Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors, 35765-35780 [2023-10018]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
35765
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 88, No. 105
Thursday, June 1, 2023
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2020–BT–STD–0007]
RIN 1904–AE63
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Electric
Motors
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy
conservation standards for various
consumer products and certain
commercial and industrial equipment,
including electric motors. In this
document, DOE proposes amended
energy conservation standards for
electric motors identical to those set
forth in a direct final rule published
elsewhere in this Federal Register. If
DOE receives an adverse comment and
determines that such comment may
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawing the direct final rule, DOE
will publish a notice withdrawing the
direct final rule and will proceed with
this proposed rule.
DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept
comments, data, and information
regarding this NOPR no later than
September 19, 2023.
Comments regarding the likely
competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the
Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before July
3, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE–2020–BT–STD–0007.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE–
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
2020–BT–STD–0007, by any of the
following methods:
Email: ElecMotors2020STD0007@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
EERE–2020–BT–STD–0007 in the
subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact
disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza,
SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
V of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
not all documents listed in the index
may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public
disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2020-BT-STD-0007. The docket web
page contains instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket. See section V
of this document for information on
how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General
to provide DOE a written determination
of whether the proposed standard is
likely to lessen competition. The U.S.
Department of Justice Antitrust Division
invites input from market participants
and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the
proposed standard. Interested persons
may contact the Division at
energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
before the date specified in the DATES
section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’
line of your email the title and Docket
Number of this proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Matthew Ring, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–2555. Email:
Matthew.Ring@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
III. Proposed Standards
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for Electric Motor Standards
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the
Proposed Standards
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is
Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description on Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance
Requirements Including Differences in
Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of
Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with
Other Rules and Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
Continued
01JNP1
35766
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6317) Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317).
Such equipment includes electric
motors, the subject of this rulemaking.
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or
amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended
standard must result in a significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA
also provides that not later than 6 years
after issuance of any final rule
establishing or amending a standard,
DOE must publish either a notice of
determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or
a notice of proposed rulemaking
including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
Elsewhere in this Federal Register,
DOE is issuing a direct final rule
amending the energy conservation
standards for electric motors, along with
this proposed rule as required by EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i)) The
amended standard levels in that
document were submitted in a joint
recommendation (the ‘‘November 2022
Joint Recommendation’’) 3 by the
American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (‘‘ACEEE’’),
Appliance Standards Awareness Project
(‘‘ASAP’’), National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (‘‘NEMA’’),
Natural Resources Defense Council
(‘‘NRDC’’), Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (‘‘NEEA’’), Pacific Gas &
Electric Company (‘‘PG&E’’), San Diego
Gas & Electric (‘‘SDG&E’’), and Southern
California Edison (‘‘SCE’’), hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘the Electric Motors
Working Group.’’ In a letter comment
submitted December 12, 2022, the New
York State Energy Research and
Development Authority (‘‘NYSERDA’’)
expressed its support of the November
2022 Joint Recommendation and urged
DOE to implement it in a timely
manner. DOE has determined that the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation
complies with the requirements of
EPCA for issuance of a direct final rule.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i))
In accordance with these and other
statutory provisions discussed in this
document, DOE proposes new and
amended energy conservation standards
for electric motors. The proposed
standards, which are expressed in fullload efficiency, are shown in Table I.1,
Table I.2 and Table I.3.
TABLE I.1—PROPOSED NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN A, NEMA DESIGN B AND IEC DESIGN N,
NE, NEY OR NY MOTORS (EXCLUDING FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS AND AIR-OVER ELECTRIC MOTORS) AT 60 HZ
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent
2 Pole
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Enclosed
1/.75 .........................................................................
1.5/1.1 ......................................................................
2/1.5 .........................................................................
3/2.2 .........................................................................
5/3.7 .........................................................................
7.5/5.5 ......................................................................
10/7.5 .......................................................................
15/11 ........................................................................
20/15 ........................................................................
25/18.5 .....................................................................
30/22 ........................................................................
40/30 ........................................................................
50/37 ........................................................................
60/45 ........................................................................
75/55 ........................................................................
100/75 ......................................................................
125/90 ......................................................................
150/110 ....................................................................
200/150 ....................................................................
250/186 ....................................................................
300/224 ....................................................................
350/261 ....................................................................
400/298 ....................................................................
450/336 ....................................................................
500/373 ....................................................................
550/410 ....................................................................
600/447 ....................................................................
650/485 ....................................................................
700/522 ....................................................................
750/559 ....................................................................
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which
reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A–1 of EPCA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
77.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
4 Pole
Open
Enclosed
77.0
84.0
85.5
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.5
94.5
94.5
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
6 Pole
Open
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.4
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.5
96.5
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1.
3 Joint comment response to the published
Notification of a webinar and availability of
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
95.8
95.8
95.8
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
8 Pole
Enclosed
Open
Enclosed
Open
82.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.8
95.8
96.2
96.2
96.2
95.8
95.8
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
82.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
96.2
95.8
95.8
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
75.5
78.5
84.0
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
92.4
93.6
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
75.5
77.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.4
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
preliminary technical support document; https://
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD0007-0035.
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
35767
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I.2—PROPOSED NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN A, NEMA DESIGN B AND IEC DESIGN N,
NE, NEY OR NY STANDARD FRAME SIZE AIR-OVER ELECTRIC MOTORS (EXCLUDING FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS)
AT 60 HZ
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent
2 Pole
Enclosed
1/.75 .........................................................................
1.5/1.1 ......................................................................
2/1.5 .........................................................................
3/2.2 .........................................................................
5/3.7 .........................................................................
7.5/5.5 ......................................................................
10/7.5 .......................................................................
15/11 ........................................................................
20/15 ........................................................................
25/18.5 .....................................................................
30/22 ........................................................................
40/30 ........................................................................
50/37 ........................................................................
60/45 ........................................................................
75/55 ........................................................................
100/75 ......................................................................
125/90 ......................................................................
150/110 ....................................................................
200/150 ....................................................................
250/186 ....................................................................
4 Pole
Open
77.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
Enclosed
77.0
84.0
85.5
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.5
94.5
94.5
95.4
95.4
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.4
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.5
96.5
6 Pole
Open
Enclosed
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
8 Pole
Open
82.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.8
95.8
96.2
96.2
96.2
82.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
96.2
Enclosed
Open
75.5
78.5
84.0
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
92.4
93.6
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
75.5
77.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.4
TABLE I.3—PROPOSED NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN A, NEMA DESIGN B AND IEC DESIGN N,
NE, NEY OR NY SPECIALIZED FRAME SIZE AIR-OVER ELECTRIC MOTORS (EXCLUDING FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS) AT 60 HZ
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent
2 Pole
Enclosed
1/.75 .........................................................................
1.5/1.1 ......................................................................
2/1.5 .........................................................................
3/2.2 .........................................................................
5/3.7 .........................................................................
7.5/5.5 ......................................................................
10/7.5 .......................................................................
15/11 ........................................................................
20/15 ........................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
II. Introduction
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well
as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment
of standards for electric motors.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. Title III, Part C 4
of EPCA added by Public Law 95–619,
Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–
6317, as codified), established the
Energy Conservation Program for
4 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
74.0
82.5
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
4 Pole
Open
Enclosed
..............
82.5
84.0
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
82.5
84.0
84.0
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
6 Pole
Open
82.5
84.0
84.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
Certain Industrial Equipment, which
sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve the energy
efficiency of certain types of industrial
equipment, including electric motors,
the subject of this proposed rule. (42
U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). The Energy Policy
Act of 1992 (‘‘EPACT 1992’’) (Pub. L.
102–486 (Oct. 24, 1992)) further
amended EPCA by establishing energy
conservation standards and test
procedures for certain commercial and
industrial electric motors that are
manufactured alone or as a component
of another piece of equipment. In
December 2007, Congress enacted the
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’) (Pub. L. 110–140
(Dec. 19, 2007)). Section 313(b)(1) of
EISA 2007 updated the energy
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8 Pole
Enclosed
Open
Enclosed
Open
80.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
................
................
80.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
90.2
..............
..............
74.0
77.0
82.5
84.0
85.5
85.5
................
................
................
74.0
75.5
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
..............
..............
..............
conservation standards for those electric
motors already covered by EPCA and
established energy conservation
standards for a larger scope of motors
not previously covered by standards. (42
U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) EISA 2007 also
revised certain statutory definitions
related to electric motors. See EISA
2007, sec. 313 (amending statutory
definitions related to electric motors at
42 U.S.C. 6311(13)).
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),
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
35768
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42;
U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE
may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited instances for
particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions set forth under EPCA.
(See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the
preemption waiver provisions of 42
U.S.C. 6297))
Subject to certain criteria and
conditions, DOE is required to develop
test procedures to measure the energy
efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of each covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a), 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r))
Manufacturers of covered equipment
must use the Federal test procedures as
the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that
their equipment complies with the
applicable energy conservation
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and
(2) making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to determine whether
the equipment complies with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The
DOE test procedures for electric motors
appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 431, subpart B,
appendix B.
EPCA further provides that, not later
than 6 years after the issuance of any
final rule establishing or amending a
standard, DOE must publish either a
notice of determination that standards
for the product do not need to be
amended, or a notice of proposed
rulemaking including new proposed
energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered equipment,
including electric motors. Any new or
amended standard for a covered product
must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary of Energy
determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE
may not adopt any standard that would
not result in the significant conservation
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a
standard: (1) for certain products,
including electric motors, if no test
procedure has been established for the
product, or (2) if DOE determines by
rule that the standard is not
technologically feasible or economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) In deciding whether a
proposed standard is economically
justified, DOE must determine whether
the benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this
determination after receiving comments
on the proposed standard, and by
considering, to the greatest extent
practicable, the following seven
statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard
on manufacturers and consumers of the
products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the
covered products in the type (or class)
compared to any increase in the price, initial
charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result
from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or
as applicable, water) savings likely to result
directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered products likely to
result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the
Attorney General, that is likely to result from
the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water
conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy
(‘‘Secretary’’) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII))
Further, EPCA, as codified,
establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified
if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a
product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less
than three times the value of the energy
savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the
standard, as calculated under the
applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what
is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’
provision, which prevents the Secretary
from prescribing any amended standard
that either increases the maximum
allowable energy use or decreases the
minimum required energy efficiency of
a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 performancerelated feature justifies a different
standard for a group of products, DOE
must consider such factors as the utility
to the consumer of such a feature and
other factors DOE deems appropriate.
Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard
must include an explanation of the basis
on which such higher or lower level was
established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in
relevant part, to grant DOE authority to
issue a final rule (i.e., a ‘‘direct final
rule’’) establishing an energy
conservation standard on receipt of a
statement submitted jointly by
interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view
(including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products,
States, and efficiency advocates), as
determined by the Secretary, that
contains recommendations with respect
to an energy or water conservation
standard that are in accordance with the
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also
determine whether a jointly-submitted
recommendation for an energy or water
conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C.
6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as
applicable.
The direct final rule must be
published simultaneously with a NOPR
that proposes an energy or water
conservation standard that is identical
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
to the standard established in the direct
final rule, and DOE must provide a
public comment period of at least 110
days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)–(B)) Based on the
comments received during this period,
the direct final rule will either become
effective, or DOE will withdraw it not
later than 120 days after its issuance if
(1) one or more adverse comments is
received, and (2) DOE determines that
those comments, when viewed in light
of the rulemaking record related to the
direct final rule, provide a reasonable
basis for withdrawal of the direct final
rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), or any other applicable
law. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of
an alternative joint recommendation
may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the same manner.
Id. After withdrawing a direct final rule,
DOE must proceed with the notice of
proposed rulemaking published
simultaneously with the direct final rule
and publish in the Federal Register the
reasons why the direct final rule was
withdrawn. Id.
Typical of other rulemakings, it is the
substance, rather than the quantity, of
comments that will ultimately
determine whether a direct final rule
will be withdrawn. To this end, the
substance of any adverse comment(s)
received will be weighed against the
anticipated benefits of the jointlysubmitted recommendations and the
likelihood that further consideration of
the comment(s) would change the
results of the rulemaking. DOE notes
that, to the extent an adverse comment
had been previously raised and
addressed in the rulemaking
proceeding, such a submission will not
typically provide a basis for withdrawal
of a direct final rule.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
B. Background
In the May 2020 Early Assessment
Review RFI, DOE stated that it was
initiating an early assessment review to
determine whether any new or amended
standards would satisfy the relevant
requirements of EPCA for a new or
amended energy conservation standard
for electric motors and sought
information related to that effort.
Specifically, DOE sought data and
information that could enable the
agency to determine whether DOE
should propose a ‘‘no new standard’’
determination because a more stringent
standard: (1) would not result in a
significant savings of energy; (2) is not
technologically feasible; (3) is not
economically justified; or (4) any
combination of the foregoing. 85 FR
30878, 30879.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
On March 2, 2022, DOE published the
preliminary analysis for electric motors.
87 FR 11650 (‘‘March 2022 Preliminary
Analysis’’). In conjunction with the
March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE
published a technical support document
(‘‘March 2022 Prelim TSD’’) which
presented the results of the in-depth
technical analyses in the following
areas: (1) Engineering; (2) markups to
determine equipment price; (3) energy
use; (4) life cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) and
payback period (‘‘PBP’’); and (5)
national impacts. The results presented
included the current scope of electric
motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, in
addition to an expanded scope of
motors, including electric motors above
500 horsepower, air-over electric
motors, and small, non-small-electricmotor, electric motors (‘‘SNEM’’). See
Chapter 2 of the March 2022 Prelim
TSD.
By letter dated on November 15, 2022,
DOE received a joint recommendation
for energy conservation standards for
electric motors (‘‘November 2022 Joint
Recommendation’’). The November
2022 Joint Recommendation represented
the motors industry, energy efficiency
organizations and utilities (collectively,
‘‘the Electric Motors Working Group’’).5
The November 2022 Joint
Recommendation addressed energy
conservation standards for medium
electric motors that are 1–750 hp and
polyphase, and air-over medium electric
motors. On December 9, 2022, DOE
received a supplemental letter to the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation
from the Electric Motors Working
Group. The supplemental letter
provided additional guidance on the
recommended levels for open medium
electric motors rated 100 hp to 250 hp,
and a recommended compliance date
for standards presented in the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation.
A summary of the specific
recommendations contained in the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation
may be found in the direct final rule
published elsewhere in this Federal
Register.
After carefully considering the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation
and supplement for amending the
energy conservation standards for
electric motors submitted by the Electric
Motors Working Group, DOE has
determined that these recommendations
are in accordance with the statutory
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for
the issuance of a direct final rule.
5 The members of the Electric Motors Working
Group included ACEEE, ASAP, NEMA, NRDC,
NEEA, PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35769
More specifically, these
recommendations comprise a statement
submitted by interested persons who are
fairly representative of relevant points
of view on this matter. In appendix A
to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430
(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE explained that to
be ‘‘fairly representative of relevant
points of view,’’ the group submitting a
joint statement must, where appropriate,
include larger concerns and small
business in the regulated industry/
manufacturer community, energy
advocates, energy utilities, consumers,
and States. However, it will be
necessary to evaluate the meaning of
‘‘fairly representative’’ on a case-by-case
basis, subject to the circumstances of a
particular rulemaking, to determine
whether fewer or additional parties
must be part of a joint statement in
order to be ‘‘fairly representative of
relevant points of view.’’ Section 10 of
appendix A. In reaching this
determination, DOE took into
consideration the fact that the Joint
Recommendation was signed and
submitted by a broad cross-section of
interests, including a manufacturers’
trade association, environmental and
energy-efficiency advocacy
organizations, and electric utility
companies. NYSERDA, a state
organization, also submitted a letter
supporting the Joint Recommendation.
DOE notes that these organizations
include the relevant points of view
specifically identified by Congress:
manufacturers of covered products,
States, and efficiency advocates. (42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A))
DOE has evaluated the November
2022 Joint Recommendation and
believes that it meets the EPCA
requirements for issuance of a direct
final rule. As a result, DOE published a
direct final rule establishing energy
conservation standards for electric
motors elsewhere in this Federal
Register. If DOE receives adverse
comments that may provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal and
withdraws the direct final rule, DOE
will consider those comments and any
other comments received in determining
how to proceed with this proposed rule.
For further background information
on these proposed standards and the
supporting analyses, please see the
direct final rule published elsewhere in
this Federal Register. That document,
and the accompanying technical
support document (‘‘TSD’’), include
additional discussion of the EPCA
requirements for promulgation of energy
conservation standards; the history of
the standards rulemaking for electric
motors; and information on the test
procedures used to measure the energy
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
35770
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
efficiency of electric motors. Those
documents also contain an in-depth
discussion of the analyses conducted in
support of this proposed rulemaking,
the methodologies DOE used in
conducting those analyses, and the
analytical results.
III. Proposed Standards
lifetime of electric motors purchased in
the 30-year period that begins in the
anticipated year of compliance with
amended standards (2027–2056). The
energy savings, emissions reductions,
and value of emissions reductions refer
to full-fuel-cycle results.
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for Electric Motor Standards
Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize
the quantitative impacts estimated for
each TSL for electric motors. The
national impacts are measured over the
TABLE III.1—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
Quads ..............................................................................................................................
0.1
3.0
10.4
23.6
4.42
32.75
0.04
7.13
1.71
0.01
91.69
690.10
0.82
148.74
35.12
0.23
319.24
2,379.75
2.90
516.00
122.75
0.80
725.80
5,415.99
6.59
1,173.58
278.95
1.82
8.82
3.14
5.72
17.68
1.35
7.47
16.33
34.86
13.49
23.16
71.50
39.70
¥4.85
31.80
73.26
30.07
51.90
155.23
84.56
¥11.30
70.67
2.95
3.14
1.76
7.85
0.72
2.23
7.13
13.44
13.49
8.19
35.11
21.03
¥7.60
14.08
27.14
30.07
18.13
75.34
44.80
¥17.67
30.54
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................................
CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................
N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................
NOX (thousand tons) .......................................................................................................
SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................
Hg (tons) ..........................................................................................................................
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2021$)
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................................................................
Climate Benefits * .............................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .............................................................................................................
Total Benefits † ................................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ..........................................................................
Consumer Net Benefits ...................................................................................................
Total Net Benefits ............................................................................................................
0.51
0.19
0.33
1.04
0.18
0.33
0.85
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2021$)
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................................................................
Climate Benefits * .............................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .............................................................................................................
Total Benefits † ................................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ..........................................................................
Consumer Net Benefits ...................................................................................................
Total Net Benefits ............................................................................................................
0.21
0.19
0.12
0.53
0.10
0.11
0.43
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2027–2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027–2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC–CO2, SC–CH4 and SC–N2O. Together, these represent the global
SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22–30087) granted the Federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost
of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to
monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as
health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent
and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central
SC–GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC–GHG estimates.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
TABLE III.2—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC MOTOR TSLS: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
4,690–4,720
(6.6)–(6.0)
3,659–4,681
(27.2)–(6.8)
TSL 4
Manufacturer Impacts
Industry NPV (million 2021$) (No-new-standards case INPV
= 5,023) ................................................................................
Industry NPV (% change) ........................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
4,896–4,899
(2.5)
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
(6,066)–(3,840)
(220.8)–(176.4)
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
35771
TABLE III.2—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC MOTOR TSLS: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER
IMPACTS—Continued
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021$)
RU1 ..........................................................................................
RU2 ..........................................................................................
RU3 ..........................................................................................
RU4 ..........................................................................................
RU5 ..........................................................................................
RU6 ..........................................................................................
RU7 ..........................................................................................
RU8 ..........................................................................................
RU9 * ........................................................................................
RU10 ........................................................................................
RU11 ........................................................................................
Shipment-Weighted Average ** ...............................................
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,550.1
57.6
472.4
..............................
608.8
49.9
159.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
567.1
N/A
2,550.1
57.6
472.4
..............................
930.7
49.9
337.4
¥101.8
¥336.9
¥916.7
567.1
¥945.5
¥2,287.8
¥39.2
¥160.8
¥930.5
930.7
2.5
¥196.2
¥276.4
¥309.4
¥1,439.6
¥2,541.1
¥5,257.2
¥6,710.3
¥156.5
¥105.5
¥1,795.0
¥1,846.6
¥153.2
¥404.2
16.7
15.4
30.2
4.1
11.8
9.6
6.5
5.9
9.0
4.9
5.6
15.6
20.3
11.9
20.6
18.1
17.7
12.6
9.0
6.1
10.6
10.1
7.9
16.3
64.1
82.2
88.4
20.2
66.9
58.3
62.9
73.9
99.9
11.7
53.4
70.6
95.9
75.0
90.5
89.1
89.0
83.2
80.7
64.5
96.4
79.0
74.5
86.3
Consumer Simple PBP (Years)
RU1 ..........................................................................................
RU2 ..........................................................................................
RU3 ..........................................................................................
RU4 ..........................................................................................
RU5 ..........................................................................................
RU6 ..........................................................................................
RU7 ..........................................................................................
RU8 ..........................................................................................
RU9 * ........................................................................................
RU10 ........................................................................................
RU11 ........................................................................................
Shipment-Weighted Average ** ...............................................
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.7
4.0
1.6
..............................
6.1
4.1
3.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.1
N/A
3.7
4.0
1.6
..............................
4.9
4.1
3.9
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
RU1 ..........................................................................................
RU2 ..........................................................................................
RU3 ..........................................................................................
RU4 ..........................................................................................
RU5 ..........................................................................................
RU6 ..........................................................................................
RU7 ..........................................................................................
RU8 ..........................................................................................
RU9 * ........................................................................................
RU10 ........................................................................................
RU11 ........................................................................................
Shipment-Weighted Average ** ...............................................
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.1
10.3
0.9
..............................
6.3
32.1
10.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
20.2
N/A
2.1
10.3
0.9
..............................
11.7
32.1
14.9
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
The entry ‘‘N/A’’ means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain TSLs.
* No impact because there are no shipments below the efficiency level corresponding to TSL1 and TSL2 for RU9.
** Weighted by shares of each equipment class in total projected shipments in 2027 for impacted consumers.
DOE first considered TSL 4, which
represents the max-tech efficiency
levels. At this level, DOE expects that
all equipment classes would require
35H210 silicon steel and die-cast copper
rotors. DOE estimates that
approximately 0.34 percent of annual
shipments across all electric motor
equipment classes currently meet the
max-tech efficiencies required. TSL 4
would save an estimated 23.6 quads of
energy, an amount DOE considers
significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of
consumer benefit would be ¥$17.67
billion using a discount rate of 7
percent, and ¥$11.30 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 4 are 725.80 Mt of CO2, 278.95
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
thousand tons of SO2, 1,173.58
thousand tons of NOX, 1.82 tons of Hg,
5,415.99 thousand tons of CH4, and 6.59
thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC–GHG at
a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 4 is
$30.07 billion. The estimated monetary
value of the health benefits from
reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL
4 is $18.13 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate and $51.90 billion using a
3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs, health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
total NPV at TSL 4 is $30.54 billion.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated total
NPV at TSL 4 is $70.67 billion.
At TSL 4, for the largest equipment
class group and horsepower ranges,
which are represented by RU1 and RU2,
which together represent approximately
90 percent of annual shipments, there is
a life cycle cost savings of ¥$276.4 and
¥$309.4 and a payback period of 20.3
years and 11.9 years, respectively. For
these equipment classes, the fraction of
customers experiencing a net LCC cost
is 95.9 percent and 75.0 percent due to
increases in total installed cost of $434.7
and $1,003.0, respectively. Overall, for
the remaining equipment class groups
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
35772
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
and horsepower ranges, a majority of
electric motor consumers (84.5 percent)
would experience a net cost and the
average LCC savings would be negative
for all remaining equipment class
groups and horsepower ranges.
At TSL 4, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $11,090
million to a decrease of $8,863 million,
which corresponds to decreases of 220.8
percent and 176.4 percent, respectively.
DOE estimates that industry must invest
$13,516 million to comply with
standards set at TSL 4. The significant
increase in product and capital
conversion costs is because DOE
assumes that electric motor
manufacturers will need to use die-cast
copper rotors for most, if not all, electric
motors manufactured to meet this TSL.
This technology requires a significant
level of investment because almost all
existing electric motor production
machinery would need to be replaced or
significantly modified. Based on the
shipments analysis used in the NIA,
DOE estimates that approximately 0.3
percent of all electric motor shipments
will meet the efficiency levels required
at TSL 4, in the no-new-standards case
in 2027, the compliance year of new and
amended standards.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL
4 for electric motors, the benefits of
energy savings, emission reductions,
and the estimated monetary value of the
emissions reductions are outweighed by
the negative NPV of consumer benefits,
economic burden on many consumers,
and the impacts on manufacturers,
including the extremely large
conversion costs, profit margin impacts
that will result in a negative INPV, and
the lack of manufacturers currently
offering products meeting the efficiency
levels required at this TSL. A majority
of electric motor consumers (86.3
percent) would experience a net cost
and the average LCC savings for each
representative unit DOE examined is
negative. In both manufacturer markup
scenarios, INPV is negative at TSL 4,
which implies that manufacturers
would never recover the conversion
costs they must make to produce
electric motors at TSL 4. Consequently,
the Secretary concludes that TSL 4 is
not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 3, which
represents a level corresponding to the
IE4 level, except for AO-polyphase
specialized frame size electric motors,
where it corresponds to a lower level of
efficiency (i.e., NEMA Premium level).
TSL 3 would save an estimated 10.4
quads of energy, an amount DOE
considers significant. Under TSL 3, the
NPV of consumer benefit would be
¥$7.60 billion using a discount rate of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
7 percent, and ¥$4.85 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 3 are 319.24 Mt of CO2, 122.75
thousand tons of SO2, 516.00 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.80 tons of Hg, 2,379.75
thousand tons of CH4, and 2.90
thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC–GHG at
a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 3 is
$13.49 billion. The estimated monetary
value of the health benefits from
reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL
3 is 8.19 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate and $23.16 billion using a
3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs, health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
total NPV at TSL 3 is $14.08 billion.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated total
NPV at TSL 3 is $31.80 billion.
At TSL 3, for the largest equipment
class group and horsepower ranges,
which are represented by RU1 and RU2,
there is a life cycle cost savings of
¥$101.8 and ¥$336.9 and a payback
period of 16.7 and 15.4, respectively.6
For these equipment classes, the
fraction of customers experiencing a net
LCC cost is 64.1 percent and 82.2
percent due to increases in total
installed cost of $171.3 and $690.5,
respectively. Overall, for the remaining
equipment class groups and horsepower
ranges, a majority of electric motor
consumers (55.5 percent) would
experience a net cost and the
shipments-weighted average LCC
savings would be negative for all
remaining equipment class groups and
horsepower ranges.
At TSL 3, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $1,364
million to a decrease of $342 million,
which correspond to decreases of 27.2
percent and 6.8 percent, respectively.
DOE estimates that industry must invest
$1,618 million to comply with
standards set at TSL 3. Based on the
shipments analysis used in the NIA,
DOE estimates that approximately 13.3
percent of all electric motor shipments
will meet or exceed the efficiency levels
required at TSL 3, in the no-newstandards case in 2027, the compliance
year of new and amended standards.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL
3 for electric motors, the benefits of
6 For
RU1 and RU2, EL1 = EL2. See section
IV.C.1.c. of the associated direct final rule
published elsewhere in this Federal Register.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
energy savings, emission reductions,
and the estimated monetary value of the
emissions reductions are outweighed by
the negative NPV of consumer benefits,
economic burden on many consumers,
and the impacts on manufacturers,
including the large conversion costs,
profit margin impacts that could result
in a large reduction in INPV, and the
lack of manufacturers currently offering
products meeting the efficiency levels
required at this TSL. A majority of
electric motor consumers (70.6 percent)
would experience a net cost and the
average LCC savings would be negative.
The potential reduction in INPV could
be as high as 27.2 percent.
Consequently, the Secretary concludes
that TSL 3 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 2, the
standard levels recommended in the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation
by the Electric Motors Working Group.
TSL 2 would also align with the EU
Ecodesign Directive 2019/1781, which
requires IE4 levels for 75–200 kW
motors.7 TSL 2 would save an estimated
3.0 quads of energy, an amount DOE
considers significant. Under TSL 2, the
NPV of consumer benefit would be
$2.23 billion using a discount rate of 7
percent, and $7.47 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 2 are 91.69 Mt of CO2, 35.12
thousand tons of SO2, 148.74 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.23 tons of Hg, 690.10
thousand tons of CH4, and 0.82
thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC–GHG at
a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 2 is
$3.14 billion. The estimated monetary
value of the health benefits from
reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL
2 is $1.76 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate and $5.72 billion using a
3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs, health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
total NPV at TSL 2 is $7.13 billion.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated total
NPV at TSL 2 is $16.33 billion.
At TSL 2, for the largest equipment
class group and horsepower ranges,
which are represented by RU1 and RU2,
there would be no changes in the
standards. Overall, for the remaining
7 In terms of standardized horsepowers, this
would correspond to 100–250 hp when applying
the from 10 CFR 431.25(k) (and new 10 CFR
431.25(q)).
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
equipment class groups and horsepower
ranges, 14.9 percent of electric motor
consumers would experience a net cost
and the shipments-weighted average
LCC savings would be positive for all
remaining equipment class groups and
horsepower ranges.
At TSL 2, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $333
million to a decrease of $303 million,
which correspond to decreases of 6.6
percent and 6.0 percent, respectively.
DOE estimates that industry must invest
$468 million to comply with standards
set at TSL 2. Based on the shipments
analysis used in the NIA, DOE estimates
that approximately 96.2 percent of all
electric motor shipments will meet or
exceed the efficiency levels required at
TSL 2, in the no-new-standards case in
2027, the compliance year of new and
amended standards.
After considering the analysis and
weighing the benefits and burdens, the
Secretary concludes that a standard set
at TSL 2 for electric motors would be
economically justified. At this TSL, the
average LCC savings is positive. Only an
estimated 14.9 percent of electric motor
consumers experience a net cost. The
FFC national energy savings are
significant and the NPV of consumer
benefits is positive using both a 3percent and 7-percent discount rate.
Notably, the benefits to consumers
vastly outweigh the cost to
manufacturers. Notably, at TSL 2, the
NPV of consumer benefits, even
measured at the more conservative
discount rate of 7 percent is over 6 times
higher than the maximum estimated
manufacturers’ loss in INPV. The
standard levels at TSL 2 are
economically justified even without
weighing the estimated monetary value
of emissions reductions. When those
emissions reductions are included—
representing $3.14 billion in climate
benefits (associated with the average
SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate),
and $5.72 billion (using a 3-percent
discount rate) or $1.76 billion (using a
7-percent discount rate) in health
benefits—the rationale becomes stronger
still.
As stated, DOE conducts the walkdown analysis to determine the TSL that
represents the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and
economically justified as required under
EPCA. The walk-down is not a
comparative analysis, as a comparative
analysis would result in the
maximization of net benefits instead of
energy savings that are technologically
feasible and economically justified,
which would be contrary to the statute.
86 FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has
not conducted a comparative analysis to
select the energy conservation
standards, DOE notes that as compared
to TSL 3 and TSL 4, TSL 2 has higher
average LCC savings for consumers,
significantly smaller percentages of
electric motor consumers experiencing a
net cost, a lower maximum decrease in
INPV, and lower manufacturer
conversion costs.
Although DOE considered amended
standard levels for electric motors by
grouping the efficiency levels for each
equipment class groups and horsepower
ranges into TSLs, DOE evaluates all
analyzed efficiency levels in its
analysis. For all equipment class groups
and horsepower ranges, TSL 2
represents the maximum energy savings
that does not result in the majority of
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost.
The ELs at the proposed TSL result in
average positive LCC savings for all
equipment class groups and horsepower
ranges, significantly reduce the number
of consumers experiencing a net cost,
and reduce the decrease in INPV and
conversion costs to the point where
DOE has concluded they are
economically justified, as discussed for
TSL 2 in the preceding paragraphs.
Therefore, based on the previous
considerations, DOE proposes to adopt
the energy conservation standards for
35773
electric motors at TSL 2. The proposed
amended energy conservation standards
for electric motors, which are expressed
as full-load efficiency, are shown in
Table I.1, Table I.2, and Table I.3.
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the
Proposed Standards
The benefits and costs of the proposed
standards can also be expressed in terms
of annualized values. The annualized
net benefit is (1) the annualized national
economic value (expressed in 2021$) of
the benefits from operating products
that meet the proposed standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost
savings from using less energy, minus
increases in product purchase costs, and
(2) the annualized monetary value of the
climate and health benefits from
emission reductions.
Table III.3 shows the annualized
values for electric motors under TSL 2,
expressed in 2021$. The results under
the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs and NOX
and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3percent discount rate case for GHG
social costs, the estimated cost of the
standards for electric motors is $62.1
million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $254.8 million from
reduced equipment operating costs,
$164.8 million from GHG reductions,
and $151.4 million from reduced NOX
and SO2 emissions. In this case, the net
benefit amounts to $508.9 million per
year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of
the standards for electric motors is $71.0
million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $463.6 million in reduced
operating costs, $164.8 million from
GHG reductions, and $300.7 million
from reduced NOX and SO2 emissions.
In this case, the net benefit amounts to
$858.2 million per year.
TABLE III.3—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC
MOTORS
[TSL 2]
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Million 2021$/year
Primary estimate
Low-net-benefits
estimate
High-net-benefits
estimate
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings ...........................................................................
Climate Benefits* .......................................................................................................
Health Benefits** ........................................................................................................
Total Benefits † ..........................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡ ...............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
463.6
164.8
300.7
929.1
71.0
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
405.1
148.0
269.5
822.5
73.7
01JNP1
542.9
186.5
341.0
1070.4
73.0
35774
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.3—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC
MOTORS—Continued
[TSL 2]
Million 2021$/year
Primary estimate
Net Benefits ...............................................................................................................
Low-net-benefits
estimate
High-net-benefits
estimate
858.2
748.8
997.4
254.8
164.8
151.4
571.0
62.1
508.9
225.3
148.0
137.1
510.4
63.8
446.6
293.6
186.5
169.5
649.6
63.9
585.6
7% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings ...........................................................................
Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate) ........................................................................
Health Benefits ** .......................................................................................................
Total Benefits † ..........................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ......................................................................
Net Benefits ...............................................................................................................
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2027–2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027–2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively.
In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a constant rate in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and
a declining rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational
purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department
does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using
all four SC–GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the Federal government’s emergency
motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D.
La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting,
employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized
benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as
health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the
Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
The regulatory reviews conducted for
this proposed rule, except for the
Regulatory Flexibility Act discussed in
section IV.A, are identical to those
conducted for the direct final rule
published elsewhere in this Federal
Register. Please see the direct final rule
for further details.
A. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) and a final regulatory
flexibility analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) for any
rule that by law must be proposed for
public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As required by E.O. 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel). DOE has
prepared the following IRFA for the
products that are the subject of this
proposed rulemaking.
For manufacturers of electric motors,
the SBA has set a size threshold, which
defines those entities classified as
‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of
the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small
business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be
subject to the requirements of the rule.
(See 13 CFR part 121.) The size
standards are listed by North American
Industry Classification System
(‘‘NAICS’’) code and industry
description and are available at
www.sba.gov/document/support-tablesize-standards. Manufacturing of
electric motors is classified under
NAICS 335312, ‘‘Motor and Generator
Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a
threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for an entity to be considered as a small
business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is
Being Considered
EPCA requires that, not later than 6
years after the issuance of any final rule
establishing or amending a standard,
DOE must publish either a notice of
determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or
a NOPR including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
Additionally, under the authority
provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE
is issuing a direct final rule establishing
energy conservation standards for
electric motors These standard levels
were submitted jointly to DOE on
November 15, 2022, by groups
representing manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, and consumer
groups (the Electric Motors Working
Group).8 This collective set of
8 The Electric Motors working Group includes the
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
(‘‘ACEEE’’), Appliance Standards Awareness Project
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
comments, the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation, recommends specific
energy conservation standards for
electric motors that DOE has determined
satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42
U.S.C. 6295(o).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for,
Rule
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. Title III, Part C 9
of EPCA added by Pub. L. 95–619, Title
IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317,
as codified), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve the energy efficiency of certain
types of industrial equipment, including
electric motors, the subject of this
proposed rule. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)).
DOE has previously established energy
conservation standards for electric
motors at 10 CFR 431.25. EPCA further
provides that, not later than 6 years after
the issuance of any final rule
establishing or amending a standard,
DOE must publish either a notice of
determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or
a notice of proposed rulemaking
including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE
must follow specific statutory criteria
for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered equipment,
including electric motors. Any new or
amended standard for a covered
equipment must be designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary of Energy
determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). As noted
previously, DOE has the authority to
issue a final rule (i.e., a ‘‘direct final
rule’’) establishing an energy
conservation standard on receipt of a
statement submitted jointly by
interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view
(including representatives of
(‘‘ASAP’’), National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (‘‘NEMA’’), Natural Resources Defense
Council (‘‘NRDC’’), Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (‘‘NEEA’’), Pacific Gas & Electric Company
(‘‘PG&E’’), San Diego Gas & Electric (‘‘SDG&E’’), and
Southern California Edison (‘‘SCE’’). In a letter
comment submitted December 12, 2022, the New
York State Energy Research and Development
Authority (‘‘NYSERDA’’) expressed its support of
the November 2022 Joint Recommendation and
urged DOE to implement it in a timely manner.
9 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignaated Part A–1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
manufacturers of covered products,
States, and efficiency advocates), as
determined by the Secretary, that
contains recommendations with respect
to an energy or water conservation
standard that are in accordance with the
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))
3. Description on Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
To estimate the number of companies
that could be small business
manufacturers of electric motors
covered by this proposed rulemaking,
DOE conducted a market survey using
publicly available information. DOE’s
research involved DOE’s publicly
available Compliance Certification
Database (‘‘CCD’’), industry trade
association membership directories
(including NEMA), and information
from previous rulemakings. DOE also
asked stakeholders and industry
representatives if they were aware of
any other small manufacturers during
manufacturer interviews and DOE
working groups. DOE used information
from these sources to create a list of
companies that potentially manufacture
electric motors covered by this proposed
rulemaking. As necessary, DOE
contacted companies to determine
whether they met the SBA’s definition
of a small business manufacturer. DOE
screened out companies that do not
offer equipment covered by this
rulemaking, do not meet the definition
of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are foreign
owned and operated.
DOE initially identified
approximately 74 unique potential
manufacturers of electric motors sold in
the U.S that are covered by this
proposed rulemaking. DOE screened out
companies that had more than 1,250
employees or companies that were
completely foreign owned and operated.
Of the 74 manufacturers that potentially
manufacture electric motors covered by
this proposed rulemaking, DOE
identified 11 companies that meet
SBA’s definition of a small business.
4. Description and Estimate of
Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different
Groups of Small Entities
Six major manufacturers supply
approximately 90 percent of the market
for electric motors covered by this
proposed rulemaking. None of the major
electric motor manufacturers covered by
this proposed rulemaking are a small
business. DOE is adopting new energy
conservation standards for some AO
electric motors and NEMA Design A and
B electric motors between 500 hp and
75 hp. Additionally, DOE is amending
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35775
energy conservation standards for
NEMA Design A and B electric motors
between 100 hp and 250 hp. Based on
a review on the 11 small businesses’
equipment offerings online, DOE was
not able to identify any small business
electric motor manufacturer that
manufactures AO electric motors
covered by this proposed rulemaking.
Therefore, the remainder of the
discussion in this section focuses on
NEMA Design A and B electric motors
between 100 hp and 250 hp and NEMA
Design A and B electric motors between
500 hp and 750 hp that are covered by
this proposed rulemaking.
Most of the identified small
businesses primarily focus on selling
application specific motors to OEMs
(which are then embedded in the OEM’s
machinery). DOE estimates that
approximately 97 percent of NEMA
Design A and B electric motor sales
covered by this proposed rulemaking
are between 1–100 hp or 250–500 hp.
DOE is not proposing to amend energy
conservation standards for NEMA
Design A and B electric motors between
these horsepower ranges. Therefore, the
majority of the NEMA Design A and B
electric motors that are manufactured by
the identified small businesses will not
need to be remodeled in order to meet
the proposed energy conservation
standards.
The primary value added by these
small businesses is creating electric
motors that fit the application specific
purpose that the OEMs require. This
includes combining an electric motor
with specific mechanic couplings,
weatherproofing, or controls to suit the
OEM’s needs. Most small businesses
manufacturer the motor housing and
couplings, but do not manufacture the
rotors and stators used in the electric
motors they sell. While these small
businesses may have to create new
electric motor housings and/or
couplings if the frame size or stack
length of an electric motor changes in
response to energy conservation
standards, DOE was not able to identify
any small businesses that own their own
lamination dies sets and winding
machines that are used to manufacture
electric motor rotors and stators.
The primary investment that electric
motor manufacturers will have to make
is to upgrade or replace lamination die
sets and winding machines and to have
engineers develop equipment designs to
create more efficient electric motors.
These investments (both capital and
product conversion costs) would only
be for electric motor manufacturers that
manufacture electric motor rotors and
stators. Electric motor manufacturers
that do not manufacture the rotors and
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
35776
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
stators of an electric motor and instead
purchase these components from other
electric motor manufacturers would not
need to purchase the machinery
necessary to manufacture these
components (i.e., would not need to
purchase costly lamination dies sets and
winding machines) nor would they need
to spend R&D efforts to develop electric
motor designs to meet energy
conservation standards. Instead, these
small manufacturers might have to
create new moldings for larger electric
motor housings (if the size of the motor
core increases in response to energy
conservation standards).
DOE estimates the average small
business would have to redesign four
electric motor housings. DOE estimates
this will cost approximately $50,000 in
molding equipment per electric motor
housing; $35,314 in engineering design
effort per electric motor housing; 10 and
$10,000 in testing costs per electric
motor housing. Based on these
estimates, each electric motor housing
that will need to be redesigned would
cost small businesses approximately
$95,314, or $381,254 to redesign four
electric motor housings per small
business.
DOE displays in Table VI–1 the
estimated average conversion costs per
small business compared to the annual
revenue for each small business. DOE
used D&B Hoovers 11 to estimate the
annual revenue for each small business.
Manufacturers will have 4 years
between publication of the direct final
rule and compliance with the energy
conservation standards. Therefore, DOE
presents the estimated conversion costs
and testing costs as a percent of the
estimated 4 years of annual revenue for
each small business.
TABLE VI–1—ESTIMATED CONVERSION COSTS AND ANNUAL REVENUE FOR EACH SMALL BUSINESS
Total conversion
and testing costs
Manufacturer
Small Business 1 .....................................................................
Small Business 2 .....................................................................
Small Business 3 .....................................................................
Small Business 4 .....................................................................
Small Business 5 .....................................................................
Small Business 6 .....................................................................
Small Business 7 .....................................................................
Small Business 8 .....................................................................
Small Business 9 .....................................................................
Small Business 10 ...................................................................
Small Business 11 ...................................................................
Average Small Business ..........................................................
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict
With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or
regulations that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the rule being considered.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The discussion in the previous
section analyzes impacts on small
businesses that would result from DOE’s
proposal, represented by TSL 2, as
recommended in the November 2022
Joint Recommendation. In reviewing
alternatives to the rule, DOE examined
energy conservation standards set at
lower efficiency levels. While TSL 1
would reduce the impacts on small
business manufacturers, it would come
at the expense of a reduction in energy
savings. TSL 1 achieves 97 percent
lower energy savings and 96 percent
lower consumer NPV compared to the
energy savings and consumer NPV at
TSL 2.
Based on the presented discussion,
establishing standards at TSL 2 balances
the benefits of the energy savings at TSL
10 DOE estimated that it would take
approximately three months of engineering time to
redesign each electric motor housing. Based on data
from BLS, the mean hourly wage of an electrical
engineer is $51.87 (www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes172071.htm) and wages comprise 70.5 percent of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
$250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
2,750,000
Annual revenue
$78,000,000
60,000,000
30,000,000
29,000,000
25,000,000
23,000,000
11,000,000
10,000,000
10,000,000
4,600,000
3,300,000
283,900,000
2 with the potential burdens placed on
electric motors manufacturers,
including small business manufacturers.
Accordingly, DOE does not adopt one of
the other TSLs considered in the
analysis.
Additional compliance flexibilities
may be available through other means.
Manufacturers subject to DOE’s energy
efficiency standards may apply to DOE’s
Office of Hearings and Appeals for
exception relief under certain
circumstances. Manufacturers should
refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart E, and
10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule until the date provided in the DATES
section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information
using any of the methods described in
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
of this document.
an employee’s total compensation (www.bls.gov/
news.release/archives/ecec_12152022.pdf).
$51.87 (hourly wage) ÷ 0.705 (wage as a
percentage of total compensation) = $73.57 (fully
burdened hourly labor rate).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4-Years of
annual revenue
Conversion costs
as a % of 4-years
of annual revenue
$312,000,000
240,000,000
120,000,000
116,000,000
100,000,000
92,000,000
44,000,000
40,000,000
40,000,000
18,400,000
13,200,000
1,135,600,000
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.4
1.9
0.2
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
$73.57 × 8 (hours in a workday) × 20 (working
days in a month) × 3 (months) = $35,314.
11 app.avention.com.
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Please keep the comment tracking
number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or postal mail.
Comments and documents submitted
via email, hand delivery/courier, or
postal mail also will be posted to
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via postal mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and
that are free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email two well-marked
copies: one copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted. DOE
will make its own determination about
the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
B. Public Meeting
If DOE withdraws the direct final rule
published elsewhere in this Federal
Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public
meeting to allow for additional
comment on this proposed rule. DOE
will publish notice of any meeting in
the Federal Register.
NEMA MG 1–2016 was previously
approved for incorporation by reference
in the section where it appears in this
proposed rule and no change to the
standard is made.
VI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of proposed
rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35777
information, Energy conservation test
procedures, Incorporation by reference,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on May 1, 2023, by
Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 5, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
431 of chapter II of title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
2. Amend § 431.12 by adding, in
alphabetical order, definitions for
‘‘Specialized frame size’’ and ‘‘Standard
frame size,’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 431.12
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Specialized frame size means an
electric motor frame size for which the
rated output power of the motor exceeds
the motor frame size limits specified for
standard frame size. Specialized frame
sizes have maximum diameters
corresponding to the following NEMA
Frame Sizes:
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
35778
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Maximum NEMA frame diameters
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent
2 Pole
Enclosed
1/.75 .........................................................................
1.5/1.1 ......................................................................
2/1.5 .........................................................................
3/2.2 .........................................................................
5/3.7 .........................................................................
7.5/5.5 ......................................................................
10/7.5 .......................................................................
15/11 ........................................................................
20/15 ........................................................................
Standard frame size means a motor
frame size that aligns with the
specifications in NEMA MG 1–2016,
section 13.2 for open motors, and
NEMA MG 1–2016, section 13.3 for
enclosed motors (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.15).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 431.25 by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (h) introductory
text; and
■ b. Adding paragraphs (m) through (r).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
§ 431.25 Energy conservation standards
and effective dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Each NEMA Design A motor,
NEMA Design B motor, and IEC Design
N (including NE, NEY, or NY variants)
motor that is an electric motor meeting
the criteria in paragraph (g) of this
section and with a power rating from 1
horsepower through 500 horsepower,
but excluding fire pump electric motors,
manufactured (alone or as a component
48
48
48
140
140
180
180
210
210
4 Pole
Open
Enclosed
..............
48
48
48
140
140
180
180
210
48
48
48
140
140
180
180
210
210
6 Pole
Open
48
48
48
140
140
180
180
210
210
of another piece of equipment) on or
after June 1, 2016, but before [date 4
years after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], shall have
a nominal full-load efficiency of not less
than the following:
*
*
*
*
*
(m) The standards in tables 8 through
10 of this section apply only to electric
motors, including partial electric
motors, that satisfy the following
criteria:
(1) Are single-speed, induction
motors;
(2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG
1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
(3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or
cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Operate on polyphase alternating
current 60-hertz sinusoidal line power;
(5) Are rated 600 volts or less;
(6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole
configuration;
(7) Are built in a three-digit or fourdigit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
equivalent), including those designs
between two consecutive NEMA frame
8 Pole
Enclosed
Open
Enclosed
Open
48
140
140
180
180
210
210
................
................
48
140
140
180
180
210
210
..............
..............
140
140
180
180
210
210
................
................
................
140
140
180
180
210
210
..............
..............
..............
sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an
enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC
metric equivalent);
(8) Produce at least one horsepower
(0.746 kW) but not greater than 750
horsepower (559 kW); and
(9) Meet all of the performance
requirements of one of the following
motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or
C motor or an IEC Design N, NE, NEY,
NY or H, HE, HEY, HY motor.
(n) Starting on [date 4 years after date
of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], each NEMA Design A
motor, NEMA Design B motor, and IEC
Design N (including NE, NEY, or NY
variants) motor that is an electric motor
meeting the criteria in paragraph (m) of
this section and with a power rating
from 1 horsepower through 750
horsepower, but excluding fire pump
electric motors and air-over electric
motors, manufactured (alone or as a
component of another piece of
equipment) shall have a nominal fullload efficiency of not less than the
following:
TABLE 8 TO PARAGRAPH (n)—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN A, NEMA DESIGN B AND IEC DESIGN N, NE, NEY OR NY MOTORS (EXCLUDING FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS AND AIR-OVER ELECTRIC MOTORS)
AT 60 HZ
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent
2 Pole
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Enclosed
1/.75 .........................................................................
1.5/1.1 ......................................................................
2/1.5 .........................................................................
3/2.2 .........................................................................
5/3.7 .........................................................................
7.5/5.5 ......................................................................
10/7.5 .......................................................................
15/11 ........................................................................
20/15 ........................................................................
25/18.5 .....................................................................
30/22 ........................................................................
40/30 ........................................................................
50/37 ........................................................................
60/45 ........................................................................
75/55 ........................................................................
100/75 ......................................................................
125/90 ......................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
77.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
95.0
95.4
Frm 00014
4 Pole
Open
Enclosed
77.0
84.0
85.5
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.5
94.5
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.4
96.2
96.2
6 Pole
Open
Enclosed
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
96.2
96.2
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
82.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.8
95.8
01JNP1
8 Pole
Open
82.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.8
95.8
Enclosed
75.5
78.5
84.0
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
92.4
93.6
94.5
95.0
Open
75.5
77.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
94.1
95.0
95.0
35779
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8 TO PARAGRAPH (n)—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN A, NEMA DESIGN B AND IEC DESIGN N, NE, NEY OR NY MOTORS (EXCLUDING FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS AND AIR-OVER ELECTRIC MOTORS)
AT 60 HZ—Continued
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent
2 Pole
Enclosed
150/110
200/150
250/186
300/224
350/261
400/298
450/336
500/373
550/410
600/447
650/485
700/522
750/559
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
(o) Starting on [date 4 years after date
of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], each NEMA Design A
motor, NEMA Design B motor, and IEC
Design N (including NE, NEY, or NY
variants) motor that is an air-over
4 Pole
Open
95.4
95.8
96.2
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
Enclosed
94.5
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
6 Pole
Open
96.2
96.5
96.5
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
95.8
95.8
95.8
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
8 Pole
Enclosed
Open
Enclosed
Open
96.2
96.2
96.2
95.8
95.8
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
95.8
95.8
96.2
95.8
95.8
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
95.0
95.4
95.4
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
95.0
95.0
95.4
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
(alone or as a component of another
piece of equipment) shall have a
nominal full-load efficiency of not less
than the following:
electric motor meeting the criteria in
paragraph (m) of this section and with
a power rating from 1 horsepower
through 250 horsepower, built in a
standard frame size, but excluding fire
pump electric motors, manufactured
TABLE 9 TO PARAGRAPH (o)—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN A, NEMA DESIGN B AND IEC DESIGN N, NE, NEY OR NY STANDARD FRAME SIZE AIR-OVER ELECTRIC MOTORS (EXCLUDING FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC
MOTORS) AT 60 HZ
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent
2 Pole
Enclosed
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1/.75 .........................................................................
1.5/1.1 ......................................................................
2/1.5 .........................................................................
3/2.2 .........................................................................
5/3.7 .........................................................................
7.5/5.5 ......................................................................
10/7.5 .......................................................................
15/11 ........................................................................
20/15 ........................................................................
25/18.5 .....................................................................
30/22 ........................................................................
40/30 ........................................................................
50/37 ........................................................................
60/45 ........................................................................
75/55 ........................................................................
100/75 ......................................................................
125/90 ......................................................................
150/110 ....................................................................
200/150 ....................................................................
250/186 ....................................................................
(p) Starting on [date 4 years after date
of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], each NEMA Design A
motor, NEMA Design B motor, and IEC
Design N (including NE, NEY, or NY
variants) motor that is an air-over
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
77.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
4 Pole
Open
Enclosed
77.0
84.0
85.5
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.5
94.5
94.5
95.4
95.4
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.4
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.5
96.5
6 Pole
Open
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
electric motor meeting the criteria in
paragraph (m) of this section and with
a power rating from 1 horsepower
through 20 horsepower, built in a
specialized frame size, but excluding
fire pump electric motors, manufactured
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Enclosed
82.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.8
95.8
96.2
96.2
96.2
8 Pole
Open
82.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
96.2
Enclosed
75.5
78.5
84.0
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
92.4
93.6
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
Open
75.5
77.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.4
(alone or as a component of another
piece of equipment) shall have a
nominal full-load efficiency of not less
than the following:
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
35780
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10 TO PARAGRAPH (p)—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN A, NEMA DESIGN B AND IEC DESIGN N, NE, NEY OR NY SPECIALIZED FRAME SIZE AIR-OVER ELECTRIC MOTORS (EXCLUDING FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC
MOTORS) AT 60 HZ
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent
2 Pole
Enclosed
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1/.75 .........................................................................
1.5/1.1 ......................................................................
2/1.5 .........................................................................
3/2.2 .........................................................................
5/3.7 .........................................................................
7.5/5.5 ......................................................................
10/7.5 .......................................................................
15/11 ........................................................................
20/15 ........................................................................
(q) For purposes of determining the
required minimum nominal full-load
efficiency of an electric motor that has
a horsepower or kilowatt rating between
two horsepower or two kilowatt ratings
listed in any table of energy
conservation standards in paragraphs
(n) through (p) through of this section,
each such motor shall be deemed to
have a listed horsepower or kilowatt
rating, determined as follows:
(1) A horsepower at or above the
midpoint between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded up to the
higher of the two horsepowers;
(2) A horsepower below the midpoint
between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded down to
the lower of the two horsepowers; or
(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly
converted from kilowatts to horsepower
using the formula 1 kilowatt = (1⁄0.746)
horsepower. The conversion should be
calculated to three significant decimal
places, and the resulting horsepower
shall be rounded in accordance with
paragraphs (q)(1) or (2) of this section,
whichever applies.
(r) The standards in tables 8 through
10 of this section do not apply to the
following electric motors exempted by
the Secretary, or any additional electric
motors that the Secretary may exempt:
(1) Component sets of an electric
motor;
(2) Liquid-cooled electric motors;
(3) Submersible electric motors; and
(4) Inverter-only electric motors.
[FR Doc. 2023–10018 Filed 5–31–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
4 Pole
Open
74.0
82.5
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
Enclosed
..............
82.5
84.0
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
82.5
84.0
84.0
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
6 Pole
Open
82.5
84.0
84.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY
12 CFR Part 1236
RIN 2590–AB10
Prudential Management and
Operations Standards
Federal Housing Finance
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.
AGENCY:
The Federal Housing Finance
Agency (FHFA) is correcting inadvertent
typographical errors in the preamble
published in the Federal Register on
May 4, 2023, regarding amendments to
its regulation governing prudential
management and operations standards
(the regulation) to correct certain
references made to the proposed rule
that should have been references to the
existing regulation that FHFA is
proposing to amend. There are no
corrections to the proposed
amendments to the regulation text or to
the appendix.
DATES: The comments due date remains
July 3, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clinton Jones, General Counsel, (202)
649–3006, Clinton.Jones@fhfa.gov; or
Francisco Medina, Assistant General
Counsel, (202) 649–3076,
Francisco.Medina@fhfa.gov. These are
not toll-free numbers. The mailing
address is: Federal Housing Finance
Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW,
Washington, DC 20219. For TTY/TRS
users with hearing and speech
disabilities, dial 711 and ask to be
connected to any of the contact numbers
above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
On May 4, 2023, FHFA published in
the Federal Register a proposed rule to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 May 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
8 Pole
Enclosed
Open
Enclosed
Open
80.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
................
................
80.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
90.2
..............
..............
74.0
77.0
82.5
84.0
85.5
85.5
................
................
................
74.0
75.5
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
..............
..............
..............
amend its regulation governing
prudential management and operations
standards, located at 12 CFR part 1236.
See 88 FR 28433. The preamble
discussion contains inadvertent
typographical errors in reference to the
regulation in sections II. and III.E.
Sections II, and III.E. of the preamble
discussions, therefore, should have
referenced ‘‘the regulation’’ instead of
‘‘the proposed rule’’. There are no
corrections to the proposed
amendments to the regulation text in 12
CFR 1236 or to its appendix. For
additional details on the proposed
rulemaking, please see the May 4, 2023,
Federal Register publication at 88 FR
28433.
II. Correction of Errors in the Preamble
In the proposed rule document FR
Doc. 2023–09320 of May 4, 2023 (88 FR
28433), the following corrections are
made:
1. On page 28433, in the right column,
second full paragraph, lines 1, 13–14,
the phrase ‘‘The proposed rule’’ is
corrected to read ‘‘The regulation’’.
2. On page 28434, in the left column,
in the first full paragraph, lines 1, 11,
14, 19–20, 24, the words ‘‘proposed
rule’’ are corrected to read ‘‘regulation’’.
3. On page 28434, in the left column,
in the second full paragraph, line 1, the
words ‘‘proposed rule’’ are corrected to
read ‘‘regulation’’.
4. On page 28436, in the left column,
second full paragraph, line 18, the
words ‘‘proposed rule’’ are corrected to
read ‘‘regulation’’.
Sandra L. Thompson,
Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023–11604 Filed 5–31–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8070–01–P
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35765-35780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10018]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 35765]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007]
RIN 1904-AE63
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Electric Motors
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including electric
motors. In this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation
standards for electric motors identical to those set forth in a direct
final rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register. If DOE
receives an adverse comment and determines that such comment may
provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule, DOE
will publish a notice withdrawing the direct final rule and will
proceed with this proposed rule.
DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this NOPR no later than September 19, 2023.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before July 3, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007, by any of the
following methods:
Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number
EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007 in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza, SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section V of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section V of this document for information on how to submit comments
through www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Division at [email protected] on or
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this
proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Matthew Ring, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-2555. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
III. Proposed Standards
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Electric Motor
Standards
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate
[[Page 35766]]
the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of
EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317). Such equipment includes electric
motors, the subject of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any
final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either
a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to
be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
Elsewhere in this Federal Register, DOE is issuing a direct final
rule amending the energy conservation standards for electric motors,
along with this proposed rule as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)(i)) The amended standard levels in that document were
submitted in a joint recommendation (the ``November 2022 Joint
Recommendation'') \3\ by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (``ACEEE''), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (``ASAP''),
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (``NEMA''), Natural
Resources Defense Council (``NRDC''), Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (``NEEA''), Pacific Gas & Electric Company (``PG&E''), San
Diego Gas & Electric (``SDG&E''), and Southern California Edison
(``SCE''), hereinafter referred to as ``the Electric Motors Working
Group.'' In a letter comment submitted December 12, 2022, the New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority (``NYSERDA'') expressed
its support of the November 2022 Joint Recommendation and urged DOE to
implement it in a timely manner. DOE has determined that the November
2022 Joint Recommendation complies with the requirements of EPCA for
issuance of a direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Joint comment response to the published Notification of a
webinar and availability of preliminary technical support document;
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes new and amended energy conservation
standards for electric motors. The proposed standards, which are
expressed in full-load efficiency, are shown in Table I.1, Table I.2
and Table I.3.
Table I.1--Proposed Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or
NY Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors and Air-Over Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75....................... 77.0 77.0 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5
1.5/1.1..................... 84.0 84.0 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0
2/1.5....................... 85.5 85.5 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5
3/2.2....................... 86.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5
5/3.7....................... 88.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5
7.5/5.5..................... 89.5 88.5 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5
10/7.5...................... 90.2 89.5 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2
15/11....................... 91.0 90.2 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
20/15....................... 91.0 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0
25/18.5..................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0
30/22....................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7
40/30....................... 92.4 92.4 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7
50/37....................... 93.0 93.0 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4
60/45....................... 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0
75/55....................... 93.6 93.6 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1
100/75...................... 95.0 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 94.5 95.0
125/90...................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
150/110..................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.0 95.0
200/150..................... 95.8 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.4 95.0
250/186..................... 96.2 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.4 95.4
300/224..................... 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ......... ........
350/261..................... 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ......... ........
400/298..................... 95.8 95.8 96.2 95.8 ......... ........ ......... ........
450/336..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
500/373..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
550/410..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
600/447..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
650/485..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
700/522..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
750/559..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35767]]
Table I.2--Proposed Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or
NY Standard Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75....................... 77.0 77.0 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5
1.5/1.1..................... 84.0 84.0 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0
2/1.5....................... 85.5 85.5 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5
3/2.2....................... 86.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5
5/3.7....................... 88.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5
7.5/5.5..................... 89.5 88.5 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5
10/7.5...................... 90.2 89.5 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2
15/11....................... 91.0 90.2 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
20/15....................... 91.0 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0
25/18.5..................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0
30/22....................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7
40/30....................... 92.4 92.4 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7
50/37....................... 93.0 93.0 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4
60/45....................... 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0
75/55....................... 93.6 93.6 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1
100/75...................... 95.0 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 94.5 95.0
125/90...................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
150/110..................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.0 95.0
200/150..................... 95.8 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.4 95.0
250/186..................... 96.2 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.4 95.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I.3--Proposed Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or
NY Specialized Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75....................... 74.0 ........ 82.5 82.5 80.0 80.0 74.0 74.0
1.5/1.1..................... 82.5 82.5 84.0 84.0 85.5 84.0 77.0 75.5
2/1.5....................... 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 86.5 85.5 82.5 85.5
3/2.2....................... 85.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 84.0 86.5
5/3.7....................... 87.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 87.5
7.5/5.5..................... 88.5 87.5 89.5 88.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 88.5
10/7.5...................... 89.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 90.2 ......... ........
15/11....................... 90.2 89.5 91.0 91.0 ......... ........ ......... ........
20/15....................... 90.2 90.2 91.0 91.0 ......... ........ ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
electric motors.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C \4\ of EPCA added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve the energy efficiency of certain types
of industrial equipment, including electric motors, the subject of this
proposed rule. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). The Energy Policy Act of 1992
(``EPACT 1992'') (Pub. L. 102-486 (Oct. 24, 1992)) further amended EPCA
by establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures for
certain commercial and industrial electric motors that are manufactured
alone or as a component of another piece of equipment. In December
2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(``EISA 2007'') (Pub. L. 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007)). Section 313(b)(1) of
EISA 2007 updated the energy conservation standards for those electric
motors already covered by EPCA and established energy conservation
standards for a larger scope of motors not previously covered by
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) EISA 2007 also revised certain
statutory definitions related to electric motors. See EISA 2007, sec.
313 (amending statutory definitions related to electric motors at 42
U.S.C. 6311(13)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314),
[[Page 35768]]
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42; U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption
waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers
of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis
for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the
applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations
about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment
complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for electric motors
appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part
431, subpart B, appendix B.
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment, including electric motors. Any
new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary
of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would
not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain
products, including electric motors, if no test procedure has been
established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the
standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a
proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether
the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the
standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable,
water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'')
considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary
may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any
covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United
States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of products that has the same function or intended use, if DOE
determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE
authority to issue a final rule (i.e., a ``direct final rule'')
establishing an energy conservation standard on receipt of a statement
submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative
of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers
of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined
by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with respect to an
energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine whether a jointly-
submitted recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard
satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.
The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a NOPR
that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is
identical
[[Page 35769]]
to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must
provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Based on the comments received during
this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE
will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if (1) one
or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those
comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the
direct final rule, provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), or
any other applicable law. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an
alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the same manner. Id. After withdrawing a
direct final rule, DOE must proceed with the notice of proposed
rulemaking published simultaneously with the direct final rule and
publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule
was withdrawn. Id.
Typical of other rulemakings, it is the substance, rather than the
quantity, of comments that will ultimately determine whether a direct
final rule will be withdrawn. To this end, the substance of any adverse
comment(s) received will be weighed against the anticipated benefits of
the jointly-submitted recommendations and the likelihood that further
consideration of the comment(s) would change the results of the
rulemaking. DOE notes that, to the extent an adverse comment had been
previously raised and addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a
submission will not typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a
direct final rule.
B. Background
In the May 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI, DOE stated that it was
initiating an early assessment review to determine whether any new or
amended standards would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a
new or amended energy conservation standard for electric motors and
sought information related to that effort. Specifically, DOE sought
data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether
DOE should propose a ``no new standard'' determination because a more
stringent standard: (1) would not result in a significant savings of
energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically
justified; or (4) any combination of the foregoing. 85 FR 30878, 30879.
On March 2, 2022, DOE published the preliminary analysis for
electric motors. 87 FR 11650 (``March 2022 Preliminary Analysis''). In
conjunction with the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE published a
technical support document (``March 2022 Prelim TSD'') which presented
the results of the in-depth technical analyses in the following areas:
(1) Engineering; (2) markups to determine equipment price; (3) energy
use; (4) life cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP''); and
(5) national impacts. The results presented included the current scope
of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, in addition to an
expanded scope of motors, including electric motors above 500
horsepower, air-over electric motors, and small, non-small-electric-
motor, electric motors (``SNEM''). See Chapter 2 of the March 2022
Prelim TSD.
By letter dated on November 15, 2022, DOE received a joint
recommendation for energy conservation standards for electric motors
(``November 2022 Joint Recommendation''). The November 2022 Joint
Recommendation represented the motors industry, energy efficiency
organizations and utilities (collectively, ``the Electric Motors
Working Group'').\5\ The November 2022 Joint Recommendation addressed
energy conservation standards for medium electric motors that are 1-750
hp and polyphase, and air-over medium electric motors. On December 9,
2022, DOE received a supplemental letter to the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation from the Electric Motors Working Group. The supplemental
letter provided additional guidance on the recommended levels for open
medium electric motors rated 100 hp to 250 hp, and a recommended
compliance date for standards presented in the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation. A summary of the specific recommendations contained in
the November 2022 Joint Recommendation may be found in the direct final
rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The members of the Electric Motors Working Group included
ACEEE, ASAP, NEMA, NRDC, NEEA, PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After carefully considering the November 2022 Joint Recommendation
and supplement for amending the energy conservation standards for
electric motors submitted by the Electric Motors Working Group, DOE has
determined that these recommendations are in accordance with the
statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a
direct final rule.
More specifically, these recommendations comprise a statement
submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of
relevant points of view on this matter. In appendix A to subpart C of
10 CFR part 430 (``appendix A''), DOE explained that to be ``fairly
representative of relevant points of view,'' the group submitting a
joint statement must, where appropriate, include larger concerns and
small business in the regulated industry/manufacturer community, energy
advocates, energy utilities, consumers, and States. However, it will be
necessary to evaluate the meaning of ``fairly representative'' on a
case-by-case basis, subject to the circumstances of a particular
rulemaking, to determine whether fewer or additional parties must be
part of a joint statement in order to be ``fairly representative of
relevant points of view.'' Section 10 of appendix A. In reaching this
determination, DOE took into consideration the fact that the Joint
Recommendation was signed and submitted by a broad cross-section of
interests, including a manufacturers' trade association, environmental
and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, and electric utility
companies. NYSERDA, a state organization, also submitted a letter
supporting the Joint Recommendation. DOE notes that these organizations
include the relevant points of view specifically identified by
Congress: manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency
advocates. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A))
DOE has evaluated the November 2022 Joint Recommendation and
believes that it meets the EPCA requirements for issuance of a direct
final rule. As a result, DOE published a direct final rule establishing
energy conservation standards for electric motors elsewhere in this
Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse comments that may provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal and withdraws the direct final rule,
DOE will consider those comments and any other comments received in
determining how to proceed with this proposed rule.
For further background information on these proposed standards and
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this Federal Register. That document, and the accompanying
technical support document (``TSD''), include additional discussion of
the EPCA requirements for promulgation of energy conservation
standards; the history of the standards rulemaking for electric motors;
and information on the test procedures used to measure the energy
[[Page 35770]]
efficiency of electric motors. Those documents also contain an in-depth
discussion of the analyses conducted in support of this proposed
rulemaking, the methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses,
and the analytical results.
III. Proposed Standards
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Electric Motor Standards
Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize the quantitative impacts
estimated for each TSL for electric motors. The national impacts are
measured over the lifetime of electric motors purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended
standards (2027-2056). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and
value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results.
Table III.1--Summary of Analytical Results for Electric Motors TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads....................................................... 0.1 3.0 10.4 23.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)................................... 4.42 91.69 319.24 725.80
CH4 (thousand tons)......................................... 32.75 690.10 2,379.75 5,415.99
N2O (thousand tons)......................................... 0.04 0.82 2.90 6.59
NOX (thousand tons)......................................... 7.13 148.74 516.00 1,173.58
SO2 (thousand tons)......................................... 1.71 35.12 122.75 278.95
Hg (tons)................................................... 0.01 0.23 0.80 1.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings............................. 0.51 8.82 34.86 73.26
Climate Benefits *.......................................... 0.19 3.14 13.49 30.07
Health Benefits **.......................................... 0.33 5.72 23.16 51.90
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................... 1.04 17.68 71.50 155.23
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]................. 0.18 1.35 39.70 84.56
Consumer Net Benefits....................................... 0.33 7.47 -4.85 -11.30
Total Net Benefits.......................................... 0.85 16.33 31.80 70.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings............................. 0.21 2.95 13.44 27.14
Climate Benefits *.......................................... 0.19 3.14 13.49 30.07
Health Benefits **.......................................... 0.12 1.76 8.19 18.13
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................... 0.53 7.85 35.11 75.34
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]................. 0.10 0.72 21.03 44.80
Consumer Net Benefits....................................... 0.11 2.23 -7.60 -17.67
Total Net Benefits.......................................... 0.43 7.13 14.08 30.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2027-2056. These
results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together,
these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated
with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single
central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted
the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary
injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's
order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined
the defendants in that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim
estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the
injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes
the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
Table III.2--Summary of Analytical Results for Electric Motor TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2021$) (No-new- 4,896-4,899 4,690-4,720 3,659-4,681 (6,066)-(3,840)
standards case INPV = 5,023).......
Industry NPV (% change)............. (2.5) (6.6)-(6.0) (27.2)-(6.8) (220.8)-(176.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35771]]
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RU1................................. N/A N/A -101.8 -276.4
RU2................................. N/A N/A -336.9 -309.4
RU3................................. N/A N/A -916.7 -1,439.6
RU4................................. N/A 567.1 567.1 -2,541.1
RU5................................. N/A N/A -945.5 -5,257.2
RU6................................. 2,550.1 2,550.1 -2,287.8 -6,710.3
RU7................................. 57.6 57.6 -39.2 -156.5
RU8................................. 472.4 472.4 -160.8 -105.5
RU9 *............................... ................. ................. -930.5 -1,795.0
RU10................................ 608.8 930.7 930.7 -1,846.6
RU11................................ 49.9 49.9 2.5 -153.2
Shipment-Weighted Average **........ 159.8 337.4 -196.2 -404.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Simple PBP (Years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RU1................................. N/A N/A 16.7 20.3
RU2................................. N/A N/A 15.4 11.9
RU3................................. N/A N/A 30.2 20.6
RU4................................. N/A 4.1 4.1 18.1
RU5................................. N/A N/A 11.8 17.7
RU6................................. 3.7 3.7 9.6 12.6
RU7................................. 4.0 4.0 6.5 9.0
RU8................................. 1.6 1.6 5.9 6.1
RU9 *............................... ................. ................. 9.0 10.6
RU10................................ 6.1 4.9 4.9 10.1
RU11................................ 4.1 4.1 5.6 7.9
Shipment-Weighted Average **........ 3.8 3.9 15.6 16.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RU1................................. N/A N/A 64.1 95.9
RU2................................. N/A N/A 82.2 75.0
RU3................................. N/A N/A 88.4 90.5
RU4................................. N/A 20.2 20.2 89.1
RU5................................. N/A N/A 66.9 89.0
RU6................................. 2.1 2.1 58.3 83.2
RU7................................. 10.3 10.3 62.9 80.7
RU8................................. 0.9 0.9 73.9 64.5
RU9 *............................... ................. ................. 99.9 96.4
RU10................................ 6.3 11.7 11.7 79.0
RU11................................ 32.1 32.1 53.4 74.5
Shipment-Weighted Average **........ 10.9 14.9 70.6 86.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entry ``N/A'' means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain TSLs.
* No impact because there are no shipments below the efficiency level corresponding to TSL1 and TSL2 for RU9.
** Weighted by shares of each equipment class in total projected shipments in 2027 for impacted consumers.
DOE first considered TSL 4, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels. At this level, DOE expects that all equipment
classes would require 35H210 silicon steel and die-cast copper rotors.
DOE estimates that approximately 0.34 percent of annual shipments
across all electric motor equipment classes currently meet the max-tech
efficiencies required. TSL 4 would save an estimated 23.6 quads of
energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of
consumer benefit would be -$17.67 billion using a discount rate of 7
percent, and -$11.30 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 725.80 Mt of
CO2, 278.95 thousand tons of SO2, 1,173.58
thousand tons of NOX, 1.82 tons of Hg, 5,415.99 thousand
tons of CH4, and 6.59 thousand tons of N2O. The
estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG
emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount
rate) at TSL 4 is $30.07 billion. The estimated monetary value of the
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions at TSL 4 is $18.13 billion using a 7-percent discount rate
and $51.90 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $30.54
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $70.67 billion.
At TSL 4, for the largest equipment class group and horsepower
ranges, which are represented by RU1 and RU2, which together represent
approximately 90 percent of annual shipments, there is a life cycle
cost savings of -$276.4 and -$309.4 and a payback period of 20.3 years
and 11.9 years, respectively. For these equipment classes, the fraction
of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 95.9 percent and 75.0
percent due to increases in total installed cost of $434.7 and
$1,003.0, respectively. Overall, for the remaining equipment class
groups
[[Page 35772]]
and horsepower ranges, a majority of electric motor consumers (84.5
percent) would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings would
be negative for all remaining equipment class groups and horsepower
ranges.
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$11,090 million to a decrease of $8,863 million, which corresponds to
decreases of 220.8 percent and 176.4 percent, respectively. DOE
estimates that industry must invest $13,516 million to comply with
standards set at TSL 4. The significant increase in product and capital
conversion costs is because DOE assumes that electric motor
manufacturers will need to use die-cast copper rotors for most, if not
all, electric motors manufactured to meet this TSL. This technology
requires a significant level of investment because almost all existing
electric motor production machinery would need to be replaced or
significantly modified. Based on the shipments analysis used in the
NIA, DOE estimates that approximately 0.3 percent of all electric motor
shipments will meet the efficiency levels required at TSL 4, in the no-
new-standards case in 2027, the compliance year of new and amended
standards.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 4 for electric motors, the
benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and the estimated
monetary value of the emissions reductions are outweighed by the
negative NPV of consumer benefits, economic burden on many consumers,
and the impacts on manufacturers, including the extremely large
conversion costs, profit margin impacts that will result in a negative
INPV, and the lack of manufacturers currently offering products meeting
the efficiency levels required at this TSL. A majority of electric
motor consumers (86.3 percent) would experience a net cost and the
average LCC savings for each representative unit DOE examined is
negative. In both manufacturer markup scenarios, INPV is negative at
TSL 4, which implies that manufacturers would never recover the
conversion costs they must make to produce electric motors at TSL 4.
Consequently, the Secretary concludes that TSL 4 is not economically
justified.
DOE then considered TSL 3, which represents a level corresponding
to the IE4 level, except for AO-polyphase specialized frame size
electric motors, where it corresponds to a lower level of efficiency
(i.e., NEMA Premium level). TSL 3 would save an estimated 10.4 quads of
energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of
consumer benefit would be -$7.60 billion using a discount rate of 7
percent, and -$4.85 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 319.24 Mt of
CO2, 122.75 thousand tons of SO2, 516.00 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.80 tons of Hg, 2,379.75 thousand tons of
CH4, and 2.90 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 3 is $13.49 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 3 is 8.19 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $23.16
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $14.08
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $31.80 billion.
At TSL 3, for the largest equipment class group and horsepower
ranges, which are represented by RU1 and RU2, there is a life cycle
cost savings of -$101.8 and -$336.9 and a payback period of 16.7 and
15.4, respectively.\6\ For these equipment classes, the fraction of
customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 64.1 percent and 82.2 percent
due to increases in total installed cost of $171.3 and $690.5,
respectively. Overall, for the remaining equipment class groups and
horsepower ranges, a majority of electric motor consumers (55.5
percent) would experience a net cost and the shipments-weighted average
LCC savings would be negative for all remaining equipment class groups
and horsepower ranges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For RU1 and RU2, EL1 = EL2. See section IV.C.1.c. of the
associated direct final rule published elsewhere in this Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$1,364 million to a decrease of $342 million, which correspond to
decreases of 27.2 percent and 6.8 percent, respectively. DOE estimates
that industry must invest $1,618 million to comply with standards set
at TSL 3. Based on the shipments analysis used in the NIA, DOE
estimates that approximately 13.3 percent of all electric motor
shipments will meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 3,
in the no-new-standards case in 2027, the compliance year of new and
amended standards.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 3 for electric motors, the
benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and the estimated
monetary value of the emissions reductions are outweighed by the
negative NPV of consumer benefits, economic burden on many consumers,
and the impacts on manufacturers, including the large conversion costs,
profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV,
and the lack of manufacturers currently offering products meeting the
efficiency levels required at this TSL. A majority of electric motor
consumers (70.6 percent) would experience a net cost and the average
LCC savings would be negative. The potential reduction in INPV could be
as high as 27.2 percent. Consequently, the Secretary concludes that TSL
3 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 2, the standard levels recommended in the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation by the Electric Motors Working
Group. TSL 2 would also align with the EU Ecodesign Directive 2019/
1781, which requires IE4 levels for 75-200 kW motors.\7\ TSL 2 would
save an estimated 3.0 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers
significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $2.23
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $7.47 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In terms of standardized horsepowers, this would correspond
to 100-250 hp when applying the from 10 CFR 431.25(k) (and new 10
CFR 431.25(q)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 91.69 Mt of
CO2, 35.12 thousand tons of SO2, 148.74 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.23 tons of Hg, 690.10 thousand tons of
CH4, and 0.82 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 2 is $3.14 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 2 is $1.76 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $5.72
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $7.13
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $16.33 billion.
At TSL 2, for the largest equipment class group and horsepower
ranges, which are represented by RU1 and RU2, there would be no changes
in the standards. Overall, for the remaining
[[Page 35773]]
equipment class groups and horsepower ranges, 14.9 percent of electric
motor consumers would experience a net cost and the shipments-weighted
average LCC savings would be positive for all remaining equipment class
groups and horsepower ranges.
At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$333 million to a decrease of $303 million, which correspond to
decreases of 6.6 percent and 6.0 percent, respectively. DOE estimates
that industry must invest $468 million to comply with standards set at
TSL 2. Based on the shipments analysis used in the NIA, DOE estimates
that approximately 96.2 percent of all electric motor shipments will
meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 2, in the no-new-
standards case in 2027, the compliance year of new and amended
standards.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens, the Secretary concludes that a standard set at TSL 2 for
electric motors would be economically justified. At this TSL, the
average LCC savings is positive. Only an estimated 14.9 percent of
electric motor consumers experience a net cost. The FFC national energy
savings are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive
using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the
benefits to consumers vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers.
Notably, at TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the
more conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 6 times higher
than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard
levels at TSL 2 are economically justified even without weighing the
estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions
reductions are included--representing $3.14 billion in climate benefits
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and
$5.72 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $1.76 billion (using
a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--the rationale becomes
stronger still.
As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under
EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative
analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of
energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically
justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 70892, 70908.
Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select the
energy conservation standards, DOE notes that as compared to TSL 3 and
TSL 4, TSL 2 has higher average LCC savings for consumers,
significantly smaller percentages of electric motor consumers
experiencing a net cost, a lower maximum decrease in INPV, and lower
manufacturer conversion costs.
Although DOE considered amended standard levels for electric motors
by grouping the efficiency levels for each equipment class groups and
horsepower ranges into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency
levels in its analysis. For all equipment class groups and horsepower
ranges, TSL 2 represents the maximum energy savings that does not
result in the majority of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost. The
ELs at the proposed TSL result in average positive LCC savings for all
equipment class groups and horsepower ranges, significantly reduce the
number of consumers experiencing a net cost, and reduce the decrease in
INPV and conversion costs to the point where DOE has concluded they are
economically justified, as discussed for TSL 2 in the preceding
paragraphs.
Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to
adopt the energy conservation standards for electric motors at TSL 2.
The proposed amended energy conservation standards for electric motors,
which are expressed as full-load efficiency, are shown in Table I.1,
Table I.2, and Table I.3.
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2021$) of the
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy,
minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized
monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission
reductions.
Table III.3 shows the annualized values for electric motors under
TSL 2, expressed in 2021$. The results under the primary estimate are
as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
standards for electric motors is $62.1 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $254.8 million
from reduced equipment operating costs, $164.8 million from GHG
reductions, and $151.4 million from reduced NOX and
SO2 emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to
$508.9 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the standards for electric motors is $71.0 million
per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $463.6 million in reduced operating costs, $164.8 million
from GHG reductions, and $300.7 million from reduced NOX and
SO2 emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to
$858.2 million per year.
Table III.3--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors
[TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2021$/year
--------------------------------------------------------
Low-net-benefits High-net-benefits
Primary estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 463.6 405.1 542.9
Climate Benefits*...................................... 164.8 148.0 186.5
Health Benefits**...................................... 300.7 269.5 341.0
Total Benefits [dagger]................................ 929.1 822.5 1070.4
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger].......... 71.0 73.7 73.0
[[Page 35774]]
Net Benefits........................................... 858.2 748.8 997.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 254.8 225.3 293.6
Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate)................... 164.8 148.0 186.5
Health Benefits **..................................... 151.4 137.1 169.5
Total Benefits [dagger]................................ 571.0 510.4 649.6
Consumer Incremental Product Costs..................... 62.1 63.8 63.9
Net Benefits........................................... 508.9 446.6 585.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2027-2056. These
results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056. The
Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the
AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition,
incremental equipment costs reflect a constant rate in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low Net
Benefits Estimate, and a declining rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive
projected price trends are explained in section IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may
not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-
GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal
government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the
absence of further intervening court orders, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and
presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule, except for
the Regulatory Flexibility Act discussed in section IV.A, are identical
to those conducted for the direct final rule published elsewhere in
this Federal Register. Please see the direct final rule for further
details.
A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and
policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of
its rules on small entities are properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website
(www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has prepared the
following IRFA for the products that are the subject of this proposed
rulemaking.
For manufacturers of electric motors, the SBA has set a size
threshold, which defines those entities classified as ``small
businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small
business size standards to determine whether any small entities would
be subject to the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The
size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification
System (``NAICS'') code and industry description and are available at
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. Manufacturing of
electric motors is classified under NAICS 335312, ``Motor and Generator
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer
for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of
any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish
either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not
need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).
(42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Additionally, under the
authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing a direct
final rule establishing energy conservation standards for electric
motors These standard levels were submitted jointly to DOE on November
15, 2022, by groups representing manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, and consumer groups (the Electric Motors
Working Group).\8\ This collective set of
[[Page 35775]]
comments, the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, recommends specific
energy conservation standards for electric motors that DOE has
determined satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Electric Motors working Group includes the American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (``ACEEE''), Appliance
Standards Awareness Project (``ASAP''), National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (``NEMA''), Natural Resources Defense
Council (``NRDC''), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (``NEEA''),
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (``PG&E''), San Diego Gas & Electric
(``SDG&E''), and Southern California Edison (``SCE''). In a letter
comment submitted December 12, 2022, the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority (``NYSERDA'') expressed its
support of the November 2022 Joint Recommendation and urged DOE to
implement it in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C \9\ of EPCA added by Pub. L. 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve the energy efficiency of certain types
of industrial equipment, including electric motors, the subject of this
proposed rule. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). DOE has previously established
energy conservation standards for electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25.
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish
either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not
need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new
proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE must follow
specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards
for covered equipment, including electric motors. Any new or amended
standard for a covered equipment must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
As noted previously, DOE has the authority to issue a final rule (i.e.,
a ``direct final rule'') establishing an energy conservation standard
on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that
are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and
efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary, that contains
recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation
standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C.
6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignaated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
To estimate the number of companies that could be small business
manufacturers of electric motors covered by this proposed rulemaking,
DOE conducted a market survey using publicly available information.
DOE's research involved DOE's publicly available Compliance
Certification Database (``CCD''), industry trade association membership
directories (including NEMA), and information from previous
rulemakings. DOE also asked stakeholders and industry representatives
if they were aware of any other small manufacturers during manufacturer
interviews and DOE working groups. DOE used information from these
sources to create a list of companies that potentially manufacture
electric motors covered by this proposed rulemaking. As necessary, DOE
contacted companies to determine whether they met the SBA's definition
of a small business manufacturer. DOE screened out companies that do
not offer equipment covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the
definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign owned and operated.
DOE initially identified approximately 74 unique potential
manufacturers of electric motors sold in the U.S that are covered by
this proposed rulemaking. DOE screened out companies that had more than
1,250 employees or companies that were completely foreign owned and
operated. Of the 74 manufacturers that potentially manufacture electric
motors covered by this proposed rulemaking, DOE identified 11 companies
that meet SBA's definition of a small business.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
Six major manufacturers supply approximately 90 percent of the
market for electric motors covered by this proposed rulemaking. None of
the major electric motor manufacturers covered by this proposed
rulemaking are a small business. DOE is adopting new energy
conservation standards for some AO electric motors and NEMA Design A
and B electric motors between 500 hp and 75 hp. Additionally, DOE is
amending energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A and B electric
motors between 100 hp and 250 hp. Based on a review on the 11 small
businesses' equipment offerings online, DOE was not able to identify
any small business electric motor manufacturer that manufactures AO
electric motors covered by this proposed rulemaking. Therefore, the
remainder of the discussion in this section focuses on NEMA Design A
and B electric motors between 100 hp and 250 hp and NEMA Design A and B
electric motors between 500 hp and 750 hp that are covered by this
proposed rulemaking.
Most of the identified small businesses primarily focus on selling
application specific motors to OEMs (which are then embedded in the
OEM's machinery). DOE estimates that approximately 97 percent of NEMA
Design A and B electric motor sales covered by this proposed rulemaking
are between 1-100 hp or 250-500 hp. DOE is not proposing to amend
energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A and B electric motors
between these horsepower ranges. Therefore, the majority of the NEMA
Design A and B electric motors that are manufactured by the identified
small businesses will not need to be remodeled in order to meet the
proposed energy conservation standards.
The primary value added by these small businesses is creating
electric motors that fit the application specific purpose that the OEMs
require. This includes combining an electric motor with specific
mechanic couplings, weatherproofing, or controls to suit the OEM's
needs. Most small businesses manufacturer the motor housing and
couplings, but do not manufacture the rotors and stators used in the
electric motors they sell. While these small businesses may have to
create new electric motor housings and/or couplings if the frame size
or stack length of an electric motor changes in response to energy
conservation standards, DOE was not able to identify any small
businesses that own their own lamination dies sets and winding machines
that are used to manufacture electric motor rotors and stators.
The primary investment that electric motor manufacturers will have
to make is to upgrade or replace lamination die sets and winding
machines and to have engineers develop equipment designs to create more
efficient electric motors. These investments (both capital and product
conversion costs) would only be for electric motor manufacturers that
manufacture electric motor rotors and stators. Electric motor
manufacturers that do not manufacture the rotors and
[[Page 35776]]
stators of an electric motor and instead purchase these components from
other electric motor manufacturers would not need to purchase the
machinery necessary to manufacture these components (i.e., would not
need to purchase costly lamination dies sets and winding machines) nor
would they need to spend R&D efforts to develop electric motor designs
to meet energy conservation standards. Instead, these small
manufacturers might have to create new moldings for larger electric
motor housings (if the size of the motor core increases in response to
energy conservation standards).
DOE estimates the average small business would have to redesign
four electric motor housings. DOE estimates this will cost
approximately $50,000 in molding equipment per electric motor housing;
$35,314 in engineering design effort per electric motor housing; \10\
and $10,000 in testing costs per electric motor housing. Based on these
estimates, each electric motor housing that will need to be redesigned
would cost small businesses approximately $95,314, or $381,254 to
redesign four electric motor housings per small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ DOE estimated that it would take approximately three months
of engineering time to redesign each electric motor housing. Based
on data from BLS, the mean hourly wage of an electrical engineer is
$51.87 (www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172071.htm) and wages comprise
70.5 percent of an employee's total compensation (www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_12152022.pdf).
$51.87 (hourly wage) / 0.705 (wage as a percentage of total
compensation) = $73.57 (fully burdened hourly labor rate).
$73.57 x 8 (hours in a workday) x 20 (working days in a month) x
3 (months) = $35,314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE displays in Table VI-1 the estimated average conversion costs
per small business compared to the annual revenue for each small
business. DOE used D&B Hoovers \11\ to estimate the annual revenue for
each small business. Manufacturers will have 4 years between
publication of the direct final rule and compliance with the energy
conservation standards. Therefore, DOE presents the estimated
conversion costs and testing costs as a percent of the estimated 4
years of annual revenue for each small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ app.avention.com.
Table VI-1--Estimated Conversion Costs and Annual Revenue for Each Small Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion costs
Manufacturer Total conversion Annual revenue 4-Years of as a % of 4-years
and testing costs annual revenue of annual revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business 1.................... $250,000 $78,000,000 $312,000,000 0.1
Small Business 2.................... 250,000 60,000,000 240,000,000 0.1
Small Business 3.................... 250,000 30,000,000 120,000,000 0.2
Small Business 4.................... 250,000 29,000,000 116,000,000 0.2
Small Business 5.................... 250,000 25,000,000 100,000,000 0.3
Small Business 6.................... 250,000 23,000,000 92,000,000 0.3
Small Business 7.................... 250,000 11,000,000 44,000,000 0.6
Small Business 8.................... 250,000 10,000,000 40,000,000 0.6
Small Business 9.................... 250,000 10,000,000 40,000,000 0.6
Small Business 10................... 250,000 4,600,000 18,400,000 1.4
Small Business 11................... 250,000 3,300,000 13,200,000 1.9
Average Small Business.............. 2,750,000 283,900,000 1,135,600,000 0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small
businesses that would result from DOE's proposal, represented by TSL 2,
as recommended in the November 2022 Joint Recommendation. In reviewing
alternatives to the rule, DOE examined energy conservation standards
set at lower efficiency levels. While TSL 1 would reduce the impacts on
small business manufacturers, it would come at the expense of a
reduction in energy savings. TSL 1 achieves 97 percent lower energy
savings and 96 percent lower consumer NPV compared to the energy
savings and consumer NPV at TSL 2.
Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 2
balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 2 with the potential
burdens placed on electric motors manufacturers, including small
business manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does not adopt one of the
other TSLs considered in the analysis.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. Manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may
apply to DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief
under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part
430, subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule until the date provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment.
[[Page 35777]]
Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
B. Public Meeting
If DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere in this
Federal Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a
public meeting to allow for additional comment on this proposed rule.
DOE will publish notice of any meeting in the Federal Register.
NEMA MG 1-2016 was previously approved for incorporation by
reference in the section where it appears in this proposed rule and no
change to the standard is made.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 1,
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 5, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
431 of chapter II of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as
set forth below:
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 431.12 by adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for
``Specialized frame size'' and ``Standard frame size,'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 431.12 Definitions.
* * * * *
Specialized frame size means an electric motor frame size for which
the rated output power of the motor exceeds the motor frame size limits
specified for standard frame size. Specialized frame sizes have maximum
diameters corresponding to the following NEMA Frame Sizes:
[[Page 35778]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum NEMA frame diameters
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75....................... 48 ........ 48 48 48 48 140 140
1.5/1.1..................... 48 48 48 48 140 140 140 140
2/1.5....................... 48 48 48 48 140 140 180 180
3/2.2....................... 140 48 140 140 180 180 180 180
5/3.7....................... 140 140 140 140 180 180 210 210
7.5/5.5..................... 180 140 180 180 210 210 210 210
10/7.5...................... 180 180 180 180 210 210 ......... ........
15/11....................... 210 180 210 210 ......... ........ ......... ........
20/15....................... 210 210 210 210 ......... ........ ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard frame size means a motor frame size that aligns with the
specifications in NEMA MG 1-2016, section 13.2 for open motors, and
NEMA MG 1-2016, section 13.3 for enclosed motors (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.15).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 431.25 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text; and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (m) through (r).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 431.25 Energy conservation standards and effective dates.
* * * * *
(h) Each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design B motor, and IEC Design N
(including NE, NEY, or NY variants) motor that is an electric motor
meeting the criteria in paragraph (g) of this section and with a power
rating from 1 horsepower through 500 horsepower, but excluding fire
pump electric motors, manufactured (alone or as a component of another
piece of equipment) on or after June 1, 2016, but before [date 4 years
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], shall
have a nominal full-load efficiency of not less than the following:
* * * * *
(m) The standards in tables 8 through 10 of this section apply only
to electric motors, including partial electric motors, that satisfy the
following criteria:
(1) Are single-speed, induction motors;
(2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal
line power;
(5) Are rated 600 volts or less;
(6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration;
(7) Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive
NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);
(8) Produce at least one horsepower (0.746 kW) but not greater than
750 horsepower (559 kW); and
(9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the
following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design
N, NE, NEY, NY or H, HE, HEY, HY motor.
(n) Starting on [date 4 years after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design B
motor, and IEC Design N (including NE, NEY, or NY variants) motor that
is an electric motor meeting the criteria in paragraph (m) of this
section and with a power rating from 1 horsepower through 750
horsepower, but excluding fire pump electric motors and air-over
electric motors, manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece
of equipment) shall have a nominal full-load efficiency of not less
than the following:
Table 8 to Paragraph (n)--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE,
NEY or NY Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors and Air-Over Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75....................... 77.0 77.0 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5
1.5/1.1..................... 84.0 84.0 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0
2/1.5....................... 85.5 85.5 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5
3/2.2....................... 86.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5
5/3.7....................... 88.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5
7.5/5.5..................... 89.5 88.5 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5
10/7.5...................... 90.2 89.5 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2
15/11....................... 91.0 90.2 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
20/15....................... 91.0 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0
25/18.5..................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0
30/22....................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7
40/30....................... 92.4 92.4 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7
50/37....................... 93.0 93.0 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4
60/45....................... 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0
75/55....................... 93.6 93.6 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1
100/75...................... 95.0 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 94.5 95.0
125/90...................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
[[Page 35779]]
150/110..................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.0 95.0
200/150..................... 95.8 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.4 95.0
250/186..................... 96.2 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.4 95.4
300/224..................... 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ......... ........
350/261..................... 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ......... ........
400/298..................... 95.8 95.8 96.2 95.8 ......... ........ ......... ........
450/336..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
500/373..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
550/410..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
600/447..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
650/485..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
700/522..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
750/559..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(o) Starting on [date 4 years after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design B
motor, and IEC Design N (including NE, NEY, or NY variants) motor that
is an air-over electric motor meeting the criteria in paragraph (m) of
this section and with a power rating from 1 horsepower through 250
horsepower, built in a standard frame size, but excluding fire pump
electric motors, manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece
of equipment) shall have a nominal full-load efficiency of not less
than the following:
Table 9 to Paragraph (o)--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE,
NEY or NY Standard Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75....................... 77.0 77.0 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5
1.5/1.1..................... 84.0 84.0 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0
2/1.5....................... 85.5 85.5 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5
3/2.2....................... 86.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5
5/3.7....................... 88.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5
7.5/5.5..................... 89.5 88.5 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5
10/7.5...................... 90.2 89.5 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2
15/11....................... 91.0 90.2 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
20/15....................... 91.0 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0
25/18.5..................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0
30/22....................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7
40/30....................... 92.4 92.4 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7
50/37....................... 93.0 93.0 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4
60/45....................... 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0
75/55....................... 93.6 93.6 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1
100/75...................... 95.0 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 94.5 95.0
125/90...................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
150/110..................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.0 95.0
200/150..................... 95.8 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.4 95.0
250/186..................... 96.2 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.4 95.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(p) Starting on [date 4 years after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design B
motor, and IEC Design N (including NE, NEY, or NY variants) motor that
is an air-over electric motor meeting the criteria in paragraph (m) of
this section and with a power rating from 1 horsepower through 20
horsepower, built in a specialized frame size, but excluding fire pump
electric motors, manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece
of equipment) shall have a nominal full-load efficiency of not less
than the following:
[[Page 35780]]
Table 10 to Paragraph (p)--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE,
NEY or NY Specialized Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75....................... 74.0 ........ 82.5 82.5 80.0 80.0 74.0 74.0
1.5/1.1..................... 82.5 82.5 84.0 84.0 85.5 84.0 77.0 75.5
2/1.5....................... 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 86.5 85.5 82.5 85.5
3/2.2....................... 85.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 84.0 86.5
5/3.7....................... 87.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 87.5
7.5/5.5..................... 88.5 87.5 89.5 88.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 88.5
10/7.5...................... 89.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 90.2 ......... ........
15/11....................... 90.2 89.5 91.0 91.0 ......... ........ ......... ........
20/15....................... 90.2 90.2 91.0 91.0 ......... ........ ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(q) For purposes of determining the required minimum nominal full-
load efficiency of an electric motor that has a horsepower or kilowatt
rating between two horsepower or two kilowatt ratings listed in any
table of energy conservation standards in paragraphs (n) through (p)
through of this section, each such motor shall be deemed to have a
listed horsepower or kilowatt rating, determined as follows:
(1) A horsepower at or above the midpoint between the two
consecutive horsepowers shall be rounded up to the higher of the two
horsepowers;
(2) A horsepower below the midpoint between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded down to the lower of the two horsepowers;
or
(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly converted from kilowatts to
horsepower using the formula 1 kilowatt = (\1/0.746\) horsepower. The
conversion should be calculated to three significant decimal places,
and the resulting horsepower shall be rounded in accordance with
paragraphs (q)(1) or (2) of this section, whichever applies.
(r) The standards in tables 8 through 10 of this section do not
apply to the following electric motors exempted by the Secretary, or
any additional electric motors that the Secretary may exempt:
(1) Component sets of an electric motor;
(2) Liquid-cooled electric motors;
(3) Submersible electric motors; and
(4) Inverter-only electric motors.
[FR Doc. 2023-10018 Filed 5-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
