Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors, 72347-72355 [2023-23204]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
72347
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 88, No. 202
Friday, October 20, 2023
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.
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: Direct final rule; confirmation of
effective and compliance dates.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) published a direct final
rule to establish new and amended
energy conservation standards for
electric motors in the Federal Register
on June 1, 2023. DOE has determined
that the comments received in response
to the direct final rule do not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawing the
direct final rule. Therefore, DOE
provides this document confirming the
effective and compliance date of those
standards.
DATES: The effective date of September
29, 2023, for the direct final rule
published June 1, 2023 (88 FR 36066),
is confirmed. Compliance with the new
standards established in the direct final
rule is required on and after June 1,
2027.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this
rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at 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
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
page contains instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to
submit a comment or 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–3593. Email:
Kristin.koernig@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to issue a
direct final rule establishing an energy
conservation standard for a covered
equipment 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) or 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))
The direct final rule must be
published simultaneously with a notice
of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) that
proposes an energy or water
conservation standard that is identical
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6295(p)(4)(A)–(B)) Not later than 120
days after issuance of the direct final
rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct
final rule if (1) DOE receives one or
more adverse public comments relating
to the direct final rule or any alternative
joint recommendation; and (2) based on
the rulemaking record relating to the
direct final rule, DOE determines that
such adverse public comments or
alternative joint recommendation may
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawing the direct final rule. (42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) If DOE makes such
a determination, DOE must proceed
with the NOPR published
simultaneously with the direct final rule
and publish in the Federal Register the
reasons why the direct final rule was
withdrawn. (Id.)
After review of comments received,
DOE has determined that it did receive
adverse comments on the direct final
rule. However, based on the rulemaking
record, the comments did not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawing the
direct final rule under the provisions in
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C). As such, DOE
did not withdraw this direct final rule
and allowed it to become effective.
Although not required under EPCA,
DOE customarily publishes a summary
of the comments received during the
110-day comment period and its
responses to those comments. This
document contains such a summary, as
well as DOE’s responses, for electric
motors.
II. Electric Motors Direct Final Rule
A. Background
In a final rule published on May 29,
2014, DOE prescribed the current energy
conservation standards for electric
motors manufactured on and after June
1, 2016 (‘‘May 2014 Final Rule’’). 79 FR
30934. These standards are set forth in
DOE’s regulations at title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’),
§ 431.25.
On May 21, 2020, DOE published an
Early Assessment Review Request for
Information, in which it 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. 85 FR
30878.
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
72348
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
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
(‘‘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 (‘‘March 2022
Prelim TSD’’). The results presented
included the current scope of electric
motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, in
addition to electric motors above 500
horsepower, air-over electric motors,
and additional expanded scope electric
motors.
On November 16, 2022, DOE received
a joint recommendation for amended
energy conservation standards for
electric motors (‘‘November 2022 Joint
Recommendation’’).2 The November
2022 Joint Recommendation represented
the motors industry, energy efficiency
organizations, and utilities (collectively,
‘‘the Electric Motors Working Group’’).3
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.4 The supplemental letter
provided additional guidance on the
recommended Super Premium/IE4
levels for open medium electric motors
rated 100 hp to 250 hp, and a
recommended compliance date for the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation.
After carefully considering the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation
for amending energy conservation
standards for electric motors submitted
by the Electric Motors Working Group,
DOE determined that these
recommendations were in accordance
with the statutory requirements of 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a
direct final rule and published a direct
final rule on June 1, 2023 (‘‘June 2023
Direct Final Rule’’). 88 FR 36066. DOE
also evaluated whether the November
2022 Joint Recommendation satisfies 42
U.S.C. 6295(o), as applicable, and found
that the recommended standard levels
would result in significant energy
savings and are technologically feasible
and economically justified. 88 FR
36066, 36140–36144. Accordingly, the
consensus-recommended efficiency
levels for electric motors were adopted
as the new and amended standard levels
in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule. 88
FR 36066, 36144–36145.
These standards, which are expressed
as nominal full-load efficiency values,
apply to all equipment listed in Table
II–1 through Table II–3 and
manufactured in, or imported into, the
United States starting on June 1, 2027.
The June 2023 Direct Final Rule
provides a detailed discussion of DOE’s
analysis of the benefits and burdens of
the new and amended standards
pursuant to the criteria set forth in
EPCA. 88 FR 36066, 36140–36144.
TABLE II–1—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 RULES1
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 ....................................................................
2 The Joint Recommendation is available in the
docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/
comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0035.
3 The members of the Electric Motors Working
Group included American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (‘‘ACEEE’’), Appliance Standards
Awareness Project (‘‘ASAP’’), National Electrical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
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
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
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
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
95.8
95.8
95.8
96.2
96.2
96.2
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’’). DOE notes that in a separate letter, the
New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority (‘‘NYSERDA’’) expressed support for the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
Joint Recommendations submitted to DOE on
November 15, 2022; as well as in the supplemental
letter submitted December 9, 2023. (NYSERDA, No.
36, at p.1)
4 The supplemental letter is available in the
docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/
comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0036.
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
72349
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE II–1—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
600/447
650/485
700/522
750/559
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
4 Pole
Open
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
Enclosed
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
6 Pole
Open
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
8 Pole
Enclosed
Open
Enclosed
Open
................
................
................
................
..............
..............
..............
..............
................
................
................
................
..............
..............
..............
..............
TABLE II–2—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
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
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 II–3—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 RULES1
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 ........................................................................
As required by EPCA, DOE also
simultaneously published a NOPR
proposing the identical standard levels
contained in the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule. 88 FR 35765 (June 1, 2023). DOE
considered whether any adverse
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
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
6 Pole
Open
82.5
84.0
84.0
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
comment received during the 110-day
comment period following the
publication of the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule may have provided a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
82.5
84.0
84.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
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
..............
..............
..............
direct final rule under the provisions in
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C).
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
72350
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
III. Comments on the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule
As discussed in section I of this
document, not later than 120 days after
publication of a direct final rule, DOE
shall withdraw the direct final rule if (1)
DOE receives one or more adverse
public comments relating to the direct
final rule or any alternative joint
recommendation; and (2) based on the
rulemaking record relating to the direct
final rule, DOE determines that such
adverse public comments or alternative
joint recommendation may provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawing the
direct final rule. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(C)(i))
DOE received comments in response
to the June 2023 Direct Final Rule from
the interested parties listed in Table
III.1.
TABLE III.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE JUNE 2023 DIRECT FINAL RULE
Abbreviation
Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Equipment .............
AHRI ........................................
54
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas
and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison
(SCE).
Peter Faragasso .........................................................................
Sean Hogan ................................................................................
Johnson Controls ........................................................................
Richard Spotts ............................................................................
Michael Ravnitzky .......................................................................
CA IOUs ..................................
51
Industry Original Equipment
Manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) Trade
Association.
Utilities.
Faragasso ................................
Hogan ......................................
JCI ...........................................
Spotts .......................................
Ravnitzky .................................
47
50
53
52
49
Individual.
Individual.
OEM Manufacturer.
Individual.
Individual.
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.5 The following sections
discuss the substantive comments DOE
received on the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule as well as DOE’s determination
that the comments do not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
A. General Comments
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Comment
No. in the
docket
Commenter(s)
In comments submitted in response to
the June 2023 Direct Final Rule, the CA
IOUs, Faragasso, Spotts, and Ravnitzky
expressed support for the energy
conservation standard levels specified
in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule. (CA
IOUs, No. 51 at p. 1; Faragasso, No. 47
at p. 1; Spotts, No. 52 at p. 1; Ravnitzky,
No. 49 at p. 1) DOE has determined that
these comments are supportive of the
standards adopted in the June 2023
Direct Final Rule.
AHRI and JCI opposed the June 2023
Direct Final Rule. (AHRI, No. 54 at pp.
1–9; JCI, No. 53 at p. 1–2) Specifically,
AHRI opposed the energy conservation
standards for air-over electric motors.
AHRI further requested that DOE
withdraw the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule to comply with EPCA’s
requirements based on the lack of
interested persons that are fairly
representative of the relevant point of
5 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the docket of DOE’s
rulemaking to develop energy conservation
standards for electric motors. (Docket No. EERE–
2021–BT–STD–0035, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged
as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID
number, page of that document).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
view and the receipt of their comments,
which AHRI believes provides a
reasonable basis for withdrawal. (AHRI,
No. 54 at pp. 2–3, 7–8) However, as
discussed in more details in the
remainder of this document, DOE has
determined that these comments do not
provide a reasonable basis to withdraw
the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
Hogan did not support or oppose the
rule and commented on inverter motors
(Hogan, No. 50 at p. 1) and, as discussed
in more details in the remainder of this
document, DOE has determined that
this comment is not adverse.
B. Stakeholder Representation
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), interested
persons that are fairly representative of
relevant points of view, as determined
by DOE, may submit a joint
recommendation to the Department for
new or amended energy conservation
standards. AHRI stated that EPCA
defines those interested persons as
representatives of manufacturers of
covered products, States, and efficiency
advocates. AHRI contends that the joint
stakeholders that came together for the
recommendation are not ‘‘fairly
representative’’ of the relevant points of
view required to publish a direct final
rule according to EPCA’s requirements
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A) because the
list does not include manufacturers of
covered products, nor any trade
association that represent manufacturers
of covered products. AHRI commented
that, as a trade association representing
manufacturers of covered products, its
members should have been taken into
consideration before the June 2023
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Commenter type
Direct Fina Rule was issued. (AHRI, No.
54 at pp. 7–8)
In response, DOE first notes that the
direct final rule authority in 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4) applies to electric motors
through the crosswalk provision at 42
U.S.C. 6316(a). As part of that crosswalk
provision, any reference to a covered
‘‘product’’ is replaced with a reference
to covered ‘‘equipment.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6316(a)(3)) As a result, 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4) would read, in relevant part,
‘‘[o]n receipt of a statement that is
submitted jointly by interested persons
that are fairly representative of relevant
points of view (including
representatives of manufacturers of
covered equipment, States, and
efficiency advocates), as determined by
the Secretary . . .’’ (42 U.S.C.
6316(a)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)) The
November 2022 Joint Recommendation
includes a trade association, NEMA,
which represents more than 23
manufacturers of electric motors. The
November 2022 Joint Recommendation
also includes energy-efficiency
advocacy organizations and utilities.
Additionally, DOE notes that one of the
parties to the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation, NEEA, is an alliance
of utilities and partners that pools
resources and shares risks to transform
the market for energy efficiency to the
benefit of all consumers in the
Northwest and whose 20-member Board
consists of representatives from the
Bonneville Power Administration,
consumer- and investor-owned electric
and natural gas utilities, state
government, and public interest and
efficiency industry organizations.
Finally, DOE also notes that NYSERDA
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
expressed support for the Joint
Agreement. As a result, DOE has
determined that the November 2022
Joint Recommendation was submitted
by interested persons who are fairly
representative of relevant points of view
on this matter.
C. Electric Motors Used as a Component
of a Covered Product or Equipment
AHRI commented that component
regulation imposes design constraints
and limits innovation without
guaranteeing energy savings because
covered products are already regulated.
AHRI stated that regardless of the
efficiency of a given product’s
individual components, such products
must ultimately meet an efficiency
standard, and, therefore, little or no
additional energy savings would be
achieved. AHRI commented that
component regulation would impose
significant cost to manufacturers and
consumers and the burden DOE would
impose on manufacturers of covered
products by expanding the scope of the
electric motor test procedure, and
ultimately standards, is not outweighed
by any corresponding benefit to
consumers or the nation. (AHRI, No. 54
at p. 2) AHRI added that DOE should
apply a finished-product approach to
energy efficiency regulations.
Specifically, AHRI commented that it
strongly opposes DOE’s plan to expand
the existing scope of coverage of electric
motors to include air-over electric
motors. AHRI added that embedded
motor testing, and ultimately energy
conservation standards, would save
minimal, if any, energy and would
create needless testing, paperwork, and
record-keeping requirements that would
raise costs for consumers. In addition,
AHRI commented that the timing of the
proposed changes would exacerbate
supply chain disruption, further
delaying products reaching U.S.
consumers and inflating the cost of
finished goods. AHRI commented also
that component regulation imposes
design constraints and limits innovation
without guaranteeing energy savings
and that covered products are already
regulated. Further, AHRI asserted that
OEMs already consider more efficient
electric motors when identifying what
design options to apply to meet new
finished product standards. (AHRI, No.
54 at pp. 3, 8)
JCI commented that it remained
opposed to DOE’s revised definition and
resulting scope expansion to mandate
new test procedures to include special
and definite purpose motors, which
specifically includes air-over, inverter,
synchronous motors as well as the
newly defined category of ‘‘small non-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
small electric motors’’ (‘‘SNEMs’’) as
such motors are already being regulated
at the system level at 10 CFR 431.25 and
for which there is a clear exemption as
noted under 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3). JCI
also stated its opposition to component
level regulation for DOE covered
products. JCI commented that ‘‘double
regulation’’ of finished goods and the
components embedded within the
finished goods stifles innovation by
reducing design engineers’ ability to
weigh trade-offs between different
technologies. JCI asserted that, as a
matter of practice, motors are typically
not the least efficient component within
an air-conditioner, heat pump, or
associated furnace and by limiting the
choices of system components,
designers could be forced to forego
greater total system benefits and add
unnecessary cost due to the lack of
design flexibility. JCI further
commented that generic motor
efficiency ratings will not result in
significant savings benefits and will
increase cost to consumers. JCI stated
that consumers who purchase JCI
equipment generally do not evaluate
potential savings or performance
features based on individual
components (i.e., motors) but rather on
the overall system performance of the
equipment. (JCI, No. 53 at pp. 1–2)
On the issue of energy savings
resulting from regulating components,
DOE received similar comments in
response to the March 2022 Preliminary
Analysis that were addressed in the
June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
Specifically, as highlighted in a
previous DOE report, motor energy
savings potential and opportunities for
higher efficiency electric motors in
commercial and residential equipment
would result in overall energy savings.6
In addition, some manufacturers
advertise electric motors as resulting in
energy savings in HVAC equipment.7 88
FR 36066, 36103. Therefore, DOE
disagrees with the notion that an
increase in motor efficiency would not
necessarily result in improved
efficiency of the equipment the motor is
incorporated into. In addition, when
establishing any new or amended
energy conservation standards for other
covered equipment or products
incorporating electric motors, DOE
analyzes the current market to establish
6 U.S. DOE Building Technology Office, Energy
Savings Potential and Opportunities for HighEfficiency Electric Motors in Residential and
Commercial Equipment, December 2013. Available
at: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/
motor-energy-savings-potential-report.
7 See, for example, Nidec and ABB:
acim.nidec.com/motors/usmotors/industryapplications/hvac; bit.ly/3wEIQyu.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72351
the baseline performance and would
account for any improvements due to
increased motor efficiency. As a result,
any motor improvement would be later
reflected in the covered equipment/
product subsequent rulemakings.
Therefore, DOE has determined that
these comments do not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
Additionally, the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule did not include inverter-only
motors, synchronous motors, and
SNEMs. Instead, the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule retained the scope of the
electric motors currently regulated at 10
CFR 431.25 and expanded the scope to
electric motors that meet the same
criteria as described at 10 CFR 431.25(g)
but otherwise have a horsepower greater
than 500 and less than or equal to 750
hp; and to those that otherwise have an
air-over enclosure or a specialized frame
size and an air-over enclosure. 88 FR
36066, 36079–36081. For these electric
motors, the energy conservation
standards adopted in the June 2023
Direct Final rule would preserve the
technologies and frame sizes that exist
today on the market (i.e., AC induction
polyphase designs in the same NEMA
frame sizes). Id. at 88 FR 36097.
Accordingly, DOE disagrees with the
comments from AHRI and JCI that the
adopted standards could limit
innovation by imposing design
constraints or reducing design
engineers’ ability to weigh trade-offs
between different technologies.
Therefore, DOE has determined that
these comments do not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
June 2023 Direct Final.
D. Original Equipment Manufacturer
Industry Burden
AHRI commented that DOE declined
to address industry’s concerns in the
electric motor test procedure final rule,
citing that DOE stated comments related
to any potential standards that DOE may
consider for electric motors will be
discussed in the separate energy
conservation standards rulemaking
docket (EERE–2020–BT–STD–0007).8
AHRI noted that it had raised concerns
specifically regarding air-over motors in
response to the March 2022 Preliminary
Analysis.9 (AHRI, No. 54 at p. 2) Also
in response to the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis, AHRI added that
it filed joint comments with the
Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers regarding the OEM
certification compliance burden and
8 See
87 FR 63588, 63591 (Oct. 10, 2022).
their comments, AHRI refers to this
publication as a Notice of Data Availability.
9 In
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
72352
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
increases to costs without increases to
finished good efficiency. AHRI
commented that DOE failed to address
these comments in the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule and accompanying NOPR
because DOE assessed that the majority
of the stakeholder concerns stemmed
from regulating SNEMs and air-over
SNEMs. AHRI asserted that even if a
minority of the concerns was given to
air-over motors, that would not absolve
DOE of its statutory duty in determining
whether a standard is economically
justified. AHRI commented that DOE
must consider the economic impact of
the standard on the manufacturers and
on the consumers of the products
subject to such standard and, in the case
of air-over motors, finished goods
manufacturers can be either the
manufacturer or the consumer,
depending on how the component is
purchased. (Id. at pp. 2–3)
AHRI further commented that some
OEMs purchase complete air-over
motors for incorporation while other
OEMs buy motor components and
assemble the motor into the equipment.
In the latter case, AHRI stated that the
OEM would be considered a motor
manufacturer and undergo the time and
cost to certify that the motor meets any
pertinent standards. AHRI added that
the expanded scope of the June 2023
Direct Final Rule would redefine OEMs
as electric motor manufacturers and
that, for imported equipment, the
expanded scope would impact OEMs
who purchase air-over motor
components and air-over motors that are
not already sold on the U.S. market.
However, AHRI commented that DOE
did not include these manufacturer
impacts in the standards June 2023
Direct Final Rule analysis. Specifically,
AHRI commented that the shipments
estimates used in the analysis are
underestimated and questioned whether
DOE included air-over motors included
in OEM equipment. (AHRI, No. 54 at p.
4) In addition, AHRI commented that
any OEMs that are considered a motor
manufacturer would also be subject to
new requirements for establishing or
verifying performance in an
independent laboratory. AHRI asserted
that these air-over motor specific costs
were not included. AHRI noted that the
March 2022 Prelim TSD included minor
increases in installation cost as
efficiency levels rise attributed to the
additional cost of an electrician (Id. at
p. 5) AHRI commented that such
regulatory burdens have left
manufacturers in an almost constant
state of redesign and testing and that
innovation was no longer as important
as just modifying products to meet new
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
and ever-changing regulatory burdens.
(Id. at p. 8)
Regarding the shipments estimate, as
previously noted, the air-over motors
that are subject to the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule are limited to those meeting
the same criteria as described at 10 CFR
431.25(g) but otherwise have an air-over
enclosure or a specialized frame size
and an air-over enclosure. Specifically,
these are electric motors with
horsepower greater than or equal to 1
hp, that are NEMA Design A or B and
are built in standard NEMA frame size 10
or specialized frame size (or IEC
equivalents). This excludes most
electric motors included in heating,
ventilation, air-conditioning, and
refrigeration (‘‘HVACR’’) equipment
manufactured by AHRI, which typically
are not NEMA Design A or B, have
different frame constructions, or are
single phase motors. Therefore, DOE
believes the shipments estimate used in
the June 2023 Direct Final rule is correct
as it is not intended to include the
totality of the air-over electric motor
market.
The manufacturer impact analysis
(‘‘MIA’’) for this rulemaking specifically
examines the conversion costs that
electric motor manufacturers (including
OEMs that also manufacture electric
motors) would incur due to the
analyzed energy conservation standards
for electric motors in comparison to the
revenue and free cash electric motor
manufacturers receive. In addition, the
MIA includes the additional testing
costs for newly regulated equipment to
comply with new efficiency
standards.11 Regarding OEMs who
purchase components of an air-over
motor, DOE notes that motors assembled
this way are a minority of overall motors
covered by the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule. In addition, for motors that are
assembled this way, the conversion
costs associated with the new and
amended energy conservation standards
would not be significant as the OEM is
not manufacturing the components that
would have to be changed, and those
conversion costs would be incurred by
the component manufacturers, which
are typical motor manufacturers (i.e.,
included as NEMA members) and the
focus of the manufacturer impact
analysis conducted in the June 2023
Direct Final Rule. Therefore, DOE has
determined that these comments do not
10 More specifically, 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).
11 See section IV.G of the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule. 88 FR 36006, 36112.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule. JCI commented that it
understands DOE’s authority to impose
requirements on manufacturers of
covered products, but does not agree
with DOE’s definition that equipment
importers should be responsible for
embedded electric motor test and
certification requirements if indeed this
is the case. JCI commented also that it
was not clear if DOE’s revised definition
of ‘‘air-over’’ and ‘‘manufacturer,’’
which specifically includes importation
and assembly, would result in importers
of finished goods like JCI being
responsible for embedded motor
standards and testing. (JCI, No. 53 at p.
2)
In the June 2023 Direct Final Rule,
DOE did not establish revised
definitions for ‘‘air-over’’ and
‘‘manufacturer.’’ Therefore, DOE does
not consider this comment to be an
adverse comment. The definition of
‘‘air-over electric motor’’ was
established by the test procedure final
rule published on October 19, 2022. 87
FR 63588, 63609. The definition of
‘‘manufacture’’ and ‘‘manufacturer’’ can
be found at 10 CFR 431.2 and were not
revised by the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule. Finally, DOE clarifies that any
electric motor in scope that is imported
into the United States would need to
comply with the new and amended
energy conservation standards adopted
in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
E. Replacement Motor Certification
Burden
AHRI commented that HVACR and
water heating equipment are built,
tested, and certified as a complete
design and that slight changes to the
motors can have significant and
unexpected impacts on performance
and efficiency. AHRI stated that there
are a variety of safety standards affected
by air flow in addition to the
performance standards and that the
testing of all legacy equipment because
of a motor change would be cost and
resource prohibitive. In addition, AHRI
noted that testing could be impractical
if the HVACR or water heating
equipment was out of production
because OEMs would be forced to
rebuild an out-of-production unit for the
purpose of testing the new motor or risk
abandoning a reasonable repair path for
consumers. AHRI asserted that some
equipment may not be able to be
retroactively designed with new motors
due to new energy conservation
standards or refrigerant changes. (AHRI,
No. 54 at pp. 5–6)
JCI commented that DOE did not
account for the cost burden of certifying
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
replacement motors for legacy
equipment, which it believes would be
required per the revised scope
definition. JCI stated that certifying
replacement motors to new energy
conservations standards for legacy
equipment would likely require the
building of at least partial, if not
complete, prototypes as well as
substantial investment in test time to
cover dozens of different legacy
applications for products still within
their expected service life. JCI add that
its legacy product offering ranges in size
from 1 ton to over 120 tons (nominal
cooling) for its rooftop and residential
offerings and has dozens of unique
electric motor applications still within
their remaining service life. JCI
commented also that in cases where a
new energy conservation standard
results in a new, larger NEMA frame
size, it may not be possible to develop
such a product and thus result in
premature equipment replacement or a
special one-off design which will greatly
increase cost to consumers. JCI
requested that DOE consider the
negative impacts of the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule and rescind the revised
definition scope of covered motors. (JCI,
No. 53 at p. 2)
While DOE conducts a MIA to address
the industry burden on the
manufacturer of the considered covered
equipment, DOE typically does not
include the impacts to other
manufacturers. The MIA for this
rulemaking specifically examined the
conversion costs that electric motor
manufacturers (including OEMs that
also manufacture electric motors) would
incur due to the analyzed energy
conservation standards for electric
motors in comparison to the revenue
and free cash electric motor
manufacturers receive. The OEM testing
and certification costs were not
included in the MIA, and neither were
the OEM revenues and free cash flows,
as these costs and revenue are not
specific to electric motor manufacturers.
However, as noted by the Electric
Motors Working Group, the adopted
standards for air-over electric motors 12
are not expected to cause broad market
disruption. (Electric Motors Working
Group, No. 35 at p. 4) In addition, as
noted in in section IV.C of the June 2023
Direct Final rule, DOE fixed the frame
12 The majority of the electric motors for which
the June 2023 Direct Finale rule is establishing new
and amended standards are not incorporated into
HVACR equipment. Electric motors with a
horsepower greater than or equal to 100 hp and less
than or equal to 250 hp and those with a
horsepower greater than 500 hp and less than or
equal to 750 hp are larger motors that are not used
as components.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
size, which remained the same across
efficiency levels. 88 FR 36066, 36097.
As such, the energy conservation
standards adopted in the June 2023
Direct Final Rule would preserve the
frame sizes of electric motors on the
market today. Consequently, although
DOE did not include any OEM testing
and certification costs in the June 2023
Direct Final Rule, DOE does not
estimate these impacts to be significant.
Therefore, DOE has determined that
these comments do not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
AHRI commented that DOE used an
average application lifetime of 15 years
for applications driven by electric
motors and came to an average lifetime
of 11.8 years for the 5 hp air-over motor.
AHRI noted that DOE has used much
longer equipment lifetimes for some
AHRI products, such as air-cooled
commercial package air conditioners
and heat pumps where DOE used a
lifetime of 33.88 years for 30-ton
equipment in a rulemaking.13 AHRI
asserted that such equipment could
have two or three motor replacements
during its lifetime and that if the
replacement motor becomes
unavailable, the entire OEM product
would have to be replaced rather than
repaired. In addition, AHRI commented
that DOE did not account for the
potential unavailability of the motors in
use in today’s HVACR equipment as
well as the cost to OEMs, and ultimately
to the consumer, of retroactively
designing equipment in use today for
motors that become unavailable upon
new standards. (AHRI, No. 54 at p. 5)
DOE notes that the Electric Motors
Working Group stated the adopted
standards for air-over electric motors
would avoid market disruption.
(Electric Motors Working Group, No. 35
at p. 4) In addition, the adopted levels
would preserve key criteria that are
used to identify suitable replacement
motors,14 such as frame sizes, voltages,
horsepower, pole configurations,
enclosure constructions, and mountings,
and DOE believes drop-in replacement
motors would remain available and
there would be no major market
disruption, as highlighted by the
Electric Motors Working Group. DOE
13 DOE Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and
Heat Pumps ASRAC Working Group meeting March
21–22, 2023. Available at https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2022-BTSTD-0015-0080.
14 See ‘‘How to cross reference an OEM motor.’’
Available at hvacknowitall.com/blog/how-to-crossreference-an-oem-motor (last accessed September
28, 2023); Rheem and Ruud PROTECH ‘‘Selecting
a Motor.’’ Available at assets.unilogcorp.com/267/
ITEM/DOC/PROTECH_51_100998_33_Catalog.pdf
(last accessed September 28, 2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72353
further notes that OEM equipment can
usually accommodate different models
of motors and online cross-referencing
tools 15 exist to help consumers identify
motors that can be used as drop-in
replacements. Therefore, DOE has
determined that these comments do not
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule.
F. Regulatory Burden
AHRI stated that the burdens of the
June 2023 Direct Final Rule would be
added to an already large industry
burden due to other regulatory bodies
requiring redesign and recertification of
products made by its members. AHRI
described the regulatory actions that
will impact its products: (1) UL 60335–
2–40 will be required for all cooling
equipment on January 1, 2024; (2) the
American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act requires the use of
low global warming potential (‘‘GWP’’)
refrigerants in residential and light
commercial air conditioners, which
AHRI expects to be required within two
years and will require updated safety
standards to address refrigerant leaks
because GWP refrigerants are more
flammable, and in commercial
refrigeration equipment, which has a
statutory deadline of October 7, 2023;
(3) new federal efficiency levels and
metrics with compliance dates ranging
from January 1, 2024 to January 1, 2025
for variable refrigerant flow (‘‘VRF’’)
equipment, dedicated outdoor air
systems, computer room air
conditioners, air cooled three-phase
small central air conditioners and heat
pumps and VRF with a cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h, and commercial
fans; (4) California’s regulation of
commercial fans required on November
16, 2023; and (5) test procedures that are
currently in the rulemaking process for
commercial package air conditioners
and heat pumps, single package vertical
air conditioners and heat pumps,
package terminal air conditioners and
heat pumps, and water source heat
pumps. (AHRI, No. 54 at pp. 6–7)
The June 2023 Direct Final Rule
examined the cumulative regulatory
burden that affects the manufacturers of
the covered equipment (i.e., electric
motors). 88 FR 36066, 36133–36134. As
previously stated, DOE typically does
not include the impacts to other
manufacturers. Therefore, DOE has
determined that this comment does not
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule.
15 See
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
www.emotorsdirect.ca/hvac.
20OCR1
72354
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
G. EPCA Requirements
AHRI commented that EPCA requires
that any proposed new or amended
energy conservation standards must
result in significant energy savings and
be technologically feasible and
economically justified and cited to 42
U.S.C. 6295(o). AHRI commented that it
does not believe that the energy
conservation standards in the June 2023
Direct Final Rule comply with this
requirement. (AHRI, No. 54 at p. 8)
In the June 2023 Direct Final Rule,
DOE determined that the adopted
energy conservation standards would
result in significant energy savings and
are technologically feasible and
economically justified and provided
supporting analysis. 88 FR 36066,
36072, 36120–36146. For the reasons
discussed in the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule, DOE has determined that the
comment provided by AHRI does not
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
H. Other Comments
AHRI commented that DOE’s electric
motors test procedure, which would rate
motor efficiency at full load, fails to
adequately capture representative load
conditions for finished products and
equipment that is largely optimized for,
and regulated on, part-load
performance. AHRI commented also
that regulating special and definite
purpose motors, particularly with the
proposed third-party nationally
recognized certification program
requirements, will add cost, reduce
market choices, and do little, if
anything, to realize further energy
savings. AHRI asserted that full-load
operating temperature in testing may be
greater than the rated operating
temperature of the motor while it is
operating in its intended air over
application, which AHRI claimed to be
particularly problematic for air-over
motors. AHRI stated that DOE was
working in other areas to design test
procedures that reward part-load
performance and that it was
inexplicable that DOE proposed to do
the opposite here. (AHRI, No. 54 at p.
3)
DOE notes that this comment relates
to the electric motors test procedure and
is not related to the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule. As such, DOE does not
consider this comment as an adverse
comment for the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule.
Ravnitzky requested clarification on
whether the June 2023 Direct Final Rule
applied to small electric motors,
dedicated purpose pool pump motor,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
and motors that are used in consumer
products. (Ravnitzky, No. 49 at p. 1)
DOE clarifies that the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule amends and establishes
energy conservation standards for
electric motors that meet the newly
adopted scope criteria at 10 CFR 431.25
and are in the scope of subpart B of 10
CFR part 431. Section 431.11 specifies
that subpart B does not cover ‘‘small
electric motors,’’ which are addressed in
subpart X of 10 CFR part 431 and does
not cover electric motors that are
‘‘dedicated-purpose pool pump
motors,’’ which are addressed in subpart
Z of 10 CFR part 431. See 10 CFR
431.11. Therefore, the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule does not apply to small
electric motors or dedicated purpose
pool pump motors. In addition, while
the scope of the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule does not differentiate electric
motors by end-use applications, it only
includes electric motors that operate on
polyphase power supply and is unlikely
to include electric motors incorporated
in consumer products (which typically
operate on single phase power supply).
Accordingly, DOE does not consider the
comment from Ravnitzky to be an
adverse comment.
Ravnitzky commented that there are
many small business manufacturers of
electric motors and that DOE should
provide exemptions, waivers, or
alternative standards for small
businesses and provide sufficient time
for small businesses to adjust to the new
requirements. (Ravnitzky, No. 49 at pp.
1–2)
DOE notes that 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 1003 for
additional details. Therefore, DOE has
determined that the comment from
Ravnitzky does not provide a reasonable
basis for withdrawal of the June 2023
Direct Final Rule.
Hogan commented that for permanent
capacitive split phase motors (‘‘PSC’’),
the motor efficiency decreases
dramatically as the capacitor degrades
and that efficiency loss is the dominant
failure mode for PSC motors. Hogan
added that DOE’s analysis only
considered the ‘‘as-built’’ efficiency of
the motor and that DOE should have
determined the actual running
efficiency of motors over their entire
operating life for several operating
environments and applications that
degrade over time due to partial
demagnetization. Hogan also stated that
the inverter drive efficiency also
degrades over time. Further, Hogan
disagreed with DOE’s analysis, which
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
assumed that the price of permanent
magnet inverter motors would decline
to that comparable of three phase
motors, and stated that the induction
motor would always have a cost
advantage. Hogan also noted that
inverter drive motors only produce
greater efficiency in applications as a
result of variable shaft speed. (Hogan,
No. 50 at p. 1)
PSC motors, permanent magnet
inverter motors, and inverter drives
were not included in the scope of
products for which DOE established and
amended energy conservation standards
in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
Instead, in the LCC and national impact
analysis (‘‘NIA’’) analysis, DOE added a
scenario to account for the fact that
some consumers may choose to
purchase a synchronous electric motor
(i.e., a permanent magnet inverter
motors, out of scope of the June 2023
Direct Final Rule) rather than a more
efficient NEMA Design A or B electric
motor or select to purchase a variable
speed drive (i.e., an inverter drive) in
combination with a compliant electric
motor. DOE developed a consumer
choice model to estimate the percentage
of consumers that would purchase a
synchronous electric motor based on the
payback period of such investment. 88
FR 36066, 36104. As part of this
sensitivity analysis DOE did not assume
any decline in price for permanent
magnet inverter motors. Instead, DOE
assumed that the price of a more
efficient NEMA Design A or B electric
motor would increase compared to a
baseline NEMA Design A or B electric
motor.16 DOE acknowledges that there is
uncertainty around the efficiency of
permanent magnet inverter motors and
inverter drives which may degrade over
time. In the June 2023 Direct Final Rule,
DOE noted that there is uncertainty as
to which rate such substitution would
occur due to the uncertainty in the
estimated savings from speed controls,
installation costs, and selected decision
criteria, and DOE did not incorporate
this scenario as part of the reference
analysis. Id. As such, this analysis was
not used to justify the adopted
standards in the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule.17 Therefore, DOE has determined
that this comment does not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
Hogan commented that the efficiency
of residential and commercial motors
can be increased higher than what is
16 See Table 8C.2.1 in Appendix 8C of the June
2023 Direct Final Rule Technical Support
Document.
17 See Appendix 8C of the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule Technical Support Document.
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
proposed by DOE at minimal costs
when wired for three phase power in
comparison to using an inverter drive.
Hogan added that DOE should
reasonably require good efficiency for
single phase alternative current (‘‘AC’’)
motors for many fractional horsepower
motors (i.e., horsepower less than 1) and
otherwise advance efficiency through
three phase power. (Hogan, No. 50 at p.
1)
As noted previously, the scope of the
June 2023 Direct Final Rule only
includes electric motors that operate
three phase power supply (i.e., AC
induction polyphase electric motors). 88
FR 36066, 36079–36081. In addition, the
scope of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule
includes motors with horsepower equal
to or greater than 1 horsepower. Id. As
such, DOE did not analyze technology
options for single phase AC motors and
fractional horsepower motors (i.e., with
horsepower less than 1) in the June 2023
Direct Final Rule and does not consider
the recommendation from Hogan to
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule.
IV. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider any
lessening of competition that is likely to
result from new or amended standards.
(42 U.S.C. 6295 (p)(4)(A)(i) and (C)(i)(II);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also
directs the Attorney General of the
United States (‘‘Attorney General’’) to
determine the impact, if any, of any
lessening of competition likely to result
from a proposed standard and to
transmit such determination to the
Secretary within 60 days of the
publication of a proposed rule, together
with an analysis of the nature and
extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To assist
the Attorney General in making this
determination, DOE provided the
Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) with
copies of the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule, the corresponding NOPR, and the
June 2023 Direct Final Rule TSD for
review. DOE has published DOJ’s
comments at the end of this document.
In its letter responding to DOE, DOJ
concluded that, based on its review, it
is unlikely that the proposed energy
conservation standards for electric
motors would have a significant adverse
impact on competition.
V. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(‘‘NEPA’’), DOE had analyzed the direct
final rule in accordance with NEPA and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
DOE’s NEPA implementing regulations
(10 CFR part 1021). DOE determined
that this rule qualifies for categorical
exclusion under 10 CFR part 1021,
subpart D, appendix B, B5.1, because it
is a rulemaking that establishes energy
conservation standards for consumer
products or industrial equipment, none
of the exceptions identified in B5.1(b)
apply, no extraordinary circumstances
exist that require further environmental
analysis, and it meets the requirements
for application of a categorical
exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410.
Therefore, DOE determined that
promulgation of this direct final rule is
not a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of
NEPA and does not require an
environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement.
VI. Conclusion
In summary, based on the previous
discussion, DOE has determined that
the comments received in response to
the direct final rule for new and
amended energy conservation standards
for electric motors do not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
direct final rule. As a result, the energy
conservation standards set forth in the
direct final rule became effective on
September 29, 2023. Compliance with
these standards is required on and after
June 1, 2027.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on October 16, 2023,
by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy
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 October 17,
2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
Appendix A
August 21, 2023
Ami Grace-Tardy, Assistant General Counsel
for Legislation, Regulation and Energy
Efficiency, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, DC 20585, Ami.Grace-Tardy@
hq.doe.gov
Re: Energy Conservation Standards for
Electric Motors, DOE Docket No. EERE–
2020–BT–STD–0007
Dear Assistant General Counsel GraceTardy:
I am responding to your June 20, 2023
letter seeking the views of the Attorney
General about the potential impact on
competition of proposed energy conservation
standards for electric motors.
Your request was submitted under Section
325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the
Attorney General to determine the impact of
any lessening of competition likely to result
from proposed energy conservation
standards. The Attorney General’s
responsibility for responding to requests from
other departments about the effect of a
program on competition has been delegated
to the Assistant Attorney General for the
Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). The
Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust
Division has authorized me, as the Policy
Director for the Antitrust Division, to provide
the Antitrust Division’s views regarding the
potential impact on competition of proposed
energy conservation standards on his behalf.
In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust
Division examines whether a proposed
standard may lessen competition, for
example, by substantially limiting consumer
choice, by placing certain manufacturers at
an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or
by inducing avoidable inefficiencies in
production or distribution of particular
products. A lessening of competition could
result in higher prices to manufacturers and
consumers.
We have reviewed the proposed standard
contained in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and the related Technical
Support Document. We have also reviewed
public comments and information provided
by industry participants.
Based on this review, our conclusion is
that the proposed energy conservation
standards for electric motors are unlikely to
have a significant adverse impact on
competition.
Sincerely,
/s/
David G.B. Lawrence Policy Director
[FR Doc. 2023–23204 Filed 10–19–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
Note: The following appendix will not
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
72355
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72347-72355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23204]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 72347]]
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: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective and compliance
dates.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') published a direct
final rule to establish new and amended energy conservation standards
for electric motors in the Federal Register on June 1, 2023. DOE has
determined that the comments received in response to the direct final
rule do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final
rule. Therefore, DOE provides this document confirming the effective
and compliance date of those standards.
DATES: The effective date of September 29, 2023, for the direct final
rule published June 1, 2023 (88 FR 36066), is confirmed. Compliance
with the new standards established in the direct final rule is required
on and after June 1, 2027.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at 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.
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-3593. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule
establishing an energy conservation standard for a covered equipment 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) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a
notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that proposes an energy or
water conservation standard that is identical 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)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct
final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct final rule if (1) DOE
receives one or more adverse public comments relating to the direct
final rule or any alternative joint recommendation; and (2) based on
the rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule, DOE determines
that such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation
may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) If DOE makes such a determination, DOE must
proceed with the NOPR published simultaneously with the direct final
rule and publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct
final rule was withdrawn. (Id.)
After review of comments received, DOE has determined that it did
receive adverse comments on the direct final rule. However, based on
the rulemaking record, the comments did not provide a reasonable basis
for withdrawing the direct final rule under the provisions in 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(C). As such, DOE did not withdraw this direct final rule and
allowed it to become effective. Although not required under EPCA, DOE
customarily publishes a summary of the comments received during the
110-day comment period and its responses to those comments. This
document contains such a summary, as well as DOE's responses, for
electric motors.
II. Electric Motors Direct Final Rule
A. Background
In a final rule published on May 29, 2014, DOE prescribed the
current energy conservation standards for electric motors manufactured
on and after June 1, 2016 (``May 2014 Final Rule''). 79 FR 30934. These
standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (``CFR''), Sec. 431.25.
On May 21, 2020, DOE published an Early Assessment Review Request
for Information, in which it 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. 85 FR 30878.
[[Page 72348]]
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 (``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 (``March 2022 Prelim TSD''). The results presented included the
current scope of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, in
addition to electric motors above 500 horsepower, air-over electric
motors, and additional expanded scope electric motors.
On November 16, 2022, DOE received a joint recommendation for
amended energy conservation standards for electric motors (``November
2022 Joint Recommendation'').\2\ The November 2022 Joint Recommendation
represented the motors industry, energy efficiency organizations, and
utilities (collectively, ``the Electric Motors Working Group'').\3\ 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.\4\ The supplemental letter provided
additional guidance on the recommended Super Premium/IE4 levels for
open medium electric motors rated 100 hp to 250 hp, and a recommended
compliance date for the November 2022 Joint Recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Joint Recommendation is available in the docket for this
rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0035.
\3\ The members of the Electric Motors Working Group included
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'').
DOE notes that in a separate letter, the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority (``NYSERDA'') expressed support
for the Joint Recommendations submitted to DOE on November 15, 2022;
as well as in the supplemental letter submitted December 9, 2023.
(NYSERDA, No. 36, at p.1)
\4\ The supplemental letter is available in the docket for this
rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After carefully considering the November 2022 Joint Recommendation
for amending energy conservation standards for electric motors
submitted by the Electric Motors Working Group, DOE determined that
these recommendations were in accordance with the statutory
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a direct final
rule and published a direct final rule on June 1, 2023 (``June 2023
Direct Final Rule''). 88 FR 36066. DOE also evaluated whether the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as
applicable, and found that the recommended standard levels would result
in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and
economically justified. 88 FR 36066, 36140-36144. Accordingly, the
consensus-recommended efficiency levels for electric motors were
adopted as the new and amended standard levels in the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule. 88 FR 36066, 36144-36145.
These standards, which are expressed as nominal full-load
efficiency values, apply to all equipment listed in Table II-1 through
Table II-3 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States
starting on June 1, 2027. The June 2023 Direct Final Rule provides a
detailed discussion of DOE's analysis of the benefits and burdens of
the new and amended standards pursuant to the criteria set forth in
EPCA. 88 FR 36066, 36140-36144.
Table II-1--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 ......... ........ ......... ........
[[Page 72349]]
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 ......... ........ ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II-2--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 II-3--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 ......... ........ ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required by EPCA, DOE also simultaneously published a NOPR
proposing the identical standard levels contained in the June 2023
Direct Final Rule. 88 FR 35765 (June 1, 2023). DOE considered whether
any adverse comment received during the 110-day comment period
following the publication of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule may have
provided a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule
under the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C).
[[Page 72350]]
III. Comments on the June 2023 Direct Final Rule
As discussed in section I of this document, not later than 120 days
after publication of a direct final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct
final rule if (1) DOE receives one or more adverse public comments
relating to the direct final rule or any alternative joint
recommendation; and (2) based on the rulemaking record relating to the
direct final rule, DOE determines that such adverse public comments or
alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i))
DOE received comments in response to the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule from the interested parties listed in Table III.1.
Table III.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the June 2023 Direct Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No.
Commenter(s) Abbreviation in the Commenter type
docket
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-conditioning, Heating, and AHRI....................... 54 Industry Original Equipment
Refrigeration Equipment. Manufacturer (``OEM'')
Trade Association.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), CA IOUs.................... 51 Utilities.
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and
Southern California Edison (SCE).
Peter Faragasso.......................... Faragasso.................. 47 Individual.
Sean Hogan............................... Hogan...................... 50 Individual.
Johnson Controls......................... JCI........................ 53 OEM Manufacturer.
Richard Spotts........................... Spotts..................... 52 Individual.
Michael Ravnitzky........................ Ravnitzky.................. 49 Individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\5\
The following sections discuss the substantive comments DOE received on
the June 2023 Direct Final Rule as well as DOE's determination that the
comments do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June
2023 Direct Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for electric motors. (Docket No. EERE-
2021-BT-STD-0035, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. General Comments
In comments submitted in response to the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule, the CA IOUs, Faragasso, Spotts, and Ravnitzky expressed support
for the energy conservation standard levels specified in the June 2023
Direct Final Rule. (CA IOUs, No. 51 at p. 1; Faragasso, No. 47 at p. 1;
Spotts, No. 52 at p. 1; Ravnitzky, No. 49 at p. 1) DOE has determined
that these comments are supportive of the standards adopted in the June
2023 Direct Final Rule.
AHRI and JCI opposed the June 2023 Direct Final Rule. (AHRI, No. 54
at pp. 1-9; JCI, No. 53 at p. 1-2) Specifically, AHRI opposed the
energy conservation standards for air-over electric motors. AHRI
further requested that DOE withdraw the June 2023 Direct Final Rule to
comply with EPCA's requirements based on the lack of interested persons
that are fairly representative of the relevant point of view and the
receipt of their comments, which AHRI believes provides a reasonable
basis for withdrawal. (AHRI, No. 54 at pp. 2-3, 7-8) However, as
discussed in more details in the remainder of this document, DOE has
determined that these comments do not provide a reasonable basis to
withdraw the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
Hogan did not support or oppose the rule and commented on inverter
motors (Hogan, No. 50 at p. 1) and, as discussed in more details in the
remainder of this document, DOE has determined that this comment is not
adverse.
B. Stakeholder Representation
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view, as determined by DOE, may
submit a joint recommendation to the Department for new or amended
energy conservation standards. AHRI stated that EPCA defines those
interested persons as representatives of manufacturers of covered
products, States, and efficiency advocates. AHRI contends that the
joint stakeholders that came together for the recommendation are not
``fairly representative'' of the relevant points of view required to
publish a direct final rule according to EPCA's requirements in 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A) because the list does not include manufacturers of
covered products, nor any trade association that represent
manufacturers of covered products. AHRI commented that, as a trade
association representing manufacturers of covered products, its members
should have been taken into consideration before the June 2023 Direct
Fina Rule was issued. (AHRI, No. 54 at pp. 7-8)
In response, DOE first notes that the direct final rule authority
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) applies to electric motors through the
crosswalk provision at 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). As part of that crosswalk
provision, any reference to a covered ``product'' is replaced with a
reference to covered ``equipment.'' (42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(3)) As a result,
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) would read, in relevant part, ``[o]n receipt of a
statement that is submitted jointly by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relevant points of view (including
representatives of manufacturers of covered equipment, States, and
efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary . . .'' (42
U.S.C. 6316(a)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)) The November 2022 Joint
Recommendation includes a trade association, NEMA, which represents
more than 23 manufacturers of electric motors. The November 2022 Joint
Recommendation also includes energy-efficiency advocacy organizations
and utilities. Additionally, DOE notes that one of the parties to the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation, NEEA, is an alliance of utilities
and partners that pools resources and shares risks to transform the
market for energy efficiency to the benefit of all consumers in the
Northwest and whose 20-member Board consists of representatives from
the Bonneville Power Administration, consumer- and investor-owned
electric and natural gas utilities, state government, and public
interest and efficiency industry organizations. Finally, DOE also notes
that NYSERDA
[[Page 72351]]
expressed support for the Joint Agreement. As a result, DOE has
determined that the November 2022 Joint Recommendation was submitted by
interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of
view on this matter.
C. Electric Motors Used as a Component of a Covered Product or
Equipment
AHRI commented that component regulation imposes design constraints
and limits innovation without guaranteeing energy savings because
covered products are already regulated. AHRI stated that regardless of
the efficiency of a given product's individual components, such
products must ultimately meet an efficiency standard, and, therefore,
little or no additional energy savings would be achieved. AHRI
commented that component regulation would impose significant cost to
manufacturers and consumers and the burden DOE would impose on
manufacturers of covered products by expanding the scope of the
electric motor test procedure, and ultimately standards, is not
outweighed by any corresponding benefit to consumers or the nation.
(AHRI, No. 54 at p. 2) AHRI added that DOE should apply a finished-
product approach to energy efficiency regulations. Specifically, AHRI
commented that it strongly opposes DOE's plan to expand the existing
scope of coverage of electric motors to include air-over electric
motors. AHRI added that embedded motor testing, and ultimately energy
conservation standards, would save minimal, if any, energy and would
create needless testing, paperwork, and record-keeping requirements
that would raise costs for consumers. In addition, AHRI commented that
the timing of the proposed changes would exacerbate supply chain
disruption, further delaying products reaching U.S. consumers and
inflating the cost of finished goods. AHRI commented also that
component regulation imposes design constraints and limits innovation
without guaranteeing energy savings and that covered products are
already regulated. Further, AHRI asserted that OEMs already consider
more efficient electric motors when identifying what design options to
apply to meet new finished product standards. (AHRI, No. 54 at pp. 3,
8)
JCI commented that it remained opposed to DOE's revised definition
and resulting scope expansion to mandate new test procedures to include
special and definite purpose motors, which specifically includes air-
over, inverter, synchronous motors as well as the newly defined
category of ``small non-small electric motors'' (``SNEMs'') as such
motors are already being regulated at the system level at 10 CFR 431.25
and for which there is a clear exemption as noted under 42 U.S.C.
6317(b)(3). JCI also stated its opposition to component level
regulation for DOE covered products. JCI commented that ``double
regulation'' of finished goods and the components embedded within the
finished goods stifles innovation by reducing design engineers' ability
to weigh trade-offs between different technologies. JCI asserted that,
as a matter of practice, motors are typically not the least efficient
component within an air-conditioner, heat pump, or associated furnace
and by limiting the choices of system components, designers could be
forced to forego greater total system benefits and add unnecessary cost
due to the lack of design flexibility. JCI further commented that
generic motor efficiency ratings will not result in significant savings
benefits and will increase cost to consumers. JCI stated that consumers
who purchase JCI equipment generally do not evaluate potential savings
or performance features based on individual components (i.e., motors)
but rather on the overall system performance of the equipment. (JCI,
No. 53 at pp. 1-2)
On the issue of energy savings resulting from regulating
components, DOE received similar comments in response to the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis that were addressed in the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule. Specifically, as highlighted in a previous DOE report, motor
energy savings potential and opportunities for higher efficiency
electric motors in commercial and residential equipment would result in
overall energy savings.\6\ In addition, some manufacturers advertise
electric motors as resulting in energy savings in HVAC equipment.\7\ 88
FR 36066, 36103. Therefore, DOE disagrees with the notion that an
increase in motor efficiency would not necessarily result in improved
efficiency of the equipment the motor is incorporated into. In
addition, when establishing any new or amended energy conservation
standards for other covered equipment or products incorporating
electric motors, DOE analyzes the current market to establish the
baseline performance and would account for any improvements due to
increased motor efficiency. As a result, any motor improvement would be
later reflected in the covered equipment/product subsequent
rulemakings. Therefore, DOE has determined that these comments do not
provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. DOE Building Technology Office, Energy Savings
Potential and Opportunities for High-Efficiency Electric Motors in
Residential and Commercial Equipment, December 2013. Available at:
www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/motor-energy-savings-potential-report.
\7\ See, for example, Nidec and ABB: acim.nidec.com/motors/usmotors/industry-applications/hvac; bit.ly/3wEIQyu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the June 2023 Direct Final Rule did not include
inverter-only motors, synchronous motors, and SNEMs. Instead, the June
2023 Direct Final Rule retained the scope of the electric motors
currently regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 and expanded the scope to electric
motors that meet the same criteria as described at 10 CFR 431.25(g) but
otherwise have a horsepower greater than 500 and less than or equal to
750 hp; and to those that otherwise have an air-over enclosure or a
specialized frame size and an air-over enclosure. 88 FR 36066, 36079-
36081. For these electric motors, the energy conservation standards
adopted in the June 2023 Direct Final rule would preserve the
technologies and frame sizes that exist today on the market (i.e., AC
induction polyphase designs in the same NEMA frame sizes). Id. at 88 FR
36097. Accordingly, DOE disagrees with the comments from AHRI and JCI
that the adopted standards could limit innovation by imposing design
constraints or reducing design engineers' ability to weigh trade-offs
between different technologies.
Therefore, DOE has determined that these comments do not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final.
D. Original Equipment Manufacturer Industry Burden
AHRI commented that DOE declined to address industry's concerns in
the electric motor test procedure final rule, citing that DOE stated
comments related to any potential standards that DOE may consider for
electric motors will be discussed in the separate energy conservation
standards rulemaking docket (EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007).\8\ AHRI noted that
it had raised concerns specifically regarding air-over motors in
response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis.\9\ (AHRI, No. 54 at p.
2) Also in response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, AHRI added
that it filed joint comments with the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers regarding the OEM certification compliance burden and
[[Page 72352]]
increases to costs without increases to finished good efficiency. AHRI
commented that DOE failed to address these comments in the June 2023
Direct Final Rule and accompanying NOPR because DOE assessed that the
majority of the stakeholder concerns stemmed from regulating SNEMs and
air-over SNEMs. AHRI asserted that even if a minority of the concerns
was given to air-over motors, that would not absolve DOE of its
statutory duty in determining whether a standard is economically
justified. AHRI commented that DOE must consider the economic impact of
the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the products
subject to such standard and, in the case of air-over motors, finished
goods manufacturers can be either the manufacturer or the consumer,
depending on how the component is purchased. (Id. at pp. 2-3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 87 FR 63588, 63591 (Oct. 10, 2022).
\9\ In their comments, AHRI refers to this publication as a
Notice of Data Availability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI further commented that some OEMs purchase complete air-over
motors for incorporation while other OEMs buy motor components and
assemble the motor into the equipment. In the latter case, AHRI stated
that the OEM would be considered a motor manufacturer and undergo the
time and cost to certify that the motor meets any pertinent standards.
AHRI added that the expanded scope of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule
would redefine OEMs as electric motor manufacturers and that, for
imported equipment, the expanded scope would impact OEMs who purchase
air-over motor components and air-over motors that are not already sold
on the U.S. market. However, AHRI commented that DOE did not include
these manufacturer impacts in the standards June 2023 Direct Final Rule
analysis. Specifically, AHRI commented that the shipments estimates
used in the analysis are underestimated and questioned whether DOE
included air-over motors included in OEM equipment. (AHRI, No. 54 at p.
4) In addition, AHRI commented that any OEMs that are considered a
motor manufacturer would also be subject to new requirements for
establishing or verifying performance in an independent laboratory.
AHRI asserted that these air-over motor specific costs were not
included. AHRI noted that the March 2022 Prelim TSD included minor
increases in installation cost as efficiency levels rise attributed to
the additional cost of an electrician (Id. at p. 5) AHRI commented that
such regulatory burdens have left manufacturers in an almost constant
state of redesign and testing and that innovation was no longer as
important as just modifying products to meet new and ever-changing
regulatory burdens. (Id. at p. 8)
Regarding the shipments estimate, as previously noted, the air-over
motors that are subject to the June 2023 Direct Final Rule are limited
to those meeting the same criteria as described at 10 CFR 431.25(g) but
otherwise have an air-over enclosure or a specialized frame size and an
air-over enclosure. Specifically, these are electric motors with
horsepower greater than or equal to 1 hp, that are NEMA Design A or B
and are built in standard NEMA frame size \10\ or specialized frame
size (or IEC equivalents). This excludes most electric motors included
in heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration
(``HVACR'') equipment manufactured by AHRI, which typically are not
NEMA Design A or B, have different frame constructions, or are single
phase motors. Therefore, DOE believes the shipments estimate used in
the June 2023 Direct Final rule is correct as it is not intended to
include the totality of the air-over electric motor market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ More specifically, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') for this rulemaking
specifically examines the conversion costs that electric motor
manufacturers (including OEMs that also manufacture electric motors)
would incur due to the analyzed energy conservation standards for
electric motors in comparison to the revenue and free cash electric
motor manufacturers receive. In addition, the MIA includes the
additional testing costs for newly regulated equipment to comply with
new efficiency standards.\11\ Regarding OEMs who purchase components of
an air-over motor, DOE notes that motors assembled this way are a
minority of overall motors covered by the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
In addition, for motors that are assembled this way, the conversion
costs associated with the new and amended energy conservation standards
would not be significant as the OEM is not manufacturing the components
that would have to be changed, and those conversion costs would be
incurred by the component manufacturers, which are typical motor
manufacturers (i.e., included as NEMA members) and the focus of the
manufacturer impact analysis conducted in the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule. Therefore, DOE has determined that these comments do not provide
a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
JCI commented that it understands DOE's authority to impose
requirements on manufacturers of covered products, but does not agree
with DOE's definition that equipment importers should be responsible
for embedded electric motor test and certification requirements if
indeed this is the case. JCI commented also that it was not clear if
DOE's revised definition of ``air-over'' and ``manufacturer,'' which
specifically includes importation and assembly, would result in
importers of finished goods like JCI being responsible for embedded
motor standards and testing. (JCI, No. 53 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See section IV.G of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule. 88 FR
36006, 36112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 2023 Direct Final Rule, DOE did not establish revised
definitions for ``air-over'' and ``manufacturer.'' Therefore, DOE does
not consider this comment to be an adverse comment. The definition of
``air-over electric motor'' was established by the test procedure final
rule published on October 19, 2022. 87 FR 63588, 63609. The definition
of ``manufacture'' and ``manufacturer'' can be found at 10 CFR 431.2
and were not revised by the June 2023 Direct Final Rule. Finally, DOE
clarifies that any electric motor in scope that is imported into the
United States would need to comply with the new and amended energy
conservation standards adopted in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
E. Replacement Motor Certification Burden
AHRI commented that HVACR and water heating equipment are built,
tested, and certified as a complete design and that slight changes to
the motors can have significant and unexpected impacts on performance
and efficiency. AHRI stated that there are a variety of safety
standards affected by air flow in addition to the performance standards
and that the testing of all legacy equipment because of a motor change
would be cost and resource prohibitive. In addition, AHRI noted that
testing could be impractical if the HVACR or water heating equipment
was out of production because OEMs would be forced to rebuild an out-
of-production unit for the purpose of testing the new motor or risk
abandoning a reasonable repair path for consumers. AHRI asserted that
some equipment may not be able to be retroactively designed with new
motors due to new energy conservation standards or refrigerant changes.
(AHRI, No. 54 at pp. 5-6)
JCI commented that DOE did not account for the cost burden of
certifying
[[Page 72353]]
replacement motors for legacy equipment, which it believes would be
required per the revised scope definition. JCI stated that certifying
replacement motors to new energy conservations standards for legacy
equipment would likely require the building of at least partial, if not
complete, prototypes as well as substantial investment in test time to
cover dozens of different legacy applications for products still within
their expected service life. JCI add that its legacy product offering
ranges in size from 1 ton to over 120 tons (nominal cooling) for its
rooftop and residential offerings and has dozens of unique electric
motor applications still within their remaining service life. JCI
commented also that in cases where a new energy conservation standard
results in a new, larger NEMA frame size, it may not be possible to
develop such a product and thus result in premature equipment
replacement or a special one-off design which will greatly increase
cost to consumers. JCI requested that DOE consider the negative impacts
of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule and rescind the revised definition
scope of covered motors. (JCI, No. 53 at p. 2)
While DOE conducts a MIA to address the industry burden on the
manufacturer of the considered covered equipment, DOE typically does
not include the impacts to other manufacturers. The MIA for this
rulemaking specifically examined the conversion costs that electric
motor manufacturers (including OEMs that also manufacture electric
motors) would incur due to the analyzed energy conservation standards
for electric motors in comparison to the revenue and free cash electric
motor manufacturers receive. The OEM testing and certification costs
were not included in the MIA, and neither were the OEM revenues and
free cash flows, as these costs and revenue are not specific to
electric motor manufacturers. However, as noted by the Electric Motors
Working Group, the adopted standards for air-over electric motors \12\
are not expected to cause broad market disruption. (Electric Motors
Working Group, No. 35 at p. 4) In addition, as noted in in section IV.C
of the June 2023 Direct Final rule, DOE fixed the frame size, which
remained the same across efficiency levels. 88 FR 36066, 36097. As
such, the energy conservation standards adopted in the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule would preserve the frame sizes of electric motors on the
market today. Consequently, although DOE did not include any OEM
testing and certification costs in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule, DOE
does not estimate these impacts to be significant. Therefore, DOE has
determined that these comments do not provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The majority of the electric motors for which the June 2023
Direct Finale rule is establishing new and amended standards are not
incorporated into HVACR equipment. Electric motors with a horsepower
greater than or equal to 100 hp and less than or equal to 250 hp and
those with a horsepower greater than 500 hp and less than or equal
to 750 hp are larger motors that are not used as components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI commented that DOE used an average application lifetime of 15
years for applications driven by electric motors and came to an average
lifetime of 11.8 years for the 5 hp air-over motor. AHRI noted that DOE
has used much longer equipment lifetimes for some AHRI products, such
as air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps where
DOE used a lifetime of 33.88 years for 30-ton equipment in a
rulemaking.\13\ AHRI asserted that such equipment could have two or
three motor replacements during its lifetime and that if the
replacement motor becomes unavailable, the entire OEM product would
have to be replaced rather than repaired. In addition, AHRI commented
that DOE did not account for the potential unavailability of the motors
in use in today's HVACR equipment as well as the cost to OEMs, and
ultimately to the consumer, of retroactively designing equipment in use
today for motors that become unavailable upon new standards. (AHRI, No.
54 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ DOE Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
ASRAC Working Group meeting March 21-22, 2023. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that the Electric Motors Working Group stated the adopted
standards for air-over electric motors would avoid market disruption.
(Electric Motors Working Group, No. 35 at p. 4) In addition, the
adopted levels would preserve key criteria that are used to identify
suitable replacement motors,\14\ such as frame sizes, voltages,
horsepower, pole configurations, enclosure constructions, and
mountings, and DOE believes drop-in replacement motors would remain
available and there would be no major market disruption, as highlighted
by the Electric Motors Working Group. DOE further notes that OEM
equipment can usually accommodate different models of motors and online
cross-referencing tools \15\ exist to help consumers identify motors
that can be used as drop-in replacements. Therefore, DOE has determined
that these comments do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of
the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See ``How to cross reference an OEM motor.'' Available at
hvacknowitall.com/blog/how-to-cross-reference-an-oem-motor (last
accessed September 28, 2023); Rheem and Ruud PROTECH ``Selecting a
Motor.'' Available at assets.unilogcorp.com/267/ITEM/DOC/PROTECH_51_100998_33_Catalog.pdf (last accessed September 28, 2023).
\15\ See www.emotorsdirect.ca/hvac.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Regulatory Burden
AHRI stated that the burdens of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule
would be added to an already large industry burden due to other
regulatory bodies requiring redesign and recertification of products
made by its members. AHRI described the regulatory actions that will
impact its products: (1) UL 60335-2-40 will be required for all cooling
equipment on January 1, 2024; (2) the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act requires the use of low global warming potential
(``GWP'') refrigerants in residential and light commercial air
conditioners, which AHRI expects to be required within two years and
will require updated safety standards to address refrigerant leaks
because GWP refrigerants are more flammable, and in commercial
refrigeration equipment, which has a statutory deadline of October 7,
2023; (3) new federal efficiency levels and metrics with compliance
dates ranging from January 1, 2024 to January 1, 2025 for variable
refrigerant flow (``VRF'') equipment, dedicated outdoor air systems,
computer room air conditioners, air cooled three-phase small central
air conditioners and heat pumps and VRF with a cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h, and commercial fans; (4) California's regulation of
commercial fans required on November 16, 2023; and (5) test procedures
that are currently in the rulemaking process for commercial package air
conditioners and heat pumps, single package vertical air conditioners
and heat pumps, package terminal air conditioners and heat pumps, and
water source heat pumps. (AHRI, No. 54 at pp. 6-7)
The June 2023 Direct Final Rule examined the cumulative regulatory
burden that affects the manufacturers of the covered equipment (i.e.,
electric motors). 88 FR 36066, 36133-36134. As previously stated, DOE
typically does not include the impacts to other manufacturers.
Therefore, DOE has determined that this comment does not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
[[Page 72354]]
G. EPCA Requirements
AHRI commented that EPCA requires that any proposed new or amended
energy conservation standards must result in significant energy savings
and be technologically feasible and economically justified and cited to
42 U.S.C. 6295(o). AHRI commented that it does not believe that the
energy conservation standards in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule comply
with this requirement. (AHRI, No. 54 at p. 8)
In the June 2023 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that the adopted
energy conservation standards would result in significant energy
savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified and
provided supporting analysis. 88 FR 36066, 36072, 36120-36146. For the
reasons discussed in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule, DOE has
determined that the comment provided by AHRI does not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
H. Other Comments
AHRI commented that DOE's electric motors test procedure, which
would rate motor efficiency at full load, fails to adequately capture
representative load conditions for finished products and equipment that
is largely optimized for, and regulated on, part-load performance. AHRI
commented also that regulating special and definite purpose motors,
particularly with the proposed third-party nationally recognized
certification program requirements, will add cost, reduce market
choices, and do little, if anything, to realize further energy savings.
AHRI asserted that full-load operating temperature in testing may be
greater than the rated operating temperature of the motor while it is
operating in its intended air over application, which AHRI claimed to
be particularly problematic for air-over motors. AHRI stated that DOE
was working in other areas to design test procedures that reward part-
load performance and that it was inexplicable that DOE proposed to do
the opposite here. (AHRI, No. 54 at p. 3)
DOE notes that this comment relates to the electric motors test
procedure and is not related to the June 2023 Direct Final Rule. As
such, DOE does not consider this comment as an adverse comment for the
June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
Ravnitzky requested clarification on whether the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule applied to small electric motors, dedicated purpose pool
pump motor, and motors that are used in consumer products. (Ravnitzky,
No. 49 at p. 1) DOE clarifies that the June 2023 Direct Final Rule
amends and establishes energy conservation standards for electric
motors that meet the newly adopted scope criteria at 10 CFR 431.25 and
are in the scope of subpart B of 10 CFR part 431. Section 431.11
specifies that subpart B does not cover ``small electric motors,''
which are addressed in subpart X of 10 CFR part 431 and does not cover
electric motors that are ``dedicated-purpose pool pump motors,'' which
are addressed in subpart Z of 10 CFR part 431. See 10 CFR 431.11.
Therefore, the June 2023 Direct Final Rule does not apply to small
electric motors or dedicated purpose pool pump motors. In addition,
while the scope of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule does not
differentiate electric motors by end-use applications, it only includes
electric motors that operate on polyphase power supply and is unlikely
to include electric motors incorporated in consumer products (which
typically operate on single phase power supply). Accordingly, DOE does
not consider the comment from Ravnitzky to be an adverse comment.
Ravnitzky commented that there are many small business
manufacturers of electric motors and that DOE should provide
exemptions, waivers, or alternative standards for small businesses and
provide sufficient time for small businesses to adjust to the new
requirements. (Ravnitzky, No. 49 at pp. 1-2)
DOE notes that 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 1003 for additional details. Therefore, DOE has
determined that the comment from Ravnitzky does not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
Hogan commented that for permanent capacitive split phase motors
(``PSC''), the motor efficiency decreases dramatically as the capacitor
degrades and that efficiency loss is the dominant failure mode for PSC
motors. Hogan added that DOE's analysis only considered the ``as-
built'' efficiency of the motor and that DOE should have determined the
actual running efficiency of motors over their entire operating life
for several operating environments and applications that degrade over
time due to partial demagnetization. Hogan also stated that the
inverter drive efficiency also degrades over time. Further, Hogan
disagreed with DOE's analysis, which assumed that the price of
permanent magnet inverter motors would decline to that comparable of
three phase motors, and stated that the induction motor would always
have a cost advantage. Hogan also noted that inverter drive motors only
produce greater efficiency in applications as a result of variable
shaft speed. (Hogan, No. 50 at p. 1)
PSC motors, permanent magnet inverter motors, and inverter drives
were not included in the scope of products for which DOE established
and amended energy conservation standards in the June 2023 Direct Final
Rule. Instead, in the LCC and national impact analysis (``NIA'')
analysis, DOE added a scenario to account for the fact that some
consumers may choose to purchase a synchronous electric motor (i.e., a
permanent magnet inverter motors, out of scope of the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule) rather than a more efficient NEMA Design A or B electric
motor or select to purchase a variable speed drive (i.e., an inverter
drive) in combination with a compliant electric motor. DOE developed a
consumer choice model to estimate the percentage of consumers that
would purchase a synchronous electric motor based on the payback period
of such investment. 88 FR 36066, 36104. As part of this sensitivity
analysis DOE did not assume any decline in price for permanent magnet
inverter motors. Instead, DOE assumed that the price of a more
efficient NEMA Design A or B electric motor would increase compared to
a baseline NEMA Design A or B electric motor.\16\ DOE acknowledges that
there is uncertainty around the efficiency of permanent magnet inverter
motors and inverter drives which may degrade over time. In the June
2023 Direct Final Rule, DOE noted that there is uncertainty as to which
rate such substitution would occur due to the uncertainty in the
estimated savings from speed controls, installation costs, and selected
decision criteria, and DOE did not incorporate this scenario as part of
the reference analysis. Id. As such, this analysis was not used to
justify the adopted standards in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.\17\
Therefore, DOE has determined that this comment does not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Table 8C.2.1 in Appendix 8C of the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule Technical Support Document.
\17\ See Appendix 8C of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule
Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hogan commented that the efficiency of residential and commercial
motors can be increased higher than what is
[[Page 72355]]
proposed by DOE at minimal costs when wired for three phase power in
comparison to using an inverter drive. Hogan added that DOE should
reasonably require good efficiency for single phase alternative current
(``AC'') motors for many fractional horsepower motors (i.e., horsepower
less than 1) and otherwise advance efficiency through three phase
power. (Hogan, No. 50 at p. 1)
As noted previously, the scope of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule
only includes electric motors that operate three phase power supply
(i.e., AC induction polyphase electric motors). 88 FR 36066, 36079-
36081. In addition, the scope of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule
includes motors with horsepower equal to or greater than 1 horsepower.
Id. As such, DOE did not analyze technology options for single phase AC
motors and fractional horsepower motors (i.e., with horsepower less
than 1) in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule and does not consider the
recommendation from Hogan to provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal
of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
IV. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is
likely to result from new or amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295
(p)(4)(A)(i) and (C)(i)(II); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also
directs the Attorney General of the United States (``Attorney
General'') to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of
competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit
such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication
of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent
of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To assist
the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE provided the
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') with copies of the June 2023 Direct
Final Rule, the corresponding NOPR, and the June 2023 Direct Final Rule
TSD for review. DOE has published DOJ's comments at the end of this
document.
In its letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that, based on its
review, it is unlikely that the proposed energy conservation standards
for electric motors would have a significant adverse impact on
competition.
V. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(``NEPA''), DOE had analyzed the direct final rule in accordance with
NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE
determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 10
CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B, B5.1, because it is a rulemaking
that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in B5.1(b)
apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that require further
environmental analysis, and it meets the requirements for application
of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE
determined that promulgation of this direct final rule is not a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of NEPA and does not require an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.
VI. Conclusion
In summary, based on the previous discussion, DOE has determined
that the comments received in response to the direct final rule for new
and amended energy conservation standards for electric motors do not
provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. As
a result, the energy conservation standards set forth in the direct
final rule became effective on September 29, 2023. Compliance with
these standards is required on and after June 1, 2027.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 16,
2023, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy 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 October 17, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendix A
August 21, 2023
Ami Grace-Tardy, Assistant General Counsel for Legislation,
Regulation and Energy Efficiency, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, DC 20585, [email protected]
Re: Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors, DOE Docket
No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007
Dear Assistant General Counsel Grace-Tardy:
I am responding to your June 20, 2023 letter seeking the views
of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of
proposed energy conservation standards for electric motors.
Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to
determine the impact of any lessening of competition likely to
result from proposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney
General's responsibility for responding to requests from other
departments about the effect of a program on competition has been
delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust
Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). The Assistant Attorney General for the
Antitrust Division has authorized me, as the Policy Director for the
Antitrust Division, to provide the Antitrust Division's views
regarding the potential impact on competition of proposed energy
conservation standards on his behalf.
In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines
whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by
substantially limiting consumer choice, by placing certain
manufacturers at an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or by
inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of
particular products. A lessening of competition could result in
higher prices to manufacturers and consumers.
We have reviewed the proposed standard contained in the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and the related Technical Support Document.
We have also reviewed public comments and information provided by
industry participants.
Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy
conservation standards for electric motors are unlikely to have a
significant adverse impact on competition.
Sincerely,
/s/
David G.B. Lawrence Policy Director
[FR Doc. 2023-23204 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
