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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

72347 

Vol. 88, No. 202 

Friday, October 20, 2023 

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. 

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/EERE2020-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: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–3593. Email: 

Kristin.koernig@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation

Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to issue a 

direct final rule establishing an energy 

conservation standard for a covered 

equipment on receipt of a statement 

submitted jointly by interested persons 

that are fairly representative of relevant 

points of view (including 

representatives of manufacturers of 

covered products, States, and efficiency 

advocates), as determined by the 

Secretary, that contains 

recommendations with respect to an 

energy or water conservation standard 

that are in accordance with the 

provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. (42 

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

The direct final rule must be 

published simultaneously with a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) that 

proposes an energy or water 

conservation standard that is identical 

to the standard established in the direct 

final rule, and DOE must provide a 

public comment period of at least 110 

days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)–(B)) Not later than 120 

days after issuance of the direct final 

rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct 

final rule if (1) DOE receives one or 

more adverse public comments relating 

to the direct final rule or any alternative 

joint recommendation; and (2) based on 

the rulemaking record relating to the 

direct final rule, DOE determines that 

such adverse public comments or 

alternative joint recommendation may 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) If DOE makes such 

a determination, DOE must proceed 

with the NOPR published 

simultaneously with the direct final rule 

and publish in the Federal Register the 

reasons why the direct final rule was 

withdrawn. (Id.) 

After review of comments received, 

DOE has determined that it did receive 

adverse comments on the direct final 

rule. However, based on the rulemaking 

record, the comments did not provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawing the 

direct final rule under the provisions in 

42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C). As such, DOE 

did not withdraw this direct final rule 

and allowed it to become effective. 

Although not required under EPCA, 

DOE customarily publishes a summary 

of the comments received during the 

110-day comment period and its

responses to those comments. This

document contains such a summary, as

well as DOE’s responses, for electric

motors.

II. Electric Motors Direct Final Rule

A. Background

In a final rule published on May 29,

2014, DOE prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors manufactured on and after June 

1, 2016 (‘‘May 2014 Final Rule’’). 79 FR 

30934. These standards are set forth in 

DOE’s regulations at title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’), 

§ 431.25.

On May 21, 2020, DOE published an

Early Assessment Review Request for 

Information, in which it stated that it 

was initiating an early assessment 

review to determine whether any new or 

amended standards would satisfy the 

relevant requirements of EPCA for a 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard for electric motors and sought 

information related to that effort. 85 FR 

30878. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
72348 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

2The Joint Recommendation is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0035. 

3The members of the Electric Motors Working 

Group included American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (‘‘ACEEE’’), Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project (‘‘ASAP’’), National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (‘‘NEMA’’), Natural 

Resources Defense Council (‘‘NRDC’’), Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance (‘‘NEEA’’), Pacific Gas & 

Electric Company (‘‘PG&E’’), San Diego Gas & 

Electric (‘‘SDG&E’’), and Southern California Edison 

(‘‘SCE’’). 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) 

4The supplemental letter is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0036. 

On March 2, 2022, DOE published the 

preliminary analysis for electric motors. 

87 FR 11650 (‘‘March 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis’’). In conjunction with the 

March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE 

published a technical support document 

(‘‘TSD’’) which presented the results of 

the in-depth technical analyses in the 

following areas: (1) Engineering; (2) 

markups to determine equipment price; 

(3) energy use; (4) life cycle cost 

(‘‘LCC’’) and payback period (‘‘PBP’’); 

and (5) national impacts (‘‘March 2022 

Prelim TSD’’). The results presented 

included the current scope of electric 

motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, in 

addition to electric motors above 500 

horsepower, air-over electric motors, 

and additional expanded scope electric 

motors. 

On November 16, 2022, DOE received 

a joint recommendation for amended 

energy conservation standards for 

electric motors (‘‘November 2022 Joint 

Recommendation’’).2 The November 

2022 Joint Recommendation represented 

the motors industry, energy efficiency 

organizations, and utilities (collectively, 

‘‘the Electric Motors Working Group’’).3

The November 2022 Joint 

Recommendation addressed energy 

conservation standards for medium 

electric motors that are 1–750 hp and 

polyphase, and air-over medium electric 

motors. On December 9, 2022, DOE 

received a supplemental letter to the 

November 2022 Joint Recommendation 

from the Electric Motors Working 

Group.4 The supplemental letter 

provided additional guidance on the 

recommended Super Premium/IE4 

levels for open medium electric motors 

rated 100 hp to 250 hp, and a 

recommended compliance date for the 

November 2022 Joint Recommendation. 

After carefully considering the 

November 2022 Joint Recommendation 

for amending energy conservation 

standards for electric motors submitted 

by the Electric Motors Working Group, 

DOE determined that these 

recommendations were in accordance 

with the statutory requirements of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a 

direct final rule and published a direct 

final rule on June 1, 2023 (‘‘June 2023 

Direct Final Rule’’). 88 FR 36066. DOE 

also evaluated whether the November 

2022 Joint Recommendation satisfies 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o), as applicable, and found 

that the recommended standard levels 

would result in significant energy 

savings and are technologically feasible 

and economically justified. 88 FR 

36066, 36140–36144. Accordingly, the 

consensus-recommended efficiency 

levels for electric motors were adopted 

as the new and amended standard levels 

in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule. 88 

FR 36066, 36144–36145. 

These standards, which are expressed 

as nominal full-load efficiency values, 

apply to all equipment listed in Table 

II–1 through Table II–3 and 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States starting on June 1, 2027. 

The June 2023 Direct Final Rule 

provides a detailed discussion of DOE’s 

analysis of the benefits and burdens of 

the new and amended standards 

pursuant to the criteria set forth in 

EPCA. 88 FR 36066, 36140–36144. 

TABLE II–1—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN A, NEMA DESIGN B AND IEC DESIGN N, NE, NEY 

OR NY MOTORS (EXCLUDING FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS AND AIR-OVER ELECTRIC MOTORS) AT 60 HZ

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

(%) 

2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole 

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 ................ .............. ................ ..............


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 72349 

TABLE II–1—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN A, NEMA DESIGN B AND IEC DESIGN N, NE, NEY 

OR NY MOTORS (EXCLUDING FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS AND AIR-OVER ELECTRIC MOTORS) AT 60 HZ—Continued 

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

(%) 

2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

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

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

(%) 

2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole 

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

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

(%) 

2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole 

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). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
72350 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

5The 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). 

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

Commenter(s) Abbreviation 

Comment 

No. in the 

docket 

Commenter type 

Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Equipment ............. AHRI ........................................ 54 Industry Original Equipment 

Manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) Trade 

Association. 

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

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

(SCE).

CA IOUs .................................. 51 Utilities. 

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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 72351 

6U.S. DOE Building Technology Office, Energy 

Savings Potential and Opportunities for HighEfficiency Electric Motors in Residential and 

Commercial Equipment, December 2013. Available 

at: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/ 

motor-energy-savings-potential-report. 

7See, for example, Nidec and ABB: 

acim.nidec.com/motors/usmotors/industryapplications/hvac; bit.ly/3wEIQyu. 

8See 87 FR 63588, 63591 (Oct. 10, 2022). 

9 In their comments, AHRI refers to this 

publication as a Notice of Data Availability. 

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 nonsmall 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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
72352 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

10More 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). 

11See section IV.G of the June 2023 Direct Final 

Rule. 88 FR 36006, 36112. 

increases to costs without increases to 

finished good efficiency. AHRI 

commented that DOE failed to address 

these comments in the June 2023 Direct 

Final Rule and accompanying NOPR 

because DOE assessed that the majority 

of the stakeholder concerns stemmed 

from regulating SNEMs and air-over 

SNEMs. AHRI asserted that even if a 

minority of the concerns was given to 

air-over motors, that would not absolve 

DOE of its statutory duty in determining 

whether a standard is economically 

justified. AHRI commented that DOE 

must consider the economic impact of 

the standard on the manufacturers and 

on the consumers of the products 

subject to such standard and, in the case 

of air-over motors, finished goods 

manufacturers can be either the 

manufacturer or the consumer, 

depending on how the component is 

purchased. (Id. at pp. 2–3) 

AHRI further commented that some 

OEMs purchase complete air-over 

motors for incorporation while other 

OEMs buy motor components and 

assemble the motor into the equipment. 

In the latter case, AHRI stated that the 

OEM would be considered a motor 

manufacturer and undergo the time and 

cost to certify that the motor meets any 

pertinent standards. AHRI added that 

the expanded scope of the June 2023 

Direct Final Rule would redefine OEMs 

as electric motor manufacturers and 

that, for imported equipment, the 

expanded scope would impact OEMs 

who purchase air-over motor 

components and air-over motors that are 

not already sold on the U.S. market. 

However, AHRI commented that DOE 

did not include these manufacturer 

impacts in the standards June 2023 

Direct Final Rule analysis. Specifically, 

AHRI commented that the shipments 

estimates used in the analysis are 

underestimated and questioned whether 

DOE included air-over motors included 

in OEM equipment. (AHRI, No. 54 at p. 

4) In addition, AHRI commented that 

any OEMs that are considered a motor 

manufacturer would also be subject to 

new requirements for establishing or 

verifying performance in an 

independent laboratory. AHRI asserted 

that these air-over motor specific costs 

were not included. AHRI noted that the 

March 2022 Prelim TSD included minor 

increases in installation cost as 

efficiency levels rise attributed to the 

additional cost of an electrician (Id. at 

p. 5) AHRI commented that such 

regulatory burdens have left 

manufacturers in an almost constant 

state of redesign and testing and that 

innovation was no longer as important 

as just modifying products to meet new 

and ever-changing regulatory burdens. 

(Id. at p. 8) 

Regarding the shipments estimate, as 

previously noted, the air-over motors 

that are subject to the June 2023 Direct 

Final Rule are limited to those meeting 

the same criteria as described at 10 CFR 

431.25(g) but otherwise have an air-over 

enclosure or a specialized frame size 

and an air-over enclosure. Specifically, 

these are electric motors with 

horsepower greater than or equal to 1 

hp, that are NEMA Design A or B and 

are built in standard NEMA frame size 10

or specialized frame size (or IEC 

equivalents). This excludes most 

electric motors included in heating, 

ventilation, air-conditioning, and 

refrigeration (‘‘HVACR’’) equipment 

manufactured by AHRI, which typically 

are not NEMA Design A or B, have 

different frame constructions, or are 

single phase motors. Therefore, DOE 

believes the shipments estimate used in 

the June 2023 Direct Final rule is correct 

as it is not intended to include the 

totality of the air-over electric motor 

market. 

The manufacturer impact analysis 

(‘‘MIA’’) for this rulemaking specifically 

examines the conversion costs that 

electric motor manufacturers (including 

OEMs that also manufacture electric 

motors) would incur due to the 

analyzed energy conservation standards 

for electric motors in comparison to the 

revenue and free cash electric motor 

manufacturers receive. In addition, the 

MIA includes the additional testing 

costs for newly regulated equipment to 

comply with new efficiency 

standards.11 Regarding OEMs who 

purchase components of an air-over 

motor, DOE notes that motors assembled 

this way are a minority of overall motors 

covered by the June 2023 Direct Final 

Rule. In addition, for motors that are 

assembled this way, the conversion 

costs associated with the new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

would not be significant as the OEM is 

not manufacturing the components that 

would have to be changed, and those 

conversion costs would be incurred by 

the component manufacturers, which 

are typical motor manufacturers (i.e., 

included as NEMA members) and the 

focus of the manufacturer impact 

analysis conducted in the June 2023 

Direct Final Rule. Therefore, DOE has 

determined that these comments do not 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct 

Final Rule. JCI commented that it 

understands DOE’s authority to impose 

requirements on manufacturers of 

covered products, but does not agree 

with DOE’s definition that equipment 

importers should be responsible for 

embedded electric motor test and 

certification requirements if indeed this 

is the case. JCI commented also that it 

was not clear if DOE’s revised definition 

of ‘‘air-over’’ and ‘‘manufacturer,’’ 

which specifically includes importation 

and assembly, would result in importers 

of finished goods like JCI being 

responsible for embedded motor 

standards and testing. (JCI, No. 53 at p. 

2) 

In the June 2023 Direct Final Rule, 

DOE did not establish revised 

definitions for ‘‘air-over’’ and 

‘‘manufacturer.’’ Therefore, DOE does 

not consider this comment to be an 

adverse comment. The definition of 

‘‘air-over electric motor’’ was 

established by the test procedure final 

rule published on October 19, 2022. 87 

FR 63588, 63609. The definition of 

‘‘manufacture’’ and ‘‘manufacturer’’ can 

be found at 10 CFR 431.2 and were not 

revised by the June 2023 Direct Final 

Rule. Finally, DOE clarifies that any 

electric motor in scope that is imported 

into the United States would need to 

comply with the new and amended 

energy conservation standards adopted 

in the June 2023 Direct Final Rule. 

E. Replacement Motor Certification 

Burden 

AHRI commented that HVACR and 

water heating equipment are built, 

tested, and certified as a complete 

design and that slight changes to the 

motors can have significant and 

unexpected impacts on performance 

and efficiency. AHRI stated that there 

are a variety of safety standards affected 

by air flow in addition to the 

performance standards and that the 

testing of all legacy equipment because 

of a motor change would be cost and 

resource prohibitive. In addition, AHRI 

noted that testing could be impractical 

if the HVACR or water heating 

equipment was out of production 

because OEMs would be forced to 

rebuild an out-of-production unit for the 

purpose of testing the new motor or risk 

abandoning a reasonable repair path for 

consumers. AHRI asserted that some 

equipment may not be able to be 

retroactively designed with new motors 

due to new energy conservation 

standards or refrigerant changes. (AHRI, 

No. 54 at pp. 5–6) 

JCI commented that DOE did not 

account for the cost burden of certifying 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 72353 

12The 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. 

13 DOE Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps ASRAC Working Group meeting March 

21–22, 2023. Available at https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2022-BTSTD-0015-0080. 

14See ‘‘How to cross reference an OEM motor.’’ 

Available at hvacknowitall.com/blog/how-to-crossreference-an-oem-motor (last accessed September 

28, 2023); Rheem and Ruud PROTECH ‘‘Selecting 

a Motor.’’ Available at assets.unilogcorp.com/267/ 

ITEM/DOC/PROTECH_51_100998_33_Catalog.pdf 

(last accessed September 28, 2023). 15See www.emotorsdirect.ca/hvac. 

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. 

AHRI commented that DOE used an 

average application lifetime of 15 years 

for applications driven by electric 

motors and came to an average lifetime 

of 11.8 years for the 5 hp air-over motor. 

AHRI noted that DOE has used much 

longer equipment lifetimes for some 

AHRI products, such as air-cooled 

commercial package air conditioners 

and heat pumps where DOE used a 

lifetime of 33.88 years for 30-ton 

equipment in a rulemaking.13 AHRI 

asserted that such equipment could 

have two or three motor replacements 

during its lifetime and that if the 

replacement motor becomes 

unavailable, the entire OEM product 

would have to be replaced rather than 

repaired. In addition, AHRI commented 

that DOE did not account for the 

potential unavailability of the motors in 

use in today’s HVACR equipment as 

well as the cost to OEMs, and ultimately 

to the consumer, of retroactively 

designing equipment in use today for 

motors that become unavailable upon 

new standards. (AHRI, No. 54 at p. 5) 

DOE notes that the Electric Motors 

Working Group stated the adopted 

standards for air-over electric motors 

would avoid market disruption. 

(Electric Motors Working Group, No. 35 

at p. 4) In addition, the adopted levels 

would preserve key criteria that are 

used to identify suitable replacement 

motors,14 such as frame sizes, voltages, 

horsepower, pole configurations, 

enclosure constructions, and mountings, 

and DOE believes drop-in replacement 

motors would remain available and 

there would be no major market 

disruption, as highlighted by the 

Electric Motors Working Group. DOE 

further notes that OEM equipment can 

usually accommodate different models 

of motors and online cross-referencing 

tools 15 exist to help consumers identify 

motors that can be used as drop-in 

replacements. Therefore, DOE has 

determined that these comments do not 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct 

Final Rule. 

F. Regulatory Burden 

AHRI stated that the burdens of the 

June 2023 Direct Final Rule would be 

added to an already large industry 

burden due to other regulatory bodies 

requiring redesign and recertification of 

products made by its members. AHRI 

described the regulatory actions that 

will impact its products: (1) UL 60335– 

2–40 will be required for all cooling 

equipment on January 1, 2024; (2) the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act requires the use of 

low global warming potential (‘‘GWP’’) 

refrigerants in residential and light 

commercial air conditioners, which 

AHRI expects to be required within two 

years and will require updated safety 

standards to address refrigerant leaks 

because GWP refrigerants are more 

flammable, and in commercial 

refrigeration equipment, which has a 

statutory deadline of October 7, 2023; 

(3) new federal efficiency levels and 

metrics with compliance dates ranging 

from January 1, 2024 to January 1, 2025 

for variable refrigerant flow (‘‘VRF’’) 

equipment, dedicated outdoor air 

systems, computer room air 

conditioners, air cooled three-phase 

small central air conditioners and heat 

pumps and VRF with a cooling capacity 

less than 65,000 Btu/h, and commercial 

fans; (4) California’s regulation of 

commercial fans required on November 

16, 2023; and (5) test procedures that are 

currently in the rulemaking process for 

commercial package air conditioners 

and heat pumps, single package vertical 

air conditioners and heat pumps, 

package terminal air conditioners and 

heat pumps, and water source heat 

pumps. (AHRI, No. 54 at pp. 6–7) 

The June 2023 Direct Final Rule 

examined the cumulative regulatory 

burden that affects the manufacturers of 

the covered equipment (i.e., electric 

motors). 88 FR 36066, 36133–36134. As 

previously stated, DOE typically does 

not include the impacts to other 

manufacturers. Therefore, DOE has 

determined that this comment does not 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal of the June 2023 Direct 

Final Rule. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
72354 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

16See Table 8C.2.1 in Appendix 8C of the June 

2023 Direct Final Rule Technical Support 

Document. 

17See Appendix 8C of the June 2023 Direct Final 

Rule Technical Support Document. 

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. 

Hogan commented that the efficiency 

of residential and commercial motors 

can be increased higher than what is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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, Ami.Grace-Tardy@

hq.doe.gov 

Re: Energy Conservation Standards for 

Electric Motors, DOE Docket No. EERE– 

2020–BT–STD–0007 

Dear Assistant General Counsel GraceTardy: 

I am responding to your June 20, 2023 

letter seeking the views of the Attorney 

General about the potential impact on 

competition of proposed energy conservation 

standards for electric motors. 

Your request was submitted under Section 

325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the 

Attorney General to determine the impact of 

any lessening of competition likely to result 

from proposed energy conservation 

standards. The Attorney General’s 

responsibility for responding to requests from 

other departments about the effect of a 

program on competition has been delegated 

to the Assistant Attorney General for the 

Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). The 

Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust 

Division has authorized me, as the Policy 

Director for the Antitrust Division, to provide 

the Antitrust Division’s views regarding the 

potential impact on competition of proposed 

energy conservation standards on his behalf. 

In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust 

Division examines whether a proposed 

standard may lessen competition, for 

example, by substantially limiting consumer 

choice, by placing certain manufacturers at 

an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or 

by inducing avoidable inefficiencies in 

production or distribution of particular 

products. A lessening of competition could 

result in higher prices to manufacturers and 

consumers. 

We have reviewed the proposed standard 

contained in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and the related Technical 

Support Document. We have also reviewed 

public comments and information provided 

by industry participants. 

Based on this review, our conclusion is 

that the proposed energy conservation 

standards for electric motors are unlikely to 

have a significant adverse impact on 

competition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

David G.B. Lawrence Policy Director 

[FR Doc. 2023–23204 Filed 10–19–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1