPPP Database'') To supplement the market review, DOE
also reviewed general motor catalog data from 2020 and created a
database that contained information regarding motor speed-control,
topology, THP, motor application, and full-load efficiency (``2020
Motor Database''). To make the two databases more comparable, DOE
filtered the 2020 Motor Database to analyze only motors used in DPPP
applications. 87 FR 37122, 37134.
DOE received a number of comments regarding the data that were used
for the market analysis. Pentair commented that a lot has changed in
the past 7 years and DOE should consider the latest data versus data
used for the DPPP rule in 2015. (Pentair, No. 90 at p. 1) Hayward
commented that DOE should update its information on the current market.
Specifically, Hayward noted that it has stopped selling any pumps that
were not compliant with the minimum WEF requirements and modified other
pumps that were marginal in performance. In addition, Hayward noted
that variable-speed pumps have continued to gain market share and
therefore would provide a different baseline. (Hayward, No. 93 at p. 2)
PHTA and NEMA commented that DOE relied heavily on the analysis
performed during the 2017 DPPP DFR and recommended that DOE conduct
interviews to obtain current market information, pricing, and shipments
data. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 2) Regal commented that it agrees
with PHTA and NEMA's comments that DOE should consider conducting
additional interviews and analyses to better understand current market
offerings, pricing, and shipments. (Regal, No. 98 at p. 1) PHTA
commented that using 2015 market data is not accurate because the DPPP
market has substantially changed since then and the 2015 data is
invalid in its application to the DPPPM analysis. PHTA provided data
showing that nearly 60 percent of pool pump listings were non-compliant
with the 2017 DPPP rule and had to be modified or removed by the July
19, 2021 compliance date. (PHTA, No. 100 at p. 2) On the other hand,
CEC and NYSERDA stated that DOE's analysis is robust and appropriately
representative. (CEC and NYSERDA, No. 94 at p. 3)
First, DOE notes that DOE did consider the latest DPPPM market data
available for the analysis conducted in the June 2022 NOPR, as
previously discussed. In addition, for this final rule, DOE updated the
market review using current information from the DOE Compliance and
Certification Database, the CEC, and the ENERGY STAR program. (``2022
DPPP Database'') DOE supplemented this review with information from
general motor catalogs surveyed in 2022; these motor catalogs contained
information regarding motor THP, topology, full-load efficiency, pole
configuration, and speed-control. DOE then analyzed the range of
efficiencies offered at a given THP, topology, and pole configuration
as well as the average efficiency of that subset of motors. DOE found
that the average and range of efficiency offered for a given THP,
topology, and pole configuration were not significantly different than
what was observed in the data provided by manufacturers for the January
2017 Direct Final Rule. Based on the similar efficiencies being
offered, DOE concluded that the technology used to meet each efficiency
level has not substantially changed since the analysis for the January
2017 Direct Final Rule.
DOE notes that the shipments efficiency distribution are based on a
review of the 2022 DPPP Database and that this updated database
captures the changes to the DPPP market that have occurred since 2017,
including those changes due to the January 2017 Direct Final Rule (See
section IV.F.8 of this document for more details). For details on how
DOE accounted for the DPPP motor price changes since the January 2017
Direct Final Rule, see section IV.C.2 of this document. DOE also notes
that it had conducted manufacturer interviews as part of the January
2017 Direct Final Rule and incorporated the updated manufacturer
feedback in its analysis. DOE also conducted DPPP motor manufacturer
interviews as part of the June 2022 NOPR, as discussed in the
manufacturer impact analysis, and incorporated feedback to estimate the
manufacturer impacts of setting variable-speed requirements as
standards. 87 FR 37122, 37154. As such, DOE concluded that additional
manufacturer interviews were not needed since DOE performed interviews,
and already considered recent market offering, pricing, and shipments
information in this final rule.
3. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
shall establish separate standards for a group of covered products
(i.e., establish a separate equipment class) if DOE determines that
separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or
if DOE determines that a product's capacity or other performance-
related feature, which other products within such type (or class) do
not have, justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(q)) In making a determination whether a performance-related
feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors
as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE
determines are appropriate. (Id.)
In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to establish equipment classes
for DPPP motors based on THP. DOE proposed an extra-small-size
equipment class corresponding to motors with a THP less than 0.5 THP, a
small-size equipment class corresponding to motors with a total
horsepower rating greater than or equal to 0.5 THP but less than 1.15
THP, and a standard-size equipment class corresponding to motors with a
THP greater than or equal to 1.15 THP and less than or equal to 5 THP.
87 FR 37122, 37130.
In response to the June 2022 NOPR, DOE received a number of
comments regarding equipment classes. PHTA and NEMA recommended that
DOE analyze DPPP motors based on equipment classes considered in the
DPPP rule. PHTA and NEMA commented that it is critical to differentiate
by application, not just size, to really determine what is or is not
cost-effective. As such, PHTA and NEMA commented that if the analysis
was separated based on PCBP self-priming and non-self-priming, it would
show that not all the current proposed requirements were cost-
effective. Specifically, PHTA and NEMA

[[Page 66984]]

stated that when looking at PCBP as a separate equipment class, a
variable-speed requirement is not cost-effective (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92
at pp. 4-5) In addition, PHTA and NEMA commented that DOE should break
down the 0.5-1.15 THP and analyze the following additional THP ranges:
0.5 < 0.75 THP; 0.75 < 1 THP; 1 > 1.15 THP based on the assessment of
available products and previously recommended THP disaggregation. (PHTA
and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 5; PHTA, No. 100 at p. 3) Further, PHTA and NEMA
commented that breaking down the 0.5-1.15 THP into smaller categories
for an analysis would provide a truer picture of cost-effectiveness
when combined with breaking out PCBP self-priming and non-self-priming
applications. PHTA and NEMA stated that to do otherwise will cause
market confusion and unintended consequences with non-compliant
products being distributed. For example, PHTA and NEMA commented that
imported pump products with THP ratings between 0.50 and 1.14 can meet
the DPPP rule and bypass the DPPP motor proposal, which will negate the
DPPP motor proposed rule and not deliver the intended energy savings.
(PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 10)
Hayward stated that equipment class should be disaggregated by pump
size and application and noted that THP misrepresents the overall
effect and impact of the rule. Hayward also supported PHTA and NEMA's
recommendations on disaggregation. (Hayward, No. 93 at p. 2) Fluidra
recommended that equipment be disaggregated not only by THP, but also
by application type. Specifically, Fluidra commented that it was
concerned that PCBPs and pool filtration pumps were combined into the
same equipment class. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 1)
Waterway Plastic commented that in the negotiations that resulted
in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, there was consideration of a
separate category for non-self-priming pool pumps that are used in
above-ground pool pump applications, that range from 0.75 to 1 THP, and
are typically two-speed or single-speed pumps. Accordingly, they stated
that the DPPPM rule would not consider this separate category of DPPPs,
which allowed for single- or two-speed DPPPMs to be used to meet the
ultimate WEF standard, and were concerned on how the DPPPM rulemaking
would overwrite the conclusions from the January 2017 Direct Final
Rule. (Waterway Plastic, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at pp. 16-
17) Dose also commented asking if DOE considered breaking the small-
size THP range into subcategories after they suggested the favorable
results would be from the higher THPs. (Dose, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 88 at pp. 39-40)
DOE notes that this rule concerns DPPP motors, not DPPPs. Further,
DOE notes that the scope includes DPPP motors regardless of how the
equipment is sold (i.e., incorporated in a DPPP or sold separately).
Accordingly, imported pump products that include a DPPP motor would be
subject to the DPPP motor standard as well.
When considering equipment classes, DOE determines whether separate
standards are justified based on the type of energy used for the
equipment in question (which in this rulemaking is DPPP motors only),
or if a DPPP motor's capacity or other DPPPM performance-related
feature justifies a different standard. Manufacturers of covered
equipment must use the Federal test procedure as the basis for
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)). The metric for DPPP motors based on the
DOE test procedure is full-load efficiency (10 CFR 431.484(b)), and
full-load efficiency does not take into consideration the ultimate
application of the DPPP motor in a DPPP and the motor is tested without
an associated DPPP. The DPPP motors in this rule also consume the same
type of energy. Further, DOE notes that there are no physical or
technological distinguishing factors in a DPPP motor that could be used
to identify a particular end-use DPPP application (e.g., PCBP, self-
priming, non-self-priming). If sized correctly, a given DPPP motor
could serve any of the DPPP applications discussed in this rulemaking.
The ranges of motor THP that serve each application overlap and
preclude DOE from setting equipment classes using the motor THP to
distinguish each application. Accordingly, DOE is not considering DPPP
application in addition to motor THP when setting equipment classes and
energy conservation standards for this final rule.
In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE discussed that full-load efficiency
generally correlates with motor horsepower. DOE explained motor
horsepower dictates the maximum load that a motor can drive, which
means that a motor's rated horsepower can influence and limit the end
use applications where that motor can be used, which in this case is
dedicated purpose pool pumps. Horsepower is a critical performance
attribute of a DPPP motor, and since horsepower has a direct
relationship with full load efficiency and consumer utility, used this
element as a criterion for distinguishing among equipment classes. 87
FR 37122, 37134. In determining the proposed equipment classes, DOE
considered how motor total horsepower can be used to decide whether
separate standards are justified based on the utility of the DPPP
motor. Accordingly, DOE first justified a utility argument for the 0.5
THP cut-off based on maximum efficiency potential in non-self-priming
pool filter pumps (i.e., two-speed or variable-speed motors below 0.5
THP would provide inadequate flow to the pool pump). Finally, DOE
justified a utility argument for the 1.15 THP cut-off based on how
almost all DPPP motors greater than or equal to 1.15 THP are primarily
used in standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps, while pool pump
motors below 1.15 THP are typically found in small-size, self-priming
pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, and PCBPs. 87 FR
37122, 37135.
To review the recommendation from PHTA and NEMA to further break
down the 0.5-1.15 THP range (i.e., small-size equipment class), DOE
analyzed the 2022 DPPP Database to determine whether there was any
other utility argument to consider. DOE identified DPPP motors used in
PCBP applications primarily in the 0.75-1.15 DPPP motor THP range;
however, PCBPs in that range were only 4 percent of the total model
count (96 percent of the models were either self-priming or non-self-
priming). Further, DPPP motors in self-priming pool filter pumps and
non-self-priming pool filter pumps were identified throughout the
small-size equipment class THP range. Accordingly, there was no THP
range within the small-size equipment class that clearly illustrated
that only PCBP motors would be used and therefore have a specific
utility, and so, DOE was unable to determine a clear utility argument
that would allow for the small-size equipment class to be segregated
further. Therefore, because DOE is not considering DPPP application in
addition to motor total horsepower for creating equipment classes, DOE
is maintaining the June 2022 NOPR proposed equipment classes in this
final rule.
Fluidra recommended including a definition for a PCBP DPPP motor as
``a motor used for a pressure cleaner booster pump'', and a definition
for pressure cleaner booster pump as ``an end suction, dry rotor pump
designed and marketed for pressure-side pool cleaner applications, and
which may be

[[Page 66985]]

UL listed under ANSI/UL 1081-2016. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2) PHTA and
NEMA recommended that DOE define a PCBP DPPP motor as ``an electric
motor that is single phase or poly phase and is designed and/or
marketed for use on pressure cleaner booster pumps, as defined in 10
CFR 431.462.'' PHTA and NEMA commented that this definition aligns with
the definitions of a DPPP motor and PCBP, both of which define the
respective equipment based on the design and marketed purpose of the
equipment. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at pp. 4-5) DOE understands that the
definitions provided by the commenters were intended for distinguishing
PCBP within the equipment class structure. As discussed previously, DOE
is not separating equipment classes based on application. As such, DOE
does not need to incorporate a definition for a PCBP motor and is
therefore not including a definition in this final rule.
4. Technology Options
In the June 2022 NOPR market analysis and technology assessment,
DOE identified several technology options initially determined to
improve the efficiency of DPPP motors. Specifically, DOE stated that
the efficiency of a DPPP motor is dependent on motor topology,
capacity, and operating speed. Because DOE proposed to delineate
equipment classes based on motor capacity (i.e., motor horsepower), DOE
considered motor topology and operating speed as technology options. 87
FR 37122, 37135-37136.
For motor topology, DOE considered AC induction motors and
permanent magnet DPPP motors. Within AC induction motors, DOE
identified six categories of motors, including shaded-pole, split-
phase, capacitor-start (capacitor-start induction-run ``CSIR'' and
capacitor-start capacitor-run ``CSCR''), permanent-split capacitor
(``PSC''), and polyphase. 87 FR 37122, 37135-37136. For operating
speed, DOE considered single-speed, multi-speed, and variable-speed
DPPP motors. Single-speed motors can operate at one predefined speed,
and therefore the associated pool pump can provide only a single flow
rate in any given pool system. Two-speed motors can be sized so that
high-flow functions like pool cleaning are effective at full-speed
operation and low-flow tasks like filtration can be completed at low-
speed operation. Multi-speed motors function similarly to two-speed
motors, but provide additional flexibility. Finally, variable-speed
motors can provide greater energy savings than two-speed or multi-speed
motors due to the ability to program these motors to operate at user-
defined speed settings. 87 FR 37122, 37136. Variable-speed motors can
also offer non-energy-saving benefits like reduced pool system wear and
reduced noise levels during operation, both due to the reduced amount
of water flow during pumping. DOE requested comment on the technologies
considered for higher DPPP motor efficiency. Id.
PHTA and NEMA commented that to meet the current DPPP rulemaking,
synchronous motor technologies with a variable frequency drive are
already being utilized to meet system efficiency requirements. As such,
PHTA and NEMA suggested that small additional increments in already
implemented synchronous motor efficiency will have minimal impact on
system efficiency, but significant impact on costs. (PHTA and NEMA, No.
92 at p. 10) DOE notes that this rule is specifically regarding the
DPPP motor, not DPPP, and therefore technology options considered are
with regards to DPPP motors and not the whole DPPP system. DOE also
understands that meeting the current DPPP WEF standards would not
require synchronous motor technologies for the range of DPPP motor
equipment classes being considered. Specifically, in the October 2020
NOPR, DOE specified that only standard-size self-priming pool filter
pumps, which are subject to the DOE DPPP energy conservation standards,
would likely require a variable-speed control motor. 85 FR 62816,
62824. DOE noted that this generally reflects DPPP motors with a THP
greater than or equal to 1.15. Id. As such, there are potential savings
to be considered for the full scope of DPPP motors being considered,
and as discussed previously, the synchronous motor technology option
allows for multiple operating speeds, which can provide energy savings.
Finally, DOE included the incremental costs for requiring variable
speed as part of the engineering analysis, which is discussed further
in section IV.C.2 of this document.
Similarly, PHTA and NEMA commented that variable-speed fractional
HP pumps cannot provide minimum flow at required lower speeds. (PHTA
and NEMA, No. 100 at p. 3) DOE notes that variable-speed motors are
only considered as a design option for DPPP motors where the associated
pump can provide adequate flow at lower speeds, and that the
representative units analyzed in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule
contained fractional THP variable-speed motors. See Table 5.6.5 of the
January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, where a .44 hhp pump is driven by a
.75 THP variable-speed motor and provides adequate flow.
Separately, Fluidra, PHTA, and NEMA suggested that the operating
window of a PCBP in practical application is limited to an approximate
motor speed of 2,900 RPM-3,450 RPM (max speed); runs on a timer for 2-
2.5 hours a day at a single operating speed; and, once set, is
typically not further adjusted for speed like one would for a
filtration pump. (Fluidra, No. 101 at p. 1; PHTA and NEMA, No. 100 at
p. 3) Accordingly, Fluidra and PHTA stated that the definition for a
variable-speed control DPPP motor does not make practical sense in a
PCBP application, and therefore recommended separating PCBP
requirements from other DPPP applications. (Fluidra, No. 101 at pp. 1-
3; PHTA, No. 100 at pp. 2-3) DOE notes that the definition for variable
speed comes from UL 1004-10:2020, which is an industry standard DOE
incorporated by reference in the July 2021 Final Rule based on
recommendations from several stakeholders. 86 FR 40765, 40769-40770.
(July 29, 2021). Further, the scope of UL 1004-10:2020 does not
specifically exclude PCBP applications for DPPP motors. See section 1
of UL 1004-10:2020. As such, DOE concludes that the definitions from UL
1004-10:2020 are applicable to all DPPP motors in scope, including
PCBPs, and there is no technical reasoning to exclude application to
PCBPs.
Separately, in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE also
considered variable-speed motors for PCBPs (82 FR 5650, 5684), as the
WEF metric accounts for energy savings available from reducing the pump
speed to reach the minimum required pressure of 60 feet. See section
3.6.2 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD. While the test
procedure specifies only one load point for testing PCBPs (see Table 1
of appendix C to subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431), the test procedure does
not specify that PCBPs are tested at maximum speed; rather, it
specifies that PCBPs are tested at the lowest speed that can achieve 60
feet of head at the 10 gpm test condition. Therefore, a PCBP may be
able to achieve a higher (more beneficial) WEF score if it has the
ability to operate at reduced speeds, and as such, the definition for a
variable-speed control DPPP motor would still make practical sense in
terms of examining energy savings potential.
Finally, as part of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, the DPPP
Working Group discussed that PCBPs on the market supply between 100 and
125 feet of head at the pump outlet at the test condition of 10 gpm,
but these pumps provide more pressure than the cleaner

[[Page 66986]]

requires because the pump must overcome head losses imposed by piping,
couplings, and hoses between the pump and the cleaner. In pool
installations with high head loss, these pumps may deliver the
recommended amount of head to the cleaner when operating at maximum
speed with no flow restriction; in pool installations with low head
loss, these pumps may supply more head than is needed to drive the
pressure cleaner. As such, the DPPP Working Group discussed how, in
installations with low head loss, energy could be conserved by
operating the pressure cleaner booster pump at a reduced speed rather
than by releasing pressure that was supplied unnecessarily. Therefore,
there is benefit to variable-speed control for PCBP applications. See
section 3.6.2.2 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD.
NEEA recommended that DOE include non-proprietary, standardized
connectivity design requirements for DPPP motors consistent with the
voluntary requirements in the ENERGY STAR Product Specification for
Pool Pumps Version 3.1. The ENERGY STAR specification presents
connected product criteria for a connected pool pump system (``CPPS'').
As part of the CPPS criteria, ENERGY STAR requires communication and
demand response functionality. Specifically, ENERGY STAR requires that
the CPPS shall meet the communication and equipment performance
standards for OpenADR 2.0 and/or CTA-2045. NEEA commented that this
requirement to use these non-proprietary communication protocols and
hardware standards ensures there is an open-source platform that allows
demand response service providers and utilities to interface with as
many demand response customers as possible. NEEA noted that the DOE
DPPP motor rule would benefit from this additional demand response
design requirement because the DPPP motor serves as the energy-
consuming component of the pool pump. However, NEEA further recommended
that this requirement additionally be applied to the pool pumps
themselves, so that the pump controller can provide interface for
response signals. Finally, NEEA noted that connectivity design
requirements would provide the greatest benefits to two-speed or
variable-speed motors, and that DOE should assess the additional cost
requirements for integrating connectivity requirements into DPPP motors
with the multitude of efficiency and grid benefits that grid-connected
pool pumps can provide. NEEA also provided an example of a case study
by Electric Power Research Institute,\40\ which showed connected pool
pumps systems can provide significant grid benefits. (NEEA, No. 99 at
pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ Performance Test Results: CTA-2045 Variable Speed Pool
Pumps, <a href="https://www.bpa.gov/-/media/Aep/energy-efficiency/emerging-technologies/ET-Documents/NREL-testing-CTA-2045-VariableSpeedPoolPump-Nov2017-000000003002011749.pdf">https://www.bpa.gov/-/media/Aep/energy-efficiency/emerging-technologies/ET-Documents/NREL-testing-CTA-2045-VariableSpeedPoolPump-Nov2017-000000003002011749.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The subject of this final rule is DPPP motors, which are within the
scope of electric motors. DOE notes that these potential design
criteria described by NEEA would not directly impact the measured
efficiency of DPPP motors per the DOE test procedure, but could serve
an important purpose for grid flexibility generally, when used in
conjunction with the DPPP. For this final rule, DOE is only considering
technology options that can be directly implemented as part of the DPPP
motor to improve measured efficiency. As such, an additional
connectivity design requirement would be beyond the scope of this final
rule and therefore is not being considered at this time.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing
prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to
subgroups of consumers, or results in the unavailability of any covered
product type with performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as products generally available in the United States at the time,
it will not be considered further.
(4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a
given EL, it will not be considered further, due to the potential for
monopolistic concerns. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A, sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b).
In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of
technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE determined that all the technology
options considered continue to be technologically feasible because they
are being used or have previously been used in commercially available
products or working prototypes. DOE also found that the technology
options continue to meet the other screening criteria (i.e.,
practicable to manufacture, install, and service; do not result in
adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or
safety; and are not unique-pathway proprietary technologies). 87 FR
37122, 37137. As such, DOE screened-in all technology options
considered.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the screening analysis.
As such, through a review of each technology, similar to the
conclusions from the June 2022 NOPR, DOE concludes that all of the
identified technologies listed in section IV.A.4 of this document met
all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in
DOE's final rule analysis.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of DPPP motors. There are
two elements to consider in the engineering analysis: the selection of
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the
equipment at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the
NIA).

[[Page 66987]]

1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design-option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design-option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill''
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the ``max-tech'' level (particularly
in cases where the ``max-tech'' level exceeds the maximum efficiency
level currently available on the market).
In this final rule, DOE applied a combination of the two
approaches. In line with the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE
considered three tiers of motor efficiency (low, medium, and high
efficiency) and design requirements specifically for two-speed, multi-
speed, and variable-speed motors. As discussed in sections IV.A.2 and
IV.A.4 of this document, the motor technologies applicable to pool pump
motors analyzed in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule remain relevant
and applicable in the current DPPP motor market.
a. Representative Units
In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE opted to use representative units for
each equipment class for the engineering analysis. The associated motor
THP of the proposed representative units were consistent with the motor
THPs provided in Table 5.7.1 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD,
with three exceptions: (1) Representative unit 2A was added to
represent standard-size DPPP motors that are used in small-size self-
priming DPPPs; (2) Representative unit 6 was added to analyze standard-
size DPPP motors used in non-self-priming filter pump applications; and
(3) Representative unit 7 at 1.125 THP, instead of 1.25 THP was
considered so as to keep this representative unit in the small-size
equipment class (EC 2), and to better represent the THP range of motors
in PCBPs.\41\ 87 FR 37122, 37137-37138. The proposed representative
units are provided in Table IV.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ The Joint Petition noted that almost all motors used in
pressure cleaner booster pumps have THPs less than 1.15 THP. (Joint
Petition, No. 14 at p. 8).

Table IV.1--Representative Units THP and DPPP Application
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. unit Equipment class THP DPPP application *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............... 2 (Small)........ 0.75 Self-priming Filter
Pump, Small-size
(0.44 hhp).
2............... 3 (Standard)..... 1.65 Self-priming Filter
Pump, Standard-size
(0.95 hhp).
2A.............. 3 (Standard)..... 1.65 Self-priming Filter
Pump, Small-size
(0.65 hhp).
3............... 3 (Standard)..... 3.45 Self-priming Filter
Pump, Standard-size
(1.88 hhp).
4............... 1 (Extra-small).. 0.22 Non-Self-priming
Filter Pump, Extra-
Small-size (0.09
hhp).
5............... 2 (Small)........ 1 Non-Self-priming
Filter Pump, Standard-
size (0.52 hhp).
6............... 3 (Standard)..... 1.5 Non-Self-priming
Filter Pump, Standard-
size (0.87 hhp).
7............... 2 (Small)........ 1.125 Pressure Cleaner
Booster Pump.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For self-priming pumps, the terms small and standard refer to the
hydraulic horsepower (``hhp''). Small-size designates pool pump
applications with hydraulic horsepower less than 0.711 hhp, while
standard-size designates pool pump applications with hydraulic
horsepower greater than or equal to 0.711 hhp. DOE distinguishes extra-
small non-self-priming filter pumps (less than 0.13 hhp) and standard-
size non-self-priming filter pumps (less than 2.5 hhp and greater than
0.13 hhp).

In response to the proposal, DOE received a number of comments.
Fluidra commented that Rep. Unit #4 appears too small and irrelevant
and may only be used for pump/filter combos or spas, which is out of
the scope of this regulation. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 3) Based on the
2022 DPPP Database, DOE notes that there are at least 15 non-self-
priming filter pumps having DPPP motors at or less than 0.22 THP. While
Rep. Unit #4 may be a small segment of the whole DPPPM market (3
percent; see shipments in Table IV.9), these are DPPP motors that would
be in scope as they are part of the non-self-priming DPPP motor class.
For this final rule, DOE specifically included an extra-small-size
equipment class because DPPP motors in that class have different
maximum efficiency potential than small- or standard-size equipment
classes and therefore need to be analyzed separately. As such, DOE
continues to include Rep. Unit #4 as part of the analysis.
Fluidra also stated that Rep. Unit #7 only represents single-stage
booster pumps and not multi-stage, which are typically >1.125 THP and
significantly higher WEF, and therefore should be reviewed separately.
(Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 3) PHTA stated that DOE should review the
improvements made in booster pump hydraulic efficiency and go on to
note that a multi-stage booster pump can result in a 40-percent higher
WEF than a single-stage booster pump. (PHTA, No. 100 at p. 3) DOE notes
that representative units exemplify typical capacities in each
equipment class and are used to quantify the manufacturing costs and
the energy savings potential for each equipment class. As discussed
previously, almost all DPPP motors used in PCBPs have THPs less than
1.15 THP. DOE also confirmed the same in the 2022 DPPP Database, with
PCBP applications having DPPPMs ranging from 0.75 to 1.13 THP, with the
majority of the models in the 1.1 to 1.13 THP range. Accordingly, the
chosen DPPP motor representative unit for the PCBP application, Rep.
Unit #7 at 1.125 THP, was considered to represent the full THP range of
motors in PCBPs, which

[[Page 66988]]

are primarily in the small-size equipment class.
The pump performance curve associated with the DPPP motor Rep. Unit
#7 and used in the analysis was based on the pump performance curve
used in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. Section 5.8.2.3 of the
January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD specifically notes that DOE
developed the equations by aggregating pump test data that were
submitted by manufacturers, and does not specify that the test data was
only for single-stage pumps. In reviewing the underlying data that were
used to develop the equations, DOE can confirm that the selection of a
representative PCBP unit and its corresponding performance
characteristics was informed by the presence of more efficient multi-
stage pumps available on the market to the extent they represent PCBP
units with the exceptionally high hydraulic efficiency. However, DOE
believed that these motors do not comprise as significant of a share of
the market as single-stage pumps. Consequently, the ultimate
representative unit and performance characteristics more closely
resembled the single-stage PCBPs.
PHTA and NEMA commented that PCBP motors at or above 1.15 THP were
not included in the DOE analysis, and if DOE intends to regulate these
products, PHTA and NEMA requested that DOE update the analysis. (PHTA
and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 5) Further, in a separate comment, PHTA restated
the need for analysis of PCBP motors above 1.15 THP. (PHTA, No. 100 at
p. 2) Based on the 2022 DPPP Database, DOE identifies only one DPPP
motor used in a PCBP application that would be above the 1.15 THP
threshold. Further, based on the 2022 DPPP Database, DOE notes that the
majority of DPPP motors above 1.15 THP are self-priming DPPP
applications (74 percent based on model count), with non-self-priming
DPPP applications being the next highest percentage (26 percent based
on model count). DOE generally selects representative units based on
the quantity of motor models available within an equipment class.
Considering that the number of DPPP motors above 1.15 THP with a PCBP
application is not significant, and that most DPPP motors with a PCBP
application are in the small-size equipment class, DOE continues to
consider Rep. Unit #7 only for PCBP applications.
b. Baseline Efficiency
For each product/equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline
model as a reference point for each class and measures changes
resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the
baseline. The baseline model in each product/equipment class represents
the characteristics of a product/equipment typical of that class (e.g.,
capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just
meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in
place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient
unit on the market.
In the June 2022 NOPR, mirroring the January 2017 Direct Final
Rule, DOE considered the least-efficient single-speed DPPP motor on the
market for each representative unit. 87 FR 37122, 37138. DOE did not
receive any comments regarding the baseline efficiencies, and therefore
is maintaining the same levels from the June 2022 NOPR in this final
rule.
c. Higher Efficiency Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
(``EL'') is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the
market. DOE also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent
the maximum possible efficiency for a given product.
In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed higher efficiency levels by
substituting higher full-load efficiency DPPP motors and DPPP motors
with finer levels of speed control, consistent with the January 2017
Direct Final Rule. 87 FR 37122, 37138. Efficiency levels 0 through 2
were consistent with Table 5.6.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule
TSD and represented the low-efficiency, medium-efficiency, and high-
efficiency performance of single-speed DPPP motors. Efficiency levels 3
through 6 incorporated certain design requirements based on motor speed
capability and topology.\42\ DOE proposed that EL 3 require motors that
are two-speed, multi-speed, or variable-speed, but with no restrictions
on motor topology. EL 4 required motors that are two-speed or multi-
speed, but did not allow for the low-efficiency motor topologies
(split-phase, shaded-pole, CSIR)--or--required variable-speed motors.
EL 5 required motors that are two-speed or multi-speed, but did not
allow for PSC motors in addition to the other low-efficiency motor
topologies--or--requires variable-speed motors. Finally, EL 6 included
variable speed only, which provides the highest energy savings. 87 FR
37122, 37139.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ For the purposes of the analysis, however, DOE did consider
the full-load efficiencies presented in Table 5.6.3 of the January
2017 Direct Final Rule TSD for efficiency levels 3 through 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response, CEC and NYSERDA commented that DOE should reevaluate
the ``max-tech'' levels considered for small-size and standard-size
DPPP motors, and work toward a performance metric that captures the
benefits of variable-speed motors. Specifically, CEC and NYSERDA noted
that not all variable-speed DPPP motors are created equal, because an
AC induction motor paired with a variable-frequency drive and a
permanent magnet motor with an integral drive exist and provide
different performance characteristics depending on speed settings.
Accordingly, CEC and NYSERDA encouraged DOE to update the DPPP motor
test method and performance metric that can distinguish between
different speed DPPP motors and between different categories of
variable-speed DPPP motors. While CEC and NYSERDA noted that this
approach may be outside the scope of the current rulemaking, they
stated that it is important to acknowledge that the proposed efficiency
levels for small-size and standard-size DPPP motors do not represent
``max-tech,'' and that there are potential future improvements for both
the DPPP motor test method and the DPPP motor energy conservation
standards. (CEC and NYSERDA, No. 94 at p. 6)
The DOE test procedure in 10 CFR 431.484(b) establishes full-load
efficiency as the metric for DPPP motors. For the engineering analysis,
while DOE considers full-load efficiency per the DOE test procedure for
ELs 0 through 3, the higher ELs only consider design requirements based
on speed control. Accordingly, the variable-speed requirement
considered as part of the analysis is based on the definition of
variable-speed control dedicated-purpose pool pump motor in section 2
``Glossary'' of UL 1004-10:2020.\43\ 10 CFR 431.483. The variable-speed
definition includes specific requirements for motor operation that are
supposed to be met, but does not distinguish between the designs on the
motors. As such, for this rulemaking, DOE is basing the engineering
analysis on the definitions and test procedures prescribed at 10 CFR
431.484. DOE concurs that there may be future improvements for
efficiency, and would consider these improvements in the next stage
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ In this final rule, DOE is updating UL 1004-10:2020 to UL
1004-10:2022. See further discussion in section IV.A.1 of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As such, in this final rule, DOE maintains the DPPP motor
engineering

[[Page 66989]]

analysis from the June 2022 NOPR, as presented in Table IV.2.

Table IV.2--Performance and Design Requirements for DPPP Motor ELs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Motor EL0 EL1 EL2
EC unit THP DPPP application (%) (%) (%) EL3 * EL4 * EL5 * EL6 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......... 4 0.22 Non-self-priming 55 69 76 ................... ................... ................... ...................
Filter Pump, Extra-
Small-size (0.09
hhp).
2......... 1 0.75 Self-priming Filter 55 69 76 Two-speed--OR-- Two-speed/Multi- Two-speed/Multi- Variable-speed
Pump, Small-size Multi-speed--OR-- speed, not CSIR, speed, not CSIR, only.
(0.44 hhp). Variable-speed. not shaded pole, not shaded pole,
not split-phase;-- not split-phase,
OR--Variable-speed. not PSC;--OR--
Variable-speed.
2......... 5 1 Non-self-priming 55 69 76 Two-speed--OR-- Two-speed/Multi- Two-speed/Multi- Variable-speed
Filter Pump, Small- Multi-speed--OR-- speed, not CSIR, speed, not CSIR, only.
size (0.52 hhp). Variable-speed. not shaded pole, not shaded pole,
not split-phase;-- not split-phase,
OR--Variable-speed. not PSC;--OR--
Variable-speed.
2......... 7 1.125 Pressure Cleaner 55 69 76 Variable-speed only Variable-speed only Variable-speed only Variable-speed
Booster Pump. only.
3......... 6 1.5 Non-self-priming 55 69 77 Two-speed--OR-- Two-speed/Multi- Two-speed/Multi- Variable-speed
Filter Pump (0.87 Multi-speed--OR-- speed, not CSIR, speed, not CSIR, only.
hhp). Variable-speed. not shaded pole, not shaded pole,
not split-phase;-- not split-phase,
OR--Variable-speed. not PSC;--OR--
Variable-speed.
3......... 2 1.65 Self-priming Filter 55 69 77 Two-speed--OR-- Two-speed/Multi- Two-speed/Multi- Variable-speed
Pump, Standard- Multi-speed--OR-- speed, not CSIR, speed, not CSIR, only.
size (0.95 hhp). Variable-speed. not shaded pole, not shaded pole,
not split-phase;-- not split-phase,
OR--Variable-speed. not PSC;--OR--
Variable-speed.
3......... 2A 1.65 Self-priming Filter 55 69 77 Two-speed--OR-- Two-speed/Multi- Two-speed/Multi- Variable-speed
Pump, Small-size Multi-speed--OR-- speed, not CSIR, speed, not CSIR, only.
(0.65 hhp). Variable-speed. not shaded pole, not shaded pole,
not split-phase;-- not split-phase,
OR--Variable-speed. not PSC;--OR--
Variable-speed.
3......... 3 3.45 Self-priming Filter 75 79 84 Two-speed--OR-- Two-speed/Multi- Two-speed/Multi- Variable-speed
Pump, Standard- Multi-speed--OR-- speed, not CSIR, speed, not CSIR, only.
size (1.88 hhp). Variable-speed. not shaded pole, not shaded pole,
not split-phase;-- not split-phase,
OR--Variable-speed. not PSC;--OR--
Variable-speed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes freeze protection control design requirements.

PHTA and NEMA commented that if DOE finds this 0.5 THP requirement
feasible from a lifecycle cost analysis, motor manufacturers can
produce motors meeting the performance requirements; however, this may
result in replacement market fit issues as the product will become
larger in size. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 10) Pentair stated concern
with the proposal to require replacement motors as small as 0.5 THP to
meet variable speed. Specifically, that if motors meeting the DPPP rule
fail, then those motors will not be able to be replaced with an
original single-speed motor. (Pentair, No. 90 at p. 1)
A DPPP motor is subject to standards regardless of how it is sold
(i.e., with or without a corresponding DPPP). As such, Pentair is
correct that if DPPPs using a 0.5 THP motor or smaller sold before the
compliance date of this rule fail after the compliance date of this
rule, consumers would likely be unable to replace the original single-
speed motor with a similar single-speed motor. See section IV.G.3 for
more discussion of repair scenarios in the standards cases.
Additionally, DOE notes that there are a number of variable-speed DPPP
motors on the market that are currently being used in DPPPs. DOE also
notes that PHTA, NEMA, and Pentair did not provide information
supporting the claim that there may be fit issues. In other industries,
variable-speed motors (particularly electronically commutated motors,
or ECMs) have been produced to be drop-in replacements in larger
equipment (i.e., with no fit issues) for single-phase and polyphase
motors in horsepower ranges identified by commenters.\44\ There are no
unique design characteristics of DPPP motors that would prevent
variable-speed motors from being drop-in replacements to single-speed
DPPP motors.\45\ Accordingly, DOE cannot conclude that there will be
fit issues for DPPP motors in this lower THP range, and that in the
scenario identified by Pentair the single-speed motor could be replaced
by a variable-speed motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ <a href="http://www.regalrexnord.com/brands/genteq/aftermarket-products/Evergreen-Motors/Evergreen-VS-Motor">www.regalrexnord.com/brands/genteq/aftermarket-products/Evergreen-Motors/Evergreen-VS-Motor</a>.
\45\ As noted in section 5.7.1 of the January 2017 Direct Final
Rule TSD, DOE researched the design and engineering constraints
associated with motor substitution by examining manufacturer
interview responses and holding discussions with the DPPP Working
Group. DOE concluded that for the representative equipment
capacities being considered, the wet end of the pump can be paired
with a range of motors with various efficiencies and speed
configurations without significant adaptations. See chapter 5 of the
dedicated-purpose pool pumps direct final rule TSD, at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105">www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motor Input Power and Pump Hydraulic Power
Each efficiency level presented in Table IV.2 has an associated
energy factor (in Gallons/Watt-hour ``G/Wh'') and flow (in gallons per
minute ``gpm'') used to determine efficiency of the pump system. In the
June 2022 NOPR, DOE used the pump performance curves consistent with
the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD to represent the energy factors
and flows. 87 FR 37122, 37139.
The CA IOUs commented that DOE should update its analysis to show
motor turn-down savings from variable-speed motors. Specifically, the
CA IOUs commented that the DOE analysis for PCBP assumes an operating
point of 10

[[Page 66990]]

gpm and 112 ft of head, which is not representative of variable-speed
capability at EL 3 nor consistent with the DPPP test procedure. The CA
IOUs recommended that DOE consider an operating point consistent with
the DOE test procedure of 10 gpm and 60 ft of head, which the CA IOUs
noted the industry and advocates agreed to this test point during the
ASRAC negotiation for DPPP standard. The CA IOUs provided estimates of
the input power and WEF for a variable-speed PCBP corresponding to a 60
ft head, and showing a 52-percent decrease compared to the values used
in DOE's NOPR analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 96 at p. 4) Nidec commented that
PCBPs and variable speed will have to run at nearly full speed or maybe
slightly less than full speed. Therefore, they stated that
representation of power usage on variable speed is most likely
incorrect in the analysis, which would make an assumption of actually
having the ability to slow the speed down to take advantage of the
power savings in lower speed. (Nidec, Public Meeting, No. 88 at pp. 28-
29) As discussed in section IV.A.4, the DPPP Working Group considered
variable-speed technology option for PCBPs because in installations
with low head loss, energy could be conserved by operating the pressure
cleaner booster pump at a reduced speed. In reviewing the January 2017
Direct Final Rule TSD, DOE notes that the analysis does only account
for motor and hydraulic efficiency improvements for variable-speed
efficiency levels of PCBPs, and does not account for any change in
energy consumption from the reduction of motor speed. As such, DOE
agrees that a revised approach is necessary to reflect the expected
reduced energy use of variable-speed PCBPs resulting more accurately
from motor turndowns. Additionally, DOE acknowledges the method of
calculation in the CA IOUs comment as properly representative. As such,
in this final rule, DOE has updated the pump curves for PCBPs to be
consistent with the recommendation by the CA IOUs. Further discussion
is provided in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.
Fluidra stated that, at maximum speed, the variable-speed PCBP
consumed more energy than the single-speed system. As such, Fluidra
commented that a consumer with operating conditions and equipment
similar to those used in this analysis would never be able to recover
the additional cost of variable-speed control. (Fluidra, No. 91 at pp.
1-2) In addition, Fluidra stated that while this test represents only
two sites and two PCBP models, Fluidra feels that the operating
conditions are reasonably representative. (Fluidra, No, 91 at p. 6)
Finally, Fluidra stated that the power consumption of the booster pump
variable-speed motor operating at maximum speed measured noticeably
higher than the single-speed base comparison. Specifically, Fluidra
commented that operating the PCBP at maximum speed is necessary in many
pool applications due to plumbing head loss from extended pipe runs
where the pool equipment pad is further from the pool for aesthetics
and noise reduction. (Fluidra, No. 91 at pp. 1-2).
PHTA and NEMA referenced the same Fluidra study and assertions in
their comment submission. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at pp. 2-3) Further,
PHTA and NEMA commented that the restrictor plates in PCBPs have
multiple purposes and should not be mistaken as used for flow rate
tuning. PHTA and NEMA commented that industry uses restrictor plates/
discs in testing to decrease flow and pressure, and that they start off
with the largest plates and determine if sufficient flow is present,
and if not, go down in size, and if needed, remove completely. PHTA and
NEMA pointed out that the plates are ultimately used because many times
consumers do not turn off the booster pump when they remove the
pressure cleaner; therefore, the plate protects the booster pump if the
pressure cleaner is removed. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 3)
On the other hand, the CA IOUs supported the technical feasibility
of energy savings from variable-speed motors in PCBP applications and
discussed the PCBP variable-speed-motor retrofit study that the CA IOUs
had conducted for the DPPP rulemaking. Specifically, the CA IOUs stated
that the results showed that a variable-speed motor could provide
substantial energy savings by reducing the PCBP pump speed, while
maintaining consumer utility. The CA IOUs stated that the definition of
consumer utility for a pressure side pool cleaner (pool sweep) is the
correct number of wheel revolutions per minute in cleaning operation.
In addition, the CA IOUs stated that a single-speed PCBP produces more
pressure than the pool sweep requires, and the consumer may use the
included flow restrictor discs and a bleed to reduce the pressure and
flow to the sweep's required operating condition. Accordingly, the flow
restrictor and bleed valve allow unused energy from the pump to escape
to the pool, and variable-speed PCBP offers an energy-saving
alternative by allowing the consumer to set the speed of the pump to
deliver the pressure and flow needed to operate the sweep, with low or
no usage of the bleed valve and restrictor rings. The CA IOUs
demonstrated the variable-speed capability by retrofitting a variable-
speed motor to two PCBPs, which resulted in energy savings of 54
percent to 67 percent. (CA IOUs, No. 96 at p. 3)
In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, for the analysis conducted
for PCBPs, DOE selected a DPPP capacity that was representative of the
cluster of model capacities on the market. As such, the resulting
representative capacity was 10 gpm of flow and 112 ft of head, which
equated to 0.28 hhp. See section 5.4.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final
Rule TSD. DOE notes that the flow rate of 10 gpm aligns with the
testing load point specified in the test procedure. See Table 1 of
appendix C to subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431. In addition, while the DPPP
Working Group initially recommended that PCBPs be tested at 90 ft of
head and a volumetric flow rate that corresponds to 90 ft of head, the
DPPP Working Group revised its recommendation for PCBPs to be tested at
the load point of 10 gpm and a head greater than 60 ft. See section
5.4.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD.
In reviewing the 2022 DPPP Database, DOE observed DPPPMs in PCBP
applications ranging from 0.22 to 0.33 hhp, and therefore concluded
that 0.28 hhp is in the middle of that range and would still be
representative of the PCBP models currently available on the market. As
such, with the required test procedure flow rate for PCBPs at 10 gpm
(see Table 1 of appendix B to subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431), the
representative DPPP head will continue to be around 112 ft.\46\ In
reviewing the analysis that Fluidra, PHTA, and NEMA submitt

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on September 28, 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.