66966 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0048] 

RIN 1904–AF27 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Dedicated 

Purpose Pool Pump Motors 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including dedicated purpose pool pump 

motors. When DOE is considering 

adopting energy conservation standards, 

EPCA requires that the standards be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency, 

which DOE determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. In this final rule, 

DOE is adopting amended energy 

conservation standards for dedicated 

purpose pool pump motors. It has 

determined that the new energy 

conservation standards for these 

products would result in significant 

conservation of energy, and are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

November 27, 2023. Compliance with 

the new standards established for 

dedicated purpose pool pump motors 

with motor total horsepower <0.5 THP 

in this final rule is required on and after 

September 29, 2025. Compliance with 

the new standards established for 

dedicated purpose pool pump motors 

with motor total horsepower ≥0.5 THP 

and <1.15 THP in this final rule is 

required on and after September 28, 

2027. Finally, compliance with the new 

standards established for dedicated 

purpose pool pump motors with motor 

total horsepower ≥1.15 THP and ≤5 THP 

in this final rule is required on and after 

September 29, 2025. The incorporation 

of refence of certain material listed in 

this rule is approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register on November 27 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking, which includes Federal 

Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at 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 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2017-BT-STD-0048. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by 

email: 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. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2588. Email: 

amelia.whiting@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

incorporates by reference the following 

standard into parts 429 and 431: 

UL 1004–10, Standard for Safety for 

Pool Pump Motors, Revised First 

Edition, Dated March 24, 2022 (‘‘UL 

1004–10:2022’’). 

Copies of UL 1004–10:2022 can be 

obtained from: Underwriters 

Laboratories (‘‘UL’’), 333 Pfingsten 

Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, (841) 272– 

8800, or go to www.ul.com. 

For a further discussion of this 

standard, see section VI.N of this 

document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

DPPP Motors 

III. General Discussion 

A. General Comments 

B. Test Procedure 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to 

Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Scope of Coverage and Definitions 

2. Market Review 

3. Equipment Classes 

4. Technology Options 

B. Screening Analysis 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

a. Representative Units 

b. Baseline Efficiency 

c. Higher Efficiency Levels 

2. Cost Analysis 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

1. DPPP Motor Applications 

2. DPPP Motor Consumer Sample 

3. Self-Priming and Non-Self-Priming Pool 

Pump Motor Input Power 

4. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps Motor 

Input Power 

5. Daily Operating Hours 

6. Annual Days of Operation 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Equipment Cost 

2. Installation Costs 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

6. Equipment Lifetime 

7. Discount Rates 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

G. Shipments Analysis 

1. Base-Year Shipments 

2. No-New-Standards Case Shipment 

Projections 

3. Standards Case Shipment Projections 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

b. Shipments Projections 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

d. Markup Scenarios 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

4. Comments From Interested Parties 

K. Emissions Analysis 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in 

DOE’s Analysis 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66967 

1All 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. 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 

3 Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–STD–0001, which is 

maintained at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2022-BT-STD-0001. 

4The average LCC savings refer to consumers that 

are affected by a standard and are measured relative 

to the distribution of purchased DPPP motors, and 

their associated energy efficiency, distribution in 

the no-new-standards case, which depicts the 

market in the compliance year in the absence of 

new or amended standards (see section IV.F.9 of 

this document). The simple PBP, which is designed 

to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured 

relative to the baseline product (see section IV.C of 

this document). 

a. Social Cost of Carbon 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

2. Monetization of Other Emissions 

Impacts 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusion 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

8. Summary of Economic Impacts 

C. Conclusion 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for DPPP Motor Standards 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Adopted Standards 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 

13563, and 14904 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Need for, Objectives of, and Legal Basis 

for, Rule 

2. Significant Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

3. Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy 

4. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

5. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements Including Differences in 

Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of 

Small Entities 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Information Quality 

M. Congressional Notification 

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by 

Reference 

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate 

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317) Title III, Part C of the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act, as 

amended (EPCA) 2 established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6311–6317) Such equipment includes 

electric motors, which include 

dedicated-purpose pool pump motors 

(‘‘DPPP motors’’ or ‘‘DPPPMs’’ or ‘‘pool 

pump motors’’), the subject of this 

rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). This 

rulemaking does not concern standards 

for dedicated-purpose pool pumps 

(‘‘DPPPs’’), which are being addressed 

in a separate rulemaking.3

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 

Furthermore, the new or amended 

standard must result in significant 

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

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

In accordance with these and other 

statutory provisions discussed in this 

document, DOE is adopting new energy 

conservation standards for DPPP 

motors. The adopted standards, which 

are expressed in full-load efficiency and 

design requirements, are shown in Table 

I.1. DOE is finalizing standards that 

apply to all products listed in Table I.1 

and manufactured in, or imported into, 

the United States starting on the dates 

provided in the table. 

TABLE I.1—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DPPP MOTORS (TSL 7) 

Motor total 

horsepower 

(THP) 

Performance 

standard: fullload efficiency 

(%) 

Design 

requirement: 

speed capability 

Design 

requirement: 

freeze protection 

Compliance date 

THP <0.5 ......................... 69% None ................................ None .......................................................... September 29, 2025. 

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15 ............. ........................ Variable speed control * ... Only for DPPP motors with freeze protection controls **.September 28, 2025. 

1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5 ................ ........................ Variable speed control * ... Only for DPPP motors with freeze protection controls **.September 29, 2025. 

* A variable speed motor is a DPPP motor that meets the definition of ‘‘variable-speed control dedicated-purpose pool pump motor’’ as defined 

by UL 1004–10:2022. 

** DPPP motors with freeze protection controls are to be shipped with the freeze protection feature disabled, or with the following default, useradjustable settings: (a) the default dry-bulb air temperature setting shall be no greater than 40 °F; (b) the default run time setting shall be no 

greater than 1 hour (before the temperature is rechecked); and (c) the default motor speed in freeze protection mode shall not be more than half 

of the maximum operating speed. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I.2 summarizes DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic impacts of 

the adopted standards on consumers of 

DPPP motors, as measured by the 

average life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) savings 

and the simple payback period 

(‘‘PBP’’).4 The average LCC savings are 

positive for each equipment class, and 

the PBP is less than the average lifetime 

of DPPP motors, which is estimated to 

be 4.5 years (see section IV.F of this 

document). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66968 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

5This time period captures manufacturers’ profits 

starting with the years leading up to the compliance 

date, at which time they are making investments to 

comply with standards, and throughout the 30-year 

analysis period after the compliance date. 

6Conversion costs are included in the INPV 

calculation. 

7All monetary values in this document are 

expressed in 2021 dollars and, where appropriate, 

are discounted to 2024 unless explicitly stated 

otherwise. 

8 DOE conducted the analysis over a 30-year 

period starting in 2026 (2026–2055). As discussed 

in section III.A of this document, for all TSLs DOE 

considered a 2-year lead time resulting in a first full 

year of compliance of 2026, except for small-size 

DPPP motors at TSL 7 where DOE uses a 4-year 

compliance lead time, resulting in a compliance 

year of 2028. In this case, DOE considered 28 years 

of shipments (2028–2055). 

9The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (FFC) 

energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 

transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency 

standards. For more information on the FFC metric, 

see section IV.H.1 of this document. 

10For small size DPPP motors, as noted 

previously, DOE considered 28 years of shipments 

(2028–2055). 

11A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented 

in short tons. 

12 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative 

to the no-new-standards-case, which reflects key 

assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2023 

(AEO2023). AEO2023 represents current Federal 

and State legislation and final implementation of 

regulations as of the time of its preparation. See 

section IV.K of this document for further discussion 

of AEO2023 assumptions that effect air pollutant 

emissions. 

13To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG 

emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates 

presented in the Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 

published in February 2021 by the IWG. (‘‘February 

2021 SC–GHG TSD’’). www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/ 

TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. 

14U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of 

Reducing Directly Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors 

and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at 

www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-tonreducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors. 

TABLE I.2—IMPACTS OF ADOPTED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF DPPP MOTORS

DPPP Motors 

equipment class 

Average LCC 

savings 

(2022$) 

Simple payback 

period 

(years) 

Extra-small-size (THP <0.5) ............................................................................................................................ $3 0.9 

Small-size (0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15) ......................................................................................................................... 4 3.4 

Standard-size (1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5) ...................................................................................................................... 236 1.3

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

adopted standards on consumers is 

described in section IV.F of this 

document. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value 

(‘‘INPV’’) is the sum of the discounted 

cash flows to the industry, which align 

with the industry profits from 

producing DPPP motors, from the base 

year through the end of the analysis 

period (2024–2055).5 Using a real 

discount rate of 7.2 percent, DOE 

estimates that the INPV for 

manufacturers of DPPP motors in the 

case without new standards is $661 

million in 2022$. Under the adopted 

standards, DOE estimates the change in 

INPV to range from ¥32.4 percent to 

12.0 percent, which is approximately 

¥$214.2 million to $79.0 million 

change in profits. In order to bring 

products into compliance with new 

standards, it is estimated that industry 

will incur total conversion costs of 

$56.2 million.6

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

adopted standards on manufacturers is 

described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of 

this document. 

C. National Benefits and Costs 7

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

adopted energy conservation standards 

for DPPP motors would save a 

significant amount of energy. Relative to 

the case without new standards, the 

lifetime energy savings for DPPP motors 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the anticipated first full year 

of compliance with the new standards 

(2026–2055),8 amount to 1.56 

quadrillion British thermal units 

(‘‘Btu’’), or quads.9 This represents a 

savings of 27.5 percent relative to the 

energy use of these products in the case 

without new standards (referred to as 

the ‘‘no-new-standards case’’). 

The cumulative net present value 

(‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer benefits of 

the standards for DPPP motors ranges 

from $5.4 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate) to $10.2 billion (at a 3- 

percent discount rate). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating-cost savings minus the 

estimated increased equipment and 

installation costs for DPPP motors 

purchased in 2026–2055 relative to the 

no-new-standards case.10

In addition, the adopted standards for 

DPPP motors are projected to yield 

significant environmental benefits. DOE 

estimates that the standards will result 

in cumulative emission reductions (over 

the same period as for energy savings) 

of 31.2 million metric tons (Mt) 11 of 

carbon dioxide (CO2), 9.8 thousand tons 

of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 56.4 thousand 

tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 247.2 

thousand tons of methane (CH4), 0.32 

thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N2O), 

and 0.07 tons of mercury (Hg).12

DOE estimates the value of climate 

benefits from a reduction in greenhouse 

gases (GHG) using four different 

estimates of the social cost of CO2 (SC– 

CO2), the social cost of methane (SC– 

CH4), and the social cost of nitrous 

oxide (SC–N2O). Together these 

represent the social cost of GHG (SC– 

GHG). DOE used interim SC–GHG 

values developed by an Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (IWG).13 The 

derivation of these values is discussed 

in section IV.L of this document. For 

presentational purposes, the climate 

benefits associated with the average SC– 

GHG at a 3-percent discount rate over 

the period of analysis are estimated to 

be $2.0 billion. DOE does not have a 

single central SC–GHG point estimate 

and it emphasizes the importance and 

value of considering the benefits 

calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG 

estimates. 

DOE estimated the monetary health 

benefits of SO2 and NOX emissions 

reductions, using benefit per ton 

estimates from the Environmental 

Protection Agency,14 as discussed in 

section IV.L of this document. DOE 

estimated the present value of the health 

benefits would be $2.0 billion using a 7- 

percent discount rate, and $3.9 billion 

using a 3-percent discount rate. DOE is 

currently only monetizing health 

benefits from changes in ambient fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) 

concentrations from two precursors 

(SO2 and (for NOX) and from changes in 

ambient ozone from one precursor 

(NOX), but will continue to assess the 

ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct 

PM2.5 emissions. 

Table I.3 summarizes the monetized 

benefits and costs expected to result 

from the amended standards for DPPP 

motors. There are other important 

unquantified effects, including certain 

unquantified climate benefits, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66969 

15To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2024, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (e.g., 2030 or 2040), and then 

discounted the present value from each year to 

2024. Using the present value, DOE then calculated 

the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, 

starting in the compliance year, that yields the same 

present value. 

unquantified public health benefits from 

the reduction of toxic air pollutants and 

other emissions, unquantified energy 

security benefits, and distributional 

effects, among others. 

TABLE I.3—PRESENT VALUE IN 2024 OF MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ADOPTED ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS FOR DPPP MOTORS

Billion 2022$ 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ................................................................................................................................................. 14.0 

Climate Benefits * ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2.0 

Health Benefits ** ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3.9 

Total Monetized Benefits † ....................................................................................................................................................... 19.9 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡ ..................................................................................................................................... 3.9 

Net Monetized Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................ 16.0 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ††) ........................................................................................................................................ (0.21)–0.08 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ................................................................................................................................................. 7.9 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) .............................................................................................................................................. 2.0 

Health Benefits ** ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2.0 

Total Monetized Benefits † ....................................................................................................................................................... 11.9 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡ ..................................................................................................................................... 2.6 

Net Monetized Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................ 9.3 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ††) ........................................................................................................................................ (0.21)–0.08 

Note: This table presents the present value of the monetized costs and benefits associated with product name shipped in 2026–2055, except 

for small-size DPPP motors where shipments in 2028–2055 are considered. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits which 

accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026–2055 (or 2028–2055). 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2), methane (SC–CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(SC–N2O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of 

this document). Together these represent the global SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the 

average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. To monetize the 

benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social 

Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, 

total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but 

DOE does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated 

using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. 

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

†† Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See 

sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE’s NIA includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the 

increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE 

also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, 

DOE models manufacturers’ pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA 

produces a range of impacts, which is the rule’s expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is calculated using 

the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 7.2% that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the Final Rule TSD for a complete 

description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For DPPP motors, those values are -$214 million and $79 million. DOE accounts for 

that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range 

of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario 

used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE 

assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE 

includes the range of estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in Section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is 

consistent with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this final rule, the net 

benefits would range from $15.79 billion to $16.08 billion at 3-percent discount rate and range from $9.09 billion to $9.38 billion at 7-percent discount rate. 

The benefits and costs of the 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The monetary 

values for the total annualized net 

benefits are (1) the reduced consumer 

operating costs, minus (2) the increase 

in product purchase prices and 

installation costs, plus (3) the monetized 

value of climate and health benefits of 

emission reductions, all annualized.15

The national operating cost savings 

are domestic private U.S. consumer 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66970 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

16For small size DPPP motors, as noted 

previously, DOE considered 28 years of shipments 

(2028–2055). 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered products and 

are measured for the lifetime of DPPP 

motors shipped in (2026–2055).16 The 

benefits associated with reduced 

emissions achieved as a result of the 

adopted standards are also calculated 

based on the lifetime of DPPP motors 

shipped in (2026–2055).16 Total benefits 

for both the 3-percent and 7-percent 

cases are presented using the average 

GHG social costs with 3-percent 

discount rate. Estimates of SC–GHG 

values are presented for all four 

discount rates in section V.B.6 of this 

document. 

Table I.4 presents the total estimated 

monetized benefits and costs associated 

with the standard, expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The results under 

the primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced NOX and SO2

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

monetized cost of the standards adopted 

in this rule is $221 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual benefits are $684 

million in reduced equipment operating 

costs, $103 million in monetized 

climate benefits, and $173 million in 

monetized health benefits. In this case, 

the monetized net benefit would 

amount to $739 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated 

monetized cost of the standards is $204 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

monetized benefits are $738 million in 

reduced operating costs, $103 million in 

monetized climate benefits, and $205 

million in monetized health benefits. In 

this case, the monetized net benefit 

would amount to $841 million per year. 

TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ADOPTED STANDARDS FOR DPPP MOTORS

Million 2022$/year 

Primary estimate Low-net-benefits 

estimate 

High-net-benefits 

estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................... 738 721 760 

Climate Benefits * ..................................................................................... 103 103 103 

Health Benefits ** ..................................................................................... 205 205 205 

Total Monetized Benefits † ............................................................... 1,046 1029 1,068 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡ ............................................. 204 235 173 

Monetized Net Benefits .................................................................... 841 793 895 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ††) ................................................ (17)–6 (17)–6 (17)–6 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................... 684 671 703 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ...................................................... 103 103 103 

Health Benefits ** ..................................................................................... 173 173 173 

Total Monetized Benefits † ............................................................... 960 947 979 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡ ............................................. 221 250 190 

Monetized Net Benefits .................................................................... 739 696 790 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ††) ................................................ (17)–6 (17)–6 (17)–6 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026–2055, except for small-size DPPP motors 

where shipments in 2028–2055 are considered. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits which accrue after 2055 from the 

products shipped in 2026–2055 (or 2028–2055). The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy 

prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental 

equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline 

rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational 

purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not 

have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four 

sets of SC–GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented 

in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE 

does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. 

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66971 

17Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

18Associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026– 

2055, except for small-size DPPP motors where 

shipments in 2028–2055 are considered. 

†† Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See 

sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE’s NIA includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the 

increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE 

also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, 

DOE models manufacturers’ pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA 

produces a range of impacts, which is the rule’s expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 7.2% that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the Final Rule TSD for 

a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For DPPP motors, those values are ¥$17 million and $6 million. DOE 

accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer 

markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to society, including potential changes in 

production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized 

net benefit calculation for this final rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $824 million to $847 million at 3-percent discount rate and 

range from $722 million to $745 million at 7-percent discount rate. 

DOE’s analysis of the national impacts 

of the adopted standards is described in 

sections IV.G.2, IV.K, and IV.L of this 

document. 

D. Conclusion 

DOE concludes that the standards 

adopted in this final rule represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Specifically, 

equipment are able to achieve these 

standard levels using technology 

options currently available in the 

DPPPM market. As for economic 

justification, DOE’s analysis shows that 

the benefits of the standards exceed the 

burdens of the standards. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3- 

percent discount rate case for GHG 

social costs, the estimated monetized 

cost of the standards for DPPP motors is 

$221 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the estimated 

annual monetized benefits are $684 

million in reduced equipment operating 

costs, $103 million in monetized 

climate benefits, and $173 million in 

monetized ambient air pollutant health 

benefits. The monetized net benefit 

amounts to $739 million per year. 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.17 For example, some 

covered products and equipment have 

most of their energy consumption occur 

during periods of peak energy demand. 

The impacts of these products on the 

energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than products with 

relatively constant demand. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis. 

As previously mentioned, the 

standards are projected to result in 

estimated national energy savings 18 of 

1.56 quads FFC, the equivalent of the 

primary annual energy use of 16.8 

million homes. In addition, they are 

projected to reduce CO2 emissions by 

31.2 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE 

has determined the energy savings from 

the standard levels adopted in this final 

rule are ‘‘significant’’ within the 

meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A 

more detailed discussion of the basis for 

these conclusions is contained in the 

remainder of this document and the 

accompanying TSD. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this final rule, as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for DPPP motors. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of 

EPCA, added by Public Law 95–619, 

Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, which 

sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency. 

This equipment includes those electric 

motors that are DPPP motors, the subject 

of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 

6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), 

labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), 

energy conservation standards (42 

U.S.C. 6316 (a); 42 U.S.C. 6295), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6316). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6297) There are 

currently no Federal energy 

conservation standards for DPPP 

motors. DOE noted in the July 2021 

Final Rule that efforts by States to set 

energy conservation standards, test 

procedures, or labeling requirements for 

DPPP motors—or any other electric 

motor—are preempted as a matter of 

law. 86 FR 40765, 40767. 

Upon further consideration, however, 

DOE is clarifying here that none of the 

provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6313 apply to 

DPPP motors because, although they are 

a category of electric motor, DPPPP 

motors are not among the category of 

electric motors for which Congress 

established standards and a rulemaking 

schedule in 42 U.S.C. 6313(b). Thus, 

State DPPP motor standards are not 

already preempted as a matter of law. 

EPCA outlines rules of preemption for 

State energy conservation standards 

before a Federal standard promulgated 

becomes effective. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 

U.S.C. 6297(b). Specifically, it provides 

that no State regulation concerning 

energy efficiency or energy use of 

covered equipment shall be effective 

with respect to the covered equipment— 

in the absence of a Federal regulation— 

unless the State regulation is a 

regulation regulating electric motors 

other than those to which 42 U.S.C. 

6313 is applicable. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(7); 

42 U.S.C. 6297(b)(4). As discussed in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66972 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

section III.A. of this document, DPPPM 

are a category of electric motor, but are 

excepted from the requirements of 42 

U.S.C. 6313(b). See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). 

Further, there are no other provisions in 

42 U.S.C. 6313 that would apply to 

DPPP motors. Therefore, any State 

regulations establishing or amending 

standards for DPPPM are not currently 

preempted. 

Instead, under 42 U.S.C. 6297(c), 

upon the compliance date for the 

Federal standards in this final rule, the 

Federal standards will supersede the 

CEC standards requirements for 

replacement dedicated-purpose pool 

pump motors (‘‘RDPPPM’’) for the first 

time. For extra-small-size and standardsize DPPP motors, the CEC standards 

will be superseded on the compliance 

date applicable to these DPPP motors, 

which is 2 years after the publication of 

this final rule. For small-size DPPP 

motors, which have an additional twoyear lead time, the CEC standards would 

be superseded on the compliance date 

applicable to small-size DPPP motors, 

which is 4 years after the publication of 

this final rule. DOE may, however, grant 

waivers of Federal preemption in 

limited instances for particular State 

laws or regulations, in accordance with 

the procedures and other provisions set 

forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a) (applying the preemption 

waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297)) 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (r)) 

Manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use the Federal test procedures as 

the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that 

their equipment complies with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and 

(2) making representations about the 

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

6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these 

test procedures to determine whether 

the equipment complies with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The 

DOE test procedures for DPPP motors 

appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) § 431.484. 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered equipment, 

including DPPP motors. Any new or 

amended standard for a covered product 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 

(‘‘Secretary’’) determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE 

may not adopt any standard that would 

not result in the significant conservation 

of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not 

prescribe a standard (1) for certain 

products, including DPPP motors, if no 

test procedure has been established for 

the product, or (2) if DOE determines by 

rule that the standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) In deciding whether a 

proposed standard is economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE must make this 

determination after receiving comments 

on the proposed standard, and by 

considering, to the greatest extent 

practicable, the following seven 

statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the standard 

on manufacturers and consumers of the 

products subject to the standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of the 

covered products in the type (or class) 

compared to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for the 

covered products that are likely to result 

from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of energy (or 

as applicable, water) savings likely to result 

directly from the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products likely to 

result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result from 

the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and water 

conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary considers 

relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

Further, EPCA, as codified, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

savings during the first year that the 

consumer will receive as a result of the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

DOE must also periodically evaluate 

the energy conservation standards for 

certain covered equipment, including 

electric motors, and publish either a 

notification of determination that the 

standards do not need to be amended, 

or a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NOPR’’) that includes new proposed 

energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 

42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1). 

EPCA, as codified, also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary 

may not prescribe an amended or new 

standard if interested persons have 

established by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the standard is likely to 

result in the unavailability in the United 

States in any covered product type (or 

class) of performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

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

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

Additionally, EPCA specifies 

requirements when promulgating an 

energy conservation standard for a 

covered product that has two or more 

subcategories. DOE must specify a 

different standard level for a type or 

class of products that has the same 

function or intended use if DOE 

determines that products within such 

group (A) consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

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

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

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

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In 

determining whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different 

standard for a group of products, DOE 

must consider such factors as the utility 

to the consumer of such a feature and 

other factors DOE deems appropriate. 

Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard 

must include an explanation of the basis 

on which such higher or lower level was 

established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

DPPP motors are electric motors, 

which are defined as machines that 

convert electrical power into rotational 

mechanical power. 10 CFR 431.12. DOE 

has established test procedures, labeling 

requirements, and energy conservation 

standards for certain electric motors (10 

CFR part 431, subpart B), but those 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66973 

19The current energy conservation standards at 

10 CFR 431.25 apply to electric motors that satisfy 

nine criteria listed at 10 CFR 431.25(g), subject to 

the exemptions listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l). The nine 

criteria are as follows: (1) are single-speed, 

induction motors; (2) are rated for continuous duty 

(MG1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC); (3) 

contain a squirrel-cage (MG1) or cage (IEC) rotor; (4) 

operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz 

sinusoidal line power; (5) are rated 600 volts or less; 

(6) have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration; (7) are 

built in a 3-digit or 4-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC 

metric equivalent), including those designs between 

two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric 

equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or 

IEC metric equivalent); (8) produce at least 1 

horsepower (0.746 kW) but not greater than 500 

horsepower (373 kW), and; (9) meet all of the 

performance requirements of one of the following 

motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or 

an IEC Design N or H motor. The exemptions listed 

at 10 CFR 431.25(l) are: (1) air-over electric motors; 

(2) component sets of an electric motor; (3) liquidcooled electric motors; (4) submersible electric 

motors; and (5) inverter-only electric motors. 

20 DOE confirmed the adoption of the standards 

and the effective date and compliance date in a 

notice published on May 26, 2017. 82 FR 24218. 

DOE also established a test procedure for DPPPs. 82 

FR 36858 (August 7, 2017). 

21The Joint Petitioners are: the Association of 

Pool & Spa Professionals, Alliance to Save Energy, 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Arizona 

Public Service, California Energy Commission, 

California Investor Owned Utilities, Consumer 

Federation of America, Florida Consumer Action 

Network, Hayward Industries, National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association, Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Nidec Motor Corporation, 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Pentair 

Water Pool and Spa, Regal Beloit Corporation, 

Speck Pumps, Texas ROSE (Ratepayers’ 

Organization to Save Energy), Waterway Plastics, 

WEG Commercial Motors, and Zodiac Pool 

Systems. 

22The Joint Petition is available at 

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BTSTD-0048-0014. 

23 Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–STD–0048, 

available at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2017-BT-STD-0048. 

24With respect to each of the ex parte 

communications noted in this document, DOE 

posted a memorandum submitted by the interested 

party/parties that summarized the issues discussed 

in the relevant meeting as well as its date and 

attendees, in compliance with DOE’s Guidance on 

Ex Parte Communications. 74 FR 52795–52796 

(Oct. 14, 2009). The memorandum of the meeting 

as well as any documents given to DOE employees 

during the meeting were added to the docket as 

specified in that guidance. See Id. at 74 FR 52796. 

25The parenthetical reference provides a 

reference for information located in the docket of 

DOE’s rulemaking to develop the test procedure and 

labeling requirements for DPPP motors. (Docket No. 

EERE–2017–BT–STD–0048, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD0048). The references are arranged as follows: 

(commenter, comment docket ID number, page of 

that document). 

requirements do not apply to DPPP 

motors. DOE has separately established 

a test procedure for DPPP motors in 10 

CFR 431.484. The scope of the DPPP 

motor definition includes DPPP motors 

regardless of how the equipment is sold; 

i.e., incorporated in a DPPP or sold 

separately. 

Currently, DPPP motors that would be 

subject to the energy conservation 

standards are not subject to any Federal 

energy conservation standards or 

labeling requirements because they do 

not fall within any of the specific 

classes of electric motors that are 

currently regulated by DOE.19 However, 

DPPP motors are electric motors and, 

therefore, are and have been among the 

types of industrial equipment for which 

Congress has authorized DOE to 

establish applicable regulations under 

EPCA without the need for DOE to 

undertake any additional prior 

administrative action. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(1)(A)) 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

DPPP Motors 

On January 18, 2017, DOE published 

a direct final rule establishing energy 

conservation standards for DPPPs. 82 FR 

5650 (the ‘‘January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule’’).20

In comments submitted in response to 

the direct final rule, several interested 

parties discussed the issue of the 

efficiency of electric motors used in 

DPPPs. Comments were received from a 

broad range of interested parties, 

including manufacturers, trade 

associations, and energy efficiency 

advocacy organizations suggesting that 

energy conservation standards were also 

needed for motors used in pool pumps. 

Commenters wanted to ensure that 

consumers who purchased pool pumps 

compliant with the new standards at 10 

CFR 431.465(f), who subsequently 

needed to replace their motor, would do 

so with a motor of equal or greater 

efficiency. All comments received that 

discussed DPPP motors supported 

further rulemaking to address these 

motors. (Docket No. EERE–2015–BT– 

STD–0008; Regal Beloit Corporation 

(‘‘Regal Beloit’’), No. 122 at p. 1; 

Hayward Industries, Inc. (‘‘Hayward’’), 

No. 125 at p. 1; Pentair Water Pool and 

Spa, Inc. (‘‘Pentair’’), No. 132 at pp. 1– 

2; Zodiac Pool Systems (‘‘Zodiac’’), No. 

134 at pp. 1–2; Association of Pool and 

Spa Professionals (‘‘APSP’’), No. 127 at 

p. 2; Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (‘‘ASAP’’), No. 133 at pp. 4–5; 

Natural Resource Defense Council 

(‘‘NRDC’’), No. 121 at p. 4; California 

Investor Owned Utilities (‘‘CA IOUs’’), 

No. 130 at p. 2) 

Acknowledging comments received in 

response to the direct final rule in 

support of regulating DPPP motors that 

would serve as replacement motors to 

the regulated pool pumps, DOE 

published a notice of public meeting on 

July 3, 2017 and held a public meeting 

on August 10, 2017 to consider potential 

scope, definitions, equipment 

characteristics, and metrics for pool 

pump motors. 82 FR 30845. DOE also 

requested comment on potential 

requirements for DPPP motors in a 

request for information (‘‘RFI’’) 

pertaining to test procedures for small 

electric motors and electric motors. 82 

FR 35468 (July 31, 2017). On August 14, 

2018, DOE received a petition submitted 

by a variety of entities (collectively, the 

‘‘Joint Petitioners’’) 21 requesting that 

DOE issue a direct final rule to establish 

prescriptive standards and a labeling 

requirement for DPPP motors (‘‘Joint 

Petition’’).22 The Joint Petitioners stated 

that the motor on a pool pump will 

often fail before the pump itself needs 

to be replaced, and motor-only 

replacements are common. (Joint 

Petition, No. 14 at p. 2) They added that 

without a complementary standard for 

DPPP motors, upon replacing a pool 

pump motor, consumers may install 

replacement motors that are less 

efficient than the motor with which the 

DPPP was originally equipped. (Id.) To 

address this concern, the Joint 

Petitioners asked DOE to establish a 

direct final rule establishing 

prescriptive standards and a labeling 

requirement for DPPP motors. (Joint 

Petition, No. 14 at pp. 6–9) The Joint 

Petitioners sought a compliance date of 

July 19, 2021, to align with the 

standards compliance date for DPPPs. 

(Id.) See also 82 FR 24218 (May 26, 

2017). DOE published a notice of the 

Joint Petition and sought comment on 

whether to proceed with the proposal, 

as well as any data or information that 

could be used in DOE’s determination of 

whether to issue a direct final rule. 83 

FR 45851 (Sept. 11, 2018).23

On December 12, 2018, 

representatives from the Association of 

Pool & Spa Professionals (‘‘APSP’’), the 

National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (‘‘NEMA’’), Nidec Motors, 

Regal Beloit, and Zodiac met with DOE 

to reiterate the need for implementation 

of the Joint Petition. (December 2018 Ex 

Parte Meeting, No. 42 at p. 1) 24 On 

February 5, 2019, APSP, NEMA, 

Hayward, Pentair, Nidec Motors, Regal 

Beloit, WEG Commercial Motors, and 

Zodiac Pool Systems met with DOE to 

present an alternative approach to the 

Joint Petition, suggesting DOE propose a 

labeling requirement for DPPP motors. 

(February 2019 Ex Parte Meeting, No. 43 

at p. 1) 25 These interested parties 

specifically requested that DOE base the 

labeling requirement on a newly 

available industry standard for pool 

pump motors published on July 1, 2019 

(UL 1004–10:2019, ‘‘Pool Pump 

Motors’’), a design standard that 

incorporates some of the proposals 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66974 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

26See Docket # 19–AAER–02 at 

www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/ 

appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/applianceefficiency-proceedings-2. 

contained in the Joint Petition. 

(February 2019 Ex Parte Slides, No. 43 

at pp. 9–10) A follow-up memorandum 

was submitted to DOE on March 1, 

2019, providing additional information 

related to UL 1004–10:2019. (March 

2019 Ex Parte Memo, No. 44) The 

interested parties noted the timelines 

and costs that would be involved in 

applying a label to the affected pool 

pump motors and the impacts flowing 

from past labeling efforts. (See generally 

Id. at 1–3.) 

On April 7, 2020, the California 

Energy Commission (‘‘CEC’’) adopted 

new regulations for RDPPPMs, with an 

effective date of July 19, 2021. The 

adopted standards included nominal 

efficiency at full-load and maximum 

operating speed requirements, in 

addition to a requirement that RDPPPMs 

with a total horsepower (‘‘THP’’) greater 

than or equal to 0.5 THP manufactured 

on or after July 19, 2021, must be 

variable-speed.26

On October 5, 2020, in response to the 

Joint Petition and the alternative 

recommendation presented by several of 

the Joint Petitioners following 

submission of the Joint Petition, DOE 

published a NOPR proposing to 

establish a test procedure and an 

accompanying labeling requirement for 

DPPP motors. 85 FR 62816 (‘‘October 

2020 NOPR’’). Specifically, DOE 

proposed to incorporate by reference UL 

Standard 1004–10:2019 ‘‘Outline of 

Investigation for Pool Pump Motors’’ 

(‘‘UL 1004–10:2019’’) pertaining to 

DPPP motor definitions and marking 

requirements; require the use of 

Canadian Standards Association 

(‘‘CSA’’) C747–09 (R2014), ‘‘Energy 

Efficiency Test Methods for Small 

Motors’’ (‘‘CSA C747–09’’) for testing 

the energy efficiency of DPPP motors; 

require the nameplate of a subject DPPP 

motor (1) to include the full-load 

efficiency of the motor as determined 

under the proposed test procedure, and 

(2) if the DPPP motor is certified to UL– 

1004–10:2019, to include the statement, 

‘‘Certified to UL 1004–10:2019’’; require 

that catalogs and marketing materials 

include the full-load efficiency of the 

motor; require manufacturers to notify 

DOE of the subject DPPP motor models 

in current production (according to the 

manufacturer’s model number) and 

whether the motor model is certified to 

UL 1004–10:2019; and require 

manufacturers to report to DOE the fullload efficiency of the subject DPPP 

motor models as determined pursuant to 

the proposed test procedure. 85 FR 

62816, 62820. Additionally, if a DPPP 

motor model is certified to UL 1004– 

10:2019, DOE proposed to require 

manufacturers to report the THP and 

speed configuration of the motor model 

as provided on the nameplate pursuant 

to the UL certification. Id. 

On July 29, 2021, DOE published a 

final rule adopting a test procedure for 

DPPP motors. 86 FR 40765. (‘‘July 2021 

Final Rule’’). Specifically, the test 

procedure requires use of CSA C747–09 

(R2014), ‘‘Energy Efficiency Test 

Methods for Small Motors’’ (‘‘CSA 

C747–09’’) for testing the full-load 

efficiency of DPPP motors and 

incorporates by reference UL 1004– 

10:2020 ‘‘Standard for Pool Pump 

Motors’’ (‘‘UL 1004–10:2020’’) 

pertaining to definitions and scope. The 

new test procedure is currently located 

at 10 CFR 431.484. 86 FR 40765, 40768. 

DOE did not establish a labeling 

requirement and stated that it intends to 

address any such labeling and/or energy 

conservation standards requirement in a 

separate notification. Id. 

On June 21, 2022, DOE published a 

NOPR proposing energy conservation 

standards for DPPP motors. 87 FR 

37122. (‘‘June 2022 NOPR’’). DOE 

proposed a performance standard for a 

class of DPPP motors and design 

requirements for certain classes of DPPP 

motors. Specifically, DOE proposed to 

require that DPPP motors less than 0.5 

THP must have a full-load efficiency of 

69 percent, and DPPP motors greater 

than or equal to 0.5 THP must be 

variable speed control DPPP motors. In 

addition, for DPPP motors greater than 

or equal to 0.5 THP, DOE also proposed 

to implement freeze-protection 

requirements. 87 FR 37122, 37123– 

37124. On July 26, 2022, DOE presented 

the proposed standards and 

accompanying analysis in a public 

meeting. 

DOE received comments in response 

to the June 2022 NOPR from the 

interested parties listed in Table II.1. 

TABLE II.1—JUNE 2022 NOPR WRITTEN COMMENTS

Commenter(s) Abbreviation Comment No. 

in the Docket Commenter type 

Anonymous ........................................................................................ Anonymous ............... 89 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), American Council 

for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), National Consumer 

Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients (NCLC), Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA).

Joint Advocates ......... 97 Efficiency Organizations. 

California Energy Commission and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.CEC and NYSERDA 94 State Agencies. 

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists.

Joint SC–GHG Commenters.95 Efficiency Organizations and 

Legal Institute. 

Fluidra ................................................................................................ Fluidra ....................... 91, 101 Pool Pump Manufacturer. 

Hayward Industries, Inc. .................................................................... Hayward .................... 93 Pool Pump Manufacturer. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ................................................ NEEA ......................... 99 Efficiency Organization. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas and 

Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE).

CA IOUs .................... 96 Utilities. 

Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. ...................................................... Pentair ....................... 90 Pool Pump Manufacturer. 

The Pool & Hot Tub Alliance and National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association.

PHTA and NEMA ...... 92 Trade Associations. 

The Pool & Hot Tub Alliance ............................................................. PHTA ......................... 100 Trade Association. 

Regal Rexnord ................................................................................... Regal ......................... 98 Motor Manufacturer. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66975 

27The parenthetical reference provides a 

reference for information located in the docket of 

DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for DPPP motors. (Docket No. EERE– 

2017–BT–STD–0048, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID 

number, page of that document). 

28The 0.711 hhp threshold in the DPPP standards 

for self-priming pool filter pumps aligns with a 1.15 

THP motor threshold (1.15 THP is roughly 

equivalent to 0.711 hhp). See section IV.A.3 of this 

document. 

29The DPPP standard at 10 CFR 431.465(f) would 

likely require DPPP motors sold in DPPPs to meet 

the requirements equivalent to TSL 6, while this 

DFR establishes standards at TSL 8 for DPPP 

motors, regardless of how they are sold (i.e., 

incorporated in a DPPP or sold separately). See 

section V.A of this document. 

30See Docket # 19–AAER–02 at 

www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/ 

appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/applianceefficiency-proceedings-2. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.27 To the extent that 

interested parties have provided written 

comments that are substantively 

consistent with any oral comments 

provided during the July 26, 2022 

public meeting, DOE cites the written 

comments throughout this final rule. 

Any oral comments provided during the 

webinar that are not substantively 

addressed by written comments are 

summarized and cited separately 

throughout this final rule. 

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed this final rule after 

considering oral and written comments, 

data, and information from interested 

parties that represent a variety of 

interests. The following discussion 

addresses issues raised by these 

commenters. 

A. General Comments 

This section summarizes general 

comments received from interested 

parties regarding rulemaking timing and 

process. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed a performance standard (i.e., 

full-load efficiency) and design 

requirements (i.e., speed capability) 

based on DPPP motor THP. Specifically, 

for motors <0.5 THP, DOE proposed 

DPPP motors to meet a full-load 

efficiency of 69 percent. For motors ≥0.5 

THP, DOE proposed variable speed 

control design requirements, and freeze 

protection control requirements for 

DPPP motors with freeze protection 

controls. 87 FR 37122, 37124. 

Waterway Plastics commented that 

the proposal does not align with CEC 

scope because that scope is only for 

replacement DPPP motors and requested 

clarity on the scope of the June 2022 

NOPR. (Waterway Plastics, Public 

Meeting, No. 88 at p. 6) The scope of the 

final rule includes DPPP motors 

regardless of how the equipment is sold 

i.e., incorporated in a DPPP or sold 

separately (i.e., as a replacement motor). 

One anonymous commenter stated 

that the proposed standard for DPPP 

motors is more stringent than the 

standard for DPPPs that went into effect 

in 2021 and would make the DPPP rule 

obsolete. Specifically, the anonymous 

commenter stated that with the DPPP 

standard, a 1 hp single-speed pump 

would still meet the weighted energy 

factor (‘‘WEF’’) requirement, but this 

does not seem to be the case in the 

proposed DPPP motor rule. In addition, 

the anonymous commenter stated that 

the WEF DPPP standard was less 

stringent for non-self-priming pumps, 

whereas the proposed DPPP motor level 

does not separate non-self-priming 

pumps motors. The anonymous 

commenter stated that typically rules for 

subcomponents (motors) would have 

less stringent or equal requirements to 

the fully assembled product (i.e., 

pumps), otherwise the standard for pool 

pumps would be obsolete due to the 

more stringent motor rule. (Anonymous, 

No. 89 at p. 1) Waterway Plastics 

commented that the proposal could 

affect the DPPPs that are being 

manufactured in the United States, and 

that they had concerns that the June 

2022 NOPR proposal does not align 

with the DPPP standards. (Waterway 

Plastics, Public Meeting, No. 88 at p. 6) 

In addition to setting freeze protection 

requirements, the standard for DPPPs at 

10 CFR 431.465(f) would likely require 

DPPP motors sold in DPPPs to be 

variable speed for standard-size self 

priming pool pumps (using DPPP 

motors greater than or equal to 1.15 

THP) 28 and to have a higher efficiency 

for small-size self priming pumps, nonself priming pumps, and PCBPs.29 The 

DPPP standards apply to DPPPs only 

and do not apply to DPPP motors sold 

alone as replacement motors. As stated 

previously, motor-only replacements are 

common and comments were received 

from a broad range of interested parties, 

including manufacturers, trade 

associations, and energy efficiency 

advocacy organizations suggesting that 

energy conservation standards were also 

needed for motors used in pool pumps 

to ensure that consumers who 

purchased pool pumps compliant with 

the new standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f), 

who subsequently needed to replace 

their motor, would do so with a motor 

of equal or greater efficiency. In 

contrast, the CEC standards apply to 

replacement DPPP motors only and 

would require variable speed 

replacement DPPP motors at or above 

0.5 THP, and also sets requirements for 

nominal efficiency at full-load and 

maximum operating speed.30 In this 

final rule, DOE establishes DPPP motor 

standard for both motors sold in DPPPs 

and sold alone for replacement 

purposes. While the motor 

improvements realized by this DPPP 

motor final rule could be enough to 

improve a DPPP such that the DPPP 

would meet the DPPP standard, DOE 

notes that the DPPP energy conservation 

standards and the DPPP motor 

standards are complementary to help 

ensure a harmonized approach to DPPP 

and DPPP motors that are replacements. 

The DPPP standards includes the 

hydraulic efficiency of the pump, the 

motor efficiency, and the efficiency of 

the associated controls and drives 

supporting the DPPP. By contrast, the 

DPPP motor standard focuses on just the 

motor aspect and is meant to 

complement the DPPP standard by 

ensuring the replacement motors are at 

least as efficient as originally intended 

by the DPPP manufacturer in the DPPP 

design. Therefore, DOE does not agree 

with the commenter that these two 

standards are overlapping. Instead, DOE 

believes it is addressing complementary 

but different equipment regulations to 

help ensure the efficiencies that 

consumers expect when purchasing 

their DPPPs are maintained when 

replacing the motor. Since the 

regulations apply to both domestically 

produced equipment and imported 

equipment and are intended to be 

complementary by design, DOE does not 

agree with Waterway Plastics that 

domestic manufacturers will be 

disadvantaged. 

Regarding pressure cleaner booster 

pumps (‘‘PCBP’’), Fluidra recommended 

separating PCBP into their own 

equipment class, requiring 69-percent 

efficiency for motors less than 1.15 THP, 

and implementing further review of 

energy use, efficiency, and cost 

effectiveness for the motors at 1.15 to 5 

THP. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2). PHTA 

and NEMA recommended that if DOE 

confirms that a variable speed 

requirement is not cost-effective for 

PCBP, DOE should not require variable 

speed for PCBP motors below 1.15 THP. 

(PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 5) 

On the other hand, CEC and 

NYSERDA supported DOE’s proposed 

standards, specifically the proposal to 

require variable-speed motors, and 

encouraged that DOE finalize the rule as 

soon as possible. CEC and NYSERDA 

stated that the proposed standards will 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66976 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

31 In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE followed the same 

2-year lead time. See 87 FR 37122, 37144 at FN67. 

extend the 2017 DPPP final rule energy 

efficiency benefits to replacement DPPP 

motors, which currently are unregulated 

on the Federal level, and provide 

additional energy efficiency 

improvements to new DPPPs. CEC and 

NYSERDA also stated that some of the 

energy savings in this NOPR are already 

being realized in California through that 

State’s Replacement DPPP Motor 

Regulations, which went into effect July 

19, 2021, and which are projected to 

provide 451 GWh in annual electricity 

savings and $82 million in annual 

savings to California businesses and 

individuals. (CEC and NYSERDA, No. 

94 at p. 2) Further, CEC and NYSERDA 

commented that variable-speed motors 

are extremely beneficial to consumers, 

as DPPPs have different operational 

modes with different speed 

requirements, and because real-world 

pool design complicates the size 

selection of DPPP motors. Further, CEC 

and NYSERDA stated that the benefit of 

variable-speed motors for PCBP 

applications, which is the ability to 

adjust motor speed, will eliminate the 

need to use pressure discs or pressure 

relief valves. (CEC and NYSERDA, No. 

94 at p. 3) 

The Joint Advocates commented that 

they support the proposed standards for 

DPPP motors, which generally align 

with the existing California standards 

for replacement DPPP motors, and 

would ensure that all DPPP motors 

greater than or equal to 0.5 THP are 

variable-speed. The Joint Advocates also 

supported the proposed freeze 

protection control requirements. (Joint 

Advocates, No. 97 at p. 1) 

The CA IOUs supported DOE’s 

proposal to adopt TSL 7 for DPPP 

motors. The CA IOUs commented that 

they surveyed the CEC certifications 

database and the DOE Compliance 

Certification Management System 

(‘‘CCMS’’) database and noted that 

small-size DPPP motors represent 

motors in PCBPs, small self-priming 

pool filter pumps, and small non-selfpriming pool filter pumps. The CA IOUs 

agreed that the 0.5 THP to 1.15 THP 

threshold is an appropriate range for the 

DOE analysis and standard. Further, the 

CA IOUs commented that the standardsized DPPP motor range, between 1.15 

to 5.0 THP, represents motors mostly 

found in standard-size self-priming pool 

filter pump applications. (CA IOUs, No. 

96 at pp. 1–2) The CA IOUs commented 

that the proposed standard for a smallsize DPPP motor will provide 

technically feasible and cost-effective 

consumer savings through variable 

speed motor technology, allowing 

consumers to choose the lowest speed 

that meets their pool maintenance needs 

and reducing pressure head losses 

through the pump affinity laws. The CA 

IOUs noted that this energy savings 

strategy is consistent with the industry 

standard American National Standards 

Institute/Pool and Hot Tub Alliance/ 

International Code Council (ANSI/ 

PHTA/ICC)-15:2021, which 

recommends that ‘‘for maximum energy 

efficiency, pool filtration should be 

operated at the lowest possible flowrate 

for a time period that provides sufficient 

water turnover for clarity and 

sanitation.’’ (CA IOUs, No. 96 at p. 2) 

Further, the CA IOUs supported DOE’s 

proposal to adopt freeze protection 

setting requirements, which aligns with 

the requirements of the DPPP rule and 

provides essential energy savings by 

ensuring that products shopped with 

freeze protection have the appropriate 

settings to protect equipment from 

freezing while not using excessive 

energy. (CA IOUs, No. 96 at p. 2) 

Regal commented that they generally 

support DOE moving forward with the 

DPPPM energy conservation standards 

rule. Regal commented that they believe 

the proposed rule will enable the 

achievement of significant energy 

savings, if careful consideration is given 

to the rule’s underlying technical 

analysis and the timeline for 

implementation. (Regal, No. 98 at p.1) 

ASAP commented in support of DOE’s 

proposed standards for DPPP motors 

and noted that these generally align 

with the existing standards in 

California. (ASAP, Public Meeting, No. 

88 at p.5) As part of this final rule, DOE 

considered comments received 

regarding the technical analysis and 

made any needed updates, as discussed 

in section IV of this document. DOE also 

updated the market data information to 

match the current market of DPPP 

motors available, as discussed in section 

IV.A.2 of this document. Finally, DOE 

notes that DOE conducted DPPP motor 

manufacturer interviews as part of the 

June 2022 NOPR, as discussed in the 

manufacturer impact analysis, and 

incorporated feedback to estimate the 

manufacturer impacts of setting 

variable-speed requirements as 

standards. 87 FR 37122, 37154. 

In regard to creating an equipment 

class for DPPP motors used in PCBP 

applications, DOE generally does not 

consider end-use applications (for DPPP 

motors, end-use would be DPPPs) when 

analyzing equipment classes for covered 

equipment. See further discussion in 

IV.A.3 of this document. DOE also notes 

that, assuming the same motor output 

power, there are no technological 

features that distinguish a DPPP motor 

used in a PCBP from a DPPP motor used 

in a self-priming or non-self-priming 

application. As such, DOE continues to 

base the analysis in this final rule only 

on DPPP motor equipment classes 

determined only by motor THP, as 

defined in Table III.1 of this document. 

DOE reviewed the cost-effectiveness 

of the trial standard levels considered 

with the updates for this final rule and 

continues to conclude that the proposal 

from the June 2022 NOPR is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. See section V of 

this document for analytical results. 

Section IV provides further details on 

the analysis conducted, the analysis 

inputs, and responses to any analysisspecific comments that were received 

regarding the June 2022 NOPR. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed that new standards would 

apply to DPPP motors manufactured 

two years after the date on which any 

new or amended standard is 

published.31 DOE estimated the 

publication of a final rule in the second 

half of 2023. Therefore, in the June 2022 

NOPR, for purposes of its analysis, DOE 

used 2026 as the first full year of 

compliance with any new standards for 

DPPP motors. 87 FR 37122, 37144. 

Several commenters recommended 

that DOE consider a two-step approach 

to allow for further analysis and data 

collection and coordinate between DPPP 

and DPPP motors. As a first step, PHTA, 

NEMA, and Hayward recommended 

that DOE adopt a final rule as soon as 

possible that would adopt and require a 

DPPP motor listing to UL 1004–10:2022 

‘‘Standard for Pool Pump Motors’’ (‘‘UL 

1004–10:2022’’) in its entirety, which 

would provide alignment with the 

current DPPP rule and a means for 

certification and labeling that will 

provide for easier enforcement. Further, 

PHTA, NEMA, and Hayward noted that 

manufacturers anticipated compliance 

with UL 1004–10, which was 

established in the 2018–2020 efforts to 

obtain a corresponding DPPP motor 

rule. Therefore, PHTA, NEMA, and 

Hayward stated that manufacturers are 

ready and able to provide compliant 

product 12 months after a final rule 

effective date. As a second step, PHTA, 

NEMA, and Hayward commented that 

DOE should set up a negotiation 

working group on both DPPP and DPPP 

motor rules to dig deeper into the 

concerns highlighted in their comment 

submission and ensure performance and 

timing alignments long term. PHTA, 

NEMA, and Hayward commented that 

they are committed to initiating step 

two as soon as possible and stated that 

if a two-step approach is unfeasible, that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66977 

32See: (Anonymous, No. 89 at p. 1), (Pentair, No. 

90 at p. 1, 3), (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2), (Hayward, 

No. 93 at p. 2), (CA IOUs, No. 96 at p. 1–2), (Joint 

Advocates, No. 97 at p. 1), (PHTA and NEMA, No. 

92 at p. 10), (PHTA, No. 100 at p. 3) 

33https://www.regalrexnord.com/products/ 

electric-motors/ac-motors-nema/pump-motors/ 

pool-pump-motors/pool-pump-motor-01-85-hp-1- 

ph-60-hz-115-v-3600-rpm-48y-frame-tefc-elv08tb. 

prior to issuing a final DPPP motor rule, 

the cost-effective concerns laid out in 

their comments should be further 

analyzed and manufacturer interviews 

conducted. PHTA, NEMA, and Hayward 

stated that although this approach will 

slow down obtaining a final rule, the 

current NOPR deviates from the Joint 

Petition and the commenters have 

provided multiple concerns that require 

attention. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at 

p. 9; Hayward, No. 93 at pp. 2–3) 

In response, Fluidra requested a 5- 

year transition period to implement 

compliance with the DPPP motor 

regulation proposal. Fluidra noted that 

this transition period would give 

manufacturers adequate time to 

develop, test, certify, launch, and 

transition product lines, as well as 

educate distributors, pool builders, and 

consumers on this product transition. 

(Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2) Hayward, 

PHTA, and NEMA requested a 

compliance date of at least 5 years 

following the effective date if DOE 

decides against the implementation of 

UL 1004–10 based rule. Hayward, 

PHTA, and NEMA noted that more time 

is required to: address the limited 

product that currently exists in the 

small fractional motor category; find 

solutions to the design of other products 

impacted by a DPPP motor rule; and 

provide better alignment with any 

coming revisions to the current DPPP 

rule. (Hayward, No. 93 at pp. 2–3; PHTA 

and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 9) PHTA stated 

that any final DPPPM rule compliance 

date should be extended a minimum of 

5 years to allow manufacturers to 

recover investments made to comply 

with the pump rule. (PHTA, No. 100 at 

p. 3) In addition, Hayward 

recommended the alignment of the 

DPPP and DPPP motor implementation 

dates. (Hayward, No. 93 at p. 2) Regal 

recommended that DOE endeavor to 

better align both the performance 

requirements and compliance deadlines 

between the DPPP and DPPP motor 

rules. Regal commented that this will 

allow for maximizing energy savings, 

while avoiding unintended market 

disruptions and significant fiscal 

impacts to industry and consumers. 

(Regal, No. 98 at p. 1) Specifically, 

PHTA and NEMA commented that they 

were concerned the different 

implementation dates of the DPPP and 

DPPP motor rules will cause confusion 

and difficulties for manufacturers and 

risk the potential to undercut savings by 

unaligned implementation of the two 

rules. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at pp. 

2) 

DOE notes that PHTA and NEMA’s 

original recommendation to DOE was to 

adopt UL 1004–10:2022 in its entirety 

(PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 9, 10), 

which includes the requirement that 

DPPP motors rated greater or equal to 

1.15 THP shall not be marked for singlespeed, two-speed, or multi-speed (i.e., 

shall instead be marked for variablespeed). (section 7.1(b) of UL 1004– 

10:2022). Further, PHTA and NEMA 

stated that manufacturers were ready 

and able to provide products compliant 

with UL 1004–10:2022 12 months after 

a final rule effective date. (PHTA and 

NEMA, No. 92 at p. 9) Finally, PHTA 

and NEMA suggested that DOE require 

compliance with the entire UL 1004–10 

standard and not just the scope and 

definitions sections because doing so 

would better align and provide 

consistency with the DPPP rule. They 

also stated that doing so would provide 

an easier enforcement tool for DOE by 

requiring nameplate markings on those 

motors captured in the scope of the 

NOPR and in UL 1004–10, and would 

also ensure products not within the 

scope, such as rigid electric spa motors, 

be labelled for that intended use only. 

(PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 10) This 

is an energy conservation standard and 

not a labeling rulemaking. In this final 

rule, DOE is requiring variable speed 

control for standard-size DPPP motors 

(i.e., 1.15 ≤ THP ≤5), consistent with UL 

1004–10:2022. However, DOE is also 

requiring variable-speed control for 

small-size DPPP motors (i.e., 0.5 ≤ THP 

<1.15), which is more stringent than UL 

1004–10:2022. In this final rule, DOE 

has concluded that the proposal from 

the June 2022 NOPR is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. See 

section V for analytical results. 

As noted previously, PHTA, NEMA, 

and Hayward recommended a two-step 

approach. In addition, most if not all 

comments to the June 2022 NOPR 

concerned the transition to variablespeed for the small-size equipment 

class.32 DOE reviewed the compliance 

dates proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

with specific concern for the 

compliance dates applicable to that 

class. In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

provided a two-year compliance 

timeline for DPPP motors based on the 

statutorily mandated rulemaking 

schedule provided in section 6313. See 

87 FR 37122, 37144 at FN 67, and 

37186. Upon further review, DOE has 

determined that the rulemaking 

schedule provided in 42 U.S.C. 6313(b) 

does not apply to DPPPM. As discussed 

in section II.A. of this document, 

DPPPM are a type of electric motor, but 

not among the types of electric motor for 

which Congress established standards 

and a rulemaking schedule in 42 U.S.C. 

6313(b). DPPPM are definite purpose 

motors. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C). As 

such, they are excepted from the 

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6313(b), 

including the compliance deadlines 

provided in that section. Because 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a) applies certain 

requirements of section 6295(l)-(s) of 

EPCA to certain equipment, including 

electric motors, DOE considered 

whether the compliance deadlines of 

section 6295(m)(4) applied to DPPPM. 

Section 6295(m)(4)(A) defines 

compliance deadlines for specific 

products. But electric motors and 

DPPPMs are not listed, nor does section 

6316 apply a cross reference on how to 

apply these paragraphs to electric 

motors or DPPPMs. Accordingly, DOE 

determined that these compliance 

deadlines do not apply to DPPPM. 

Additionally, DOE reviewed section 

6296(m)(4)(B), which states that DOE 

cannot apply new standards to a 

product with respect to which other 

new standards have been required in the 

prior 6-year period. As this is the first 

time DOE is establishing standards for 

this product, this paragraph also does 

not apply. As such, DOE has determined 

that it has discretion to establish 

compliance deadlines for DPPPM. 

DOE notes CEC’s standards for 

RDPPM, which include standards for 

the small-size equipment class, require 

compliance beginning July of 2021. 

Docket #19–AAER–02. The CEC 

standards set a variable speed motor 

requirement for motors at or above 0.5 

THP as well as minimum motor fullload efficiency requirements. 20 CA 

ADC 1605.3(g)(6)(B). DOE’s final rule 

matches the stringency of the California 

standards (requiring variable speed 

controls for all motors over 0.5 THP) for 

replacement DPPP motors but DOE’s 

proposal extends the variable speed 

requirement to all DPPP motors, 

regardless of whether they are sold with 

a DPPP or on their own. DOE believes 

manufacturers are already producing 

standard-size and extra-small DPPPMs 

that will have to comply with DOE’s 

standards in this final rule. In addition, 

some manufacturers already produce 

small-size DPPPMs that align with 

CEC’s variable speed RDPPM 

standards.33 However, DOE understands 

that some manufacturers may need 

additional time to scale up their 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66978 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

34 DOE included the capital and product 

conversion costs necessary for these DPPP motor 

manufacturers to introduce variable-speed DPPP 

motor models for the small-size equipment class. 

See section III.J of this document. 

35These terms are defined in UL 1004–10:2020, 

which is incorporated by reference in DOE’s test 

procedure at 10 CFR 431.484. In this final rule, DOE 

is incorporating by reference the latest version of 

the UL standard, UL 1004–10:2022; see discussion 

in section III.A.1 of this document. 

manufacturing lines, especially for the 

small-size DPPP motors.34 Therefore, 

DOE is adopting two different 

compliance dates in this final rule 

depending on the total horsepower of 

the motor. Doing so will allow DOE to 

begin the transition to a Federal 

standard for DPPP motors quickly, 

which will help alleviate any 

circumvention and unintended 

consequences that may be occurring 

because of the DPPP Federal standard, 

while balancing the needs of industry to 

have additional time to increase 

manufacturing scale of the small DPPP 

motors. Based on the comments 

received, DOE has concluded that the 

need for additional time is particularly 

relevant for small-size equipment. 

Accordingly, DOE is extending the 

compliance timeline to 4 years, instead 

of the proposed two years, for the smallsize equipment class as DOE believes 

this provides industry sufficient time to 

scale up their manufacturing lines. 

For the extra-small-size and standardsize equipment classes, DOE is 

maintaining the two-year compliance 

timelines as proposed. For the extrasmall-size and standard-size equipment 

classes, the adopted TSL (TSL7) aligns 

with the requirements in UL 1004– 

10:2022 and as noted by PHTA and 

NEMA, manufacturers are ready and 

able to provide products compliant with 

UL 1004–10:2022 12 months after a final 

rule effective date. Therefore, for the 

extra-small-size and standard-size 

equipment classes DOE has determined 

that two years provides sufficient lead 

time. 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

update the DPPP ECS to align with the 

proposed DPPP motor standards. The 

CA IOUs commented that the proposed 

standard requires variable speed 

capability for small and standard size 

DPPP motors, which will impact the 

motors installed in DPPPs. The CA IOUs 

added that the non-self-priming pool 

filter pump and PCBP WEF standards 

allow performance levels achievable by 

single-speed, dual-speed, and variablespeed motors. (CA IOUs, No. 96 at p. 6) 

DOE appreciates CA IOUs comments. 

However, because this rulemaking is 

concerning DPPP motors only and not 

DPPPs, DOE may consider coordinating 

compliance timelines as part of any 

upcoming DPPP rulemakings. 

Finally, Pentair stated that after the 

DPPP rule, it saw a large increase in 

internet activity selling illegal pumps 

and motors that do not meet DOE 

requirements. (Pentair, No. 90 at pp. 1– 

2) Fluidra commented that American 

manufacturers may also be negatively 

impacted by imports of non-compliant 

DPPPs and DPPP motors from foreign 

manufacturers who unknowingly or 

knowingly disregard enforcement of this 

regulation. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2) 

Based on input from five manufacturers, 

PHTA and NEMA commented that they 

estimate approximately 5 percent of the 

current market to be made up of 

inexpensive imported pumps sold 

through online retailers that likely do 

not comply with DOE’s current energy 

conservation standard. PHTA and 

NEMA commented that these 

manufacturers have indicated that the 

current value (5 percent) is 

approximately double what it was prior 

to the compliance date for the DPPP 

standard. PHTA and NEMA commented 

that the manufacturers also estimate that 

a DPPP motor standard, established as 

currently proposed by DOE, will double 

the percentage of the market made up of 

non-compliant DPPPs, increasing it to 

10 percent. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 

at pp. 7–8) PHTA and NEMA also stated 

that the misalignment of the compliance 

dates for the DPPP energy conservation 

standards and the proposed DPPP motor 

standards could cause confusion for 

manufacturers and importers, 

potentially leading to more noncompliant DPPP motors being imported. 

PHTA and NEMA reiterated NEMA’s 

concerns about port of entry 

enforcement that they have separately 

commented on numerous times. (PHTA 

and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 8) Nidec 

commented that they were concerned 

that because of the disconnect of the 

proposal to the current DPPP 

regulations (DPPPMs between 0.5 to 

1.15 THP), there may be issues with 

enforcement of pumps assembled 

offshore and coming into the U.S. with 

non-compliant DPPPMs. Nidec 

commented that because of the 

rulemaking, there is a high risk that 

DPPPs may not get assembled anymore 

in the U.S. and instead will be done 

offshore unless there is proper 

enforcement that brings the DPPP 

regulations and the proposed DPPPM 

regulations into harmony. (Nidec, 

Public Meeting, No. 88, at pp. 45–46) 

DOE currently does not have any energy 

conservation standards for DPPP 

motors. This final rule will finalize 

standards for DPPP motors and productspecific enforcement requirements at 

§ 429.134. Any enforcement-related 

issues, particularly compliance dates, 

regarding DPPPs will be addressed as 

part of the DPPP rulemaking, or through 

a separate avenue. 

Nidec requested comment on whether 

there are any other examples where an 

end-product rule defines a lower 

threshold for compliance versus a 

component threshold and how DOE has 

successfully managed that. They stated 

that in their experience, the end-product 

generally overrides the component 

standard, and for the DPPPM proposal, 

it would not be the case. (Nidec, Public 

Meeting, No. 88 at p. 47) EPCA 

authorizes DOE to regulate the energy 

efficiency of a number of consumer 

products and certain industrial 

equipment. This equipment includes 

those electric motors that are DPPP 

motors, the subject of this document, 

and also pumps (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) 

Accordingly, DOE has the authority to 

regulate both a component (DPPPM) and 

the end-product (DPPPs). Given the 

current misalignment amongst the 

Federal DPPP standards and the CA 

DPPP replacement motor standards 

along with DOE’s authority for electric 

motors, DOE is taking an approach to 

facilitate harmonization of the standards 

at the Federal level and ensure a 

complimentary regulatory approach for 

DPPPs and replacement DPPP motors 

which will help ensure energy savings 

are realized in the field. 

Scope of Coverage 

This document covers equipment 

meeting the definition of a DPPP motor 

as defined in § 431.483 and the scope 

specified in 10 CFR 431.481(b). 

Specifically, the scope covers DPPP 

motors with a total THP of less than or 

equal to 5, but does not apply to: (i) 

DPPP motors that are polyphase motors 

capable of operating without a drive and 

distributed in commerce without a drive 

that converts single-phase power to 

polyphase power; (ii) waterfall pump 

motors; (iii) rigid electric spa pump 

motors, (iv) storable electric spa pump 

motors; (v) integral cartridge-filter pool 

pump motors; and (vi) integral sandfilter pool pump motors.35

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered equipment into 

equipment classes by the type of energy 

used or by capacity or other 

performance-related features, which 

other products within such type (or 

class) do not have, that justify differing 

standards. In making a determination 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies a different standard, DOE must 

consider such factors as the utility of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66979 

36 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that 

considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year 

period. 37The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s 

statement of policy and notice of policy 

amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as 

amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). 

feature to the consumer and other 

factors DOE determines are appropriate. 

(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 

DOE is establishing equipment classes 

for DPPP motors based on THP. DOE is 

proposing an extra-small-size 

equipment class corresponding to 

motors with a THP less than 0.5 THP, 

a small-size equipment class 

corresponding to motors with a total 

horsepower rating greater than or equal 

to 0.5 THP but less than 1.15 THP, and 

a standard-size equipment class 

corresponding to a motor with a THP 

greater than or equal to 1.15 THP and 

less than or equal to 5 THP. Table III.1 

provides a summary of the equipment 

classes. See section IV.A.3 for further 

details on the reasoning as to why DOE 

determined these equipment classes are 

appropriate and justify having separate 

standards. 

TABLE III.1—EQUIPMENT CLASSES FOR

DPPP MOTORS

Equipment class 

Motor total 

horsepower 

(Hp) 

Extra-small-size ......... THP <0.5. 

Small-size .................. 0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15. 

Standard-size ............ 1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5. 

See section IV.A.1 of this document 

for discussion of the equipment classes 

analyzed in this final rule. 

B. Test Procedure 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) 

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use these test procedures to certify to 

DOE that their product complies with 

energy conservation standards and to 

quantify the efficiency of their product. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), 

42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) 

The test procedure references UL 

1004–10:2020 ‘‘Standard for Safety for 

Pool Pump Motors’’ for the definitions 

(10 CFR 431.483) and references CSA 

C747–09 as the energy efficiency test 

method for DPPP motors (10 CFR 

431.484(b)). The test procedure 

establishes full-load efficiency as the 

metric for DPPP motors. 10 CFR 

431.484(b). In this final rule, DOE is 

incorporating by reference the latest 

version of the UL standard, UL 1004– 

10:2022; further discussion on this topic 

and any comments received are 

provided in section IV.A.1 of this 

document. In addition, DOE is also 

finalizing product-specific enforcement 

requirements at 10 CFR 429.134 that 

require DPPP motors to be tested in 

accordance with UL 1004–10:2022 to 

verify variable-speed capability and 

applicable freeze protection design 

requirements. 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening 

analysis based on information gathered 

on all current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the products or 

equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. As the first step in such an 

analysis, DOE develops a list of 

technology options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of those 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4; 

sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of 

appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart 

C (‘‘appendix A’’). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; 

section 7(b)(2)–(5) of appendix A. 

Section IV.B of this document discusses 

the results of the screening analysis for 

DPPP motors, particularly the designs 

DOE considered, those it screened out, 

and those that are the basis for the 

standards considered in this 

rulemaking. For further details on the 

screening analysis for this rulemaking, 

see chapter 4 of the final rule technical 

support document (‘‘TSD’’). 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

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

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) 

Accordingly, in the engineering 

analysis, DOE determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficiency for 

DPPP motors, using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

products available on the market or in 

working prototypes. The max-tech 

levels that DOE determined for this 

rulemaking are described in section IV.C 

of this final rule and in chapter 5 of the 

final rule TSD. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each trial standard level (‘‘TSL’’), 

DOE projected energy savings from 

application of the TSL to DPPP motors 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the first full year of 

compliance with the standards (2026– 

2055).36 The savings are measured over 

the entire lifetime of equipment 

purchased in the 30-year analysis 

period. DOE quantified the energy 

savings attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of 

energy consumption that reflects how 

the market for a product would likely 

evolve in the absence of energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE used its national impact analysis 

(‘‘NIA’’) spreadsheet models to estimate 

national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) from 

standards for DPPP motors. The NIA 

spreadsheet model (described in section 

IV.G.2 of this document) calculates 

energy savings in terms of site energy, 

which is the energy directly consumed 

by products at the locations where they 

are used. For electricity, DOE reports 

national energy savings in terms of 

primary energy savings, which is the 

savings in the energy that is used to 

generate and transmit the site 

electricity. For natural gas, the primary 

energy savings are considered to be 

equal to the site energy savings. DOE 

also calculates NES in terms of FFC’’ 

energy savings. The FFC metric includes 

the energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 

fuels), and thus presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards.37 DOE’s 

approach is based on the calculation of 

an FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered products or 

equipment. For more information on 

FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 

of this document. 

2. Significance of Savings 

To adopt any new or amended 

standards for a covered product, DOE 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66980 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

38Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

must determine that such action would 

result in significant energy savings. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.38 For example, some 

covered products and equipment have 

most of their energy consumption occur 

during periods of peak energy demand. 

The impacts of these products on the 

energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than products with 

relatively constant demand. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis, taking into account the 

significance of cumulative FFC national 

energy savings, the cumulative FFC 

emissions reductions, and the need to 

confront the global climate crisis, among 

other factors. 

As stated, the standard levels adopted 

in this final rule are projected to result 

in national energy savings of 1.56 quads 

FFC, the equivalent of the electricity use 

of 16.8 million homes in one year. 

Based on the amount of FFC savings, the 

corresponding reduction in emissions, 

and the need to confront the global 

climate crisis, DOE has determined the 

energy savings from the standard levels 

adopted in this final rule are 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted previously, EPCA provides 

seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) The following 

sections discuss how DOE has 

addressed each of those seven factors in 

this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of 

potential amended standards on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, 

as discussed in section IV.J of this 

document. DOE first uses an annual 

cash-flow approach to determine the 

quantitative impacts. This step includes 

both a short-term assessment—based on 

the cost and capital requirements during 

the period between when a regulation is 

issued and when entities must comply 

with the regulation—and a long-term 

assessment over a 30-year period. The 

industry-wide impacts analyzed include 

(1) INPV, which values the industry on 

the basis of expected future cash flows; 

(2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in 

revenue and income; and (4) other 

measures of impact, as appropriate. 

Second, DOE analyzes and reports the 

impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including impacts on 

small manufacturers. Third, DOE 

considers the impact of standards on 

domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of various DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and payback period (‘‘PBP’’) 

associated with new or amended 

standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value of the consumer costs and 

benefits expected to result from 

particular standards. DOE also evaluates 

the impacts of potential standards on 

identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be affected disproportionately 

by a standard. 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product in the type (or class) compared 

to any increase in the price of, or in the 

initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of, the covered product that 

are likely to result from a standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this 

comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating cost 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

analysis requires a variety of inputs, 

such as product prices, product energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and discount rates appropriate 

for consumers. To account for 

uncertainty and variability in specific 

inputs, such as product lifetime and 

discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of 

values, with probabilities attached to 

each value. 

The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a more 

efficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

due to a more-stringent standard by the 

change in annual operating cost for the 

year that standards are assumed to take 

effect. 

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE 

assumes that consumers will purchase 

the covered products in the first full 

year of compliance with new or 

amended standards. The LCC savings 

for the considered efficiency levels are 

calculated relative to the case that 

reflects projected market trends in the 

absence of new or amended standards. 

DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.F of this document. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in 

section IV.G.2 of this document, DOE 

uses the NIA spreadsheet models to 

project national energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing equipment classes, and 

in evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE 

evaluates potential standards that would 

not lessen the utility or performance of 

the considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 

Based on data available to DOE, the 

standards adopted in this document 

would not reduce the utility or 

performance of the equipment under 

consideration in this rulemaking. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)). It also directs 

the Attorney General to determine the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

standard and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary within 60 

days of the publication of a proposed 

rule, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66981 

6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) To assist the 

Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) in making 

such a determination, DOE transmitted 

copies of its proposed rule and the 

NOPR TSD to the Attorney General for 

review, with a request that the DOJ 

provide its determination on this issue. 

In its assessment letter responding to 

DOE, DOJ noted the possibility of 

anticompetitive effects stemming from 

the differences between the energy 

conservation standards for DPPP motors 

and DPPPs, as well as the high cost of 

compliance for domestic small 

businesses identified by DOE. DOJ 

elaborated that the difference in 

standards between DPPP motors and 

DPPPs would force domestic 

manufacturers to comply with both 

standards while foreign manufacturers 

could import DPPPs that are compliant 

with the DPPP rule but contain a noncompliant motor. DOJ ultimately 

concluded that they do not have 

sufficient information to conclude that 

the proposed energy conservation 

standards for DPPP motor are likely to 

have a significant adverse impact on 

competition. DOE notes that DPPP 

motors that are a component of an 

imported DPPP are subject to energy 

conservation standards. DOE is 

publishing the Attorney General’s 

assessment at the end of this final rule. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

DOE also considers the need for 

national energy and water conservation 

in determining whether a new or 

amended standard is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings 

from the adopted standards are likely to 

provide improvements to the security 

and reliability of the Nation’s energy 

system. Reductions in the demand for 

electricity also may result in reduced 

costs for maintaining the reliability of 

the Nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

Nation’s needed power generation 

capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of 

this document. 

DOE maintains that environmental 

and public health benefits associated 

with the more efficient use of energy are 

important to take into account when 

considering the need for national energy 

conservation. The adopted standards are 

likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases (‘‘GHGs’’) associated 

with energy production and use. DOE 

conducts an emissions analysis to 

estimate how potential standards may 

affect these emissions, as discussed in 

section IV.K of this document; the 

estimated emissions impacts are 

reported in section V.B.6 of this 

document. DOE also estimates the 

economic value of emissions reductions 

resulting from the considered TSLs, as 

discussed in section IV.L this document. 

g. Other Factors 

In determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified, DOE may consider any other 

factors that the Secretary deems to be 

relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE 

identifies any relevant information 

regarding economic justification that 

does not fit into the other categories 

described previously, DOE could 

consider such information under ‘‘other 

factors.’’ 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

EPCA creates a rebuttable 

presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

equipment that meets the standard is 

less than three times the value of the 

first year’s energy savings resulting from 

the standard, as calculated under the 

applicable DOE test procedure. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effect potential amended 

energy conservation standards would 

have on the payback period for 

consumers. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to consumers, manufacturers, 

the Nation, and the environment, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of 

this analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section IV.F of this final 

rule. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE has performed for this rulemaking 

with regard to DPPP motors. Separate 

subsections address each component of 

DOE’s analyses. 

DOE used several analytical tools to 

estimate the impact of the standards 

considered in this document. The first 

tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the 

LCC savings and PBP of potential 

amended or new energy conservation 

standards. The national impacts 

analysis uses a second spreadsheet set 

that provides shipments projections and 

calculates national energy savings and 

net present value of total consumer 

costs and savings expected to result 

from potential energy conservation 

standards. DOE uses the third 

spreadsheet tool, the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), to 

assess manufacturer impacts of potential 

standards. These three spreadsheet tools 

are available on the DOE website for this 

rulemaking: www.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

standards.aspx?productid=76. 

Additionally, DOE used output from the 

latest version of the Energy Information 

Administration’s (‘‘EIA’s’’) Annual 

Energy Outlook (‘‘AEO’’) for the 

emissions and utility impact analyses. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the products. This activity 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, based primarily 

on publicly available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this 

rulemaking include (1) a determination 

of the scope of the rulemaking and 

product classes, (2) manufacturers and 

industry structure, (3) existing 

efficiency programs, (4) shipments 

information, (5) market and industry 

trends, and (6) technologies or design 

options that could improve the energy 

efficiency of DPPP motors. The key 

findings of DOE’s market assessment are 

summarized in the following sections. 

See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for 

further discussion of the market and 

technology assessment. 

1. Scope of Coverage and Definitions 

This document covers equipment 

meeting the definition of a DPPP motor 

as defined in 10 CFR 431.483 and the 

scope specified in 10 CFR 431.481(b). 

Specifically, the scope covers DPPP 

motors with a THP of less than or equal 

to 5, but does not apply to: (i) DPPP 

motors that are polyphase motors 

capable of operating without a drive and 

distributed in commerce without a drive 

that converts single-phase power to 

polyphase power; (ii) waterfall pump 

motors; (iii) rigid electric spa pump 

motors; (iv) storable electric spa pump 

motors; (v) integral cartridge-filter pool 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66982 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

39These terms are defined in UL 1004–10:2020, 

which is incorporated by reference in DOE’s test 

procedure at 10 CFR 431.484. In this NOPR, DOE 

is proposing to reference the latest version of the 

UL standard, UL 1004–10:2022; see discussion in 

section III.A.1 of this document. 

pump motors; and (vi) integral sandfilter pool pump motors.39 The scope 

includes DPPP motors regardless of how 

the equipment is sold; i.e., incorporated 

in a DPPP or sold separately. The DPPP 

motors in the scope of this rule are used 

primarily in the residential sector and 

light commercial applications, in selfpriming pool filter pumps (typically 

used in inground pools), non-selfpriming pool filter pumps (typically 

used in above-ground pools), and 

pressure cleaner booster pumps 

(typically used for pressure-side pool 

cleaner applications). 

DOE received some comments on 

scope and definitions. PHTA and NEMA 

commented that storable pools use nonintegral pumps, which are certified to 

DPPP, but the current direct motor 

replacements are not variable-speed 

capable per what the NOPR would 

require. PHTA and NEMA stated that 

the replacement motors made for this 

type of pool are motors integrated with 

the control unit, and that these motors 

are specific to a set pump for the 

storable pool and cannot be used in 

other applications, as there is no way to 

(dis)connect them. PHTA and NEMA 

further stated that these pools are 

purchased in retail stores, and based on 

input from two manufacturers, have an 

average retail price slightly over $400. 

Accordingly, PHTA and NEMA 

recommended that DOE consider 

exempting this specific type of motor 

based on application and obtain 

additional manufacturer information 

about this specific product related to the 

current market, shipments, and pricing 

for this type of pool, and to consider the 

limited use of replacement motors. 

(PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 5) 

DPPP motors in scope are those 

electric motors identified in sections 

1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 of UL 1004–10:2022. 10 

CFR 431.481(n), as updated in this final 

rule. DOE notes that the DPPP definition 

comprises self-priming pool filter 

pumps, non-self-priming pool filter 

pumps, waterfall pumps, PCBPs, 

integral sand-filter pool pumps, integralcartridge filter pool pumps, storable 

electric spa pumps, and rigid electric 

spa pumps. 10 CFR 431.462. In 

addition, section 1.4 of UL 1004– 

10:2022 specifically excludes DPPP 

motors that are polyphase motors 

capable of operating without a drive and 

distributed in commerce without a drive 

that converts single-phase power to 

polyphase power, waterfall pump 

motors, rigid electric spa pump motors, 

storable electric spa pump motors, 

integral cartridge-filter pool pump 

motors, and integral sand-filter pool 

pump motors. As such, the example 

application provided by PHTA and 

NEMA would need to meet the 

definition of DPPP and not be one of the 

aforementioned exclusions to be 

considered within the scope of DPPP 

motor. 

As previously noted, storable electric 

spa pump motors are specifically 

excluded from the scope of this 

rulemaking. Section 2 of UL 1004– 

10:2022 defines storable electric spa 

pump motor as a DPPP motor that is a 

component of a storable electric spa 

pump as defined 10 CFR 431.462, 

subpart Y, Pumps. Storable electric spa 

pumps are defined to include an 

integral heater and an integral air pump. 

10 CFR 431.462. The example 

application provided by PHTA and 

NEMA specifically stated that it has a 

non-integral pump. However, PHTA and 

NEMA did not provide details on what 

type of DPPP the example would be 

considered to be. 

As such, DOE attempted to determine 

what type of product PHTA and NEMA 

were referring to and reviewed 

manufacturer data and specification 

sheets to confirm what type of DPPP the 

example could be considered to be. 

Based on DOE’s review, DOE did not 

identify any DPPPs for storable pumps 

that would not be applicable to variablespeed motors as defined due to their 

integration with controls and other 

components, and not already be 

excluded for other reasons. Specifically, 

of the examples DOE was able to find of 

variable-speed motors integrated with 

controllers, they were applicable to 

integral-cartridge or integral-sand filter 

pumps, both of which are already 

excluded from DPPP motor scope. 

Otherwise, DOE also reviewed an 

outlier filtration system for storable 

pools, but could not identify any 

apparent integration of the DPPP motor 

with controls, and there was also no 

indication that it would not be able to 

be replaceable with a variable-speed 

option being considered in this 

rulemaking. As such, DOE could not 

definitively conclude that there is a 

need for the exclusion recommended by 

PHTA and NEMA, and therefore 

maintains the scope from the June 2022 

NOPR. 

Regarding the variable-speed 

definition, CEC and NYSERDA 

recommended that DOE update the 

definition to align with the definition 

used in the California Code of 

Regulations, Title 20, section 1602(g)(4), 

instead of the current definition based 

on UL 1004–10:2022. CEC and 

NYSERDA stated that with the current 

definition, at minimum, only four 

operating speeds are required to meet 

the definition, whereas the California 

code specifies ‘‘operating at a variety of 

user-determined speeds,’’ which CEC 

and NYSERDA suggested described a 

truly variable-speed motor and aligns 

with how variable-speed is understood 

by consumers. CEC and NYSERDA 

noted that they were unaware of any 

DPPP motors that meet the current 

definition of variable speed, but do not 

meet the Title 20 California definition. 

However, CED and NYSERDA also 

commented that if such a motor exists, 

having only four operating speeds 

would constrain operational flexibility 

and lead to non-optimal operation and 

unnecessary electricity consumption. 

CEC and NYSERDA stated that allowing 

for the potential introduction of less 

energy efficient ‘‘variable-speed’’ motors 

is unnecessary and might jeopardize 

some of the energy savings associated 

with this proposed rule. (CEC and 

NYSERDA, No. 94 at pp. 3–4) 

DOE incorporated by reference UL 

1004–10:2020, which includes a 

definition of variable speed in the July 

2021 Final Rule. 86 FR 40765, 40769– 

40770. UL 1004–10 is an industry 

standard specific to DPPP motors and 

has been used by industry since 2019. 

In this final rule, DOE is not considering 

any changes in scope; rather, this 

rulemaking is finalizing standards based 

on the scope and definitions established 

in the July 2021 Final Rule, and which 

are currently in 10 CFR 431.481. 

Further, as noted by commenters, there 

are no DPPP motors that meet the 

current definition of variable speed but 

do not meet the Title 20 California 

definition. As such, if there is any 

discrepancy in the future, DOE may 

consider this issue in a future 

rulemaking. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE also 

proposed to update the UL 1004–10 

reference to the latest version of the 

industry standard, from UL 1004– 

10:2020 to UL 1004–10:2022, in sections 

10 CFR 431.481(b), 10 CFR 

431.482(c)(1), and 10 CFR 431.483. 87 

FR 37122, 37133–37134. DOE 

concluded that the only update was the 

addition of a glossary term for ‘‘factory 

default setting’’ in section 2.7A, which 

did not change the content and 

requirements of UL 1004–10:2020, but 

only provided a clarification regarding 

the factory default setting as it applies 

to the industry standard. Id. Further, 

DOE also proposed product-specific 

enforcement requirements at 10 CFR 

429.134 that require DPPP motors be 

tested in accordance with UL 1004– 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66983 

10:2022 to verify variable-speed 

capability and applicable freeze 

protection design requirements. 87 FR 

37122, 37131. 

In response, PHTA and NEMA 

supported the DOE’s decision to update 

from the 2020 to the 2022 version of the 

UL 1004–10 Standard. (PHTA and 

NEMA, No. 92 at p. 10) In this final rule, 

DOE is incorporating by reference the 

latest version of the UL standard, UL 

1004–10:2022 to be consistent with 

industry practice. 

Separately, the Joint Advocates 

supported the proposed productspecific enforcement provisions because 

they will provide clarity regarding how 

DOE would determine whether a DPPP 

motor complies with the requirements 

regarding variable-speed capability and 

freeze protection design. (Joint 

Advocates, No. 97 at p. 2) As such, DOE 

is also finalizing the proposed productspecific enforcement requirements at 10 

CFR 429.134. 

2. Market Review 

In the June 2022 NOPR, to review the 

current market of DPPP motors 

incorporated in DPPPs, DOE relied on 

information from the DOE Compliance 

and Certification Database, the CEC, and 

the ENERGY STAR program. (‘‘2021 

DPPP Database’’) To supplement the 

market review, DOE also reviewed 

general motor catalog data from 2020 

and created a database that contained 

information regarding motor speedcontrol, topology, THP, motor 

application, and full-load efficiency 

(‘‘2020 Motor Database’’). To make the 

two databases more comparable, DOE 

filtered the 2020 Motor Database to 

analyze only motors used in DPPP 

applications. 87 FR 37122, 37134. 

DOE received a number of comments 

regarding the data that were used for the 

market analysis. Pentair commented 

that a lot has changed in the past 7 years 

and DOE should consider the latest data 

versus data used for the DPPP rule in 

2015. (Pentair, No. 90 at p. 1) Hayward 

commented that DOE should update its 

information on the current market. 

Specifically, Hayward noted that it has 

stopped selling any pumps that were 

not compliant with the minimum WEF 

requirements and modified other pumps 

that were marginal in performance. In 

addition, Hayward noted that variablespeed pumps have continued to gain 

market share and therefore would 

provide a different baseline. (Hayward, 

No. 93 at p. 2) PHTA and NEMA 

commented that DOE relied heavily on 

the analysis performed during the 2017 

DPPP DFR and recommended that DOE 

conduct interviews to obtain current 

market information, pricing, and 

shipments data. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 

92 at p. 2) Regal commented that it 

agrees with PHTA and NEMA’s 

comments that DOE should consider 

conducting additional interviews and 

analyses to better understand current 

market offerings, pricing, and 

shipments. (Regal, No. 98 at p. 1) PHTA 

commented that using 2015 market data 

is not accurate because the DPPP market 

has substantially changed since then 

and the 2015 data is invalid in its 

application to the DPPPM analysis. 

PHTA provided data showing that 

nearly 60 percent of pool pump listings 

were non-compliant with the 2017 

DPPP rule and had to be modified or 

removed by the July 19, 2021 

compliance date. (PHTA, No. 100 at p. 

2) On the other hand, CEC and 

NYSERDA stated that DOE’s analysis is 

robust and appropriately representative. 

(CEC and NYSERDA, No. 94 at p. 3) 

First, DOE notes that DOE did 

consider the latest DPPPM market data 

available for the analysis conducted in 

the June 2022 NOPR, as previously 

discussed. In addition, for this final 

rule, DOE updated the market review 

using current information from the DOE 

Compliance and Certification Database, 

the CEC, and the ENERGY STAR 

program. (‘‘2022 DPPP Database’’) DOE 

supplemented this review with 

information from general motor catalogs 

surveyed in 2022; these motor catalogs 

contained information regarding motor 

THP, topology, full-load efficiency, pole 

configuration, and speed-control. DOE 

then analyzed the range of efficiencies 

offered at a given THP, topology, and 

pole configuration as well as the average 

efficiency of that subset of motors. DOE 

found that the average and range of 

efficiency offered for a given THP, 

topology, and pole configuration were 

not significantly different than what was 

observed in the data provided by 

manufacturers for the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule. Based on the similar 

efficiencies being offered, DOE 

concluded that the technology used to 

meet each efficiency level has not 

substantially changed since the analysis 

for the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. 

DOE notes that the shipments 

efficiency distribution are based on a 

review of the 2022 DPPP Database and 

that this updated database captures the 

changes to the DPPP market that have 

occurred since 2017, including those 

changes due to the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule (See section IV.F.8 of this 

document for more details). For details 

on how DOE accounted for the DPPP 

motor price changes since the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule, see section 

IV.C.2 of this document. DOE also notes 

that it had conducted manufacturer 

interviews as part of the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule and incorporated the 

updated manufacturer feedback in its 

analysis. DOE also conducted DPPP 

motor manufacturer interviews as part 

of the June 2022 NOPR, as discussed in 

the manufacturer impact analysis, and 

incorporated feedback to estimate the 

manufacturer impacts of setting 

variable-speed requirements as 

standards. 87 FR 37122, 37154. As such, 

DOE concluded that additional 

manufacturer interviews were not 

needed since DOE performed 

interviews, and already considered 

recent market offering, pricing, and 

shipments information in this final rule. 

3. Equipment Classes 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

shall establish separate standards for a 

group of covered products (i.e., establish 

a separate equipment class) if DOE 

determines that separate standards are 

justified based on the type of energy 

used, or if DOE determines that a 

product’s capacity or other 

performance-related feature, which 

other products within such type (or 

class) do not have, justifies a different 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)) In making a determination 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies a different standard, DOE must 

consider such factors as the utility of the 

feature to the consumer and other 

factors DOE determines are appropriate. 

(Id.) 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to establish equipment classes 

for DPPP motors based on THP. DOE 

proposed an extra-small-size equipment 

class corresponding to motors with a 

THP less than 0.5 THP, a small-size 

equipment class corresponding to 

motors with a total horsepower rating 

greater than or equal to 0.5 THP but less 

than 1.15 THP, and a standard-size 

equipment class corresponding to 

motors with a THP greater than or equal 

to 1.15 THP and less than or equal to 5 

THP. 87 FR 37122, 37130. 

In response to the June 2022 NOPR, 

DOE received a number of comments 

regarding equipment classes. PHTA and 

NEMA recommended that DOE analyze 

DPPP motors based on equipment 

classes considered in the DPPP rule. 

PHTA and NEMA commented that it is 

critical to differentiate by application, 

not just size, to really determine what is 

or is not cost-effective. As such, PHTA 

and NEMA commented that if the 

analysis was separated based on PCBP 

self-priming and non-self-priming, it 

would show that not all the current 

proposed requirements were costeffective. Specifically, PHTA and NEMA 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66984 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

stated that when looking at PCBP as a 

separate equipment class, a variablespeed requirement is not cost-effective 

(PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at pp. 4–5) 

In addition, PHTA and NEMA 

commented that DOE should break 

down the 0.5–1.15 THP and analyze the 

following additional THP ranges: 0.5 < 

0.75 THP; 0.75 < 1 THP; 1 > 1.15 THP 

based on the assessment of available 

products and previously recommended 

THP disaggregation. (PHTA and NEMA, 

No. 92 at p. 5; PHTA, No. 100 at p. 3) 

Further, PHTA and NEMA commented 

that breaking down the 0.5–1.15 THP 

into smaller categories for an analysis 

would provide a truer picture of costeffectiveness when combined with 

breaking out PCBP self-priming and 

non-self-priming applications. PHTA 

and NEMA stated that to do otherwise 

will cause market confusion and 

unintended consequences with noncompliant products being distributed. 

For example, PHTA and NEMA 

commented that imported pump 

products with THP ratings between 0.50 

and 1.14 can meet the DPPP rule and 

bypass the DPPP motor proposal, which 

will negate the DPPP motor proposed 

rule and not deliver the intended energy 

savings. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 

10) 

Hayward stated that equipment class 

should be disaggregated by pump size 

and application and noted that THP 

misrepresents the overall effect and 

impact of the rule. Hayward also 

supported PHTA and NEMA’s 

recommendations on disaggregation. 

(Hayward, No. 93 at p. 2) Fluidra 

recommended that equipment be 

disaggregated not only by THP, but also 

by application type. Specifically, 

Fluidra commented that it was 

concerned that PCBPs and pool 

filtration pumps were combined into the 

same equipment class. (Fluidra, No. 91 

at p. 1) 

Waterway Plastic commented that in 

the negotiations that resulted in the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule, there 

was consideration of a separate category 

for non-self-priming pool pumps that 

are used in above-ground pool pump 

applications, that range from 0.75 to 1 

THP, and are typically two-speed or 

single-speed pumps. Accordingly, they 

stated that the DPPPM rule would not 

consider this separate category of 

DPPPs, which allowed for single- or 

two-speed DPPPMs to be used to meet 

the ultimate WEF standard, and were 

concerned on how the DPPPM 

rulemaking would overwrite the 

conclusions from the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule. (Waterway Plastic, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at pp. 

16–17) Dose also commented asking if 

DOE considered breaking the small-size 

THP range into subcategories after they 

suggested the favorable results would be 

from the higher THPs. (Dose, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at pp. 39–40) 

DOE notes that this rule concerns 

DPPP motors, not DPPPs. Further, DOE 

notes that the scope includes DPPP 

motors regardless of how the equipment 

is sold (i.e., incorporated in a DPPP or 

sold separately). Accordingly, imported 

pump products that include a DPPP 

motor would be subject to the DPPP 

motor standard as well. 

When considering equipment classes, 

DOE determines whether separate 

standards are justified based on the type 

of energy used for the equipment in 

question (which in this rulemaking is 

DPPP motors only), or if a DPPP motor’s 

capacity or other DPPPM performancerelated feature justifies a different 

standard. Manufacturers of covered 

equipment must use the Federal test 

procedure as the basis for certifying to 

DOE that their equipment complies with 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)). The 

metric for DPPP motors based on the 

DOE test procedure is full-load 

efficiency (10 CFR 431.484(b)), and fullload efficiency does not take into 

consideration the ultimate application 

of the DPPP motor in a DPPP and the 

motor is tested without an associated 

DPPP. The DPPP motors in this rule also 

consume the same type of energy. 

Further, DOE notes that there are no 

physical or technological distinguishing 

factors in a DPPP motor that could be 

used to identify a particular end-use 

DPPP application (e.g., PCBP, selfpriming, non-self-priming). If sized 

correctly, a given DPPP motor could 

serve any of the DPPP applications 

discussed in this rulemaking. The 

ranges of motor THP that serve each 

application overlap and preclude DOE 

from setting equipment classes using the 

motor THP to distinguish each 

application. Accordingly, DOE is not 

considering DPPP application in 

addition to motor THP when setting 

equipment classes and energy 

conservation standards for this final 

rule. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

discussed that full-load efficiency 

generally correlates with motor 

horsepower. DOE explained motor 

horsepower dictates the maximum load 

that a motor can drive, which means 

that a motor’s rated horsepower can 

influence and limit the end use 

applications where that motor can be 

used, which in this case is dedicated 

purpose pool pumps. Horsepower is a 

critical performance attribute of a DPPP 

motor, and since horsepower has a 

direct relationship with full load 

efficiency and consumer utility, used 

this element as a criterion for 

distinguishing among equipment 

classes. 87 FR 37122, 37134. In 

determining the proposed equipment 

classes, DOE considered how motor 

total horsepower can be used to decide 

whether separate standards are justified 

based on the utility of the DPPP motor. 

Accordingly, DOE first justified a utility 

argument for the 0.5 THP cut-off based 

on maximum efficiency potential in 

non-self-priming pool filter pumps (i.e., 

two-speed or variable-speed motors 

below 0.5 THP would provide 

inadequate flow to the pool pump). 

Finally, DOE justified a utility argument 

for the 1.15 THP cut-off based on how 

almost all DPPP motors greater than or 

equal to 1.15 THP are primarily used in 

standard-size self-priming pool filter 

pumps, while pool pump motors below 

1.15 THP are typically found in smallsize, self-priming pool filter pumps, 

non-self-priming pool filter pumps, and 

PCBPs. 87 FR 37122, 37135. 

To review the recommendation from 

PHTA and NEMA to further break down 

the 0.5–1.15 THP range (i.e., small-size 

equipment class), DOE analyzed the 

2022 DPPP Database to determine 

whether there was any other utility 

argument to consider. DOE identified 

DPPP motors used in PCBP applications 

primarily in the 0.75–1.15 DPPP motor 

THP range; however, PCBPs in that 

range were only 4 percent of the total 

model count (96 percent of the models 

were either self-priming or non-selfpriming). Further, DPPP motors in selfpriming pool filter pumps and non-selfpriming pool filter pumps were 

identified throughout the small-size 

equipment class THP range. 

Accordingly, there was no THP range 

within the small-size equipment class 

that clearly illustrated that only PCBP 

motors would be used and therefore 

have a specific utility, and so, DOE was 

unable to determine a clear utility 

argument that would allow for the 

small-size equipment class to be 

segregated further. Therefore, because 

DOE is not considering DPPP 

application in addition to motor total 

horsepower for creating equipment 

classes, DOE is maintaining the June 

2022 NOPR proposed equipment classes 

in this final rule. 

Fluidra recommended including a 

definition for a PCBP DPPP motor as ‘‘a 

motor used for a pressure cleaner 

booster pump’’, and a definition for 

pressure cleaner booster pump as ‘‘an 

end suction, dry rotor pump designed 

and marketed for pressure-side pool 

cleaner applications, and which may be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66985 

UL listed under ANSI/UL 1081–2016. 

(Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2) PHTA and 

NEMA recommended that DOE define a 

PCBP DPPP motor as ‘‘an electric motor 

that is single phase or poly phase and 

is designed and/or marketed for use on 

pressure cleaner booster pumps, as 

defined in 10 CFR 431.462.’’ PHTA and 

NEMA commented that this definition 

aligns with the definitions of a DPPP 

motor and PCBP, both of which define 

the respective equipment based on the 

design and marketed purpose of the 

equipment. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 

at pp. 4–5) DOE understands that the 

definitions provided by the commenters 

were intended for distinguishing PCBP 

within the equipment class structure. As 

discussed previously, DOE is not 

separating equipment classes based on 

application. As such, DOE does not 

need to incorporate a definition for a 

PCBP motor and is therefore not 

including a definition in this final rule. 

4. Technology Options 

In the June 2022 NOPR market 

analysis and technology assessment, 

DOE identified several technology 

options initially determined to improve 

the efficiency of DPPP motors. 

Specifically, DOE stated that the 

efficiency of a DPPP motor is dependent 

on motor topology, capacity, and 

operating speed. Because DOE proposed 

to delineate equipment classes based on 

motor capacity (i.e., motor horsepower), 

DOE considered motor topology and 

operating speed as technology options. 

87 FR 37122, 37135–37136. 

For motor topology, DOE considered 

AC induction motors and permanent 

magnet DPPP motors. Within AC 

induction motors, DOE identified six 

categories of motors, including shadedpole, split-phase, capacitor-start 

(capacitor-start induction-run ‘‘CSIR’’ 

and capacitor-start capacitor-run 

‘‘CSCR’’), permanent-split capacitor 

(‘‘PSC’’), and polyphase. 87 FR 37122, 

37135–37136. For operating speed, DOE 

considered single-speed, multi-speed, 

and variable-speed DPPP motors. 

Single-speed motors can operate at one 

predefined speed, and therefore the 

associated pool pump can provide only 

a single flow rate in any given pool 

system. Two-speed motors can be sized 

so that high-flow functions like pool 

cleaning are effective at full-speed 

operation and low-flow tasks like 

filtration can be completed at low-speed 

operation. Multi-speed motors function 

similarly to two-speed motors, but 

provide additional flexibility. Finally, 

variable-speed motors can provide 

greater energy savings than two-speed or 

multi-speed motors due to the ability to 

program these motors to operate at userdefined speed settings. 87 FR 37122, 

37136. Variable-speed motors can also 

offer non-energy-saving benefits like 

reduced pool system wear and reduced 

noise levels during operation, both due 

to the reduced amount of water flow 

during pumping. DOE requested 

comment on the technologies 

considered for higher DPPP motor 

efficiency. Id. 

PHTA and NEMA commented that to 

meet the current DPPP rulemaking, 

synchronous motor technologies with a 

variable frequency drive are already 

being utilized to meet system efficiency 

requirements. As such, PHTA and 

NEMA suggested that small additional 

increments in already implemented 

synchronous motor efficiency will have 

minimal impact on system efficiency, 

but significant impact on costs. (PHTA 

and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 10) DOE notes 

that this rule is specifically regarding 

the DPPP motor, not DPPP, and 

therefore technology options considered 

are with regards to DPPP motors and not 

the whole DPPP system. DOE also 

understands that meeting the current 

DPPP WEF standards would not require 

synchronous motor technologies for the 

range of DPPP motor equipment classes 

being considered. Specifically, in the 

October 2020 NOPR, DOE specified that 

only standard-size self-priming pool 

filter pumps, which are subject to the 

DOE DPPP energy conservation 

standards, would likely require a 

variable-speed control motor. 85 FR 

62816, 62824. DOE noted that this 

generally reflects DPPP motors with a 

THP greater than or equal to 1.15. Id. As 

such, there are potential savings to be 

considered for the full scope of DPPP 

motors being considered, and as 

discussed previously, the synchronous 

motor technology option allows for 

multiple operating speeds, which can 

provide energy savings. Finally, DOE 

included the incremental costs for 

requiring variable speed as part of the 

engineering analysis, which is discussed 

further in section IV.C.2 of this 

document. 

Similarly, PHTA and NEMA 

commented that variable-speed 

fractional HP pumps cannot provide 

minimum flow at required lower 

speeds. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 100 at 

p. 3) DOE notes that variable-speed 

motors are only considered as a design 

option for DPPP motors where the 

associated pump can provide adequate 

flow at lower speeds, and that the 

representative units analyzed in the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

contained fractional THP variable-speed 

motors. See Table 5.6.5 of the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, where a .44 

hhp pump is driven by a .75 THP 

variable-speed motor and provides 

adequate flow. 

Separately, Fluidra, PHTA, and 

NEMA suggested that the operating 

window of a PCBP in practical 

application is limited to an approximate 

motor speed of 2,900 RPM–3,450 RPM 

(max speed); runs on a timer for 2–2.5 

hours a day at a single operating speed; 

and, once set, is typically not further 

adjusted for speed like one would for a 

filtration pump. (Fluidra, No. 101 at p. 

1; PHTA and NEMA, No. 100 at p. 3) 

Accordingly, Fluidra and PHTA stated 

that the definition for a variable-speed 

control DPPP motor does not make 

practical sense in a PCBP application, 

and therefore recommended separating 

PCBP requirements from other DPPP 

applications. (Fluidra, No. 101 at pp. 1– 

3; PHTA, No. 100 at pp. 2–3) DOE notes 

that the definition for variable speed 

comes from UL 1004–10:2020, which is 

an industry standard DOE incorporated 

by reference in the July 2021 Final Rule 

based on recommendations from several 

stakeholders. 86 FR 40765, 40769– 

40770. (July 29, 2021). Further, the 

scope of UL 1004–10:2020 does not 

specifically exclude PCBP applications 

for DPPP motors. See section 1 of UL 

1004–10:2020. As such, DOE concludes 

that the definitions from UL 1004– 

10:2020 are applicable to all DPPP 

motors in scope, including PCBPs, and 

there is no technical reasoning to 

exclude application to PCBPs. 

Separately, in the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule, DOE also considered 

variable-speed motors for PCBPs (82 FR 

5650, 5684), as the WEF metric accounts 

for energy savings available from 

reducing the pump speed to reach the 

minimum required pressure of 60 feet. 

See section 3.6.2 of the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule TSD. While the test 

procedure specifies only one load point 

for testing PCBPs (see Table 1 of 

appendix C to subpart Y of 10 CFR part 

431), the test procedure does not specify 

that PCBPs are tested at maximum 

speed; rather, it specifies that PCBPs are 

tested at the lowest speed that can 

achieve 60 feet of head at the 10 gpm 

test condition. Therefore, a PCBP may 

be able to achieve a higher (more 

beneficial) WEF score if it has the ability 

to operate at reduced speeds, and as 

such, the definition for a variable-speed 

control DPPP motor would still make 

practical sense in terms of examining 

energy savings potential. 

Finally, as part of the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule, the DPPP Working 

Group discussed that PCBPs on the 

market supply between 100 and 125 feet 

of head at the pump outlet at the test 

condition of 10 gpm, but these pumps 

provide more pressure than the cleaner 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66986 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

40Performance Test Results: CTA–2045 Variable 

Speed Pool Pumps, https://www.bpa.gov/-/media/ 

Aep/energy-efficiency/emerging-technologies/ETDocuments/NREL-testing-CTA-2045- 

VariableSpeedPoolPump-Nov2017- 

000000003002011749.pdf. 

requires because the pump must 

overcome head losses imposed by 

piping, couplings, and hoses between 

the pump and the cleaner. In pool 

installations with high head loss, these 

pumps may deliver the recommended 

amount of head to the cleaner when 

operating at maximum speed with no 

flow restriction; in pool installations 

with low head loss, these pumps may 

supply more head than is needed to 

drive the pressure cleaner. As such, the 

DPPP Working Group discussed how, in 

installations with low head loss, energy 

could be conserved by operating the 

pressure cleaner booster pump at a 

reduced speed rather than by releasing 

pressure that was supplied 

unnecessarily. Therefore, there is 

benefit to variable-speed control for 

PCBP applications. See section 3.6.2.2 

of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

TSD. 

NEEA recommended that DOE 

include non-proprietary, standardized 

connectivity design requirements for 

DPPP motors consistent with the 

voluntary requirements in the ENERGY 

STAR Product Specification for Pool 

Pumps Version 3.1. The ENERGY STAR 

specification presents connected 

product criteria for a connected pool 

pump system (‘‘CPPS’’). As part of the 

CPPS criteria, ENERGY STAR requires 

communication and demand response 

functionality. Specifically, ENERGY 

STAR requires that the CPPS shall meet 

the communication and equipment 

performance standards for OpenADR 2.0 

and/or CTA–2045. NEEA commented 

that this requirement to use these nonproprietary communication protocols 

and hardware standards ensures there is 

an open-source platform that allows 

demand response service providers and 

utilities to interface with as many 

demand response customers as possible. 

NEEA noted that the DOE DPPP motor 

rule would benefit from this additional 

demand response design requirement 

because the DPPP motor serves as the 

energy-consuming component of the 

pool pump. However, NEEA further 

recommended that this requirement 

additionally be applied to the pool 

pumps themselves, so that the pump 

controller can provide interface for 

response signals. Finally, NEEA noted 

that connectivity design requirements 

would provide the greatest benefits to 

two-speed or variable-speed motors, and 

that DOE should assess the additional 

cost requirements for integrating 

connectivity requirements into DPPP 

motors with the multitude of efficiency 

and grid benefits that grid-connected 

pool pumps can provide. NEEA also 

provided an example of a case study by 

Electric Power Research Institute,40

which showed connected pool pumps 

systems can provide significant grid 

benefits. (NEEA, No. 99 at pp. 1–2) 

The subject of this final rule is DPPP 

motors, which are within the scope of 

electric motors. DOE notes that these 

potential design criteria described by 

NEEA would not directly impact the 

measured efficiency of DPPP motors per 

the DOE test procedure, but could serve 

an important purpose for grid flexibility 

generally, when used in conjunction 

with the DPPP. For this final rule, DOE 

is only considering technology options 

that can be directly implemented as part 

of the DPPP motor to improve measured 

efficiency. As such, an additional 

connectivity design requirement would 

be beyond the scope of this final rule 

and therefore is not being considered at 

this time. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following four screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking: 

(1) Technological feasibility. 

Technologies that are not incorporated 

in commercial products or in 

commercially viable, existing prototypes 

will not be considered further. 

(2) Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production of a technology in 

commercial products and reliable 

installation and servicing of the 

technology could not be achieved on the 

scale necessary to serve the relevant 

market at the time of the projected 

compliance date of the standard, then 

that technology will not be considered 

further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility. If a 

technology is determined to have a 

significant adverse impact on the utility 

of the product to subgroups of 

consumers, or results in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not be considered 

further. 

(4) Safety of technologies. If it is 

determined that a technology would 

have significant adverse impacts on 

health or safety, it will not be 

considered further. 

(5) Unique-pathway proprietary 

technologies. If a technology has 

proprietary protection and represents a 

unique pathway to achieving a given EL, 

it will not be considered further, due to 

the potential for monopolistic concerns. 

10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b). 

In sum, if DOE determines that a 

technology, or a combination of 

technologies, fails to meet one or more 

of the listed five criteria, it will be 

excluded from further consideration in 

the engineering analysis. The reasons 

for eliminating any technology are 

discussed in the following sections. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

determined that all the technology 

options considered continue to be 

technologically feasible because they are 

being used or have previously been used 

in commercially available products or 

working prototypes. DOE also found 

that the technology options continue to 

meet the other screening criteria (i.e., 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service; do not result in adverse impacts 

on consumer utility, product 

availability, health, or safety; and are 

not unique-pathway proprietary 

technologies). 87 FR 37122, 37137. As 

such, DOE screened-in all technology 

options considered. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

regarding the screening analysis. As 

such, through a review of each 

technology, similar to the conclusions 

from the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

concludes that all of the identified 

technologies listed in section IV.A.4 of 

this document met all five screening 

criteria to be examined further as design 

options in DOE’s final rule analysis. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency and cost of DPPP 

motors. There are two elements to 

consider in the engineering analysis: the 

selection of efficiency levels to analyze 

(i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the 

determination of product cost at each 

efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 

analysis’’). In determining the 

performance of higher-efficiency 

equipment, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each equipment class, DOE 

estimates the baseline cost, as well as 

the incremental cost for the equipment 

at efficiency levels above the baseline. 

The output of the engineering analysis 

is a set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that 

are used in downstream analyses (i.e., 

the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66987 

41The Joint Petition noted that almost all motors 

used in pressure cleaner booster pumps have THPs 

less than 1.15 THP. (Joint Petition, No. 14 at p. 8). 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the engineering analysis: (1) 

relying on observed efficiency levels in 

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level 

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

design options to a baseline model (i.e., 

the design-option approach). Using the 

efficiency-level approach, the efficiency 

levels established for the analysis are 

determined based on the market 

distribution of existing products (in 

other words, based on the range of 

efficiencies and efficiency level 

‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the 

market). Using the design-option 

approach, the efficiency levels 

established for the analysis are 

determined through detailed 

engineering calculations and/or 

computer simulations of the efficiency 

improvements from implementing 

specific design options that have been 

identified in the technology assessment. 

DOE may also rely on a combination of 

these two approaches. For example, the 

efficiency-level approach (based on 

actual products on the market) may be 

extended using the design-option 

approach to interpolate to define ‘‘gap 

fill’’ levels (to bridge large gaps between 

other identified efficiency levels) and/or 

to extrapolate to the ‘‘max-tech’’ level 

(particularly in cases where the ‘‘maxtech’’ level exceeds the maximum 

efficiency level currently available on 

the market). 

In this final rule, DOE applied a 

combination of the two approaches. In 

line with the January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule, DOE considered three tiers of 

motor efficiency (low, medium, and 

high efficiency) and design 

requirements specifically for two-speed, 

multi-speed, and variable-speed motors. 

As discussed in sections IV.A.2 and 

IV.A.4 of this document, the motor 

technologies applicable to pool pump 

motors analyzed in the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule remain relevant and 

applicable in the current DPPP motor 

market. 

a. Representative Units 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE opted to 

use representative units for each 

equipment class for the engineering 

analysis. The associated motor THP of 

the proposed representative units were 

consistent with the motor THPs 

provided in Table 5.7.1 of the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, with three 

exceptions: (1) Representative unit 2A 

was added to represent standard-size 

DPPP motors that are used in small-size 

self-priming DPPPs; (2) Representative 

unit 6 was added to analyze standardsize DPPP motors used in non-selfpriming filter pump applications; and 

(3) Representative unit 7 at 1.125 THP, 

instead of 1.25 THP was considered so 

as to keep this representative unit in the 

small-size equipment class (EC 2), and 

to better represent the THP range of 

motors in PCBPs.41 87 FR 37122, 

37137–37138. The proposed 

representative units are provided in 

Table IV.1. 

TABLE IV.1—REPRESENTATIVE UNITS THP AND DPPP APPLICATION

Rep. unit Equipment class THP DPPP application * 

1 ................ 2 (Small) ............................................. 0.75 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.44 hhp). 

2 ................ 3 (Standard) ....................................... 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (0.95 hhp). 

2A ............. 3 (Standard) ....................................... 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.65 hhp). 

3 ................ 3 (Standard) ....................................... 3.45 Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (1.88 hhp). 

4 ................ 1 (Extra-small) .................................... 0.22 Non-Self-priming Filter Pump, Extra-Small-size (0.09 hhp). 

5 ................ 2 (Small) ............................................. 1 Non-Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (0.52 hhp). 

6 ................ 3 (Standard) ....................................... 1.5 Non-Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (0.87 hhp).

7 ................ 2 (Small) ............................................. 1.125 Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump. 

* For self-priming pumps, the terms small and standard refer to the hydraulic horsepower (‘‘hhp’’). Small-size designates pool pump applications with hydraulic horsepower less than 0.711 hhp, while standard-size designates pool pump applications with hydraulic horsepower greater 

than or equal to 0.711 hhp. DOE distinguishes extra-small non-self-priming filter pumps (less than 0.13 hhp) and standard-size non-self-priming 

filter pumps (less than 2.5 hhp and greater than 0.13 hhp). 

In response to the proposal, DOE 

received a number of comments. Fluidra 

commented that Rep. Unit #4 appears 

too small and irrelevant and may only 

be used for pump/filter combos or spas, 

which is out of the scope of this 

regulation. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 3) 

Based on the 2022 DPPP Database, DOE 

notes that there are at least 15 non-selfpriming filter pumps having DPPP 

motors at or less than 0.22 THP. While 

Rep. Unit #4 may be a small segment of 

the whole DPPPM market (3 percent; see 

shipments in Table IV.9), these are 

DPPP motors that would be in scope as 

they are part of the non-self-priming 

DPPP motor class. For this final rule, 

DOE specifically included an extrasmall-size equipment class because 

DPPP motors in that class have different 

maximum efficiency potential than 

small- or standard-size equipment 

classes and therefore need to be 

analyzed separately. As such, DOE 

continues to include Rep. Unit #4 as 

part of the analysis. 

Fluidra also stated that Rep. Unit #7 

only represents single-stage booster 

pumps and not multi-stage, which are 

typically >1.125 THP and significantly 

higher WEF, and therefore should be 

reviewed separately. (Fluidra, No. 91 at 

p. 3) PHTA stated that DOE should 

review the improvements made in 

booster pump hydraulic efficiency and 

go on to note that a multi-stage booster 

pump can result in a 40-percent higher 

WEF than a single-stage booster pump. 

(PHTA, No. 100 at p. 3) DOE notes that 

representative units exemplify typical 

capacities in each equipment class and 

are used to quantify the manufacturing 

costs and the energy savings potential 

for each equipment class. As discussed 

previously, almost all DPPP motors used 

in PCBPs have THPs less than 1.15 THP. 

DOE also confirmed the same in the 

2022 DPPP Database, with PCBP 

applications having DPPPMs ranging 

from 0.75 to 1.13 THP, with the majority 

of the models in the 1.1 to 1.13 THP 

range. Accordingly, the chosen DPPP 

motor representative unit for the PCBP 

application, Rep. Unit #7 at 1.125 THP, 

was considered to represent the full 

THP range of motors in PCBPs, which 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66988 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

42For the purposes of the analysis, however, DOE 

did consider the full-load efficiencies presented in 

Table 5.6.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

TSD for efficiency levels 3 through 6. 

43 In this final rule, DOE is updating UL 1004– 

10:2020 to UL 1004–10:2022. See further discussion 

in section IV.A.1 of this document. 

are primarily in the small-size 

equipment class. 

The pump performance curve 

associated with the DPPP motor Rep. 

Unit #7 and used in the analysis was 

based on the pump performance curve 

used in the January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule. Section 5.8.2.3 of the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule TSD specifically notes 

that DOE developed the equations by 

aggregating pump test data that were 

submitted by manufacturers, and does 

not specify that the test data was only 

for single-stage pumps. In reviewing the 

underlying data that were used to 

develop the equations, DOE can confirm 

that the selection of a representative 

PCBP unit and its corresponding 

performance characteristics was 

informed by the presence of more 

efficient multi-stage pumps available on 

the market to the extent they represent 

PCBP units with the exceptionally high 

hydraulic efficiency. However, DOE 

believed that these motors do not 

comprise as significant of a share of the 

market as single-stage pumps. 

Consequently, the ultimate 

representative unit and performance 

characteristics more closely resembled 

the single-stage PCBPs. 

PHTA and NEMA commented that 

PCBP motors at or above 1.15 THP were 

not included in the DOE analysis, and 

if DOE intends to regulate these 

products, PHTA and NEMA requested 

that DOE update the analysis. (PHTA 

and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 5) Further, in 

a separate comment, PHTA restated the 

need for analysis of PCBP motors above 

1.15 THP. (PHTA, No. 100 at p. 2) Based 

on the 2022 DPPP Database, DOE 

identifies only one DPPP motor used in 

a PCBP application that would be above 

the 1.15 THP threshold. Further, based 

on the 2022 DPPP Database, DOE notes 

that the majority of DPPP motors above 

1.15 THP are self-priming DPPP 

applications (74 percent based on model 

count), with non-self-priming DPPP 

applications being the next highest 

percentage (26 percent based on model 

count). DOE generally selects 

representative units based on the 

quantity of motor models available 

within an equipment class. Considering 

that the number of DPPP motors above 

1.15 THP with a PCBP application is not 

significant, and that most DPPP motors 

with a PCBP application are in the 

small-size equipment class, DOE 

continues to consider Rep. Unit #7 only 

for PCBP applications. 

b. Baseline Efficiency 

For each product/equipment class, 

DOE generally selects a baseline model 

as a reference point for each class and 

measures changes resulting from 

potential energy conservation standards 

against the baseline. The baseline model 

in each product/equipment class 

represents the characteristics of a 

product/equipment typical of that class 

(e.g., capacity, physical size). Generally, 

a baseline model is one that just meets 

current energy conservation standards, 

or, if no standards are in place, the 

baseline is typically the most common 

or least efficient unit on the market. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, mirroring the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

considered the least-efficient singlespeed DPPP motor on the market for 

each representative unit. 87 FR 37122, 

37138. DOE did not receive any 

comments regarding the baseline 

efficiencies, and therefore is 

maintaining the same levels from the 

June 2022 NOPR in this final rule. 

c. Higher Efficiency Levels 

As part of DOE’s analysis, the 

maximum available efficiency level 

(‘‘EL’’) is the highest efficiency unit 

currently available on the market. DOE 

also defines a ‘‘max-tech’’ efficiency 

level to represent the maximum possible 

efficiency for a given product. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed higher efficiency levels by 

substituting higher full-load efficiency 

DPPP motors and DPPP motors with 

finer levels of speed control, consistent 

with the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. 

87 FR 37122, 37138. Efficiency levels 0 

through 2 were consistent with Table 

5.6.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule TSD and represented the lowefficiency, medium-efficiency, and highefficiency performance of single-speed 

DPPP motors. Efficiency levels 3 

through 6 incorporated certain design 

requirements based on motor speed 

capability and topology.42 DOE 

proposed that EL 3 require motors that 

are two-speed, multi-speed, or variablespeed, but with no restrictions on motor 

topology. EL 4 required motors that are 

two-speed or multi-speed, but did not 

allow for the low-efficiency motor 

topologies (split-phase, shaded-pole, 

CSIR)—or—required variable-speed 

motors. EL 5 required motors that are 

two-speed or multi-speed, but did not 

allow for PSC motors in addition to the 

other low-efficiency motor topologies— 

or—requires variable-speed motors. 

Finally, EL 6 included variable speed 

only, which provides the highest energy 

savings. 87 FR 37122, 37139. 

In response, CEC and NYSERDA 

commented that DOE should reevaluate 

the ‘‘max-tech’’ levels considered for 

small-size and standard-size DPPP 

motors, and work toward a performance 

metric that captures the benefits of 

variable-speed motors. Specifically, CEC 

and NYSERDA noted that not all 

variable-speed DPPP motors are created 

equal, because an AC induction motor 

paired with a variable-frequency drive 

and a permanent magnet motor with an 

integral drive exist and provide different 

performance characteristics depending 

on speed settings. Accordingly, CEC and 

NYSERDA encouraged DOE to update 

the DPPP motor test method and 

performance metric that can distinguish 

between different speed DPPP motors 

and between different categories of 

variable-speed DPPP motors. While CEC 

and NYSERDA noted that this approach 

may be outside the scope of the current 

rulemaking, they stated that it is 

important to acknowledge that the 

proposed efficiency levels for small-size 

and standard-size DPPP motors do not 

represent ‘‘max-tech,’’ and that there are 

potential future improvements for both 

the DPPP motor test method and the 

DPPP motor energy conservation 

standards. (CEC and NYSERDA, No. 94 

at p. 6) 

The DOE test procedure in 10 CFR 

431.484(b) establishes full-load 

efficiency as the metric for DPPP 

motors. For the engineering analysis, 

while DOE considers full-load efficiency 

per the DOE test procedure for ELs 0 

through 3, the higher ELs only consider 

design requirements based on speed 

control. Accordingly, the variable-speed 

requirement considered as part of the 

analysis is based on the definition of 

variable-speed control dedicatedpurpose pool pump motor in section 2 

‘‘Glossary’’ of UL 1004–10:2020.43 10 

CFR 431.483. The variable-speed 

definition includes specific 

requirements for motor operation that 

are supposed to be met, but does not 

distinguish between the designs on the 

motors. As such, for this rulemaking, 

DOE is basing the engineering analysis 

on the definitions and test procedures 

prescribed at 10 CFR 431.484. DOE 

concurs that there may be future 

improvements for efficiency, and would 

consider these improvements in the 

next stage rulemaking. 

As such, in this final rule, DOE 

maintains the DPPP motor engineering 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66989 

44www.regalrexnord.com/brands/genteq/ 

aftermarket-products/Evergreen-Motors/EvergreenVS-Motor. 45As noted in section 5.7.1 of the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule TSD, DOE researched the design 

and engineering constraints associated with motor 

substitution by examining manufacturer interview 

responses and holding discussions with the DPPP 

Working Group. DOE concluded that for the 

representative equipment capacities being 

considered, the wet end of the pump can be paired 

with a range of motors with various efficiencies and 

speed configurations without significant 

adaptations. See chapter 5 of the dedicated-purpose 

pool pumps direct final rule TSD, at 

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BTSTD-0008-0105. 

analysis from the June 2022 NOPR, as 

presented in Table IV.2. 

TABLE IV.2—PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR DPPP MOTOR ELS

EC Rep. 

unit 

Motor 

THP DPPP application EL0 (%) 

EL1 

(%) 

EL2 

(%) EL3 * EL4 * EL5 * EL6 * 

1 ....... 4 0.22 Non-self-priming Filter 

Pump, Extra-Smallsize (0.09 hhp).

55 69 76 ...................................... ...................................... ......................................

2 ....... 1 0.75 Self-priming Filter 

Pump, Small-size 

(0.44 hhp).

55 69 76 Two-speed—OR— 

Multi-speed—OR— 

Variable-speed.

Two-speed/Multi-speed, 

not CSIR, not shaded 

pole, not splitphase;—OR—Variable-speed.

Two-speed/Multi-speed, 

not CSIR, not shaded 

pole, not split-phase, 

not PSC;—OR—Variable-speed.

Variablespeed 

only. 

2 ....... 5 1 Non-self-priming Filter 

Pump, Small-size 

(0.52 hhp).

55 69 76 Two-speed—OR— 

Multi-speed—OR— 

Variable-speed.

Two-speed/Multi-speed, 

not CSIR, not shaded 

pole, not splitphase;—OR—Variable-speed.

Two-speed/Multi-speed, 

not CSIR, not shaded 

pole, not split-phase, 

not PSC;—OR—Variable-speed.

Variablespeed 

only. 

2 ....... 7 1.125 Pressure Cleaner 

Booster Pump.

55 69 76 Variable-speed only ..... Variable-speed only ..... Variable-speed only ..... Variablespeed 

only. 

3 ....... 6 1.5 Non-self-priming Filter 

Pump (0.87 hhp).

55 69 77 Two-speed—OR— 

Multi-speed—OR— 

Variable-speed.

Two-speed/Multi-speed, 

not CSIR, not shaded 

pole, not splitphase;—OR—Variable-speed.

Two-speed/Multi-speed, 

not CSIR, not shaded 

pole, not split-phase, 

not PSC;—OR—Variable-speed.

Variablespeed 

only. 

3 ....... 2 1.65 Self-priming Filter 

Pump, Standard-size 

(0.95 hhp).

55 69 77 Two-speed—OR— 

Multi-speed—OR— 

Variable-speed.

Two-speed/Multi-speed, 

not CSIR, not shaded 

pole, not splitphase;—OR—Variable-speed.

Two-speed/Multi-speed, 

not CSIR, not shaded 

pole, not split-phase, 

not PSC;—OR—Variable-speed.

Variablespeed 

only. 

3 ....... 2A 1.65 Self-priming Filter 

Pump, Small-size 

(0.65 hhp).

55 69 77 Two-speed—OR— 

Multi-speed—OR— 

Variable-speed.

Two-speed/Multi-speed, 

not CSIR, not shaded 

pole, not splitphase;—OR—Variable-speed.

Two-speed/Multi-speed, 

not CSIR, not shaded 

pole, not split-phase, 

not PSC;—OR—Variable-speed.

Variablespeed 

only. 

3 ....... 3 3.45 Self-priming Filter 

Pump, Standard-size 

(1.88 hhp).

75 79 84 Two-speed—OR— 

Multi-speed—OR— 

Variable-speed.

Two-speed/Multi-speed, 

not CSIR, not shaded 

pole, not splitphase;—OR—Variable-speed.

Two-speed/Multi-speed, 

not CSIR, not shaded 

pole, not split-phase, 

not PSC;—OR—Variable-speed.

Variablespeed 

only. 

* Includes freeze protection control design requirements. 

PHTA and NEMA commented that if 

DOE finds this 0.5 THP requirement 

feasible from a lifecycle cost analysis, 

motor manufacturers can produce 

motors meeting the performance 

requirements; however, this may result 

in replacement market fit issues as the 

product will become larger in size. 

(PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 10) 

Pentair stated concern with the proposal 

to require replacement motors as small 

as 0.5 THP to meet variable speed. 

Specifically, that if motors meeting the 

DPPP rule fail, then those motors will 

not be able to be replaced with an 

original single-speed motor. (Pentair, 

No. 90 at p. 1) 

A DPPP motor is subject to standards 

regardless of how it is sold (i.e., with or 

without a corresponding DPPP). As 

such, Pentair is correct that if DPPPs 

using a 0.5 THP motor or smaller sold 

before the compliance date of this rule 

fail after the compliance date of this 

rule, consumers would likely be unable 

to replace the original single-speed 

motor with a similar single-speed motor. 

See section IV.G.3 for more discussion 

of repair scenarios in the standards 

cases. Additionally, DOE notes that 

there are a number of variable-speed 

DPPP motors on the market that are 

currently being used in DPPPs. DOE 

also notes that PHTA, NEMA, and 

Pentair did not provide information 

supporting the claim that there may be 

fit issues. In other industries, variablespeed motors (particularly electronically 

commutated motors, or ECMs) have 

been produced to be drop-in 

replacements in larger equipment (i.e., 

with no fit issues) for single-phase and 

polyphase motors in horsepower ranges 

identified by commenters.44 There are 

no unique design characteristics of 

DPPP motors that would prevent 

variable-speed motors from being dropin replacements to single-speed DPPP 

motors.45 Accordingly, DOE cannot 

conclude that there will be fit issues for 

DPPP motors in this lower THP range, 

and that in the scenario identified by 

Pentair the single-speed motor could be 

replaced by a variable-speed motor. 

Motor Input Power and Pump Hydraulic 

Power 

Each efficiency level presented in 

Table IV.2 has an associated energy 

factor (in Gallons/Watt-hour ‘‘G/Wh’’) 

and flow (in gallons per minute ‘‘gpm’’) 

used to determine efficiency of the 

pump system. In the June 2022 NOPR, 

DOE used the pump performance curves 

consistent with the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule TSD to represent the energy 

factors and flows. 87 FR 37122, 37139. 

The CA IOUs commented that DOE 

should update its analysis to show 

motor turn-down savings from variablespeed motors. Specifically, the CA IOUs 

commented that the DOE analysis for 

PCBP assumes an operating point of 10 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66990 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

46Section 3.3.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule TSD specifies the relationship between pump 

flow, head, and power. 

gpm and 112 ft of head, which is not 

representative of variable-speed 

capability at EL 3 nor consistent with 

the DPPP test procedure. The CA IOUs 

recommended that DOE consider an 

operating point consistent with the DOE 

test procedure of 10 gpm and 60 ft of 

head, which the CA IOUs noted the 

industry and advocates agreed to this 

test point during the ASRAC negotiation 

for DPPP standard. The CA IOUs 

provided estimates of the input power 

and WEF for a variable-speed PCBP 

corresponding to a 60 ft head, and 

showing a 52-percent decrease 

compared to the values used in DOE’s 

NOPR analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 96 at p. 

4) Nidec commented that PCBPs and 

variable speed will have to run at nearly 

full speed or maybe slightly less than 

full speed. Therefore, they stated that 

representation of power usage on 

variable speed is most likely incorrect in 

the analysis, which would make an 

assumption of actually having the 

ability to slow the speed down to take 

advantage of the power savings in lower 

speed. (Nidec, Public Meeting, No. 88 at 

pp. 28–29) As discussed in section 

IV.A.4, the DPPP Working Group 

considered variable-speed technology 

option for PCBPs because in 

installations with low head loss, energy 

could be conserved by operating the 

pressure cleaner booster pump at a 

reduced speed. In reviewing the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, DOE notes 

that the analysis does only account for 

motor and hydraulic efficiency 

improvements for variable-speed 

efficiency levels of PCBPs, and does not 

account for any change in energy 

consumption from the reduction of 

motor speed. As such, DOE agrees that 

a revised approach is necessary to 

reflect the expected reduced energy use 

of variable-speed PCBPs resulting more 

accurately from motor turndowns. 

Additionally, DOE acknowledges the 

method of calculation in the CA IOUs 

comment as properly representative. As 

such, in this final rule, DOE has 

updated the pump curves for PCBPs to 

be consistent with the recommendation 

by the CA IOUs. Further discussion is 

provided in chapter 5 of the final rule 

TSD. 

Fluidra stated that, at maximum 

speed, the variable-speed PCBP 

consumed more energy than the singlespeed system. As such, Fluidra 

commented that a consumer with 

operating conditions and equipment 

similar to those used in this analysis 

would never be able to recover the 

additional cost of variable-speed 

control. (Fluidra, No. 91 at pp. 1–2) In 

addition, Fluidra stated that while this 

test represents only two sites and two 

PCBP models, Fluidra feels that the 

operating conditions are reasonably 

representative. (Fluidra, No, 91 at p. 6) 

Finally, Fluidra stated that the power 

consumption of the booster pump 

variable-speed motor operating at 

maximum speed measured noticeably 

higher than the single-speed base 

comparison. Specifically, Fluidra 

commented that operating the PCBP at 

maximum speed is necessary in many 

pool applications due to plumbing head 

loss from extended pipe runs where the 

pool equipment pad is further from the 

pool for aesthetics and noise reduction. 

(Fluidra, No. 91 at pp. 1–2). 

PHTA and NEMA referenced the same 

Fluidra study and assertions in their 

comment submission. (PHTA and 

NEMA, No. 92 at pp. 2–3) Further, 

PHTA and NEMA commented that the 

restrictor plates in PCBPs have multiple 

purposes and should not be mistaken as 

used for flow rate tuning. PHTA and 

NEMA commented that industry uses 

restrictor plates/discs in testing to 

decrease flow and pressure, and that 

they start off with the largest plates and 

determine if sufficient flow is present, 

and if not, go down in size, and if 

needed, remove completely. PHTA and 

NEMA pointed out that the plates are 

ultimately used because many times 

consumers do not turn off the booster 

pump when they remove the pressure 

cleaner; therefore, the plate protects the 

booster pump if the pressure cleaner is 

removed. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at 

p. 3) 

On the other hand, the CA IOUs 

supported the technical feasibility of 

energy savings from variable-speed 

motors in PCBP applications and 

discussed the PCBP variable-speedmotor retrofit study that the CA IOUs 

had conducted for the DPPP 

rulemaking. Specifically, the CA IOUs 

stated that the results showed that a 

variable-speed motor could provide 

substantial energy savings by reducing 

the PCBP pump speed, while 

maintaining consumer utility. The CA 

IOUs stated that the definition of 

consumer utility for a pressure side pool 

cleaner (pool sweep) is the correct 

number of wheel revolutions per minute 

in cleaning operation. In addition, the 

CA IOUs stated that a single-speed 

PCBP produces more pressure than the 

pool sweep requires, and the consumer 

may use the included flow restrictor 

discs and a bleed to reduce the pressure 

and flow to the sweep’s required 

operating condition. Accordingly, the 

flow restrictor and bleed valve allow 

unused energy from the pump to escape 

to the pool, and variable-speed PCBP 

offers an energy-saving alternative by 

allowing the consumer to set the speed 

of the pump to deliver the pressure and 

flow needed to operate the sweep, with 

low or no usage of the bleed valve and 

restrictor rings. The CA IOUs 

demonstrated the variable-speed 

capability by retrofitting a variablespeed motor to two PCBPs, which 

resulted in energy savings of 54 percent 

to 67 percent. (CA IOUs, No. 96 at p. 3) 

In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, 

for the analysis conducted for PCBPs, 

DOE selected a DPPP capacity that was 

representative of the cluster of model 

capacities on the market. As such, the 

resulting representative capacity was 10 

gpm of flow and 112 ft of head, which 

equated to 0.28 hhp. See section 5.4.3 of 

the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD. 

DOE notes that the flow rate of 10 gpm 

aligns with the testing load point 

specified in the test procedure. See 

Table 1 of appendix C to subpart Y of 

10 CFR part 431. In addition, while the 

DPPP Working Group initially 

recommended that PCBPs be tested at 

90 ft of head and a volumetric flow rate 

that corresponds to 90 ft of head, the 

DPPP Working Group revised its 

recommendation for PCBPs to be tested 

at the load point of 10 gpm and a head 

greater than 60 ft. See section 5.4.3 of 

the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD. 

In reviewing the 2022 DPPP Database, 

DOE observed DPPPMs in PCBP 

applications ranging from 0.22 to 0.33 

hhp, and therefore concluded that 0.28 

hhp is in the middle of that range and 

would still be representative of the 

PCBP models currently available on the 

market. As such, with the required test 

procedure flow rate for PCBPs at 10 gpm 

(see Table 1 of appendix B to subpart Y 

of 10 CFR part 431), the representative 

DPPP head will continue to be around 

112 ft.46 In reviewing the analysis that 

Fluidra, PHTA, and NEMA submitted, 

the measured sites #1 and #2 are not 

representative of typical PCBP 

application, as the supplied heads of 74 

ft and 71.5 ft, respectively, which are 

well below the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule analysis representative 

dynamic head of 112 ft. See section 

5.4.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule TSD. In addition, as noted in the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule, the 

DPPP Working Group did acknowledge 

the existence of ideal systems with head 

demands as low as 50 ft, they 

determined that pumps typically 

supplied 100 ft of head or more. See 

section 3.6.2.2 of the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule TSD. As such, DOE 

understands that the smaller difference 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66991 

47Series IDs: Integral motors (≥1 hp): 

WPU117304, Fractional motors (<1 hp): 

WPU117303, Environmental Controls: WPU1181; 

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

48Series IDs: Integral motors (≥1 hp): 

WPU117304, Fractional motors (<1 hp): 

WPU117303, Environmental Controls: WPU1181; 

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

between the operating head of the 

single-speed and variable-speed PCBPs 

is responsible for the smaller savings 

potential and reduced costeffectiveness. DOE does not have any 

evidence to suggest that the 

representative capacity used in the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule and 

subsequently in the June 2022 NOPR 

should be revised. As such, DOE 

maintains the pump performance inputs 

from the June 2022 NOPR in this final 

rule. 

Further, in chapter 3 of the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, DOE noted 

that for installations where the PCBP 

supplies more pressure than is 

recommended for the cleaner, pressure 

may be reduced using a throttling valve 

or restrictor rings, or excess pressure 

may be relieved using a pressure relief 

valve. The pressure relief valve is 

attached to the hose line that connects 

the pump outlet to the pressure cleaner, 

and the valve bypasses the cleaner and 

releases pressure into the pool being 

serviced. Further, in reviewing 

manufacturer operating instructions 

online, DOE observed directions to 

remove or replace restrictor discs, or to 

unscrew pressure relief valves, to 

reduce the pump flow rate. This is 

consistent with the information 

provided by the CA IOUs. Further 

discussion and responses to the 

commenters’ payback period analysis 

are provided in section IV.F.9 of this 

document. 

Hayward stated that it reviewed 

energy and cost savings for six of its 

currently compliant single-speed 

pumps, including self and non-selfpriming, and estimated that the average 

payback period for conversion to 

variable speed was over 12 years. 

Hayward provided details of its analysis 

as part of its comment, and noted use of 

a flow rate of 24.7 gpm, even though 

some pool equipment requires a greater 

flow rate. (Hayward, No. 93 at p. 2) In 

reviewing the analysis provided by 

Hayward, DOE first notes that the prices 

used were for the pump. The analysis 

DOE conducted in the June 2022 NOPR, 

however, considers the motor only, as 

this rule is specific to the costeffectiveness of the DPPP motor. While 

the engineering analysis determines the 

manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) (see 

section IV.C.2 for further discussion), 

DOE uses the markups from the 

markups analysis (in section IV.D of this 

document) to convert the MSP to 

consumer prices as it relates to the 

DPPP motor. Accordingly, the costs 

included in the Hayward analysis do 

not directly translate to the analysis at 

hand, which is for the DPPP motor. 

Further discussion and responses to the 

commenters’ payback period analysis 

are provided in section IV.F.9 of this 

document. 

2. Cost Analysis 

The cost analysis portion of the 

engineering analysis is conducted using 

one or a combination of cost 

approaches. The selection of cost 

approach depends on a suite of factors, 

including the availability and reliability 

of public information, characteristics of 

the regulated product, and the 

availability and timeliness of 

purchasing the equipment on the 

market. The cost approaches are 

summarized as follows: 

b Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles a 

commercially available product, 

component by component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials for the product. 

b Catalog teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing a product, 

DOE identifies each component using 

parts diagrams (available from 

manufacturer websites or appliance 

repair websites, for example) to develop 

the bill of materials for the product. 

b Price surveys: If neither a physical 

nor catalog teardown is feasible (for 

example, for tightly integrated products 

such as fluorescent lamps, which are 

infeasible to disassemble and for which 

parts diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical 

(e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE 

conducts price surveys using publicly 

available pricing data published on 

major online retailer websites and/or by 

soliciting prices from distributors and 

other commercial channels. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE used 

feedback from manufacturers presented 

in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule to 

determine the cost of DPPP motors, and 

updated the cost data to be 

representative of the market in 2020. 

DOE adjusted the 2015$ costs to 2020$ 

using the historical Bureau of Labor 

Statistics Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’) 

for each product’s industry.47 DOE also 

conducted physical teardowns to 

determine updated DPPP motor 

controller costs for variable-speed 

motors. To account for manufacturers’ 

non-production costs and profit margin, 

DOE applied a non-production cost 

multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to 

the MPC to determine the manufacturer 

selling price (‘‘MSP’’). DOE developed 

an average manufacturer markup of 1.37 

by examining the annual Securities and 

Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’) 10–K 

reports filed by publicly traded 

manufacturers primarily engaged in 

DPPP manufacturing and whose 

combined product range includes a 

variety of pool products. 87 FR 37122, 

37139–37140. 

In response, Fluidra noted that singlespeed motor costs have increased 

roughly 20–22 percent in the last 3 

years. This is just material costs and 

does not include transportation costs, 

which have risen exponentially since 

2020. Further, Fluidra noted that 

component shortages and inflation have 

dramatically increased material costs 

since 2020, and that should be 

evaluated. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 3) To 

account for the recent price changes to 

the DPPP motor market, DOE inflated 

the cost data in 2020$ to 2022$ using 

the updated PPI values for each 

industry.48 DOE notes that these indices 

sufficiently characterize the change in 

motor prices due to material price 

changes, transportation costs, and 

changes in labor costs. 

PHTA and NEMA commented that 

they believe the 1.37 manufacturer 

markup is a reasonable markup for 

domestically produced product, but it 

may be a little low if the product is 

produced overseas. (PHTA and NEMA, 

No. 92 at p. 10) As previously 

discussed, the 1.37 markup was based 

on publicly available financial 

information for manufacturers of DPPP 

motors. The calculation includes 

general and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) 

expenses, research and development 

(‘‘R&D’’) expenses, interest, and profit. 

DOE does not have data to suggest that 

these costs would change if a DPPP 

motor is not manufactured domestically, 

nor have PHTA and NEMA provided 

any additional data on how the markup 

would need to be updated. As such, for 

this analysis, DOE maintains the 

manufacturer markup from the June 

2022 NOPR. 

Table IV.3 lists the MSPs of each EL 

for DPPP motors. See TSD chapter 5 for 

additional detail on the engineering 

analysis and complete cost-efficiency 

results. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66992 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

49Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the 

price of baseline products, using the same markup 

for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 

result in higher per-unit operating profit. While 

such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in 

markets that are reasonably competitive it is 

unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable 

increase in profitability in the long run. 

50U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC 

10–K Reports for Pool Corp (2017–2021). Available 

at www.sec.gov/ (last accessed July 26, 2021.) 

TABLE IV.3—MSPS IN 2022$ FOR DPPP MOTORS

EC Rep. 

unit THP DPPP application EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5 EL 6 

1 ............... 4 0.22 Non-self-priming Filter Pump, Extra-Small-size (0.09 hhp) ....... $24.84 $31.04 $50.71 ............ ............ ............ ............

2 ............... 1 0.75 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.44 hhp) ........................ 56.92 70.37 90.03 93.13 103.48 114.87 353.97 

2 ............... 5 1 Non-self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.52 hhp) ................. 51.94 56.45 76.21 78.47 93.71 110.09 353.97 

2 ............... 7 1.125 Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump ............................................... 59.84 77.91 97.67 ............ ............ ............ 353.97 

3 ............... 6 1.5 Non-self-priming Filter Pump (0.87 hhp) .................................... 67.86 89.31 107.38 108.51 127.70 148.03 353.97 

3 ............... 2 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (0.95 hhp) .................. 74.52 95.97 114.04 115.17 134.36 154.68 353.97 

3 ............... 2A 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.65 hhp) ........................ 74.52 95.97 114.04 115.17 134.36 154.68 353.97 

3 ............... 3 3.45 Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (1.88 hhp) .................. 160.33 199.85 223.56 255.17 269.85 285.66 475.85 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups (e.g., manufacturer 

markups, retailer markups, distributor 

markups, contractor markups) in the 

distribution chain and sales taxes to 

convert the MSP estimates derived in 

the engineering analysis to consumer 

prices, which are then used in the LCC 

and PBP analysis and in the 

manufacturer impact analysis. At each 

step in the distribution channel, 

companies mark up the price of the 

product to cover business costs and 

profit margin. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

identified distribution channels for 

DPPP motors incorporated in pumps 

and replacement DPPP motors sold 

alone as well as the fraction of 

shipments sold through each channel. 

To characterize these channels, DOE 

referred to information collected in 

support of the January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule, which reflects the consensus of 

the Appliance Standards and 

Rulemaking Federal Advisory 

Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) DPPP Working 

Group. 87 FR 37122, 37140. 

Nidec stated that for motors sold 

alone, they estimate that the market is 

not 50 percent from the motor 

manufacturer to a retailer. Instead, 

Nidec commented that it is significantly 

weighted to the motor manufacturer, to 

the wholesaler, to the retailer, then to 

the end user. (Nidec, Public Meeting, 

No. 88 pp. 24–25) 

PHTA and NEMA provided updated 

estimates of fraction of sales by 

distribution channels. In addition, for 

DPPP motors sold within DPPPs and 

going into new pool installations, 

NEMA and PHTA commented that these 

also go through a wholesaler step. For 

DPPP motors sold alone as replacement 

motors, NEMA and PHTA also 

recommended adding an additional 

channel to capture 5 percent of the 

market being sold through pool product 

retailers. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at 

p. 11) 

For this final rule, DOE revised its 

distribution channels to incorporate the 

feedback from PHTA and NEMA as 

presented in Table IV.4 and Table IV.5. 

TABLE IV.4—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS FOR DPPP MOTORS INCORPORATED IN PUMPS

Distribution channel 

June 2022 

NOPR 

fraction of 

shipments 

(%) 

Fraction of 

shipments 

(%) 

DPPP Motor Manufacturer → DPPP Manufacturer → Wholesaler → Pool Service Contractor → Consumer ..... 75 65 

DPPP Motor Manufacturer → DPPP Manufacturer → Pool Product Retailer → Consumer ................................. 20 15 

DPPP Motor Manufacturer → DPPP Manufacturer → Pool Builder → Wholesaler → Consumer ........................ 5 20 

TABLE IV.5—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS FOR REPLACEMENT DPPP MOTORS SOLD ALONE

Distribution channel 

June 2022 

NOPR 

fraction of 

shipments 

(%) 

Fraction of 

shipments 

(%) 

DPPP Motor Manufacturer → Wholesaler → Contractor → End-User ................................................................... 25 45 

DPPP Motor Manufacturer → Wholesaler → Retailer → End-User ....................................................................... 25 25 

DPPP Motor Manufacturer → Pool Pump Retailer → End-User ............................................................................ 50 25 

DPPP Motor Manufacturer → DPPP Manufacturer → Pool Pump Retailer → End-User ...................................... ........................ 5 

DOE developed baseline and 

incremental markups for each actor in 

the distribution chain. Baseline 

markups are applied to the price of 

products with baseline efficiency, while 

incremental markups are applied to the 

difference in price between baseline and 

higher-efficiency models (the 

incremental cost increase). The 

incremental markup is typically less 

than the baseline markup and is 

designed to maintain similar per-unit 

operating profit before and after new or 

amended standards.49

To estimate average baseline and 

incremental markups DOE relied on 

several sources including: (1) for DPPP 

wholesalers, SEC form 10–K from Pool 

Corp; 50 (2) for pool product retailers, 

SEC form 10–K from several major home 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66993 

51U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC 

10–K Reports for Home Depot, Lowe’s, Wal-Mart 

and Costco. (2017–2021) Available at www.sec.gov/ 

(last accessed July 26, 2022.) 

52U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Annual Retail Trade 

Survey, available at www.census.gov/retail/ 

index.html (last accessed July 26, 2021). 

53U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census 

Data, available at www.census.gov/econ/ (last 

accessed July 26, 2021). 

54U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Annual Wholesale 

Trade Survey, available at www.census.gov/awts 

(last accessed July 26, 2021). 

55RSMeans Electrical Cost Data, available at 

www.rsmeans.com (last accessed July 26, 2022). 

56Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc., State Sales Tax 

Rates Along with Combined Average City and 

County Rates, available at thestc.com/STrates.stm 

(last accessed Jan. 04, 2023). 

57The motor input power is equal to the DPPP 

flow (gpm) divided by the DPPP Energy Factor (G/ 

Wh) and multiplied by 60 (number of minutes in 

an hour). 

58U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information 

Administration. 2020 RECS Survey Data. 

www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/ 

(last accessed February 2, 2023). 

59U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information 

Administration. 2018 CBECS Survey Data. https:// 

www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2018/ 

(last accessed: February 2, 2023). 

improvement centers 51 and U.S. Census 

Bureau 2017 Annual Retail Trade 

Survey for the miscellaneous store 

retailers sector (NAICS 453); 52 (3) for 

pool contractors and pool builders, U.S. 

Census Bureau 2017 Economic Census 

data for the plumbing, heating, and airconditioning contractor sector (NAICS 

238220) and all other specialty trade 

contractors sector (NAICS 238990); 53 (4) 

for motor wholesalers, U.S. Census 

Bureau 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade 

Survey for the household appliances 

and electrical and electronic goods 

merchant wholesaler sector (NAICS 

4536); 54 (5) for electrical contractors, 

2022 RSMeans Electrical Cost Data; 55

(6) for motor retailers, U.S. Census 

Bureau 2017 Annual Retail Trade 

Survey for the building material and 

garden equipment and supplies dealers 

(NAICS 444); and (7) for pool pump 

retailers, U.S. Census Bureau 2017 

Annual Retail Trade Survey for the 

miscellaneous store retailers sector 

(NAICS 453). 

In addition to the markups, DOE 

obtained State and local taxes from data 

provided by the Sales Tax 

Clearinghouse.56 These data represent 

weighted average taxes that include 

county and city rates. DOE derived 

shipment-weighted average tax values 

for each State considered in the 

analysis. 

Chapter 6 of the final rule TSD 

provides details on DOE’s development 

of markups for DPPP motors. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of DPPP motors at 

different efficiencies in representative 

U.S. single-family homes, multi-family 

residences, and commercial buildings, 

and to assess the energy savings 

potential of increased DPPP motors 

efficiency. The energy use analysis 

estimates the range of energy use of 

DPPP motors in the field (i.e., as they 

are actually used by consumers). The 

energy use analysis provides the basis 

for other analyses DOE performed, 

particularly assessments of the energy 

savings and the savings in consumer 

operating costs that could result from 

adoption of amended or new standards. 

1. DPPP Motor Applications 

The annual energy consumption of a 

DPPP motor is expressed in terms of 

electricity consumption and depends on 

the DPPP motor efficiency level, the 

pool pumping requirement, the 

performance of the DPPP incorporating 

the motor, and the DPPP annual 

operating hours. This electricity 

consumption is identical to the annual 

electricity consumption of the DPPP 

incorporating the motor. The DPPP 

motor energy consumption value is the 

sum of the energy consumption values 

in each mode of operation. Each mode 

of operation corresponds to a motor 

speed setting. Single-speed motors only 

have one mode of operation while dualand variable-speed pool pump motors 

operate at a low-speed and a high-speed 

mode. The unit energy consumption 

values in each mode are calculated 

based on the DPPP usage, which is 

calculated based on the pool pump 

system curve that the DPPP is operating 

on, the pump flow rate of the mode, the 

pump energy factor of the mode (which 

in turn determines the motor input 

power) 57 and the annual run time of the 

pool pump spent in that mode. In the 

June 2022 NOPR, DOE calculated the 

pool pump annual run time based on 

the application (residential or 

commercial), the assumed pool size, the 

assumed number of turns per day, and 

the sample application’s geographic 

location, which implies the 

corresponding pool seasons. 87 FR 

37122, 37141. A typical DPPP 

application, characterized by the DPPP 

equipment class and hydraulic 

horsepower (‘‘hhp’’), was associated to 

each representative unit in equipment 

classes 1, 2, and 3 based on inputs from 

the engineering analysis. See section 

IV.C.1.a of this document. 

DOE did not receive comments 

regarding this methodology and retained 

the same approach in the final rule. 

2. DPPP Motor Consumer Sample 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE created 

individual consumer samples for five 

DPPP motor markets: (1) single-family 

homes with a swimming pool; (2) 

indoor swimming pools in commercial 

applications; (3) single-family 

community swimming pools; (4) multifamily community swimming pools; and 

(5) outdoor swimming pools in 

commercial applications. DOE used the 

samples to determine DPPP motor 

annual energy consumption and to 

conduct the LCC and PBP analyses. 87 

FR 37122, 37141. 

PTHA and NEMA commented that 

within the scope of the document, there 

is little to no distinction between the 

types of motors that would be used 

across community and commercial pool 

applications. As a result, PHTA and 

NEMA commented that DOE could 

consider combining community pool 

types (single and multi-family), as well 

as commercial (indoor and outdoor). 

(PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 12) 

In the June 2022 NOPR analysis, as 

noted by NEMA and PTHA, community 

pools and commercial pools were 

combined and analyzed as the 

commercial sector by DOE. In this final 

rule, DOE continued to use the same 

approach. 87 FR 37122, 37141 See 

section 7.3 of chapter 7 of the final rule 

TSD for details of community and 

commercial indoor and outdoor pool 

samples used. 

DOE used the Energy Information 

Administration’s (‘‘EIA’’) 2020 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(‘‘RECS 2020’’) to establish a sample of 

single-family homes that have a 

swimming pool.58 For DPPPs used in 

indoor swimming pools in commercial 

applications, DOE developed a sample 

using the 2018 Commercial Building 

Energy Consumption Survey (‘‘CBECS 

2018’’).59 RECS and CBECS include 

information such as the household or 

building owner demographics and the 

location of the household or building. 

Neither RECS nor CBECS provide data 

on community pools or outdoor 

swimming pools in commercial 

applications, so DOE created samples 

based on other available data. To 

develop samples for DPPPs in single or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66994 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

60U.S. Census Bureau. 2009 AHS survey data. 

www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2009/ 

ahs-2009-public-use-file--puf-/2009-ahs-nationalpuf-microdata.html (last accessed: February 2, 

2023). 

61U.S. Census Bureau. 2011 AHS survey data. 

www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2011/ 

ahs-2011-summary-tables/h150-11.html (last 

accessed: February 2, 2023). 

62The earlier versions of AHS was used due to 

the lack of pool ownership information in the more 

recent AHS. 

63PK Data. 2022 Swimming Pool and Pool Heater 

Customized Report for LBNL. pkdata.com/annualreports/ (last accessed: February 2, 2023). 

64For more details see chapter 7 of the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule TSD at www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105. 

65The motor input power is equal to the flow 

(gpm) divided by the energy factor (G/Wh) and 

multiplied by 60 (number of minutes in an hour). 

66When a pump is tested on a system curve (such 

as curve C), any one of the measurements hydraulic 

power, P (hp), volumetric flow, Q (gpm) and total 

dynamic head, H (ft of water) can be used to 

calculate the other two measurements. 

67For more details see chapter 7 of the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at 

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BTSTD-0008-0105. 

68Flow (in gpm) is equal to the pool volume (in 

gallons) divided by the desired time per turnover 

(in minutes). 

69CEE Residential Swimming Pool Initiative, 

December 2021. 

70California Energy Commission Pool Heater 

CASE. efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?

tn=71754&DocumentContentId=8285 (last accessed 

July 28, 2016). 

71Evaluation of potential best management 

practices–Pools, Spas, and Fountains 2010. 

calwep.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/PoolsSpas-and-Fountains-PBMP-2010.pdf (last Accessed 

July 28, 2016). 

multi-family communities, DOE used a 

combination of RECS 2020, U.S. Census 

2009 and 2011 American Home Survey 

Data (AHS),60 61 62 and the 2022 PK Data 

report.63 To develop a sample for pool 

pumps in outdoor commercial 

swimming pools, DOE relied on data 

from both CBECS 2018 and the 2022 PK 

Data report. 

DPPPs can be installed with either 

above-ground or in-ground swimming 

pools. In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

established separate sets of consumer 

samples for in-ground pools and aboveground pools by adjusting the original 

sample weights using data on the 

number of installed in-ground and 

above-ground pools gathered during the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule, which 

relied on 2014 data per State provided 

by APSP.64 The consumer samples for 

DPPP motors used in self-priming and 

pressure cleaner booster pumps are 

drawn from the in-ground pool samples; 

the consumer samples for motors used 

with non-self-priming pool pumps are 

obtained from the above-ground pool 

samples. 87 FR 37122, 37142. See 

chapter 8 of the June 2022 NOPR TSD. 

DOE did not receive comments on this 

approach and retained the same method 

in this final rule. 

See chapter 7 of the final rule TSD for 

more details about the creation of the 

consumer samples and the regional 

breakdowns. 

3. Self-priming and Non-Self-Priming 

Pool Pump Motor Input Power 

The input power of DPPP motors used 

in self-priming and non-self-priming 

pump applications is calculated based 

on the flow rates (gpm) and typical 

energy factor (G/Wh) associated with 

each representative unit.65 At efficiency 

levels corresponding to single-speed 

and two-speed motors, the flow and 

energy factor values were based on 

input from the engineering analysis and 

provided for each system curve (A, B, or 

C).66 In the June 2022 NOPR, for each 

user of self-priming and non-selfpriming pool pumps in the consumer 

sample, DOE specified the system curve 

used (A, B, or C) by drawing from a 

probability distribution in which 35 

percent of the pool pumps follow curve 

A, 10 percent of the pool pumps follow 

curve B, and the remaining 55 percent 

follow curve C. The probability 

distribution was based on inputs from 

the ASRAC DPPP Working Group 

gathered during the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule.67 87 FR 37122, 37142. 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

this approach and retained the same 

methodology and inputs for this final 

rule. 

At efficiency levels corresponding to 

variable-speed motors, the engineering 

analysis only provides flow and energy 

factor values for the high-speed mode 

on each system curve. In the June 2022 

NOPR, for the low-speed mode, DOE 

used data on pool volume and desired 

time per turnover from the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule TSD to calculate a 

consumer-specific low-speed flow.68

These relied on inputs from 

stakeholders and several other 

references.69 70 71 DOE then used the 

equation provided by the engineering 

analysis to calculate the energy factor as 

a function of Q for each representative 

unit on each system curve. 87 FR 37122, 

37142. The equations from the 

engineering analysis are provided in 

chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 

Pentair and PHTA and NEMA 

commented that the minimum flow rate 

of 24.7 gpm that is being used in the 

energy use analysis is not high enough 

to operate certain equipment. (Pentair, 

No. 90 at p. 2; PHTA and NEMA, No. 

92 at p. 4) 

Specifically, PHTA and NEMA 

commented that in looking at filtration 

pump motors, DOE did not consider 

additional factors, such as whether the 

requirements apply to existing pool 

versus new construction, and whether 

the requirements to operate certain 

equipment. PHTA and NEMA 

commented that when designing a new 

pool, the piping and equipment are 

selected in conjunction with the pump 

system to ensure the pool works 

properly and safely. However, in 

existing pools, the piping and much of 

the equipment, including sanitation 

items such as skimmers, main drains, 

and filters, are already in place and 

would be cost prohibitive for consumers 

to replace. As such, PHTA and NEMA 

commented that any replacement motor 

needs to be capable to provide the flow 

rates needed to work with the existing 

system. PHTA and NEMA stated that 

previous norm in the pool construction 

industry was small pipe and bigger 

pump; and although that has changed 

over the last 15 years, there are 5.4 

million existing inground pools3 with a 

significant percentage that may have 

1.5-inch piping. PHTA and NEMA 

commented that the smaller more 

restrictive piping size impacts the pump 

size, which also impacts the filter 

maintenance. Further, PHTA and NEMA 

added that many existing pools have 

skimmers that need a certain minimum 

flow rate (historically 30–35 gpm) to 

properly remove surface debris. A 

skimmer is one part of the sanitation 

system of the pool and removes 

containments off the surface to protect 

swimmers from infections. In some 

existing pool cases, PHTA and NEMA 

commented that this will be 

compromised based on the requirements 

found in the NOPR and possibly 

increase the risk of recreational water 

illnesses for bathers. PHTA and NEMA 

commented that the energy savings 

analysis for filtration pumps assumes a 

minimum flow rate of 24.7 gpm for all 

filtration pump systems. However, 

PHTA and NEMA stated that different 

equipment has minimum flow rates 

higher than this value (e.g., electrolytic 

chlorinators, pool heaters, suction 

cleaners and skimmers). Further, PHTA 

and NEMA stated that as equipment 

begins to wear out over time, higher 

flow rates may be needed to continue 

having the equipment work properly. 

PHTA and NEMA added that while the 

minimum flow rate of 24.7 gpm was 

established as a reasonable estimate of 

the low-flow conditions a pool may see, 

different equipment have minimum 

flowrates above 24.7 gpm. PHTA and 

NEMA commented that through a 

review of the various equipment, four 

manufacturers identified products that 

require flowrates above 24.7 gpm. These 

manufacturers indicated that they sell 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66995 

72The CA IOUs provided the following reference: 

ASRAC DPPP term sheet, www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0051, rec 6. 

73The minimum values of 24.7 and 31.1 gpm 

were used to provide a threshold when developing 

low flow values in the 2017 DPPP DFR. DOE did 

not use a value of 36 gpm as stated by Pentair. See 

Chapter 7 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

TSD, at www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE2015-BT-STD-0008-0105, p.7–6, footnote c. 

74For more details, see chapter 7 of the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at 

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BTSTD-0008-0105. 

various products, including gas heaters, 

sand filters, high efficiency heaters, 

skimmers, and suction cleaners that all 

have minimum flowrates at or above 30 

gpm. PHTA and NEMA commented that 

the NOPR analysis did not assume a 

range of minimum flow rates, and as a 

result, does not account for the 

decreased savings (or incompatibility of 

small variable-speed motors) associated 

with existing systems that have higher 

minimum flow rates. PHTA and NEMA 

commented that a minimum flow rate of 

24.7 gpm would result in an existing 

small-size pump being run at high 

speed—once installed with a small 

variable-speed motor—to ensure the 

equipment continues to run as intended, 

and would defeat the energy savings 

and purpose for requiring variable 

speed. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at pp. 

3–4) Pentair added that the ICC/ANSI/ 

PHTA 15 Energy Standard has a 

minimum flow rate of 36 gpm that is 

being enforced nationwide by many 

building departments. Therefore, 

Pentair noted that a variable-speed 

fractional hp motor would have to 

operate at a max speed or close to it to 

produce this minimum flow rate needed 

at any reasonable total dynamic head 

loss. (Pentair, No. 90 at p. 2) Pentair 

further added that in the exiting DPPP 

rule, there was a minimum filtration 

rate of 36 gpm. (Pentair, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 88 at p. 62) 

PHTA commented that DOE’s analysis 

does not consider the range of minimum 

flow rates required for certain pool 

equipment. PHTA stated that in doing 

so, the analysis does not account for the 

decreased savings associated with 

existing systems with and that higher 

minimum flow rates require the motor 

to run at higher speeds. (PHTA, No. 100 

at p. 4) 

The CA IOUs commented that during 

the 2015–2016 ASRAC DPPP Working 

Group, DOE, industry representatives, 

and energy efficiency advocates 

unanimously agreed to a low flow test 

point of 24.7 gpm on Curve C. The CA 

IOUs commented that the test point is 

equivalent to 5 ft of head, the minimum 

head loss required to account for static 

losses in the system from the pool filter, 

pool heater, and skimmer. The CA IOUs 

recommended that, at this operating 

point, there would be enough head to 

push water through the complete pool 

filtration system, including pool piping, 

pool filter, and pool heater.72 (CA IOUs, 

No. 96 at pp. 2–3) 

The Joint Advocates stated that DOE’s 

analysis accurately captures the energy 

savings for variable speed. The Joint 

Advocates noted that DOE did not 

assume that the low speed of a variablespeed pump is a fixed percentage of 

high speed, but rather calculated an 

appropriate low-speed flow rate and the 

associated energy factor for each 

consumer in its sample, taking into 

account the minimum flow rate 

thresholds. (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at 

pp. 1–2) 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

calculated the low-speed flow rate as 

the sampled pool size (drawn from a 

distribution) divided by the desired 

number of hours to complete one 

turnover of the pool and divided by 60 

minutes per hour to get the low-flow 

rate per minute. In addition, if the 

calculated low-speed flow rate obtained 

was below 24.7 gpm or 31.1 gpm, DOE 

used below 24.7 gpm or 31.1 gpm 

instead. Such an approach results in a 

range of low-speed flow rates that are 

higher than minimum flow rates. See 

chapter 7 of the June 2022 NOPR TSD. 

This is consistent with the comments 

provided by PHTA and NEMA, Pentair, 

PHTA, and the CA IOUs. As noted by 

the Joint Advocates, DOE clarifies that 

the minimum flow rate is used as a 

threshold to ensure all low-speed flow 

rates (at which the pump is assumed to 

operate) would be greater than 24.7 or 

31.1 gpm, as appropriate. The minimum 

flow rate does not represent the 

assumed flow rate at which the variable 

speed pump operates. As noted by the 

CA IOUs, the minimum flow rate of 24.7 

gpm was developed during the 2015– 

2016 ASRAC DPPP Working Group. 

Specifically, the CA IOUs commented 

that the minimum flow rates for twospeed pumps of 24.7 gpm for two-speed 

pool filter pumps that have a rated 

hydraulic horsepower less than or equal 

to 0.75 hp (small pool filter pumps) and 

31.1 gpm for two-speed pool filter 

pumps that have a rated hydraulic 

horsepower greater than 0.75 (large pool 

filter pumps) are consistent with the 

DPPP Working Group’s recommended 

low-flow rates for multi-speed and 

variable-speed pool filter pumps 

(Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0008, 

No. 51, Recommendation #6 at p. 5). 

The DPPP Working Group developed 

these low-flow rates based on the 

minimum effective flow rates for typical 

pool sizes.73 DOE believes these flow 

rates are also representative of 

minimum flow rates for two-speed pool 

filter pumps and effectively prevent the 

inclusion of unreasonably low speeds 

on two-speed pool filter pumps for the 

sole purpose of inflating WEF ratings. 

82 FR 36858, 36880 (Aug. 7, 2017) 

(citing 81 FR 64580, 64606 (Sept. 20, 

2016)). DOE believes that the proposed 

load points for two-speed pool filter 

pumps are representative of typical pool 

filter pump operation and energy 

performance, and that the load points 

characterize the efficiency of the pump 

speeds and flow points in typical 

applications (i.e., cleaning/mixing and 

filtration). 82 FR 36858, 36880. In 

addition, while Pentair, NEMA, and 

PTHA recommended using a range of 

minimum flow rates, they did not 

provide supporting information to 

develop such distribution. In addition, 

DOE believes that a single value of 

minimum flow rate is sufficient to set a 

threshold and has developed a range of 

low-flow rates. Therefore, in this final 

rule, DOE retained the same approach as 

in the June 2022 NOPR. 

4. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps 

Motor Input Power 

The input power of DPPP motors used 

in pressure cleaner booster pumps is 

calculated using the relationship 

between input power and flow and the 

system curve provided by the 

engineering analysis. To characterize 

operating flow for each consumer in the 

sample, in the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

drew a value from a statistical 

distribution of flow established during 

the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. This 

distribution was developed around the 

test procedure test point of 10 gpm of 

flow rate, as recommended by the 

ASRAC DPPP Working Group. (Docket 

EERE–2015–BT–STD–0008, No. 92 at p. 

311) For single-speed pressure cleaner 

booster pumps, DOE then calculated the 

input power using the power curve from 

the engineering analysis. For variablespeed motors used in pressure cleaner 

booster pumps, DOE also calculated the 

pool pump motor input power in a lowspeed setting. Based on information 

from the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, 

DOE used a value of 10 gpm to 

characterize the low-speed flow and 

calculate the hydraulic horsepower 

using the system curve.74 Then, DOE 

calculated the input power using the 

relationship between input power and 

flow as provided by the engineering 

analysis. 87 FR 37122, 37142. 

The Joint Advocates commented that 

for PCBPs, DOE estimated savings 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66996 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

75Crystal BallTM is a commercially available 

software tool to facilitate the creation of these types 

associated with reducing flow rate to the 

10 gpm specified in the test procedure, 

which is the typical flow rate required 

or recommended for suction-side 

pressure cleaners to function. In 

addition, the Joint Advocates noted that 

the savings associated with variablespeed pressure cleaner booster pump 

motors are supported by testing 

conducted by the CA IOUs during the 

DPPP rulemaking, which demonstrated 

that variable-speed control can reduce 

pressure cleaner booster pump energy 

consumption by 54 to 67 percent. 

Finally, the Joint Advocates commented 

that because of the cubic relationship 

between pump speed and power, 

reducing the speed of a pump by a small 

amount can yield large energy savings. 

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

As previously described in section 

IV.C.1.c of this document, DOE 

developed a revised pump curve and 

input power curves as a function of flow 

rate for PCBP with variable-speed 

motors. Accordingly, for both singlespeed and variable-speed PCBPs, DOE 

calculated the power directly from the 

equation providing power as a function 

of flow developed in the from the 

engineering analysis. For variable-speed 

PCBPs, as noted by the Joint Advocates, 

DOE maintained a value of 10 gpm to 

characterize the flow in the low-speed 

setting. 

5. Daily Operating Hours 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE relied on 

information gathered during the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule to develop 

estimates of pool pump daily operating 

hours. For self-priming and non-selfpriming pool filter pumps in residential 

applications, operating hours are 

calculated uniquely for each consumer 

based on pool size, number of turnovers 

per day (itself based on ambient 

conditions), and the pump flow rate. In 

commercial applications, DOE assumed 

that these pumps operate 24 hours per 

day. 87 FR 37122, 37142–37143. For 

PCBPs, operating hours were drawn 

from a distribution based on the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule and assumed a 

minimum operation of 2 hours per day 

and a maximum of 3 hours per day. See 

section 7.4.2.2. of the June 2022 NOPR 

TSD. 

PHTA and NEMA commented in 

support using the same methodology 

and inputs to estimate DPPP motor 

energy use that were used in the 

dedicated-purpose pool pump direct 

final rule TSD. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 

92 at p. 12) 

PHTA commented that PCBP motors 

operate within a small window of 2–2.5 

hours per day and that once a PCBP is 

set, customers have no reason to further 

adjust the speed of the PCBP motor. 

(PHTA, No. 100 at pp. 2–3) 

In the June 2022 NOPR analysis, as 

noted above, DOE assumed that PCBP 

motors operate between 2 and 3 hours 

per day, which is in line with the 

information provided by PHTA 

regarding PCBP operating windows. In 

addition, as noted in section IV.A.4 of 

this document, DOE believes that 

variable speed is an appropriate design 

option for these motors and would 

result in energy savings to the 

consumer. 

DOE did not receive any other 

comments on daily operating hours and 

retained its approach for calculating the 

daily operating hours during the pool 

operating season. 

6. Annual Days of Operation 

In the July 2022 NOPR, DOE 

calculated the annual unit energy 

consumption by multiplying the daily 

operating hours by the annual days of 

operation, which depend on the number 

of months of pool operation. For each 

consumer sample, DOE assigned 

different annual days of operation 

depending on the region in which the 

DPPP is installed. This assignment was 

based on information related to pool 

pump operating season based on 

geographical locations collected during 

the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. 87 

FR 37122, 37143–37144. 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

this topic and continued to use the same 

inputs regarding annual days of 

operation by region. 

Chapter 7 of the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule TSD provides details on 

DOE’s energy use analysis for DPPP 

motors. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for DPPP motors. The effect of new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

on individual consumers usually 

involves a reduction in operating cost 

and an increase in purchase cost. DOE 

used the following two metrics to 

measure consumer impacts: 

b The LCC is the total consumer 

expense of an appliance or product over 

the life of that product, consisting of 

total installed cost (manufacturer selling 

price, distribution chain markups, sales 

tax, and installation costs) plus 

operating costs (expenses for energy use, 

maintenance, and repair). To compute 

the operating costs, DOE discounts 

future operating costs to the time of 

purchase and sums them over the 

lifetime of the product. 

b The PBP is the estimated amount 

of time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

at higher efficiency levels by the change 

in annual operating cost for the year that 

amended or new standards are assumed 

to take effect. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the change in LCC relative to 

the LCC in the no-new-standards case, 

which reflects the estimated efficiency 

distribution of DPPP motors in the 

absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. In contrast, the 

PBP for a given efficiency level is 

measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

For each considered efficiency level 

in each product class, DOE calculated 

the LCC and PBP for a nationally 

representative set of consumers. As 

stated previously, DOE developed 

consumer samples from various data 

sources including 2009 AHS, 2011 AHS, 

2020 RECS, 2018 CBECS and 2022 PK 

data. For each sample consumer, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

DPPP motors and the appropriate energy 

price. By developing a representative 

sample of households, the analysis 

captured the variability in energy 

consumption and energy prices 

associated with the use of DPPP motors. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes MPCs, 

manufacturer markups, retailer and 

distributor markups, and sales taxes— 

and installation costs. Inputs to the 

calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy consumption, 

energy prices and price projections, 

repair and maintenance costs, product 

lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE 

created distributions of values for 

product lifetime, discount rates, and 

sales taxes, with probabilities attached 

to each value, to account for their 

uncertainty and variability. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC relies on a Monte 

Carlo simulation to incorporate 

uncertainty and variability into the 

analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations 

randomly sample input values from the 

probability distributions and DPPP 

motors user samples. For this 

rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach 

is implemented in MS Excel together 

with the Crystal BallTM add-on.75 The 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66997 

of models by generating probability distributions 

and summarizing results within Excel, available at 

www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/ 

crystalball/overview/index.html (last accessed 

February 3, 2023). 

76At this time, DOE estimates publication of a 

final rule in the second half of 2023. Therefore, for 

purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2026 as the first 

full year of compliance with any amended 

standards for DPPP motors. 

77Series ID PCU 3353123353121; www.bls.gov/ 

ppi/. 

78 DOE uses the terms ‘‘dual-speed’’ and ‘‘twospeed’’ interchangeably throughout this document. 

79Automatic environmental control 

manufacturing PPI series ID PCU334512334512; 

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

model calculated the LCC for products 

at each efficiency level for 10,000 

consumers per simulation run. The 

analytical results include a distribution 

of 10,000 data points showing the range 

of LCC savings for a given efficiency 

level relative to the no-new-standards 

case efficiency distribution. In 

performing an iteration of the Monte 

Carlo simulation for a given consumer, 

product efficiency is chosen based on its 

probability. If the chosen product 

efficiency is greater than or equal to the 

efficiency of the standard level under 

consideration, the LCC calculation 

reveals that a consumer is not impacted 

by the standard level. By accounting for 

consumers who already purchase moreefficient products, DOE avoids 

overstating the potential benefits from 

increasing product efficiency. 

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for 

consumers of DPPP motors as if each 

were to purchase a new product in the 

first year of required compliance with 

new or amended standards. As 

discussed in section III.A of this 

document, for all TSLs except TSL 7, 

new standards apply to DPPP motors 

manufactured 2 years after the date on 

which any new standard is published, 

which corresponds to a first full year of 

compliance of 2026.76 At TSL 7, new 

standards would also apply 2 years after 

the publication of any new standard 

except for small-size DPPP motors, for 

which new standards apply to DPPP 

motors manufactured 4 years after the 

date on which any new standard is 

published. For the purposes of the LCC 

and PBP analysis, DOE used 2026 as the 

first full year of compliance with any 

amended standards for DPPP motors. 

Table IV.6 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The 

subsections that follow provide further 

discussion. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 

chapter 8 of the final rule TSD and its 

appendices. 

TABLE IV.6—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 

Inputs Source/method 

Equipment Cost .............................. Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and distribution channel markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used historical data to derive a price scaling index to project equipment costs. 

Installation Costs ............................. Baseline installation costs determined using data from manufacturer gathered during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. 

Annual Energy Use ......................... The daily energy consumption multiplied by the number of operating days per year. 

Variability: Based on the 2009 AHS, 2011 AHS, 2020 RECS, 2018 CBECS, 2022 PK data and other data 

sources. 

Energy Prices .................................. Electricity: Based on EEI data for 2021. 

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for nine census divisions for pool pump motors in individual 

single-family homes and nine census divisions for pool pump motors in community and commercial pool 

pump motors. 

Average and marginal prices used for electricity. 

Energy Price Trends ....................... Based on AEO2023 price projections. 

Repair and Maintenance Costs ...... Assumed no repair or maintenance on pool pump motors. 

Equipment Lifetime ......................... Average: 3.6 to 5 years depending on the DPPP applications. 

Variability: Based on Weibull distribution. 

Discount Rates ................................ Residential: Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal 

Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. 

Commercial: Calculated as the weighted average cost of capital for entities purchasing pool pumps. Primary data source was Damodaran Online. 

Compliance Date ............................ 2026 (first full year for analytical purposes). 

* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in 

chapter 8 of the 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD. 

1. Equipment Cost 

To calculate consumer product costs, 

DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in 

the engineering analysis by the markups 

described previously (along with sales 

taxes). DOE used different markups for 

baseline products and higher-efficiency 

products because DOE applies an 

incremental markup to the increase in 

MSP associated with higher-efficiency 

products. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, to project an 

equipment price trend, DOE derived an 

inflation-adjusted index of the Producer 

Price Index (‘‘PPI’’) for integral and 

fractional horsepower motors and 

generators manufactured over the period 

1967–2020.77 For fractional horsepower 

motors, the data showed a slightly 

downward trend prior to the early 

2000s, and then the price index 

increased to a small degree. For integral 

horsepower motors, the trend was 

mostly flat before the early 2000s, and 

then the price index increased slightly. 

The trend aligned with the copper and 

steel deflated price indices to some 

extent, as they are the major materials 

used in small electric motors. Given the 

degree of uncertainty, in the June 2022 

NOPR, DOE used a constant price 

assumption as the default price factor 

index to project future DPPP motor 

prices. For two-speed DPPP motors 78, 

however, DOE assumed that the timer 

control portion of the installation cost 

would be affected by price learning. 

DOE used PPI data on ‘‘Automatic 

environmental control manufacturing’’ 

between 1980 and 2020 to estimate the 

historic price trend of the electronic 

components in the timer control.79 For 

variable-speed DPPP motors, DOE 

assumed that the controls portion of the 

DPPP motor would be affected by price 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
66998 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

80Semiconductors and related device 

manufacturing PPI series ID PCU334413334413; 

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

81See for example: www.pentair.com/en-us/ 

products/residential/pool-spa-equipment/poolautomation/easytouch_pl4_andpsl4pooland

spacontrolsystems.html?queryID=b1f890f

14ae08bf7d162fc1ae8f116e8&objectID. 

82See chapter 5 of the dedicated-purpose pool 

pumps direct final rule TSD, at 

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BTSTD-0008-0105. 

83Adjusted to 2021$. 

84Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki.2018. Residential 

Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and 

Estimation Methods. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL–2001169. 

ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricityprices-review. 

85Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Nonresidential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data 

Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence 

Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. 

LBNL–2001203. ees.lbl.gov/publications/nonresidential-electricity-prices. 

86U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration. Annual Energy 

Outlook 2023 with Projections to 2050. Washington, 

DC. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ (last 

accessed May 23, 2023). 

learning. Similarly, DOE used PPI data 

on ‘‘Semiconductors and related device 

manufacturing’’ between 1967 and 2020 

to estimate the historic price trend of 

electronic components in the control.80

87 FR 37122, 37145. 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

the equipment price trends. DOE 

updated the data used to include an 

additional year (2021) and retained the 

same approach to develop equipment 

price trends. 

2. Installation Costs 

Installation costs include labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

equipment. In the June 2022 NOPR, 

DOE simplified the calculation and only 

accounted for the difference of 

installation costs by efficiency levels. 

Specifically, for two-speed pumps, DOE 

included the cost of a timer control and 

its installation where applicable. DOE 

also incorporated the supplemental 

installation labor costs for variablespeed pumps where applicable. Id. 

Pentair commented that older pools 

with large single-speed pumps would 

begin to fail and need replacement, as 

older pools usually do not have any 

automation to control the pool 

equipment and automation is needed to 

be able to program and control a 

variable-speed pump easily. Pentair 

commented that the cost to automate is 

between $2,000 to $3,000, and because 

of this cost, many pool owners rebuild 

the motor or purchase a foreign-made 

motor and pump. (Pentair, No. 90 at p. 

1) 

DOE understands Pentair’s comment 

regarding automation systems as 

relating to additional control systems 

that can be used to further automate the 

operation of a DPPP via computer or 

mobile devices. These systems permit 

sophisticated control over e.g. filtration, 

pumps, lighting chemical management, 

wireless remote control.81 DOE notes 

that these systems are not necessary to 

operate a variable-speed DPPP. As noted 

in section 5.7.1 of the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule TSD,82 DOE 

researched the design and engineering 

constraints associated with motor 

substitution by examining manufacturer 

interview responses and holding 

discussions with the DPPP Working 

Group. DOE concluded that for the 

representative equipment capacities 

being considered, the wet end of the 

pump can be paired with a range of 

motors with various efficiencies and 

speed configurations without significant 

adaptations. In other words, a motor 

swap results in negligible incremental 

costs to the non-motor components of 

the DPPP. Thus, DOE concluded that 

the incremental MPC of the motor swap 

design options (improved motor 

efficiency and ability to operate at 

reduced speeds) may be considered 

equivalent to the incremental MPC of 

the motor component being swapped. 

Therefore, for variable-speed DPPP 

motors, DOE is not including the 

additional cost of automation systems in 

its analysis. 

DOE did not receive other comments 

on installation costs and retained the 

same estimates as in the June 2022 

NOPR as applied to two-speed and 

variable-speed DPPP motors.83

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each sampled consumer, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

a DPPP motor at different efficiency 

levels using the approach described 

previously in section IV.E of this 

document. 

4. Energy Prices 

Because marginal electricity price 

more accurately captures the 

incremental savings associated with a 

change in energy use from higher 

efficiency, it provides a better 

representation of incremental change in 

consumer costs than average electricity 

prices. Therefore, DOE applied average 

electricity prices for the energy use of 

the product purchased in the no-newstandards case, and marginal electricity 

prices for the incremental change in 

energy use associated with the other 

efficiency levels considered. 

DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 

using data from EEI Typical Bills and 

Average Rates reports. Based upon 

comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, 

this semi-annual report presents typical 

monthly electric bills and average 

kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as 

charged by investor-owned utilities. For 

the residential sector, DOE calculated 

electricity prices using the methodology 

described in Coughlin and Beraki 

(2018).84 For the commercial sector, 

DOE calculated electricity prices using 

the methodology described in Coughlin 

and Beraki (2019).85

DOE’s methodology allows electricity 

prices to vary by sector, region, and 

season. In the analysis, variability in 

electricity prices is chosen to be 

consistent with the way the consumer 

economic and energy use characteristics 

are defined in the LCC analysis. For 

DPPP motors, regional weighted-average 

values for both average and marginal 

prices were calculated for the nine 

census divisions. Each EEI utility in a 

region was assigned a weight based on 

the number of consumers it serves. 

Consumer counts were taken from the 

most recent EIA Form EIA–861 data 

(2021). See chapter 8 of the final rule 

TSD for details. 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the 2022 energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

average price changes for each of the 

nine census divisions from the 

Reference case in AEO2023, which has 

an end year of 2050.86 To estimate price 

trends after 2050, DOE used the average 

of 2046–2050 values, held constant. 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing product 

components that have failed in the 

equipment; maintenance costs are 

associated with maintaining the 

operation of the equipment. Typically, 

small incremental increases in 

equipment efficiency entail no, or only 

minor, changes in repair and 

maintenance costs compared to baseline 

efficiency products. In the June 2022 

NOPR, DOE assumed that for 

maintenance costs, there is no change 

with efficiency level, and therefore DOE 

did not include those costs in the 

model. In addition, DPPP motors are not 

typically repaired and DOE assumed no 

repair costs. 87 FR 37122, 37146. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

regarding maintenance and repair costs 

and maintained the same approach in 

this final rule. 

6. Equipment Lifetime 

In the June 2022 NOPR, for DPPP 

motors used in residential applications, 

DOE calculated lifetime estimates using 

DPPP lifetime data and rates of repair 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66999 

87For DPPPs that do not include a repair, the 

DPPP motor lifetime is equal to the DPPP lifetime. 

For DPPPs that are repaired, the DPPP motor 

lifetime is equal to half of the DPPP lifetime. See 

chapter 8 of the dedicated-purpose pool pumps 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at 

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BTSTD-0008-0105. 

88The CEC and NYSERDA referred to the 

following description: ‘‘for DPPPs that do not 

include a repair, the DPPP motor lifetime is equal 

to the DPPP lifetime. For DPPPs that are repaired, 

the DPPP motor lifetime is equal to half of the DPPP 

lifetime.’’ 87 FR 37122, 37146. 

89The warranty period is represented by the 

location or delay parameter of the Weibull 

distribution. 

90See chapter 8 of the January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule TSD, at www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105. 

91See appendix 12A of the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule TSD, at www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105. 

from the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, 

which estimated that motor replacement 

occurs at the halfway point in a pump’s 

lifetime, but only for those DPPPs 

whose lifetime exceeds the average 

lifetime for the relevant equipment 

class.87 The data allowed DOE to 

develop a survival function, which 

provides a distribution of lifetime 

ranging from a minimum of 1 year based 

on a period covered by warranty, to a 

maximum of 10 years, with a mean 

value of 5 years for self-priming pumps, 

to a maximum of 8 years, with a mean 

value of 3.6 years for non-self-priming 

and pressure cleaner booster pumps. 

These values are applicable to DPPP 

motors in residential applications. For 

commercial applications, DOE adjusted 

the lifetimes to account for the higher 

operating hours compared to residential 

applications, resulting in a reduced 

average lifetime of 3.2 years for selfpriming pumps and 3.5 years for 

pressure cleaner booster pumps. The 

resulting shipments-weighted average 

lifetime across all DPPP motor 

equipment classes is 4.5 years. Id. 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

increase the PCBP lifetimes to account 

for shorter operating hours compared to 

non-self-priming pump applications, 

similar to how DOE assumed longer 

lifetimes for DPPP motors used in the 

residential sector vs. commercial sector. 

The CA IOUs estimated the PCBP 

operating hours are about 40 percent 

shorter than the non-self-priming pool 

filter pump. (CA IOUs, No. 96 at pp. 5– 

6) 

The CEC and NYSERDA 

recommended that DOE revise its 

lifetime estimates for PCBPs pumps, as 

well as for variable-speed DPPPs as 

compared to single- or two-speed 

DPPPs. The CEC and NYSERDA 

commented that they expected that 

more up-to-date information would be 

available to support increased lifetime 

estimates for PCBPs, as well as for 

variable-speed DPPPs generally. (CEC 

and NYSERDA, No. 94 at p. 6) 

DOE does not have lifetime data for 

PCBP motors. As stated previously, DOE 

calculated PCBP motor lifetimes based 

on information on PCBP lifetimes. DOE 

developed separate DPPP motor 

lifetimes by DPPP applications in line 

with the lifetime estimates from the 

January 2017 Direct Final Report. 

Specifically, for PCBPs, a shorter 

average lifetime was considered 

compared to self-priming pumps to 

reflect a higher risk of failure typical of 

these DPPPs. (Docket EERE–2015–BT– 

STD–0008; No. 94 p. 221) The PCBP 

lifetimes were developed with input 

from the Working Group and DOE 

believes these are representative of 

PCBP lifetimes. In addition, the CA 

IOUs, the CEC, and NYSERDA did not 

provide data to support longer lifetimes 

for DPPP motors used in PCBPs, nor did 

they provide data to support longer 

lifetimes for DPPP motors used in 

variable-speed DPPPs. Therefore, DOE 

believes its current approach is valid 

and retains its lifetime estimates for 

DPPP motors used in PCBPs. 

The CEC and NYSERDA stated 

although the approach 88 described in 

the June 2022 NOPR is reasonable, DOE 

should revisit its underlying 

assumptions for the LCC calculations 

and ensure the product lifetime 

estimates are consistent with the 

assumptions for motor replacements 

and warranty lengths. Specifically, the 

CEC and NYSERDA noted that there 

was a mismatch between the 

assumptions made for product lifetime, 

repair frequency, and warranty length in 

the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, and 

because of this, the resulting estimated 

equipment lifetime used in this NOPR 

underestimates the actual lifetimes of 

DPPP motors. The CEC and NYSERDA 

stated that they believed the Working 

Group members did not factor in 

potential repairs or warranties when 

coming up with product lifetime 

estimates. (Docket EERE–2015–BT– 

STD–0008; No. 94 pp. 209–223). The 

CEC and NYSERDA added that motor 

failure is the major failure mode for 

DPPPs and so if the motor is replaced 

after failure, the estimated lifetime of a 

DPPP is doubled. Further, the CEC and 

NYSERDA noted that if the DPPP fails 

during the warranty period and is 

replaced at no cost to the consumer, 

then the estimated lifetime of the DPPP 

is increased by the number of years the 

DPPP worked before it failed. The CEC 

and NYSERDA provided the example of 

the lifetime distribution for variablespeed non-self-priming pumps from the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule and 

stated that the assumptions regarding 

lifetime, repair frequency, and warranty 

period were incompatible and required 

increasing the mean and maximum 

values of the Weibull distributions used 

to estimate the equipment lifetime. The 

CEC and NYSERDA commented that 

DOE relied on an overly conservative 

assessment of equipment lifetime, 

which would mean that the economics 

of the proposed standard, in reality, 

would be even more favorable than 

what DOE presented in the LCC 

analysis. The CEC and NYSERDA, 

therefore, commented that DOE should 

ensure that the product lifetime 

estimates are consistent with the 

assumptions on motor replacements and 

warranty lengths. (CEC and NYSERDA, 

No. 94 at pp. 4–6) 

DOE reviewed the DPPP lifetime 

assumptions and notes in the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule TSD; the average 

lifetimes and associated Weibull 

distributions represent the age at which 

the equipment is retired from service 

and include any repairs 89 or motor 

replacement during the warranty period. 

(See section 8.2.2.4 of the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule TSD) 90 As noted by 

the CEC and NYSERDA, the DPPP 

lifetimes used in the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule were developed 

primarily based on input from 

manufacturers (in responses found in 

DOE’s manufacturer interviews) and 

feedback from the ASRAC DPPP 

Working Group. The manufacturers 

interview guide reflects that DPPP 

lifetime is considered to include any 

motor replacement that would occur. 

(See section 12A.9 of the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule TSD) 91 As such, DOE 

believes that the lifetimes estimated in 

the January 2017 Direct Final Rule are 

inclusive of any repair and warranty 

periods. In addition, while the CEC and 

NYSERDA recommended revising 

equipment lifetimes, they did not 

provide alternative estimates and DOE 

retains the lifetimes as calculated in the 

June 2022 NOPR. 

7. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates appropriate to 

consumers to estimate the present value 

of future operating cost savings. DOE 

estimated a distribution of discount 

rates for DPPP motors based on the 

opportunity cost of consumer funds. 

DOE applies weighted average 

discount rates calculated from consumer 

debt and asset data, rather than marginal 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67000 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

92The implicit discount rate is inferred from a 

consumer purchase decision between two otherwise 

identical goods with different first cost and 

operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the 

increment of first cost to the difference in net 

present value of lifetime operating cost, 

incorporating the influence of several factors: 

transaction costs; risk premiums and response to 

uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at 

which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. The 

implicit discount rate is not appropriate for the LCC 

analysis because it reflects a range of factors that 

influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than 

the opportunity cost of the funds that are used in 

purchases. 

93U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System. Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 

2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. 

www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/ 

scfindex.htm (last accessed September 1, 2022). 

94 Damodaran Online, Data Page: Costs of Capital 

by Industry Sector (2021). pages.stern.nyu.edu/ 

∼adamodar/ (last accessed April 22, 2022). 

95 DOE considered California separately in light 

of the July 2021 California standards for 

replacement DPPP motors adopted April 7, 2020 

with an effective date July 19, 2021. See Docket 19– 

AAER–02 at www.energy.ca.gov/rules-andregulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-2. 

96For the purposes of this analysis, DOE 

considered EL 1 (for motors below 0.5 THP) and EL 

6 (for motors above 0.5 THP) as equivalent levels 

to the California standards. 

97California Energy Commission, Final Analysis 

of Efficiency Standards for Replacement DedicatedPurpose Pool Pump Motors, February 20, 2020. 

Docket 9–AAER–02 https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/ 

GetDocument.aspx?tn=232151 (last accessed 

August 2021). 

or implicit discount rates.92 The LCC 

analysis estimates net present value 

over the lifetime of the product, so the 

appropriate discount rate will reflect the 

general opportunity cost of household 

funds, taking this time scale into 

account. Given the longtime horizon 

modeled in the LCC, the application of 

a marginal interest rate associated with 

an initial source of funds is inaccurate. 

Regardless of the method of purchase, 

consumers are expected to continue to 

rebalance their debt and asset holdings 

over the LCC analysis period, based on 

the restrictions consumers face in their 

debt payment requirements and the 

relative size of the interest rates 

available on debts and assets. DOE 

estimates the aggregate impact of this 

rebalancing using the historical 

distribution of debts and assets. 

To establish residential discount rates 

for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all 

relevant household debt or asset classes 

in order to approximate a consumer’s 

opportunity cost of funds related to 

appliance energy cost savings. It 

estimated the average percentage shares 

of the various types of debt and equity 

by household income group using data 

from the Federal Reserve Board’s 

triennial Survey of Consumer 

Finances 93 (‘‘SCF’’) starting in 1995 and 

ending in 2019. Using the SCF and other 

sources, DOE developed a distribution 

of rates for each type of debt and asset 

by income group to represent the rates 

that may apply in the year in which 

amended standards would take effect. 

DOE assigned each sample household a 

specific discount rate drawn from one of 

the distributions. The average rate 

across all types of household debt and 

equity and income groups, weighted by 

the shares of each type, is 4.26 percent. 

To establish commercial discount 

rates for the small fraction of 

applications where businesses purchase 

and use DPPP motors, DOE estimated 

the weighted-average cost of capital 

using data from Damodaran Online.94

The weighted-average cost of capital is 

commonly used to estimate the present 

value of cash flows to be derived from 

a typical company project or 

investment. Most companies use both 

debt and equity capital to fund 

investments, so their cost of capital is 

the weighted average of the cost to the 

firm of equity and debt financing. DOE 

estimated the cost of equity using the 

capital asset pricing model, which 

assumes that the cost of equity for a 

particular company is proportional to 

the systematic risk faced by that 

company. The average commercial 

discount rate is 6.77 percent. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

related to discount rates. DOE retained 

the same methodology used in NOPR 

and updated the discount rate 

distributions based on the most recent 

available data. 

See chapter 8 of the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule TSD for further details 

on the development of consumer 

discount rates. 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the 

No-New-Standards Case 

To accurately estimate the share of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

potential energy conservation standard 

at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s 

LCC analysis considered the projected 

distribution (market shares) of product 

efficiencies under the no-new-standards 

case (i.e., the case without amended or 

new energy conservation standards). 

In the June 2022 NOPR, to estimate 

the efficiency distribution of DPPP 

motors in 2026, DOE first established 

efficiency distributions in 2021. Then, 

as in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, 

DOE projected the 2026 efficiency 

distribution by assuming a 1-percent 

market shift from EL 0–EL 2 (singlespeed DPPP motors) to EL 6 (variablespeed DPPP motors) where applicable. 

To establish the efficiency distributions 

of DPPP motors in 2021, DOE 

considered two market segments: (1) 

DPPP motors incorporated in DPPPs and 

(2) replacement DPPP motors sold 

alone. 87 FR 37122, 37147. 

For DPPP motors incorporated in 

DPPPs, in the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

relied on the 2021 DPPP Database that 

included a total of 345 models of DPPPs 

with WEF ratings and on the ELs 

developed in the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule to establish the 2021 

efficiency distributions of DPPPs. DOE 

also used the scenario of roll-up market 

response to the DPPP standards as 

presented in the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule. DOE then assumed that the 

distributions of DPPP motors 

incorporated in DPPPs would be 

equivalent to the 2021 efficiency 

distributions of DPPPs, based on the 

equivalent structure of the ELs used in 

this NOPR and in the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule. For representative 

units 4 (i.e., DPPP motors used in nonself-priming pumps, extra-small) and 7 

(i.e., DPPP motors used in pressure 

cleaner booster pumps), the 2021 DPPP 

Database did not include any 

information specific to these DPPPs. 

Instead, for these representative units, 

DOE relied on the efficiency 

distributions provided in the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule and applied a 

scenario of roll-up market response to 

the upcoming DPPP standards. Id. 

For replacement DPPP motors sold 

alone, in the June 2022 NOPR, for the 

United States, not including 

California,95 DOE assumed that the 

DPPP standards would have no impact 

on the DPPP motor efficiency 

distributions. Therefore, to establish the 

efficiency distributions of replacement 

DPPP motors sold alone, DOE relied on 

the 2021 no-new-standards case 

efficiency distributions provided in the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule, which 

reflect efficiency distributions prior to 

the compliance date of the DPPP 

standards. DOE then assumed that the 

efficiency distributions of replacement 

DPPP motors sold alone would be 

equivalent to the efficiency distributions 

of DPPPs, based on the equivalent 

structure of the ELs used in this NOPR 

and in the January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule. For California, DOE applied a 

scenario of roll-up market response to 

the upcoming California replacement 

DPPP motor standards.96 DOE then 

relied on the market shares of 

replacement DPPP motors sold in 

California 97 and in the rest of the 

United States to establish the 

nationwide 2021 replacement DPPP 

motor efficiency distributions. Id. 

In response to the June 2022 NOPR, 

PHTA and NEMA commented that DOE 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67001 

98As noted by NEMA and PTHA, a consumer 

may also choose to repair its existing motor. 

However, DOE notes in section IV.F.5 of this 

document that DPPP motors are typically not 

repaired and DOE believes that the purchase of a 

new DPPP represents the more likely scenario. 

99The 2022 DPPP Database includes 12 models of 

PBCPs. 

overestimated the percentage of PCBP 

and small filter pumps that would be 

variable speed in 2026. PHTA and 

NEMA commented that based on a 

review of the CCMS data, there is 

limited availability of fractional THP 

motors currently on the market. Further, 

PHTA and NEMA commented that the 

limited models available are not mass 

produced. Recognizing the limited 

models of motors that exist in the small 

motor category, PHTA and NEMA cited 

this as a rationale for the fact that there 

are zero or very limited variable-speed 

replacement motors in the CEC database 

since the July 19, 2021, compliance date 

of CEC’s replacement motor rule (the 

database appears to not identify whether 

products listed are variable speed or 

not; it lists only model information). 

PHTA and NEMA commented that in 

discussions with the California pool 

service, installer, and distribution 

industry as well as PHTA and NEMA 

manufacturers, it was revealed that 

small fractional VS motors are simply 

not being sold and instead consumers 

are choosing to replace the entire pump 

or repair the existing motor due to the 

cost justification and lack of product 

availability. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 

at pp. 6–7) 

Fluidra commented that DOE’s 

estimate for the share of DPPP motors 

used in PCBP at EL 2 appears to be too 

low. Specifically, Fluidra commented 

that EL 2 represents multistage booster 

pumps, which it estimates to be 

approximately a third of total booster 

pump market share. Fluidra further 

commented that DOE’s estimated 

market share of DPPP motors used in 

PCBP at EL 6 appears to be too high. 

Although technologically feasible, 

Fluidra noted that it is not economically 

practical and there appears to be no 

availability of this type of pump in 

distribution at this time. Fluidra also 

noted that DOE’s estimate for DPPP 

motors used in small-size 0.75 hp selfpriming DPPP at EL 6 appears to be too 

high because there are currently no or 

very limited variable-speed DPPPs of 

this size in the market. Fluidra added 

that for representative unit 7, the 

estimated 35 percent of replacement 

variable-speed PCBP motors is much too 

high and should be 0–1 percent, instead. 

(Fluidra, No. 91 at pp. 3–4) 

Pentair questioned whether variablespeed motors are being shipped in large 

numbers and stated that this is not the 

case. (Pentair, No. 90 at p. 2) 

PHTA stated that there are no 

variable-speed pumps on the market 

below 0.75 hp. (PHTA, No. 100 at p. 3) 

Hayward recommended that DOE 

review the availability of lowhorsepower variable-speed DPPP motors 

in the current market, and that Hayward 

offers three basic variable-speed pump 

models that can achieve a rating of 0.85 

THP, but only when installed with 115V 

power. Accordingly, Hayward noted 

that each of these models is made with 

dual-voltage capability, and estimated 

that over 98 percent are installed with 

230V power which yields 1.65 THP. 

(Hayward, No. 93 at p. 2) 

In this final rule, DOE revised the nonew-standards case efficiency 

distributions to incorporate stakeholder 

feedback. First, DOE revised the 

approach used to develop the no-newstandards case efficiency distributions 

for replacement DPPP motors in 

California (which was based on a rollup scenario) and assumed shipments of 

replacement variable-speed DPPP 

motors would not always increase as a 

result of the California standard. 

Instead, in cases where the California 

standard requires a variable-speed 

replacement DPPP motor and the 

current DOE standards for DPPPs can be 

met without the use of a variable-speed 

motor (i.e., for small-size DPPP motors 

and for standard-size DPPP motors used 

in non-self priming DPPPs), DOE 

assumed that consumers would choose 

to purchase a new, cheaper, nonvariable-speed DPPP instead of 

purchasing a more expensive variablespeed replacement motor.98 This 

approach results in a lower market share 

of variable-speed DPPP motors overall 

(i.e., lower shipments), and specifically 

for DPPP motors used in PCBPs as 

recommended by NEMA, PTHA, and 

Fluidra. This approach also results in a 

decrease in the market share of DPPP 

motors used in small size 0.75 hp selfpriming DPPP at EL 6 compared to the 

estimates from the June 2022 NOPR, as 

recommended by Fluidra. In addition, 

DOE updated the information used to 

develop the efficiency distributions 

based on the 2022 DPPP Database. 

Further to derive the efficiency 

distributions for each representative 

unit, DOE relied on all models of DPPP 

with a DPPP motor THP included in the 

range represented by the representative 

unit (e.g., for representative unit 1, DOE 

relied on DPPP motor data with DPPP 

motor THP greater than 0.5 and less 

than 1.15 THP). For this analysis, DOE 

considered the DPPP motor THP as 

rated by manufacturers when submitting 

compliance to the DOE Compliance and 

Certification Database, the CEC, and the 

ENERGY STAR program (which DOE 

collected as part of the 2022 DPPP 

Database), which may include ratings at 

different voltages. As a result, although 

DOE did not find DPPP motors at 0.75 

THP, DOE found several variable-speed 

DPPP motors within the 0.5–1.15 THP 

range. In addition, DOE does not have 

any technical basis for, or has not 

received any comments on, variablespeed technology not being feasible at 

0.75 THP (See section IV.A.4 of this 

document), and believes the efficiency 

distributions as established are 

representative of the 0.5–1.15 THP range 

associated with representative unit 1. 

Regarding Fluidra’s comment related 

to the share of shipments at EL 2 for 

PCBP, Fluidra did not provide 

supporting data to justify the 

recommended one-third market share. 

In addition, DOE notes that EL 2 

represents a level achieved by a higherefficiency DPPP motor and does not 

relate to the pump design (e.g., multistage). The market shares from the June 

2022 NOPR were based on information 

collected during the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule. DOE maintained the same 

approach as the 2022 DPPP Database 

and did not have sufficient 

information 99 to revise these estimates. 

The projected 2026 market shares by 

EL for the no-new-standards case for 

DPPP motors are shown in Table IV.7 

and Table IV.8 by market segment. See 

chapter 8 of the final rule TSD for 

further information on the derivation of 

the efficiency distributions. 

TABLE IV.7—DPPP MOTORS INCORPORATED IN DPPPS 2026 NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Equipment class Rep. 

unit THP DPPP application EL 0 (%) 

EL 1 

(%) 

EL 2 

(%) 

EL 3 

(%) 

EL 4 

(%) 

EL 5 

(%) 

EL 6 

(%) 

Extra-Small-size ......... 4 0.22 Non-self-priming Filter Pump, Extra-Small-size 

(0.09 hhp).

0 67 33 ............ ............ ............ ............

Small-size ................... 1 0.75 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.44 hhp) ...... 0 0 45 9 0 1 44 

Small-size ................... 5 1 Non-self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.52 hhp) 0 38 27 10 6 1 18 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2

I I I I I I I I I I 
67002 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.7—DPPP MOTORS INCORPORATED IN DPPPS 2026 NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS— 

Continued 

Equipment class Rep. 

unit THP DPPP application EL 0 (%) 

EL 1 

(%) 

EL 2 

(%) 

EL 3 

(%) 

EL 4 

(%) 

EL 5 

(%) 

EL 6 

(%) 

Small-size ................... * 7 1.125 Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump ............................. 0 81 10 ............ ............ ............ 9 

Standard-size ............. 6 1.5 Non-self-priming Filter Pump (0.87 hhp) ................. 0 38 27 10 6 1 18 

Standard-size ............. 2 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (0.95 hhp) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 

Standard-size ............. 2A 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.65 hhp) ...... 0 0 45 9 0 1 44 

Standard-size ............. 3 3.45 Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (1.88 hhp) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 

* For Pressure cleaner booster pumps EL 3, EL 4, and EL 5 are equivalent to EL 6. 

Note: may not sum to 100% due to rounding. 

TABLE IV.8—REPLACEMENT DPPP MOTORS SOLD ALONE 2026 NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Equipment class Rep. 

unit THP DPPP application EL 0 (%) 

EL 1 

(%) 

EL 2 

(%) 

EL 3 

(%) 

EL 4 

(%) 

EL 5 

(%) 

EL 6 

(%) 

Extra-small-size .......... 4 0.22 Non-self-priming Filter Pump, Extra-Small size 

(0.09 hhp).

29 38 33 ............ ............ ............ ............

Small-size ................... 1 0.75 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.44 hhp) ...... 33 11 9 2 2 2 42 

Small-size ................... 5 1 Non-self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.52 hhp) 26 26 31 2 1 1 12 

Small-size ................... * 7 1.125 Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump ............................. 11 65 10 ............ ............ ............ 14 

Standard-size ............. 6 1.5 Non-Self-priming Filter Pump (0.87 hhp) ................. 26 26 31 2 1 1 12 

Standard-size ............. 2 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (0.95 hhp) 27 9 7 1 1 1 52 

Standard-size ............. 2A 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.65 hhp) ...... 33 11 9 2 2 2 42 

Standard-size ............. 3 3.45 Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (1.88 hhp) 27 9 7 1 1 1 52 

* For Pressure cleaner booster pumps EL 3, EL 4, and EL 5 are equivalent to EL 6. 

The LCC Monte Carlo simulations 

draw from the efficiency distributions 

and randomly assign an efficiency to the 

DPPP motor purchased by each sample 

household in the no-new-standards 

case. The resulting percent shares 

within the sample match the market 

shares in the efficiency distributions. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, when 

assigning an equipment efficiency to a 

sample consumer, DOE relied on a 

random assignment of no-new-standards 

case efficiencies (sampled from the 

developed efficiency distribution) in the 

LCC model. 87 FR 37142. 37144. DOE 

did not receive any comments on this 

approach and continued to rely on a 

random assignment in this final rule. 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time (expressed in years) it takes the 

consumer to recover the additional 

installed cost of more-efficient products, 

compared to baseline products, through 

energy cost savings. Payback periods 

that exceed the life of the product mean 

that the increased total installed cost is 

not recovered in reduced operating 

expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation for 

each efficiency level are the change in 

total installed cost of the product and 

the change in the first-year annual 

operating expenditures relative to the 

baseline. DOE refers to this as a ‘‘simple 

PBP’’ because it does not consider 

changes over time in operating cost 

savings. The PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis when 

deriving first-year operating costs. 

As noted previously, EPCA 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the first 

year’s energy savings resulting from the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For 

each considered efficiency level, DOE 

determined the value of the first year’s 

energy savings by calculating the energy 

savings in accordance with the 

applicable DOE test procedure, and 

multiplying those savings by the average 

energy price projection for the year in 

which compliance with the new 

standards would be required. 

Fluidra presented a study of PCBP 

power consumption taken from two 

typical residential in-ground pool 

installations to compare the power 

consumption of a production multistage single-speed booster pump, with a 

multi-stage and a single-stage booster 

pump fitted with the most compatible 

variable-speed DPPP motor currently 

available. Fluidra commented that in 

the study, power was measured at 

various motor rotations per minute 

(‘‘RPM’’) down the lowest possible RPM 

to maintain the necessary flow and 

pressure for pool cleaner operation. 

Fluidra concluded from the study that a 

minimum payback period of 

approximately 9 years was needed, and 

this was larger than the average lifetime 

of the PCBP motor (at 3.6 years from the 

2017 Direct Final Rule TSD). Further, 

Fluidra noted that the power 

consumption of the booster pump 

variable-speed motor operating at 

maximum speed measured noticeably 

higher than the single-speed base 

comparison. Specifically, Fluidra 

commented that operating a PCBP at 

maximum speed is necessary because of 

the plumbing head loss from extended 

pipe runs where the pool equipment 

pad is further from the pool for 

aesthetics and noise reduction. 

Accordingly, Fluidra concluded that the 

variable speed would have incremental 

costs, without ever realizing the fiscal 

benefit of potential energy savings, and 

with limited impact to energy and waste 

reduction. (Fluidra, No. 91 at pp. 1–2, 

6–9) 

Hayward stated that it reviewed 

energy and cost savings for six of its 

currently compliant single-speed 

pumps, including self-priming and nonself-priming, and estimated that the 

average payback period for conversion 

to variable speed was over 12 years. 

Hayward provided a separate analysis 

spreadsheet of this evaluation. Hayward 

also noted use of a 24.7 gpm flow rate, 

although Hayward knows of pool 

equipment requiring a greater flow rate. 

(Hayward, No. 93 at p. 2) 

PHTA and NEMA provided the 

results of field tests of two separate 

variable-speed PCBPs showing payback 

periods of 9–30 years, while a PCBP has 

an average lifetime of 3.6 years. In 

addition, PHTA and NEMA noted that 

in some cases, the variable-speed PCBP 

consumed more energy than the 

constant-load system. PHTA and NEMA 

noted that these results are consistent 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67003 

100 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as 

a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales 

are lacking. In general, one would expect a close 

correspondence between shipments and sales. 

101 DOE relied on a repair frequency of 40 percent 

as provided in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. 

At the end of life of a motor, the motor is replaced 

(i.e., pump repair) 40 percent of the time, and in 

the remaining 60 percent of the time, the pump is 

replaced by a new pump. For more details, see 

chapter 9 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

TSD, at www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE2015-BT-STD-0008-0105. 

102As noted in section IV.F.8 of this document, 

DOE considered California separately in light of the 

July 2021 California standards for replacement 

DPPP motors adopted April 8, 2020 with an 

effective date July 19, 2021. See Docket 19–AAER– 

02 at www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/ 

appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/applianceefficiency-proceedings-2. 

with the LCC results from the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule. (PHTA and 

NEMA, No. 92 at pp. 2–3) 

PHTA restated that PCBPs, when 

analyzed as their own equipment class, 

would not show cost-effective results; 

thus, it requested that DOE confirm its 

analysis and not require variable speed 

for these motors. (PHTA, No. 100 at p. 

2) PHTA added that the rule is not costeffective and pointed to data provided 

by Hayward that calculated a 12-year 

payback period for both self-priming 

and non-self-priming pumps under 1 hp 

as well as data submitted by Fluidra that 

calculated a 9-year payback period for a 

variable-speed PCBP. (PHTA, No. 100 at 

pp. 3–4) 

Waterway Plastics commented that 

savings are application-related. 

Waterway Plastics noted that non selfpriming pool pumps are used on smaller 

swimming pools that have less filtration 

load, and some of them are seasonal. 

Therefore, they questioned the 

representativeness of average values for 

all applications. (Waterway Plastics, 

Public Meeting, No. 88 at p. 32) 

Waterway Plastics added that aboveground swimming pool and non-selfpriming pump is used to filter a much 

smaller body of water on average and 

therefore averaging and combining the 

non-self-priming application with the 

self-priming application do not provide 

an accurate economic analysis. Further, 

Waterway Plastics added that using 

variable speed motors results in energy 

savings because they are flexible on the 

speed of operation and do not provide 

significant savings when used a 

maximum speed compared to single 

speed motors. (Waterway Plastics, 

Public Meeting, No. 88 at pp. 58–59) 

While the Fluidra and Hayward 

studies analyzed a number of specific 

installations, DOE notes that the LCC 

analyzes a larger consumer sample and 

characterizes inputs using statistical 

distributions to reflect variability in the 

field (see description in sections IV.E. 

and IV.F of this document). DOE does 

not believe that the two or six 

installations considered by Fluidra and 

Hayward are representative of the entire 

market as they do not reflect the entire 

range of possible installation costs, 

energy usage and usage conditions (e.g. 

as noted by Hayward, they relied on a 

single value of 24.7 gpm flow rate, 

although pool equipment typical runs at 

higher rates), and related operating 

costs. Further, as previously described, 

DOE believes that variable-speed motors 

can lead to energy savings in PCBPs as 

discussed in section IV.A.4 of this 

document. Instead, in the LCC and PBP 

analysis, DOE considers a distribution 

of installations with variations in heads 

and flow rates and efficiency as 

described in sections IV.E and IV.F.8 of 

this document. In addition, as presented 

in section IV.A.3 of this document, 

DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis results are 

provided at the equipment-class level 

and not at the DPPP-application level 

(e.g., PCBP). The resulting payback 

periods are presented in section V.B.1.a 

of this document. 

G. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of annual 

product shipments to calculate the 

national impacts of potential amended 

or new energy conservation standards 

on energy use, NPV, and future 

manufacturer cash flows.100 The 

shipments model takes an accounting 

approach, tracking market shares of 

each product class and the vintage of 

units in the stock. Stock accounting uses 

product shipments as inputs to estimate 

the age distribution of in-service 

product stocks for all years. The age 

distribution of in-service product stocks 

is a key input to calculations of both the 

NES and NPV, because operating costs 

for any year depend on the age 

distribution of the stock. 

1. Base-Year Shipments 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

estimated motor shipments by DPPP 

application and considered two pool 

pump motor market segments: (1) DPPP 

motors incorporated in DPPPs and (2) 

replacement DPPP motors sold alone. 

For DPPP motors incorporated in 

DPPPs, DOE used the 2015 shipments of 

DPPPs by DPPP application from the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule, which 

were based on manufacturer interviews. 

For replacement DPPP motors sold 

alone, DOE used estimates of historical 

shipments of DPPPs for the period 

2007–2014 and estimates of repair 

frequency as provided by the ASRAC 

DPPP Working Group during the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule to 

calculate the resulting number of failing 

DPPP motors each year, and 

corresponding replacement DPPP motor 

shipments by DPPP application.101 DOE 

also used 2018 confidential DPPP motor 

shipments data and information from 

the 2021 DPPP Database to estimate 

market share of motor shipments by 

total horsepower and distribution of 

DPPP motor shipments by 

representative unit. 87 FR 37122, 37148. 

Regarding DOE’s base year shipments 

estimate, Fluidra commented that 

shipments of replacement DPPP motors 

for booster pumps appear to be too high. 

Fluidra stated that it offers two Pressure 

Cleaner Booster Pump Models (PB4–60 

and PB4SQ), and combined ships less 

than 1,000 replacement motors per year, 

which includes warranty replacements. 

Fluidra added that due to the low price 

point of booster pumps, the cost of a 

replacement motor and service/repair of 

a booster pump outweighs the cost of 

simply replacing the entire booster 

pump, which also comes with a 

manufacturer warranty. (Fluidra, No. 91 

at p. 4) 

In this final rule, as described in 

section IV.F.8 of this document, DOE 

revised the base year 2021 shipments to 

account for consumers that elect to 

purchase a new pump, rather than a 

replacement motor in California.102 This 

resulted in reduced shipments of 

replacement DPPP motors sold alone 

and increased shipments of motors sold 

in DPPP for PCBP, small-size selfpriming, small and standard-size nonself-priming filter pump applications. 

Table IV.9 provides the breakdown of 

DPPP motor shipments by market 

segment and representative unit. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67004 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

103These were calculated based on input from the 

ASRAC DPPP Working Group and using a repairreplace model, and accounted for price elasticity of 

demand. A price elasticity of –0.02 was used for 

standard-size self-priming pool pumps. For more 

details see chapter 9 of the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule TSD, at www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105. 

104 In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

assumed that users of standard-size self-priming 

pool pumps purchased before compliance year of 

the DPPP standards (i.e., 2021), at efficiency levels 

below the upcoming DPPP standards, would seek 

to increase their pump’s lifetime by performing an 

additional repair (i.e., cheaper motor replacement 

with a non-variable speed motor), rather than 

replacing the entire pump with a more efficient and 

variable-speed DPPP (due to the DPPP energy 

conversation standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f) which 

correspond to a variable-speed efficiency levels for 

these DPPPs). In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, 

DOE therefore increased the repair frequency of 

these DPPPs from 40 percent to 60 percent. For 

more details see chapter 9 of the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule TSD, at www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105. 

105Adopted April 7, 2020 with an effective date 

July 19, 2021. See Docket #19–AAER–02 at 

www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/ 

appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/applianceefficiency-proceedings-2. 

TABLE IV.9—2021 SHIPMENTS OF DPPP MOTORS BY MARKET SEGMENT AND REPRESENTATIVE UNIT

Equipment class Rep. unit * THP DPPP category 

Represented THP 

range within the DPPP 

category 

DPPP motors 

incorporated 

in pumps 

(thousand 

units) 

Replacement 

DPPP motors 

sold alone 

(thousand 

units) 

Small-size ..................... 1 0.75 Small Size Self-priming 

Filter Pump.

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15 ........ 148.3 37.4 

Standard-size ............... 2A 1.65 1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5 ........... 103.8 26.1 

Standard-size ............... 2 1.65 Standard Size Selfpriming Filter Pump.1.15 ≤ THP < 1.7 ........ 155.2 151.7 

Standard-size ............... 3 3.45 1.7 ≤ THP ≤ 5 ............. 243.1 237.5 

Extra-Small-size ........... 4 0.22 Non-self-priming Filter 

Pump.

<0.5 ............................. 47.4 16.2 

Small-size ..................... 5 1 0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15 ........ 299.3 86.9 

Standard-size ............... 6 1.5 1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5 ........... 116.4 33.8 

Small-size ..................... 7 1.125 Pressure Cleaner 

Booster Pump.

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15 ........ 151.8 39.7 

* Representative unit. 

2. No-New-Standards Case Shipment 

Projections 

DOE projected shipments of DPPP 

motors incorporated in DPPPs and 

shipments of replacement DPPP motors 

sold alone separately. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, in the nonew-standards case, DOE assumed the 

total shipments of DPPP motors 

incorporated in DPPPs was equal to the 

total shipments of DPPPs as projected in 

the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, at 

the trial standard level corresponding to 

the DPPP energy conservation 

standard.103 87 FR 37122, 37149. DOE 

did not receive any comments on this 

approach and retained the same method 

to estimate DPPP motors incorporated in 

DPPPs. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, in the nonew-standards case, for replacement 

DPPP motors sold alone, DOE used the 

projected shipments of DPPPs and 

estimates of repair frequency to 

calculate the resulting number of failing 

motors each year and corresponding 

motor replacement sales. For 

replacement motors sold alone outside 

of California, DOE relied on repair 

frequency rates as provided in the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule. For 

standard-size, self-priming pump 

motors sold before 2021 and at 

efficiency levels below the DPPP 

standards, DOE assumed that the repair 

frequency would increase from 40 

percent to 60 percent to calculate 

corresponding replacement DPPP 

motors sales.104 For other categories of 

DPPPs, DOE relied on a 40-percent 

repair frequency as provided in the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule. These 

repair-replace rates were based on 

inputs from the ASRAC DPPP Working 

Group during the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule. For replacement motors sold 

alone in California, DOE projects that 

with the California efficiency standards 

for replacement DPPPs,105 the repair 

frequency of standard-size, self-priming 

pump motors will remain at its pre-2021 

rate of 40 percent as estimated in the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule, rather 

than increasing to 60 percent due to the 

smaller price difference between 

replacing the entire pump and replacing 

the motor only. Id. 

In response to the June 2022 NOPR, 

Fluidra commented that a 60-percent 

estimate for replacement motors may be 

too high, adding that the tendency for 

the consumer is to replace motors only 

when they are under warranty, and once 

the motor warranty expires, the 

consumer purchases a whole new pump 

to get a new manufacturer’s warranty 

(typically a 3-year warranty). (Fluidra, 

No. 91 at p. 4) 

In the June 2022 NOPR, in order to 

estimate shipments of DPPP motors, 

DOE relied on a 40-percent DPPP repair 

rate for the majority of DPPPs. See 

footnote 85 of the June 2022 NOPR. 87 

FR 37122, 37148. As previously noted, 

for standard-size self-priming pump 

motors sold outside California before 

2021 and at efficiency levels below the 

DPPP standards, DOE assumed that the 

repair frequency would increase from 40 

percent to 60 percent to calculate 

corresponding replacement DPPP 

motors sales. See 87 FR 37122, 37149. 

Similar to the assumptions used in the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

assumed that users of standard-size selfpriming pool pumps purchased before 

compliance year of the DPPP standards 

(i.e., 2021), at efficiency levels below the 

upcoming DPPP standards, would seek 

to increase the pump’s lifetime by 

performing an additional repair (i.e., 

cheaper motor replacement with a nonvariable-speed motor), rather than 

replacing the entire pump with a more 

efficient and variable-speed DPPP (due 

to the DPPP energy conversation 

standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f), which 

correspond to variable-speed efficiency 

levels for these DPPPs). See footnote 87 

of the June 2022 NOPR 87 FR 37122, 

37149. DOE believes this approach is 

appropriate and continues to rely on a 

60-percent DPPP repair rate for DPPPs 

sold prior to 2021 below the current 

DPPP standards. For all other categories 

of DPPPs, DOE relied on a 40-percent 

repair rate as using a 60-percent rate 

would be too high as noted by Fluidra. 

DOE did not receive any other 

comments on this topic and relied on 

the same repair rates and approach to 

estimate replacement DPPP motors sold 

alone in the no-new-standards case. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67005 

106The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 States 

and U.S. territories. 

107Because the anticipated compliance date is 

late in the year, for analytical purposes, DOE 

conducted the analysis for shipments in 2026–2055 

and 2028–2055. 

3. Standards Case Shipment Projections 

The standards-case shipments 

projections account for the effects of 

potential standards on shipments. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, in the 

standards cases for which the DPPP 

motor efficiency level was set below the 

level equivalent to the standard-size 

self-priming DPPP standards, DOE 

assumed the increase in repair 

frequency (i.e., 60 percent) of standardsize self-priming pool pumps, which 

was accounted for in the no-newstandards case, was maintained for the 

entire United States except for 

California (i.e., TSLs 1 to 5 as described 

in section V.A of this document). In 

California, due to the California 

efficiency standards for replacement 

DPPP motors, DOE estimated that the 

repair frequency of standard-size selfpriming pump motors in California 

would remain at its pre-2021 rate of 40 

percent in the standards case (the same 

as in the no-new-standards case) 

because California standards are at or 

above the levels equivalent to the DPPP 

standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f) for all 

equipment classes. 87 FR 37122, 37149. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, outside of 

California, in the standards cases for 

which the DPPP motor efficiency levels 

are set at or above the level equivalent 

to the standard-size self-priming DPPP 

standard, DOE assumed the increase in 

repair for standard-size self-priming 

pumps would no longer occur starting 

from the compliance year due to the 

smaller price difference between 

replacing the entire pump and replacing 

the motor only. Under these scenarios, 

DOE assumed the pumps were repaired 

40 percent of the time, and new pumps 

were purchased 60 percent of the time 

to replace failed pumps (i.e., TSLs 6 to 

8 as described in section V.A of this 

document). Id. 

In addition, DOE accounted for 

potential downsizing that could occur 

as a result of setting different efficiency 

levels by equipment classes and THP. 

Specifically, DOE assumed that DPPP 

manufacturers may not want to 

incorporate variable-speed motors in 

DPPPs, where the DPPP energy 

conservation standard level does not 

require the use of a variable-speed 

motor. Therefore, at TSLs requiring a 

variable-speed motor for certain 

equipment classes with larger THP (i.e., 

TSL 8, 7, 6. See section V.A), DOE 

assumed that DPPP manufacturers 

might decide to use motors with smaller 

THP for DPPPs that were not required 

to comply with a DPPP standard level 

corresponding to a variable-speed-motor 

efficiency level. DOE analyzed DPPP 

motor THP size as a function of DPPP 

hhp in the 2021 DPPP Database to 

estimate where such downsizing may 

occur. For TSL 8 and 7, DOE did not 

identify any possible downsizing from 

small-size DPPP motors to extra-smallsize DPPP motors. Furthermore, at TSL 

8 and 7, small-size and standard-size 

DPPP motors are both set at EL 6. 

Therefore, DOE did not consider any 

downsizing at these TSLs. At TSL 6, 

based on a review of the 2021 DPPP 

Database, DOE identified representative 

unit 2A as a candidate for downsizing. 

Therefore, at TSL 6, DOE assumed that 

the majority of shipments of standardsize DPPP motors used in small-size 

self-priming pool pumps (80 percent) 

would downsize to small-size DPPP 

motors. For standard-size DPPP motors 

used in standard-size non-self-priming 

pumps (i.e., representative unit 5), DOE 

did not identify DPPP models with 

oversized DPPP motors in its 2021 DPPP 

Database and did not assume any 

downsizing. 87 FR 37122, 37149–37150. 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

its approach to establish standards-case 

shipments projections and maintain the 

same methodology in this final rule 

with the following update. For those 

California consumers that elect to 

purchase a new DPPP rather than a 

replacement variable-speed motor in the 

no-new-standards case (based on the 

discussion in section IV.F.8 of this 

document), at the TSLs for which the 

DPPP motor efficiency levels are set at 

or above the level equivalent to the 

PCBP, small-size self-priming, small and 

standard-size non-self-priming DPPP 

standards, DOE assumed that these 

California consumers would select to 

purchase a replacement motor rather 

than a new DPPP. This results in an 

increase of shipments of replacement 

DPPP motors sold alone and a decrease 

of shipments of motors sold in DPPP at 

these TSLs, for those DPPP applications. 

See chapter 9 of the final rule TSD for 

more details. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the national energy 

savings (‘‘NES’’) and the NPV from a 

national perspective of total consumer 

costs and savings that would be 

expected to result from new or amended 

standards at specific efficiency levels.106

(‘‘Consumer’’ in this context refers to 

consumers of the product being 

regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and 

NPV for the potential standard levels 

considered based on projections of 

annual product shipments, along with 

the annual energy consumption and 

total installed cost data from the energy 

use and LCC analyses. For the present 

analysis, DOE projected the energy 

savings, operating cost savings, product 

costs, and NPV of consumer benefits 

over the lifetime of DPPP motors sold 

from 2026 through 2055, except at TSL 

7 where for small size motors at TSL 7, 

the analysis considers DPPP motors sold 

from 2028 through 2055.107

DOE evaluates the impacts of new or 

amended standards by comparing a case 

without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards 

case characterizes energy use and 

consumer costs for each product class in 

the absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. For this 

projection, DOE considers historical 

trends in efficiency and various forces 

that are likely to affect the mix of 

efficiencies over time. DOE compares 

the no-new-standards case with 

projections characterizing the market for 

each product class if DOE adopted new 

or amended standards at specific energy 

efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or 

standards cases) for that class. For the 

standards cases, DOE considers how a 

given standard would likely affect the 

market shares of products with 

efficiencies greater than the standard. 

DOE uses a spreadsheet model to 

calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings 

from each TSL. Interested parties can 

review DOE’s analyses by changing 

various input quantities within the 

spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet 

model uses typical values (as opposed 

to probability distributions) as inputs. 

Table IV.10 summarizes the inputs 

and methods DOE used for the NIA 

analysis for the final rule. Discussion of 

these inputs and methods follows the 

table. See chapter 10 of the final rule 

TSD for further details. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67006 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

108For more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009), October 2009. 

Available at www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/ 

0581(2009)index.php (last accessed September 2, 

2021). 

TABLE IV.10—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs Method 

Shipments ....................................... Annual shipments from shipments model. 

Compliance Date of Standard ........ 2026 (2028 at TSL 7 for small-size DPPP motors) (first full year). 

Efficiency Trends ............................ No-new-standards case: shifted 1 percent per year of the market share in the single-speed levels to the 

variable-speed efficiency levels. Standard cases: shifted 1 percent per year of the market share in the 

single-speed levels to the variable-speed efficiency levels. 

Annual Energy Consumption per 

Unit.

Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy use at each TSL. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit ........... Annual weighted-average values are a function of cost at each TSL. Incorporates projection of future product prices based on historical data. 

Annual Energy Cost per Unit .......... Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy consumption per unit and energy 

prices. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost per 

Unit.

Annual values do not change with efficiency level. 

Energy Price Trends ....................... AEO 2023 projections (to 2050) and held constant thereafter. 

Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC 

Conversion.

A time-series conversion factor based on AEO 2023. 

Discount Rate ................................. Three and seven percent. 

Present Year ................................... 2024. 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency projected for 

the no-new-standards case and each of 

the standards cases. Section IV.F.8 of 

this document describes how DOE 

developed an energy efficiency 

distribution for the no-new-standards 

case (which yields a shipment-weighted 

average efficiency) for each of the 

considered product classes for the year 

of anticipated compliance with an 

amended or new standard. To project 

the trend in efficiency absent amended 

standards for DPPP motors over the 

entire shipments projection period, DOE 

relied on the same approach described 

in section IV.F.8 this document and 

shifted 1 percent per year of the market 

share in the single-speed levels to the 

variable-speed efficiency levels. The 

approach is further described in chapter 

10 of the final rule TSD. 

For the standards cases, DOE used a 

‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the 

shipment-weighted efficiency for the 

year that standards are assumed to 

become effective (2026 or 2028). In this 

scenario, the market shares of products 

in the no-new-standards case that do not 

meet the standard under consideration 

would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new 

standard level, and the market share of 

products above the standard would 

remain unchanged. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, to develop 

standards case efficiency trends after the 

first full year of compliance (2026 or 

2028), DOE also shifted 1 percent per 

year of the market share in the singlespeed levels to the variable-speed 

efficiency levels. 87 FR 37122, 37151. 

This approach is consistent with the 

assumption made in the 2017 DPPP 

DFR. See section 8.4 of the June 2022 

NOPR TSD. DOE did not receive any 

comments on this assumption and 

retained the same approach in the final 

rule. 

2. National Energy Savings 

The national energy savings analysis 

involves a comparison of national 

energy consumption of the considered 

products between each potential 

standards case (‘‘TSL’’) and the case 

with no new or amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE calculated 

the national energy consumption by 

multiplying the number of units (stock) 

of each product (by vintage or age) by 

the unit energy consumption (also by 

vintage). DOE calculated annual NES 

based on the difference in national 

energy consumption for the no-newstandards case and for each higher 

efficiency standard case. DOE estimated 

energy consumption and savings based 

on site energy and converted the 

electricity consumption and savings to 

primary energy (i.e., the energy 

consumed by power plants to generate 

site electricity) using annual conversion 

factors derived from AEO 2023. 

Cumulative energy savings are the sum 

of the NES for each year over the 

timeframe of the analysis. 

Use of higher-efficiency products is 

sometimes associated with a direct 

rebound effect, which refers to an 

increase in utilization of the product 

due to the increase in efficiency. DOE 

did not find any data on the rebound 

effect specific to DPPP motors and, in 

the June 2022 NOPR, DOE did not apply 

a rebound effect. 87 FR 37122, 37151. 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

this topic and maintains the same 

approach in this final rule. 

In 2011, in response to the 

recommendations of a committee on 

‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Measurement Approaches to Energy 

Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the 

National Academy of Sciences, DOE 

announced its intention to use FFC 

measures of energy use and greenhouse 

gas and other emissions in the national 

impact analyses and emissions analyses 

included in future energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 

(Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 

approaches discussed in the August 18, 

2011 notice, DOE published a statement 

of amended policy in which DOE 

explained its determination that EIA’s 

National Energy Modeling System 

(‘‘NEMS’’) is the most appropriate tool 

for its FFC analysis and its intention to 

use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 

(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public 

domain, multi-sector, partial 

equilibrium model of the U.S. energy 

sector 108 that EIA uses to prepare its 

Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors 

incorporate losses in production and 

delivery in the case of natural gas 

(including fugitive emissions) and 

additional energy used to produce and 

deliver the various fuels used by power 

plants. The approach used for deriving 

FFC measures of energy use and 

emissions is described in appendix 10B 

and 13A of the final rule TSD. 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers are (1) total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

operating costs (energy costs and repair 

and maintenance costs), and (3) a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67007 

109United States Office of Management and 

Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. 

September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/ 

memoranda/m03-21.html (last accessed Feb. 2, 

2023). 

110After adjusting the RECS sample to represent 

the geographic distribution of above ground pools, 

this results in 2.5 percent of consumers of aboveground pools that are low-income. 

discount factor to calculate the present 

value of costs and savings. DOE 

calculates net savings each year as the 

difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case 

in terms of total savings in operating 

costs versus total increases in installed 

costs. DOE calculates operating cost 

savings over the lifetime of each product 

shipped during the projection period. 

As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this 

document, DOE developed DPPP motors 

price trends based on historical PPI 

data. DOE applied the same trends to 

project prices for each equipment class 

at each considered efficiency level. By 

2055, which is the end date of the 

projection period, the average DPPP 

motor price is projected to drop between 

0 and 52 percent depending on the 

efficiency level relative to 2026. DOE’s 

projection of product prices is described 

in appendix 10C of the final rule TSD. 

To evaluate the effect of uncertainty 

regarding the price trend estimates, DOE 

investigated the impact of different 

product price projections on the 

consumer NPV for the considered TSLs 

for DPPP motors. In addition to the 

default price trend, DOE considered two 

product price sensitivity cases: (1) a 

high price decline case and (2) a low 

price decline case based on historical 

PPI data. The derivation of these price 

trends and the results of these 

sensitivity cases are described in 

appendix 10C of the final rule TSD. 

The energy cost savings are calculated 

using the estimated energy savings in 

each year and the projected price of the 

appropriate form of energy. To estimate 

energy prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied the average regional energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

national-average residential energy price 

changes in the Reference case from AEO 

2023, which has an end year of 2050. To 

estimate price trends after 2050, DOE 

used the average of 2046 to 2050 prices, 

held constant. As part of the NIA, DOE 

also analyzed scenarios that used inputs 

from variants of the AEO 2023 

Reference case that have lower and 

higher economic growth. Those cases 

have lower and higher energy price 

trends compared to the Reference case. 

NIA results based on these cases are 

presented in appendix 10D of the final 

rule TSD. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. For this final rule, 

DOE estimated the NPV of consumer 

benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7- 

percent real discount rate. DOE uses 

these discount rates in accordance with 

guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to 

Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis.109 The discount 

rates for the determination of NPV are 

in contrast to the discount rates used in 

the LCC analysis, which are designed to 

reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7- 

percent real value is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy. The 

3-percent real value represents the 

‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value. 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards on consumers, DOE evaluates 

the impact on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a new or 

amended national standard. The 

purpose of a subgroup analysis is to 

determine the extent of any such 

disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates 

impacts on particular subgroups of 

consumers by analyzing the LCC 

impacts and PBP for those particular 

consumers from alternative standard 

levels. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE analyzed 

the impacts of the considered standard 

levels on one subgroup: senior-only 

households. The analysis used subsets 

of the RECS 2015 sample composed of 

households that meet the criteria for the 

subgroup. DOE used the LCC and PBP 

spreadsheet model to estimate the 

impacts of the considered efficiency 

levels on this subgroup. DOE did not 

evaluate low-income consumer 

subgroup impacts because the sample 

size of the subgroup was too small for 

meaningful analysis. 87 FR 37122, 

37152 FN97. 

NEMA and PHTA commented that 

DOE should consider the economic 

impact on lower median income and 

underserved communities whose 

consumers utilize above-ground and 

storable pools that typically fall within 

the small fractional motor category 

currently requiring a variable-speed 

motor in the NOPR. NEMA and PHTA 

commented that there are 3.3 million 

permanent above-ground pools in the 

United States; in 2020, there were 

227,000 new above-ground pools 

installed and in 2021 this number 

increased to 247,000 (compared to 

96,000 in-ground in 2020 and 117,000 

in-ground in 2021); the average aboveground pool price in 2021 was $3,615 

compared to $56,000 for the average inground pool. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 

at p. 5) PHTA commented that lowerincome consumers and underserved 

communities would be more negatively 

impacted by a variable-speed 

requirement for small fractional motors 

because of the use of such motors in 

above-ground and storable pools. 

(PHTA, No. 100 at p. 4) 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE did not 

evaluate low-income consumer 

subgroup impacts because the sample 

size of the subgroup was too small for 

meaningful analysis. 87 FR 37122, 

37186 FN97. In this final rule, DOE 

updated the sample based on RECS 

2020 and found that RECS 2020 only 

included 37 low-income consumer 

samples representing 2.6% of U.S 

households with a pool.110 Therefore, in 

this final rule, DOE did not evaluate 

low-income consumer subgroup impacts 

because the sample size of the subgroup 

continues to be too small for meaningful 

analysis. 

For this final rule, DOE analyzed the 

impacts of the considered standard 

levels on senior-only households. The 

analysis used subsets of the RECS 2020 

sample composed of households that 

meet the criteria for the considered 

subgroup. DOE used the LCC and PBP 

spreadsheet model to estimate the 

impacts of the considered efficiency 

levels on these subgroups. Chapter 11 in 

the final rule TSD describes the 

consumer subgroup analysis. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the financial impacts of new energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of DPPP motors and to 

estimate the potential impacts of such 

standards on employment and 

manufacturing capacity. The MIA has 

both quantitative and qualitative aspects 

and includes analyses of projected 

industry cash flows, the INPV, 

investments in research and 

development (‘‘R&D’’) and 

manufacturing capital, and domestic 

manufacturing employment. 

Additionally, the MIA seeks to 

determine how new energy conservation 

standards might affect manufacturing 

employment, capacity, and competition, 

as well as how standards contribute to 

overall regulatory burden. Finally, the 

MIA serves to identify any 

disproportionate impacts on 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67008 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

111See online at www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml (Last 

accessed on January 13, 2023). 

112See online at www.census.gov/programssurveys/asm/data/tables.html (Last accessed on 

January 13, 2023). 

113See online at app.avention.com (Last accessed 

on January 13, 2023). 

manufacturer subgroups, including 

small business manufacturers. 

The quantitative part of the MIA 

primarily relies on the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), an 

industry cash flow model with inputs 

specific to this rulemaking. The key 

GRIM inputs include data on the 

industry cost structure, unit production 

costs, product shipments, manufacturer 

markups, and investments in R&D and 

manufacturing capital required to 

produce compliant equipment. The key 

GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is 

the sum of industry annual cash flows 

over the analysis period, discounted 

using the industry-weighted average 

cost of capital, and the impact to 

domestic manufacturing employment. 

The model uses standard accounting 

principles to estimate the impacts of 

energy conservation standards on a 

given industry by comparing changes in 

INPV and domestic manufacturing 

employment between a no-newstandards case and the various 

standards cases (‘‘TSLs’’). To capture 

the uncertainty relating to manufacturer 

pricing strategies following new 

standards, the GRIM estimates a range of 

possible impacts under different 

manufacturer markup scenarios. 

The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses manufacturer characteristics 

and market trends. Specifically, the MIA 

considers such factors as a potential 

standard’s impact on manufacturing 

capacity, competition within the 

industry, the cumulative impact of other 

DOE and non-DOE regulations, and 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups. 

The complete MIA is outlined in 

chapter 12 of the final rule TSD. 

DOE conducted the MIA for this 

rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 

of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of 

the DPPP motors manufacturing 

industry based on the market and 

technology assessment, preliminary 

manufacturer interviews, and publicly 

available information. This included a 

top-down analysis of DPPP motors 

manufacturers that DOE used to derive 

preliminary financial inputs for the 

GRIM (e.g., revenues; materials, labor, 

overhead, and depreciation expenses; 

selling, general, and administrative 

expenses (‘‘SG&A’’); and R&D expenses). 

DOE also used public sources of 

information to further calibrate its 

initial characterization of the DPPP 

motors manufacturing industry, 

including company filings of form 10– 

K from the SEC,111 corporate annual 

reports, the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

‘‘Economic Census,’’ 112 and reports 

from Dunn & Bradstreet.113

In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a framework industry cash-flow analysis 

to quantify the potential impacts of new 

energy conservation standards. The 

GRIM uses several factors to determine 

a series of annual cash flows starting 

with the announcement of the standard 

and extending over a 30-year period 

following the compliance date of the 

standard. These factors include annual 

expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A 

and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital 

expenditures. In general, energy 

conservation standards can affect 

manufacturer cash flow in three distinct 

ways: (1) creating a need for increased 

investment, (2) raising production costs 

per unit, and (3) altering revenue due to 

higher per-unit prices and changes in 

sales volumes. 

In addition, during Phase 2, DOE 

developed interview guides to distribute 

to manufacturers of DPPP motors in 

order to develop other key GRIM inputs, 

including product and capital 

conversion costs, and to gather 

additional information on the 

anticipated effects of energy 

conservation standards on revenues, 

direct employment, capital assets, 

industry competitiveness, and subgroup 

impacts. 

In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE 

conducted structured, detailed 

interviews with representative 

manufacturers. During these interviews, 

DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics to validate assumptions 

used in the GRIM and to identify key 

issues or concerns. See section IV.J.3 of 

this document for a description of the 

key issues raised by manufacturers 

during the interviews. As part of Phase 

3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of 

manufacturers that may be 

disproportionately impacted by new 

standards or that may not be accurately 

represented by the average cost 

assumptions used to develop the 

industry cash flow analysis. Such 

manufacturer subgroups may include 

small business manufacturers, lowvolume manufacturers (‘‘LVMs’’), niche 

players, and/or manufacturers 

exhibiting a cost structure that largely 

differs from the industry average. DOE 

identified one subgroup for a separate 

impact analysis: small business 

manufacturers. The small business 

subgroup is discussed in section VI.B of 

this document, ‘‘Review under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ and in 

chapter 12 of the final rule TSD. 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flow due to new 

standards that result in a higher or 

lower industry value. The GRIM uses a 

standard, annual discounted cash-flow 

analysis that incorporates manufacturer 

costs, manufacturer markups, 

shipments, and industry financial 

information as inputs. The GRIM 

models changes in costs, distribution of 

shipments, investments, and 

manufacturer margins that could result 

from new energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM spreadsheet uses 

the inputs to arrive at a series of annual 

cash flows, beginning in 2024 (the base 

year of the analysis) and continuing to 

2055. DOE calculated INPVs by 

summing the stream of annual 

discounted cash flows during this 

period. For manufacturers of DPPP 

motors, DOE used a real discount rate of 

7.2 percent, which was derived from 

industry financials and then modified 

according to feedback received during 

manufacturer interviews. 

The GRIM calculates cash flows using 

standard accounting principles and 

compares changes in INPV between the 

no-new-standards case and each 

standards case. The difference in INPV 

between the no-new-standards case and 

a standards case represents the financial 

impact of the new energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers. As 

discussed previously, DOE developed 

critical GRIM inputs using a number of 

sources, including publicly available 

data, results of the engineering analysis, 

and information gathered from industry 

stakeholders during the course of 

manufacturer interviews and 

subsequent Working Group meetings. 

The GRIM results are presented in 

section V.B.2 of this document. 

Additional details about the GRIM, the 

discount rate, and other financial 

parameters can be found in chapter 12 

of the final rule TSD. 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing more efficient 

equipment is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing baseline equipment 

due to the use of more complex 

components, which are typically more 

costly than baseline components. The 

changes in the MPCs of covered 

equipment can affect the revenues, gross 

margins, and cash flow of the industry. 

DOE initially used data from the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule to 

determine the MSP of DPPP 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67009 

114www.bls.gov/ppi/databases/ (last accessed on 

February 9, 2023). 

motors. Specifically, DOE used Table 

5.7.1 of the January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule TSD, which estimated the MSPs of 

DPPP motors used in the analysis. For 

this final rule DOE adjusted the MSPs 

used in the June 2022 NOPR from 2020 

dollars into 2021 dollars. For a complete 

description of the MPCs, see chapter 5 

of the final rule TSD. 

b. Shipments Projections 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues based on total unit shipment 

projections and the distribution of those 

shipments by efficiency level. Changes 

in sales volumes and efficiency mix 

over time can significantly affect 

manufacturer finances. For this analysis, 

the GRIM uses the NIA’s annual 

shipment projections derived from the 

shipments analysis from 2024 (the base 

year) to 2055 (the end year of the 

analysis period). See chapter 9 of the 

final rule TSD for additional details. 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

New energy conservation standards 

could cause manufacturers to incur 

conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and equipment 

designs into compliance. DOE evaluated 

the level of conversion-related 

expenditures that would be needed to 

comply with each considered efficiency 

level in each equipment class. For the 

MIA, DOE classified these conversion 

costs into two major groups: (1) product 

conversion costs; and (2) capital 

conversion costs. Product conversion 

costs are investments in research, 

development, testing, marketing, and 

other non-capitalized costs necessary to 

make equipment designs comply with 

new energy conservation standards. 

Capital conversion costs are investments 

in property, plant, and equipment 

necessary to adapt or change existing 

production facilities such that new 

compliant equipment designs can be 

fabricated and assembled. 

DOE continued to use the conversion 

costs estimates form the June 2022 

NOPR. DOE updated these conversion 

cost estimates from 2020 dollars to 2022 

dollars using the PPI NAICS code 

335312 (motor and generator 

manufacturing).114 In the June 2022 

NOPR, DOE assumed that DPPP motor 

manufacturers would not incur any 

capital conversion costs for efficiency 

levels that single-speed or dual-speed 

motors would be able to meet. The same 

production equipment currently used to 

manufacture single-speed and dualspeed motors would still be able to be 

used to manufacture more efficient 

single- and dual-speed motors. 

However, DOE did assume that DPPP 

motor manufacturers would incur 

capital conversion costs at efficiency 

levels that variable-speed motors would 

be needed to meet the analyzed energy 

conservation standards. 87 FR 37122, 

37153. 

Additional production equipment 

would be needed to manufacture both 

additional variable-speed motor models 

and a larger production volume of 

variable-speed motors than are currently 

being produced. DOE used feedback 

from manufacturer interviews to 

estimate the cost of adding a production 

line to manufacture variable-speed 

motors. DOE then estimated the number 

of additional variable-speed production 

lines needed at each TSL, based on the 

increase in variable-speed shipments 

estimated at the analyzed TSL and the 

number of DPPP motor manufacturers 

that would need to introduce variablespeed motor models to meet the 

analyzed TSL. 

DOE assumed that DPPP motor 

manufacturers would not incur any 

additional product conversion costs for 

the standard size equipment classes. All 

DPPP motor manufacturers currently 

manufacture multiple variable-speed 

motor models in the standard size 

equipment classes. Additionally, the 

current DOE energy conservation 

standard for DPPPs that most commonly 

use the standard size DPPP motors use 

variable speed motors to meet those 

efficiency requirements. Therefore, 

almost all standard size DPPP motors 

sold as part of a new DPPP are already 

variable-speed motors. However, DOE 

did assume that DPPP motor 

manufacturers would incur product 

conversion costs for the other 

equipment classes at each analyzed 

efficiency level. 

Additionally, DPPP motor models 

would need to be introduced for the 

extra small-size and small-size DPPP 

motor equipment classes at each 

efficiency level analyzed. To evaluate 

the level of product conversion costs 

manufacturers would likely incur to 

comply with the analyzed energy 

conservation standards for these 

equipment classes, DOE used a model 

database to estimate the number of 

DPPP motor models that would have to 

be redesigned at each efficiency level for 

each equipment class. In general, DOE 

assumes all conversion-related 

investments occur between the year of 

publication of the final rule and the year 

by which manufacturers must comply 

with the new standards. 

PHTA and NEMA commented that 

manufacturers have already made 

investments that ranged between 

$50,000 and $6.5 million to comply 

with the January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

and that in order to comply with the 

standards proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR, DPPP motor and DPPP 

manufacturers may have to make 

investments that are 10 times larger than 

the investments required to comply 

with the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. 

Additionally, PHTA and NEMA stated 

that some of the investments that were 

made to comply with the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule will not be able to be 

recouped by the time compliance with 

the DPPP motor energy conservation 

standards are required. (PHTA and 

NEMA, No. 92 at p. 8) DOE accounted 

for these additional investments that 

DPPP motor manufacturers will have to 

make to comply with the analyzed 

energy conservation standards for DPPP 

motors, in the form of conversion costs. 

These investments are displayed as 

conversion costs in Table V.15 and 

Table V.16. 

The conversion cost figures used in 

the GRIM can be found in section V.B.2 

of this document. For additional 

information on the estimated capital 

and product conversion costs, see 

chapter 12 of the final rule TSD. 

d. Markup Scenarios 

MSPs include direct manufacturing 

production costs (i.e., labor, materials, 

and overhead estimated in DOE’s MPCs) 

and all non-production costs (i.e., 

SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with 

profit. To calculate the MSPs in the 

GRIM, DOE applied non-production 

cost markups to the MPCs estimated in 

the engineering analysis for each 

product class and efficiency level. 

Modifying these markups in the 

standards cases yield different sets of 

impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, 

DOE modeled two standards-case 

markup scenarios to represent 

uncertainty regarding the potential 

impacts on prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the 

implementation of new energy 

conservation standards: (1) a 

preservation of gross margin scenario; 

and (2) a preservation of operating profit 

scenario. These scenarios lead to 

different manufacturer markup values 

that, when applied to the MPCs, result 

in varying revenue and cash flow 

impacts. 

Under the preservation of gross 

margin scenario, DOE applied a single 

uniform ‘‘gross margin percentage’’ 

across all efficiency levels, which 

assumes that manufacturers would be 

able to maintain the same amount of 

profit as a percentage of revenues at all 

efficiency levels within an equipment 

class. DOE continued to use a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67010 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

115 87 FR 37122, 37154. 

manufacturer markup of 1.37 for all 

DPPP motors, which is the same 

manufacturer markup that was used in 

the June 2022 NOPR.115 This 

manufacturer markup scenario 

represents the upper bound to industry 

profitability under new energy 

conservation standards. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, DOE modeled a 

situation in which manufacturers are 

not able to increase per-unit operating 

profit in proportion to increases in MPC. 

Under this scenario, as the MPCs 

increase, manufacturers are generally 

required to reduce the manufacturer 

markup to maintain a cost competitive 

offering in the market. Therefore, gross 

margin (as a percentage) shrinks in the 

standards cases. This manufacturer 

markup scenario represents the lower 

bound to industry profitability under 

new energy conservation standards. 

A comparison of industry financial 

impacts under the two manufacturer 

markup scenarios is presented in 

section V.B.2.a of this document. 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE conducted interviews with 

manufacturers prior to the publication 

of the June 2022 NOPR. In these 

interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to 

describe their major concerns regarding 

this rulemaking. The following section 

highlights manufacturer concerns that 

helped inform the projected potential 

impacts of new energy conservation 

standards on the industry. Manufacturer 

interviews are conducted under nondisclosure agreements (‘‘NDAs’’), so 

DOE does not document these 

discussions in the same way that it does 

public comments in the comment 

summaries and DOE’s responses 

throughout the rest of this document. 

Some manufacturers stated they only 

produce single-speed and dual-speed 

motors within the small-size equipment 

class (0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15) and no longer 

supply DPPP motors used in new DPPP 

in that range to the California market 

after the CEC standard took effect. These 

manufacturers stated that they would 

need to design variable-speed motor 

models to meet any energy conservation 

standard that would require a variablespeed motor for the small-size 

equipment class. Additionally, these 

manufacturers would need to build 

additional production lines or make 

significant changes to existing singlespeed or dual-speed production lines to 

be able to meet energy conservation 

standards requiring variable-speed 

DPPP motors for this equipment class. 

DOE included the capital and product 

conversion costs necessary for these 

DPPP motor manufacturers to introduce 

variable-speed DPPP motor models for 

the small-size equipment class. 

4. Comments From Interested Parties 

Several interested parties commented 

on DOE’s NOPR MIA. These comments 

were made either in writing during the 

comment period following the 

publication of the June 2022 NOPR or 

during the NOPR public meeting for 

DPPP motors. 

PHTA and NEMA commented that the 

lack of timing alignment between DPPP 

and DPPP motors standards will impact 

manufacturer’s ability to make proper 

investments and product design if the 

DPPP motor energy conservation 

standards make the investments made 

for the DPPP energy conservation 

standards moot. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 

92 at p. 8) PHTA and NEMA also 

commented that the lack of 

harmonization between the DPPP 

energy conservation standards and the 

DPPP motor energy conservation 

standard proposed in the NOPR could 

result in manufacturers being required 

to produce multiple, separate, motor 

types to serve aftermarket applications 

versus OEM applications. PHTA and 

NEMA stated that harmonization 

between the two rules would reduce 

overall regulatory burden on DPPP 

motor manufacturers by allowing 

manufacturers to leverage economies of 

scale. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 

13) Pentair also commented that the 

investments spent to meet the DPPP rule 

would be wasted because of the new 

proposal. (Pentair, No. 90 at p. 1) The 

compliance date for the DPPP energy 

conservation standards occurred on July 

19, 2021. As part of this final rule, and 

the NOPR, MIA, DOE examined the 

additional investments that DPPP motor 

manufacturers will have to make to 

comply with the analyzed energy 

conservation standards for DPPP 

motors. DOE used the methodology 

described in section IV.J.2.c of this 

document to estimate the conversion 

costs for each analyzed TSL. DOE 

incorporated these conversion costs into 

the cash flow analysis presented in 

section V.B.2.a of this document. 

Additionally, PHTA and NEMA 

commented that complex DPPP motor 

energy conservation standards 

superimposed on the DPPP energy 

conservation standards which are not 

aligned will make compliance with both 

energy conservation standards matters 

difficult for manufacturers. PHTA and 

NEMA stated it is essential that DOE 

align the performance requirements of 

the DPPP energy conservation standards 

with the requirements of the DPPP 

motors energy conservation standards in 

order to facilitate compliance with both 

standards. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at 

pp. 8–9) PHTA and NEMA also 

expressed concerns on how the 

regulatory burden of complying with 

both the DPPP and DPPPM regulations, 

that are not align in the performance 

requirements and in the timing, could 

be burdensome on DPPP motor 

manufacturers. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 

92 at p. 13) 

EPCA directs DOE to establish energy 

conservation standards for DPPP motors 

that are designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that are technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) 

and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) As 

previously stated in this section, DOE 

accounted for the additional 

investments that DPPP motor 

manufacturers will have to make to 

comply with the analyzed energy 

conservation standards for DPPP 

motors. DOE examined the regulatory 

burden on DPPP motor manufacturers 

when deciding what energy 

conservation standard was 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified in section V.C. of 

this document. Lastly, DOE may 

consider separately coordinating a 

similar compliance timeline with any 

upcoming DPPP rulemaking. 

Hayward commented that they have 

already made substantial investments to 

comply with DPPP energy conservation 

standards and noted that if they knew 

DOE planned to initiate DPPP motor 

energy conservation standards with 

more stringent requirements than the 

DPPP energy conservation standards 

their strategic direction and investments 

would have been very different. 

Additionally, Hayward states that if 

DOE decides against the 

implementation of a UL 1004–10 based 

rule, then they requested a compliance 

date of at least 5 years following 

effectivity. (Hayward, No. 93. at p. 2) 

DOE acknowledges that it is adopting 

more stringent energy conservation 

standards for small-size DPPP motors in 

this final rule than the small-size DPPP 

energy conservation standards 

established in the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule. DOE notes that the 

compliance date for DPPPs was on July 

19, 2021, while the compliance date for 

energy conservation standards for these 

small-size DPPP motors is in 2028, 

approximately seven years after the 

compliance date for the DPPP energy 

conservation standards. Additionally, 

DOE has initiated an effort to determine 

whether to amend the current energy 

conservation standards for DPPPs with 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67011 

116Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_

apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12, 2021). 

117For further information, see the Assumptions 

to AEO 2022 report that sets forth the major 

assumptions used to generate the projections in the 

Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/ 

outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed May 23, 

2023). 

118CSAPR requires states to address annual 

emissions of SO2 and NOX, precursors to the 

formation of fine particulate matter (‘‘PM2.5’’) 

pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(‘‘NAAQS’’). CSAPR also requires certain states to 

address the ozone season (May–September) 

emissions of NOX, a precursor to the formation of 

ozone pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

EPA subsequently issued a supplemental rule that 

included an additional five states in the CSAPR 

ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 

(Supplemental Rule), and EPA issued the CSAPR 

Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504 

(Oct. 26, 2016). 

the publication of an RFI. 87 FR 3461. 

If DOE proposes to amend energy 

conservation standards for DPPPs in a 

future rulemaking, DOE will consider 

the impacts of the DPPP motor energy 

conservation standards that are adopted 

in this rulemaking. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

The emissions analysis consists of 

two components. The first component 

estimates the effect of potential energy 

conservation standards on power sector 

and site (where applicable) combustion 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 

The second component estimates the 

impacts of potential standards on 

emissions of two additional greenhouse 

gases, CH4 and N2O, as well as the 

reductions in emissions of other gases 

due to ‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel 

production chain. These upstream 

activities comprise extraction, 

processing, and transporting fuels to the 

site of combustion. 

The analysis of electric power sector 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg 

uses emissions intended to represent the 

marginal impacts of the change in 

electricity consumption associated with 

amended or new standards. The 

methodology is based on results 

published for the AEO, including a set 

of side cases that implement a variety of 

efficiency-related policies. The 

methodology is described in appendix 

13A in the final rule TSD. The analysis 

presented in this notice uses projections 

from AEO 2023. Power sector emissions 

of CH4 and N2O from fuel combustion 

are estimated using Emission Factors for 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories published 

by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA).116

FFC upstream emissions, which 

include emissions from fuel combustion 

during extraction, processing, and 

transportation of fuels, and ‘‘fugitive’’ 

emissions (direct leakage to the 

atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2, are 

estimated based on the methodology 

described in chapter 15 of the final rule 

TSD. 

The emissions intensity factors are 

expressed in terms of physical units per 

MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. 

For power sector emissions, specific 

emissions intensity factors are 

calculated by sector and end use. Total 

emissions reductions are estimated 

using the energy savings calculated in 

the national impact analysis. 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated 

in DOE’s Analysis 

DOE’s no-new-standards case for the 

electric power sector reflects the AEO, 

which incorporates the projected 

impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO 2023 

generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations, 

including recent government actions, 

that were in place at the time of 

preparation of AEO 2023, including the 

emissions control programs discussed in 

the following paragraphs.117

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (‘‘EGUs’’) are subject to 

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

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States and the District of 

Columbia (‘‘DC’’). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et 

seq.) SO2 emissions from numerous 

States in the eastern half of the United 

States are also limited under the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (‘‘CSAPR’’). 76 

FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR 

requires these States to reduce certain 

emissions, including annual SO2

emissions, and went into effect as of 

January 1, 2015.118 AEO 2023 

incorporates implementation of CSAPR, 

including the update to the CSAPR 

ozone season program emission budgets 

and target dates issued in 2016. 81 FR 

74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). Compliance with 

CSAPR is flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of tradable 

emissions allowances. Under existing 

EPA regulations, for states subject to 

SO2 emissions limits under CSAPR, any 

excess SO2 emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand caused by the adoption of an 

efficiency standard could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by another regulated EGU. 

However, beginning in 2016, SO2

emissions began to fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(‘‘MATS’’) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 

(Feb. 16, 2012). The final rule 

establishes power plant emission 

standards for mercury, acid gases, and 

non-mercury metallic toxic pollutants. 

In order to continue operating, coal 

plants must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

systems installed. Both technologies, 

which are used to reduce acid gas 

emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. 

Because of the emissions reductions 

under the MATS, it is unlikely that 

excess SO2 emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand would be needed or used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by another regulated EGU. 

Therefore, energy conservation 

standards that decrease electricity 

generation will generally reduce SO2

emissions. DOE estimated SO2

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO 2023. 

CSAPR also established limits on NOX

emissions for numerous States in the 

eastern half of the United States. Energy 

conservation standards would have 

little effect on NOX emissions in those 

States covered by CSAPR emissions 

limits if excess NOX emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in NOX

emissions from other EGUs. In such 

case, NOX emissions would remain near 

the limit even if electricity generation 

goes down. Depending on the 

configuration of the power sector in the 

different regions and the need for 

allowances, however, NOX emissions 

might not remain at the limit in the case 

of lower electricity demand. That would 

mean that standards might reduce NOX

emissions in covered States. Despite this 

possibility, DOE has chosen to be 

conservative in its analysis and has 

maintained the assumption that 

standards will not reduce NOX

emissions in States covered by CSAPR. 

Standards would be expected to reduce 

NOX emissions in the States not covered 

by CSAPR. DOE used AEO 2023 data to 

derive NOX emissions factors for the 

group of States not covered by CSAPR. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would be expected to slightly reduce Hg 

emissions. DOE estimated mercury 

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO 2023, which 

incorporates the MATS. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67012 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

119Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. 

Newbold, and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and 

N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the US 

Government’s SC–CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 

2015. 15(2): pp. 272–298. 

120National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating 

Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. 

2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, 

DC. 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

final rule, for the purpose of complying 

with the requirements of Executive 

Order 12866, DOE considered the 

estimated monetary benefits from the 

reduced emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, 

NOX, and SO2 that are expected to result 

from each of the TSLs considered. In 

order to make this calculation analogous 

to the calculation of the NPV of 

consumer benefit, DOE considered the 

reduced emissions expected to result 

over the lifetime of products shipped in 

the projection period for each TSL. This 

section summarizes the basis for the 

values used for monetizing the 

emissions benefits and presents the 

values considered in this final rule. 

To monetize the benefits of reducing 

GHG emissions this analysis uses the 

interim estimates presented in the 

Technical Support Document: Social 

Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous 

Oxide Interim Estimates Under 

Executive Order 13990 published in 

February 2021 by the Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

DOE estimates the monetized benefits 

of the reductions in emissions of CO2, 

CH4, and N2O by using a measure of the 

SC of each pollutant (e.g., ‘‘SC–CO2’’). 

These estimates represent the monetary 

value of the net harm to society 

associated with a marginal increase in 

emissions of these pollutants in a given 

year, or the benefit of avoiding that 

increase. These estimates are intended 

to include (but are not limited to) 

climate-change-related changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health, 

property damages from increased flood 

risk, disruption of energy systems, risk 

of conflict, environmental migration, 

and the value of ecosystem services. 

DOE exercises its own judgment in 

presenting monetized climate benefits 

as recommended by applicable 

Executive orders, and DOE would reach 

the same conclusion presented in this 

rulemaking in the absence of the social 

cost of greenhouse gases. That is, the 

social costs of greenhouse gases, 

whether measured using the February 

2021 interim estimates presented by the 

Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 

(‘‘IWG’’) or by another means, did not 

affect the rule ultimately adopted by 

DOE. 

DOE estimated the global social 

benefits of CO2, CH4, and N2O 

reductions (i.e., ‘‘SC–GHGs’’) using the 

estimates presented in the Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of 

Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates under Executive 

Order 13990, published in February 

2021 by the IWG. The SC–GHGs is the 

monetary value of the net harm to 

society associated with a marginal 

increase in emissions in a given year, or 

the benefit of avoiding that increase. In 

principle, SC–GHGs includes the value 

of all climate change impacts, including 

(but not limited to) changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health 

effects, property damage from increased 

flood risk and natural disasters, 

disruption of energy systems, risk of 

conflict, environmental migration, and 

the value of ecosystem services. The 

SC–GHGs therefore, reflects the societal 

value of reducing emissions of the gas 

in question by one metric ton. The SC– 

GHGs is the theoretically appropriate 

value to use in conducting benefit-cost 

analyses of policies that affect CO2, N2O, 

and CH4 emissions. As a member of the 

IWG involved in the development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, DOE 

agrees that the interim SC–GHG 

estimates represent the most appropriate 

estimate of the SC–GHG until revised 

estimates have been developed 

reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed 

science. 

The SC–GHGs estimates presented 

here were developed over many years, 

using transparent processes, peerreviewed methodologies, the best 

science available at the time of that 

process, and with input from the public. 

Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, which 

included the DOE and other executive 

branch agencies and offices, was 

established to ensure that agencies were 

using the best available science and to 

promote consistency in the SC–CO2

values used across agencies. The IWG 

published SC–CO2 estimates in 2010 

that were developed from an ensemble 

of three widely cited integrated 

assessment models (‘‘IAMs’’) that 

estimate global climate damages using 

highly aggregated representations of 

climate processes and the global 

economy combined into a single 

modeling framework. The three IAMs 

were run using a common set of input 

assumptions in each model for future 

population, economic, and CO2

emissions growth, as well as 

equilibrium climate sensitivity—a 

measure of the globally averaged 

temperature response to increased 

atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These 

estimates were updated in 2013 based 

on new versions of each IAM. In August 

2016, the IWG published estimates of 

the social cost of methane (‘‘SC–CH4’’) 

and nitrous oxide (‘‘SC–N2O’’) using 

methodologies that are consistent with 

the methodology underlying the SC– 

CO2 estimates. The modeling approach 

that extends the IWG SC–CO2

methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has 

undergone multiple stages of peer 

review. The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates were developed by Marten et 

al.119 and underwent a standard doubleblind peer review process prior to 

journal publication. In 2015, as part of 

the response to public comments 

received to a 2013 solicitation for 

comments on the SC–CO2 estimates, the 

IWG announced a National Academies 

of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

review of the SC–CO2 estimates to offer 

advice on how to approach future 

updates to ensure that the estimates 

continue to reflect the best available 

science and methodologies. In January 

2017, the National Academies released 

their final report, Valuing Climate 

Damages: Updating Estimation of the 

Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and 

recommended specific criteria for future 

updates to the SC–CO2 estimates, a 

modeling framework to satisfy the 

specified criteria, and both near-term 

updates and longer-term research needs 

pertaining to various components of the 

estimation process (National 

Academies, 2017).120 Shortly thereafter, 

in March 2017, President Trump issued 

Executive Order 13783, which 

disbanded the IWG, withdrew the 

previous TSDs, and directed agencies to 

ensure SC–CO2 estimates used in 

regulatory analyses are consistent with 

the guidance contained in OMB’s 

Circular A–4, ‘‘including with respect to 

the consideration of domestic versus 

international impacts and the 

consideration of appropriate discount 

rates’’ (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). 

Benefit-cost analyses following E.O. 

13783 used SC–GHG estimates that 

attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific 

share of climate change damages as 

estimated by the models and were 

calculated using two discount rates 

recommended by Circular A–4, 3- 

percent and 7-percent. All other 

methodological decisions and model 

versions used in SC–GHG calculations 

remained the same as those used by the 

IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively. 

On January 20, 2021, President Biden 

issued Executive Order 13990, which reVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Sep 27, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28SER2.SGM 28SER2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67013 

121 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Carbon. Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis under Executive Order 12866. 2010. 

United States Government. www.epa.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf 

(last accessed April 15, 2022). Interagency Working 

Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Technical Update 

of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013. 

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/ 

2013-28242/technical-support-document-technicalupdate-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatoryimpact (last accessed April 15, 2022). Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, 

United States Government. Technical Support 

Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under 

Executive Order 12866. August 2016 (last accessed 

January 18, 2022). Interagency Working Group on 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States 

Government. Addendum to Technical Support 

Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 

Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: 

Application of the Methodology to Estimate the 

Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of 

Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. www.epa.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_scghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf (last accessed January 18, 

2022). 

established the IWG and directed it to 

ensure that the U.S. Government’s 

estimates of the social cost of carbon 

and other greenhouse gases reflect the 

best available science and the 

recommendations of the National 

Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked 

with first reviewing the SC–GHG 

estimates currently used in Federal 

analyses and publishing interim 

estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that 

reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions, including by taking global 

damages into account. The interim SC– 

GHG estimates published in February 

2021 are used here to estimate the 

climate benefits for this rulemaking. The 

E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a 

fuller update of the SC–GHG estimates 

by January 2022 that takes into 

consideration the advice of the National 

Academies (2017) and other recent 

scientific literature. The February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD provides a complete 

discussion of the IWG’s initial review 

conducted under E.O. 13990. In 

particular, the IWG found that the SC– 

GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 

fail to reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions in multiple ways. 

First, the IWG found that the SC–GHG 

estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to 

fully capture many climate impacts that 

affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and 

residents, and those impacts are better 

reflected by global measures of the SC– 

GHG. Examples of omitted effects from 

the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct 

effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and 

investments located abroad, supply 

chains, U.S. military assets and interests 

abroad, and tourism, and spillover 

pathways such as economic and 

political destabilization and global 

migration that can lead to adverse 

impacts on U.S. national security, 

public health, and humanitarian 

concerns. In addition, assessing the 

benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation 

activities requires consideration of how 

those actions may affect mitigation 

activities by other countries, as those 

international mitigation actions will 

provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 

residents by mitigating climate impacts 

that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A 

wide range of scientific and economic 

experts have emphasized the issue of 

reciprocity as support for considering 

global damages of GHG emissions. If the 

United States does not consider impacts 

on other countries, it is difficult to 

convince other countries to consider the 

impacts of their emissions on the United 

States. The only way to achieve an 

efficient allocation of resources for 

emissions reduction on a global basis— 

and so benefit the United States and its 

citizens—is for all countries to base 

their policies on global estimates of 

damages. As a member of the IWG 

involved in development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, DOE 

agrees with this assessment and, 

therefore, in this proposed rule, DOE 

centers attention on a global measure of 

SC–GHG. This approach is the same as 

that taken in DOE regulatory analyses 

from 2012 through 2016. A robust 

estimate of climate damages that accrue 

only to U.S. citizens and residents does 

not currently exist in the literature. As 

explained in the February 2021 TSD, 

existing estimates are both incomplete 

and an underestimation of total damages 

that accrue to the citizens and residents 

of the United States because they do not 

fully capture the regional interactions 

and spillovers discussed above; nor do 

they include all of the important 

physical, ecological, and economic 

impacts of climate change recognized in 

the climate change literature. As noted 

in the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the 

IWG will continue to review 

developments in the literature, 

including more robust methodologies 

for estimating a U.S.-specific SC–GHG 

value, and explore ways to better inform 

the public of the full range of carbon 

impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE 

will continue to follow developments in 

the literature pertaining to this issue. 

Second, the IWG found that the use of 

the social rate of return on capital (7 

percent under current OMB Circular A– 

4 guidance) to discount the future 

benefits of reducing GHG emissions 

inappropriately underestimates the 

impacts of climate change for the 

purposes of estimating the SC–GHG. 

Consistent with the findings of the 

National Academies (2017) and the 

economic literature, the IWG continued 

to conclude that the consumption rate of 

interest is the theoretically appropriate 

discount rate in an intergenerational 

context,121 and recommended that 

discount rate uncertainty and relevant 

aspects of intergenerational ethical 

considerations be accounted for in 

selecting future discount rates. 

Furthermore, the damage estimates 

developed for use in the SC–GHG are 

estimated in consumption-equivalent 

terms, and so an application of OMB 

Circular A–4’s guidance for regulatory 

analysis would then use the 

consumption discount rate to calculate 

the SC–GHG. DOE agrees with this 

assessment and will continue to follow 

developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes 

that while OMB Circular A–4, as 

published in 2003, recommends using 

3-percent and 7-percent discount rates 

as ‘‘default’’ values, Circular A–4 also 

reminds agencies that ‘‘different 

regulations may call for different 

emphases in the analysis, depending on 

the nature and complexity of the 

regulatory issues and the sensitivity of 

the benefit and cost estimates to the key 

assumptions.’’ On discounting, Circular 

A–4 recognizes that ‘‘special ethical 

considerations arise when comparing 

benefits and costs across generations,’’ 

and Circular A–4 acknowledges that 

analyses may appropriately ‘‘discount 

future costs and consumption benefits 

. . . at a lower rate than for 

intragenerational analysis.’’ In the 2015 

Response to Comments on the Social 

Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG 

members recognized that ‘‘Circular A–4 

is a living document’’ and ‘‘the use of 

7 percent is not considered appropriate 

for intergenerational discounting. There 

is wide support for this view in the 

academic literature, and it is recognized 

in Circular A–4 itself.’’ Thus, DOE 

concludes that a 7-percent discount rate 

is not appropriate to apply to value the 

social cost of greenhouse gases in the 

analysis presented in this document. 

To calculate the present and 

annualized values of climate benefits, 

DOE uses the same discount rate as the 

rate used to discount the value of 

damages from future GHG emissions, for 

internal consistency. That approach to 

discounting follows the same approach 

that the February 2021 TSD 

recommends ‘‘to ensure internal 

consistency—i.e., future damages from 

climate change using the SC–GHG at 2.5 

percent should be discounted to the 

base year of the analysis using the same 

2.5-percent rate.’’ DOE has also 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67014 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

122 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and 

Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 

Order 13990. February. United States Government. 

Available at www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf/. 

123For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses 

how the understanding of discounting approaches 

suggests that discount rates appropriate for 

intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 

change may be lower than 3 percent. 

consulted the National Academies’ 2017 

recommendations on how SC–GHG 

estimates can ‘‘be combined in RIAs 

with other cost and benefits estimates 

that may use different discount rates.’’ 

The National Academies reviewed 

several options, including ‘‘presenting 

all discount rate combinations of other 

costs and benefits with [SC–GHG] 

estimates.’’ 

As a member of the IWG involved in 

the development of the February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the 

above assessment and will continue to 

follow developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. While the IWG 

works to assess how best to incorporate 

the latest, peer-reviewed science to 

develop an updated set of SC–GHG 

estimates, it set the interim estimates to 

be the most recent estimates developed 

by the IWG prior to the group being 

disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely 

on the same models and harmonized 

inputs and are calculated using a range 

of discount rates. As explained in the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the IWG 

has recommended that agencies revert 

to the same set of four values drawn 

from the SC–GHG distributions based 

on three discount rates as were used in 

regulatory analyses between 2010 and 

2016 and were subject to public 

comment. For each discount rate, the 

IWG combined the distributions across 

models and socioeconomic emissions 

scenarios (applying equal weight to 

each) and then selected a set of four 

values recommended for use in benefitcost analyses: an average value resulting 

from the model runs for each of three 

discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 percent, 

and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, 

selected as the 95th percentile of 

estimates based on a 3-percent discount 

rate. The fourth value was included to 

provide information on potentially 

higher-than-expected economic impacts 

from climate change. As explained in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, and 

DOE agrees, this update reflects the 

immediate need to have an operational 

SC–GHG for use in regulatory benefitcost analyses and other applications that 

was developed using a transparent 

process, peer-reviewed methodologies, 

and the best science available at the 

time of that process. Those estimates 

were subject to public comment in the 

context of dozens of proposed 

rulemakings as well as in a dedicated 

public comment period in 2013. 

There are a number of limitations and 

uncertainties associated with the SC– 

GHG estimates. First, the current 

scientific and economic understanding 

of discounting approaches suggests 

discount rates appropriate for 

intergenerational analysis in the context 

of climate change are likely to be less 

than 3 percent—near 2 percent or 

lower.122 Second, the IAMs used to 

produce these interim estimates do not 

include all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of 

climate change recognized in the 

climate change literature and the 

science underlying their ‘‘damage 

functions’’—i.e., the core parts of the 

IAMs that map global mean temperature 

changes and other physical impacts of 

climate change into economic (both 

market and nonmarket) damages—lags 

behind the most recent research. For 

example, limitations include the 

incomplete treatment of catastrophic 

and non-catastrophic impacts in the 

IAMs, their incomplete treatment of 

adaptation and technological change, 

the incomplete way in which interregional and intersectoral linkages are 

modeled, uncertainty in the 

extrapolation of damages to high 

temperatures, and inadequate 

representation of the relationship 

between the discount rate and 

uncertainty in economic growth over 

long-time horizons. Likewise, the 

socioeconomic and emissions scenarios 

used as inputs to the models do not 

reflect new information from the last 

decade of scenario generation or the full 

range of projections. The modeling 

limitations do not all work in the same 

direction in terms of their influence on 

the SC–CO2 estimates. However, as 

discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the 

IWG has recommended that, taken 

together, the limitations suggest that the 

interim SC–GHG estimates used in this 

final rule likely underestimate the 

damages from GHG emissions. DOE 

concurs with this assessment. 

DOE’s derivations of the SC–CO2, SC– 

N2O, and SC–CH4 values used for this 

final rule are discussed in the following 

sections, and the results of DOE’s 

analyses estimating the benefits of the 

reductions in emissions of these GHGs 

are presented in section V.B.6 of this 

document. 

a. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SC–CO2 values used for this final 

rule were based on the values developed 

for the IWG’s February 2021 TSD. Table 

IV.11 shows the updated sets of SC–CO2

estimates from the IWG’s TSD in 5-year 

increments from 2020 to 2050. The full 

set of annual values that DOE used is 

presented in appendix 14A of the final 

rule TSD. For purposes of capturing the 

uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, DOE has determined it 

is appropriate to include all four sets of 

SC–CO2 values, as recommended by the 

IWG.123

TABLE IV.11—ANNUAL SC–CO2 VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 

[2020$ per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

2020 ............................................................................................................. 14 51 76 152 

2025 ............................................................................................................. 17 56 83 169 

2030 ............................................................................................................. 19 62 89 187 

2035 ............................................................................................................. 22 67 96 206 

2040 ............................................................................................................. 25 73 103 225 

2045 ............................................................................................................. 28 79 110 242 

2050 ............................................................................................................. 32 85 116 260 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67015 

124See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, Washington, DC, 

December 2021. Available at nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ 

ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013ORN.pdf (last accessed 

February 21, 2023). 

125Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing 

PM2.5 Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at 

www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-tonreducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors. 

For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC–CO2

estimates published by EPA, adjusted to 

2020$.124 These estimates are based on 

methods, assumptions, and parameters 

identical to the 2020–2050 estimates 

published by the IWG. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SC–CO2 value for that year in each of 

the four cases. DOE adjusted the values 

to 2022$ using the implicit price 

deflator for gross domestic product 

(‘‘GDP’’) from the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. To calculate a present value of 

the stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

four cases using the specific discount 

rate that had been used to obtain the 

SC–CO2 values in each case. 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values used 

for this final rule were based on the 

values developed for the February 2021 

TSD. Table IV.12 shows the updated 

sets of SC–CH4 and SC–N2O estimates 

from the latest interagency update in 5- 

year increments from 2020 to 2050. The 

full set of annual values used is 

presented in appendix 14A of the final 

rule TSD. To capture the uncertainties 

involved in regulatory impact analysis, 

DOE has determined it is appropriate to 

include all four sets of SC–CH4 and SC– 

N2O values, as recommended by the 

IWG. DOE derived values after 2050 

using the approach described above for 

the SC–CO2. 

TABLE IV.12—ANNUAL SC–CH4 AND SC–N2O VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 

[2020$ per metric ton] 

Year 

SC–CH4 SC–N2O 

Discount rate and statistic Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

2020 .......................................................................... 670 1,500 2,000 3,900 5,800 18,000 27,000 48,000 

2025 .......................................................................... 800 1,700 2,200 4,500 6,800 21,000 30,000 54,000 

2030 .......................................................................... 940 2,000 2,500 5,200 7,800 23,000 33,000 60,000 

2035 .......................................................................... 1,100 2,200 2,800 6,000 9,000 25,000 36,000 67,000 

2040 .......................................................................... 1,300 2,500 3,100 6,700 10,000 28,000 39,000 74,000 

2045 .......................................................................... 1,500 2,800 3,500 7,500 12,000 30,000 42,000 81,000 

2050 .......................................................................... 1,700 3,100 3,800 8,200 13,000 33,000 45,000 88,000 

DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O 

emissions reduction estimated for each 

year by the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates for that year in each of the 

cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2022$ 

using the implicit price deflator for GDP 

from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

To calculate a present value of the 

stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

cases using the specific discount rate 

that had been used to obtain the SC–CH4

and SC–N2O estimates in each case. 

2. Monetization of Other Emissions 

Impacts 

For this final rule, DOE estimated the 

monetized value of NOX and SO2

emissions reductions from electricity 

generation using benefit per ton 

estimates for that sector from the EPA’s 

Benefits Mapping and Analysis 

Program.125 DOE used EPA’s values for 

PM2.5-related benefits associated with 

NOX and SO2 and for ozone-related 

benefits associated with NOX for 2025 

and 2030, and 2040, calculated with 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent. DOE used linear interpolation 

to define values for the years not given 

in the 2025 to 2040 range; for years 

beyond 2040 the values are held 

constant. DOE combined the EPA 

benefit per ton estimates with regional 

information on electricity consumption 

and emissions to define weightedaverage national values for NOX and 

SO2 (See appendix 14B of the final rule 

TSD). 

DOE multiplied the site emissions 

reduction (in tons) in each year by the 

associated $/ton values, and then 

discounted each series using discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as 

appropriate. 

The Joint SC–GHG Commenters stated 

that DOE appropriately applies the 

social cost estimates developed by the 

Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases to its 

analysis of emissions reduction benefits. 

The Joint SC–GHG Commenters stated 

that there are numerous legal, economic, 

and policy justifications that further 

DOE’s adoption of the Working Group’s 

climate-damage valuations. They added 

that DOE should consider conducting 

sensitivity analysis using a sound 

domestic-only social cost estimate as a 

backstop, and should explicitly 

conclude that the rule is cost-benefit 

justified even using a domestic-only 

valuation that may still undercount 

climate benefits. They also stated that 

their comments offer additional 

justification for adopting the range of 

discount rates endorsed by the Working 

Group and urged DOE to consider 

providing additional sensitivity analysis 

using discount rates of 2 percent or 

lower for climate impacts. Lastly, the 

Joint SC–GHG Commenters commented 

that DOE should clearly state that any 

criticisms of the SC–GHG are moot in 

this rulemaking because the proposed 

rule is easily cost-justified without any 

climate benefits. (Joint SC–GHG 

Commenters, No.95 at. pp. 1–3) 

In response, DOE maintains that the 

reasons for using global measures of the 

SC–GHG previously discussed (See 

section IV.L.1 of this document) are 

sufficient for the purposes of this 

rulemaking. DOE notes that further 

discussion of this topic is contained in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, and 

DOE agrees with the assessment therein. 

Regarding conducting sensitivity 

analysis using a domestic-only social 

cost estimate, DOE agrees with the 

assessment in the February 2021 SC– 

GHG TSD that the only currentlyavailable quantitative characterization 

of domestic damages from GHG 

emissions is both incomplete and an 

underestimate of the share of total 

damages that accrue to the citizens and 

residents of the U.S. See section 2 of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD. Therefore, 

it would be of questionable value to 

conduct the suggested sensitivity 

analysis at this time. DOE considered 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67016 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

126See U.S. Department of Commerce—Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User 

Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling 

System (‘‘RIMS II’’). 1997. U.S. Government Printing 

Office: Washington, DC. Available at www.bea.gov/ 

resources/methodologies/RIMSII-user-guide (last 

accessed Feb. 2, 2023). 

127Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and 

R.W. Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies Model Description and User’s Guide. 

2015. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: 

Richland, WA. PNNL–24563. 

128 In the NOPR, DOE assumed that 40 percent of 

DPPP motors are imported based on estimates for 

small electric motors. In the final rule, DOE revised 

the percentage imported to be more specific to 

DPPP motors and align with the estimate used in 

the MIA. 

performing sensitivity analysis using 

discount rates lower than 2.5% for 

climate impacts, as suggested by the 

IWG, but it concluded that such analysis 

would not add meaningful information 

in the context of this rulemaking. 

As noted by the Joint SC–GHG 

Commenters and previously stated by 

DOE in section IV.L.1 of this document, 

the final rule is economically justified 

without inclusion of climate benefits. 

See Section V.C.1 of this document for 

more discussion on economic 

justification. 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

the changes in installed electrical 

capacity and generation projected to 

result for each considered TSL. The 

analysis is based on published output 

from the NEMS associated with AEO 

2023. NEMS produces the AEO 

Reference case, as well as a number of 

side cases that estimate the economywide impacts of changes to energy 

supply and demand. For the current 

analysis, impacts are quantified by 

comparing the levels of electricity sector 

generation, installed capacity, fuel 

consumption and emissions in the AEO 

2023 Reference case and various side 

cases. Details of the methodology are 

provided in the appendices to chapters 

13 and 15 of the final rule TSD. 

The output of this analysis is a set of 

time-dependent coefficients that capture 

the change in electricity generation, 

primary fuel consumption, installed 

capacity, and power sector emissions 

due to a unit reduction in demand for 

a given end use. These coefficients are 

multiplied by the stream of electricity 

savings calculated in the NIA to provide 

estimates of selected utility impacts of 

potential new or amended energy 

conservation standards. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a standard. Employment 

impacts from new or amended energy 

conservation standards include both 

direct and indirect impacts. Direct 

employment impacts are any changes in 

the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the products subject to 

standards, their suppliers, and related 

service firms. The MIA addresses those 

impacts. Indirect employment impacts 

are changes in national employment 

that occur due to the shift in 

expenditures and capital investment 

caused by the purchase and operation of 

more-efficient appliances. Indirect 

employment impacts from standards 

consist of the net jobs created or 

eliminated in the national economy, 

other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, caused by (1) reduced 

spending by consumers on energy, (2) 

reduced spending on new energy supply 

by the utility industry, (3) increased 

consumer spending on the products to 

which the new standards apply and 

other goods and services, and (4) the 

effects of those three factors throughout 

the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (‘‘BLS’’). BLS regularly 

publishes its estimates of the number of 

jobs per million dollars of economic 

activity in different sectors of the 

economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy.126 There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital-intensive and less 

labor-intensive than other sectors. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing consumer utility bills. 

Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and service sectors). Thus, the BLS data 

suggest that net national employment 

may increase due to shifts in economic 

activity resulting from energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE estimated indirect national 

employment impacts for the standard 

levels considered in this final rule using 

an input/output model of the U.S. 

economy called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies version 4 (‘‘ImSET’’).127

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (‘‘I–O’’) model, which was 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model having structural coefficients that 

characterize economic flows among 187 

sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use. 

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 

equilibrium forecasting model, and that 

the uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts especially change 

in the later years of the analysis. 

Because ImSET does not incorporate 

price changes, the employment effects 

predicted by ImSET may overestimate 

actual job impacts over the long run for 

this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET 

only to generate results for near-term 

timeframes (2026–2030 or 2028–2030), 

where these uncertainties are reduced. 

For more details on the employment 

impact analysis, see chapter 16 of the 

final rule TSD. 

One of the inputs to the employment 

impact analysis is the fraction of 

shipments that are imported vs. 

domestically manufactured. In the June 

2022 NOPR, DOE assumed the fraction 

of DPPP motors shipments that are 

imported vs. domestically manufactured 

was identical to small electric motors 

and assumed a 40 percent were 

imported vs 60 percent were 

domestically manufactured. See Chapter 

15 of the June NOPR TSD. 

PHTA and NEMA commented that 

DOE estimated that 60 percent of pool 

pump motors are manufactured 

domestically, with the remaining 40 

percent imported. PHTA and NEMA 

commented that DOE did not conduct 

manufacturer interviews specific to 

DPPPM and that much of the analyses 

relies on market research conducted in 

2016 to support the energy conservation 

standard established for DPPP. PTHA 

and NEMA commented that while 

DPPPM are often sold as a component 

of DPPP, there are different market 

characteristics that manufacturers feel 

necessitate new interviews, focused 

specifically on DPPPM. (PHTA and 

NEMA, No. 92 at p. 7) 

In this final rule, DOE revised the 

fraction of DPPP motors shipments that 

are imported vs. domestically 

manufactured used in the employment 

impact analysis to align with the 

estimates from the manufacturer impact 

analysis specific to DPPP motors (See 

section IV.J of this document) and 

assumed 50 percent of DPPP motors 

shipments are imported vs. 50 percent 

are domestically manufactured.128


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67017 

129Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this 

final rule are discussed in section IV.C of this 

document. Results by efficiency level are presented 

in Chapter 8. 

130Best approximation based on the efficiency 

level analyzed. 

Finally, DOE notes that DOE conducted 

DPPP motor manufacturer interviews as 

part of the June 2022 NOPR, as 

discussed in the manufacturer impact 

analysis, and incorporated feedback to 

estimate this fraction. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusion 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to the considered energy 

conservation standards for DPPP 

motors. It addresses the TSLs examined 

by DOE, the projected impacts of each 

of these levels if adopted as energy 

conservation standards for DPPP 

motors, and the standards levels that 

DOE is adopting in this final rule. 

Additional details regarding DOE’s 

analyses are contained in the final rule 

TSD supporting this document. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

In general, DOE typically evaluates 

potential amended standards for 

products and equipment by grouping 

individual efficiency levels for each 

class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE 

to identify and consider manufacturer 

cost interactions between the equipment 

classes, to the extent that there are such 

interactions, and market cross elasticity 

from consumer purchasing decisions 

that may change when different 

standard levels are set. 

In the analysis conducted for this 

final rule, DOE analyzed the benefits 

and burdens of eight TSLs for DPPP 

motors. DOE developed TSLs that 

combine specific efficiency levels for 

each of the DPPP motor equipment 

classes analyzed by DOE. The TSLs that 

were chosen in the final rule represent 

DPPP motors at maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

energy efficiency levels and similar 

performance (i.e., variable-speed, twospeed, multi-speed, and/or singlespeed). DOE presents the results for the 

TSLs in this document, while the results 

for all efficiency levels that DOE 

analyzed are in Chapter 8 the final rule 

TSD.129

Table V.1 and Table V.2 presents the 

TSLs and the corresponding efficiency 

levels that DOE has identified for 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards for DPPP motors. TSL 8 

represents the max-tech energy 

efficiency for all equipment classes, as 

well as freeze protection control 

requirements for DPPP motors greater 

than and equal to 0.5 THP. TSL 7 

represents the California CEC 

standards 130 and includes a variablespeed requirement for DPPP motors at 

or above 0.5 THP, an EL 1 efficiency 

requirement below 0.5 THP, and freezeprotection control requirements for 

DPPP motors greater than and equal to 

0.5 THP. TSL 6 represents the 

performance requirements included in 

UL 1004–10:2022, which ensures DPPP 

motors operate similarly to motors in 

DPPPs that comply with the DOE 

standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f) and 

includes a variable-speed requirement 

for DPPP motors at or above 1.15 THP, 

an EL 1 efficiency requirement below 

1.15 THP, and freeze-protection control 

requirements for DPPP motors greater 

than and equal to 1.15 THP. TSL 5 

represents the two-speed/multi-speed 

DPPP motor EL 5 level for applicable 

equipment classes and freeze-protection 

control requirements for DPPP motors 

greater than and equal to 0.5 THP. TSL 

4 represents the two-speed/multi-speed 

DPPP motor EL 4 level for applicable 

equipment classes and freeze protection 

control requirements for DPPP motors 

greater than and equal to 0.5 THP. TSL 

3 represents the two-speed/multi-speed 

DPPP motor EL 3 level for applicable 

equipment classes and freeze-protection 

control requirements for DPPP motors 

greater than and equal to 0.5 THP. TSL 

2 represents the highest-efficiency 

single-speed DPPP motor level for all 

equipment classes. TSL 1 represents the 

medium-efficiency single-speed DPPP 

motor level for all equipment classes. 

In addition, as discussed in section 

III.A of this document, for all TSLs, DOE 

considered a 2-year lead time resulting 

in a first full year of compliance of 2026, 

except for small-size DPPP motors at 

TSL 7 where DOE uses a 4-year 

compliance lead time, resulting in a first 

full year of compliance year of 2028. 

TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR DPPP MOTORS—EL MAPPING

TSL TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 TSL 8 

Extra-small (<0.5 THP) ....................... EL 1 ............ EL 2 ............ EL 2 ............ EL 2 ............ EL 2 ............ EL 1 ............ EL 1 (2026) .......... EL 2 

Small-size (0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15) ........... EL 1 ............ EL 2 ............ EL 3 * .......... EL 4 * .......... EL 5 * .......... EL 1 ............ EL 6 * (2028) ........ EL 6 * 

Standard-size (1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5) ......... EL 1 ............ EL 2 ............ EL 3 * .......... EL 4 * .......... EL 5 * .......... EL 6 * .......... EL 6 * (2026) ........ EL 6 * 

* Includes freeze protection control requirements. 

Note: the analysis uses 2026 as the first full year of compliance except at TSL 7, where the first full year of compliance varies by equipment class as indicated in 

the table. 

TABLE V.2—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR DPPP MOTORS—DESCRIPTION

TSL TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 TSL 8 

Extra-small (<0.5 

THP).

Medium Efficiency Single 

Speed.

High Efficiency 

Single Speed.

High Efficiency 

Single Speed.

High Efficiency 

Single Speed.

High Efficiency 

Single Speed.

Medium Efficiency Single 

Speed.

Medium Efficiency Single 

Speed (2026).

High Efficiency 

Single 

Speed. 

Small-size (0.5 ≤ 

THP < 1.15).

Medium Efficiency Single 

Speed.

High Efficiency 

Single Speed.

Two and multispeed EL 3 *.Two and multispeed EL 4 *.Two and multispeed EL 5 *.Medium Efficiency Single 

Speed.

VariableSpeed * 

(2028).

VariableSpeed.* 

Standard-size (1.15 

≤ THP ≤ 5).

Medium Efficiency Single 

Speed.

High Efficiency 

Single Speed.

Two and multispeed EL 3 *.Two and multispeed EL 4 *.Two and multispeed EL 5 *.VariableSpeed *.VariableSpeed * 

(2026).

VariableSpeed.* 

General Description Medium Efficiency Single 

Speed.

High Efficiency 

Single Speed.

two and multispeed EL3 

where applicable.

two and multispeed EL4 

where applicable.

two and multispeed EL5 

where applicable.

UL 1004– 

10:2022 requirements.

CEC Standards Max-tech. 

* Includes freeze protection control requirements. 

Note: the analysis uses 2026 as the first full year of compliance except at TSL 7, where the first full year of compliance varies by equipment class as indicated in 

the table. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67018 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on DPPP motors consumers by looking 

at the effects that potential standards at 

each TSL would have on the LCC and 

PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of 

potential standards on selected 

consumer subgroups. These analyses are 

discussed in the following sections. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

In general, higher-efficiency products 

affect consumers in two ways: (1) 

purchase price increases and (2) annual 

operating costs decrease. Inputs used for 

calculating the LCC and PBP include 

total installed costs (i.e., product price 

plus installation costs), and operating 

costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy 

prices, energy price trends, repair costs, 

and maintenance costs). The LCC 

calculation also uses product lifetime 

and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the 

final rule TSD provides detailed 

information on the LCC and PBP 

analyses. 

Table V.2 through Table V.7 show the 

LCC and PBP results for the TSLs 

considered for each product class. In the 

first of each pair of tables, the simple 

payback is measured relative to the 

baseline product. In the second table, 

the impacts are measured relative to the 

efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case in the compliance year 

(see section IV.F.8 of this document). 

Because some consumers purchase 

products with higher efficiency in the 

no-new-standards case, the average 

savings are less than the difference 

between the average LCC of the baseline 

product and the average LCC at each 

TSL. The savings refer only to 

consumers who are affected by a 

standard at a given TSL. Those who 

already purchase a product with 

efficiency at or above a given TSL are 

not affected. Consumers for whom the 

LCC increases at a given TSL experience 

a net cost. 

TABLE V.2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR EXTRA-SMALL-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

0 $65 $72 $236 $301 .................. 3.6 

1,6,7 ............................................................... 1 77 59 192 269 0.9 3.6 

2–5,8 .............................................................. 2 115 54 177 292 2.8 3.6 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.3—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR EXTRA-SMALL-SIZE DPPP 

MOTORS

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

(2022$) 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

(%) 

1,6,7 .......................................................................... 1 ................................................................................ $3 0 

2–5,8 ......................................................................... 2 ................................................................................ (12) 59 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

TABLE V.4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SMALL-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

0 $156 $241 $843 $999 .................. 3.9 

1,6 .................................................................. 1 177 196 685 862 0.5 3.9 

2 ..................................................................... 2 218 180 628 846 1.0 3.9 

3 ..................................................................... 3 383 190 678 1,060 4.5 3.9 

4 ..................................................................... 4 412 166 590 1,001 3.4 3.9 

5 ..................................................................... 5 443 158 561 1,003 3.4 3.9 

7,8 .................................................................. 6 655 92 361 1,017 3.4 3.9 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67019 

TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR SMALL-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

(2022$) 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

(%) 

1,6 ............................................................................. 1 ................................................................................ $10 0 

2 ................................................................................ 2 ................................................................................ 14 24 

3 ................................................................................ 3 ................................................................................ (54) 52 

4 ................................................................................ 4 ................................................................................ (12) 46 

5 ................................................................................ 5 ................................................................................ (16) 50 

7,8 ............................................................................. 6 ................................................................................ 4 44 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

TABLE V.6—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR STANDARD-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

0 $308 $651 $2,637 $2,945 .................. 4.8 

1 ..................................................................... 1 368 558 2,264 2,633 0.7 4.8 

2 ..................................................................... 2 412 517 2,098 2,510 0.8 4.8 

3 ..................................................................... 3 574 319 1,306 1,879 0.8 4.8 

4 ..................................................................... 4 613 284 1,163 1,776 0.8 4.8 

5 ..................................................................... 5 654 259 1,063 1,717 0.9 4.8 

6–8 ................................................................. 6 847 243 1,056 1,903 1.3 4.8 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.7—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR STANDARD-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

(2022$) 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

(%) 

1 ................................................................................ 1 ................................................................................ $26 0 

2 ................................................................................ 2 ................................................................................ 44 2 

3 ................................................................................ 3 ................................................................................ 109 18 

4 ................................................................................ 4 ................................................................................ 141 17 

5 ................................................................................ 5 ................................................................................ 151 19 

6–8 ............................................................................ 6 ................................................................................ 236 2 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In the consumer subgroup analysis, 

DOE estimated the impact of the 

considered TSLs on senior-only 

households. Table V.8 through Table 

V.13 compare the average LCC savings 

and PBP at each efficiency level for the 

consumer subgroups with similar 

metrics for the entire consumer sample 

for DPPP motors. In most cases, the 

average LCC savings and PBP for senioronly households at the considered 

efficiency levels are not substantially 

different from the average for all 

households. Chapter 11 of the final rule 

TSD presents the complete LCC and 

PBP results for the subgroups. 

TABLE V.8—COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUP AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR

EQUIPMENT CLASS 1 EXTRA-SMALL-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL EL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2022$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

1,6,7 ..................................................................................... 1 $3 $3 0.9 0.9 

2–5,8 .................................................................................... 2 (12) (12) 2.7 2.8 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67020 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.9—COMPARISON OF FRACTION OF CONSUMERS EXPERIENCING NET BENEFIT AND NET COST FOR CONSUMER

SUBGROUP AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS 1 EXTRA-SMALL-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL EL 

Percent of consumers that 

experience net cost 

(%) 

Percent of consumers that 

experience net benefit 

(%) 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

1,6,7 ..................................................................................... 1 0 0 8 8 

2–5,8 .................................................................................... 2 58 59 8 8 

TABLE V.10—COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUP AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS

FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS 2 SMALL-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL EL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2022$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

1,6 ........................................................................................ 1 $11 $10 0.4 0.5 

2 ........................................................................................... 2 18 14 0.9 1.0 

3 ........................................................................................... 3 (47) (54) 4.1 4.5 

4 ........................................................................................... 4 (0) (12) 3.1 3.4 

5 ........................................................................................... 5 (2) (16) 3.2 3.4 

7,8 ........................................................................................ 6 33 4 3.1 3.4 

TABLE V.11—COMPARISON OF FRACTION OF CONSUMERS EXPERIENCING NET BENEFIT AND NET COST FOR CONSUMER

SUBGROUP AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS 2 SMALL-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL EL 

Percent of consumers that 

experience net cost 

(%) 

Percent of consumers that 

experience net benefit 

(%) 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

1,6 ........................................................................................ 1 0 0 6 6 

2 ........................................................................................... 2 23 24 25 24 

3 ........................................................................................... 3 51 52 14 13 

4 ........................................................................................... 4 45 46 27 27 

5 ........................................................................................... 5 48 50 27 26 

7,8 ........................................................................................ 6 42 44 29 27 

TABLE V.12—COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUP AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS

FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS 3 STANDARD-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL EL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2022$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

1 ........................................................................................... 1 $29 $26 0.6 0.7 

2 ........................................................................................... 2 50 44 0.7 0.8 

3 ........................................................................................... 3 128 109 0.7 0.8 

4 ........................................................................................... 4 165 141 0.8 0.8 

5 ........................................................................................... 5 178 151 0.8 0.9 

6–8 ....................................................................................... 6 269 236 1.2 1.3 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67021 

TABLE V.13—COMPARISON OF FRACTION OF CONSUMERS EXPERIENCING NET BENEFIT AND NET COST FOR CONSUMER

SUBGROUP AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS 3 STANDARD-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL EL 

Percent of consumers that 

experience net cost 

(%) 

Percent of consumers that 

experience net benefit 

(%) 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

1 ........................................................................................... 1 0 0 8 8 

2 ........................................................................................... 2 2 2 17 17 

3 ........................................................................................... 3 18 18 24 23 

4 ........................................................................................... 4 17 17 29 29 

5 ........................................................................................... 5 18 19 29 29 

6–8 ....................................................................................... 6 2 2 17 18 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section III.E.2, EPCA 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that an energy conservation standard is 

economically justified if the increased 

purchase cost for a product that meets 

the standard is less than three times the 

value of the first-year energy savings 

resulting from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) In 

calculating a rebuttable presumption 

payback period for each of the 

considered TSLs, DOE used discrete 

values, and, as required by EPCA, based 

the energy use calculation on the DOE 

test procedures for DPPP motors. In 

contrast, the PBPs presented in section 

V.B.1.a were calculated using 

distributions that reflect the range of 

energy use in the field. 

Table V.14 presents the rebuttablepresumption payback periods for the 

considered TSLs for DPPP motors. 

While DOE examined the rebuttablepresumption criterion, it considered 

whether the standard levels considered 

for this rule are economically justified 

through a more detailed analysis of the 

economic impacts of those levels, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), 

that considers the full range of impacts 

to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, 

and environment. The results of that 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

definitively evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level, thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic justification. 

TABLE V.14—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS (YEARS) 

Equipment class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Extra-small-size ................................................................................................ 0.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 0.9 0.9 2.7 

Small-size ......................................................................................................... 0.4 0.9 3.8 3.0 3.0 0.4 2.7 2.7 

Standard-size ................................................................................................... 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of new energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers of DPPP 

motors. The next section describes the 

expected impacts on manufacturers at 

each considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the 

final rule TSD explains the analysis in 

further detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

In this section, DOE provides GRIM 

results from the analysis, which 

examines changes in the industry that 

would result from new standards. The 

following tables summarize the 

estimated financial impacts (represented 

by changes in INPV) of potential new 

energy conservation standards on 

manufacturers of DPPP motors, as well 

as the conversion costs that DOE 

estimates manufacturers of DPPP motors 

would incur at each TSL. 

As discussed in section IV.J.2.d of this 

document, DOE modeled two 

manufacturer markup scenarios to 

evaluate a range of cash flow impacts on 

the DPPP motor industry: (1) the 

preservation of gross margin scenario 

and (2) the preservation of operating 

profit scenario. DOE considered the 

preservation of gross margin scenario by 

applying a ‘‘gross margin percentage’’ 

for each equipment class across all 

efficiency levels. As MPCs increase with 

efficiency, this scenario implies that the 

absolute dollar markup will increase. 

DOE assumed a manufacturer markup of 

1.37 for all DPPP motors. Because this 

scenario assumes that a manufacturer’s 

absolute dollar markup would increase 

as MPCs increase in the standards cases, 

it represents the upper-bound to 

industry profitability under new energy 

conservation standards. 

The preservation of operating profit 

scenario reflects manufacturers’ 

concerns about their inability to 

maintain margins as MPCs increase to 

meet higher efficiency levels. In this 

scenario, while manufacturers make the 

necessary investments required to 

convert their facilities to produce 

compliant equipment, operating profit 

remains the same in absolute dollars, 

but decreases as a percentage of 

revenue. 

Each of the modeled manufacturer 

markup scenarios results in a unique set 

of cash-flows and corresponding 

industry values at each TSL. In the 

following discussion, the INPV results 

refer to the difference in industry value 

between the no-new-standards case and 

each standards case resulting from the 

sum of discounted cash-flows from 2024 

through 2055. To provide perspective 

on the short-run cash-flow impact, DOE 

includes in the discussion of results a 

comparison of free cash flow between 

the no-new-standards case and the 

standards case at each TSL in the year 

before new standards are required. 

Table V.15 and Table V.16 show the 

MIA results for DPPP motor 

manufacturers at each TSL using the 

manufacturer markup scenarios 

previously described. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67022 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

131The analyzed compliance year for small size 

DPPP motors is 2028. However, DOE presents the 

year with the largest decrease in manufacturer cash 

flow, which is still 2025 for TSL 7. 

TABLE V.15—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR DEDICATED-PURPOSE POOL PUMP MOTORS—PRESERVATION OF

GROSS MARGIN SCENARIO

Units 

No-newstandards 

case 

Trial standard level * 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

INPV ........................................ 2022$ millions ...... 661 663 672 684 695 708 675 740 755 

Change in INPV ....................... 2022$ millions ...... .................. 2.6 11.3 23.3 34.5 47.0 14.1 79.0 94.1 

% .......................... .................. 0.4 1.7 3.5 5.2 7.1 2.1 12.0 14.2 

Product Conversion Costs ....... 2022$ millions ...... .................. 0.2 0.9 7.5 7.6 7.9 0.2 10.6 10.7 

Capital Conversion Costs ........ 2022$ millions ...... .................. 0.0 0.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 21.3 45.6 45.6 

Total Investment Required ...... 2022$ millions ...... .................. 0.2 0.9 15.3 15.4 15.7 21.5 56.2 56.4 

Free Cash Flow (2025) ........... 2022$ millions ...... 31.2 31.1 30.8 23.6 23.6 23.4 19.4 9.9 1.4 

Change in Free Cash Flow ..... 2022$ millions ...... .................. (0.1) (0.4) (7.6) (7.6) (7.7) (11.8) (21.2) (29.8) 

% .......................... .................. (0.2) (1.3) (24.2) (24.4) (24.8) (37.8) (68.1) (95.5) 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate a negative number. Some numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. 

TABLE V.16—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR DEDICATED-PURPOSE POOL PUMP MOTORS—PRESERVATION OF

OPERATING PROFIT SCENARIO

Units 

No-newstandards 

case 

Trial standard level * 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

INPV ........................................ 2022$ millions ...... 661 660 655 622 617 612 559 47 436 

Change in INPV ....................... 2022$ millions ...... .................. (0.8) (6.2) (38.9) (43.4) (48.5) (101.4) (214.2) (224.4) 

% .......................... .................. (0.1) (0.9) (5.9) (6.6) (7.3) (15.3) (32.4) (34.0) 

Product Conversion Costs ....... 2022$ millions ...... .................. 0.2 0.9 7.5 7.6 7.9 0.2 10.6 10.7 

Capital Conversion Costs ........ 2022$ millions ...... .................. 0.0 0.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 21.3 45.6 45.6 

Total Investment Required ...... 2022$ millions ...... .................. 0.2 0.9 15.3 15.4 15.7 21.5 56.2 56.4 

Free Cash Flow (2025) ........... 2022$ millions ...... 31.2 31.1 30.8 23.6 23.6 23.4 19.4 9.9 1.4 

Change in Free Cash Flow ..... 2022$ millions ...... .................. (0.1) (0.4) (7.6) (7.6) (7.7) (11.8) (21.2) (29.8) 

% .......................... .................. (0.2) (1.3) (24.2) (24.4) (24.8) (37.8) (68.1) (95.5) 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate a negative number. Some numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. 

At TSL 8, DOE estimated that the 

impact on INPV would range from 

¥$224.4 million to $94.1 million, or a 

change in INPV of –34.0 percent to 14.2 

percent. At TSL 8, industry free cash 

flow is $1.4 million, which is a decrease 

of approximately $29.8 million 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $31.2 million in 2025, the year 

leading up to new standards. 

TSL 8 will set the energy conservation 

standards at EL 6 for both the small size 

and standard size DPPP motor 

equipment classes and at EL 2 for the 

extra-small size DPPP motor equipment 

class. This represents max-tech for all 

DPPP motor equipment classes. DOE 

estimated that 33 percent of all extrasmall size DPPP motor shipments; 22 

percent of all small size DPPP motor 

shipments; and 62 percent of all 

standard size DPPP motor shipments 

will already meet the efficiency levels 

analyzed at TSL 8 by 2026, in the nonew-standards case. 

At TSL 8, DPPP motor manufacturers 

would need to redesign all small size 

and standard size DPPP motors that do 

not use variable-speed controls and 

would need to redesign all extra-small 

size DPPP motors not using the most 

efficient single-speed motors. DOE 

estimated that this redesign effort would 

cost manufacturers approximately $10.7 

million in product conversion costs. In 

addition to these product conversion 

costs, DPPP motor manufacturers would 

need to increase their variable-speed 

DPPP motor manufacturing production 

capacity for both the small size and 

standard size DPPP motors. DOE 

estimated that expanding their 

production capacity would cost 

manufacturers approximately $45.6 

million in capital conversion costs at 

TSL 8. 

At TSL 8, the shipment weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

increases by 60.0 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipment 

weighted average MPC for all DPPP 

motors in 2026. In the preservation of 

gross margin scenario, manufacturers 

fully pass on this cost increase to 

customers. The increase in the shipment 

weighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $56.4 million in 

conversion costs, causing a positive 

change in INPV at TSL 8 in the 

preservation of gross margin scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments. 

In this scenario, the 60.0 percent 

shipment weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $56.4 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a negative change 

in INPV at TSL 8 in the preservation of 

operating profit scenario. 

At TSL 7, DOE estimated that the 

impact on INPV would range from 

¥$214.2 million to $79.0 million, or a 

change in INPV of –32.4 percent to 12.0 

percent. At TSL 7, industry free cash 

flow is $9.9 million, which is a decrease 

of approximately $21.2 million 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $31.2 million in 2025, the year 

leading up to new standards for 

standard size and extra-small size DPPP 

motors.131

TSL 7 sets the energy conservation 

standards at EL 6 for both the small size 

and standard size DPPP motor 

equipment classes and at EL 1 for the 

extra-small size DPPP motor equipment 

class. This represents max-tech for the 

small size and standard size DPPP 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67023 

motor equipment classes. DOE estimates 

that 93 percent of all extra-small size 

DPPP motor shipments; 24 percent of all 

small size DPPP motor shipments; and 

62 percent of all standard size DPPP 

motor shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels analyzed at 

TSL 7 by 2026 for the extra-small and 

standard size DPPP motors and by 2028 

for the small size DPPP motors, in the 

no-new-standards case. 

At TSL 7, DPPP motor manufacturers 

would need to redesign all small size 

and standard size DPPP motors that do 

not use variable-speed controls and 

would need to redesign some extrasmall size DPPP motors to meet EL 1. 

DOE estimated that this redesign effort 

would cost manufacturers 

approximately $10.6 million in product 

conversion costs. In addition to these 

product conversion costs, DPPP motor 

manufacturers would need to increase 

their variable-speed DPPP motor 

manufacturing production capacity for 

both the small size and standard size 

DPPP motors. DOE estimated that 

expanding their production capacity 

would cost manufacturer approximately 

$45.6 million in capital conversion costs 

at TSL 7. 

At TSL 7, the shipment weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

increases by 46.5 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipment 

weighted average MPC for all DPPP 

motors. In the preservation of gross 

margin scenario, manufacturers can 

fully pass on this cost increase to 

customers. The increase in the shipment 

weighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $56.2 million in 

conversion costs, causing a positive 

change in INPV at TSL 7 in the 

preservation of gross margin scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments. 

In this scenario, the 46.5 percent 

shipment weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $56.2 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a negative change 

in INPV at TSL 7 in the preservation of 

operating profit scenario. 

At TSL 6, DOE estimated that the 

impact on INPV would range from 

¥l$101.4 million to $14.1 million, or a 

change in INPV of –15.3 percent to 2.1 

percent. At TSL 6, industry free cash 

flow is $19.4 million, which is a 

decrease of approximately $11.8 million 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $31.2 million in 2025, the year 

leading up to new standards. 

TSL 6 would set the energy 

conservation standards at EL 6 for the 

standard size DPPP motor equipment 

class and at EL 1 for both the extra-small 

size and small size DPPP motor 

equipment classes. This represents maxtech for the standard size DPPP motor 

equipment class. DOE estimates that 93 

percent of all extra-small size DPPP 

motor shipments; 95 percent of all small 

size DPPP motor shipments; and 62 

percent of all standard size DPPP motor 

shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels analyzed at 

TSL 6 by 2026, in the no-new-standards 

case. 

At TSL 6, DPPP motor manufacturers 

would need to redesign all standard size 

DPPP motors that do not use variablespeed controls and would need to 

redesign some extra-small size and 

small size DPPP motors to meet EL 1. 

DOE estimated that this redesign effort 

would cost manufacturers 

approximately $0.2 million in product 

conversion costs. In addition to these 

product conversion costs, DPPP motor 

manufacturers would need to increase 

their variable-speed DPPP motor 

manufacturing production capacity for 

the standard size DPPP motor 

equipment class. DOE estimated that 

expanding their production capacity 

would cost manufacturer approximately 

$21.3 million in capital conversion costs 

at TSL 6. 

At TSL 6, the shipment weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

increases by 22.0 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipment 

weighted average MPC for all DPPP 

motors. In the preservation of gross 

margin scenario, manufacturers can 

fully pass on this cost increase to 

customers. The increase in the shipment 

weighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $21.5 million in 

conversion costs, causing a positive 

change in INPV at TSL 6 in the 

preservation of gross margin scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments. 

In this scenario, the 22.0 percent 

shipment weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $21.5 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a negative change 

in INPV at TSL 6 in the preservation of 

operating profit scenario. 

At TSL 5, DOE estimated that the 

impact on INPV would range from 

¥$48.5 million to $47.0 million, or a 

change in INPV of –7.3 percent to 7.1 

percent. At TSL 5, industry free cash 

flow is $23.4 million, which is a 

decrease of approximately $7.7 million 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $31.2 million in 2025, the year 

leading up to new standards. 

TSL 5 would set the energy 

conservation standards at EL 5 for both 

the small size and standard size DPPP 

motor equipment classes and at EL 2 for 

the extra-small size DPPP motor 

equipment class. DOE estimates that 33 

percent of all extra-small size DPPP 

motor shipments; 23 percent of all small 

size DPPP motor shipments; and 63 

percent of all standard size DPPP motor 

shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels analyzed at 

TSL 5 by 2026, in the no-new-standards 

case. 

At TSL 5, DPPP motor manufacturers 

would need to redesign some small size 

and standard size DPPP motors to meet 

EL 5 (which is likely to require the most 

efficient dual-speed motor) and would 

need to redesign some extra-small size 

DPPP motors to meet EL 2. DOE 

estimated that this redesign effort would 

cost manufacturers approximately $7.9 

million in product conversion costs. In 

addition to these product conversion 

costs, DPPP motor manufacturers would 

need to increase their dual-speed DPPP 

motor manufacturing production 

capacity for the small size and standard 

size DPPP motor equipment classes. 

DOE estimated that expanding their 

production capacity would cost 

manufacturer approximately $7.8 

million in capital conversion costs at 

TSL 5. 

At TSL 5, the shipment weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

increases by 20.2 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipment 

weighted average MPC for all DPPP 

motors. In the preservation of gross 

margin scenario, manufacturers can 

fully pass on this cost increase to 

customers. The increase in the shipment 

weighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $15.7 million in 

conversion costs, causing a positive 

change in INPV at TSL 5 in the 

preservation of gross margin scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments. 

In this scenario, the 20.2 percent 

shipment weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67024 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $15.7 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a negative change 

in INPV at TSL 5 in the preservation of 

operating profit scenario. 

At TSL 4, DOE estimated that the 

impact on INPV would range from 

¥$43.4 million to $34.5 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥6.6 percent to 5.2 

percent. At TSL 4, industry free cash 

flow is $23.6 million, which is a 

decrease of approximately $7.6 million 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $31.2 million in 2025, the year 

leading up to new standards. 

TSL 4 would set the energy 

conservation standards at EL 4 for both 

the small size and standard size DPPP 

motor equipment classes and at EL 2 for 

the extra-small size DPPP motor 

equipment class. DOE estimates that 33 

percent of all extra-small size DPPP 

motor shipments; 25 percent of all small 

size DPPP motor shipments; and 64 

percent of all standard size DPPP motor 

shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels analyzed at 

TSL 4 by 2026, in the no-new-standards 

case. 

At TSL 4, DPPP motor manufacturers 

would need to redesign some small size 

and standard size DPPP motors to meet 

EL 4 (which is likely to require an 

intermediate efficient dual-speed motor) 

and would need to redesign some extrasmall size DPPP motors to meet EL 2. 

DOE estimated that this redesign effort 

would cost manufacturers 

approximately $7.6 million in product 

conversion costs. In addition to these 

product conversion costs, DPPP motor 

manufacturers would need to increase 

their dual-speed DPPP motor 

manufacturing production capacity for 

the small size and standard size DPPP 

motor equipment classes. DOE 

estimated that expanding their 

production capacity would cost 

manufacturer approximately $7.8 

million in capital conversion costs at 

TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, the shipment weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

increases by 17.0 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipment 

weighted average MPC for all DPPP 

motors. In the preservation of gross 

margin scenario, manufacturers can 

fully pass on this cost increase to 

customers. The increase in the shipment 

weighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $15.4 million in 

conversion costs, causing a positive 

change in INPV at TSL 4 in the 

preservation of gross margin scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments. 

In this scenario, the 17.0 percent 

shipment weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $15.4 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a negative change 

in INPV at TSL 4 in the preservation of 

operating profit scenario. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimated that the 

impact on INPV would range from 

¥$38.9 million to $23.3 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥5.9 percent to 3.5 

percent. At TSL 3, industry free cash 

flow is $23.6 million, which is a 

decrease of approximately $7.6 million 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $31.2 million in 2025, the year 

leading up to new standards. 

TSL 3 would set the energy 

conservation standards at EL 3 for both 

the small size and standard size DPPP 

motor equipment classes and at EL 2 for 

the extra-small size DPPP motor 

equipment class. DOE estimates that 33 

percent of all extra-small size DPPP 

motor shipments; 31 percent of all small 

size DPPP motor shipments; and 66 

percent of all standard size DPPP motor 

shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels analyzed at 

TSL 3 by 2026, in the no-new-standards 

case. 

At TSL 3, DPPP motor manufacturers 

would need to redesign some small size 

and standard size DPPP motors to meet 

EL 3 (which is likely to require a dualspeed motor) and would need to 

redesign some extra-small size DPPP 

motors to meet EL 2. DOE estimated that 

this redesign effort would cost 

manufacturers approximately $7.5 

million in product conversion costs. In 

addition to these product conversion 

costs, DPPP motor manufacturers would 

need to increase their dual-speed DPPP 

motor manufacturing production 

capacity for the small size and standard 

size DPPP motor equipment classes. 

DOE estimated that expanding their 

production capacity would cost 

manufacturer approximately $7.8 

million in capital conversion costs at 

TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the shipment weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

increases by 14.2 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipment 

weighted average MPC for all DPPP 

motors. In the preservation of gross 

margin scenario, manufacturers can 

fully pass on this cost increase to 

customers. The increase in the shipment 

weighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $15.3 million in 

conversion costs, causing a positive 

change in INPV at TSL 3 in the 

preservation of gross margin scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments. 

In this scenario, the 14.2 percent 

shipment weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $15.3 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a negative change 

in INPV at TSL 3 in the preservation of 

operating profit scenario. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimated that the 

impact on INPV would range from 

¥$6.2 million to $11.3 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥0.9 percent to 1.7 

percent. At TSL 2, industry free cash 

flow is $30.8 million, which is a 

decrease of approximately $0.4 million 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $31.2 million in 2025, the year 

leading up to new standards. 

TSL 2 would set the energy 

conservation standards at EL 2 for all 

DPPP motor equipment classes. DOE 

estimates that 33 percent of all extrasmall size DPPP motor shipments; 58 

percent of all small size DPPP motor 

shipments; and 78 percent of all 

standard size DPPP motor shipments 

would already meet or exceed the 

efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 2 by 

2026, in the no-new-standards case. 

At TSL 2, DPPP motor manufacturers 

would need to redesign some small size 

and standard size DPPP motors to meet 

EL 2 (which is likely to require the most 

efficient single-speed motor) and would 

need to redesign some extra-small size 

DPPP motors to meet EL 2. DOE 

estimated that this redesign effort would 

cost manufacturers approximately $0.9 

million in product conversion costs. 

DOE estimated that DPPP motor 

manufacturers have the existing 

production capacity to manufacturer 

more efficient single-speed DPPP motors 

and would not incur any additional 

capital conversion costs at TSL 2. 

At TSL 2, the shipment weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

increases by 3.9 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipment 

weighted average MPC for all DPPP 

motors. In the preservation of gross 

margin scenario, manufacturers can 

fully pass on this cost increase to 

customers. The increase in the shipment 

weighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $0.9 million in 

conversion costs, causing a positive 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67025 

132www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/data/ 

tables.html. 

change in INPV at TSL 2 in the 

preservation of gross margin scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments. 

In this scenario, the 3.9 percent 

shipment weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $0.9 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a negative change 

in INPV at TSL 2 in the preservation of 

operating profit scenario. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimated that the 

impact on INPV would range from 

¥$0.8 million to $2.6 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥0.1 percent to 0.4 

percent. At TSL 1, industry free cash 

flow is $31.1 million, which is a 

decrease of approximately $0.1 million 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $31.2 million in 2025, the year 

leading up to new standards. 

TSL 1 would set the energy 

conservation standards at EL 1 for all 

DPPP motor equipment classes. DOE 

estimates that 93 percent of all extrasmall size DPPP motor shipments; 95 

percent of all small size DPPP motor 

shipments; and 86 percent of all 

standard size DPPP motor shipments 

would already meet or exceed the 

efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 1 by 

2026, in the no-new-standards case. 

At TSL 1, DPPP motor manufacturers 

would need to redesign some extrasmall size, small size, and standard size 

DPPP motors to meet EL 1 (which is 

likely to require an intermediate 

efficient single-speed motor). DOE 

estimated that this redesign effort would 

cost manufacturers approximately $0.2 

million in product conversion costs. 

DOE estimated that DPPP motor 

manufacturers have the existing 

production capacity to manufacturer 

more efficient single-speed DPPP motors 

and would not incur any additional 

capital conversion costs at TSL 1. 

At TSL 1, the shipment weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

increases by 1.2 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipment 

weighted average MPC for all DPPP 

motors. In the preservation of gross 

margin scenario, manufacturers can 

fully pass on this cost increase to 

customers. The increase in the shipment 

weighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $0.2 million in 

conversion costs, causing a positive 

change in INPV at TSL 1 in the 

preservation of gross margin scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments. 

In this scenario, the 1.2 percent 

shipment weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $0.2 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a negative change 

in INPV at TSL 1 in the preservation of 

operating profit scenario. 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

To quantitatively assess the potential 

impacts of new energy conservation 

standards on direct employment in the 

DPPP motors industry, DOE used the 

GRIM to estimate the domestic labor 

expenditures and number of direct 

employees in the no-new-standards case 

and in each of the standards cases 

during the analysis period. 

Production employees are those who 

are directly involved in fabricating and 

assembling products within an original 

equipment manufacturer facility. 

Workers performing services that are 

closely associated with production 

operations, such as materials handling 

tasks using forklifts, are included as 

production labor, as well as line 

supervisors. 

DOE used the GRIM to calculate the 

number of production employees from 

labor expenditures. DOE used statistical 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 

Annual Survey of Manufacturers 132

(‘‘ASM’’) and the results of the 

engineering analysis to calculate 

industry-wide labor expenditures. Labor 

expenditures related to product 

manufacturing depend on the labor 

intensity of the product, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages 

remain fixed in real terms over time. 

The total labor expenditures in the 

GRIM were then converted to domestic 

production employment levels by 

dividing production labor expenditures 

by the annual payment per production 

worker. 

Non-production employees account 

for those workers that are not directly 

engaged in the manufacturing of the 

covered product. This could include 

sales, human resources, engineering, 

and management. DOE estimated nonproduction employment levels by 

multiplying the number of DPPP motor 

production workers by a scaling factor. 

The scaling factor is calculated by 

taking the ratio of the total number of 

employees, and the total number of 

production workers associated with the 

industry NAICS code 335312, which 

covers DPPP motor manufacturing. 

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that 

there would be approximately 405 

domestic production workers and 

approximately 232 non-production 

workers for DPPP motors in 2026 in the 

absence of new energy conservation 

standards. Table V.17 shows the range 

of the impacts of energy conservation 

standards on U.S. production of DPPP 

motors. 

TABLE V.17—TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC DEDICATED-PURPOSE POOL PUMP MOTOR PRODUCTION WORKERS IN 2026 

No-newstandards 

case 

Trial standard level * 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Domestic Production Workers in 

2026 .............................................. 405 410 421 463 474 487 494 513 648 

Domestic Non-Production Workers 

in 2026 .......................................... 232 235 241 265 272 279 283 294 371 

Total Direct Employment in 2026 .... 637 645 662 728 746 766 777 807 1,019 

Potential Changes in Total Direct 

Employment in 2026 .................... .................... 0–8 0–25 0–91 0–109 0–129 (163)–140 (281)–170 (281)–382 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67026 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

The direct employment impacts 

shown in Table V.17 represent the 

potential changes in direct employment 

that could result following the 

compliance date for the DPPP motors 

covered in this rulemaking. 

Employment could increase or decrease 

due to the labor content of the 

equipment being manufactured 

domestically or if manufacturers 

decided to move production facilities 

abroad because of the new standards. At 

the less severe end of the range, DOE 

assumes that all manufacturers continue 

to manufacture the same scope of the 

equipment domestically after 

compliance with the analyzed new 

standards. The other end of the range 

assumes that some domestic 

manufacturing either is eliminated or 

moves abroad due to the analyzed new 

standards. 

DOE assumes that for DPPP motors, 

manufacturing is only potentially 

negatively impacted at TSLs that would 

most likely require variable-speed DPPP 

motors. At these TSLs, the maximum 

number of employees that could be 

eliminated are the number of domestic 

employees that would be manufacturing 

single-speed and dual-speed DPPP 

motors in the absence of new energy 

conservation standards. DOE estimated 

that there would be approximately 76 

domestic production employees and 43 

non-production employees involved in 

the production and sale of single-speed 

and dual-speed small-size DPPP motors 

(for a total of 119 total employees) in 

2026 in the absence of new DPPP motor 

standards. DOE also estimated that there 

would be approximately 104 domestic 

production employees and 59 nonproduction employees involved in the 

production and sale of single-speed and 

dual-speed standard-size DPPP motors 

(for a total of 163 total employees) in 

2026 in the absence of new DPPP motor 

standards. However, DOE notes that 

motors used in DPPPs are frequently 

used in other non-DPPP applications 

and motor manufacturers may choose to 

continue to manufacture single-speed 

and dual-speed motors (even at TSL 6, 

TSL 7, and TSL 8) that would be 

allowed to be used in other non-DPPP 

applications. If manufacturers choose to 

do this, there would likely not be a 

significant impact on the overall 

domestic motor employment. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

DOE did not identify any significant 

capacity constraints for the design 

options being evaluated for this final 

rule. The design options evaluated for 

this final rule are available as 

equipment that is on the market 

currently. The materials used to 

manufacture DPPP motor models at all 

efficiency levels are widely available on 

the market. While there were a limited 

number of small size variable-speed 

DPPP motor models currently on the 

market, all manufacturers are capable of 

manufacturing standard size variablespeed DPPP motor models and would be 

able to manufacture small size variablespeed DPPP motor models if they 

choose to make the investments 

described in section IV.J.2.c of this 

document. As a result, DOE does not 

anticipate that the industry would likely 

experience any capacity constraints 

directly resulting from energy 

conservation standards at any of the 

TSLs considered. 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

As discussed in section IV.J.1 of this 

document, using average cost 

assumptions to develop an industry 

cash-flow estimate may not be adequate 

for assessing differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche manufacturers, 

and manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure substantially different from the 

industry average could be affected 

disproportionately. DOE used the 

results of the industry characterization 

to group manufacturers exhibiting 

similar characteristics. Consequently, 

DOE identified small business 

manufacturers as a subgroup for a 

separate impact analysis. 

For the small business subgroup 

analysis, DOE applied the small 

business size standards published by 

the Small Business Administration 

(‘‘SBA’’) to determine whether a 

company is considered a small business. 

The size standards are codified at 13 

CFR part 121. To be categorized as a 

small business under NAICS code 

335312, ‘‘Motor and Generator 

Manufacturing’’ a DPPP motor 

manufacturer and its affiliates may 

employ a maximum of 1,250 employees. 

The 1,250-employee threshold includes 

all employees in a business’s parent 

company and any other subsidiaries. 

Based on this classification, DOE 

identified one potential manufacturer 

that could qualify as domestic small 

businesses. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden involves looking at the 

cumulative impact of multiple DOE 

standards and the regulatory actions of 

other Federal agencies and States that 

affect the manufacturers of a covered 

product or equipment. While any one 

regulation may not impose a significant 

burden on manufacturers, the combined 

effects of several existing or impending 

regulations may have serious 

consequences for some manufacturers, 

groups of manufacturers, or an entire 

industry. Multiple regulations affecting 

the same manufacturer can strain profits 

and lead companies to abandon product 

lines or markets with lower expected 

future returns than competing products. 

For these reasons, DOE conducts an 

analysis of cumulative regulatory 

burden as part of its rulemakings 

pertaining to appliance efficiency. 

DOE evaluates product-specific 

regulations that will take effect 

approximately 3 years before or after the 

2026 compliance date of any new 

energy conservation standards for DPPP 

motors. This information is presented in 

Table V.18. 

TABLE V.18—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS AFFECTING DEDICATED-PURPOSE POOL PUMP MOTOR MANUFACTURERS

Federal energy conservation standard Number of 

Mfrs * 

Number of 

manufacturers 

affected from 

this rule ** 

Approximately 

standards 

year 

Industry 

conversion 

costs 

(millions) 

Industry 

conversion 

costs/ 

product 

(%) 

Distribution Transformers 88 FR 1722 (Jan. 11, 

2023) † ........................................................................ 27 1 2027 133 $343 (2021$) 2.7 

Electric Motors 88 FR 36066 (Jun. 1, 2023) ................. 74 5 2027 $468 (2021$) 2.6 

* This column presents the total number of manufacturers identified in the energy conservation standard rule contributing to cumulative regulatory burden. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67027 

133 ;This is the sum of the total conversion costs 

listed in Table V.46 (TSL 4), which is $270.6 

million; Table V.48 (TSL 5), which is $69.4 million; 

and Table V.50 (TSL 2), which is $3.1 million. 88 

FR 1722, 1809–1814. 

134As discussed in section III.A of this document, 

for all TSLs DOE considered a 2-year lead time 

resulting in a first full year of compliance of 2026, 

except for small-size DPPP motors at TSL 7 where 

DOE uses a 4-year compliance lead time, resulting 

in a compliance year of 2028. In this case, DOE 

considered 28 years of shipments (2028–2055). 

135U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/ 

circulars_a004_a-4 (last accessed September 1, 

2021). 

136EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at 

least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain 

products, a 3-year period after any new standard is 

promulgated before compliance is required, except 

that in no case may any new standards be required 

within 6 years of the compliance date of the 

previous standards. While adding a 6-year review 

to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, 

DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any 

time within the 6-year period and that the 3-year 

compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. 

A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate 

given the variability that occurs in the timing of 

standards reviews and the fact that for some 

products, the compliance period is 5 years rather 

than 3 years and for this product, DOE is setting 

compliance periods of 2 and 4 years. 

** This column presents the number of manufacturers producing DPPP motors that are also listed as manufacturers in the listed energy conservation standard contributing to cumulative regulatory burden. 

*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of product revenue during the conversion period. Industry conversion costs 

are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue 

from just the covered product/equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs are 

made and lasts from the publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the energy conservation standard. The conversion period 

typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on the rulemaking. 

† Indicates a NOPR publications. Values may change on publication of a final rule. 

Fluidra identified the following 

regulations and certification standards 

that apply to DPPP and DPPP motors 

that may contribute to the cumulative 

regulator burden for DPPP motor 

manufacturers: DOE’s January 2017 

Final Rule (for DPPPs); DPPP UL 1081; 

DPPP motor UL 1004–1, 1004–4, and 

1004–7; NSF–50; and CEC title 20. 

(Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 4) As part of the 

cumulative regulatory burden, DOE 

specifically looks to mitigate the 

overlapping effects on manufacturers of 

new or revised DOE standards and other 

regulatory actions affecting the same 

products or equipment (10 CFR part 430 

appendix A to subpart C) DOE 

acknowledges that DPPP manufacturers 

use DPPP motors in their equipment 

and that change to energy conservation 

standards to DPPP motors could impact 

DPPPs. The compliance date for DPPPs 

was on July 19, 2021. DOE considered 

these energy conservation standards 

when determining what energy 

conservation standards are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified in section V.C. of 

this document. Specifically, DOE is 

setting the compliance date for smallsize DPPP motors to be 4 years after the 

publication of this final rule to allow 

DPPP motor manufacturers additional 

time to comply with energy 

conservation standards for those DPPP 

motors. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

This section presents DOE’s estimates 

of the national energy savings and the 

NPV of consumer benefits that would 

result from each of the TSLs considered 

as potential amended standards. 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential new standards 

for DPPP motors, DOE compared their 

energy consumption under the no-newstandards case to their anticipated 

energy consumption under each TSL. 

The savings are measured over the 

entire lifetime of products purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

first full year of anticipated compliance 

with amended standards (2026– 

2055).134 Table V.15 presents DOE’s 

projections of the national energy 

savings for each TSL considered for 

DPPP motors. The savings were 

calculated using the approach described 

in section IV.H of this document. 

TABLE V.19—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR DPPP MOTORS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

Trial standard levels 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

(quads) 

Primary energy ................................................................. 0.11 0.20 0.68 0.88 0.99 0.93 1.52 1.56 

FFC energy ...................................................................... 0.11 0.20 0.70 0.90 1.01 0.96 1.56 1.60 

Note: the analysis considers 30 years for shipments starting in 2026 (2026–2055) except at TSL 7 for small-size DPPP motors where DOE

considers shipments in 2028–2055. 

OMB Circular A–4 135 requires 

agencies to present analytical results, 

including separate schedules of the 

monetized benefits and costs that show 

the type and timing of benefits and 

costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies 

to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of 

benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 

DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis 

using 9 years, rather than 30 years, of 

product shipments. The choice of a 9- 

year period is a proxy for the timeline 

in EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of and compliance with such 

revised standards.136 The review 

timeframe established in EPCA is 

generally not synchronized with the 

product lifetime, product manufacturing 

cycles, or other factors specific to DPPP 

motors. Thus, such results are presented 

for informational purposes only and are 

not indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology. The NES 

sensitivity analysis results based on a 9- 

year analytical period are presented in 

Table V.16. The impacts are counted 

over the lifetime of DPPP motors 

purchased in 2026–2034, except at TSL 

7 for small-size DPPP motors where 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

DPPP motors purchased in 2028–2036. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2

I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I 
67028 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

137U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/ 

circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed July 1, 2021). 

TABLE V.20—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR DPPP MOTORS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

Trial standard levels 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

(quads) 

Primary energy ................................................................. 0.03 0.06 0.21 0.26 0.29 0.28 0.46 0.45 

FFC energy ...................................................................... 0.03 0.06 0.21 0.27 0.30 0.29 0.47 0.47 

Note: the analysis considers 9 years for shipments starting in 2026 (2026–2034) except at TSL 7 for small-size DPPP motors where DOE considers shipments in 2028–2034. 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from the 

TSLs considered for DPPP motors. In 

accordance with OMB’s guidelines on 

regulatory analysis,137 DOE calculated 

NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent real discount rate. Table V.17 

shows the consumer NPV results with 

impacts counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2026–2055 or 

2028–2055. 

TABLE V.21—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR DPPP MOTORS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

Discount rate 

Trial standard levels 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

(billion 2022$) 

3 percent .......................................................................... 0.85 1.27 2.29 3.58 3.92 7.97 10.16 10.06 

7 percent .......................................................................... 0.48 0.72 1.16 1.87 2.06 4.49 5.37 5.28 

Note: the analysis considers 30 years for shipments starting in 2026 (2026–2055) except at TSL 7 for small-size DPPP motors where DOE

considers shipments in 2028–2055. 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in Table V.18. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2026–2034 or 

2028–2036. As mentioned previously, 

such results are presented for 

informational purposes only and are not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology or decision 

criteria. 

TABLE V.22—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR DPPP MOTORS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

Discount rate 

Trial standard levels 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

(billion 2022$) 

3 percent .......................................................................... 0.32 0.50 0.79 1.25 1.39 2.91 3.16 2.96 

7 percent .......................................................................... 0.25 0.38 0.56 0.91 1.00 2.25 2.35 2.19 

Note: the analysis considers 9 years for shipments starting in 2026 (2026–2034) except at TSL 7 for small-size DPPP motors where DOE considers shipments in 2028–2034. 

The previous results reflect the use of 

a default trend to estimate the change in 

price for DPPP motors over the analysis 

period (see section IV.F.1 of this 

document). DOE also conducted a 

sensitivity analysis that considered one 

scenario with a lower rate of price 

decline than the reference case and one 

scenario with a higher rate of price 

decline than the reference case. The 

results of these alternative cases are 

presented in appendix 10C of the final 

rule TSD. In the high-price-decline case, 

the NPV of consumer benefits is higher 

than in the default case. In the lowprice-decline case, the NPV of consumer 

benefits is lower than in the default 

case. 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

DOE estimates that amended energy 

conservation standards for DPPP motors 

will reduce energy expenditures for 

consumers of those products, with the 

resulting net savings being redirected to 

other forms of economic activity. These 

expected shifts in spending and 

economic activity could affect the 

demand for labor. As described in 

section IV.N of this document, DOE 

used an input/output model of the U.S. 

economy to estimate indirect 

employment impacts of the TSLs that 

DOE considered. There are uncertainties 

involved in projecting employment 

impacts, especially changes in the later 

years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE 

generated results for near-term 

timeframes (2026–2030 or 2028–2030), 

where these uncertainties are reduced. 

The results suggest that the adopted 

standards are likely to have a negligible 

impact on the net demand for labor in 

the economy. The net change in jobs is 

so small that it would be imperceptible 

in national labor statistics and might be 

offset by other, unanticipated effects on 

employment. Chapter 16 of the final 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2

I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67029 

rule TSD presents detailed results 

regarding anticipated indirect 

employment impacts. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

As discussed in section IV.C.1.b of 

this document, DOE has concluded that 

the standards adopted in this final rule 

will not lessen the utility or 

performance of the DPPP motors under 

consideration in this rulemaking. 

Manufacturers of these products 

currently offer units that meet or exceed 

the adopted standards. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE considered any lessening of 

competition that would be likely to 

result from new or amended standards. 

As discussed in section III.F.1.e, EPCA 

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 in writing 

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. To assist the 

Attorney General in making this 

determination, DOE provided the 

Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) with 

copies of the NOPR and the TSD for 

review. In its assessment letter 

responding to DOE, DOJ ultimately 

stated that they do not have sufficient 

information to conclude that the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for DPPP motor are likely to have a 

significant adverse impact on 

competition. DOE is publishing the 

Attorney General’s assessment at the 

end of this final rule. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

Enhanced energy efficiency, where 

economically justified, improves the 

Nation’s energy security, strengthens the 

economy, and reduces the 

environmental impacts (costs) of energy 

production. Reduced electricity demand 

due to energy conservation standards is 

also likely to reduce the cost of 

maintaining the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the 

final rule TSD presents the estimated 

impacts on electricity generating 

capacity, relative to the no-newstandards case, for the TSLs that DOE 

considered in this rulemaking. 

Energy conservation resulting from 

potential energy conservation standards 

for DPPP motors is expected to yield 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of certain air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table 

V.19 provides DOE’s estimate of 

cumulative emissions reductions 

expected to result from the TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking. The 

emissions were calculated using the 

multipliers discussed in section IV.K of 

this document. DOE reports annual 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

chapter 13 of the final rule TSD. 

TABLE V.23—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DPPP MOTORS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Power Sector Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................. 2.02 3.82 13.04 16.82 18.84 17.94 28.52 29.60 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................ 0.16 0.30 1.02 1.31 1.47 1.40 2.21 2.31 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................ 0.02 0.04 0.14 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.31 0.32 

NOX (thousand tons) ........................................................ 1.02 1.94 6.63 8.54 9.56 9.09 14.41 15.00 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................ 0.68 1.29 4.40 5.68 6.36 6.05 9.63 10.01 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................... 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................. 0.19 0.36 1.22 1.58 1.77 1.69 2.71 2.79 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................ 17.21 32.32 110.54 142.86 160.08 152.29 244.97 252.18 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................ 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

NOX (thousand tons) ........................................................ 2.95 5.54 18.94 24.48 27.43 26.09 41.99 43.22 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................ 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.18 0.19 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total FFC Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................. 2.21 4.18 14.27 18.40 20.61 19.63 31.23 32.39 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................ 17.37 32.62 111.56 144.17 161.55 153.69 247.18 254.49 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................ 0.02 0.04 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.32 0.34 

NOX (thousand tons) ........................................................ 3.97 7.48 25.57 33.02 36.99 35.18 56.40 58.22 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................ 0.70 1.32 4.49 5.79 6.48 6.16 9.81 10.20 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................... 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07 

Note: the analysis considers 30 years for shipments starting in 2026 (2026–2055) except at TSL 7 for small-size DPPP motors where DOE

considers shipments in 2028–2055. 

As part of the analysis for this rule, 

DOE estimated monetary benefits likely 

to result from the reduced emissions of 

CO2 that DOE estimated for each of the 

considered TSLs for DPPP motors. 

Section IV.L.1.a of this document 

discusses the estimated SC–CO2 values 

that DOE used. Table V.19 presents the 

value of CO2 emissions reduction at 

each TSL for each of the SC–CO2 cases. 

The time-series of annual values is 

presented for the selected TSL in 

chapter 14 of the final rule TSD. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67030 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.24—PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DPPP MOTORS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

TSL 

SC–CO2 case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

(million 2022$) 

1 ....................................................................................................... 29 112 171 340 

2 ....................................................................................................... 55 213 324 646 

3 ....................................................................................................... 187 726 1,106 2,207 

4 ....................................................................................................... 240 934 1,423 2,840 

5 ....................................................................................................... 268 1,045 1,593 3,178 

6 ....................................................................................................... 256 997 1,519 3,030 

7 ....................................................................................................... 400 1,570 2,397 4,778 

8 ....................................................................................................... 420 1,638 2,499 4,984 

Note: the analysis considers 30 years for shipments starting in 2026 (2026–2055) except at TSL 7 for small-size DPPP motors where DOE

considers shipments in 2028–2055. 

As discussed in section IV.L.2, DOE 

estimated the climate benefits likely to 

result from the reduced emissions of 

methane and N2O that DOE estimated 

for each of the considered TSLs for 

DPPP motors. Table V.21 presents the 

value of the CH4 emissions reduction at 

each TSL, and Table V.22 presents the 

value of the N2O emissions reduction at 

each TSL. The time-series of annual 

values is presented for the selected TSL 

in chapter 14 of the final rule TSD. 

TABLE V.25—PRESENT VALUE OF METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DPPP MOTORS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

TSL 

SC–CH4 case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

(million 2022$) 

1 ....................................................................................................... 10 27 36 71 

2 ....................................................................................................... 19 50 68 134 

3 ....................................................................................................... 65 172 234 457 

4 ....................................................................................................... 83 222 302 590 

5 ....................................................................................................... 93 249 338 661 

6 ....................................................................................................... 89 237 322 628 

7 ....................................................................................................... 141 379 517 1,007 

8 ....................................................................................................... 146 391 533 1,040 

Note: the analysis considers 30 years for shipments starting in 2026 (2026–2055) except at TSL 7 for small-size DPPP motors where DOE

considers shipments in 2028–2055. 

TABLE V.26—PRESENT VALUE OF NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DPPP MOTORS; 30 YEARS OF

SHIPMENTS

TSL 

SC–N2O case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

(million 2022$) 

1 ....................................................................................................... 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.1 

2 ....................................................................................................... 0.2 0.8 1.2 2.0 

3 ....................................................................................................... 0.7 2.6 3.9 6.9 

4 ....................................................................................................... 0.9 3.4 5.1 8.9 

5 ....................................................................................................... 1.0 3.8 5.7 10.0 

6 ....................................................................................................... 1.0 3.6 5.4 9.5 

7 ....................................................................................................... 1.6 5.6 8.5 14.9 

8 ....................................................................................................... 1.6 5.9 8.9 15.6 

Note: the analysis considers 30 years for shipments starting in 2026 (2026–2055) except at TSL 7 for small-size DPPP motors where DOE

considers shipments in 2028–2055. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67031 

DOE is aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the global and U.S. 

economy continues to evolve rapidly. 

DOE, together with other Federal 

agencies, will continue to review 

methodologies for estimating the 

monetary value of reductions in CO2

and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 

review will consider the comments on 

this subject that are part of the public 

record for this and other rulemakings, as 

well as other methodological 

assumptions and issues. DOE notes, 

however, that the adopted standards 

would be economically justified even 

without inclusion of monetized benefits 

of reduced GHG emissions. 

DOE also estimated the monetary 

value of the economic benefits 

associated with NOX and SO2 emissions 

reductions anticipated to result from the 

considered TSLs for DPPP motors. The 

dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are 

discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. Table V.23 presents the 

present value for NOX emissions 

reduction for each TSL calculated using 

7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, 

and Table V.24 presents similar results 

for SO2 emissions reductions. The 

results in these tables reflect application 

of EPA’s low dollar-per-ton values, 

which DOE used to be conservative. The 

time-series of annual values is presented 

for the selected TSL in chapter 14 of the 

final rule TSD. 

TABLE V.27—PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DPPP MOTORS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

TSL 7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 

(million 2022$) 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 116 221 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 222 420 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 759 1,433 

4 ................................................................................................................................................................... 972 1,847 

5 ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,086 2,068 

6 ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,040 1,967 

7 ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,613 3,139 

8 ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,698 3,250 

Note: the analysis considers 30 years for shipments starting in 2026 (2026–2055) except at TSL 7 for small-size DPPP motors where DOE

considers shipments in 2028–2055. 

TABLE V.28—PRESENT VALUE OF SO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DPPP MOTORS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

TSL 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

(million 2022$) 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 29 54 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 56 102 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 190 348 

4 ................................................................................................................................................................... 243 449 

5 ................................................................................................................................................................... 272 502 

6 ................................................................................................................................................................... 260 477 

7 ................................................................................................................................................................... 399 756 

8 ................................................................................................................................................................... 424 789 

Note: the analysis considers 30 years for shipments starting in 2026 (2026–2055) except at TSL 7 for small-size DPPP motors where DOE

considers shipments in 2028–2055. 

Not all the public health and 

environmental benefits from the 

reduction of greenhouse gases, NOX, 

and SO2 are captured in the values 

above, and additional unquantified 

benefits from the reductions of those 

pollutants as well as from the reduction 

of direct PM and other co-pollutants 

may be significant. DOE has not 

included monetary benefits of the 

reduction of Hg emissions because the 

amount of reduction is very small. 

7. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, may consider 

any other factors that the Secretary 

deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors 

were considered in this analysis. 

8. Summary of Economic Impacts 

Table V.25 presents the NPV values 

that result from adding the estimates of 

the economic benefits resulting from 

reduced GHG and NOX and SO2

emissions to the NPV of consumer 

benefits calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking. The 

consumer benefits are domestic U.S. 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered equipment, 

and are measured for the lifetime of 

products shipped in 2026–2055, except 

at TSL 7 for small-size DPPP motors 

where impacts are counted over the 

lifetime of DPPP motors purchased in 

2028–2055. 

The climate benefits associated with 

reduced GHG emissions resulting from 

the adopted standards are global 

benefits, and are also calculated based 

on the lifetime of DPPP motors shipped 

in 2026–2055, except at TSL 7 for smallsize DPPP motors where impacts are 

counted over the lifetime of DPPP 

motors purchased in 2028–2055. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67032 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

138As discussed in section III.A of this document, 

for all TSLs DOE considered a 2-year lead time 

resulting in a first full year of compliance of 2026, 

except for small-size DPPP motors at TSL 7 where 

DOE uses a 4-year compliance lead time, resulting 

in a compliance year of 2028. In this case, DOE 

considered 28 years of shipments (2028–2055). 

TABLE V.29—CONSUMER NPV COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF CLIMATE BENEFITS AND HEALTH BENEFITS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 TSL 8 

3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$) 

5% Average SC–GHG case ............................................ 1.2 1.9 4.3 6.2 6.9 10.8 14.6 14.7 

3% Average SC–GHG case ............................................ 1.3 2.1 5.0 7.0 7.8 11.6 16.0 16.1 

2.5% Average SC–GHG case ......................................... 1.3 2.2 5.4 7.6 8.4 12.3 17.0 17.1 

3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case .................................. 1.5 2.6 6.7 9.3 10.3 14.1 19.9 20.1 

7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$) 

5% Average SC–GHG case ............................................ 0.7 1.1 2.4 3.4 3.8 6.1 7.9 8.0 

3% Average SC–GHG case ............................................ 0.8 1.3 3.0 4.2 4.7 7.0 9.3 9.4 

2.5% Average SC–GHG case ......................................... 0.8 1.4 3.5 4.8 5.4 7.6 10.3 10.4 

3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case .................................. 1.0 1.8 4.8 6.5 7.3 9.5 13.2 13.4 

C. Conclusion 

When considering new or amended 

energy conservation standards, the 

standards that DOE adopts for any type 

(or class) of covered equipment must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, the Secretary 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens by, to 

the greatest extent practicable, 

considering the seven statutory factors 

discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The 

new or amended standard must also 

result in significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

For this final rule, DOE considered 

the impacts of standards for DPPP 

motors at each TSL, beginning with the 

maximum technologically feasible level, 

to determine whether that level was 

economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not justified, DOE then 

considered the next most efficient level 

and undertook the same evaluation until 

it reached the highest efficiency level 

that is both technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

tables in this section present a summary 

of the results of DOE’s quantitative 

analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 

quantitative results presented in the 

tables, DOE also considers other 

burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification. These include 

the impacts on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers who may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard and impacts on employment. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for DPPP Motor Standards 

Table V.26 and Table V.27 summarize 

the quantitative impacts estimated for 

each TSL for DPPP motors. The national 

impacts are measured over the lifetime 

of DPPP motors purchased in the 30- 

year period that begins in the 

anticipated year of compliance with 

amended standards (2026–2055).138 The 

energy savings, emissions reductions, 

and value of emissions reductions refer 

to full-fuel-cycle results. DOE is 

presenting monetized benefits of GHG 

emissions reductions in accordance 

with the applicable Executive orders 

and DOE would reach the same 

conclusion presented in this notice in 

the absence of the social cost of 

greenhouse gases, including the interim 

estimates presented by the Interagency 

Working Group. The efficiency levels 

contained in each TSL are described in 

section V.A of this document. 

TABLE V.30—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DPPP MOTORS TSLS—NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 TSL 8 

Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings 

Quads ............................................................................................... 0.11 0.20 0.70 0.90 1.01 0.96 1.56 1.60 

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................. 2.2 4.2 14.3 18.4 20.6 19.6 31.2 32.4 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................ 17.4 32.6 111.6 144.2 161.6 153.7 247.2 254.5 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................ 0.02 0.04 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.32 0.34 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................ 0.7 1.3 4.5 5.8 6.5 6.2 9.8 10.2 

NOX (thousand tons) ........................................................................ 4.0 7.5 25.6 33.0 37.0 35.2 56.4 58.2 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................................... 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07 

Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ................................................. 1.0 1.9 6.4 8.2 9.2 8.8 14.0 14.5 

Climate Benefits * ............................................................................. 0.1 0.3 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.2 2.0 2.0 

Health Benefits ** ............................................................................. 0.3 0.5 1.8 2.3 2.6 2.4 3.9 4.0 

Total Benefits † ................................................................................ 1.4 2.7 9.1 11.7 13.1 12.4 19.9 20.6 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2

I I I I I I 

I I I I I I 

I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67033 

TABLE V.30—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DPPP MOTORS TSLS—NATIONAL IMPACTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 TSL 8 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ............................................. 0.1 0.6 4.1 4.7 5.3 0.8 3.9 4.4 

Consumer Net Benefits .................................................................... 0.8 1.3 2.3 3.6 3.9 8.0 10.2 10.1 

Total Net Benefits ............................................................................ 1.3 2.1 5.0 7.0 7.8 11.6 16.0 16.1 

Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ................................................. 0.6 1.1 3.7 4.8 5.3 5.1 7.9 8.3 

Climate Benefits * ............................................................................. 0.1 0.3 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.2 2.0 2.0 

Health Benefits ** ............................................................................. 0.1 0.3 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.3 2.0 2.1 

Total Benefits † ................................................................................ 0.8 1.6 5.6 7.1 8.0 7.6 11.9 12.5 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ............................................. 0.1 0.4 2.5 2.9 3.3 0.6 2.6 3.0 

Consumer Net Benefits .................................................................... 0.5 0.7 1.2 1.9 2.1 4.5 5.4 5.3 

Total Net Benefits ............................................................................ 0.8 1.3 3.0 4.2 4.7 7.0 9.3 9.4 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026–2055, except at TSL 7 for small-size DPPP 

motors where shipments in 2028–2055 are considered. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products 

shipped in 2026–2055 (or 2028–2055). 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC–CO2, SC–CH4 and SC–N2O. Together, these represent the global 

SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are 

shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this 

analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim 

Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse 

Gases (IWG). 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent 

and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC–GHG 

point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. 

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

TABLE V.31—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DPPP MOTORS TSLS—MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 TSL 8 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No-new-standards case INPV = 661) .................................. 660–663 655–672 622–684 617–695 612–708 559–675 447–740 436–755 

Industry NPV (% change) ................................. (0.1)¥0.4 (0.9)¥1.7 (5.9)¥3.5 (6.6)¥5.2 (7.3)¥7.1 (15.3)¥2.1 (32.4)¥12.0 (34.0)¥14.2 

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$) 

Extra-Small-Size ................................................ $3 ($12) ($12) ($12) ($12) $3 $3 ($12) 

Small-Size ......................................................... 10 14 ($54) ($12) ($16) 10 4 4 

Standard-Size .................................................... 26 44 109 141 151 236 236 236 

Shipment-Weighted Average * .......................... 19 31 44 79 83 144 141 141 

Consumer Simple PBP (years) 

Extra-Small-Size ................................................ 0.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 0.9 0.9 2.8 

Small-Size ......................................................... 0.5 1.0 4.5 3.4 3.4 0.5 3.4 3.4 

Standard-Size .................................................... 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 

Shipment-Weighted Average * .......................... 0.6 0.9 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.0 2.1 2.1 

Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost 

Extra-Small-Size ................................................ 0.5% 59% 59% 59% 59% 0.5% 0.5% 59% 

Small-Size ......................................................... 0.0 24 52 46 50 0 44 44 

Standard-Size .................................................... 0.1 2 18 17 19 2 2 2 

Shipment-Weighted Average * .......................... 0.1 12 32 29 32 1 18 19 

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. 

* Weighted by shares of each equipment class in total projected shipments in 2026. 

DOE first considered TSL 8, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency levels 

for all equipment classes and freeze 

protection control requirements for 

DPPP motors greater than and equal to 

0.5 THP. TSL 8 would save an estimated 

1.60 quads of energy, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 8, the 

NPV of consumer benefit would be $5.3 

billion using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $10.1 billion using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 8 are 32.4 Mt of CO2, 10.2 

thousand tons of SO2, 58.2 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.07 tons of Hg, 254.5 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.34 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the climate benefits 

from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 8 is 

$2.0 billion. The estimated monetary 

value of the health benefits from 

reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 

8 is $2.1 billion using a 7-percent 

discount rate and $4.0 billion using a 3- 

percent discount rate. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2

I I I I I I I I 
67034 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

139Best approximation based on the efficiency 

level analyzed. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 8 is $9.4 billion. Using 

a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 

and costs, the estimated total NPV at 

TSL 8 is $16.1 billion. The estimated 

total NPV is provided for additional 

information, however DOE primarily 

relies upon the NPV of consumer 

benefits when determining whether a 

standard level is economically justified. 

At TSL 8, the average LCC impact is 

a loss of $12 for extra-small-size DPPP 

motors, a saving of $4 for small-size 

DPPP motors, and $236 for standardsize DPPP motors. The simple payback 

period is 2.8 years for extra-small-size 

DPPP motors, 3.4 years for small-size 

DPPP motors, and 1.3 years for 

standard-size DPPP motors. The fraction 

of consumers experiencing a net LCC 

cost is 59 percent for extra-small-size 

DPPP motors, 44 percent for small-size 

DPPP motors, and 2 percent for 

standard-size DPPP motors. 

At TSL 8, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $224.4 

million to an increase of $94.1 million, 

which corresponds to a decrease of 34.0 

percent and an increase of 14.2 percent, 

respectively. DOE estimates that 

industry must invest $56.4 million to 

comply with standards set at TSL 8. 

DOE estimates that approximately 33 

percent of extra-small size DPPP motor 

shipments, 22 percent of small size 

DPPP motors shipments, and 62 percent 

of standard size DPPP motor shipments 

would meet the efficiency levels 

analyzed at TSL 8, in the no-newstandards case. At TSL 8, most DPPP 

motor manufacturers would be required 

to redesign all of their small size DPPP 

motor models to be variable-speed 

motors covered by this rulemaking. It is 

unclear if most manufacturers would 

have the engineering capacity to 

complete the necessary redesigns within 

a 2-year compliance period (between the 

publication of this final rule and the 

analyzed compliance date of 2028 for 

this TSL). If manufacturers require more 

than 2 years to redesign all of their 

covered DPPP motor models, they will 

likely prioritize redesigns based on sales 

volume. There is a risk that some small 

size DPPP motor models will become 

either temporarily or permanently 

unavailable after the analyzed 

compliance date for this TSL, given a 2- 

year compliance period. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

8 for DPPP motors, the benefits of 

energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, emission reductions, 

and the estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions are outweighed by 

the economic burden on many 

consumers and the impacts on 

manufacturers, including the lack of 

manufacturers currently offering small 

size DPPP motor models meeting the 

efficiency levels required at this TSL 

and the potential for most DPPP motor 

manufacturers to redesign their entire 

small size DPPP motors models in the 

analyzed 2 year compliance period for 

this TSL. A majority of extra-small-size 

DPPP motor consumers (59 percent) 

would experience a net cost and the 

average LCC savings would be negative. 

The potential reduction in INPV could 

be as high as 34.0 percent. 

Consequently, the Secretary has 

concluded that TSL 8 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 7, which 

represents the California CEC 

standards 139 and includes a variablespeed requirement for DPPP motors at 

or above 0.5 THP, an EL 1 efficiency 

requirement below 0.5 THP, and freezeprotection control requirements for 

DPPP motors greater than and equal to 

0.5 THP. In addition, as discussed in 

section III.A of this document, this TSL 

uses a 4-year compliance lead time for 

small-size DPPP motors, resulting in a 

first full year of compliance year of 2028 

(for all other equipment classes, a 

compliance lead time of 2 years is 

applied). TSL 7 would save an 

estimated 1.56 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 7, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $5.4 billion using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $10.2 

billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 7 are 31.2 Mt of CO2, 9.8 

thousand tons of SO2, 56.4 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.07 tons of Hg, 247.2 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.32 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the climate benefits 

from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 7 is 

$2.0 billion. The estimated monetary 

value of the health benefits from 

reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 

7 is $2.0 billion using a 7-percent 

discount rate and $3.9 billion using a 3- 

percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 7 is $9.3 billion. Using 

a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 

and costs, the estimated total NPV at 

TSL 7 is $16.0 billion. The estimated 

total NPV is provided for additional 

information, however DOE primarily 

relies upon the NPV of consumer 

benefits when determining whether a 

standard level is economically justified. 

At TSL 7, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $3 for extra-small-size DPPP 

motors, $4 for small-size DPPP motors, 

and $236 for standard-size DPPP 

motors. The simple payback period is 

0.9 years for extra-small-size DPPP 

motors, 3.4 years for small-size DPPP 

motors, and 1.3 years for standard-size 

DPPP motors. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing a net LCC cost is 0.5 

percent for extra-small-size DPPP 

motors, 4 percent for small-size DPPP 

motors, and 2 percent for standard-size 

DPPP motors. 

At TSL 7, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $214.2 

million to an increase of $79.0 million, 

which correspond to a decrease of 32.4 

percent and an increase of 12.0 percent, 

respectively. DOE estimates that 

industry must invest $56.2 million to 

comply with standards set at TSL 7. 

DOE estimates that approximately 93 

percent of extra-small size DPPP motor 

shipments, 24 percent of small size 

DPPP motors shipments, and 62 percent 

of standard size DPPP motor shipments 

would meet the efficiency levels 

analyzed at TSL 7, in the no-newstandards case. At TSL 7, most DPPP 

motor manufacturers would be required 

to redesign almost all of their small size 

DPPP motor models to be variable-speed 

motors covered by this rulemaking. 

However, as previously stated DPPP 

motor manufacturers would have 4 

years to complete this redesign process 

for the small size DPPP motor models. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and burdens, the 

Secretary has concluded that a standard 

set at TSL 7 for DPPP motors is 

economically justified. At this TSL, the 

average LCC savings are positive for 

each equipment classes for which a new 

standard is considered. An estimated 18 

percent of all DPPP motor consumers 

experience a net cost. The FFC national 

energy savings are significant and the 

NPV of consumer benefits is positive at 

TSL 7 using both a 3-percent and 7- 

percent discount rate. Notably, the 

benefits to consumers vastly outweigh 

the cost to manufacturers. At TSL 7, the 

NPV of consumer benefits, even 

measured at the more conservative 

discount rate of 7 percent, is over 25 

times higher than the maximum 

estimated manufacturers’ loss in INPV. 

The standard levels at TSL 7 are 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67035 

economically justified even without 

weighing the estimated monetary value 

of emissions reductions. When those 

emissions reductions are included— 

representing $2.0 billion in climate 

benefits (associated with the average 

SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), 

and $3.9 billion (using a 3-percent 

discount rate) or $2.0 billion (using a 7- 

percent discount rate) in health 

benefits—the rationale becomes stronger 

still. 

As stated, DOE conducts the walkdown analysis to determine the TSL that 

represents the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified as required under 

EPCA. The walk-down is not a 

comparative analysis, as a comparative 

analysis would result in the 

maximization of net benefits instead of 

energy savings that are technologically 

feasible and economically justified, 

which would be contrary to the statute. 

86 FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has 

not conducted a comparative analysis to 

select the new energy conservation 

standards, DOE notes while the average 

LCC savings for extra-small-size DPPP 

motors are negative at TSL 8, they are 

positive at TSL 7 and the average LCC 

savings for standard-size and small size 

DPPP motors are the same at TSL 7 and 

TSL 8. In addition, as compared to TSL 

8, TSL 7 has smaller percentages of 

electric motor consumers experiencing a 

net cost, a lower maximum decrease in 

INPV, lower manufacturer conversion 

costs and allow manufacturers 4 years to 

redesign their small size DPPP motor 

models to meet the efficiency levels 

required at TSL 7, compared to 2 years 

at TSL 8. Across all consumers, TSL 7 

represents the largest average LCC 

savings for each equipment class of any 

TSL. 

Although DOE considered new 

standard levels for DPPP motors by 

grouping the efficiency levels for each 

equipment class into TSLs, DOE 

evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels 

in its analysis. For standard-size and 

small-size DPPP motors, TSL 7 (i.e., the 

adopted TSL) includes the max-tech 

efficiency levels, which is the maximum 

level determined to be technologically 

feasible. For extra-small-size DPPP 

motors, TSL 7 represents the efficiency 

level that is one level below the maxtech efficiency level. As discussed 

previously, the max-tech efficiency 

levels for extra-small-size DPPP motor 

would result in negative LCC savings 

and a majority of consumers 

experiencing a net LCC cost. The 

benefits of max-tech efficiency levels for 

extra-small-size DPPP motors do not 

outweigh the negative impacts to 

consumers and manufacturers. 

Therefore, DOE has concluded that the 

max-tech efficiency levels are not 

justified. The ELs at the adopted TSL 

result in average positive LCC savings 

for each equipment class, reduce the 

number of consumers experiencing a net 

cost, and reduce the decrease in INPV 

and conversion costs to the point where 

DOE has concluded they are 

economically justified, as discussed for 

TSL 7 in the preceding paragraphs. 

Therefore, based on the previous 

considerations, DOE adopts the energy 

conservation standards for DPPP motors 

at TSL 7. The new energy conservation 

standards for DPPP motors, which are 

expressed in full-load efficiency and 

design requirements, are shown in Table 

V.28. 

TABLE V.28—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DPPP MOTORS (TSL 7) 

Motor total horsepower 

(THP) 

Performance 

standard: fullload efficiency 

(%) 

Design requirement: speed 

capability 

Design requirement: freeze 

protection Compliance date 

THP < 0.5 ............................... 69 None ..................................... None ..................................... September 29, 2025. 

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15 ................... ............................ Variable speed control * ........ Only for DPPP motors with 

freeze protection controls **.

September 28, 2027. 

1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5 ...................... ............................ Variable speed control * ........ Only for DPPP motors with 

freeze protection controls **.

September 29, 2025. 

* A variable speed motor is a DPPP motor that meets the definition of ‘‘variable-speed control dedicated-purpose pool pump motor’’ as defined 

by UL 1004–10:2022. 

** DPPP motors with freeze protection controls are to be shipped with the freeze protection feature disabled, or with the following user-adjustable default settings: (a) the dry-bulb air temperature setting shall be no greater than 40 °F; (b) the run time setting shall be no greater than 1 

hour (before the temperature is rechecked); and (c) the motor speed in freeze protection mode shall not be more than half of the maximum operating speed. 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Adopted Standards 

The benefits and costs of the adopted 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

net benefit is (1) the annualized national 

economic value (expressed in 2022$) of 

the benefits from operating products 

that meet the adopted standards 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy), minus 

increases in product purchase costs and 

(2) the annualized monetary value of the 

climate and health benefits. 

Table V.29 shows the annualized 

values for DPPP motors under TSL 7, 

expressed in 2022$. The results under 

the primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reductions, and the 3-percent 

discount rate case for GHG social costs, 

the estimated cost of the adopted 

standards for DPPP motors is $221 

million per year in increased equipment 

installed costs, while the estimated 

annual benefits are $684 million from 

reduced equipment operating costs, 

$103 million in GHG reductions, and 

$173 million from reduced NOX and 

SO2 emissions. In this case, the net 

benefit amounts to $739 million per 

year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reductions, and the 3-percent 

discount rate case for GHG social costs, 

the estimated cost of the adopted 

standards for DPPP motors is $204 

million per year in increased equipment 

installed costs, while the estimated 

annual benefits are $738 million from 

reduced equipment operating costs, 

$103 million in GHG reductions, and 

$205 million from reduced NOX and 

SO2 emissions. In this case, the net 

benefit amounts to $841 million per 

year. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67036 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.29—ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ADOPTED STANDARDS (TSL 7) FOR DPPP MOTORS

Million 2022$/year 

Primary estimate Low-net-benefits 

estimate 

High-net-benefits 

estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................... 738 721 760 

Climate Benefits * ..................................................................................... 103 103 103 

Health Benefits ** ..................................................................................... 205 205 205 

Total Monetized Benefits † ...................................................................... 1,046 1029 1,068 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ................................................ 204 235 173 

Monetized Net Benefits ........................................................................... 841 793 895 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ††) ................................................ (17)¥6 (17)¥6 (17)¥6 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................... 684 671 703 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ...................................................... 103 103 103 

Health Benefits ** ..................................................................................... 173 173 173 

Total Monetized Benefits † ...................................................................... 960 947 979 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ................................................ 221 250 190 

Monetized Net Benefits ........................................................................... 739 696 790 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ††) ................................................ (17)¥6 (17)¥6 (17)¥6 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026–2055, except for small-size DPPP motors 

where shipments in 2028–2055 are considered. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped 

in 2026–2055 (or 2028–2055). The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the 

AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs

reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High 

Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that 

the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational 

purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department 

does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using 

all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in 

the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published 

in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the 

Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. 

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

†† Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See 

sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE’s NIA includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the 

increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE 

also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, 

DOE models manufacturers’ pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA 

produces a range of impacts, which is the rule’s expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 7.2% that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis (see chapter 12 

of the Final Rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For DPPP motors, those values are ¥$17 million and $6 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this 

document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is 

the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating 

Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in 

manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to society, including 

potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV 

into the annualized net benefit calculation for this final rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $824 million to $847 million at 3-percent discount rate and range from $722 million to $745 million at 7-percent discount rate. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14904 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 

21, 2011), and amended by E.O. 14094, 

‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review,’’ 88 

FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires 

agencies, to the extent permitted by law, 

to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only 

upon a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to 

impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative 

regulations; (3) select, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67037 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this final 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this final 

regulatory action constitutes a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within 

the scope of section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 

12866, as amended by E.O. 14094. 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 

6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has 

provided to OIRA an assessment, 

including the underlying analysis, of 

benefits and costs anticipated from the 

final regulatory action, together with, to 

the extent feasible, a quantification of 

those costs; and an assessment, 

including the underlying analysis, of 

costs and benefits of potentially 

effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives to the planned regulation, 

and an explanation why the planned 

regulatory action is preferable to the 

identified potential alternatives. These 

assessments are summarized in this 

preamble and further detail can be 

found in the technical support 

document for this final rule. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(‘‘FRFA’’) for any rule that by law must 

be proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As required by 

E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of 

Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 

67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE 

published procedures and policies on 

February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 

potential impacts of its rules on small 

entities are properly considered during 

the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. 

DOE has made its procedures and 

policies available on the Office of the 

General Counsel’s website 

(www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel). DOE has prepared the 

following FRFA for the products that are 

the subject of this final rule. 

For manufacturers of DPPP motors, 

the SBA has set a size threshold, which 

defines those entities classified as 

‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of 

the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small 

business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of the rule. 

(See 13 CFR part 121.) The size 

standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System 

(‘‘NAICS’’) code and industry 

description and are available at 

www.sba.gov/document/support-tablesize-standards. Manufacturing of DPPP 

motors is classified under NAICS 

335312, ‘‘Motor and Generating 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer 

for an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

1. Need for, Objectives of, and Legal 

Basis for, Rule 

The need for, and objective of this 

final rule are stated elsewhere in the 

preamble and not repeated here. 

2. Significant Comments in Response to 

the IRFA 

DOE received one comment with 

respect to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis. PHTA and NEMA 

commented that are not aware of any 

domestic DPPP motor manufacturer that 

qualifies as a small business. (PHTA and 

NEMA, No. 92 at p.13) However, based 

on information gathered from DPPP 

motor manufacturer websites, DOE 

identified one DPPP motor 

manufacturer that sells DPPP motors 

covered by this rulemaking and has 

fewer than 1,250 employees. 

Additionally, PHTA and NEMA 

commented that they are aware of one 

domestic DPPP manufacturer that is a 

small business and encouraged DOE to 

verify any impacts of the DPPP motors 

energy conservation standards on that 

DPPP small business. (PHTA and 

NEMA, No. 92 at p.13) DOE conducted 

an MIA on the manufacturers of the 

equipment that are being regulated by 

this rulemaking, which is DPPP motors. 

DOE did not conduct a MIA on 

manufacturers of products or equipment 

that use DPPP motors in the products or 

equipment they manufacture. 

3. Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy 

The SBA’s Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy did not submit comments on 

this rulemaking. 

4. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

DOE reviewed the standard levels 

considered in this final rule under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the procedures and policies 

published on February 19, 2003. During 

its market survey, DOE used publicly 

available information to identify 

potential small manufacturers. DOE’s 

research involved industry trade 

association membership directories 

(e.g., AHRI), information from previous 

rulemakings, individual company 

websites, and market research tools 

(e.g., D&B Hoover’s reports) to create a 

list of companies that manufacture 

DPPP motors. 

As previously stated, manufacturing 

of DPPP motors is classified under 

NAICS 335312, ‘‘Motor and Generator 

Manufacturing,’’ for which the SBA sets 

a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer 

for an entity to be considered as a small 

business. DOE screened out companies 

that do not offer products impacted by 

this rulemaking, do not meet the 

definition of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are 

foreign owned and operated. 

DOE identified five companies that 

manufacture DPPP motors for the 

domestic market, of those DOE 

determined that one company met the 

SBA definition of a small business. DOE 

contacted this small business regarding 

a discussion of potential DPPP motor 

standards, but the small business was 

not interested in discussing potential 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards on DPPP motors. 

5. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements Including 

Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different 

Groups of Small Entities 

DOE reviewed the website and catalog 

offerings of the identified small business 

and determined that the manufacturer 

offers extra-small size DPPP motors and 

standard size DPPP motors that would 

meet requirements under the adopted 

standards. However, the small business 

does not manufacturer any small size 

DPPP motors that would meet the 

requirements under the adopted 

standard for small size DPPP motors. 

Therefore, if the manufacturer chooses 

to continue to sell small size DPPP 

motors, this small business is expected 

to need to introduce at least one 

variable-speed, small size DPPP motor 

model in order to comply with the 

energy conservation standards adopted 

in this final rule. 

There are two types of costs the small 

business could incur due to the adopted 

standards for DPPP motors: product 

conversion costs and capital conversion 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67038 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

costs. Product conversion costs are 

investments in R&D, testing, marketing, 

and other non-capitalized costs 

necessary to make equipment designs 

comply with new energy conservation 

standards. Capital conversion costs are 

investments in property, plant, and 

equipment necessary to adapt or change 

existing production facilities such that 

new compliant equipment designs can 

be fabricated and assembled. 

DOE anticipates that the small 

business will incur approximately $1.1 

million in product conversion costs— 

accounting for the compensation of four 

full-time engineers for 24 months of 

product design and testing work—and 

approximately $2.5 million in capital 

conversion costs to build a suitable 

production line to manufacture one 

small size DPPP motor model that 

would comply with the energy 

conservation standards for the small 

size DPPP motors adopted in this final 

rule. Therefore, this small business 

would incur a total of approximately 

$3.6 million in conversion costs. DOE 

was able to identify an annual revenue 

estimate of approximately $28.2 million 

for the small business. The $3.6 million 

in conversion cost represents 

approximately 12.8 percent of the 

estimated annual revenue of the small 

business. 

DOE assumes that this small DPPP 

motor manufacturer would spread these 

costs over the four-year compliance 

timeframe, as standards require 

compliance for the small size DPPP 

motors four years after the publication 

of this final rule. Therefore, DOE 

assumes that this small business would 

incur on average about $900,000 or 

approximately 3.2 percent of its annual 

revenue in each of the four years leading 

up to the compliance date for small size 

DPPP motors. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The discussion in the previous 

section analyzes impacts on small 

businesses that would result from the 

adopted standards, represented by TSL 

7. In reviewing alternatives to the 

adopted standards, DOE examined 

energy conservation standards set at 

lower efficiency levels. While TSL 1 

through TSL 6 would reduce the 

impacts on small business 

manufacturers, it would come at the 

expense of a reduction in energy savings 

and consumer NPV. TSL 1 achieves 93 

percent lower energy savings and 91 

percent lower consumer net benefits 

compared to the energy savings and 

consumer net benefits at TSL 7. TSL 2 

achieves 87 percent lower energy 

savings and 87 percent lower consumer 

net benefits compared to the energy 

savings and consumer net benefits at 

TSL 7. TSL 3 achieves 55 percent lower 

energy savings and 78 percent lower 

consumer net benefits compared to the 

energy savings and consumer net 

benefits at TSL 7. TSL 4 achieves 42 

percent lower energy savings and 65 

percent lower consumer net benefits 

compared to the energy savings and 

consumer net benefits at TSL 7. TSL 5 

achieves 35 percent lower energy 

savings and 62 percent lower consumer 

net benefits compared to the energy 

savings and consumer net benefits at 

TSL 7. TSL 6 achieves 39 percent lower 

energy savings and 16 percent lower 

consumer net benefits compared to the 

energy savings and consumer net 

benefits at TSL 7. 

DOE believes that establishing 

standards at TSL 7 balances the benefits 

of the energy savings at TSL 7 with the 

potential burdens placed on DPPP 

motors manufacturers, including the 

one small business manufacturer. 

Accordingly, DOE is not adopting one of 

the other TSLs considered in the 

analysis, or the other policy alternatives 

examined as part of the regulatory 

impact analysis and included in chapter 

17 of the final rule TSD. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of DPPP motors must 

certify to DOE that their products 

comply with any applicable energy 

conservation standards. In certifying 

compliance, manufacturers must test 

their products according to the DOE test 

procedures for DPPP motors, including 

any amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including DPPP 

motors. (See generally 10 CFR part 429). 

The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). This 

requirement has been approved by OMB 

under OMB control number 1910–1400. 

Public reporting burden for the 

certification is estimated to average 35 

hours per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Certification data will be required for 

DPPP motors; however, DOE is not 

adopting certification or reporting 

requirements for DPPP motors in this 

final rule. Instead, DOE will consider 

proposals to establish certification 

requirements and reporting for DPPP 

motors under a separate rulemaking 

regarding appliance and equipment 

certification. DOE will address changes 

to OMB Control Number 1910–1400 at 

that time, as necessary. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(‘‘NEPA’’), DOE has analyzed this action 

rule in accordance with NEPA and 

DOE’s NEPA implementing regulations 

(10 CFR part 1021). DOE has determined 

that this rule qualifies for categorical 

exclusion under 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D, appendix 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 has determined that 

promulgation of this 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. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. For the reasons described below, 

DOE has examined this final rule and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67039 

has determined that this rule meets the 

relevant standards of E.O. 13132. 

E.O. 13132 includes special 

requirements for preemption, including 

that Federal agencies must only 

construe a Federal statute to preempt 

State law where the statute includes 

express preemption or some other clear 

evidence that Congress intended 

preemption of State law, or where the 

exercise of State authority conflicts with 

the exercise of Federal authority under 

the Federal statute. EPCA governs and 

prescribes express Federal preemption 

of State regulations as to energy 

conservation for the equipment that are 

the subject of this final rule. As such, 

any State regulation regarding the 

energy efficiency or use of DPPP motors 

will be preempted on the compliance 

dates listed in the DATES section. States 

can petition DOE for exemption from 

such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation (1) clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any, 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction, (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive 

agencies to review regulations in light of 

applicable standards in section 3(a) and 

section 3(b) to determine whether they 

are met or it is unreasonable to meet one 

or more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this final 

rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 

12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

regulatory action likely to result in a 

rule that may cause the expenditure by 

State, local, and Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, 

and other effects on the national 

economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The 

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, 

local, and Tribal governments on a 

‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect them. On 

March 18, 1997, DOE published a 

statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/ 

documents/umra_97.pdf. 

DOE has concluded that this final rule 

may require expenditures of $100 

million or more in any one year by the 

private sector. Such expenditures may 

include (1) investment in research and 

development and in capital 

expenditures by DPPP motors 

manufacturers in the years between the 

final rule and the compliance date for 

the new standards and (2) incremental 

additional expenditures by consumers 

to purchase higher-efficiency DPPP 

motors, starting at the compliance date 

for the applicable standard. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the final rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The 

content requirements of section 202(b) 

of UMRA relevant to a private sector 

mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document and the TSD for this final 

rule respond to those requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

(2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule unless DOE publishes an 

explanation for doing otherwise, or the 

selection of such an alternative is 

inconsistent with law. 

As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(A) 

through 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), this final rule 

establishes new energy conservation 

standards for DPPP motors that are 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

DOE has determined to be both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. A full discussion 

of the alternatives considered by DOE is 

presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for 

this final rule. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this rule 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
67040 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

140The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the 

following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/

downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed 2/6/ 

2023). 

141The report is available at 

www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards. 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/ 

12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated

%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec

%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed this 

final rule under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy 

Effects for any significant energy action. 

A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined 

as any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

order; and (2) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is 

designated by the Administrator at 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use should the proposal 

be implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that this 

regulatory action, which sets forth new 

energy conservation standards for DPPP 

motors, is not a significant energy action 

because the standards are not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, 

nor has it been designated as such by 

the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on this final rule. 

L. Information Quality 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

Bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and prepared a 

report describing that peer review.140

Generation of this report involved a 

rigorous, formal, and documented 

evaluation using objective criteria and 

qualified and independent reviewers to 

make a judgment as to the technical/ 

scientific/business merit, the actual or 

anticipated results, and the productivity 

and management effectiveness of 

programs and/or projects. Because 

available data, models, and 

technological understanding have 

changed since 2007, DOE has engaged 

with the National Academy of Sciences 

to review DOE’s analytical 

methodologies to ascertain whether 

modifications are needed to improve the 

Department’s analyses. DOE is in the 

process of evaluating the resulting 

report.141

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

N. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

In this final rule, DOE incorporates by 

reference UL 1004–10:2022. UL 1004– 

10:2022 establishes scope and definition 

requirements for certain DPPP motors 

and describes methods to verify the 

product-specific enforcement 

requirements. UL 1004–10:2022 is 

readily available at UL’s website at 

https://www.shopulstandards.com/

ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL1004- 

10_1_S_20200228. 

VII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Incorporation by reference, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on July 27, 2023, by 

Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on September 

15, 2023. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 

431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Amend § 429.4 by adding paragraph 

(h) to read as follows: 

§ 429.4 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(h) UL. Underwriters Laboratories, 

333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 

60062; (841) 272–8800; www.ul.com. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67041 

(1) UL 1004–10 (‘‘UL 1004–10:2022’’), 

Standard for Safety for Pool Pump 

Motors, Revised First Edition, Dated 

March 24, 2022; IBR approved for 

§ 429.134. 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 3. Amend § 429.134 by adding 

paragraph (ee) to read as follows: 

§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

(ee) Dedicated-purpose pool pump 

motors. (1) To verify the dedicatedpurpose pool pump motor variable 

speed capability, a test in accordance 

with section 5 of UL 1004–10:2022 

(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4) 

will be conducted. 

(2) To verify that dedicated-purpose 

pool pump motor comply with the 

applicable freeze protection design 

requirements, a test in accordance with 

section 6 of UL 1004–10:2022 will be 

conducted. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 5. Amend § 431.481 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 431.481 Purpose and scope. 

* * * * * 

(b) Scope. The requirements of this 

subpart apply to dedicated-purpose pool 

pump motors, as specified in paragraphs 

1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of UL 1004–10:2022 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.482). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 431.482 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.482 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this subpart with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 

any edition other than that specified in 

this section, the Department of Energy 

(DOE) must publish a document in the 

Federal Register and the material must 

be available to the public. All approved 

incorporation by reference (IBR) 

material is available for inspection at 

DOE, and at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). 

Contact DOE at: the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, 1000 

Independence Ave SW, EE–5B, 

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–9127, 

Buildings@ee.doe.gov, https://

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

building-technologies-office. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, visit 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html or email 

fr.inspection@nara.gov. The material 

may be obtained from the sources in the 

following paragraphs of this section: 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) UL 1004–10 (‘‘UL 1004–10:2022’’), 

Standard for Safety for Pool Pump 

Motors, Revised First Edition, Dated 

March 24, 2022; IBR approved for 

§§ 431.481 and 431.483. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Revise § 431.483 to read as follows: 

§ 431.483 Definitions. 

The definitions applicable to this 

subpart are defined in section 2 

‘‘Glossary’’ of UL 1004–10:2022 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.482). In addition, the following 

definition applies: 

Basic model means all units of 

dedicated purpose pool pump motors 

manufactured by a single manufacturer, 

that are within the same equipment 

class, have electrical characteristics that 

are essentially identical, and do not 

have any differing physical or 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption or efficiency. 

■ 8. Add § 431.485 to subpart Z to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.485 Energy conservation standards. 

(a) For the purpose of paragraphs (b), 

(c) and (d) of this section, ‘‘THP’’ means 

dedicated-purpose-pool pump motor 

total horsepower. 

(b) Each dedicated-purpose pool 

pump motor manufactured starting on 

September 29, 2025, with a THP less 

than 0.5 THP, must have a full-load 

efficiency that is not less than 69 

percent. 

(c) Each dedicated-purpose pool 

pump motor manufactured starting on 

the dates provided in table 1 to this 

paragraph (c) with a THP greater than or 

equal to 0.5 THP must be a variable 

speed control dedicated-purpose pool 

pump motor, and must follow the 

requirements in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (c) 

Equipment class Compliance date 

Small-size (0.5 ≤ THP 

<1.15).

September 28, 2027. 

Standard-size (1.15 ≤ 

THP ≤ 5).

September 29, 2025. 

(d) All dedicated-purpose pool pump 

motors with a THP greater than or equal 

to 0.5 THP and distributed in commerce 

with freeze protection controls, must be 

shipped with freeze protection disabled 

or with the following user-adjustable 

settings: 

(1) The default dry-bulb air 

temperature setting is no greater than 

40 °F; 

(2) The default run time setting shall 

be no greater than 1 hour (before the 

temperature is rechecked); and 

(3) The default motor speed (in 

revolutions per minute, or rpm) in 

freeze protection mode shall not be 

more than half of the maximum 

operating speed. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20343 Filed 9–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2