[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72347-72355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23204]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 

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


Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 72347]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

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


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Electric Motors

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

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective and compliance 
dates.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') published a direct 
final rule to establish new and amended energy conservation standards 
for electric motors in the Federal Register on June 1, 2023. DOE has 
determined that the comments received in response to the direct final 
rule do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final 
rule. Therefore, DOE provides this document confirming the effective 
and compliance date of those standards.

DATES: The effective date of September 29, 2023, for the direct final 
rule published June 1, 2023 (88 FR 36066), is confirmed. Compliance 
with the new standards established in the direct final rule is required 
on and after June 1, 2027.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal 
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for 
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed 
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in 
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt 
from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other 
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5f4c5c5d9dcd4dbd6d0e6c1d4dbd1d4c7d1c6e4c0d0c6c1dcdadbc6f5d0d09bd1dad09bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="44053434282d252a27211730252a202536203715312137302d2b2a370421216a202b216a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fcbd8c8c90959d929f99af889d92989d8e988fad89998f889593928fbc9999d2989399d29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4f5c4c4d8ddd5dad7d1e7c0d5dad0d5c6d0c7e5c1d1c7c0dddbdac7f4d1d19ad0dbd19ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-3593. Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d360f140e091413531612180f13141a3d150c53191218531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eaa19883999e8384c481858f9884838daa829bc48e858fc48d859c">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule 
establishing an energy conservation standard for a covered equipment on 
receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are 
fairly representative of relevant points of view (including 
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and 
efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary, that contains 
recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation 
standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that proposes an energy or 
water conservation standard that is identical to the standard 
established in the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public 
comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct 
final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct final rule if (1) DOE 
receives one or more adverse public comments relating to the direct 
final rule or any alternative joint recommendation; and (2) based on 
the rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule, DOE determines 
that such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation 
may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) If DOE makes such a determination, DOE must 
proceed with the NOPR published simultaneously with the direct final 
rule and publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct 
final rule was withdrawn. (Id.)
    After review of comments received, DOE has determined that it did 
receive adverse comments on the direct final rule. However, based on 
the rulemaking record, the comments did not provide a reasonable basis 
for withdrawing the direct final rule under the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(C). As such, DOE did not withdraw this direct final rule and 
allowed it to become effective. Although not required under EPCA, DOE 
customarily publishes a summary of the comments received during the 
110-day comment period and its responses to those comments. This 
document contains such a summary, as well as DOE's responses, for 
electric motors.

II. Electric Motors Direct Final Rule

A. Background

    In a final rule published on May 29, 2014, DOE prescribed the 
current energy conservation standards for electric motors manufactured 
on and after June 1, 2016 (``May 2014 Final Rule''). 79 FR 30934. These 
standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (``CFR''), Sec.  431.25.
    On May 21, 2020, DOE published an Early Assessment Review Request 
for Information, in which it stated that it was initiating an early 
assessment review to determine whether any new or amended standards 
would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended 
energy conservation standard for electric motors and sought information 
related to that effort. 85 FR 30878.

[[Page 72348]]

    On March 2, 2022, DOE published the preliminary analysis for 
electric motors. 87 FR 11650 (``March 2022 Preliminary Analysis''). In 
conjunction with the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE published a 
technical support document (``TSD'') which presented the results of the 
in-depth technical analyses in the following areas: (1) Engineering; 
(2) markups to determine equipment price; (3) energy use; (4) life 
cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP''); and (5) national 
impacts (``March 2022 Prelim TSD''). The results presented included the 
current scope of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, in 
addition to electric motors above 500 horsepower, air-over electric 
motors, and additional expanded scope electric motors.
    On November 16, 2022, DOE received a joint recommendation for 
amended energy conservation standards for electric motors (``November 
2022 Joint Recommendation'').\2\ The November 2022 Joint Recommendation 
represented the motors industry, energy efficiency organizations, and 
utilities (collectively, ``the Electric Motors Working Group'').\3\ The 
November 2022 Joint Recommendation addressed energy conservation 
standards for medium electric motors that are 1-750 hp and polyphase, 
and air-over medium electric motors. On December 9, 2022, DOE received 
a supplemental letter to the November 2022 Joint Recommendation from 
the Electric Motors Working Group.\4\ The supplemental letter provided 
additional guidance on the recommended Super Premium/IE4 levels for 
open medium electric motors rated 100 hp to 250 hp, and a recommended 
compliance date for the November 2022 Joint Recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Joint Recommendation is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0035.
    \3\ The members of the Electric Motors Working Group included 
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (``ACEEE''), 
Appliance Standards Awareness Project (``ASAP''), National 
Electrical Manufacturers Association (``NEMA''), Natural Resources 
Defense Council (``NRDC''), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 
(``NEEA''), Pacific Gas & Electric Company (``PG&E''), San Diego Gas 
& Electric (``SDG&E''), and Southern California Edison (``SCE''). 
DOE notes that in a separate letter, the New York State Energy 
Research and Development Authority (``NYSERDA'') expressed support 
for the Joint Recommendations submitted to DOE on November 15, 2022; 
as well as in the supplemental letter submitted December 9, 2023. 
(NYSERDA, No. 36, at p.1)
    \4\ The supplemental letter is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After carefully considering the November 2022 Joint Recommendation 
for amending energy conservation standards for electric motors 
submitted by the Electric Motors Working Group, DOE determined that 
these recommendations were in accordance with the statutory 
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a direct final 
rule and published a direct final rule on June 1, 2023 (``June 2023 
Direct Final Rule''). 88 FR 36066. DOE also evaluated whether the 
November 2022 Joint Recommendation satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as 
applicable, and found that the recommended standard levels would result 
in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and 
economically justified. 88 FR 36066, 36140-36144. Accordingly, the 
consensus-recommended efficiency levels for electric motors were 
adopted as the new and amended standard levels in the June 2023 Direct 
Final Rule. 88 FR 36066, 36144-36145.
    These standards, which are expressed as nominal full-load 
efficiency values, apply to all equipment listed in Table II-1 through 
Table II-3 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States 
starting on June 1, 2027. The June 2023 Direct Final Rule provides a 
detailed discussion of DOE's analysis of the benefits and burdens of 
the new and amended standards pursuant to the criteria set forth in 
EPCA. 88 FR 36066, 36140-36144.

   Table II-1--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or NY
               Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors and Air-Over Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Motor horsepower/standard          2 Pole               4 Pole               6 Pole               8 Pole
     kilowatt equivalent     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75.......................       77.0      77.0       85.5      85.5       82.5      82.5       75.5      75.5
1.5/1.1.....................       84.0      84.0       86.5      86.5       87.5      86.5       78.5      77.0
2/1.5.......................       85.5      85.5       86.5      86.5       88.5      87.5       84.0      86.5
3/2.2.......................       86.5      85.5       89.5      89.5       89.5      88.5       85.5      87.5
5/3.7.......................       88.5      86.5       89.5      89.5       89.5      89.5       86.5      88.5
7.5/5.5.....................       89.5      88.5       91.7      91.0       91.0      90.2       86.5      89.5
10/7.5......................       90.2      89.5       91.7      91.7       91.0      91.7       89.5      90.2
15/11.......................       91.0      90.2       92.4      93.0       91.7      91.7       89.5      90.2
20/15.......................       91.0      91.0       93.0      93.0       91.7      92.4       90.2      91.0
25/18.5.....................       91.7      91.7       93.6      93.6       93.0      93.0       90.2      91.0
30/22.......................       91.7      91.7       93.6      94.1       93.0      93.6       91.7      91.7
40/30.......................       92.4      92.4       94.1      94.1       94.1      94.1       91.7      91.7
50/37.......................       93.0      93.0       94.5      94.5       94.1      94.1       92.4      92.4
60/45.......................       93.6      93.6       95.0      95.0       94.5      94.5       92.4      93.0
75/55.......................       93.6      93.6       95.4      95.0       94.5      94.5       93.6      94.1
100/75......................       95.0      94.5       96.2      96.2       95.8      95.8       94.5      95.0
125/90......................       95.4      94.5       96.2      96.2       95.8      95.8       95.0      95.0
150/110.....................       95.4      94.5       96.2      96.2       96.2      95.8       95.0      95.0
200/150.....................       95.8      95.4       96.5      96.2       96.2      95.8       95.4      95.0
250/186.....................       96.2      95.4       96.5      96.2       96.2      96.2       95.4      95.4
300/224.....................       95.8      95.4       96.2      95.8       95.8      95.8  .........  ........
350/261.....................       95.8      95.4       96.2      95.8       95.8      95.8  .........  ........
400/298.....................       95.8      95.8       96.2      95.8  .........  ........  .........  ........
450/336.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
500/373.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
550/410.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........

[[Page 72349]]

 
600/447.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
650/485.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
700/522.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
750/559.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table II-2--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or NY
           Standard Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Motor horsepower/standard          2 Pole               4 Pole               6 Pole               8 Pole
     kilowatt equivalent     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75.......................       77.0      77.0       85.5      85.5       82.5      82.5       75.5      75.5
1.5/1.1.....................       84.0      84.0       86.5      86.5       87.5      86.5       78.5      77.0
2/1.5.......................       85.5      85.5       86.5      86.5       88.5      87.5       84.0      86.5
3/2.2.......................       86.5      85.5       89.5      89.5       89.5      88.5       85.5      87.5
5/3.7.......................       88.5      86.5       89.5      89.5       89.5      89.5       86.5      88.5
7.5/5.5.....................       89.5      88.5       91.7      91.0       91.0      90.2       86.5      89.5
10/7.5......................       90.2      89.5       91.7      91.7       91.0      91.7       89.5      90.2
15/11.......................       91.0      90.2       92.4      93.0       91.7      91.7       89.5      90.2
20/15.......................       91.0      91.0       93.0      93.0       91.7      92.4       90.2      91.0
25/18.5.....................       91.7      91.7       93.6      93.6       93.0      93.0       90.2      91.0
30/22.......................       91.7      91.7       93.6      94.1       93.0      93.6       91.7      91.7
40/30.......................       92.4      92.4       94.1      94.1       94.1      94.1       91.7      91.7
50/37.......................       93.0      93.0       94.5      94.5       94.1      94.1       92.4      92.4
60/45.......................       93.6      93.6       95.0      95.0       94.5      94.5       92.4      93.0
75/55.......................       93.6      93.6       95.4      95.0       94.5      94.5       93.6      94.1
100/75......................       95.0      94.5       96.2      96.2       95.8      95.8       94.5      95.0
125/90......................       95.4      94.5       96.2      96.2       95.8      95.8       95.0      95.0
150/110.....................       95.4      94.5       96.2      96.2       96.2      95.8       95.0      95.0
200/150.....................       95.8      95.4       96.5      96.2       96.2      95.8       95.4      95.0
250/186.....................       96.2      95.4       96.5      96.2       96.2      96.2       95.4      95.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table II-3--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or NY
         Specialized Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Motor horsepower/standard          2 Pole               4 Pole               6 Pole               8 Pole
     kilowatt equivalent     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75.......................       74.0  ........       82.5      82.5       80.0      80.0       74.0      74.0
1.5/1.1.....................       82.5      82.5       84.0      84.0       85.5      84.0       77.0      75.5
2/1.5.......................       84.0      84.0       84.0      84.0       86.5      85.5       82.5      85.5
3/2.2.......................       85.5      84.0       87.5      86.5       87.5      86.5       84.0      86.5
5/3.7.......................       87.5      85.5       87.5      87.5       87.5      87.5       85.5      87.5
7.5/5.5.....................       88.5      87.5       89.5      88.5       89.5      88.5       85.5      88.5
10/7.5......................       89.5      88.5       89.5      89.5       89.5      90.2  .........  ........
15/11.......................       90.2      89.5       91.0      91.0  .........  ........  .........  ........
20/15.......................       90.2      90.2       91.0      91.0  .........  ........  .........  ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required by EPCA, DOE also simultaneously published a NOPR 
proposing the identical standard levels contained in the June 2023 
Direct Final Rule. 88 FR 35765 (June 1, 2023). DOE considered whether 
any adverse comment received during the 110-day comment period 
following the publication of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule may have 
provided a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule 
under the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C).

[[Page 72350]]

III. Comments on the June 2023 Direct Final Rule

    As discussed in section I of this document, not later than 120 days 
after publication of a direct final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct 
final rule if (1) DOE receives one or more adverse public comments 
relating to the direct final rule or any alternative joint 
recommendation; and (2) based on the rulemaking record relating to the 
direct final rule, DOE determines that such adverse public comments or 
alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for 
withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i))
    DOE received comments in response to the June 2023 Direct Final 
Rule from the interested parties listed in Table III.1.

     Table III.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the June 2023 Direct Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Comment No.
               Commenter(s)                        Abbreviation            in the           Commenter type
                                                                           docket
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-conditioning, Heating, and             AHRI.......................           54  Industry Original Equipment
 Refrigeration Equipment.                                                             Manufacturer (``OEM'')
                                                                                      Trade Association.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E),   CA IOUs....................           51  Utilities.
 San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and
 Southern California Edison (SCE).
Peter Faragasso..........................  Faragasso..................           47  Individual.
Sean Hogan...............................  Hogan......................           50  Individual.
Johnson Controls.........................  JCI........................           53  OEM Manufacturer.
Richard Spotts...........................  Spotts.....................           52  Individual.
Michael Ravnitzky........................  Ravnitzky..................           49  Individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\5\ 
The following sections discuss the substantive comments DOE received on 
the June 2023 Direct Final Rule as well as DOE's determination that the 
comments do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 
2023 Direct Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for electric motors. (Docket No. EERE-
2021-BT-STD-0035, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The 
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket 
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. General Comments

    In comments submitted in response to the June 2023 Direct Final 
Rule, the CA IOUs, Faragasso, Spotts, and Ravnitzky expressed support 
for the energy conservation standard levels specified in the June 2023 
Direct Final Rule. (CA IOUs, No. 51 at p. 1; Faragasso, No. 47 at p. 1; 
Spotts, No. 52 at p. 1; Ravnitzky, No. 49 at p. 1) DOE has determined 
that these comments are supportive of the standards adopted in the June 
2023 Direct Final Rule.
    AHRI and JCI opposed the June 2023 Direct Final Rule. (AHRI, No. 54 
at pp. 1-9; JCI, No. 53 at p. 1-2) Specifically, AHRI opposed the 
energy conservation standards for air-over electric motors. AHRI 
further requested that DOE withdraw the June 2023 Direct Final Rule to 
comply with EPCA's requirements based on the lack of interested persons 
that are fairly representative of the relevant point of view and the 
receipt of their comments, which AHRI believes provides a reasonable 
basis for withdrawal. (AHRI, No. 54 at pp. 2-3, 7-8) However, as 
discussed in more details in the remainder of this document, DOE has 
determined that these comments do not provide a reasonable basis to 
withdraw the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
    Hogan did not support or oppose the rule and commented on inverter 
motors (Hogan, No. 50 at p. 1) and, as discussed in more details in the 
remainder of this document, DOE has determined that this comment is not 
adverse.

B. Stakeholder Representation

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), interested persons that are fairly 
representative of relevant points of view, as determined by DOE, may 
submit a joint recommendation to the Department for new or amended 
energy conservation standards. AHRI stated that EPCA defines those 
interested persons as representatives of manufacturers of covered 
products, States, and efficiency advocates. AHRI contends that the 
joint stakeholders that came together for the recommendation are not 
``fairly representative'' of the relevant points of view required to 
publish a direct final rule according to EPCA's requirements in 42 
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A) because the list does not include manufacturers of 
covered products, nor any trade association that represent 
manufacturers of covered products. AHRI commented that, as a trade 
association representing manufacturers of covered products, its members 
should have been taken into consideration before the June 2023 Direct 
Fina Rule was issued. (AHRI, No. 54 at pp. 7-8)
    In response, DOE first notes that the direct final rule authority 
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) applies to electric motors through the 
crosswalk provision at 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). As part of that crosswalk 
provision, any reference to a covered ``product'' is replaced with a 
reference to covered ``equipment.'' (42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(3)) As a result, 
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) would read, in relevant part, ``[o]n receipt of a 
statement that is submitted jointly by interested persons that are 
fairly representative of relevant points of view (including 
representatives of manufacturers of covered equipment, States, and 
efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary . . .'' (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)) The November 2022 Joint 
Recommendation includes a trade association, NEMA, which represents 
more than 23 manufacturers of electric motors. The November 2022 Joint 
Recommendation also includes energy-efficiency advocacy organizations 
and utilities. Additionally, DOE notes that one of the parties to the 
November 2022 Joint Recommendation, NEEA, is an alliance of utilities 
and partners that pools resources and shares risks to transform the 
market for energy efficiency to the benefit of all consumers in the 
Northwest and whose 20-member Board consists of representatives from 
the Bonneville Power Administration, consumer- and investor-owned 
electric and natural gas utilities, state government, and public 
interest and efficiency industry organizations. Finally, DOE also notes 
that NYSERDA

[[Page 72351]]

expressed support for the Joint Agreement. As a result, DOE has 
determined that the November 2022 Joint Recommendation was submitted by 
interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of 
view on this matter.

C. Electric Motors Used as a Component of a Covered Product or 
Equipment

    AHRI commented that component regulation imposes design constraints 
and limits innovation without guaranteeing energy savings because 
covered products are already regulated. AHRI stated that regardless of 
the efficiency of a given product's individual components, such 
products must ultimately meet an efficiency standard, and, therefore, 
little or no additional energy savings would be achieved. AHRI 
commented that component regulation would impose significant cost to 
manufacturers and consumers and the burden DOE would impose on 
manufacturers of covered products by expanding the scope of the 
electric motor test procedure, and ultimately standards, is not 
outweighed by any corresponding benefit to consumers or the nation. 
(AHRI, No. 54 at p. 2) AHRI added that DOE should apply a finished-
product approach to energy efficiency regulations. Specifically, AHRI 
commented that it strongly opposes DOE's plan to expand the existing 
scope of coverage of electric motors to include air-over electric 
motors. AHRI added that embedded motor testing, and ultimately energy 
conservation standards, would save minimal, if any, energy and would 
create needless testing, paperwork, and record-keeping requirements 
that would raise costs for consumers. In addition, AHRI commented that 
the timing of the proposed changes would exacerbate supply chain 
disruption, further delaying products reaching U.S. consumers and 
inflating the cost of finished goods. AHRI commented also that 
component regulation imposes design constraints and limits innovation 
without guaranteeing energy savings and that covered products are 
already regulated. Further, AHRI asserted that OEMs already consider 
more efficient electric motors when identifying what design options to 
apply to meet new finished product standards. (AHRI, No. 54 at pp. 3, 
8)
    JCI commented that it remained opposed to DOE's revised definition 
and resulting scope expansion to mandate new test procedures to include 
special and definite purpose motors, which specifically includes air-
over, inverter, synchronous motors as well as the newly defined 
category of ``small non-small electric motors'' (``SNEMs'') as such 
motors are already being regulated at the system level at 10 CFR 431.25 
and for which there is a clear exemption as noted under 42 U.S.C. 
6317(b)(3). JCI also stated its opposition to component level 
regulation for DOE covered products. JCI commented that ``double 
regulation'' of finished goods and the components embedded within the 
finished goods stifles innovation by reducing design engineers' ability 
to weigh trade-offs between different technologies. JCI asserted that, 
as a matter of practice, motors are typically not the least efficient 
component within an air-conditioner, heat pump, or associated furnace 
and by limiting the choices of system components, designers could be 
forced to forego greater total system benefits and add unnecessary cost 
due to the lack of design flexibility. JCI further commented that 
generic motor efficiency ratings will not result in significant savings 
benefits and will increase cost to consumers. JCI stated that consumers 
who purchase JCI equipment generally do not evaluate potential savings 
or performance features based on individual components (i.e., motors) 
but rather on the overall system performance of the equipment. (JCI, 
No. 53 at pp. 1-2)
    On the issue of energy savings resulting from regulating 
components, DOE received similar comments in response to the March 2022 
Preliminary Analysis that were addressed in the June 2023 Direct Final 
Rule. Specifically, as highlighted in a previous DOE report, motor 
energy savings potential and opportunities for higher efficiency 
electric motors in commercial and residential equipment would result in 
overall energy savings.\6\ In addition, some manufacturers advertise 
electric motors as resulting in energy savings in HVAC equipment.\7\ 88 
FR 36066, 36103. Therefore, DOE disagrees with the notion that an 
increase in motor efficiency would not necessarily result in improved 
efficiency of the equipment the motor is incorporated into. In 
addition, when establishing any new or amended energy conservation 
standards for other covered equipment or products incorporating 
electric motors, DOE analyzes the current market to establish the 
baseline performance and would account for any improvements due to 
increased motor efficiency. As a result, any motor improvement would be 
later reflected in the covered equipment/product subsequent 
rulemakings. Therefore, DOE has determined that these comments do not 
provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final 
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. DOE Building Technology Office, Energy Savings 
Potential and Opportunities for High-Efficiency Electric Motors in 
Residential and Commercial Equipment, December 2013. Available at: 
www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/motor-energy-savings-potential-report.
    \7\ See, for example, Nidec and ABB: acim.nidec.com/motors/usmotors/industry-applications/hvac; bit.ly/3wEIQyu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the June 2023 Direct Final Rule did not include 
inverter-only motors, synchronous motors, and SNEMs. Instead, the June 
2023 Direct Final Rule retained the scope of the electric motors 
currently regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 and expanded the scope to electric 
motors that meet the same criteria as described at 10 CFR 431.25(g) but 
otherwise have a horsepower greater than 500 and less than or equal to 
750 hp; and to those that otherwise have an air-over enclosure or a 
specialized frame size and an air-over enclosure. 88 FR 36066, 36079-
36081. For these electric motors, the energy conservation standards 
adopted in the June 2023 Direct Final rule would preserve the 
technologies and frame sizes that exist today on the market (i.e., AC 
induction polyphase designs in the same NEMA frame sizes). Id. at 88 FR 
36097. Accordingly, DOE disagrees with the comments from AHRI and JCI 
that the adopted standards could limit innovation by imposing design 
constraints or reducing design engineers' ability to weigh trade-offs 
between different technologies.
    Therefore, DOE has determined that these comments do not provide a 
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final.

D. Original Equipment Manufacturer Industry Burden

    AHRI commented that DOE declined to address industry's concerns in 
the electric motor test procedure final rule, citing that DOE stated 
comments related to any potential standards that DOE may consider for 
electric motors will be discussed in the separate energy conservation 
standards rulemaking docket (EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007).\8\ AHRI noted that 
it had raised concerns specifically regarding air-over motors in 
response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis.\9\ (AHRI, No. 54 at p. 
2) Also in response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, AHRI added 
that it filed joint comments with the Association of Home Appliance 
Manufacturers regarding the OEM certification compliance burden and

[[Page 72352]]

increases to costs without increases to finished good efficiency. AHRI 
commented that DOE failed to address these comments in the June 2023 
Direct Final Rule and accompanying NOPR because DOE assessed that the 
majority of the stakeholder concerns stemmed from regulating SNEMs and 
air-over SNEMs. AHRI asserted that even if a minority of the concerns 
was given to air-over motors, that would not absolve DOE of its 
statutory duty in determining whether a standard is economically 
justified. AHRI commented that DOE must consider the economic impact of 
the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the products 
subject to such standard and, in the case of air-over motors, finished 
goods manufacturers can be either the manufacturer or the consumer, 
depending on how the component is purchased. (Id. at pp. 2-3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 87 FR 63588, 63591 (Oct. 10, 2022).
    \9\ In their comments, AHRI refers to this publication as a 
Notice of Data Availability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHRI further commented that some OEMs purchase complete air-over 
motors for incorporation while other OEMs buy motor components and 
assemble the motor into the equipment. In the latter case, AHRI stated 
that the OEM would be considered a motor manufacturer and undergo the 
time and cost to certify that the motor meets any pertinent standards. 
AHRI added that the expanded scope of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule 
would redefine OEMs as electric motor manufacturers and that, for 
imported equipment, the expanded scope would impact OEMs who purchase 
air-over motor components and air-over motors that are not already sold 
on the U.S. market. However, AHRI commented that DOE did not include 
these manufacturer impacts in the standards June 2023 Direct Final Rule 
analysis. Specifically, AHRI commented that the shipments estimates 
used in the analysis are underestimated and questioned whether DOE 
included air-over motors included in OEM equipment. (AHRI, No. 54 at p. 
4) In addition, AHRI commented that any OEMs that are considered a 
motor manufacturer would also be subject to new requirements for 
establishing or verifying performance in an independent laboratory. 
AHRI asserted that these air-over motor specific costs were not 
included. AHRI noted that the March 2022 Prelim TSD included minor 
increases in installation cost as efficiency levels rise attributed to 
the additional cost of an electrician (Id. at p. 5) AHRI commented that 
such regulatory burdens have left manufacturers in an almost constant 
state of redesign and testing and that innovation was no longer as 
important as just modifying products to meet new and ever-changing 
regulatory burdens. (Id. at p. 8)
    Regarding the shipments estimate, as previously noted, the air-over 
motors that are subject to the June 2023 Direct Final Rule are limited 
to those meeting the same criteria as described at 10 CFR 431.25(g) but 
otherwise have an air-over enclosure or a specialized frame size and an 
air-over enclosure. Specifically, these are electric motors with 
horsepower greater than or equal to 1 hp, that are NEMA Design A or B 
and are built in standard NEMA frame size \10\ or specialized frame 
size (or IEC equivalents). This excludes most electric motors included 
in heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration 
(``HVACR'') equipment manufactured by AHRI, which typically are not 
NEMA Design A or B, have different frame constructions, or are single 
phase motors. Therefore, DOE believes the shipments estimate used in 
the June 2023 Direct Final rule is correct as it is not intended to 
include the totality of the air-over electric motor market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ More specifically, are built in a three-digit or four-digit 
NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including those designs 
between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), 
or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') for this rulemaking 
specifically examines the conversion costs that electric motor 
manufacturers (including OEMs that also manufacture electric motors) 
would incur due to the analyzed energy conservation standards for 
electric motors in comparison to the revenue and free cash electric 
motor manufacturers receive. In addition, the MIA includes the 
additional testing costs for newly regulated equipment to comply with 
new efficiency standards.\11\ Regarding OEMs who purchase components of 
an air-over motor, DOE notes that motors assembled this way are a 
minority of overall motors covered by the June 2023 Direct Final Rule. 
In addition, for motors that are assembled this way, the conversion 
costs associated with the new and amended energy conservation standards 
would not be significant as the OEM is not manufacturing the components 
that would have to be changed, and those conversion costs would be 
incurred by the component manufacturers, which are typical motor 
manufacturers (i.e., included as NEMA members) and the focus of the 
manufacturer impact analysis conducted in the June 2023 Direct Final 
Rule. Therefore, DOE has determined that these comments do not provide 
a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule. 
JCI commented that it understands DOE's authority to impose 
requirements on manufacturers of covered products, but does not agree 
with DOE's definition that equipment importers should be responsible 
for embedded electric motor test and certification requirements if 
indeed this is the case. JCI commented also that it was not clear if 
DOE's revised definition of ``air-over'' and ``manufacturer,'' which 
specifically includes importation and assembly, would result in 
importers of finished goods like JCI being responsible for embedded 
motor standards and testing. (JCI, No. 53 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See section IV.G of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule. 88 FR 
36006, 36112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 2023 Direct Final Rule, DOE did not establish revised 
definitions for ``air-over'' and ``manufacturer.'' Therefore, DOE does 
not consider this comment to be an adverse comment. The definition of 
``air-over electric motor'' was established by the test procedure final 
rule published on October 19, 2022. 87 FR 63588, 63609. The definition 
of ``manufacture'' and ``manufacturer'' can be found at 10 CFR 431.2 
and were not revised by the June 2023 Direct Final Rule. Finally, DOE 
clarifies that any electric motor in scope that is imported into the 
United States would need to comply with the new and amended energy 
conservation standards adopted in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.

E. Replacement Motor Certification Burden

    AHRI commented that HVACR and water heating equipment are built, 
tested, and certified as a complete design and that slight changes to 
the motors can have significant and unexpected impacts on performance 
and efficiency. AHRI stated that there are a variety of safety 
standards affected by air flow in addition to the performance standards 
and that the testing of all legacy equipment because of a motor change 
would be cost and resource prohibitive. In addition, AHRI noted that 
testing could be impractical if the HVACR or water heating equipment 
was out of production because OEMs would be forced to rebuild an out-
of-production unit for the purpose of testing the new motor or risk 
abandoning a reasonable repair path for consumers. AHRI asserted that 
some equipment may not be able to be retroactively designed with new 
motors due to new energy conservation standards or refrigerant changes. 
(AHRI, No. 54 at pp. 5-6)
    JCI commented that DOE did not account for the cost burden of 
certifying

[[Page 72353]]

replacement motors for legacy equipment, which it believes would be 
required per the revised scope definition. JCI stated that certifying 
replacement motors to new energy conservations standards for legacy 
equipment would likely require the building of at least partial, if not 
complete, prototypes as well as substantial investment in test time to 
cover dozens of different legacy applications for products still within 
their expected service life. JCI add that its legacy product offering 
ranges in size from 1 ton to over 120 tons (nominal cooling) for its 
rooftop and residential offerings and has dozens of unique electric 
motor applications still within their remaining service life. JCI 
commented also that in cases where a new energy conservation standard 
results in a new, larger NEMA frame size, it may not be possible to 
develop such a product and thus result in premature equipment 
replacement or a special one-off design which will greatly increase 
cost to consumers. JCI requested that DOE consider the negative impacts 
of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule and rescind the revised definition 
scope of covered motors. (JCI, No. 53 at p. 2)
    While DOE conducts a MIA to address the industry burden on the 
manufacturer of the considered covered equipment, DOE typically does 
not include the impacts to other manufacturers. The MIA for this 
rulemaking specifically examined the conversion costs that electric 
motor manufacturers (including OEMs that also manufacture electric 
motors) would incur due to the analyzed energy conservation standards 
for electric motors in comparison to the revenue and free cash electric 
motor manufacturers receive. The OEM testing and certification costs 
were not included in the MIA, and neither were the OEM revenues and 
free cash flows, as these costs and revenue are not specific to 
electric motor manufacturers. However, as noted by the Electric Motors 
Working Group, the adopted standards for air-over electric motors \12\ 
are not expected to cause broad market disruption. (Electric Motors 
Working Group, No. 35 at p. 4) In addition, as noted in in section IV.C 
of the June 2023 Direct Final rule, DOE fixed the frame size, which 
remained the same across efficiency levels. 88 FR 36066, 36097. As 
such, the energy conservation standards adopted in the June 2023 Direct 
Final Rule would preserve the frame sizes of electric motors on the 
market today. Consequently, although DOE did not include any OEM 
testing and certification costs in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule, DOE 
does not estimate these impacts to be significant. Therefore, DOE has 
determined that these comments do not provide a reasonable basis for 
withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The majority of the electric motors for which the June 2023 
Direct Finale rule is establishing new and amended standards are not 
incorporated into HVACR equipment. Electric motors with a horsepower 
greater than or equal to 100 hp and less than or equal to 250 hp and 
those with a horsepower greater than 500 hp and less than or equal 
to 750 hp are larger motors that are not used as components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHRI commented that DOE used an average application lifetime of 15 
years for applications driven by electric motors and came to an average 
lifetime of 11.8 years for the 5 hp air-over motor. AHRI noted that DOE 
has used much longer equipment lifetimes for some AHRI products, such 
as air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps where 
DOE used a lifetime of 33.88 years for 30-ton equipment in a 
rulemaking.\13\ AHRI asserted that such equipment could have two or 
three motor replacements during its lifetime and that if the 
replacement motor becomes unavailable, the entire OEM product would 
have to be replaced rather than repaired. In addition, AHRI commented 
that DOE did not account for the potential unavailability of the motors 
in use in today's HVACR equipment as well as the cost to OEMs, and 
ultimately to the consumer, of retroactively designing equipment in use 
today for motors that become unavailable upon new standards. (AHRI, No. 
54 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ DOE Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 
ASRAC Working Group meeting March 21-22, 2023. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that the Electric Motors Working Group stated the adopted 
standards for air-over electric motors would avoid market disruption. 
(Electric Motors Working Group, No. 35 at p. 4) In addition, the 
adopted levels would preserve key criteria that are used to identify 
suitable replacement motors,\14\ such as frame sizes, voltages, 
horsepower, pole configurations, enclosure constructions, and 
mountings, and DOE believes drop-in replacement motors would remain 
available and there would be no major market disruption, as highlighted 
by the Electric Motors Working Group. DOE further notes that OEM 
equipment can usually accommodate different models of motors and online 
cross-referencing tools \15\ exist to help consumers identify motors 
that can be used as drop-in replacements. Therefore, DOE has determined 
that these comments do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of 
the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ``How to cross reference an OEM motor.'' Available at 
hvacknowitall.com/blog/how-to-cross-reference-an-oem-motor (last 
accessed September 28, 2023); Rheem and Ruud PROTECH ``Selecting a 
Motor.'' Available at assets.unilogcorp.com/267/ITEM/DOC/PROTECH_51_100998_33_Catalog.pdf (last accessed September 28, 2023).
    \15\ See www.emotorsdirect.ca/hvac.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Regulatory Burden

    AHRI stated that the burdens of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule 
would be added to an already large industry burden due to other 
regulatory bodies requiring redesign and recertification of products 
made by its members. AHRI described the regulatory actions that will 
impact its products: (1) UL 60335-2-40 will be required for all cooling 
equipment on January 1, 2024; (2) the American Innovation and 
Manufacturing Act requires the use of low global warming potential 
(``GWP'') refrigerants in residential and light commercial air 
conditioners, which AHRI expects to be required within two years and 
will require updated safety standards to address refrigerant leaks 
because GWP refrigerants are more flammable, and in commercial 
refrigeration equipment, which has a statutory deadline of October 7, 
2023; (3) new federal efficiency levels and metrics with compliance 
dates ranging from January 1, 2024 to January 1, 2025 for variable 
refrigerant flow (``VRF'') equipment, dedicated outdoor air systems, 
computer room air conditioners, air cooled three-phase small central 
air conditioners and heat pumps and VRF with a cooling capacity less 
than 65,000 Btu/h, and commercial fans; (4) California's regulation of 
commercial fans required on November 16, 2023; and (5) test procedures 
that are currently in the rulemaking process for commercial package air 
conditioners and heat pumps, single package vertical air conditioners 
and heat pumps, package terminal air conditioners and heat pumps, and 
water source heat pumps. (AHRI, No. 54 at pp. 6-7)
    The June 2023 Direct Final Rule examined the cumulative regulatory 
burden that affects the manufacturers of the covered equipment (i.e., 
electric motors). 88 FR 36066, 36133-36134. As previously stated, DOE 
typically does not include the impacts to other manufacturers. 
Therefore, DOE has determined that this comment does not provide a 
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.

[[Page 72354]]

G. EPCA Requirements

    AHRI commented that EPCA requires that any proposed new or amended 
energy conservation standards must result in significant energy savings 
and be technologically feasible and economically justified and cited to 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o). AHRI commented that it does not believe that the 
energy conservation standards in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule comply 
with this requirement. (AHRI, No. 54 at p. 8)
    In the June 2023 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that the adopted 
energy conservation standards would result in significant energy 
savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified and 
provided supporting analysis. 88 FR 36066, 36072, 36120-36146. For the 
reasons discussed in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule, DOE has 
determined that the comment provided by AHRI does not provide a 
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.

H. Other Comments

    AHRI commented that DOE's electric motors test procedure, which 
would rate motor efficiency at full load, fails to adequately capture 
representative load conditions for finished products and equipment that 
is largely optimized for, and regulated on, part-load performance. AHRI 
commented also that regulating special and definite purpose motors, 
particularly with the proposed third-party nationally recognized 
certification program requirements, will add cost, reduce market 
choices, and do little, if anything, to realize further energy savings. 
AHRI asserted that full-load operating temperature in testing may be 
greater than the rated operating temperature of the motor while it is 
operating in its intended air over application, which AHRI claimed to 
be particularly problematic for air-over motors. AHRI stated that DOE 
was working in other areas to design test procedures that reward part-
load performance and that it was inexplicable that DOE proposed to do 
the opposite here. (AHRI, No. 54 at p. 3)
    DOE notes that this comment relates to the electric motors test 
procedure and is not related to the June 2023 Direct Final Rule. As 
such, DOE does not consider this comment as an adverse comment for the 
June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
    Ravnitzky requested clarification on whether the June 2023 Direct 
Final Rule applied to small electric motors, dedicated purpose pool 
pump motor, and motors that are used in consumer products. (Ravnitzky, 
No. 49 at p. 1) DOE clarifies that the June 2023 Direct Final Rule 
amends and establishes energy conservation standards for electric 
motors that meet the newly adopted scope criteria at 10 CFR 431.25 and 
are in the scope of subpart B of 10 CFR part 431. Section 431.11 
specifies that subpart B does not cover ``small electric motors,'' 
which are addressed in subpart X of 10 CFR part 431 and does not cover 
electric motors that are ``dedicated-purpose pool pump motors,'' which 
are addressed in subpart Z of 10 CFR part 431. See 10 CFR 431.11. 
Therefore, the June 2023 Direct Final Rule does not apply to small 
electric motors or dedicated purpose pool pump motors. In addition, 
while the scope of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule does not 
differentiate electric motors by end-use applications, it only includes 
electric motors that operate on polyphase power supply and is unlikely 
to include electric motors incorporated in consumer products (which 
typically operate on single phase power supply). Accordingly, DOE does 
not consider the comment from Ravnitzky to be an adverse comment.
    Ravnitzky commented that there are many small business 
manufacturers of electric motors and that DOE should provide 
exemptions, waivers, or alternative standards for small businesses and 
provide sufficient time for small businesses to adjust to the new 
requirements. (Ravnitzky, No. 49 at pp. 1-2)
    DOE notes that manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency 
standards may apply to DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for 
exception relief under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should 
refer to 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details. Therefore, DOE has 
determined that the comment from Ravnitzky does not provide a 
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
    Hogan commented that for permanent capacitive split phase motors 
(``PSC''), the motor efficiency decreases dramatically as the capacitor 
degrades and that efficiency loss is the dominant failure mode for PSC 
motors. Hogan added that DOE's analysis only considered the ``as-
built'' efficiency of the motor and that DOE should have determined the 
actual running efficiency of motors over their entire operating life 
for several operating environments and applications that degrade over 
time due to partial demagnetization. Hogan also stated that the 
inverter drive efficiency also degrades over time. Further, Hogan 
disagreed with DOE's analysis, which assumed that the price of 
permanent magnet inverter motors would decline to that comparable of 
three phase motors, and stated that the induction motor would always 
have a cost advantage. Hogan also noted that inverter drive motors only 
produce greater efficiency in applications as a result of variable 
shaft speed. (Hogan, No. 50 at p. 1)
    PSC motors, permanent magnet inverter motors, and inverter drives 
were not included in the scope of products for which DOE established 
and amended energy conservation standards in the June 2023 Direct Final 
Rule. Instead, in the LCC and national impact analysis (``NIA'') 
analysis, DOE added a scenario to account for the fact that some 
consumers may choose to purchase a synchronous electric motor (i.e., a 
permanent magnet inverter motors, out of scope of the June 2023 Direct 
Final Rule) rather than a more efficient NEMA Design A or B electric 
motor or select to purchase a variable speed drive (i.e., an inverter 
drive) in combination with a compliant electric motor. DOE developed a 
consumer choice model to estimate the percentage of consumers that 
would purchase a synchronous electric motor based on the payback period 
of such investment. 88 FR 36066, 36104. As part of this sensitivity 
analysis DOE did not assume any decline in price for permanent magnet 
inverter motors. Instead, DOE assumed that the price of a more 
efficient NEMA Design A or B electric motor would increase compared to 
a baseline NEMA Design A or B electric motor.\16\ DOE acknowledges that 
there is uncertainty around the efficiency of permanent magnet inverter 
motors and inverter drives which may degrade over time. In the June 
2023 Direct Final Rule, DOE noted that there is uncertainty as to which 
rate such substitution would occur due to the uncertainty in the 
estimated savings from speed controls, installation costs, and selected 
decision criteria, and DOE did not incorporate this scenario as part of 
the reference analysis. Id. As such, this analysis was not used to 
justify the adopted standards in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.\17\ 
Therefore, DOE has determined that this comment does not provide a 
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Table 8C.2.1 in Appendix 8C of the June 2023 Direct 
Final Rule Technical Support Document.
    \17\ See Appendix 8C of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule 
Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hogan commented that the efficiency of residential and commercial 
motors can be increased higher than what is

[[Page 72355]]

proposed by DOE at minimal costs when wired for three phase power in 
comparison to using an inverter drive. Hogan added that DOE should 
reasonably require good efficiency for single phase alternative current 
(``AC'') motors for many fractional horsepower motors (i.e., horsepower 
less than 1) and otherwise advance efficiency through three phase 
power. (Hogan, No. 50 at p. 1)
    As noted previously, the scope of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule 
only includes electric motors that operate three phase power supply 
(i.e., AC induction polyphase electric motors). 88 FR 36066, 36079-
36081. In addition, the scope of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule 
includes motors with horsepower equal to or greater than 1 horsepower. 
Id. As such, DOE did not analyze technology options for single phase AC 
motors and fractional horsepower motors (i.e., with horsepower less 
than 1) in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule and does not consider the 
recommendation from Hogan to provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal 
of the June 2023 Direct Final Rule.

IV. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

    EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is 
likely to result from new or amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295 
(p)(4)(A)(i) and (C)(i)(II); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also 
directs the Attorney General of the United States (``Attorney 
General'') to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of 
competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit 
such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication 
of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent 
of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To assist 
the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE provided the 
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') with copies of the June 2023 Direct 
Final Rule, the corresponding NOPR, and the June 2023 Direct Final Rule 
TSD for review. DOE has published DOJ's comments at the end of this 
document.
    In its letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that, based on its 
review, it is unlikely that the proposed energy conservation standards 
for electric motors would have a significant adverse impact on 
competition.

V. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(``NEPA''), DOE had analyzed the direct final rule in accordance with 
NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE 
determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 10 
CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B, B5.1, because it is a rulemaking 
that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or 
industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in B5.1(b) 
apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that require further 
environmental analysis, and it meets the requirements for application 
of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE 
determined that promulgation of this direct final rule is not a major 
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment within the meaning of NEPA and does not require an 
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

VI. Conclusion

    In summary, based on the previous discussion, DOE has determined 
that the comments received in response to the direct final rule for new 
and amended energy conservation standards for electric motors do not 
provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. As 
a result, the energy conservation standards set forth in the direct 
final rule became effective on September 29, 2023. Compliance with 
these standards is required on and after June 1, 2027.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 16, 
2023, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on October 17, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

Appendix A

August 21, 2023

Ami Grace-Tardy, Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, 
Regulation and Energy Efficiency, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Washington, DC 20585, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fcbd9195d2bb8e9d9f99d1a89d8e9885bc948dd2989399d29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2564484c0b625744464008714457415c654d540b414a400b424a53">[email protected]</span></a>

Re: Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors, DOE Docket 
No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007

    Dear Assistant General Counsel Grace-Tardy:
    I am responding to your June 20, 2023 letter seeking the views 
of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of 
proposed energy conservation standards for electric motors.
    Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to 
determine the impact of any lessening of competition likely to 
result from proposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney 
General's responsibility for responding to requests from other 
departments about the effect of a program on competition has been 
delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust 
Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). The Assistant Attorney General for the 
Antitrust Division has authorized me, as the Policy Director for the 
Antitrust Division, to provide the Antitrust Division's views 
regarding the potential impact on competition of proposed energy 
conservation standards on his behalf.
    In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines 
whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by 
substantially limiting consumer choice, by placing certain 
manufacturers at an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or by 
inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of 
particular products. A lessening of competition could result in 
higher prices to manufacturers and consumers.
    We have reviewed the proposed standard contained in the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking and the related Technical Support Document. 
We have also reviewed public comments and information provided by 
industry participants.
    Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy 
conservation standards for electric motors are unlikely to have a 
significant adverse impact on competition.

    Sincerely,
    /s/
    David G.B. Lawrence Policy Director

[FR Doc. 2023-23204 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


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