37122 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0048] 

RIN 1904–AF27 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for DedicatedPurpose Pool Pump Motors 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and announcement of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended, 

prescribes energy conservation 

standards for various consumer 

products and certain commercial and 

industrial equipment, including electric 

motors. In this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’), the Department 

of Energy (DOE) proposes to establish 

energy conservation standards for 

dedicated-purpose pool pump motors, a 

category of electric motors, and also 

announces a public meeting to receive 

comment on these proposed standards 

and associated analyses and results. 

DATES:

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this NOPR no later than 

August 22, 2022. 

Comments regarding the likely 

competitive impact of the proposed 

standard should be sent to the 

Department of Justice contact listed in 

the ADDRESSES section on or before July 

21, 2022. 

Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

meeting via webinar on Tuesday, July 

26, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

See section IV, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ 

for webinar registration information, 

participant instructions and information 

about the capabilities available to 

webinar participants. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0048, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to 

DPPMotors2017STD0048@ee.doe.gov. 

Include docket number EERE–2017–BT– 

STD–0048 in the subject line of the 

message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

IV of this document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, email, 

postal mail and hand delivery/courier, 

the Department has found it necessary 

to make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing corona virus 2019 

(‘‘COVID–19’’) pandemic. DOE is 

currently suspending receipt of public 

comments via postal mail and hand 

delivery/courier. If a commenter finds 

that this change poses an undue 

hardship, please contact Appliance 

Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 

1445 to discuss the need for alternative 

arrangements. Once the COVID–19 

pandemic health emergency is resolved, 

DOE anticipates resuming all of its 

regular options for public comment 

submission, including postal mail and 

hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD0048. The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section VII of this 

document for information on how to 

submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

EPCA requires the Attorney General 

to provide DOE a written determination 

of whether the proposed standard is 

likely to lessen competition. The U.S. 

Department of Justice Antitrust Division 

invites input from market participants 

and other interested persons with views 

on the likely competitive impact of the 

proposed standard. Interested persons 

may contact the Division at 

energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or 

before the date specified in the DATES

section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’ 

line of your email the title and Docket 

Number of this proposed rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

9870. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2588. Email: 

amelia.whiting@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by 

email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

proposes to maintain the following 

previously approved standard in part 

431 and incorporate by reference it into 

part 429: UL 1004–10 (1004–10:2022), 

‘‘Standard for Safety for Pool Pump 

Motors,’’ First Edition, approved 

February 28, 2020, including revisions 

through March 24, 2022. 

Copies of UL 1004–10:2022 can be 

obtained from: Underwriters 

Laboratories, 333 Pfingsten Road, 

Northbrook, IL 60062, (841) 272–8800, 

or go to https://www.ul.com. 

For a further discussion of this 

standard, see section VI.M of this 

document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

DPPP Motors 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

III. General Discussion 

A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment 

Classes 

B. Test Procedure 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To 

Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37123 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117–58 (Nov. 

15, 2021). 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Scope of Coverage 

2. Market Review 

3. Equipment Classes 

4. Technology Assessment and Options 

a. Motor Topology 

b. Motor Speed 

B. Screening Analysis 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

a. Representative Units 

b. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

c. Higher Efficiency Levels 

2. Cost Analysis 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

1. DPPP Motor Applications 

2. DPPP Motor Consumer Sample 

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

Pump Motor Input Power 

4. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps Motor 

Input Power 

5. Daily Operating Hours 

6. Annual Days of Operation 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Equipment Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

6. Equipment Lifetime 

7. Discount Rates 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

G. Shipments Analysis 

1. Base-Year Shipments 

2. No-New-Standards Case Shipment 

Projections 

3. Standards-Case Shipment Projections 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. Equipment Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

b. Shipments Projections 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

d. Markup Scenarios 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

K. Emissions Analysis 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in 

DOE’s Analysis 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

a. Social Cost of Carbon 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

2. Monetization of Other Emissions 

Impacts 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

8. Summary of Economic Impacts 

C. Conclusion 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for DPPP Motors Standards 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Proposed Standards 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 

3. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements Including Differences in 

Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of 

Small Entities 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Information Quality 

M. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

Title III, Part C1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act, as amended 

(EPCA) 2 established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317) Such equipment includes electric 

motors, which include dedicatedpurpose pool pump motors (‘‘DPPP 

motors’’ or ‘‘DPPPMs’’ or ‘‘pool pump 

motors’’), the subject of this proposed 

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

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

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

Furthermore, the new or amended 

standard must result in a significant 

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

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

In accordance with these and other 

statutory provisions discussed in this 

document, DOE proposes new energy 

conservation standards for DPPP 

motors. DOE is proposing performance 

standard for a class of DPPP motors and 

design requirements for certain classes 

of DPPP motors. The proposed 

performance standard, which are 

expressed in full-load efficiency, and 

proposed design requirements are 

shown in Table I.1 of this document. 

These proposed standards, if adopted, 

would apply to all DPPP motors listed 

in Table I.1 of this NOPR manufactured 

in, or imported into, the United States 

starting on the date 2 years after the 

publication of the final rule for this 

proposed rulemaking. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37124 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

3 Variable speed control DPPP motor is defined in 

UL 1004–10:2020 (incorporated by reference, See 10 

CFR 431.482 and 10 CFR 431.483). In this NOPR, 

DOE is proposing to reference the latest version of 

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

in section III.A.1. Throughout this NOPR, a variable 

speed motor is a DPPP motor that meets the 

definition of ‘‘variable speed control dedicatedpurpose pool pump motor’’ as defined by UL 1004– 

10:2022. 

4The average LCC savings refer to consumers that 

are affected by a standard and are measured relative 

to the efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case, which depicts the market in the 

compliance year in the absence of new or amended 

standards (see section IV.F.8 of this document). The 

simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific 

efficiency levels, is measured relative to the 

baseline product (see section V.B.1.a of this 

document). 

5All monetary values in this document are 

expressed in 2020 dollars. 

6The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) 

energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 

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

petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency 

standards. For more information on the FFC metric, 

see section IV.H.1 of this document. 

7A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented 

in short tons. 

TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DEDICATED PURPOSE POOL PUMP MOTORS

Motor total horsepower 

(THP) 

Performance 

standard: fullload efficiency 

(%) 

Design requirement: speed 

capability Design requirement: freeze protection 

THP < 0.5 ...................................... 69 None ............................................. None. 

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15 .......................... ........................ Variable speed control ................. Only for DPPP motors with freeze protection controls. 

1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5 ............................. ........................ Variable speed control ................. Only for DPPP motors with freeze protection controls. 

DOE also proposes to require that 

DPPP motors greater than or equal to 0.5 

THP must be variable speed control 

DPPP motors.3 Finally, for DPPP motors 

greater than or equal to 0.5 THP, DOE 

proposes that DPPP motors with freeze 

protection controls are to be shipped 

with the freeze protection feature 

disabled, or with the following default, 

user-adjustable settings: (a) the default 

dry-bulb air temperature setting shall be 

no greater than 40 °F; (b) the default run 

time setting shall be no greater than 1 

hour (before the temperature is 

rechecked); and (c) the default motor 

speed in freeze protection mode shall 

not be more than half of the maximum 

operating speed. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of 

the economic impacts of the proposed 

standards on consumers of DPPP 

motors, as measured by the average lifecycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) savings and the 

simple payback period (‘‘PBP’’).4 The 

average LCC savings are positive for all 

equipment classes, and the PBP is less 

than the average lifetime of DPPP 

motors, which is estimated to be 4.5 

years (see section IV.F.6 of this 

document). 

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

Motor total horsepower 

(THP) 

Average LCC 

savings 

(2020$) 

Simple payback 

period 

(years) 

THP < 0.5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 0.7 

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15 ............................................................................................................................................. 69 2.3 

1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5 ................................................................................................................................................ 292 0.9 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed standards on consumers is 

described in section IV.F of this 

document. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value 

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

cash flows to the industry from the base 

year through the end of the analysis 

period (2021–2055). Using a real 

discount rate of 7.2 percent, DOE 

estimates that the INPV for 

manufacturers of DPPP motors in the 

case without standards is $798 million 

in 2020$. Under the proposed 

standards, the change in INPV is 

estimated to range from ¥23.7 percent 

to 12.9 percent, which is approximately 

¥$189.3 million to $102.9 million. In 

order to bring products into compliance 

with standards, it is estimated that the 

industry would incur total conversion 

costs of $46.2 million. 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed standards on manufacturers is 

described in section IV.J of this 

document. The analytic results of the 

manufacturer impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) 

are presented in section V.B.2 of this 

document. 

C. National Benefits and Costs 5

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for DPPP motors would save a 

significant amount of energy. Relative to 

the case without standards, the lifetime 

energy savings for DPPP motors 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the anticipated first full year 

of compliance with the standards 

(2026–2055) amount to 0.99 quadrillion 

British thermal units (‘‘Btu’’), or quads.6

This represents a savings of 19.8 percent 

relative to the energy use of these 

products in the case without amended 

standards (referred to as the ‘‘no-newstandards case’’). 

The cumulative net present value 

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

the proposed standards for DPPP motors 

ranges from $3.0 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate) to $6.3 billion (at a 3- 

percent discount rate). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating-cost savings minus the 

estimated increased equipment costs for 

DPPP motors purchased in 2026–2055. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

for DPPP motors are projected to yield 

significant environmental benefits. DOE 

estimates that the proposed standards 

would result in cumulative emission 

reductions (over the same period as for 

energy savings) of 36.2 million metric 

tons (‘‘Mt’’) 7 of carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’), 

15.8 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 

(‘‘SO2’’), 49.9 thousand tons of nitrogen 

oxides (‘‘NOX’’), 237.2 thousand tons of 

methane (‘‘CH4’’), 0.4 thousand tons of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37125 

8 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to 

the no-new-standards case, which reflects key 

assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2021 

(‘‘AEO2021’’). AEO2021 represents current federal 

and state legislation and final implementation of 

regulations as of the time of its preparation. See 

section IV.K of this document for further discussion 

of AEO2021 assumptions that effect air pollutant 

emissions. 

9See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost 

of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. 

Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 

Washington, DC, February 2021. (‘‘February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD’’). /www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. 

10On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of 

Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal 

government’s emergency motion for stay pending 

appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary 

injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv– 

1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth 

Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no 

longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal 

government’s appeal of that injunction or a further 

court order. Among other things, the preliminary 

injunction enjoined the defendants in that case 

from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or 

relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social 

cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the 

Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to 

monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. In the absence of further intervening 

court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior 

to the injunction and presents monetized benefits 

where appropriate and permissible under law 

11 DOE estimates the economic value of these 

emissions reductions resulting from the considered 

TSLs for the purpose of complying with the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

12On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of 

Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal 

government’s emergency motion for stay pending 

appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary 

injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv– 

1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth 

Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no 

longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal 

government’s appeal of that injunction or a further 

court order. Among other things, the preliminary 

injunction enjoined the defendants in that case 

from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or 

relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social 

cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the 

Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to 

monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. In the absence of further intervening 

court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior 

to the injunction and present monetized benefits 

where appropriate and permissible under law. 

nitrous oxide (‘‘N2O’’), and 0.1 tons of 

mercury (‘‘Hg’’).8

DOE estimates the value of climate 

benefits from a reduction in greenhouse 

gases using four different estimates of 

the social cost of CO2 (‘‘SC–CO2’’), the 

social cost of methane (‘‘SC–CH4’’), and 

the social cost of nitrous oxide (‘‘SC– 

N2O’’). Together these represent the 

social cost of greenhouse gases (SC– 

GHG). DOE used interim SC–GHG 

values developed by an Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (IWG).9 The 

derivation of these values is discussed 

in section IV.L of this document. For 

presentational purposes, the climate 

benefits associated with the average SC– 

GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are 

estimated to be $1.8 billion. DOE does 

not have a single central SC–GHG point 

estimate and it emphasizes the 

importance and value of considering the 

benefits calculated using all four SC– 

GHG estimates.10 DOE estimated the 

monetary health benefits of SO2 and 

NOX emissions reductions, also 

discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. DOE estimated the present 

value of the health benefits would be 

$1.6 billion using a 7-percent discount 

rate, and $3.3 billion using a 3-percent 

discount rate.11 DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NOX) 

ozone precursor health benefits, but will 

continue to assess the ability to 

monetize other effects such as health 

benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5

emissions.12

Table I.3 summarizes the economic 

benefits and costs expected to result 

from the proposed standards for DPPP 

motors. There are other important 

unquantified effects, including certain 

unquantified climate benefits, 

unquantified public health benefits from 

the reduction of toxic air pollutants and 

other emissions, unquantified energy 

security benefits, and distributional 

effects, among others. 

TABLE I.3—SUMMARY OF MONETIZED ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS FOR DPPP MOTORS

[TSL 7] 

Billion 2020$ 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ................................................................................................................................................. 8.8 

Climate Benefits * ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1.8 

Health Benefits ** ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3.3 

Total Benefits † .......................................................................................................................................................................... 13.9 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ................................................................................................................................ 2.5 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. 11.4 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ................................................................................................................................................. 4.6 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) .............................................................................................................................................. 1.8 

Health Benefits ** ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1.6 

Total Benefits† .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8.0 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ................................................................................................................................ 1.5 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6.4 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026–2055. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026–2055. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37126 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

13To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2026, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

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

shipments occur (e.g., 2030), and then discounted 

the present value from each year to 2026. Using the 

present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 

payment over a 30-year period, starting in the 

compliance year, that yields the same present value. 

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

(SC–N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate), as shown in Table 

IV.17 and Table IV.18. Together these represent the global SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated 

with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. 

See section IV.L of this document for more details. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal 

government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21– 

cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the 

federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in 

that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which 

were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and 

presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. 

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

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. †Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, 

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

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

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The monetary 

values for the total annualized net 

benefits are (1) the reduced consumer 

operating costs, minus (2) the increase 

in product purchase prices and 

installation costs, plus (3) the value of 

climate and health benefits of emission 

reduction, all annualized.13 The 

national operating savings are domestic 

private U.S. consumer monetary savings 

that occur as a result of purchasing the 

covered products and are measured for 

the lifetime of DPPP motors shipped in 

2026–2055. The benefits associated with 

reduced emissions achieved as a result 

of the proposed standards are also 

calculated based on the lifetime of DPPP 

motors shipped in 2026–2055. Total 

benefits for both the 3-percent and 7- 

percent cases are presented using the 

average GHG social costs with 3-percent 

discount rate. Estimates of SC–GHG 

values are presented for all four 

discount rates in section V.B.8 of this 

document. Table I.4 presents the total 

estimated monetized benefits and costs 

associated with the proposed standard, 

expressed in terms of annualized values. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the proposed standards are 

shown in Table I.4 of this document. 

The results under the primary estimate 

are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced NOX and SO2

emissions benefits, and the 3-percent 

discount rate case for climate benefits 

from reduced GHG emissions, the 

estimated cost of the standards 

proposed in this rule is $163.5 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the estimated annual benefits are 

$482.3 million in reduced equipment 

operating costs $104.2 million in GHG 

climate benefits, and $168.7 million in 

health benefits. In this case, the net 

benefit would amount to $591.6 million 

per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards is $142.9 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $504.2 million in reduced 

operating costs, $104.2 million in 

climate benefits, and $188.9 million in 

health benefits. In this case, the net 

benefit would amount to $654.4 million 

per year. 

TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

DPPP MOTORS

[TSL 7] 

Million 2020$/year 

Primary estimate Low-net-benefits 

estimate 

High-net-benefits 

estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................... 504.2 436.2 580.9 

Climate Benefits * ..................................................................................... 104.2 92.6 115.6 

Health Benefits ** ..................................................................................... 188.9 168.1 209.3 

Total Benefits † .................................................................................. 797.3 696.9 905.9 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ........................................ 142.9 110.0 178.0 

Net Benefits ...................................................................................... 654.4 587.0 727.9 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................... 482.3 424.8 546.8 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ...................................................... 104.2 92.6 115.6 

Health Benefits ** ..................................................................................... 168.7 152.0 185.0 

Total Benefits † .................................................................................. 755.2 669.5 847.5 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37127 

14Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

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

TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

DPPP MOTORS—Continued 

[TSL 7] 

Million 2020$/year 

Primary estimate Low-net-benefits 

estimate 

High-net-benefits 

estimate 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ........................................ 163.5 129.2 199.0 

Net Benefits ...................................................................................... 591.6 540.3 648.5 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026–2055. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026–2055. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2021 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. 

In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections 

IV.F.1 and IV.H.1of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

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

purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department 

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

all four SC–GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency 

motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. 

La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal 

of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits 

where appropriate and permissible under law. 

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

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. †Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. 

DOE’s analysis of the national impacts 

of the proposed standards is described 

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

document. 

D. Conclusion 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Specifically, 

with regards to technological feasibility 

products achieving these standard levels 

are already commercially available for 

all equipment classes covered by this 

proposal. As for economic justification, 

DOE’s analysis shows that the benefits 

of the proposed standard exceed, to a 

great extent, the burdens of the 

proposed standards. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from NOX and SO2 reduction, 

and a 3-percent discount rate case for 

climate benefits from reduced GHG 

emissions, the estimated cost of the 

proposed standards for DPPPM is 

$163.5 million per year in increased 

DPPPM costs, while the estimated 

annual benefits are $482.3 million in 

reduced equipment operating costs, 

$104.2 million in climate benefits, and 

$168.7 million in health benefits. The 

net benefit amounts to $591.6 million 

per year. 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.14 For example, the 

United States rejoined the Paris 

Agreement on February 19, 2021. As 

part of that agreement, the United States 

has committed to reducing GHG 

emissions in order to limit the rise in 

mean global temperature. As such, 

energy savings that reduce GHG 

emissions have taken on greater 

importance. Additionally, some covered 

products and equipment have most of 

their energy consumption occur during 

periods of peak energy demand. The 

impacts of these products on the energy 

infrastructure can be more pronounced 

than products with relatively constant 

demand. In evaluating the significance 

of energy savings, DOE considers 

differences in primary energy and FFC 

effects for different covered products 

and equipment when determining 

whether energy savings are significant. 

Primary energy and FFC effects include 

the energy consumed in electricity 

production (depending on load shape), 

in distribution and transmission, and in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

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

petroleum fuels), and thus present a 

more complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis. 

As previously mentioned, the 

proposed standards would result in 

estimated national energy savings of 

0.99 quad FFC, the equivalent of the 

electricity use of 9.6 million homes in 

one year. DOE has initially determined 

the energy savings from the proposed 

standard levels are ‘‘significant’’ within 

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

Finally, DOE notes that a more detailed 

discussion of the basis for these 

tentative conclusions is contained in the 

remainder of this document and the 

accompanying TSD. 

DOE also considered more-stringent 

energy efficiency levels as potential 

standards, and is still considering them 

in this proposed rulemaking. However, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that the 

potential burdens of the more-stringent 

energy efficiency levels would outweigh 

the projected benefits. 

Based on consideration of the public 

comments DOE receives in response to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37128 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

this document and related information 

collected and analyzed during the 

course of this proposed rulemaking 

effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency 

levels presented in this document that 

are either higher or lower than the 

proposed standards, or some 

combination of level(s) that incorporate 

the proposed standards in part. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed rule, as well 

as some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for DPPP motors. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of 

EPCA, added by Public Law 95–619, 

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

6317, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, which 

sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency. 

This equipment includes those electric 

motors that are DPPP motors, the subject 

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

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

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

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 

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

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

energy conservation standards (42 

U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to 

require information and reports from 

manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 

U.S.C. 6296). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

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

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, 

however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

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

6316(a) (applying the preemption 

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

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

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

6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) 

Manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use the Federal test procedures as 

the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that 

their equipment complies with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

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

(2) making representations about the 

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

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

test procedures to determine whether 

the equipment complies with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 

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

DOE test procedures for DPPP motors 

appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 431, subpart Z. 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered equipment, 

including those electric motors that are 

DPPP motors. Any new or amended 

standard for a covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary of Energy determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

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

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

may not adopt any standard that would 

not result in the significant conservation 

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

6295(o)(3)) 

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard: (1) for certain equipment, 

including those electric motors that are 

DPPP motors, if no test procedure has 

been established for the equipment, or 

(2) if DOE determines by rule that the 

standard is not technologically feasible 

or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

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

deciding whether a proposed standard 

is economically justified, DOE must 

determine whether the benefits of the 

standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 

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

must make this determination after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, and by considering, to the 

greatest extent practicable, the following 

seven statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the standard 

on manufacturers and consumers of the 

products subject to the standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of the 

covered products in the type (or class) 

compared to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for the 

covered products that are likely to result 

from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of energy (or 

as applicable, water) savings likely to result 

directly from the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products likely to 

result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result from 

the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and water 

conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy 

(‘‘Secretary’’) considers relevant. 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing an equipment 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the applicable test 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

EPCA also contains what is known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing 

any amended standard that either 

increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of covered 

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

6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard 

if interested persons have established by 

a preponderance of the evidence that 

the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States in 

any covered product type (or class) of 

performance characteristics (including 

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 

and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the 

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

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

Additionally, EPCA specifies 

requirements when promulgating an 

energy conservation standard for 

covered equipment that has two or more 

subcategories. DOE must specify a 

different standard level for a type or 

class of equipment that has the same 

function or intended use, if DOE 

determines that equipment within such 

group: (A) consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered equipment within such type (or 

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

performance-related feature which other 

equipment within such type (or class) 

do not have and such feature justifies a 

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

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

determining whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different 

standard for a group of equipment, DOE 

must consider such factors as the utility 

to the consumer of the feature and other 

factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any 

rule prescribing such a standard must 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37129 

15The current energy conservation standards at 

10 CFR 431.425 apply to electric motors that satisfy 

nine criteria listed at 10 CFR 431.425(g), subject to 

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

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

induction motors; (2) are rated for continuous duty 

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

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

operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz 

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

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

built in a three digit or four-digit NEMA frame size 

(or IEC metric equivalent), including those designs 

between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC 

metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame 

size (or IEC metric equivalent); (8) produce at least 

one horsepower (0.746 kW) but not greater than 500 

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

performance requirements of one of the following 

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

an IEC Design N or H motor. The exemptions listed 

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

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

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

16 DOE confirmed the adoption of the standards 

and the effective date and compliance date in a 

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

DOE also established a test procedure for DPPPs. 82 

FR 36858 (August 7, 2017). 

17The Joint Petitioners are: The Association of 

Pool & Spa Professionals, Alliance to Save Energy, 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Arizona 

Public Service, California Energy Commission, 

California Investor Owned Utilities, Consumer 

Federation of America, Florida Consumer Action 

Network, Hayward Industries, National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association, Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Nidec Motor Corporation, 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Pentair 

Water Pool and Spa, Regal Beloit Corporation, 

Speck Pumps, Texas ROSE (Ratepayers’ 

Organization to Save Energy), Waterway Plastics, 

WEG Commercial Motors, and Zodiac Pool 

Systems. 

18The Joint Petition is available at 

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

19 Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–STD–0048, 

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

20With respect to each of the ex parte 

communications noted in this document, DOE 

posted a memorandum submitted by the interested 

party/parties that summarized the issues discussed 

in the relevant meeting as well as its date and 

attendees, in compliance with DOE’s Guidance on 

Ex Parte Communications. 74 FR 52795–52796 

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

as well as any documents given to DOE employees 

during the meeting were added to the docket as 

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

21The parenthetical reference provides a 

reference for information located in the docket of 

DOE’s rulemaking to develop the test procedure and 

labeling requirements for DPPP motors. (Docket No. 

EERE–2017–BT–STD–0008, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017- 

BT-STD-0008). The references are arranged as 

follows: (commenter, comment docket ID number, 

page of that document). 

include an explanation of the basis on 

which such higher or lower level was 

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

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

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

DPPP motors are electric motors, 

which are defined as machines that 

convert electrical power into rotational 

mechanical power. 10 CFR 431.12. DOE 

has established test procedures, labeling 

requirements, and energy conservation 

standards for certain electric motors (10 

CFR part 431 subpart B), but those 

requirements do not apply to DPPP 

motors subject to the proposed energy 

conservation standards. DOE has 

separately established test procedure for 

DPPP motors in 10 CFR part 431 subpart 

Z (‘‘Subpart Z’’). 

Currently, DPPP motors that would be 

subject to the proposed energy 

conservation standards are not subject 

to any Federal energy conservation 

standards or labeling requirements 

because they do not fall within any of 

the specific classes of electric motors 

that are currently regulated by DOE.15

However, DPPP motors are electric 

motors and, therefore, are and have been 

among the types of industrial equipment 

for which Congress has authorized DOE 

to establish applicable regulations under 

EPCA without need for DOE to 

undertake any additional prior 

administrative action. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(1)(A)) 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

DPPP Motors 

On January 18, 2017, DOE published 

a direct final rule establishing energy 

conservation standards for DPPPs. 82 FR 

5650 (the ‘‘January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule’’).16 Acknowledging comments 

received in response to the direct final 

rule in support of regulating DPPP 

motors that would serve as replacement 

motors to the regulated pool pumps, 

DOE published a notice of public 

meeting on July 3, 2017, and held a 

public meeting on August 10, 2017, to 

consider potential scope, definitions, 

equipment characteristics, and metrics 

for pool pump motors. 82 FR 30845. 

DOE also requested comment on 

potential requirements for DPPP motors 

in a request for information (‘‘RFI’’) 

pertaining to test procedures for small 

electric motors and electric motors. 82 

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

2018, DOE received a petition submitted 

by a variety of entities (collectively, the 

‘‘Joint Petitioners’’) 17 requesting that 

DOE issue a direct final rule to establish 

prescriptive standards and a labeling 

requirement for DPPP motors (‘‘Joint 

Petition’’).18 The Joint Petitioners 

sought a compliance date of July 19, 

2021, to align with the standards 

compliance date for DPPPs. (Id.) See 

also 82 FR 24218 (May 26, 2017). DOE 

published a notice of the Joint Petition 

and sought comment on whether to 

proceed with the proposal, as well as 

any data or information that could be 

used in DOE’s determination of whether 

to issue a direct final rule. 83 FR 45851 

(Sept. 11, 2018).19

On December 12, 2018, 

representatives from APSP, NEMA, 

Nidec Motors, Regal Beloit, and Zodiac 

met with DOE to reiterate the need for 

implementation of the Joint Petition. 

(December 2018 Ex Parte Meeting, No. 

42 at p. 1) 20 On February 5, 2019, the 

Association of Pool & Spa Professionals 

(‘‘APSP’’), National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (‘‘NEMA’’), 

Hayward, Pentair, Nidec Motors, Regal 

Beloit, WEG Commercial Motors, and 

Zodiac Pool Systems met with DOE to 

present an alternative approach to the 

Joint Petition, suggesting DOE propose a 

labeling requirement for DPPP motors. 

(February 2019 Ex Parte Meeting, No. 43 

at p. 1) 21 These interested parties 

specifically requested that DOE base the 

labeling requirement on a newlyavailable industry standard for pool 

pump motors published on July 1, 2019 

(UL 1004–10:2019, ‘‘Pool Pump 

Motors’’), a design standard that 

incorporates some of the proposals 

contained in the Joint Petition. 

(February 2019 Ex Parte Slides, No. 43 

at pp. 9–10) A follow-up memorandum 

was submitted to DOE on March 1, 

2019, providing additional information 

related to UL 1004–10:2019. (March 

2019 Ex Parte Memo, No. 44) The 

interested parties noted the timelines 

and costs that would be involved in 

applying a label to the affected pool 

pump motors and the impacts flowing 

from past labeling efforts. (See generally 

id. at 1–3.) 

On October 5, 2020, in response to the 

Joint Petition and the alternative 

recommendation presented by several of 

the Joint Petitioners following 

submission of the Joint Petition, DOE 

published a NOPR proposing to 

establish a test procedure and an 

accompanying labeling requirement for 

DPPP motors. 85 FR 62816 (‘‘October 

2020 NOPR’’). Specifically, DOE 

proposed to incorporate by reference UL 

Standard 1004–10:2019 ‘‘Outline of 

Investigation for Pool Pump Motors’’ 

(‘‘UL 1004–10:2019’’) pertaining to 

DPPP definitions and marking 

requirements; require the use of CSA 

C747–09 (R2014), ‘‘Energy Efficiency 

Test Methods for Small Motors’’ (‘‘CSA 

C747–09’’) for testing the energy 

efficiency of DPPP motors; require the 

nameplate of a subject DPPP motor (1) 

to include the full-load efficiency of the 

motor as determined under the 

proposed test procedure, and (2) if the 

DPPP motor is certified to UL–1004– 

10:2019, to include the statement, 

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


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37130 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

22These terms are defined in UL 1004–10:2020, 

which is incorporated by reference in DOE’s test 

procedure in Subpart Z of 10 CFR part 431. In this 

NOPR, DOE is proposing to reference the latest 

version of the UL standard, UL 1004–10:2022; see 

discussion in section III.A.1. 

that catalogs and marketing materials 

include the full-load efficiency of the 

motor; require manufacturers to notify 

DOE of the subject DPPP motor models 

in current production (according to the 

manufacturer’s model number) and 

whether the motor model is certified to 

UL 1004–10:2019; and require 

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

motor models as determined pursuant to 

the proposed test procedure. 85 FR 

62816, 62820. Additionally, if a DPPP 

motor model is certified to UL 1004– 

10:2019, DOE proposed to require 

manufacturers to report the total 

horsepower (‘‘THP’’) and speed 

configuration of the motor model as 

provided on the nameplate pursuant to 

the UL certification. Id. 

On July 29, 2021, DOE published a 

final rule adopting a test procedure for 

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

Final Rule’’). Specifically, the test 

procedure requires to use CSA C747–09 

(R2014), ‘‘Energy Efficiency Test 

Methods for Small Motors’’ (‘‘CSA 

C747–09’’) for testing the full-load 

efficiency of DPPP motors and 

incorporates by reference UL 1004– 

10:2020 ‘‘Standard for Pool Pump 

Motors’’ (‘‘UL 1004–10:2020’’) 

pertaining to definitions and scope. The 

new test procedure is currently located 

in 10 CFR part 431, subpart Z (‘‘Subpart 

Z’’). 86 FR 40765, 40768. DOE did not 

establish a labeling requirement and 

stated that it intends to address any 

such labeling and/or energy 

conservation standards requirement in a 

separate notification. Id. 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘appendix A’’), applicable to covered 

equipment under 10 CFR 431.4, DOE 

notes that it is deviating from the 

provision in appendix A regarding the 

process for proposing new or amended 

energy conservation standards. Section 

6(a)(1) of appendix A states that as the 

first step in any proceeding to consider 

establishing any energy conservation 

standard, DOE will consider initiating a 

rulemaking proceeding. Section 6(a)(2) 

of appendix A states that if the 

Department determines it is appropriate 

to proceed with a rulemaking, the 

preliminary stages of a rulemaking to 

issue an energy conservation standard 

that DOE will undertake will be a 

framework document and preliminary 

analysis, or an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘ANOPR’’). DOE 

is opting to deviate from both provisions 

by a publishing a NOPR without first 

publishing a document announcing that 

DOE is considering initiating a 

rulemaking proceeding, a framework 

document and preliminary analysis or 

an ANOPR. DOE believes that given the 

stakeholder involvement and 

information received to date regarding 

DPPP motors and potential standards for 

such equipment, there has been already 

been significant stakeholder engagement 

on this topic including: (1) the RFI on 

July 31, 2017, which include issues for 

comment relating to dedicated purpose 

pool pump motors (82 FR 35468); (2) the 

Joint Petition requesting a direct final 

rule to establish standards and a 

labeling requirement for DPPPMs, on 

which DOE requested comment along 

with any data or information that could 

be used in DOE’s determination of 

whether to issue a direct final rule (83 

FR 45851); (3) stakeholders engagement 

from substantive ex parte 

communications with DOE; and (4) the 

analysis conducted in support of the 

energy conservation standards for 

DPPPs, included analyses of DPPP 

motors comparable to the analyses 

conducted in support of this NOPR (See 

82 FR 5650). 

Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A states 

that the length of the public comment 

period for NOPR rulemaking documents 

will vary depending upon the 

circumstances of the particular 

rulemaking, but will not be less than 75 

calendar days. DOE is opting to deviate 

from this provision in providing a 60- 

day comment period. DOE has 

tentatively that a 60-day comment 

period should be sufficient for 

stakeholders to evaluate the proposal 

presented in this NOPR and provide 

comment given the extensive 

stakeholder involvement to date and the 

prior opportunities to comment. 

III. General Discussion 

A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment 

Classes 

This document covers equipment 

meeting the definition of DPPP motor as 

defined in 10 CFR 431.483 and the 

scope specified in 10 CFR 431.481(b). 

Specifically, the scope covers DPPP 

motors with a total THP of less than or 

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

DPPP motors that are polyphase motors 

capable of operating without a drive and 

distributed in commerce without a drive 

that converts single-phase power to 

polyphase power; (ii) waterfall pump 

motors; (iii) rigid electric spa pump 

motors, (iv) storable electric spa pump 

motors; (v) integral cartridge-filter pool 

pump motors, and (vi) integral sandfilter pool pump motors.22

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered equipment into 

equipment classes by the type of energy 

used or by capacity or other 

performance-related features that justify 

differing standards. In making a 

determination whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different 

standard, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility of the feature to the 

consumer and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 

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

DOE is proposing to establish 

equipment classes for DPPP motors 

based on THP. DOE is proposing an 

extra-small-size equipment 

corresponding to motors with a THP 

less than 0.5 hp, a small-size equipment 

class corresponding to motors with a 

total horsepower rating greater than or 

equal to 0.5 hp but less than 1.15 hp, 

and a standard-size equipment class 

corresponding to motor with a THP 

greater than or equal to 1.15 hp and less 

than or equal to 5 hp. Table III.1 

provides a summary of the proposed 

equipment classes. See section IV.A.3 

for further details on the reasoning why 

DOE determined these equipment 

classes are appropriate and justify 

having separate standards. 

TABLE III.1—PROPOSED EQUIPMENT

CLASSES FOR DPPP MOTORS

Equipment class 

Motor total 

horsepower 

(Hp) 

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

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

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

B. Test Procedure 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

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

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use these test procedures to certify to 

DOE that their product complies with 

energy conservation standards and to 

quantify the efficiency of their product. 

As stated, DOE established subpart Z 

which specifies that the test procedure 

applies to DPPP motors with a THP of 

less than or equal to 5, but does not 

apply to: (i) DPPP motors that are 

polyphase motors capable of operating 

without a drive and distributed in 

commerce without a drive that converts 

single-phase power to polyphase power; 

(ii) waterfall pump motors; (iii) rigid 

electric spa pump motors, (iv) storable 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37131 

23Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency 

levels for each product class. The TSLs considered 

for this NOPR are described in section V.A. DOE 

conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers 

impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period. 

24The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s 

statement of policy and notice of policy 

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

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

25See 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

26See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 

1, 2021) (‘‘Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 

Abroad’’). 

electric spa pump motors; (v) integral 

cartridge-filter pool pump motors, and 

(vi) integral sand-filter pool pump 

motors). Further, Subpart Z incorporates 

by reference CSA C747–09 as the energy 

efficiency test method for DPPP motors, 

with ‘‘full-load efficiency’’ as the metric. 

The test procedure references UL 

1004–10:2020 ‘‘Standard for Safety for 

Pool Pump Motors’’ for the definitions, 

(10 CFR 431.483) and references CSA 

C747–09 as the energy efficiency test 

method for DPPP motors (10 CFR 

431.484(b)). The test procedure 

establishes full-load efficiency as the 

metric for DPPP motors. 10 CFR 

431.484(b). In this NOPR, DOE is 

proposing to reference the latest version 

of the UL standard, UL 1004–10:2022, 

which added a definition for the term 

‘‘factory default setting’’; see discussion 

in section III.A.1. As such, DOE is 

proposing product-specific enforcement 

requirements at 10 CFR 429.134 that 

require DPPPMs be tested in accordance 

with UL 1004–10:2022 to verify 

variable-speed capability and applicable 

freeze protection design requirements. 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening 

analysis based on information gathered 

on all current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the products or 

equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. As the first step in such an 

analysis, DOE develops a list of 

technology options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of those 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially-available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. Sections 

6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C (‘‘Process 

Rule’’). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; 

Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)–(v) and 7(b)(2)–(5) of 

the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this 

document discusses the results of the 

screening analysis for DPPP motors, 

particularly the designs DOE 

considered, those it screened out, and 

those that are the basis for the standards 

considered in this proposed rulemaking. 

For further details on the screening 

analysis for this proposed rulemaking, 

see chapter 4 of the NOPR technical 

support document (‘‘TSD’’). 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

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

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

Accordingly, in the engineering 

analysis, DOE determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficiency for 

DPPP motors, using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

products available on the market or in 

working prototypes. The max-tech 

levels that DOE determined for this 

proposed rulemaking are described in 

section IV.C.1.c of this proposed rule 

and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

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

DOE projected energy savings from 

application of the TSL to DPPP motors 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the first full year of 

compliance with the proposed 

standards (2026–2055).23 The savings 

are measured over the entire lifetime of 

DPPP motors purchased in the previous 

30-year period. DOE quantified the 

energy savings attributable to each TSL 

as the difference in energy consumption 

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

energy consumption that reflects how 

the market for a product would likely 

evolve in the absence of new energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE used its national impact analysis 

(‘‘NIA’’) spreadsheet model to estimate 

national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) from 

potential amended or new standards for 

DPPP motors. The NIA spreadsheet 

model (described in section IV.H of this 

document) calculates energy savings in 

terms of site energy, which is the energy 

directly consumed by products at the 

locations where they are used. For 

electricity, DOE reports national energy 

savings in terms of primary energy 

savings, which is the savings in the 

energy that is used to generate and 

transmit the site electricity. DOE also 

calculates NES in terms of FFC energy 

savings. The FFC metric includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

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

fuels), and thus presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards.24 DOE’s 

approach is based on the calculation of 

an FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered products or 

equipment. For more information on 

FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 

of this document. 

2. Significance of Savings 

To adopt any new or amended 

standards for a covered product, DOE 

must determine that such action would 

result in significant energy savings. (42 

U.S.C. 6315(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.25 For example, the 

United States rejoined the Paris 

Agreement on February 19, 2021. As 

part of that agreement, the United States 

has committed to reducing greenhouse 

gas (‘‘GHG’’) emissions in order to limit 

the rise in mean global temperature.26

As such, energy savings that reduce 

GHG emission have taken on greater 

importance. Additionally, some covered 

products and equipment have most of 

their energy consumption occur during 

periods of peak energy demand. The 

impacts of these products on the energy 

infrastructure can be more pronounced 

than products with relatively constant 

demand. In evaluating the significance 

of energy savings, DOE considers 

differences in primary energy and fullfuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) effects for different 

covered products and equipment when 

determining whether energy savings are 

significant. Primary energy and FFC 

effects include the energy consumed in 

electricity production (depending on 

load shape), in distribution and 

transmission, and in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

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

fuels), and thus present a more complete 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37132 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

picture of the impacts of energy 

conservation standards. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

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

significance of cumulative FFC national 

energy savings, the cumulative FFC 

emissions reductions, and the need to 

confront the global climate crisis, among 

other factors. DOE estimates a combined 

total of 0.99 quads of FFC energy 

savings at the proposed efficiency levels 

for DPPP motors. This represents 19.8 

percent energy savings relative to the 

no-new-standards case energy 

consumption for DPPP motors. DOE has 

initially determined the energy savings 

for the trial standard levels considered 

in this proposal are ‘‘significant’’ within 

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

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted previously, EPCA provides 

seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy 

conservation standard is economically 

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

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

sections discuss how DOE has 

addressed each of those seven factors in 

this proposed rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a 

potential amended standard on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, 

as discussed in section IV.J of this 

document. DOE first uses an annual 

cash-flow approach to determine the 

quantitative impacts. This step includes 

both a short-term assessment—based on 

the cost and capital requirements during 

the period between when a regulation is 

issued and when entities must comply 

with the regulation—and a long-term 

assessment over a 30-year period. The 

industry-wide impacts analyzed include 

(1) INPV, which values the industry on 

the basis of expected future cash flows, 

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

revenue and income, and (4) other 

measures of impact, as appropriate. 

Second, DOE analyzes and reports the 

impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including impacts on 

small manufacturers. Third, DOE 

considers the impact of standards on 

domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of various DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and PBP associated with new or 

amended standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value of the consumer costs and 

benefits expected to result from 

particular standards. DOE also evaluates 

the impacts of potential standards on 

identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be affected disproportionately 

by a standard. 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product in the type (or class) compared 

to any increase in the price of, or in the 

initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of, the covered product that 

are likely to result from a standard. (42 

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

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

comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

analysis requires a variety of inputs, 

such as product prices, product energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and discount rates appropriate 

for consumers. To account for 

uncertainty and variability in specific 

inputs, such as product lifetime and 

discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of 

values, with probabilities attached to 

each value. 

The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

due to a more-stringent standard by the 

change in annual operating cost for the 

year that standards are assumed to take 

effect. 

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE 

assumes that consumers will purchase 

the covered products in the first full 

year of compliance with new or 

amended standards. The LCC savings 

for the considered efficiency levels are 

calculated relative to the case that 

reflects projected market trends in the 

absence of new or amended standards. 

DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.F of this document. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

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

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

section III.D, DOE uses the NIA 

spreadsheet models to project national 

energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing product classes and in 

evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE 

evaluates potential standards that would 

not lessen the utility or performance of 

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

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

Based on data available to DOE, the 

standards proposed in this document 

would not reduce the utility or 

performance of the products under 

consideration in this proposed 

rulemaking. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 

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

also directs the Attorney General to 

determine the impact, if any, of any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from a 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. 6316(a); 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will 

transmit a copy of this proposed rule to 

the Attorney General with a request that 

the Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) 

provide its determination on this issue. 

DOE will publish and respond to the 

Attorney General’s determination in the 

final rule. DOE invites comment from 

the public regarding the competitive 

impacts that are likely to result from 

this proposed rule. In addition, 

stakeholders may also provide 

comments separately to DOJ regarding 

these potential impacts. See the 

ADDRESSES section for information to 

send comments to DOJ. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

DOE also considers the need for 

national energy and water conservation 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37133 

27https://standardscatalog.ul.com/ 

ProductDetail.aspx?UniqueKey=42496. 

in determining whether a new or 

amended standard is economically 

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

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

from the proposed standards are likely 

to provide improvements to the security 

and reliability of the Nation’s energy 

system. Reductions in the demand for 

electricity also may result in reduced 

costs for maintaining the reliability of 

the Nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

Nation’s needed power generation 

capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of 

this document. 

DOE maintains that environmental 

and public health benefits associated 

with the more efficient use of energy are 

important to take into account when 

considering the need for national energy 

conservation. The proposed standards 

are likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases (‘‘GHGs’’) associated 

with energy production and use. DOE 

conducts an emissions analysis to 

estimate how potential standards may 

affect these emissions, as discussed in 

section IV.KIV.K; the estimated 

emissions impacts are reported in 

section V.B.6 of this document. DOE 

also estimates the economic value of 

emissions reductions resulting from the 

considered TSLs, as discussed in 

section IV.L of this document. 

g. Other Factors 

In determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified, DOE may consider any other 

factors that the Secretary deems to be 

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

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

identifies any relevant information 

regarding economic justification that 

does not fit into the other categories 

described previously, DOE could 

consider such information under ‘‘other 

factors.’’ 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

EPCA creates a rebuttable 

presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

equipment that meets the standard is 

less than three times the value of the 

first year’s energy savings resulting from 

the standard, as calculated under the 

applicable DOE test procedure. (42 

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

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

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effects that proposed 

energy conservation standards would 

have on the payback period for 

consumers. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. 

In addition, DOE routinely conducts 

an economic analysis that considers the 

full range of impacts to consumers, 

manufacturers, the Nation, and the 

environment, as required under (42 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section V.B.1.c of this 

proposed rule. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE has performed for this proposed 

rulemaking with regard to DPPP motors. 

Separate subsections address each 

component of DOE’s analyses. 

DOE used several analytical tools to 

estimate the impact of the standards 

proposed in this document. The first 

tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the 

LCC savings and PBP of potential 

amended or new energy conservation 

standards. The national impacts 

analysis uses a second spreadsheet set 

that provides shipments projections and 

calculates national energy savings and 

net present value of total consumer 

costs and savings expected to result 

from potential energy conservation 

standards. DOE uses the third 

spreadsheet tool, the Government 

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

assess manufacturer impacts of potential 

standards. These three spreadsheet tools 

are available on the DOE website for this 

proposed rulemaking: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/standards.aspx

?productid=76. Additionally, DOE used 

output from the latest version of the 

Energy Information Administration’s 

(‘‘EIA’s’’) Annual Energy Outlook 

(‘‘AEO’’), a widely known energy 

projection for the United States, for the 

emissions and utility impact analyses. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the products. This activity 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, based primarily 

on publicly-available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this proposed 

rulemaking include (1) a determination 

of the scope of the rulemaking and 

product classes, (2) manufacturers and 

industry structure, (3) existing 

efficiency programs, (4) shipments 

information, (5) market and industry 

trends; and (6) technologies or design 

options that could improve the energy 

efficiency of DPPP motors. The key 

findings of DOE’s market assessment are 

summarized in the following sections. 

See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for 

further discussion of the market and 

technology assessment. 

1. Scope of Coverage 

DPPP motors are a category of electric 

motor used in DPPP applications. In the 

July 2021 Final Rule, DOE incorporated 

by reference UL 1004–10:2020 and 

referenced the definitions published in 

that industry standard for DPPP motors. 

10 CFR 431.483; 86 FR 40765, 40768. 

Section 2.3 of UL 1004–10:2020 defines 

a DPPP motor as ‘‘an electric motor that 

is single-phase or poly-phase and is 

designed and/or marketed for use in 

dedicated purpose pool pump 

applications’’. DOE defines dedicatedpurpose pool pump as comprising ‘‘selfpriming pool filter pumps, non-selfpriming pool filter pumps, waterfall 

pumps, pressure cleaner booster pumps, 

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

electric spa pumps, and rigid electric 

spa pumps.’’ 10 CFR 431.462. 

With regards to scope, 10 CFR 

431.481(b) specifies that the 

requirements in subpart Z apply to 

DPPP motors, as specified in paragraphs 

1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of UL 1004–10:2020. 

This scope covers DPPP motors with a 

total THP of less than or equal to 5, but 

does not apply to: (i) DPPP motors that 

are polyphase motors capable of 

operating without a drive and 

distributed in commerce without a drive 

that converts single-phase power to 

polyphase power; (ii) waterfall pump 

motors; (iii) rigid electric spa pump 

motors, (iv) storable electric spa pump 

motors; (v) integral cartridge-filter pool 

pump motors, and (vi) integral sandfilter pool pump motors. Section 1.3 and 

1.4 of UL 1004–10: 2020. 

Since the July 2021 Final Rule, UL 

1004–10 has been updated to the ANSI 

approved March 24, 2022 version.27 In 

the 2022 version, DOE notes that the 

only update was the addition of a 

glossary term for ‘‘factory default 

setting’’ in section 2.7A, which is 

defined as ‘‘upon application of power 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37134 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

28 DOE Compliance Certification Management 

System. Compliance and Certification Database. 

Information for DPPP products. 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (last 

access July 29, 2021); The California Modernized 

Appliance Efficiency Database System. Information 

for DPPP products. https://

cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/ 

AdvancedSearch.aspx (last access July 29, 2021); 

Energy Star Program. Information for DPPP 

products. www.energystar.gov/productfinder/ 

product/certified-pool-pumps/results (last access 

July 29, 2021). 

29 DOE notes that while the DPPP energy 

conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f) does 

not contain performance standards for the motors 

used in DPPPs, the DPPP performance metric of 

weighted energy factor (‘‘WEF’’) is directly affected 

by motor efficiency and the speed-control of the 

motor sold with the pump. 

at initial installation, the program that 

the unit will run without outside 

interference or change by the user.’’ 

DOE understands that this definition 

does not change the content and 

requirements of UL 1004–10:2020, but 

only provides a clarification regarding 

factory default setting as it applies to the 

industry standard. As such, in this 

NOPR, DOE proposes to update the 

reference to the latest version of the 

industry standard, from UL 1004– 

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

10 CFR 431.481(b), 10 CFR 431.482(c)(1) 

and 10 CFR 431.483. 

DOE seeks comment on updating the 

UL 1004–10 reference from the 2020 

version to the 2022 version. 

The scope of this DPPP motors energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

covers motors for use in the following 

dedicated purpose pool pump 

applications only: (i) self-priming pool 

filter pumps; (ii) non-self-priming pool 

filter pumps; and (iii) pressure cleaner 

booster pumps. The scope of the pool 

pump application is consistent with the 

scope of pool pumps that currently have 

performance-based standards in 10 CFR 

431.465(f). Further, the DPPP motor 

energy conservation standards scope 

includes both single and polyphase 

motors (but excluding polyphase motors 

capable of operating without a drive and 

distributed in commerce without a drive 

that converts single-phase power to 

polyphase power) with a total THP of 

less than or equal to 5. 

2. Market Review 

To review the current market of DPPP 

motors incorporated in DPPPs, DOE 

relied on information from the DOE 

Compliance and Certification Database, 

the California Energy Commission 

(‘‘CEC’’), and the ENERGY STAR 

program.28 (‘‘2021 DPPP Database’’). 

These databases included the DPPP 

motor speed-control capabilities, motor 

THP, and the weighted-efficiency factor 

(‘‘WEF’’) 29 of the pump with which the 

motor was certified. The 2021 DPPP 

database did not contain information 

related to motor efficiency or topology. 

To supplement the market review, DOE 

also reviewed general motor catalog data 

from 2020 and created a database which 

contained information regarding motor 

speed-control, topology, THP, motor 

application, and full-load efficiency 

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

two databases more comparable, DOE 

filtered the 2020 Motor Database to 

analyze only motors used in DPPP 

applications. DOE notes that DPPPMs 

are electromechanically similar to 

general motors and use similar methods 

to improve the efficiency of a given 

motor, therefore DOE tentatively 

concludes that efficiencies of the 2020 

Motor Database can be expected to 

mirror the DPPPM market. See section 

IV.A.4 for further discussion on the 

DPPP motor technology assessment. 

First, DOE analyzed the distribution 

of motor THP and speed-control from 

the 2021 DPPP Database and compared 

this to what was observed in the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule. DOE observed 

that the distribution of THP and speedcontrol has not changed significantly 

since 2017. Because the 2021 DPPP 

Database did not specifically have 

information related to motor efficiency 

or topology, DOE compared the motor 

efficiency data used for the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule with efficiencies 

found in the 2020 Motor Database. In 

this review, DOE reviewed the range of 

efficiencies and average catalog 

efficiency for each available motor 

topology (capacitor-start induction-run 

[‘‘CSIR’’], capacitor-start capacitor-run 

[‘‘CSCR’’], permanent-split capacitor 

[‘‘PSC’’], etc.) at each THP. DOE found 

that the range of efficiencies and average 

catalog efficiency did not significantly 

change since 2017. DOE also reviewed 

the distribution of motor topology in the 

2020 Motor Database and observed that 

it has not significantly changed since 

2017. Accordingly, DOE has based its 

engineering analysis on the analysis 

conducted for the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule (see section IV.C). 

Separately, DOE also notes that the 

standard for DPPPs at 10 CFR 431.465(f) 

and the CEC performance and 

prescriptive standards for replacement 

DPPP motors, both having a compliance 

date starting July 19, 2021, are expected 

to influence the overall DPPP motor 

market. Specifically, in the October 

2020 NOPR, DOE specified that 

standard-size self-priming pool filter 

pumps which are subject to the DOE 

DPPP energy conservation standards 

would likely require a variable-speed 

control motor. 85 FR 62816, 62824. 

Relatedly, the California standard for 

replacement DPPP motors requires all 

DPPPMs greater than or equal to 0.5 

THP to be variable-speed. California 

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 20, 

Section 1605.3(g)(6)(B). 

3. Equipment Classes 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered equipment into 

equipment classes by the type of energy 

used, or by capacity or other 

performance-related features that justify 

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

42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In determining 

whether capacity or another 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard, DOE must consider 

such factors as the utility of the feature 

to the consumer and other factors DOE 

deems appropriate. (Id.) 

As discussed previously, DOE is 

limiting the scope of this energy 

conservation standard to motors used in 

self-priming pool filter pumps, non-selfpriming pool filter pumps, and pressure 

cleaner booster pumps. The scope of the 

pool pump application is consistent 

with the scope of pool pumps that 

currently have performance-based 

standards in 10 CFR 431.465(f). For this 

energy conservation standards, DOE is 

dividing the DPPP motors into 

equipment classes based on capacity. 

The capacity of a dedicated-purpose 

pool pump motor can be expressed in 

terms of motor total horsepower. 

Full load efficiency generally 

correlates with motor horsepower (e.g., 

a 3-horsepower motor is usually more 

efficient than a 1⁄4-horsepower motor). 

DOE found that motor efficiency varies 

with motor horsepower in the 2020 

Motor Database. Additionally, motor 

horsepower dictates the maximum load 

that a motor can drive, which means 

that a motor’s rated horsepower can 

influence and limit the end use 

applications where that motor can be 

used, which in this case is a dedicated 

purpose pool pump. Horsepower is a 

critical performance attribute of a DPPP 

motor, and since horsepower has a 

direct relationship with full load 

efficiency and consumer utility, DOE 

used this element as a criterion for 

distinguishing among equipment 

classes. 

The motor capacity breakpoints 

developed in this NOPR align with the 

pump capacity breakpoints 

recommended by the consensus 

working group established under the 

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37135 

30 In accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act 

(5 U.S.C. App.; 5 U.S.C. 561–570). 31The dedicated-purpose pool pumps energy 

conservation standard rulemaking docket EERE– 

2015–BT–STD–0008 contains all notices, public 

comments, public meeting transcripts, and 

supporting documents pertaining to this 

rulemaking. 32Estimate of DPPP motors shipments by DPPP 

applications for 2021. 85 FR 62816, 62824. 

33The dedicated-purpose pool pumps energy 

conservation standard rulemaking TSD can be 

found in docket EERE–2015–BT–STD–0008–0105 

(www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2015-BTSTD-0008-0105). 

34www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ 

hydraulic-horsepower. 

Federal Advisory Committee (the 

‘‘ASRAC DPPP Working Group’’).30 31 82 

FR 5650, 5669. (Jan. 18, 2017). In the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

finalized equipment classes for 

dedicated purpose pool pumps based on 

the DPPP Working Group 

recommendation to set the breakpoint 

between small-size and standard-size 

self-priming pool filter pumps at 0.711 

hydraulic horsepower (‘‘hhp’’). 82 FR 

5650, 5669. 

In the Joint Petition for DPPP motors, 

the Joint Petitioners stated that the 0.711 

hhp threshold in the DPPP standards for 

self-priming pool filter pumps aligns 

with a 1.15 THP motor threshold (1.15 

THP is roughly equivalent to 0.711 

hhp). Further, the Joint Petition stated 

that almost all motors used in non-selfpriming pool filter pumps and pressure 

cleaner booster pumps have THPs less 

than 1.15 THP. (Joint Petition, No. 14 at 

p. 8). Finally, in the October 2020 

NOPR, DOE described that DPPP motors 

with a total horsepower greater than or 

equal to 1.15 THP are primarily used in 

standard-size self-priming pool filter 

pumps (52 percent of DPPP motor 

applications), while pool pump motors 

below 1.15 THP are typically found in 

small-size self-priming pool filter 

pumps, non-self-priming pool filter 

pumps, and pressure cleaner booster 

pumps (which represent 48 percent of 

the DPPP motor applications).32 85 FR 

62816, 62824. Accordingly, because full 

load efficiency generally correlates with 

motor horsepower, and the distinct 

utility of DPPP motors less than 1.15 

THP (almost all are used in non-selfpriming pool filter pumps and pressure 

cleaner booster pumps) is different than 

of DPPP motors equal to or greater than 

1.15 THP (primarily used in standardsize self-priming pool filter pumps), 

DOE proposes to establish small-size 

and standard-size equipment classes 

based on a 1.15 THP threshold. 

In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, 

DOE also considered an extra-small-size 

equipment class for non-self-priming 

pool filter pumps less than 0.13 hhp. 82 

FR 5650, 5672. This equipment class 

was ultimately merged into the smallsize equipment class after DOE selected 

the same efficiency level for both extrasmall-size and small-size non-selfpriming pool filter pumps. Id. However, 

in the context of DPPP motors for this 

rulemaking, DOE notes that the nonself-priming pool filter DPPP motors 

with an hhp of less than 0.13 have 

different maximum efficiency potential 

than non-self-priming pool filter DPPP 

motors with an hhp of 0.13 or greater. 

Specifically, Table 5.6.3 in the TSD for 

the January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

(‘‘January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

TSD’’) 33 did not consider either twospeed or variable speed motors for the 

extra-small-size DPPPP equipment class 

because both these types of motors 

provide inadequate flow to the pool 

pump. Because the distinct performance 

potential and utility of DPPP motors 

with an hhp less than 0.13, DOE 

proposes to include an extra-small-size 

equipment class for DPPP motors. 

To develop the proposed motor total 

horsepower tier threshold for the extrasmall-size equipment class, DOE 

considered the appropriate motor THP 

threshold that is applicable to the extrasmall-size equipment class hydraulic 

horsepower threshold from the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule. Based on pump 

fundamentals, the power out of the 

drive of the motor (i.e., brake 

horsepower) is the hydraulic 

horsepower divided by the pump 

efficiency.34 Accordingly, DOE 

converted the hhp to thp by dividing the 

hydraulic horsepower threshold for the 

extra-small-size equipment class (0.13 

hhp limit from the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule) by the hydraulic efficiency 

for the representative unit meeting the 

0.13 hhp threshold (23 percent from 

Table 5.6.4 of the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule TSD). This approximates to 

a 0.57 THP motor horsepower threshold. 

As part of this proposed rulemaking, 

DOE collected confidential DPPP motor 

shipment data from manufacturers in 

2018 through non-disclosure agreements 

(‘‘2018 confidential DPPP motor 

shipments’’). In reviewing that data, 

DOE notes there were no DPPP motor 

shipments at 0.57 THP; rather, the 

largest motor THP under 0.57 THP with 

any shipments was 0.5 THP. 

Accordingly, for this NOPR, DOE 

proposes to use the 0.5 THP threshold 

instead, and therefore proposes an extrasmall-size equipment class based on the 

0.5 THP threshold. 

Table IV.1 provides the summary of 

the proposed equipment classes for 

DPPP motors. 

TABLE IV.1—PROPOSED EQUIPMENT

CLASSES FOR DPPP MOTORS

Equipment class 

Motor total 

horsepower 

(Hp) 

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

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

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

DOE seeks comments on the proposed 

equipment classes for DPPP motors 

based on motor THP thresholds. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

equipment classes for DPPP motors 

based on motor THP thresholds. 

4. Technology Assessment and Options 

The purpose of the technology 

assessment is to develop a preliminary 

list of technology options that could 

improve the efficiency of DPPP motors. 

The efficiency of a DPPP motor is 

dependent on motor topology, capacity, 

and operating speed. As previously 

discussed in section IV.A.2 of this 

document, DOE proposes to delineate 

equipment classes based on motor 

capacity (i.e., motor horsepower). 

a. Motor Topology 

The DPPP motors covered in this 

proposed rulemaking include both 

alternating current (AC) (single and 

certain polyphase) induction motors 

and permanent magnet AC motors (also 

known as Electronically Commutated 

Motors [‘‘ECMs’’]). 

In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, 

DOE noted that the majority of the pool 

filter pumps available on the market 

come equipped with single-phase 

induction motors, of which the majority 

are either CSCR or PSC motors. 82 FR 

5650, 5676. Based on a review of the 

2020 Motor Database, DOE concludes 

that a majority of DPPPMs are still CSCR 

or PSC motors. Specifically, singlespeed DPPPMs are almost exclusively 

PSC or CSCR and variable-speed motors 

are primarily ECMs. 

AC induction motors have two core 

components: a stator and a rotor. The 

components work together to convert 

electrical energy into rotational 

mechanical energy. This is done by 

creating a rotating magnetic field in the 

stator, which induces a current flow in 

the rotor. This current flow creates an 

opposing magnetic field in the rotor, 

which creates rotational forces. Because 

of the orientation of these fields, the 

rotor field follows the stator field. The 

rotor is connected to a shaft that also 

rotates and provides the mechanical 

energy output. 

DOE identified six categories of AC 

induction motors: shaded-pole, splitphase, capacitor-start (CSIR and CSCR), 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37136 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

permanent-split capacitor (PSC), and 

polyphase. A shaded-pole motor is a 

single-phase induction motor provided 

with an auxiliary short-circuited 

winding or windings displaced in 

magnetic position from the main 

winding. Shaded-pole motors are 

typically only used in low-torque 

applications with power requirements 

less than 1⁄10 hp. A split-phase motor is 

a single-phase induction motor 

equipped with an auxiliary winding 

displaced in magnetic position from, 

and connected parallel to, the main 

winding. The term ‘‘split-phase motor’’ 

describes a motor to be used without 

impedance other than that offered by 

the motor windings themselves. A CSCR 

motor is a single-phase motor with 

different values of effective capacitance 

for the starting and running conditions. 

A PSC motor is another category of 

single-phase motor that has the same 

value of capacitance for both starting 

and running conditions. A polyphase 

motor is an electric motor that uses the 

phase changes of the electrical supply to 

induce a rotational magnetic field and 

thereby supply torque to the rotor. 

Single-phase AC induction motors are 

inherently less efficient than polyphase 

AC induction motors due to the 

fundamental differences in how the two 

categories of motors operate. Threephase power in a polyphase motor 

naturally produces rotation, whereas a 

single-phase motor requires an auxiliary 

winding with current and voltage out of 

phase of the main winding to produce 

a net rotating magnetic field. The more 

efficient polyphase AC induction 

motors require the end user to have 

access to a three-phase power source. 

Residential power sources are typically 

single-phase. 

Motor topology within the singlephase AC induction motor category can 

also have an impact on motor efficiency. 

CSCR and PSC motors are typically 

more efficient than CSIR, split-phase, 

and shaded pole motors due to the 

presence of a run capacitor that remains 

connected while the motors are 

operating. In the notice of the Joint 

Petition, the recommendation included 

prohibiting CSIR or split phase motors 

for DPPPMs because (1) this would align 

with the DPPP standards; (2) this 

requirement would be consistent with 

certain state standards, and (3) these 

motors are very inefficient. (Joint 

Petition, No. 14 at p. 7) 

In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, 

DOE also noted that the pool pump 

market included ECMs and that ECMs 

are typically used in variable-speed pool 

filter pump applications. 82 FR 5650, 

5676. Based on a review of the 2021 

DPPP database, ECMs are becoming 

more prevalent because of the recent 

standards implemented by the CEC and 

the January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

standards discussed in section IV.A.2 of 

this NOPR. 

ECMs are similar in construction to 

AC squirrel-cage induction motors, but 

feature a different rotor configuration. 

Instead of using conductive material in 

the rotor, permanent magnets are 

integrated into the rotor’s laminations or 

fixed to the rotor’s outer surface and do 

not need to be energized. The magnetic 

field established by the permanent 

magnets interacts with the field 

produced by windings in the stator to 

generate a torque. Because permanent 

magnet motors do not require current to 

be induced in rotor conductors, overall 

power consumption can be reduced 

compared to induction motors. Further, 

because permanent magnet motors 

operate at synchronous speed, they 

require a variable frequency drive to 

start rotation. 

ECMs can typically achieve higher 

motor efficiencies than AC induction 

motors with similar capacities. ECMs 

employ rare-earth metal based 

permanent magnets in the rotor design 

to establish a magnetic field, which 

avoids the energy consumption 

observed when energizing an electromagnetic rotor for the operation of AC 

induction motors. Because of the 

removal of rotor energy losses, ECMs 

often have higher full-load efficiencies 

than their induction counterparts. ECMs 

require a variable speed drive to 

operate, which may introduce 

additional losses into the motor system. 

Even after considering the losses from 

the variable speed drive and control 

electronics, ECMs are the most efficient 

motor topology currently used in 

dedicated-purpose pool pumps. 

b. Motor Speed 

Dedicated-purpose pool pumps are 

designed to circulate water in pool 

systems to facilitate pool cleaning in 

addition to water filtering, heating, and 

chlorination. Pool cleaning functions 

require a high flow rate, and 

subsequently a high motor speed, to 

provide the agitation necessary to stir 

up large debris so that the filtration 

system can effectively remove any 

contaminants. Heating functions 

typically require a moderate to high 

flow rate to ensure that heat is 

dissipated sufficiently and pool system 

components are not damaged by 

overheating. Water filtration is most 

effective at low motor speeds, as a low 

flow rate will ensure water bypassing 

the filter will be minimized. 

DPPP motors exist in several 

configurations with different speed 

capabilities. Single-speed motors can 

operate at one predefined speed, and 

therefore the associated dedicatedpurpose pool pump can provide only a 

single flow rate in any given pool 

system. Single-speed motors are sized to 

provide the minimum flow rate 

necessary to facilitate effective pool 

cleaning, and therefore pool pump 

functions that operate most efficiently at 

lower flow rates are rendered less 

effective. 

Two-speed motors can operate at two 

distinct rotational speeds. Two-speed 

motors can be sized so that high flow 

functions like pool cleaning are effective 

at full speed operation and low flow 

tasks like filtration can be completed at 

low speed operation. Two-speed pumps 

can be operated by timers or other 

control systems to run at high speed for 

long enough to complete cleaning 

functions before switching to low speed 

operation for the duration of the cycle. 

The ability to operate at multiple speeds 

can provide energy savings when 

utilized correctly, i.e., pool cleaning at 

high speed and filtration at lower 

speeds. Multi-speed motors function 

similarly to two-speed motors, but 

provide additional flexibility to 

maximize the effectiveness of specific 

pool pump functions by allowing users 

to program pumps to run at more than 

two distinct speeds. 

Variable-speed motors can provide 

greater energy savings than two-speed or 

multi-speed motors due to the ability to 

program these motors to operate at userdefined speed settings. Variable-speed 

motors used in DPPP applications are 

typically one of two configurations: an 

AC induction motor paired with a 

variable frequency drive or a permanent 

magnet motor with an integral drive. 

Permanent magnet variable-speed 

motors offer improved efficiency over 

AC induction motors due to the 

incorporation of a permanent magnet 

rotor design in place of the powered 

electro-magnetic rotor design used in 

AC induction motors. This 

improvement in efficiency is 

particularly evident at lower speed 

settings, where AC induction motor 

efficiency drops considerably from full 

speed efficiency. 

DOE seeks comment on the 

technologies considered for higher 

DPPP motor efficiency. DOE seeks 

comment on whether other motor 

topologies should be considered as 

applicable in pool pumps. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following five screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37137 

consideration in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking: 

(1) Technological feasibility. 

Technologies that are not incorporated 

in commercial products or in working 

prototypes will not be considered 

further. 

(2) Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production and reliable 

installation and servicing of a 

technology in commercial products 

could not be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time of the projected compliance 

date of the standard, then that 

technology will not be considered 

further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility or 

product availability. If it is determined 

that a technology would have a 

significant adverse impact on the utility 

of the product for significant subgroups 

of consumers or would result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not be considered 

further. 

(4) Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If it is determined that a 

technology would have significant 

adverse impacts on health or safety, it 

will not be considered further. 

(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary 

Technologies. If a design option utilizes 

proprietary technology that represents a 

unique pathway to achieving a given 

efficiency level, that technology will not 

be considered further due to the 

potential for monopolistic concerns. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b). 

In summary, if DOE determines that a 

technology, or a combination of 

technologies, fails to meet one or more 

of the listed five criteria, it will be 

excluded from further consideration in 

the engineering analysis. 

In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, 

DOE considered ‘‘improved motor 

efficiency’’ as a screened in technology 

option for the pool pump analysis. 82 

FR 5650, 5676. This screened-in 

technology option considered motor 

topology (induction and ECM motor) 

and speed applications (i.e., single-, 

dual- and variable speed). 82 FR 5650, 

5676. For this DPPP motor analysis, 

DOE relied on and aligned with the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule analysis 

where possible. As discussed in sections 

IV.A.2 and IV.A.4 of this document, the 

motor technologies applicable to pool 

pump motors analyzed in the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule remain relevant 

and applicable in the current DPPP 

motor market. Therefore, DOE has 

initially determined that the technology 

options previously considered continue 

to be technologically feasible because 

they are being used or have previously 

been used in commercially-available 

products or working prototypes. DOE 

also finds that the technology options 

continue to meet the other screening 

criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, 

install, and service and do not result in 

adverse impacts on consumer utility, 

product availability, health, or safety, 

unique-pathway proprietary 

technologies). For additional details, see 

chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency and cost of DPPP 

motors. There are two elements to 

consider in the engineering analysis; the 

selection of efficiency levels to analyze 

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

determination of product cost at each 

efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 

analysis’’). In determining the 

performance of higher-efficiency 

equipment, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each equipment class, DOE 

estimates the baseline cost, as well as 

the incremental cost for the equipment 

at efficiency levels above the baseline. 

The output of the engineering analysis 

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

are used in downstream analyses (i.e., 

the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA). 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the engineering analysis: (1) 

relying on observed efficiency levels in 

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

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

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

the design-option approach). Using the 

efficiency-level approach, the efficiency 

levels established for the analysis are 

determined based on the market 

distribution of existing products (in 

other words, based on the range of 

efficiencies and efficiency level 

‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the 

market). Using the design option 

approach, the efficiency levels 

established for the analysis are 

determined through detailed 

engineering calculations and/or 

computer simulations of the efficiency 

improvements from implementing 

specific design options that have been 

identified in the technology assessment. 

DOE may also rely on a combination of 

these two approaches. For example, the 

efficiency-level approach (based on 

actual products on the market) may be 

extended using the design option 

approach to ‘‘gap fill’’ levels (to bridge 

large gaps between other identified 

efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate 

to the max-tech level (particularly in 

cases where the max-tech level exceeds 

the maximum efficiency level currently 

available on the market). 

For this analysis, DOE relied on the 

conclusions from the ‘‘improved motor 

efficiency’’ design option from the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule. As 

discussed in sections IV.A.2 and IV.A.4 

of this document, the motor 

technologies applicable to pool pump 

motors analyzed in the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule remain relevant and 

applicable in the current DPPP motor 

market. Therefore, in line with the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

considered three tiers of motor 

efficiency (low, medium, and high 

efficiency) and design requirements 

specifically for two-speed, multi-speed 

motors and variable speed motors. This 

is a combination of the efficiency level 

and design level approach discussed 

previously. Section 5.6.2 of the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule TSD discusses 

that DOE presented the designs and 

motor efficiency assumptions to the 

DPPP Working Group and subsequently 

refined them to incorporate feedback 

from the DPPP Working Group. 

a. Representative Units 

DOE opted to use representative units 

for each equipment class, consistent 

with the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, 

for the engineering analysis. 

Representative units exemplify typical 

capacities in each equipment class and 

are used to quantify the manufacturing 

costs and the energy savings potential 

for each equipment class. 

Table IV.2 details the DPPP 

application and associated motor THP 

of each representative unit considered 

for the analysis. The DPPP application 

(pump type, size and hhp) is consistent 

with Table 5.4.1 of the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule TSD, except that DOE 

did not merge the extra-small-size and 

standard-size non self-priming pumps 

into one class for this NOPR. As 

discussed in section IV.A.3 of this 

document, the extra-small-size non-selfpriming pool filter DPPP motors have 

different maximum efficiency potential 

than small- or standard-size equipment 

classes and are therefore analyzed 

separately. 

The associated motor THP of the 

representative units are consistent with 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37138 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

35The Joint Petition noted that almost all motors 

used in pressure cleaner booster pumps have THPs 

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

36Full-load efficiency does not capture the energy 

saving benefits of speed control. 37For the purposes of the analysis, however, DOE 

did consider the full-load efficiencies presented in 

Table 5.6.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

TSD for efficiency levels 3 through 6. 

the motor THPs provided in Table 5.7.1 

of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

TSD, with three exceptions: (1) a DPPP 

motor associated with self-priming filter 

pump application at 0.65 hhp 

(Representative unit 2A) was added to 

represent standard-size DPPP motors 

that are used in small-size self-priming 

DPPPs as DOE observed motors on the 

market of this size going into small-size 

self-priming pumps; (2) a DPPP motor 

associated with non-self priming filter 

pump at 0.87 hhp (Representative unit 

6) was added to analyze standard-size 

DPPPMs used in non-self-priming filter 

pump applications to better represent 

THPs observed in the market; and (3) a 

DPPP motor of 1.125 thp instead of 1.25 

thp associated with pressure cleaner 

booster pump (Representative unit 7) 

was considered so as to keep this 

representative unit in the small-size 

equipment class (EC 2), and to better 

represent the THP range of motors in 

pressure cleaner booster pumps.35

TABLE IV.2—REPRESENTATIVE UNITS THP AND DPPP APPLICATION

Rep. unit Equipment class THP DPPP application * 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* For self-priming pumps, the terms small and standard refer to the hydraulic horsepower. Small-size designates pool pump applications with 

hydraulic horsepower less than 0.711 hhp, while standard-size designates pool pump applications with hydraulic horsepower greater than or 

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

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

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

representative units and associated 

DPPP applications used for the 

engineering analysis. 

b. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

For each equipment class, DOE 

generally selects a baseline model as a 

reference point for each class, and 

measures changes resulting from 

potential energy conservation standards 

against the baseline. The baseline model 

in each equipment class represents the 

characteristics of an equipment typical 

of that class (e.g., capacity, physical 

size). Generally, a baseline model is one 

that just meets current energy 

conservation standards, or, if no 

standards are in place, the baseline is 

typically the most common or least 

efficient unit on the market. Mirroring 

the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, this 

DPPP motor analysis also considered 

the least efficient single-speed DPPP 

motor on the market for each 

representative unit. 

c. Higher Efficiency Levels 

As part of DOE’s analysis, the 

maximum available efficiency level is 

the highest efficiency unit currently 

available on the market. DOE also 

defines a ‘‘max-tech’’ efficiency level to 

represent the maximum possible 

efficiency for a given product. 

Once the baseline was established, 

higher ELs were established by 

substituting with higher full-load 

efficiency DPPPMs and DPPPMs with 

finer levels of speed control, similar to 

the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. 

Table IV.3 details the full-load 

efficiency, or motor topologies and 

speed configurations of each EL for each 

representative unit. The full-load 

efficiencies and speed configurations 

being considered are consistent with 

Table 5.6.3 of the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule TSD. 

As discussed in section IV.A.4.b of 

this document, DPPPM have different 

functions, including pool cleaning, 

water filtering, heating, freeze 

protection control and chlorination, that 

all require different flow rates and 

motor speeds. Therefore, the ability to 

operate at multiple speeds can provide 

energy savings when utilized correctly. 

As such, there are energy savings that 

come from controlling the speed of the 

motor with two-speed, multi-speed or 

variable-speed capabilities. 

Accordingly, DOE proposes to include 

design requirements of speed capability 

as part of the engineering analysis to 

capture these added energy savings.36

These design requirements are 

consistent with the motor speed design 

options considered in the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule. 

Further, as discussed in section 

IV.A.4.a of this NOPR, the efficiency of 

a DPPP motor is dependent on motor 

topology. CSCR and PSC motors are 

typically more efficient than CSIR, splitphase, and shaded pole motors due to 

the presence of a run capacitor that 

remains connected while the motors are 

operating. In the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule, DOE noted that the majority 

of the pool filter pumps available on the 

market come equipped with CSCR or 

PSC motors. 82 FR 5650, 5676. 

Accordingly, DOE proposes to include 

design requirements based on motor 

topology as part of the engineering 

analysis to capture these added energy 

savings. 

Table IV.3 presents the proposed 

performance and design requirements 

for the DPPPM efficiency levels. 

Efficiency levels 0 through 2 is 

consistent with Table 5.6.3 of the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD and 

represents the low-efficiency, mediumefficiency and high-efficiency 

performance of single-speed DPPPMs. 

Efficiency levels 3 through 6 incorporate 

certain design requirements based on 

motor speed capability and topology.37

DOE proposes that EL 3 requires 

motors that are two-speeds, multi-speed 

or variable speed, but with no 

restrictions on motor topology. EL 4 

requires motors that are two-speeds or 

multi-speed, but does not allow for the 

low-efficiency motor topologies (splitphase, shaded-pole, CSIR)—or—requires 

variable speed motors. EL 5 requires 

motors that are two-speeds or multispeed, but does not allow for PSC 

motors in addition to the other lowefficiency motor topologies—or— 

requires variable speed motors. Finally, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37139 

EL 6 includes variable speed only, 

which provides the highest energy 

savings. 

As discussed in section IV.A.3 of this 

document, efficiency levels 3–6 do not 

apply to representative unit 4 because 

two-speed, multi-speed and variable 

speed motors provide inadequate flow 

to the pool pump for the extra-smallsize DPPPP equipment class. Further, 

consistent with the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule, DOE only considered one 

speed and variable speed motors for 

representative unit 7 (pressure cleaner 

booster pump application). 82 FR 5650, 

5683. Specifically, the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule noted that pressure 

cleaner booster pumps are only operated 

at one speed, however the pool pump 

WEF metric accounts for energy savings 

available from adjusting the pump 

speed to reach the minimum required 

test pressure, i.e., 60 feet, therefore 

allowing variable-speed motor 

applications. Id. Accordingly, for 

representative unit 7, efficiency levels 3 

through 6 would require variable-speed 

motors only. 

TABLE IV.3—PROPOSED PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR DPPPM ELS

EC Rep. 

unit 

Motor 

THP DPPP application EL0 (%) 

EL1 

(%) 

EL2 

(%) EL3 * EL4 * EL5 * EL6 * 

1 ........... 4 0.22 Non Self-priming Filter Pump, ExtraSmall (0.09 hhp).55 69 76 

2 ...........

2 ...........

1 

5 

0.75 

1 

Self-priming Filter 

Pump, Small-size 

(0.44 hhp).

Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Smallsize (0.52 hhp).

55 

55 

69 

69 

76 

76 

Two-speed—OR— 

Multi-speed— 

OR—Variable 

speed.

Two-speed/Multispeed, not CSIR, 

not shaded pole, 

not split-phase;— 

OR—Variable 

speed.

Two-speed/Multispeed, not CSIR, 

not shaded pole, 

not split-phase, 

not PSC;—OR— 

Variable speed.

Variable speed only. 

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

Booster Pump.

55 69 76 Variable speed only. 

3 ...........

3 ...........

3 ...........

6 

2 

2A 

1.5 

1.65 

1.65 

Non Self-priming Filter Pump (0.87 

hhp).

Self-priming Filter 

Pump, Standardsize (0.95 hhp).

Self-priming Filter 

Pump, Small-size 

(0.65 hhp).

55 

55 

55 

69 

69 

69 

77 

77 

77 

Two-speed—OR— 

Multi-speed— 

OR—Variable 

speed.

Two-speed/Multispeed, not CSIR, 

not shaded pole, 

not split-phase;— 

OR—Variable 

speed.

Two-speed/Multispeed, not CSIR, 

not shaded pole, 

not split-phase, 

not PSC;—OR— 

Variable speed.

Variable speed only. 

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

Pump, Standardsize (1.88 hhp).

75 79 84 

* includes freeze protection control design requirements. 

To determine the motor input power 

for the energy use analysis in section 

IV.E, DOE also had to determine the 

hydraulic power of each pump. DOE 

calculated the relationships between 

flow rate of the pump and the total 

dynamic head required for each system 

curve. Once these relationships were 

established, the hydraulic power 

required for each curve was calculated 

using both the head and flow rate. See 

Section 5.3.1.3 of the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule TSD. Each efficiency 

level presented has an associated Energy 

Factor (in Gallons/Watt-hour) and Flow 

(in gallons per minute) used to 

determine efficiency of the pump 

system. This energy factor considers the 

performance of the motor and the 

energy savings that come from running 

the motor at a lower speed. For this 

analysis, all pump performance curves 

were kept consistent with Tables 5.8.1, 

5.8.2, 5.8.3 and 5.8.4 of the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule TSD. For more 

information on how these curves were 

developed, see Section 5.8.2 of the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD. 

DOE seeks comment on the efficiency 

levels, including the associated full load 

efficiencies and design requirements 

evaluated in the engineering analysis. 

2. Cost Analysis 

The cost analysis portion of the 

engineering analysis is conducted using 

one or a combination of cost 

approaches. The selection of cost 

approach depends on a suite of factors, 

including the availability and reliability 

of public information, characteristics of 

the regulated product, the availability 

and timeliness of purchasing DPPPMs 

on the market. The cost approaches are 

summarized as follows: 

• Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles a 

commercially available product, 

component-by-component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials for the product. 

• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing a product, 

DOE identifies each component using 

parts diagrams (available from 

manufacturer websites or appliance 

repair websites, for example) to develop 

the bill of materials for the product. 

• Price surveys: If neither a physical 

nor catalog teardown is feasible (for 

example, for tightly integrated products 

such as fluorescent lamps, which are 

infeasible to disassemble and for which 

parts diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical 

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

conducts price surveys using publicly 

available pricing data published on 

major online retailer websites and/or by 

soliciting prices from distributors and 

other commercial channels. 

In the present case, DOE conducted 

the cost analysis using historical price 

surveys and product teardowns. DOE 

used feedback from manufacturers 

presented in the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule to determine the cost of 

DPPP motors. Specifically, Table 5.7.1 

of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

TSD presents the manufacturer 

production cost (‘‘MPC’’) of DPPPMs 

used in the analysis. However, DOE 

notes this cost data was in terms of 

2015$. For this evaluation, DOE 

updated the cost data to be 

representative of the market in 2020. 

DOE adjusted the 2015$ costs to 2020$ 

using the historical Bureau of Labor 

Statistics Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’) 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37140 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

38Series IDs: Integral motors (<=1 hp): 

WPU117304, Fractional motors (<1 hp): 

WPU117303, Environmental Controls: WPU1181; 

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

for each product’s industry.38 Finally, 

DOE also conducted physical teardowns 

to determine updated DPPP motor 

controller costs for variable-speed 

motors. DOE did not consider any 

added costs for the freeze protection 

design requirements, as these 

requirements do not require any 

additional labor, material, or technology 

to produce a DPPP motor meeting these 

requirements, and a manufacturer is 

able to just disable the controls to meet 

the requirement. Further, the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule, which also 

adopted freeze protection controls as a 

prescriptive standards per the ASRAC 

DPPP Working Group, did not consider 

any added costs. 82 FR 5650, 5737. 

To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE 

applies a non-production cost multiplier 

(the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. 

The resulting manufacturer selling price 

(‘‘MSP’’) is the price at which the 

manufacturer distributes a unit into 

commerce. DOE developed an average 

manufacturer markup of 1.37 by 

examining the annual Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC) 10–K 

reports filed by publicly-traded 

manufacturers primarily engaged in 

DPPP manufacturing and whose 

combined product range includes a 

variety of pool products. Table IV.4 lists 

the MSPs of each EL for DPPPMs. See 

TSD chapter 5 for additional detail on 

the engineering analysis and complete 

cost-efficiency results. 

TABLE IV.4—MSPS IN 2020$ FOR DPPPMS

EC Rep. 

unit THP DPPP application EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 

1 ............... 4 0.22 Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Extra-Small (0.09 hhp) .............. $25 $31 $51 ............ ............ ............ ............

2 ............... 1 0.75 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.44 hhp) ........................ 57 71 90 $93 $104 $115 $357 

2 ............... 5 1 Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.52 hhp) ................ 52 57 77 79 94 111 357 

2 ............... 7 1.125 Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump ............................................... 60 78 98 ............ ............ ............ 357 

3 ............... 6 1.5 Non Self-priming Filter Pump (0.87 hhp) ................................... 68 90 108 109 128 149 357 

3 ............... 2 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (0.95 hhp) .................. 75 96 115 116 135 155 357 

3 ............... 2A 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.65 hhp) ........................ 75 96 115 116 135 155 357 

3 ............... 3 3.45 Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (1.88 hhp) .................. 161 201 224 256 271 287 480 

DOE seeks comment on using a 1.37 

manufacturer markup for the cost 

analysis. 

DOE seeks comment on the cost 

methodology and associated costs for 

each of efficiency levels evaluated in the 

engineering analysis, including any 

associated costs for the proposed freeze 

protection controls requirement. 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups (e.g., retailer 

markups, distributor markups, 

contractor markups) in the distribution 

chain and sales taxes to convert the 

MSP estimates derived in the 

engineering analysis to consumer prices, 

which are then used in the LCC and PBP 

analysis and in the manufacturer impact 

analysis. At each step in the distribution 

channel, companies mark up the price 

of the product to cover business costs 

and profit margin. 

DOE identified distribution channels 

for DPPP motors incorporated in pumps 

(See Table IV.5) and replacement DPPP 

motors sold alone (See Table IV.6). To 

characterize these channels, DOE 

referred to information collected in 

support of the January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule, which reflects the consensus of 

the ASRAC DPPP Working Group. 

TABLE IV.5—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS FOR DPPP MOTORS INCORPORATED IN PUMPS

Distribution channel 

Fraction of 

shipments 

(%) 

Replacement for an Existing Pool 

DPPP Motor Manufacturer ‰ DPPP Manufacturer ‰ Wholesaler ‰ Pool Service Contractor ‰ Consumer ................................. 75 

DPPP Motor Manufacturer ‰ DPPP Manufacturer ‰ Pool Product Retailer ‰ Consumer ............................................................. 20 

New Installation for a New Pool 

DPPP Motor Manufacturer ‰ DPPP Manufacturer ‰ Pool Builder ‰ Consumer ............................................................................ 5 

TABLE IV.6—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS FOR REPLACEMENT DPPP MOTORS SOLD ALONE

Distribution channel 

Fraction of 

shipments 

% 

DPPP Motor Manufacturer ‰ Wholesaler ‰ Contractor ‰ End-User .............................................................................................. 25 

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

DPPP Motor Manufacturer ‰ Pool Pump Retailer ‰ End-User ........................................................................................................ 50 

DOE developed baseline and 

incremental markups for each actor in 

the distribution chain. Baseline 

markups are applied to the price of 

equipment with baseline efficiency, 

while incremental markups are applied 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37141 

39Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the 

price of baseline products, using the same markup 

for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 

result in higher per-unit operating profit. While 

such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in 

markets that are reasonably competitive it is 

unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable 

increase in profitability in the long run. 

40U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC 

10–K Reports for Pool Corp (2010–2017). Available 

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

41U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC 

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

and Costco. Available at www.sec.gov/ (Last 

accessed July 26, 2021.) 

42U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Annual Retail Trade 

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

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

43U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census 

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

accessed July 26, 2021). 

44U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Annual Wholesale 

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

(last accessed July 26, 2021). 

45RSMeans Electrical Cost Data, available at 

www.rsmeans.com (last accessed July 26, 2021). 

46Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc., State Sales Tax 

Rates Along with Combined Average City and 

County Rates (2021), available at https://thestc.com/ 

STrates.stm (last accessed Feb. 14, 2021). 

47The motor input power is equal to the DPPP 

flow (gallon per minute) divided by the DPPP 

Energy Factor (gallon per Wh) and multiplied by 60 

(number of minutes in an hour). 

48U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration. 2009 RECS Survey 

Data. (Last accessed July 27, 2016.) www.eia.gov/ 

consumption/residential/data/2009/. 

49U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration. 2015 RECS Survey 

Data. (Last accessed September 11, 2018.) 

www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/. 

50U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration. 2012 CBECS Survey 

Data. (Last accessed: July 27, 2016.) www.eia.gov/ 

consumption/commercial/data/2012/ 

index.cfm?view=microdata. 

51The earlier version of RECS was used for 

consistency with the year of the AHS survey 

available with pool ownership information. 

to the difference in price between 

baseline and higher-efficiency models 

(the incremental cost increase). The 

incremental markup is typically less 

than the baseline markup and is 

designed to maintain similar per-unit 

operating profit before and after new or 

amended standards.39

To estimate average baseline and 

incremental markups DOE relied on 

several sources including: (1) for pool 

wholesalers, SEC form 10–K from Pool 

Corp; 40 (2) for pool product retailers, 

SEC form 10–K from several major home 

improvement centers 41 and U.S. Census 

Bureau 2017 Annual Retail Trade 

Survey for the miscellaneous store 

retailers sector (NAICS 453),42 (3) for 

pool contractors and pool builders, U.S. 

Census Bureau 2017 Economic Census 

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

238220) and all other specialty trade 

contractors sector (NAICS 238990),43 (4) 

for motor wholesalers, U.S. Census 

Bureau 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade 

Survey for the household appliances 

and electrical and electronic goods 

merchant wholesaler sector (NAICS 

4536),44 (5) for electrical contractor, 

2020 RSMeans Electrical Cost Data,45 (6) 

for motor retailers, U.S. Census Bureau 

2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the 

building material and garden equipment 

and supplies dealers (NAICS 444), and 

(7) for pool pump retailers, U.S. Census 

Bureau 2017 Annual Retail Trade 

Survey for the miscellaneous store 

retailers sector (NAICS 453). 

In addition to the markups, DOE 

obtained state and local taxes from data 

provided by the Sales Tax 

Clearinghouse.46 These data represent 

weighted average taxes that include 

county and city rates. DOE derived 

shipment-weighted average tax values 

for each region considered in the 

analysis. 

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides 

details on DOE’s development of 

markups for DPPP motors. 

DOE seeks comment on the 

distribution channels identified for 

DPPP motors and fraction of sales that 

go through each of these channels. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of DPPP motors at 

different efficiency levels in 

representative U.S. single-family homes, 

multi-family residences, and 

commercial buildings, and to assess the 

energy savings potential associated to 

each DPPP motor efficiency level. The 

energy use analysis estimates the range 

of energy use of DPPP motors in the 

field (i.e., as they are actually used by 

consumers). The energy use analysis 

provides the basis for other analyses 

DOE performed, particularly 

assessments of the potential energy 

savings and the savings in consumer 

operating costs that could result from 

adoption of new standards. 

1. DPPP Motor Applications 

The annual energy consumption of a 

pool pump motor is expressed in terms 

of electricity consumption and depends 

on the DPPP motor efficiency level, pool 

pumping requirement, on the 

performance of the DPPP incorporating 

the motor, and on the DPPP annual 

operating hours. This electricity 

consumption is identical to the annual 

electricity consumption of the DPPP 

incorporating the motor. The pool pump 

motor energy consumption value is the 

sum of the energy consumption values 

in each mode of operation. Each mode 

of operation corresponds to a motor 

speed setting. Single-speed motors only 

have one mode of operation, while dual 

and variable-speed pool pump motors 

operate at a low- and high-speed mode. 

The unit energy consumption values in 

each mode are calculated based on the 

DPPP usage, which is calculated based 

on the pool pump system curve that the 

DPPP is operating on, the pump flow 

rate of the mode, the pump energy factor 

of the mode (which in turn determine 

the motor input power) 47 and the 

annual run time of the pool pump spent 

in that mode. DOE calculated the pool 

pump annual run time based on the 

application (residential or commercial), 

the assumed pool size, the assumed 

number of turns per day, and the sample 

application’s geographic location, which 

implies the corresponding pool seasons. 

A typical DPPP application, 

characterized by the DPPP equipment 

class and hydraulic horsepower (hhp), 

was associated to each representative 

unit in equipment classes 1, 2, and 3 

based on inputs from the engineering 

analysis (See Table IV.2). 

2. DPPP Motor Consumer Sample 

DOE created individual consumer 

samples for five DPPP motor markets: 

(1) single-family homes with a 

swimming pool; (2) indoor swimming 

pools in commercial applications; (3) 

single-family community swimming 

pools; (4) multi-family community 

swimming pools; and (5) outdoor 

swimming pools in commercial 

applications. DOE used the samples to 

determine DPPP motor annual energy 

consumption as well as for conducting 

the LCC and PBP analyses. 

DOE used the Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA) 2015 Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey (RECS 

2015) to establish a sample of singlefamily homes that have a swimming 

pool.48 49 For DPPPs used in indoor 

swimming pools in commercial 

applications, DOE developed a sample 

using the 2012 Commercial Building 

Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS 

2012).50 RECS and CBECS include 

information such as the household or 

building owner demographics and the 

location of the household or building. 

Neither RECS nor CBECS provide data 

on community pools or outdoor 

swimming pools in commercial 

applications, so DOE created samples 

based on other available data. To 

develop samples for DPPPs in single or 

multi-family communities, DOE used a 

combination of RECS 2009,51 U.S. 

Census 2009 American Home Survey 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37142 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

52U.S. Census Bureau. 2009 AHS survey data 

(Last accessed: September 13, 2021.) 

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

ahs-2009-public-use-file--puf-/2009-ahs-nationalpuf-microdata.html. 

53PK Data. 2015 Swimming Pool and Pool Heater 

Customized Report for LBNL. (Last accessed: April 

30, 2016.) www.pkdata.com/annual-reports.html/. 

54For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicatedpurpose pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

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

55The motor input power is equal to the flow 

(gallon per minute) divided by the Energy Factor 

(gallon per Wh) and multiplied by 60 (number of 

minutes in an hour). 

56When a pump is tested on a system curve (such 

as curve C), any one of the measurements hydraulic 

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

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

calculate the other two measurements. 57For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicatedpurpose pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

TSD, at www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE2015-BT-STD-0008-0105. 58Flow (in gallon per minute) is equal to the pool 

volume (gallon) divided by the desired time per 

turnover (in minutes). 59CEE Residential Swimming Pool Initiative, 

December 2021. 60California Energy Commission Pool Heater 

CASE. (Last Accessed: July 28, 2016) https://

efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=71754&

DocumentContentId=8285. 

61Evaluation of potential best management 

practices—Pools, Spas, and Fountains 2010. (Last 

Accessed: July 28, 2016) https://calwep.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/Pools-Spas-andFountains-PBMP-2010.pdf. 

62For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicatedpurpose pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule 

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

63For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicatedpurpose pool pumps direct final rule TSD, at / 

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

Data (2009 AHS),52 and 2015 PK Data 

report.53 To develop a sample for pool 

pumps in outdoor commercial 

swimming pools, DOE used a 

combination of CBECS 2012 and 2015 

PK Data report. 

Table IV.7 shows the estimated shares 

of the five DPPP markets in the existing 

stock based on the afore-mentioned 

sources. The vast majority of DPPPs are 

used for residential single-family 

swimming pools. 

TABLE IV.7—FRACTION OF DPPP 

MOTOR APPLICATION BY MARKET

Description 

Fraction of 

DPPP 

motor stock 

(%) 

Residential Single Family Swimming 

Pools ................................................ 95.1 

Community Pools (Single Family) ....... 0.8 

Community Pools (Multi Family) ......... 0.4 

Commercial Indoor Pools .................... 0.3 

Commercial Outdoor Swimming Pools 3.4 

DPPPs can be installed with either 

above-ground or in-ground swimming 

pools. DOE established separate sets of 

consumer samples for in-ground pools 

and above-ground pools by adjusting the 

original sample weights using data on 

the number of installed in-ground and 

above-ground pools gathered during the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule, which 

relied on 2014 data per state provided 

by APSP.54 The consumer samples for 

DPPP motors used in self-priming and 

pressure cleaner booster pumps are 

drawn from the in-ground pool samples; 

the consumer samples for motors used 

with non-self-priming pool pumps are 

obtained from the above-ground pool 

samples. 

See chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD for 

more details about the creation of the 

consumer samples and the regional 

breakdowns. 

DOE seeks comment on the overall 

methodology to develop consumer 

samples and on the fraction of DPPP 

motor existing stock across the five 

following markets: (1) single-family 

homes with a swimming pool; (2) 

indoor swimming pools in commercial 

applications; (3) single-family 

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

(5) outdoor swimming pools in 

commercial applications. 

3. Self-Priming and Non-Self-Priming 

Pool Pump Motor Input Power 

The input power of DPPP motors used 

in self-priming and non-self-priming 

pump applications was calculated based 

on the flow rates (gallons per minute) 

and typical Energy Factor (gallons per 

watt hour) associated to each 

representative unit.55 At efficiency 

levels corresponding to single-speed 

and dual-speed motors, the flow and 

Energy Factor values were based on 

input from the engineering analysis (see 

section IV.C) and provided for each 

system curve (A, B or C).56 For each user 

of self-priming and non-self-priming 

pool pump in the consumer sample, 

DOE then specified the system curve 

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

probability distribution in which 35 

percent of the pool pumps follow curve 

A, 10 percent of the pool pumps follow 

curve B, and the remaining 55 percent 

follow curve C. The probability 

distribution was based on inputs from 

the ASRAC DPPP Working Group 

gathered during the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule.57

At efficiency levels corresponding to 

variable-speed motors, the engineering 

analysis only provided flow and Energy 

Factor values for the high-speed mode 

on each system curve. For the low-speed 

mode, DOE used data on pool volume 

and desired time per turnover from the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule technical 

support document to calculate a 

consumer-specific low-speed flow.58

These relied on inputs from 

stakeholders and several other 

references.59 60 61 DOE then used the 

equation provided by the engineering 

analysis to calculate the Energy Factor 

as a function of Q for each 

representative unit on each system 

curve. 

4. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps 

Motor Input Power 

The input power of DPPP motors used 

in pressure cleaner booster pumps was 

calculated using the relationship 

between input power and flow and the 

system curve provided by the 

engineering analysis (see section IV.C). 

To characterize operating flow for each 

consumer in the sample, DOE drew a 

value from a statistical distribution of 

flow established during the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule. This distribution 

was developed around the test 

procedure test point of 10 gpm of flow 

rate, as recommended by the ASRAC 

DPPP Working Group. (Docket EERE– 

2015–BT–STD–0008–0092 p. 311) For 

single-speed pressure cleaner booster 

pumps, DOE then calculated the input 

power using the power curve from the 

engineering analysis. For variable-speed 

motors used in pressure cleaner booster 

pumps, DOE also calculated the pool 

pump motor input power in a low-speed 

setting. Based on information from the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

used a value of 10 gpm to characterize 

the low-speed flow and calculate the 

hydraulic horsepower using the system 

curve.62 Then, DOE calculated the input 

power using the relationship between 

input power and flow as provided by 

the engineering analysis (see section 

IV.C). 

5. Daily Operating Hours 

DOE relied on information gathered 

during the January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule to develop estimates of pool pump 

daily operating hours. For self-priming 

and non-self-priming pool filter pumps 

in residential applications, operating 

hours are calculated uniquely for each 

consumer based on pool size, number of 

turnovers per day (itself based on 

ambient conditions), and the pump flow 

rate. In commercial applications, DOE 

assumed these pumps operate 24 hours 

per day. For pressure cleaner booster 

pumps, operating hours are drawn from 

a distribution which were based on the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule.63 Table 

IV.8 summarizes the resulting daily 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37143 

64 DOE Energy Saver. (Last Accessed: April 26, 

2016) https://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/heatpump-swimming-pool-heaters. 

65PK Data. 2015 Swimming Pool and Pool Heater 

Customized Report for LBNL. (Last accessed: April 

16, 2016) www.pkdata.com/annual-reports.html/. 

operating hours during the pool 

operating season. 

TABLE IV.8—WEIGHTED-AVERAGE DAILY OPERATING HOURS BY REPRESENTATIVE UNIT AND POOL PUMP APPLICATION

Equipment 

class 

Representative 

unit THP Pool pump application * 

Residential 

weighted 

average daily 

operating 

hours ** 

Commercial 

weighted 

average daily 

operating 

hours ** 

1 ................. 4 0.22 Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Extra-Small (0.09 hhp) ..................... 3.3 ........................

2 ................. 1 0.75 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.44 hhp) ............................... 9.6 ........................

2 ................. 5 1 Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.52 hhp) ....................... 8.2 ........................

2 ................. 7 1.125 Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump ...................................................... 2.5 2.5 

3 ................. 6 1.5 Non Self-priming Filter Pump (0.87 hhp) .......................................... 8.2 ........................

3 ................. 2 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (0.95 hhp) ......................... 15.3 ........................

3 ................. 2A 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.65 hhp) ............................... 9.6 ........................

3 ................. 3 3.45 Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (1.88 hhp) ......................... 14.6 22.7 

* For self-priming pumps, the terms small and standard refer to the hydraulic horsepower. Small-size designates pool pump applications with 

hydraulic horsepower less than 0.711 hhp, while standard-size designates pool pump applications with hydraulic horsepower greater than or 

equal to 0.711 hhp. 

** During the pool operating season. 

6. Annual Days of Operation 

DOE calculated the annual unit 

energy consumption (UEC) by 

multiplying the daily operating hours by 

the annual days of operation, which 

depends on the number of months of 

pool operation. For each consumer 

sample, DOE assigned different annual 

days of operation depending on the 

region in which the DPPP is installed. 

Table IV.9 provides the assumptions of 

pool pump operating season based on 

geographical locations. This assignment 

was based on information collected 

during the January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule. It is based on several sources: 

DOE’s Energy Saver website 

assumptions 64 and PK Data 65 that 

include average pool season length (i.e., 

operating months) by state, along with 

discussion of the geographic 

distribution of pool operating days by 

the ASRAC DPPP Working Group. The 

ASRAC DPPP Working Group suggested 

that although some of the regions had 

warm weather, the pool pumps should 

still be operating all year long. (See 

Docket EERE–2015–BT–STD–0008– 

0094 pp. 191–193) 

TABLE IV.9—POOL PUMP OPERATING SEASON BY GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION

Location 

(states or census divisions) 

Avg. months 

of pool use 

Pool use 

months 

CT, ME, NH, RI, VT ................................................................................................................................................. 4 5/1–8/31 

MA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4 5/1–8/31 

NY ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4 5/1–8/31 

NJ ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 5/1–8/31 

PA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4 5/1–8/31 

IL .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 5/1–8/31 

IN, OH ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 5/1–8/31 

MI ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 5/1–8/31 

WI ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 6/1–9/30 

IA, MN, ND, SD ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 6/1–9/30 

KS, NE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4 6/1–9/30 

MO ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 6/1–9/30 

VA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7 4/1–10/31 

DE, DC, MD ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 5/1–9/30 

GA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7 4/1–10/31 

NC, SC ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 4/1–10/31 

FL ............................................................................................................................................................................. 12 1/1–12/31 

AL, KY, MS .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 1/1–12/31 

TN ............................................................................................................................................................................ 12 1/1–12/31 

AR, LA, OK .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 1/1–12/31 

TX ............................................................................................................................................................................ 12 1/1–12/31 

CO ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4 5/1–8/31 

ID, MT, UT, WY ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 5/1–8/31 

AZ ............................................................................................................................................................................ 12 1/1–12/31 

NV, NM .................................................................................................................................................................... 12 1/1–12/31 

CA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 12 1/1–12/31 

OR, WA .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 6/1–8/31 

AK ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 5/1–9/30 

HI ............................................................................................................................................................................. 12 1/1–12/31 

WV ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 5/1–9/30 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37144 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

66Crystal BallTM is commercially-available 

software tool to facilitate the creation of these types 

of models by generating probability distributions 

and summarizing results within Excel, available at 

www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/ 

crystalball/overview/index.html (last accessed July 

6, 2021). 

67 In the Electric Motors Final Rule, DOE was 

informed by the statutorily mandated rulemaking 

schedule (see 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)) in providing a twoyear lead time between the finalized rule and 

required compliance. 79 FR 30934, 30944 (May 29, 

2014). For the purposes of this analysis, DOE is 

following the same 2-year lead time. 

TABLE IV.9—POOL PUMP OPERATING SEASON BY GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION—Continued 

Location 

(states or census divisions) 

Avg. months 

of pool use 

Pool use 

months 

New England ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 5/1–8/31 

Middle Atlantic ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 5/1–9/30 

East North Central ................................................................................................................................................... 5 5/1–9/30 

West North Central .................................................................................................................................................. 4 6/1–9/30 

South Atlantic ........................................................................................................................................................... 12 1/1–12/31 

East South Central .................................................................................................................................................. 12 1/1–12/31 

West South Central ................................................................................................................................................. 12 1/1–12/31 

Mountain .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 5/1–8/31 

Pacific ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12 1/1–12/31 

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides 

details on DOE’s energy use analysis for 

DPPP motors. 

DOE seeks comment on the overall 

methodology and inputs used to 

estimate DPPP motor energy use. 

Specifically, DOE seeks feedback on the 

average daily operating hours and 

annual days of operation used in the 

energy use analysis. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for DPPP motors. The effect of new 

energy conservation standards on 

individual consumers usually involves a 

reduction in operating cost and an 

increase in purchase cost. DOE used the 

following two metrics to measure 

consumer impacts: 

• The LCC is the total consumer 

expense of an equipment over the life of 

that equipment, consisting of total 

installed cost (manufacturer selling 

price, distribution chain markups, sales 

tax, and installation costs) plus 

operating costs (expenses for energy use, 

maintenance, and repair). To compute 

the operating costs, DOE discounts 

future operating costs to the time of 

purchase and sums them over the 

lifetime of the product. 

• The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient equipment through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

at higher efficiency levels by the change 

in annual operating cost for the year that 

amended or new standards are assumed 

to take effect. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the change in LCC relative to 

the LCC in the no-new-standards case, 

which reflects the estimated efficiency 

distribution of DPPP motors in the 

absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. In contrast, the 

PBP for a given efficiency level is 

measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

For each considered efficiency level 

in each equipment class, DOE 

calculated the LCC and PBP for a 

nationally representative set of 

consumers. As stated previously, DOE 

considered five DPPP motor markets: (1) 

single-family homes with a swimming 

pool; (2) indoor swimming pools in 

commercial applications; (3) singlefamily community swimming pools; (4) 

multi-family community swimming 

pools; and (5) outdoor swimming pools 

in commercial applications. As 

described in section IV.E.2, DOE 

developed consumer samples from 

various data sources including 2009 

RECS, 2009 AHS, 2015 RECS and 2012 

CBECS. For each consumer in the 

sample, DOE determined the energy 

consumption for the DPPP motor and 

the appropriate energy price. By 

developing a representative sample of 

consumers, the analysis captured the 

variability in energy consumption and 

energy prices associated with the use of 

DPPP motors. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes MSPs, retailer 

and distributor markups, and sales 

taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to 

the calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy consumption, 

energy prices and price projections, 

repair and maintenance costs, product 

lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE 

created distributions of values for 

equipment lifetime, discount rates, and 

sales taxes, with probabilities attached 

to each value, to account for their 

uncertainty and variability. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC and PBP relies on a 

Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate 

uncertainty and variability into the 

analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations 

randomly sample input values from the 

probability distributions and DPPP 

motor user samples. For this 

rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach 

is implemented in MS Excel together 

with the Crystal BallTM add-on.66 The 

model calculated the LCC and PBP for 

equipment at each efficiency level for 

10,000 consumers per simulation run. 

The analytical results include a 

distribution of 10,000 data points 

showing the range of LCC savings for a 

given efficiency level relative to the nonew-standards case efficiency 

distribution. In performing an iteration 

of the Monte Carlo simulation for a 

given consumer, equipment efficiency is 

chosen based on its probability. If the 

chosen equipment efficiency is greater 

than or equal to the efficiency of the 

standard level under consideration, the 

LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a 

consumer is not impacted by the 

standard level. By accounting for 

consumers who already purchase moreefficient equipment, DOE avoids 

overstating the potential benefits from 

increasing equipment efficiency. 

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for 

all consumers of DPPP motors as if each 

were to purchase a new equipment in 

the expected first full year of required 

compliance with new standards. New 

standards would apply to DPPP motor 

manufactured 2 years after the date on 

which any new or amended standard is 

published.67 At this time, DOE estimates 

publication of a final rule in the second 

half of 2023. Therefore, for purposes of 

its analysis, DOE used 2026 as the first 

full year of compliance with any 

amended standards for DPPP motors. 

Table IV.10 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37145 

68Series ID PCU 3353123353121; www.bls.gov/ 

ppi/. 

69Automatic environmental control 

manufacturing PPI series ID: PCU334512334512; 

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

70Semiconductors and related device 

manufacturing PPI series ID: PCU334413334413; 

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

71For more details see chapter 8 of the dedicatedpurpose pool pumps direct final rule TSD, at 

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

72Adjusted to $2020 and compliance year. 

subsections that follow provide further 

discussion. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 

chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD and its 

appendices. 

TABLE IV.10—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 

Inputs Source/method 

Equipment Cost .............................. Derived by multiplying MSPs by distribution channel markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used historical 

data to derive a price index to project equipment costs. 

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

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

Variability: Based on the 2009 RECS, 2009 AHS, 2015 RECS and 2012 CBECS and other data sources. 

Energy Prices .................................. Electricity: Based on EEI data for 2020. 

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 9 census divisions for pool pump motors in individual 

single-family homes and 9 census divisions for pool pump motors in community and commercial pool 

pump motors. 

Average and marginal prices used for electricity. 

Energy Price Trends ....................... Based on AEO2021 price projections. 

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

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

Variability: Based on Weibull distribution. 

Discount Rates ................................ Residential: approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase 

the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve 

Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. 

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

Compliance Date ............................ 2026 (first full year). 

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. 

1. Equipment Cost 

To calculate consumer equipment 

costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs 

developed in the engineering analysis 

by the distribution channel markups 

described previously (along with sales 

taxes). DOE used different markups for 

baseline equipment and higherefficiency equipment, because DOE 

applies an incremental markup to the 

increase in MSP associated with higherefficiency equipment. 

To project an equipment price trend, 

DOE derived an inflation-adjusted index 

of the Producer Price Index (PPI) for 

integral and fractional horsepower 

motors and generators manufacturing 

over the period 1967–2020.68 For 

fractional horsepower motors, the data 

shows a slightly downward trend before 

early 2000s, and then the price index 

increases to a small degree. For integral 

horsepower motors, the trend is mostly 

flat before early 2000s, and then the 

price index increases slightly. The trend 

is found to align with the copper and 

steel deflated price indices to some 

extent, as they are the major material 

used in small electric motors. Given the 

degree of uncertainty, DOE decided to 

use a constant price assumption as the 

default price factor index to project 

future DPPP motor prices. For dualspeed DPPP motors, however, DOE 

assumed that the timer control portion 

of the installation cost would be affected 

by price learning. DOE used PPI data on 

‘‘Automatic environmental control 

manufacturing’’ between 1980 and 2020 

to estimate the historic price trend of 

the electronic components in the timer 

control.69 The regression performed as 

an exponential trend line fit results in 

an R-square of 0.86, with an annual 

price decline rate of 0.4 percent. For 

variable-speed DPPP motors, DOE 

assumed that the controls portion of the 

DPPP motor would be affected by price 

learning. Similarly, DOE used PPI data 

on ‘‘Semiconductors and related device 

manufacturing’’ between 1967 and 2020 

to estimate the historic price trend of 

electronic components in the control.70

The regression performed as an 

exponential trend line fit results in an 

R-square of 0.99, with an annual price 

decline rate of 6 percent. 

DOE seeks comment on the approach 

and inputs used to project an equipment 

price trend for DPPP motors. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

equipment. During the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule, DOE simplified the 

calculation and only accounted for the 

difference of installation cost by 

efficiency levels. For two-speed pumps, 

DOE included the cost of a timer control 

and its installation where applicable, as 

recommended by the ASRAC DPPP 

Working Group. During the January 

2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE used 

information obtained in the 

manufacturer interviews to calculate the 

supplemental installation labor costs for 

two-speed and variable-speed pumps.71

DOE retained the same estimates for this 

NOPR as applied to two-speed and 

variable speed DPPP motors.72

DOE seeks comment on installation 

costs estimates used in the LCC 

analysis. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each sampled installation, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

a DPPP motor at different efficiency 

levels using the approach described in 

section IV.E of this document. 

4. Energy Prices 

Because marginal electricity price 

more accurately captures the 

incremental savings associated with a 

change in energy use from higher 

efficiency, it provides a better 

representation of incremental change in 

consumer costs than average electricity 

prices. Therefore, DOE applied average 

electricity prices for the energy use of 

the DPPP motor purchased in the nonew-standards case, and marginal 

electricity prices for the incremental 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37146 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

73Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential 

Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and 

Estimation Methods. Lawrence Berkeley National 

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

https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/residentialelectricity-prices-review. 

74Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Nonresidential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data 

Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence 

Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. 

LBNL–2001203. https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/ 

non-residential-electricity-prices. 

75U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration. Annual Energy 

Outlook 2021 with Projections to 2050. Washington, 

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

76For DPPPs that do not include a repair, the 

DPPP motor lifetime is equal to the DPPP lifetime. 

For DPPPs that are repaired, the DPPP motor 

lifetime is equal to half of the DPPP lifetime. See 

chapter 8 of the dedicated-purpose pool pumps 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at 

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

77The implicit discount rate is inferred from a 

consumer purchase decision between two otherwise 

identical goods with different first cost and 

operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the 

increment of first cost to the difference in net 

present value of lifetime operating cost, 

incorporating the influence of several factors: 

transaction costs; risk premiums and response to 

uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at 

which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. The 

implicit discount rate is not appropriate for the LCC 

analysis because it reflects a range of factors that 

influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than 

the opportunity cost of the funds that are used in 

purchases. 

78U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System. Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 

2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. (Last 

accessed August 8, 2019) www.federalreserve.gov/ 

econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm. 

79The implicit discount rate is inferred from a 

consumer purchase decision between two otherwise 

change in energy use associated with 

the other efficiency levels considered. 

DOE derived electricity prices in 2020 

using data from EEI Typical Bills and 

Average Rates reports. Based upon 

comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, 

this semi-annual report presents typical 

monthly electric bills and average 

kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as 

charged by investor-owned utilities. For 

the residential sector, DOE calculated 

electricity prices using the methodology 

described in Coughlin and Beraki 

(2018).73 For the commercial sector, 

DOE calculated electricity prices using 

the methodology described in Coughlin 

and Beraki (2019).74

DOE’s methodology allows electricity 

prices to vary by sector, region and 

season. In the analysis, variability in 

electricity prices is chosen to be 

consistent with the way the consumer 

economic and energy use characteristics 

are defined in the LCC analysis. For 

DPPP motors, regional weighted-average 

values for both average and marginal 

prices were calculated for the nine 

census divisions. Each EEI utility in a 

region was assigned a weight based on 

the number of consumers it serves. 

Consumer counts were taken from the 

most recent EIA’s Form EAI–861 data 

(2020). 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the 2020 average 

regional energy prices by a projection of 

annual change in national-average 

residential and commercial energy price 

in AEO 2021, which has an end year of 

2050.75 To estimate price trends after 

2050, DOE used the average annual rate 

of change in prices from 2040 through 

2050. 

See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for 

details. 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing components that 

have failed in an equipment; 

maintenance costs are associated with 

maintaining the operation of the 

equipment. Typically, small 

incremental increases in equipment 

efficiency produce no, or only minor, 

changes in repair and maintenance costs 

compared to baseline efficiency 

equipment. DOE assumed that for 

maintenance costs, there is no change 

with efficiency level, and therefore DOE 

did not include those costs in the 

model. In addition, DPPP motors are not 

repaired and DOE assumed no repair 

costs. 

DOE seeks comment on its decision to 

not include DPPP motor repair and 

maintenance costs in the LCC analysis. 

6. Equipment Lifetime 

For DPPP motors used in residential 

applications, DOE calculated lifetime 

estimates using DPPP lifetime data and 

rates of repair from the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule, which estimated that 

motor replacement occurs at the 

halfway point in a pump’s lifetime, but 

only for those DPPPs whose lifetime 

exceeds the average lifetime for the 

relevant equipment class.76 The data 

allowed DOE to develop a survival 

function, which provides a distribution 

of lifetime ranging from a minimum of 

1 year based on warranty covered 

period, to a maximum of 10 years, with 

a mean value of 5 years for self-priming 

pumps, to a maximum of 8 years, with 

a mean value of 3.6 years for non-selfpriming and pressure cleaner booster 

pumps. These values are applicable to 

DPPP motors in residential applications. 

For commercial applications, DOE 

adjusted the lifetimes to account for the 

higher operating hours compared to 

residential applications, resulting in a 

reduced average lifetime of 3.2 years for 

self-priming pumps and 3.5 years for 

pressure cleaner booster pumps. The 

resulting shipments-weighted average 

lifetime across all DPPP motor 

equipment classes is 4.5 years. 

DOE seeks comment on the approach 

and inputs used to develop DPPP motor 

lifetime estimates. 

7. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates appropriate to 

consumers to estimate the present value 

of future operating cost savings. DOE 

estimated a distribution of discount 

rates for DPPP motors based on the 

opportunity cost of consumer funds. 

DOE applies weighted average 

discount rates calculated from consumer 

debt and asset data, rather than marginal 

or implicit discount rates.77 The LCC 

analysis estimates net present value 

over the lifetime of the equipment, so 

the appropriate discount rate will reflect 

the general opportunity cost of 

household funds, taking this time scale 

into account. Given the long time 

horizon modeled in the LCC analysis, 

the application of a marginal interest 

rate associated with an initial source of 

funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the 

method of purchase, consumers are 

expected to continue to rebalance their 

debt and asset holdings over the LCC 

analysis period, based on the 

restrictions consumers face in their debt 

payment requirements and the relative 

size of the interest rates available on 

debts and assets. DOE estimates the 

aggregate impact of this rebalancing 

using the historical distribution of debts 

and assets. 

To establish residential discount rates 

for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all 

relevant household debt or asset classes 

in order to approximate a consumer’s 

opportunity cost of funds related to 

appliance energy cost savings. It 

estimated the average percentage shares 

of the various types of debt and equity 

by household income group using data 

from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey 

of Consumer Finances 78 (‘‘SCF’’) for 

1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 

2013 and 2016. Using the SCF and other 

sources, DOE developed a distribution 

of rates for each type of debt and asset 

by income group to represent the rates 

that may apply in the year in which 

amended standards would take effect. 

DOE assigned each sample household a 

specific discount rate drawn from one of 

the distributions. The average rate 

across all types of household debt and 

equity and income groups, weighted by 

the shares of each type, is 4.3 percent. 

DOE applies weighted average 

discount rates calculated from consumer 

debt and asset data, rather than marginal 

or implicit discount rates.79 DOE notes 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37147 

identical goods with different first cost and 

operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the 

increment of first cost to the difference in net 

present value of lifetime operating cost, 

incorporating the influence of several factors: 

transaction costs; risk premiums and response to 

uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at 

which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. 

80 Damodaran Online, Data Page: Costs of Capital 

by Industry Sector (2020). (Last accessed February 

1, 2021) https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar/. 

81 DOE considered California separately in light 

of the July 2021 California standards for 

replacement DPPP motors adopted April 7, 2020 

with an effective date July 19, 2021. See Docket 

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

82For the purposes of this analysis, DOE 

considered EL1 (for motors below 0.5 THP) and EL6 

(for motors above 0.5 THP) as equivalent levels to 

the California standards. 

83California Energy Commission, Final Analysis 

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

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

GetDocument.aspx?tn=232151 (last accessed 

August 2021). 

that the LCC does not analyze the 

appliance purchase decision, so the 

implicit discount rate is not relevant in 

this model. The LCC estimates net 

present value over the lifetime of the 

product, so the appropriate discount 

rate will reflect the general opportunity 

cost of household funds, taking this 

time scale into account. Given the long 

time horizon modeled in the LCC, the 

application of a marginal interest rate 

associated with an initial source of 

funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the 

method of purchase, consumers are 

expected to continue to rebalance their 

debt and asset holdings over the LCC 

analysis period, based on the 

restrictions consumers face in their debt 

payment requirements and the relative 

size of the interest rates available on 

debts and assets. DOE estimates the 

aggregate impact of this rebalancing 

using the historical distribution of debts 

and assets. 

To establish commercial discount 

rates for the small fraction of 

applications where businesses purchase 

and use DPPP motors, DOE estimated 

the weighted-average cost of capital 

using data from Damodaran Online.80

The weighted-average cost of capital is 

commonly used to estimate the present 

value of cash flows to be derived from 

a typical company project or 

investment. Most companies use both 

debt and equity capital to fund 

investments, so their cost of capital is 

the weighted average of the cost to the 

firm of equity and debt financing. DOE 

estimated the cost of equity using the 

capital asset pricing model, which 

assumes that the cost of equity for a 

particular company is proportional to 

the systematic risk faced by that 

company. The average commercial 

discount rate is 9.8 percent. 

See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for 

further details on the development of 

consumer discount rates. 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the 

No-New-Standards Case 

To accurately estimate the share of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

potential energy conservation standard 

at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s 

LCC analysis considered the projected 

distribution (market shares) of 

equipment efficiencies under the nonew-standards case (i.e., the case 

without amended or new energy 

conservation standards). 

To estimate the efficiency distribution 

of DPPP motors for 2026, DOE first 

established efficiency distributions in 

2021. Then, as it was done in the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

projected the 2026 efficiency 

distribution by assuming a one percent 

market shift from EL0–EL2 (single-speed 

DPPP motors) to EL 6 (variable speed 

DPPP motors) where applicable. 

To establish the efficiency 

distributions of DPPP motors in 2021, 

DOE considered two market segments: 

(1) DPPP motors incorporated in DPPPs 

and; (2) replacement DPPP motors sold 

alone. 

For DPPP motors incorporated in 

DPPPs, DOE relied on the 2021 DPPP 

Database that included a total of 345 

models of DPPPs with weighted-energy 

factor (‘‘WEF’’) ratings and on the ELs 

developed in the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule, to establish the 2021 

efficiency distributions of DPPPs. DOE 

also used the scenario of roll-up market 

response to the DPPP standards as 

presented in the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule. DOE then assumed that the 

distributions of DPPP motors 

incorporated in DPPPs would be 

equivalent to the 2021 efficiency 

distributions of DPPPs, based on the 

equivalent structure of the ELs used in 

this NOPR and in the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule (See section III.C.1). 

For representative units 4 (i.e., DPPP 

motors used in non-self-priming pumps, 

extra small) and 7 (i.e., DPPP motors 

used in pressure cleaner booster 

pumps), the 2021 DPPP Database did 

not include any information specific to 

these DPPPs. Instead, for these 

representative units, DOE relied on the 

efficiency distributions provided in the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule and 

applied a scenario of roll-up market 

response to the upcoming DPPP 

standards. 

For replacement DPPP motors sold 

alone, for the U.S., not including 

California 81, the DPPP standards would 

have no impact on the DPPP motor 

efficiency distributions. Therefore, to 

establish the efficiency distributions of 

replacement DPPP motors sold alone, 

DOE relied on the 2021 no-newstandards case efficiency distributions 

provided in the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule, which reflect efficiency 

distributions prior to the compliance 

date of the DPPP standards. DOE then 

assumed that the efficiency 

distributions of replacement DPPP 

motors sold alone would be equivalent 

to the efficiency distributions of DPPPs, 

based on the equivalent structure of the 

ELs used in this NOPR and in the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule. For 

California, DOE applied a scenario of 

roll-up market response to the 

upcoming California replacement DPPP 

motor standards.82 DOE then relied on 

the market shares of replacement DPPP 

motor sold in California 83 and in the 

rest of the United-States to establish the 

nation-wide 2021 replacement DPPP 

motor efficiency distributions. 

The projected 2026 market shares by 

EL for the no-new-standards case for 

DPPP motors are shown in Table IV.11 

by market segment. See chapter 8 of the 

NOPR TSD for further information on 

the derivation of the efficiency 

distributions. 

TABLE IV.11—DPPP MOTORS INCORPORATED IN DPPPS 2026 NO-NEW STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Equipment class Rep. 

Unit THP DPPP application EL0 (%) 

EL1 

(%) 

EL2 

(%) 

EL3 

(%) 

EL4 

(%) 

EL5 

(%) 

EL6 

(%) 

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

hhp).

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

Small-size ................... 1 0.75 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.44 hhp) ...... 0 0 29 1 1 2 66 

Small-size ................... 5 1 Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.52 

hhp).

0 2 47 0 5 4 41 

Small-size ................... *7 1.125 Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump ............................. 0 79 10 ............ ............ ............ 11 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37148 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

84 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as 

a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales 

are lacking. In general one would expect a close 

correspondence between shipments and sales. 

85 DOE relied on a repair frequency of 40 percent 

as provided in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. 

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

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

the remaining 60 percent of the time, the pump is 

replaced by a new pump. For more details see 

chapter 9 of the dedicated-purpose pool pumps 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at 

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

TABLE IV.11—DPPP MOTORS INCORPORATED IN DPPPS 2026 NO-NEW STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS— 

Continued 

Equipment class Rep. 

Unit THP DPPP application EL0 (%) 

EL1 

(%) 

EL2 

(%) 

EL3 

(%) 

EL4 

(%) 

EL5 

(%) 

EL6 

(%) 

Standard-size ............. 6 1.5 Non Self-priming Filter Pump (0.87 hhp) ................. 0 2 47 0 5 4 41 

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

Standard-size ............. 2A 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.65 hhp) ...... 0 0 29 1 1 2 66 

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

*For Pressure cleaner booster pumps EL3, EL4, and EL5 are equivalent to EL6. 

TABLE IV.12—REPLACEMENTS DPPP MOTORS SOLD ALONE 2026 NO-NEW STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY

DISTRIBUTIONS

Equipment Class Rep. 

unit THP DPPP Application EL0 (%) 

EL1 

(%) 

EL2 

(%) 

EL3 

(%) 

EL4 

(%) 

EL5 

(%) 

EL6 

(%) 

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

hhp).

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

Small-size ................... 1 0.75 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.44 hhp) ...... 27 9 7 1 1 1 52 

Small-size ................... 5 1 Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.52 

hhp).

23 23 28 2 1 1 23 

Small-size ................... *7 1.125 Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump ............................. 8 50 7 ............ ............ ............ 35 

Standard-size ............. 6 1.5 Non Self-priming Filter Pump (0.87 hhp) ................. 23 23 28 2 1 1 23 

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

Standard-size ............. 2A 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.65 hhp) ...... 27 9 7 1 1 1 52 

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

*For Pressure cleaner booster pumps EL3, EL4, and EL5 are equivalent to EL6. 

DOE seeks comment on the approach 

and inputs used to develop no-new 

standards case efficiency distributions 

in 2021. DOE seeks feedback on the 

approach used to project no-new 

standards case efficiency distributions 

in future years. 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time it takes the consumer to recover the 

additional installed cost of moreefficient equipment, compared to 

baseline equipment, through energy cost 

savings. Payback periods are expressed 

in years. Payback periods that exceed 

the life of the equipment mean that the 

increased total installed cost is not 

recovered in reduced operating 

expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation for 

each efficiency level are the change in 

total installed cost of the equipment and 

the change in the first-year annual 

operating expenditures relative to the 

baseline. The PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis, except 

that discount rates are not needed. 

As noted previously, EPCA 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing an 

equipment complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the first 

year’s energy savings resulting from the 

standard, as calculated under the 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered 

efficiency level, DOE determined the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

by calculating the energy savings in 

accordance with the applicable DOE test 

procedure, and multiplying those 

savings by the average energy price 

projection for the year in which 

compliance with the new standards 

would be required. 

G. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of annual 

equipment shipments to calculate the 

national impacts of potential new 

energy conservation standards on 

energy use, NPV, and future 

manufacturer cash flows.84 The 

shipments model takes an accounting 

approach, tracking market shares of 

each equipment class and the vintage of 

units in the stock. Stock accounting uses 

equipment shipments as inputs to 

estimate the age distribution of inservice equipment stocks for all years. 

The age distribution of in-service 

equipment stocks is a key input to 

calculations of both the NES and NPV, 

because operating costs for any year 

depend on the age distribution of the 

stock. 

1. Base-Year Shipments 

DOE estimated motor shipments by 

DPPP application and considered two 

pump pool motor market segments: (1) 

DPPP motors incorporated in DPPPs 

and; (2) replacement DPPP motors sold 

alone. For DPPP motors incorporated in 

DPPPs, DOE used the 2015 shipments of 

DPPPs by DPPP application from 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule, which 

were based on manufacturer interviews. 

For replacement DPPP motors sold 

alone, DOE used estimates of historical 

shipments of DPPPs for the period 

2007–2014 and estimates of repair 

frequency as provided by ASRAC DPPP 

Working Group during the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule to calculate the 

resulting number of failing DPPP motors 

each year, and corresponding 

replacement DPPP motor shipments by 

DPPP application.85 DOE also used 2018 

confidential DPPP motor shipments data 

and information from the 2021 DPPP 

database to estimate market shares of 

motor shipments by total horsepower 

and distribute DPPP motor shipments 

by representative unit. Table IV.13 

provides the breakdown of DPPP motor 

shipments by market segment and 

representative unit. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37149 

86These were calculated based on input from the 

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

demand. A price elasticity of ¥0.02 was used for 

standard-size self-priming pool pumps. For more 

details see chapter 9 of the dedicated-purpose pool 

pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at 

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

87 In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

assumed that users of standard-size self-priming 

pool pumps purchased before compliance year of 

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

below the upcoming DPPP standards, would seek 

to increase their pump’s lifetime by performing an 

additional repair (i.e., cheaper motor replacement 

with a non-variable speed motor), rather than 

replacing the entire pump with a more efficient and 

variable speed DPPP (due to the DPPP energy 

conversation standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f) which 

correspond to a variable-speed efficiency levels for 

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

DOE therefore increased the repair frequency of 

these DPPPs from 40 percent to 60 percent. For 

more details see chapter 9 of the dedicated-purpose 

pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at 

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

88Adopted April 7, 2020 with an effective date 

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

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

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

89Adopted April 7, 2020 with an effective date 

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

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

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

TABLE IV.13—2021 SHIPMENTS OF DPPP MOTORS BY MARKET SEGMENT AND REPRESENTATIVE UNIT

Equipment class Rep. unit* THP DPPP category 

Represented 

THP range within the 

DPPP category 

DPPP motors 

incorporated in 

pumps (thousand units) 

Replacement 

DPPP motors 

sold alone 

(thousand 

units) 

Small-size .....................

Standard-size ...............

1 

2A 

0.75 

1.65 

Small Size Self-priming 

Filter Pump.

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15 ........

1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5 ...........

140.6 

98.4 

45.1 

31.6 

Standard-size ...............

Standard-size ...............

2 

3 

1.65 

3.45 

Standard Size Selfpriming Filter Pump.1.15 ≤ THP < 1.7 ........

1.7 ≤ THP ≤ 5 .............

157.1 

246.1 

149.8 

234.6 

Extra-small-size ............

Small-size .....................

Standard-size ...............

4 

5 

6 

0.22 

1 

1.5 

Non Self-priming Filter 

Pump.

< 0.5 ............................

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15 ........

1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5 ...........

47.4 

279.9 

120.0 

16.2 

95.5 

40.9 

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

Booster Pump.

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15 ........ 139.6 51.9 

*Representative unit. 

DOE seeks comment on the approach 

and inputs used to develop base year 

shipments and for DPPP motors. 

2. No-New-Standards Case Shipment 

Projections 

DOE projected shipments of DPPP 

motors incorporated in DPPPs and 

shipments of replacement DPPP motors 

sold alone separately. 

In the no-new-standards case, DOE 

assumed the total shipments of DPPP 

motors incorporated in DPPPs was equal 

to the total shipments of DPPPs as 

projected in the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule, at the trial standard level 

corresponding to the DPPP energy 

conservation standard.86

In the no-new-standards case, for 

replacement DPPP motors sold alone, 

DOE used the projected shipments of 

DPPPs and estimates of repair frequency 

to calculate the resulting number of 

failing motors each year and 

corresponding motor replacement sales. 

For replacement motors sold alone 

outside of California, DOE relied on 

repair frequency rates as provided in the 

January 2017 Direct Final Rule. For 

standard-size self-priming pump motors 

sold before 2021 and at efficiency levels 

below the DPPP standards, DOE 

assumed that the repair frequency 

would increase from 40 percent to 60 

percent to calculate corresponding 

replacement DPPP motors sales.87 For 

other categories of DPPPs, DOE relied 

on a 40 percent repair frequency as 

provided in January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule. These repair-replace rates were 

based on inputs from the ASRAC DPPP 

Working Group during the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule. For replacement 

motors sold alone in California, DOE 

projects that with the California 

efficiency standards for replacement 

DPPP,88 the repair frequency of 

standard-size self-priming pump motors 

will remain at its pre-2021 rate of 40 

percent as estimated in the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule rather than increasing 

to 60 percent due to the smaller price 

difference between replacing the entire 

pump and replacing the motor only. 

DOE seeks comment on the approach 

and inputs used to develop no-new 

standards case shipments projections. 

3. Standards-Case Shipment Projections 

The standards-case shipments 

projections account for the effects of 

potential standards on shipments. 

In the standards-cases for which the 

DPPP motor efficiency level are set 

below the level equivalent to the 

standard-size self-priming DPPP 

standards, DOE assumed the increase in 

repair frequency (i.e., 60 percent) of 

standard-size self-priming pool pumps, 

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

U.S. except California (i.e. TSLs 1 to 5 

as described in section V.A). In 

California, due to the California 

efficiency standards for replacement 

DPPP motors,89 DOE estimated that the 

repair frequency of standard-size selfpriming pump motors in California 

would remain at its pre-2021 rate of 40 

percent in the standards-case, (same as 

in the no-new-standards case) because 

the California standards are at or above 

the levels equivalent to the DPPP 

standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f) for all 

equipment classes. 

Outside of California, in the 

standards-cases for which the DPPP 

motor efficiency level of are set at or 

above the level equivalent to the 

standard-size self-priming DPPP 

standard, DOE assumed the increase in 

repair for standard-size self-priming 

pumps would no longer occur starting 

from the compliance year due to the 

smaller price difference between 

replacing the entire pump and replacing 

the motor only. Under these scenarios, 

DOE assumed the pumps were repaired 

40 percent of the time, and new pumps 

were purchased 60 percent of the time 

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

8 as described in section V.A of this 

document). 

In addition, DOE accounted for 

potential downsizing that could occur 

as a result of setting different efficiency 

levels that by equipment classes and 

THP. Specifically, DOE assumed that 

DPPP manufacturers may not want to 

incorporate variable-speed motors in 

DPPPs where the DPPP energy 

conservation standard level does not 

require the use of a variable speed 

motor. Therefore, at TSLs requiring a 

variable-speed motor for certain 

equipment classes with larger THP (i.e., 

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


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37150 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

90The DPPP energy conservations standards at 10 

CFR 431.465(f) were set based on efficiency levels 

that correspond to variable speed motor DPPPs for 

standard size self-priming pumps. The energy 

conservations standards for other DPPP categories 

were set based on efficiency levels that correspond 

to single speed motor DPPPs. 

91Representative unit 2A represents standard-size 

DPPP motors (i.e., at or above 1.15THP) used in 

small-size self-priming pool filter pumps. 92 DOE found that all DPPP models with 

standard-size DPPP motors in the database had a 

hydraulic horsepower less or equal to the hydraulic 

horsepower of DPPP models with small-size DPPP 

motors. 

93The majority of non-self priming pool filter 

pump models with standards-size DPPP motors had 

a hydraulic horsepower greater than non-self 

priming pool filter pump models with small-size 

DPPP motors. 

94The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states 

and U.S. territories. 

assumed that DPPP manufacturers 

might decide to use motors with smaller 

THP for DPPPs that were not required 

to comply with a DPPP standard level 

corresponding to a variable speed motor 

efficiency level.90

DOE analyzed DPPP motor THP size 

as a function of DPPP hydraulic 

horsepower in the 2021 DPPP database 

to estimate where such downsizing may 

occur. For TSL 8 and 7, DOE did not 

identify any possible downsizing from 

small-size DPPP motors to extra-small 

size DPPP motors. Furthermore, at TSL 

8 and 7, small-size and standard-size 

DPPP motors are both set at EL6. 

Therefore, DOE did not consider any 

downsizing at these TSLs. At TSL 6, 

based on a review of the 2021 DPPP 

database, DOE identified representative 

unit 2A 91 as a candidate for 

downsizing.92 Therefore at TSL 6, DOE 

assumed that the majority of shipments 

of standard-size DPPP motors used in 

small-size self-priming pool pumps (80 

percent) would downsize to small-size 

DPPP motors. For standard-size DPPP 

motors used in standard size non-self 

priming pumps (i.e., representative unit 

5), DOE did not identify DPPP models 

with oversized DPPP motors in its 2021 

DPPP database and did not assume any 

downsizing.93

See chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for 

more detail on the shipments analysis. 

DOE seeks comment on the approach 

and inputs used to develop the different 

standards case shipments projections. 

Specifically, at TSL 6. DOE requests 

information and feedback on the 

estimated fraction of standard-size DPPP 

motors used in small self-priming pool 

filter pumps and in non-self-priming 

pool filter pumps that will downsize to 

small-size DPPP motors. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the national energy 

savings (‘‘NES’’) and the NPV from a 

national perspective of total consumer 

costs and savings that would be 

expected to result from new or amended 

standards at specific efficiency levels.94

(‘‘Consumer’’ in this context refers to 

consumers of the product being 

regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and 

NPV for the potential standard levels 

considered based on projections of 

annual product shipments, along with 

the annual energy consumption and 

total installed cost data from the energy 

use and LCC analyses. For the present 

analysis, DOE projected the energy 

savings, operating cost savings, product 

costs, and NPV of consumer benefits 

over the lifetime of DPPP motors sold 

from 2026 through 2055. 

DOE evaluates the impacts of new or 

amended standards by comparing a case 

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

case characterizes energy use and 

consumer costs for each product class in 

the absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. For this 

projection, DOE considers historical 

trends in efficiency and various forces 

that are likely to affect the mix of 

efficiencies over time. DOE compares 

the no-new-standards case with 

projections characterizing the market for 

each product class if DOE adopted new 

or amended standards at specific energy 

efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or 

standards cases) for that class. For the 

standards cases, DOE considers how a 

given standard would likely affect the 

market shares of products with 

efficiencies greater than the standard. 

DOE uses a spreadsheet model to 

calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings 

from each TSL. Interested parties can 

review DOE’s analyses by changing 

various input quantities within the 

spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet 

model uses typical values (as opposed 

to probability distributions) as inputs. 

Table IV.14 summarizes the inputs 

and methods DOE used for the NIA 

analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of 

these inputs and methods follows the 

table. See chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD 

for further details. 

TABLE IV.14—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs Method 

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

Compliance Date of Standard ............................. 2026. 

Efficiency Trends ................................................. No-new-standards case: 

Standards cases: 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ................ Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy use at each TSL. 

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

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

energy prices. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit .............. Annual values do not change with efficiency level. 

Energy Price Trends ........................................... AEO2021 projections to 2050 and extrapolation thereafter. 

Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC Conversion ..... A time-series conversion factor based on AEO 2021. 

Discount Rate ...................................................... 3 percent and 7 percent. 

Present Year ....................................................... 2021. 

1. Equipment Efficiency Trends 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency projected for 

the no-new-standards case and each of 

the standards cases. Section IV.F.8 of 

this document describes how DOE 

developed an energy efficiency 

distribution for the no-new-standards 

case (which yields a shipment-weighted 

average efficiency) for each of the 

considered equipment classes for the 

first full year of anticipated compliance 

with an amended or new standard. To 

project the trend in efficiency absent 

amended standards for DPPP motors 

over the entire shipments projection 

period, DOE relied on the same 

approach described in section IV.F.8 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37151 

95For more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

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

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

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

2021). 

96United States Office of Management and 

Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. 

September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4/ (last accessed September 23, 2021). 

and shifted 1 percent per year of the 

market share in the single-speed levels 

to the variable-speed efficiency levels. 

The approach is further described in 

chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD. 

For the standards cases, DOE used a 

‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the 

shipment-weighted efficiency for the 

year that standards are assumed to 

become effective (2026). In this 

scenario, the market shares of products 

in the no-new-standards case that do not 

meet the standard under consideration 

would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new 

standard level, and the market share of 

products above the standard would 

remain unchanged. 

2. National Energy Savings 

The national energy savings analysis 

involves a comparison of national 

energy consumption of the considered 

products between each potential 

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

with no new or amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE calculated 

the national energy consumption by 

multiplying the number of units (stock) 

of each product (by vintage or age) by 

the unit energy consumption (also by 

vintage). DOE calculated annual NES 

based on the difference in national 

energy consumption for the no-new 

standards case and for each higher 

efficiency standard case. DOE estimated 

energy consumption and savings based 

on site energy and converted the 

electricity consumption and savings to 

primary energy (i.e., the energy 

consumed by power plants to generate 

site electricity) using annual conversion 

factors derived from AEO2021. 

Cumulative energy savings are the sum 

of the NES for each year over the 

timeframe of the analysis. 

Use of higher-efficiency products is 

occasionally associated with a direct 

rebound effect, which refers to an 

increase in utilization of the product 

due to the increase in efficiency. DOE 

did not find any data on the rebound 

effect specific to DPPP motors and did 

not apply a rebound effect. 

In 2011, in response to the 

recommendations of a committee on 

‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Measurement Approaches to Energy 

Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the 

National Academy of Sciences, DOE 

announced its intention to use FFC 

measures of energy use and greenhouse 

gas and other emissions in the national 

impact analyses and emissions analyses 

included in future energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 

(Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 

approaches discussed in the August 18, 

2011 notice, DOE published a statement 

of amended policy in which DOE 

explained its determination that EIA’s 

National Energy Modeling System 

(‘‘NEMS’’) is the most appropriate tool 

for its FFC analysis and its intention to 

use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 

(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public 

domain, multi-sector, partial 

equilibrium model of the U.S. energy 

sector 95 that EIA uses to prepare its 

Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors 

incorporate losses in production and 

delivery in the case of natural gas 

(including fugitive emissions) and 

additional energy used to produce and 

deliver the various fuels used by power 

plants. The approach used for deriving 

FFC measures of energy use and 

emissions is described in appendix 10B 

and 13A of the NOPR TSD. 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers are (1) total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

operating costs (energy costs and repair 

and maintenance costs), and (3) a 

discount factor to calculate the present 

value of costs and savings. DOE 

calculates net savings each year as the 

difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case 

in terms of total savings in operating 

costs versus total increases in installed 

costs. DOE calculates operating cost 

savings over the lifetime of each product 

shipped during the projection period. 

As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this 

document, DOE developed equipment 

price trends based on historical PPI 

data. DOE applied the same trends to 

project prices for each equipment class 

at each considered efficiency level. By 

2055, which is the end date of the 

projection period, the average DPPP 

motor price is projected to drop between 

0 to 51 percent depending on the 

efficiency level relative to 2026. DOE’s 

projection of product prices is described 

in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. 

To evaluate the effect of uncertainty 

regarding the price trend estimates, DOE 

investigated the impact of different 

equipment price projections on the 

consumer NPV for the considered TSLs 

for DPPP motors. In addition to the 

default price trend, DOE considered two 

equipment price sensitivity cases: (1) a 

high price decline case and (2) a low 

price decline case based on historical 

PPI data. The derivation of these price 

trends and the results of these 

sensitivity cases are described in 

appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. 

The operating cost savings are energy 

cost savings, which are calculated using 

the estimated energy savings in each 

year and the projected price of the 

appropriate form of energy. To estimate 

energy prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied the average regional energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

national-average residential and 

commercial energy price changes in the 

Reference case from AEO2021, which 

has an end year of 2050. To estimate 

price trends after 2050, DOE used the 

average annual rate of change in prices 

from 2020 through 2050. As part of the 

NIA, DOE also analyzed scenarios that 

used inputs from variants of the 

AEO2021 Reference case that have 

lower and higher economic growth. 

Those cases have lower and higher 

energy price trends compared to the 

Reference case. NIA results based on 

these cases are presented in appendix 

10C of the NOPR TSD. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. For this NOPR, DOE 

estimated the NPV of consumer benefits 

using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 

real discount rate. DOE uses these 

discount rates in accordance with 

guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to 

Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis.96 The discount rates 

for the determination of NPV are in 

contrast to the discount rates used in the 

LCC analysis, which are designed to 

reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7- 

percent real value is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy. The 

3-percent real value represents the 

‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value. 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards on consumers, DOE evaluates 

the impact on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a new or 

amended national standard. The 

purpose of a subgroup analysis is to 

determine the extent of any such 

disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates 

impacts on particular subgroups of 

consumers by analyzing the LCC 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37152 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

97 DOE did not evaluate low-income consumer 

subgroup impacts because the sample size of the 

subgroup is too small for meaningful analysis. 

98See www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. 

99See www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/ 

data.html. 

100See https://app.dnbhoovers.com. 

impacts and PBP for those particular 

consumers from alternative standard 

levels. For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the 

impacts of the considered standard 

levels on one subgroup: 97 senior-only 

households. The analysis used subsets 

of the RECS 2015 sample composed of 

households that meet the criteria for the 

subgroup. DOE used the LCC and PBP 

spreadsheet model to estimate the 

impacts of the considered efficiency 

levels on this subgroup. Chapter 11 in 

the NOPR TSD describes the consumer 

subgroup analysis. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the financial impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of DPPP motors and to 

estimate the potential impacts of such 

standards on employment and 

manufacturing capacity. The MIA has 

both quantitative and qualitative aspects 

and includes analyses of projected 

industry cash flows, the INPV, 

investments in research and 

development (‘‘R&D’’) and 

manufacturing capital, and domestic 

manufacturing employment. 

Additionally, the MIA seeks to 

determine how amended energy 

conservation standards might affect 

manufacturing employment, capacity, 

and competition, as well as how 

standards contribute to overall 

regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA 

serves to identify any disproportionate 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups, 

including small business manufacturers. 

The quantitative part of the MIA 

primarily relies on the Government 

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

industry cash flow model with inputs 

specific to this rulemaking. The key 

GRIM inputs include data on the 

industry cost structure, unit production 

costs, product shipments, manufacturer 

markups, and investments in R&D and 

manufacturing capital required to 

produce compliant products. The key 

GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is 

the sum of industry annual cash flows 

over the analysis period, discounted 

using the industry-weighted average 

cost of capital, and the impact to 

domestic manufacturing employment. 

The model uses standard accounting 

principles to estimate the impacts of 

more-stringent energy conservation 

standards on a given industry by 

comparing changes in INPV and 

domestic manufacturing employment 

between a no-new-standards case and 

the various standards cases (‘‘TSLs’’). To 

capture the uncertainty relating to 

manufacturer pricing strategies 

following amended standards, the GRIM 

estimates a range of possible impacts 

under different markup scenarios. 

The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses manufacturer characteristics 

and market trends. Specifically, the MIA 

considers such factors as a potential 

standard’s impact on manufacturing 

capacity, competition within the 

industry, the cumulative impact of other 

DOE and non-DOE regulations, and 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups. 

The complete MIA is outlined in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE conducted the MIA for this 

proposed rulemaking in three phases. In 

Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a 

profile of the DPPP motors 

manufacturing industry based on the 

market and technology assessment, 

preliminary manufacturer interviews, 

and publicly-available information. This 

included a top-down analysis of DPPP 

motors manufacturers that DOE used to 

derive preliminary financial inputs for 

the GRIM (e.g., revenues; materials, 

labor, overhead, and depreciation 

expenses; selling, general, and 

administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’); and 

R&D expenses). DOE also used public 

sources of information to further 

calibrate its initial characterization of 

the DPPP motors manufacturing 

industry, including company filings of 

form 10–K from the SEC,98 corporate 

annual reports, the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s Economic Census,99 and 

reports from D&B Hoovers.100

In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a framework industry cash-flow analysis 

to quantify the potential impacts of 

energy conservation standards. The 

GRIM uses several factors to determine 

a series of annual cash flows starting 

with the announcement of the standard 

and extending over a 30-year period 

following the compliance date of the 

standard. These factors include annual 

expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A 

and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital 

expenditures. In general, energy 

conservation standards can affect 

manufacturer cash flow in three distinct 

ways: (1) creating a need for increased 

investment, (2) raising production costs 

per unit, and (3) altering revenue due to 

higher per-unit prices and changes in 

sales volumes. 

In addition, during Phase 2, DOE 

developed interview guides to distribute 

to manufacturers of DPPP motors in 

order to develop other key GRIM inputs, 

including product and capital 

conversion costs, and to gather 

additional information on the 

anticipated effects of energy 

conservation standards on revenues, 

direct employment, capital assets, 

industry competitiveness, and subgroup 

impacts. 

In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE 

conducted structured, detailed 

interviews with representative 

manufacturers. During these interviews, 

DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics to validate assumptions 

used in the GRIM and to identify key 

issues or concerns. See section IV.J.3 of 

this document for a description of the 

key issues raised by manufacturers 

during the interviews. As part of Phase 

3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of 

manufacturers that may be 

disproportionately impacted by 

amended standards or that may not be 

accurately represented by the average 

cost assumptions used to develop the 

industry cash flow analysis. Such 

manufacturer subgroups may include 

small business manufacturers, lowvolume manufacturers, niche players, 

and/or manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure that largely differs from the 

industry average. DOE identified one 

subgroup for a separate impact analysis: 

small business manufacturers. The 

small business subgroup is discussed in 

section VI.B, ‘‘Review under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ and in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flow due to amended 

standards that result in a higher or 

lower industry value. The GRIM uses a 

standard, annual discounted cash-flow 

analysis that incorporates manufacturer 

costs, markups, shipments, and industry 

financial information as inputs. The 

GRIM models changes in costs, 

distribution of shipments, investments, 

and manufacturer margins that could 

result from an amended energy 

conservation standard. The GRIM 

spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at 

a series of annual cash flows, beginning 

in 2021 (the reference year of the 

analysis) and continuing to 2055. DOE 

calculated INPVs by summing the 

stream of annual discounted cash flows 

during this period. For manufacturers of 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps, DOE used a real discount 

rate of 7.2 percent, which was derived 

from industry financials and then 

modified according to feedback received 

during manufacturer interviews. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37153 

101Table 5.7.1 of the January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule lists DPPP motor prices as MPCs. This is 

because the January 2017 Direct Final Rule was for 

DPPPs, not DPPP motors. In the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule, the selling price of the DPPP motors was 

part of the production costs for DPPP 

manufacturers. However, in this analysis the selling 

price of the DPPP motors is the MSP for DPPP 

motor manufacturers. 

102 82 FR 5650 (January 18, 2017), compliance 

date of July 19, 2021. 

The GRIM calculates cash flows using 

standard accounting principles and 

compares changes in INPV between the 

no-new-standards case and each 

standards case. The difference in INPV 

between the no-new-standards case and 

a standards case represents the financial 

impact of the amended energy 

conservation standard on 

manufacturers. As discussed previously, 

DOE developed critical GRIM inputs 

using a number of sources, including 

publicly available data, results of the 

engineering analysis, and information 

gathered from industry stakeholders 

during the course of manufacturer 

interviews and subsequent Working 

Group meetings. The GRIM results are 

presented in section V.B.2 of this 

document. Additional details about the 

GRIM, the discount rate, and other 

financial parameters can be found in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing more efficient 

equipment is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing baseline equipment 

due to the use of more complex 

components, which are typically more 

costly than baseline components. The 

changes in the MPCs of covered 

products can affect the revenues, gross 

margins, and cash flow of the industry. 

DOE used data from the January 2017 

Direct Final Rule to determine the MSP 

of DPPP motors. Specifically, DOE used 

Table 5.7.1 of the January 2017 Direct 

Final Rule TSD, which estimated the 

MSPs of DPPP motors used in the 

analysis.101 DOE adjusted the MSPs 

used in the January 2017 Direct Final 

Rule from 2015$ into 2020$. DOE also 

conducted physical teardowns to 

determine updated DPPP motor 

controller costs for variable-speed 

motors. However, DOE did not include 

these costs in the MIA as the motor 

controller costs are typically 

manufactured by the DPPP 

manufacturers not by the DPPP motor 

manufacturers. The MPCs and MSPs 

used in this MIA only account for the 

DPPP motors covered by this proposed 

rulemaking. 

For a complete description of the 

MPCs, see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

b. Shipments Projections 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues based on total unit shipment 

projections and the distribution of those 

shipments by efficiency level. Changes 

in sales volumes and efficiency mix 

over time can significantly affect 

manufacturer finances. For this analysis, 

the GRIM uses the NIA’s annual 

shipment projections derived from the 

shipments analysis from 2021 (the 

reference year) to 2055 (the end year of 

the analysis period). See chapter 9 of the 

NOPR TSD for additional details. 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

Energy conservation standards could 

cause manufacturers to incur conversion 

costs to bring their production facilities 

and equipment designs into compliance. 

DOE evaluated the level of conversionrelated expenditures that would be 

needed to comply with each considered 

efficiency level in each product class. 

For the MIA, DOE classified these 

conversion costs into two major groups: 

(1) product conversion costs; and (2) 

capital conversion costs. Product 

conversion costs are investments in 

research, development, testing, 

marketing, and other non-capitalized 

costs necessary to make product designs 

comply with amended energy 

conservation standards. Capital 

conversion costs are investments in 

property, plant, and equipment 

necessary to adapt or change existing 

production facilities such that new 

compliant product designs can be 

fabricated and assembled. 

DOE assumed that DPPP motor 

manufacturers would not incur any 

capital conversion costs for efficiency 

levels that single-speed or dual-speed 

motors would be able to meet. The same 

production equipment currently used to 

manufacture single-speed and dualspeed motors would still be able to be 

used to manufacture more efficient 

single- and dual-speed motors. 

However, DOE did assume that DPPP 

motor manufacturers would incur 

capital conversion costs at efficiency 

levels that variable-speed motors would 

be needed to meet the analyzed energy 

conservation standards. 

Additional production equipment 

would be needed to manufacture both 

additional variable-speed motor models 

and a larger production volume of 

variable-speed motors than are currently 

being produced. DOE used feedback 

from manufacturer interviews to 

estimate the cost of adding a production 

line to manufacture variable-speed 

motors. DOE then estimated the number 

of additional variable-speed production 

lines needed at each TSL, based on the 

increase in variable-speed shipments 

estimated at the analyzed TSL and the 

number of DPPP motor manufacturers 

that would need to introduce variablespeed motor models to meet the 

analyzed TSL. 

DOE assumed that DPPP motor 

manufacturers would not incur any 

additional product conversion costs for 

the standard size equipment classes. All 

DPPP motor manufacturers currently 

manufacture multiple variable-speed 

motor models in the standard size 

equipment classes. Additionally, the 

current DOE energy conservation 

standard for DPPPs 102 that most 

commonly use the standard size DPPP 

motors use variable-speed motors to 

meet those efficiency requirements. 

Therefore, almost all standard size DPPP 

motors sold as part of a new DPPP are 

already variable-speed motors. 

However, DOE did assume that DPPP 

motor manufacturers would incur 

product conversion costs for the other 

equipment classes at each analyzed 

efficiency level. 

Additional DPPP motor models would 

need to be introduced for the extra 

small-size and small-size DPPP motor 

equipment classes at each efficiency 

level analyzed. To evaluate the level of 

product conversion costs manufacturers 

would likely incur to comply with the 

analyzed energy conservation standards 

for these equipment classes, DOE used 

a model database to estimate the 

number of DPPP motor models that 

would have to be redesigned at each 

efficiency level for each equipment 

class. DOE estimated a redesign effort of 

2 months of engineering time per model 

to redesign a less efficient single-speed 

DPPP motor into a single-speed DPPP 

motor capable of meeting the analyzed 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

estimated a redesign effort of 6 months 

of engineering time per model to 

redesign a single-speed or less efficient 

dual-speed DPPP motor into a dualspeed DPPP motor capable of meeting 

the analyzed energy conservation 

standards. Lastly, DOE estimated a 

redesign effort of 24 months of four 

engineers for DPPP motor manufacturers 

that do not currently produce small-size 

DPPP variable-speed motors to 

introduce one variable-speed DPPP 

motor model, for the analyzed energy 

conservation standards that would 

require variable-speed DPPP motor for 

the small-size equipment classes. 

In general, DOE assumes all 

conversion-related investments occur 

between the year of publication of the 

final rule and the year by which 

manufacturers must comply with the 

new standard. The conversion cost 

figures used in the GRIM can be found 

in Table IV.15 and Table IV.16 and in 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37154 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

section V.B.2.a of this document. For 

additional information on the estimated 

capital and product conversion costs, 

see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV.15—DPPP MOTOR MANUFACTURER CAPITAL CONVERSION COSTS

Equipment class 

Efficiency level 

EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5 EL 6 

Capital Conversion Costs (2020$ millions) Extra Small (<0.5 THP) ............................ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

Small (0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15) ......................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 20.0 

Standard (1.15 ≤ THP) ............................. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 17.5 

TABLE IV.16—DPPP MOTOR MANUFACTURER PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS

Equipment class 

Efficiency level 

EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5 EL 6 

Product Conversion Costs (2020$ millions).Extra Small (<0.5 THP) ............................ 0.0 0.2 ............ ............ ............ ............

Small (0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15) ......................... 0.1 0.6 3.9 4.0 4.3 8.7 

Standard (1.15 ≤ THP) ............................. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

d. Markup Scenarios 

MSPs include direct manufacturing 

production costs (i.e., labor, materials, 

and overhead estimated in DOE’s MPCs) 

and all non-production costs (i.e., 

SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with 

profit. To calculate the MSPs in the 

GRIM, DOE applied non-production 

cost markups to the MPCs estimated in 

the engineering analysis for each 

product class and efficiency level. 

Modifying these markups in the 

standards case yields different sets of 

impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, 

DOE modeled two standards-case 

markup scenarios to represent 

uncertainty regarding the potential 

impacts on prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the 

implementation of amended energy 

conservation standards: (1) a 

preservation of gross margin percentage 

markup scenario; and (2) a preservation 

of per-unit operating profit markup 

scenario. These scenarios lead to 

different markup values that, when 

applied to the MPCs, result in varying 

revenue and cash flow impacts. 

Under the preservation of gross 

margin percentage scenario, DOE 

applied a single uniform ‘‘gross margin 

percentage’’ markup across all efficiency 

levels, which assumes that 

manufacturers would be able to 

maintain the same amount of profit as 

a percentage of revenues at all efficiency 

levels within a product class. Based on 

publicly available financial information 

for DPPP motor manufacturers and 

information obtained during 

manufacturer interviews, DOE assumed 

the non-production cost manufacturer 

markup—which includes SG&A 

expenses, R&D expenses, interest, and 

profit—to be 1.37. This manufacturer 

markup is consistent with the 

manufacturer markup DOE used in the 

engineering analysis (see section IV.C). 

Therefore, DOE assumes that this 

scenario represents the upper bound to 

industry profitability under energy 

conservation standards. 

Under the preservation of per-unit 

operating profit markup scenario, DOE 

modeled a situation in which 

manufacturers are not able to increase 

per-unit operating profit in proportion 

to increases in manufacturer production 

costs. Under this scenario, as the MPCs 

increase, manufacturers are generally 

required to reduce the manufacturer 

markup to maintain a cost competitive 

offering in the market. Therefore, gross 

margin (as a percentage) shrinks in the 

standards cases. This manufacturer 

markup scenario represents the lower 

bound to industry profitability under 

new energy conservation standards. 

A comparison of industry financial 

impacts under the two markup 

scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a 

of this document. 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE conducted manufacturer 

interviews prior to the publication of 

this NOPR. In these interviews, DOE 

asked manufacturers to describe their 

major concerns regarding this 

rulemaking. The following section 

highlights manufacturer concerns that 

helped inform the projected potential 

impacts of new energy conservation 

standards on the industry. Manufacturer 

interviews are conducted under nondisclosure agreements (‘‘NDAs’’), so 

DOE does not document these 

discussions in the same way that it does 

public comments in the comment 

summaries and DOE’s responses 

throughout the rest of this document. 

Some manufacturers stated they only 

produce single-speed and dual-speed 

motors within the small-size equipment 

class (0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15) and no longer 

supply DPPP motors used in new DPPP 

in that range to the California market 

after the CEC standard took effect. These 

manufacturers stated that they would 

need to design variable-speed motor 

models to meet any energy conservation 

standard that would require a variablespeed motor for the small-size 

equipment class. Additionally, these 

manufacturers would need to build 

additional production lines or make 

significant changes to existing singlespeed or dual-speed production lines to 

be able to meet energy conservation 

standards requiring variable-speed 

DPPP motors for this equipment class. 

DOE included the capital and product 

conversion costs necessary for these 

DPPP motor manufacturers to introduce 

variable-speed DPPP motor models for 

the small-size equipment class. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

The emissions analysis consists of 

two components. The first component 

estimates the effect of potential energy 

conservation standards on power sector 

and site (where applicable) combustion 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 

The second component estimates the 

impacts of potential standards on 

emissions of two additional greenhouse 

gases, CH4 and N2O, as well as the 

reductions to emissions of other gases 

due to ‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel 

production chain. These upstream 

activities comprise extraction, 

processing, and transporting fuels to the 

site of combustion. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37155 

103Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_

apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12, 2021). 

104For further information, see the Assumptions 

to AEO2021 report that sets forth the major 

assumptions used to generate the projections in the 

Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/ 

outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed July 6, 

2020). 

105CSAPR requires states to address annual 

emissions of SO2 and NOX, precursors to the 

formation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(‘‘NAAQS’’). CSAPR also requires certain states to 

address the ozone season (May–September) 

emissions of NOX, a precursor to the formation of 

ozone pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

EPA subsequently issued a supplemental rule that 

included an additional five states in the CSAPR 

ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 

(Supplemental Rule). 

The analysis of electric power sector 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg 

uses emissions factors intended to 

represent the marginal impacts of the 

change in electricity consumption 

associated with amended or new 

standards. The methodology is based on 

results published for the AEO, including 

a set of side cases that implement a 

variety of efficiency-related policies. 

The methodology is described in 

appendix 13A in the NOPR TSD. The 

analysis presented in this proposed 

rulemaking uses projections from 

AEO2021. Power sector emissions of 

CH4 and N2O from fuel combustion are 

estimated using Emission Factors for 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories published 

by the EPA.103

FFC upstream emissions, which 

include emissions from fuel combustion 

during extraction, processing, and 

transportation of fuels, and ‘‘fugitive’’ 

emissions (direct leakage to the 

atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2, are 

estimated based on the methodology 

described in chapter 15 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

The emissions intensity factors are 

expressed in terms of physical units per 

MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. 

For power sector emissions, specific 

emissions intensity factors are 

calculated by sector and end use. Total 

emissions reductions are estimated 

using the energy savings calculated in 

the national impact analysis. 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated 

in DOE’s Analysis 

DOE’s no-new-standards case for the 

electric power sector reflects the AEO, 

which incorporates the projected 

impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO2021 

generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations, 

including recent government actions, 

that were in place at the time of 

preparation of AEO2021, including the 

emissions control programs discussed in 

the following paragraphs.104

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (‘‘EGUs’’) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States and the District of 

Columbia (DC). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) 

SO2 emissions from numerous States in 

the eastern half of the United States are 

also limited under the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (‘‘CSAPR’’). 76 FR 48208 

(Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these 

States to reduce certain emissions, 

including annual SO2 emissions, and 

went into effect as of January 1, 2015.105

AEO2021 incorporates implementation 

of CSAPR, including the update to the 

CSAPR ozone season program emission 

budgets and target dates issued in 2016. 

81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). 

Compliance with CSAPR is flexible 

among EGUs and is enforced through 

the use of tradable emissions 

allowances. Under existing EPA 

regulations, any excess SO2 emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand caused by the 

adoption of an efficiency standard could 

be used to permit offsetting increases in 

SO2 emissions by another regulated 

EGU. 

However, beginning in 2016, SO2

emissions began to fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(‘‘MATS’’) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 

(Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final rule, 

EPA established a standard for hydrogen 

chloride as a surrogate for acid gas 

hazardous air pollutants (‘‘HAP’’), and 

also established a standard for SO2 (a 

non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative 

equivalent surrogate standard for acid 

gas HAP. The same controls are used to 

reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; 

thus, SO2 emissions are being reduced 

as a result of the control technologies 

installed on coal-fired power plants to 

comply with the MATS requirements 

for acid gas. In order to continue 

operating, coal power plants must have 

either flue gas desulfurization or dry 

sorbent injection systems installed. Both 

technologies, which are used to reduce 

acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2

emissions. Because of the emissions 

reductions under the MATS, it is 

unlikely that excess SO2 emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand would be needed or 

used to permit offsetting increases in 

SO2 emissions by another regulated 

EGU. Therefore, energy conservation 

standards that decrease electricity 

generation would generally reduce SO2

emissions. DOE estimated SO2

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO2021. 

CSAPR also established limits on NOX

emissions for numerous States in the 

eastern half of the United States. Energy 

conservation standards would have 

little effect on NOX emissions in those 

States covered by CSAPR emissions 

limits if excess NOX emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in NOX

emissions from other EGUs. In such 

case, NOx emissions would remain near 

the limit even if electricity generation 

goes down. A different case could 

possibly result, depending on the 

configuration of the power sector in the 

different regions and the need for 

allowances, such that NOX emissions 

might not remain at the limit in the case 

of lower electricity demand. In this case, 

energy conservation standards might 

reduce NOx emissions in covered 

States. Despite this possibility, DOE has 

chosen to be conservative in its analysis 

and has maintained the assumption that 

standards will not reduce NOX

emissions in States covered by CSAPR. 

Energy conservation standards would be 

expected to reduce NOX emissions in 

the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE 

used AEO2021 data to derive NOX

emissions factors for the group of States 

not covered by CSAPR. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would be expected to slightly reduce Hg 

emissions. DOE estimated mercury 

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO2021, which 

incorporates the MATS. 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

proposed rule, for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866, DOE considered 

the estimated monetary benefits from 

the reduced emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, 

NOX, and SO2 that are expected to result 

from each of the TSLs considered. In 

order to make this calculation analogous 

to the calculation of the NPV of 

consumer benefit, DOE considered the 

reduced emissions expected to result 

over the lifetime of products shipped in 

the projection period for each TSL. This 

section summarizes the basis for the 

values used for monetizing the 

emissions benefits and presents the 

values considered in this NOPR. 

On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit 

Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37156 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

106Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. 

Newbold, and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and 

N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the US 

Government’s SC–CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 

2015. 15(2): pp. 272–298. 

107National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating 

Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. 

2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, 

DC. 

granted the federal government’s 

emergency motion for stay pending 

appeal of the February 11, 2022, 

preliminary injunction issued in 

Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074– 

JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the 

Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary 

injunction is no longer in effect, 

pending resolution of the federal 

government’s appeal of that injunction 

or a further court order. Among other 

things, the preliminary injunction 

enjoined the defendants in that case 

from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as 

binding, or relying upon’’ the interim 

estimates of the social cost of 

greenhouse gases—which were issued 

by the Interagency Working Group on 

the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on 

February 26, 2021—to monetize the 

benefits of reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. In the absence of further 

intervening court orders, DOE will 

revert to its approach prior to the 

injunction and present monetized 

benefits where appropriate and 

permissible under law. DOE requests 

comment on how to address the climate 

benefits and other non-monetized 

effects of the proposal. 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

DOE estimates the monetized benefits 

of the reductions in emissions of CO2, 

CH4, and N2O by using a measure of the 

SC of each pollutant (e.g., SC–CO2). 

These estimates represent the monetary 

value of the net harm to society 

associated with a marginal increase in 

emissions of these pollutants in a given 

year, or the benefit of avoiding that 

increase. These estimates are intended 

to include (but are not limited to) 

climate-change-related changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health, 

property damages from increased flood 

risk, disruption of energy systems, risk 

of conflict, environmental migration, 

and the value of ecosystem services. 

DOE exercises its own judgment in 

presenting monetized climate benefits 

as recommended by applicable 

Executive orders and DOE would reach 

the same conclusion presented in this 

proposed rulemaking in the absence of 

the social cost of greenhouse gases, 

including the February 2021 Interim 

Estimates presented by the Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases. DOE estimated the 

global social benefits of CO2, CH4, and 

N2O reductions (i.e., SC–GHGs) using 

the estimates presented in the Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of 

Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates under Executive 

Order 13990 published in February 

2021 by the IWG. The SC–GHGs is the 

monetary value of the net harm to 

society associated with a marginal 

increase in emissions in a given year, or 

the benefit of avoiding that increase. In 

principle, SC–GHGs includes the value 

of all climate change impacts, including 

(but not limited to) changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health 

effects, property damage from increased 

flood risk and natural disasters, 

disruption of energy systems, risk of 

conflict, environmental migration, and 

the value of ecosystem services. The 

SC–GHGs therefore, reflects the societal 

value of reducing emissions of the gas 

in question by one metric ton. The SC– 

GHGs is the theoretically appropriate 

value to use in conducting benefit-cost 

analyses of policies that affect CO2, N2O 

and CH4 emissions. As a member of the 

IWG involved in the development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, DOE 

agrees that the interim SC–GHG 

estimates represent the most appropriate 

estimate of the SC–GHG until revised 

estimates have been developed 

reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed 

science. 

The SC–GHGs estimates presented 

here were developed over many years, 

using transparent process, peerreviewed methodologies, the best 

science available at the time of that 

process, and with input from the public. 

Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, that 

included the DOE and other executive 

branch agencies and offices was 

established to ensure that agencies were 

using the best available science and to 

promote consistency in the social cost of 

carbon (SC–CO2) values used across 

agencies. The IWG published SC–CO2

estimates in 2010 that were developed 

from an ensemble of three widely cited 

integrated assessment models (IAMs) 

that estimate global climate damages 

using highly aggregated representations 

of climate processes and the global 

economy combined into a single 

modeling framework. The three IAMs 

were run using a common set of input 

assumptions in each model for future 

population, economic, and CO2

emissions growth, as well as 

equilibrium climate sensitivity—a 

measure of the globally averaged 

temperature response to increased 

atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These 

estimates were updated in 2013 based 

on new versions of each IAM. In August 

2016 the IWG published estimates of the 

social cost of methane (SC–CH4) and 

nitrous oxide (SC–N2O) using 

methodologies that are consistent with 

the methodology underlying the SC– 

CO2 estimates. The modeling approach 

that extends the IWG SC–CO2

methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has 

undergone multiple stages of peer 

review. The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates were developed by Marten et 

al.106 and underwent a standard doubleblind peer review process prior to 

journal publication. In 2015, as part of 

the response to public comments 

received to a 2013 solicitation for 

comments on the SC–CO2 estimates, the 

IWG announced a National Academies 

of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

review of the SC–CO2 estimates to offer 

advice on how to approach future 

updates to ensure that the estimates 

continue to reflect the best available 

science and methodologies. In January 

2017, the National Academies released 

their final report, Valuing Climate 

Damages: Updating Estimation of the 

Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and 

recommended specific criteria for future 

updates to the SC–CO2 estimates, a 

modeling framework to satisfy the 

specified criteria, and both near-term 

updates and longer-term research needs 

pertaining to various components of the 

estimation process (National 

Academies, 2017).107 Shortly thereafter, 

in March 2017, President Trump issued 

Executive Order 13783, which 

disbanded the IWG, withdrew the 

previous TSDs, and directed agencies to 

ensure SC–CO2 estimates used in 

regulatory analyses are consistent with 

the guidance contained in OMB’s 

Circular A–4, ‘‘including with respect to 

the consideration of domestic versus 

international impacts and the 

consideration of appropriate discount 

rates’’ (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). 

Benefit-cost analyses following E.O. 

13783 used SC–GHG estimates that 

attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific 

share of climate change damages as 

estimated by the models and were 

calculated using two discount rates 

recommended by Circular A–4, 3 

percent and 7 percent. All other 

methodological decisions and model 

versions used in SC–GHG calculations 

remained the same as those used by the 

IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively. 

On January 20, 2021, President Biden 

issued Executive Order 13990, which reestablished the IWG and directed it to 

ensure that the U.S. Government’s 

estimates of the social cost of carbon 

and other greenhouse gases reflect the 

best available science and the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37157 

108 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Carbon. Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis under Executive Order 12866. 2010. 

United States Government. (Last accessed April 15, 

2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/ 

documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf; Interagency Working 

Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Technical Update 

of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013. (Last 

accessed April 15, 2022.) www.federalregister.gov/ 

documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technicalsupport-document-technical-update-of-the-socialcost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact; Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, 

United States Government. Technical Support 

Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under 

Executive Order 12866. August 2016. (Last accessed 

January 18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf; 

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. 

Addendum to Technical Support Document on 

Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application 

of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of 

Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. 

August 2016. (Last accessed January 18, 2022.) 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/ 

documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_

2016.pdf. 

recommendations of the National 

Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked 

with first reviewing the SC–GHG 

estimates currently used in Federal 

analyses and publishing interim 

estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that 

reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions, including by taking global 

damages into account. The interim SC– 

GHG estimates published in February 

2021 are used here to estimate the 

climate benefits for this proposed 

rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG 

to undertake a fuller update of the SC– 

GHG estimates by January 2022 that 

takes into consideration the advice of 

the National Academies (2017) and 

other recent scientific literature. The 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD provides a 

complete discussion of the IWG’s initial 

review conducted under E.O.13990. In 

particular, the IWG found that the SC– 

GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 

fail to reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions in multiple ways. 

First, the IWG found that the SC–GHG 

estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to 

fully capture many climate impacts that 

affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and 

residents, and those impacts are better 

reflected by global measures of the SC– 

GHG. Examples of omitted effects from 

the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct 

effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and 

investments located abroad, supply 

chains, U.S. military assets and interests 

abroad, and tourism, and spillover 

pathways such as economic and 

political destabilization and global 

migration that can lead to adverse 

impacts on U.S. national security, 

public health, and humanitarian 

concerns. In addition, assessing the 

benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation 

activities requires consideration of how 

those actions may affect mitigation 

activities by other countries, as those 

international mitigation actions will 

provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 

residents by mitigating climate impacts 

that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A 

wide range of scientific and economic 

experts have emphasized the issue of 

reciprocity as support for considering 

global damages of GHG emissions. If the 

United States does not consider impacts 

on other countries, it is difficult to 

convince other countries to consider the 

impacts of their emissions on the United 

States. The only way to achieve an 

efficient allocation of resources for 

emissions reduction on a global basis— 

and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens— 

is for all countries to base their policies 

on global estimates of damages. As a 

member of the IWG involved in the 

development of the February 2021 SC– 

GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this 

assessment and, therefore, in this 

proposed rule DOE centers attention on 

a global measure of SC–GHG. This 

approach is the same as that taken in 

DOE regulatory analyses from 2012 

through 2016. A robust estimate of 

climate damages to U.S. citizens and 

residents does not currently exist in the 

literature. As explained in the February 

2021 TSD, existing estimates are both 

incomplete and an underestimate of 

total damages that accrue to the citizens 

and residents of the U.S. because they 

do not fully capture the regional 

interactions and spillovers discussed 

above, nor do they include all of the 

important physical, ecological, and 

economic impacts of climate change 

recognized in the climate change 

literature. As noted in the February 

2021 SC–GHG TSD, the IWG will 

continue to review developments in the 

literature, including more robust 

methodologies for estimating a U.S.- 

specific SC–GHG value, and explore 

ways to better inform the public of the 

full range of carbon impacts. As a 

member of the IWG, DOE will continue 

to follow developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. 

Second, the IWG found that the use of 

the social rate of return on capital (7 

percent under current OMB Circular A– 

4 guidance) to discount the future 

benefits of reducing GHG emissions 

inappropriately underestimates the 

impacts of climate change for the 

purposes of estimating the SC–GHG. 

Consistent with the findings of the 

National Academies (2017) and the 

economic literature, the IWG continued 

to conclude that the consumption rate of 

interest is the theoretically appropriate 

discount rate in an intergenerational 

context (IWG 2010, 2013, 2016a, 

2016b),108 and recommended that 

discount rate uncertainty and relevant 

aspects of intergenerational ethical 

considerations be accounted for in 

selecting future discount rates. 

Furthermore, the damage estimates 

developed for use in the SC–GHG are 

estimated in consumption-equivalent 

terms, and so an application of OMB 

Circular A–4’s guidance for regulatory 

analysis would then use the 

consumption discount rate to calculate 

the SC–GHG. DOE agrees with this 

assessment and will continue to follow 

developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes 

that while OMB Circular A–4, as 

published in 2003, recommends using 

3% and 7% discount rates as ‘‘default’’ 

values, Circular A–4 also reminds 

agencies that ‘‘different regulations may 

call for different emphases in the 

analysis, depending on the nature and 

complexity of the regulatory issues and 

the sensitivity of the benefit and cost 

estimates to the key assumptions.’’ On 

discounting, Circular A–4 recognizes 

that ‘‘special ethical considerations arise 

when comparing benefits and costs 

across generations,’’ and Circular A–4 

acknowledges that analyses may 

appropriately ‘‘discount future costs and 

consumption benefits . . . at a lower 

rate than for intragenerational analysis.’’ 

In the 2015 Response to Comments on 

the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 

Impact Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the 

other IWG members recognized that 

‘‘Circular A–4 is a living document’’ and 

‘‘the use of 7 percent is not considered 

appropriate for intergenerational 

discounting. There is wide support for 

this view in the academic literature, and 

it is recognized in Circular A–4 itself.’’ 

Thus, DOE concludes that a 7% 

discount rate is not appropriate to apply 

to value the social cost of greenhouse 

gases in the analysis presented in this 

analysis. In this analysis, to calculate 

the present and annualized values of 

climate benefits, DOE uses the same 

discount rate as the rate used to 

discount the value of damages from 

future GHG emissions, for internal 

consistency. That approach to 

discounting follows the same approach 

that the February 2021 TSD 

recommends ‘‘to ensure internal 

consistency—i.e., future damages from 

climate change using the SC–GHG at 2.5 

percent should be discounted to the 

base year of the analysis using the same 

2.5 percent rate.’’ DOE has also 

consulted the National Academies’ 2017 

recommendations on how SC–GHG 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37158 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

109 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and 

Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 

Order 13990. February. United States Government. 

Available at: <https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefingroom/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-scienceevidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-ofreducing-climate-pollution/. 

110For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses 

how the understanding of discounting approaches 

suggests that discount rates appropriate for 

intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 

change may be lower than 3 percent. 

estimates can ‘‘be combined in RIAs 

with other cost and benefits estimates 

that may use different discount rates.’’ 

The National Academies reviewed 

‘‘several options,’’ including 

‘‘presenting all discount rate 

combinations of other costs and benefits 

with [SC–GHG] estimates.’’ 

As a member of the IWG involved in 

the development of the February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this 

assessment and will continue to follow 

developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. While the IWG 

works to assess how best to incorporate 

the latest, peer reviewed science to 

develop an updated set of SC–GHG 

estimates, it set the interim estimates to 

be the most recent estimates developed 

by the IWG prior to the group being 

disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely 

on the same models and harmonized 

inputs and are calculated using a range 

of discount rates. As explained in the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the IWG 

has recommended that agencies to 

revert to the same set of four values 

drawn from the SC–GHG distributions 

based on three discount rates as were 

used in regulatory analyses between 

2010 and 2016 and subject to public 

comment. For each discount rate, the 

IWG combined the distributions across 

models and socioeconomic emissions 

scenarios (applying equal weight to 

each) and then selected a set of four 

values recommended for use in benefitcost analyses: an average value resulting 

from the model runs for each of three 

discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 percent, 

and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, 

selected as the 95th percentile of 

estimates based on a 3 percent discount 

rate. The fourth value was included to 

provide information on potentially 

higher-than-expected economic impacts 

from climate change. As explained in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, and 

DOE agrees, this update reflects the 

immediate need to have an operational 

SC–GHG for use in regulatory benefitcost analyses and other applications that 

was developed using a transparent 

process, peer-reviewed methodologies, 

and the science available at the time of 

that process. Those estimates were 

subject to public comment in the 

context of dozens of proposed 

rulemakings as well as in a dedicated 

public comment period in 2013. 

There are a number of limitations and 

uncertainties associated with the SC– 

GHG estimates. First, the current 

scientific and economic understanding 

of discounting approaches suggests 

discount rates appropriate for 

intergenerational analysis in the context 

of climate change are likely to be less 

than 3 percent, near 2 percent or 

lower.109 Second, the IAMs used to 

produce these interim estimates do not 

include all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of 

climate change recognized in the 

climate change literature and the 

science underlying their ‘‘damage 

functions’’—i.e., the core parts of the 

IAMs that map global mean temperature 

changes and other physical impacts of 

climate change into economic (both 

market and nonmarket) damages—lags 

behind the most recent research. For 

example, limitations include the 

incomplete treatment of catastrophic 

and non-catastrophic impacts in the 

integrated assessment models, their 

incomplete treatment of adaptation and 

technological change, the incomplete 

way in which inter-regional and 

intersectoral linkages are modeled, 

uncertainty in the extrapolation of 

damages to high temperatures, and 

inadequate representation of the 

relationship between the discount rate 

and uncertainty in economic growth 

over long time horizons. Likewise, the 

socioeconomic and emissions scenarios 

used as inputs to the models do not 

reflect new information from the last 

decade of scenario generation or the full 

range of projections. The modeling 

limitations do not all work in the same 

direction in terms of their influence on 

the SC–CO2 estimates. However, as 

discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the 

IWG has recommended that, taken 

together, the limitations suggest that the 

interim SC–GHG estimates used in this 

final rule likely underestimate the 

damages from GHG emissions. DOE 

concurs with this assessment. 

DOE’s derivations of the SC–GHG 

(SC–CO2, SC–N2O, and SC–CH4) values 

used for this NOPR are discussed in the 

following sections, and the results of 

DOE’s analyses estimating the benefits 

of the reductions in emissions of these 

GHGs are presented in section V.B.6 of 

this document. 

a. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SC–CO2 values used for this 

NOPR were generated using the values 

presented in the 2021 update from the 

IWG’s February 2021 SC–GHG TSD. 

Table IV.17 shows the updated sets of 

SC–CO2 estimates from the latest 

interagency update in 5-year increments 

from 2020 to 2050. The full set of 

annual values used is presented in 

Appendix 14–A of the NOPR TSD. For 

purposes of capturing the uncertainties 

involved in regulatory impact analysis, 

DOE has determined it is appropriate 

include all four sets of SC–CO2 values, 

as recommended by the IWG.110

TABLE IV.17—ANNUAL SC–CO2VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 

[2020$ per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

2020 ............................................................................................................. 14 51 76 152 

2025 ............................................................................................................. 17 56 83 169 

2030 ............................................................................................................. 19 62 89 187 

2035 ............................................................................................................. 22 67 96 206 

2040 ............................................................................................................. 25 73 103 225 

2045 ............................................................................................................. 28 79 110 242 

2050 ............................................................................................................. 32 85 116 260 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37159 

111See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, Washington, DC, 

December 2021. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

system/files/documents/2021-12/420r21028.pdf 

(last accessed January 13, 2022). 

112Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing 

PM2.5 Precursors from 21 Sectors. December 2 2021. 

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

In calculating the potential global 

benefits resulting from reduced CO2

emissions, DOE used the values from 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, 

adjusted to 2020$ using the implicit 

price deflator for gross domestic product 

(‘‘GDP’’) from the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. DOE derived values from 2051 

to 2070 based on estimates published by 

EPA.111 These estimates are based on 

methods, assumptions, and parameters 

identical to the 2020–2050 estimates 

published by the IWG. DOE derived 

values after 2070 based on the trend in 

2060–2070 in each of the four cases (see 

appendix 14A). 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SC–CO2 value for that year in each of 

the four cases. To calculate a present 

value of the stream of monetary values, 

DOE discounted the values in each of 

the four cases using the specific 

discount rate that had been used to 

obtain the SC–CO2 values in each case. 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values used 

for this NOPR were generated using the 

values presented in the February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD. Table IV.18 shows the 

updated sets of SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates from the latest interagency 

update in 5-year increments from 2020 

to 2050. The full set of annual values 

used is presented in Appendix 14–A of 

the NOPR TSD. To capture the 

uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, DOE has determined it 

is appropriate to include all four sets of 

SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values, as 

recommended by the IWG. DOE derived 

values after 2050 using the approach 

described above for the SC–CO2. 

TABLE IV.18—ANNUAL SC–CH4 AND SC–N2O VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 

[2020$ per metric ton] 

Year 

SC–CH4 SC–N2O 

Discount rate and statistic Discount rate and statistic 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile Average Average Average 95th percentile 

2020 .......................................................................... 670 1,500 2,000 3,900 5,800 18,000 27,000 48,000 

2025 .......................................................................... 800 1,700 2,200 4,500 6,800 21,000 30,000 54,000 

2030 .......................................................................... 940 2,000 2,500 5,200 7,800 23,000 33,000 60,000 

2035 .......................................................................... 1,100 2,200 2,800 6,000 9,000 25,000 36,000 67,000 

2040 .......................................................................... 1,300 2,500 3,100 6,700 10,000 28,000 39,000 74,000 

2045 .......................................................................... 1,500 2,800 3,500 7,500 12,000 30,000 42,000 81,000 

2050 .......................................................................... 1,700 3,100 3,800 8,200 13,000 33,000 45,000 88,000 

DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O 

emissions reduction estimated for each 

year by the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates for that year in each of the 

cases. To calculate a present value of the 

stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

cases using the specific discount rate 

that had been used to obtain the SC–CH4

and SC–N2O estimates in each case. 

2. Monetization of Other Emissions 

Impacts 

For the NOPR, DOE estimated the 

monetized value of NOX and SO2

emissions reductions from electricity 

generation using the latest benefit per 

ton estimates from the EPA’s Benefits 

Mapping and Analysis Program.112 DOE 

used EPA’s values for PM2.5-related 

benefits associated with NOX and SO2

and for ozone-related benefits associated 

with NOX for 2025, 2030 and 2040 

calculated with discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent. DOE used linear 

interpolation to define values for the 

years not given in the 2025 to 2040 

period; for years beyond 2040 the values 

are held constant. DOE derived values 

specific to the sector for DPPP motors 

using a method described in appendix 

14B of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE multiplied the site emissions 

reduction (in tons) in each year by the 

associated $/ton values, and then 

discounted each series using discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as 

appropriate. 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

several effects on the electric power 

generation industry that would result 

from the adoption of new or amended 

energy conservation standards. The 

utility impact analysis estimates the 

changes in installed electrical capacity 

and generation that would result for 

each TSL. The analysis is based on 

published output from the NEMS 

associated with AEO2021. NEMS 

produces the AEO Reference case, as 

well as a number of side cases that 

estimate the economy-wide impacts of 

changes to energy supply and demand. 

For the current analysis, impacts are 

quantified by comparing the levels of 

electricity sector generation, installed 

capacity, fuel consumption and 

emissions in the AEO2021 Reference 

case and various side cases. Details of 

the methodology are provided in the 

appendices to chapters 13 and 15 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

The output of this analysis is a set of 

time-dependent coefficients that capture 

the change in electricity generation, 

primary fuel consumption, installed 

capacity and power sector emissions 

due to a unit reduction in demand for 

a given end use. These coefficients are 

multiplied by the stream of electricity 

savings calculated in the NIA to provide 

estimates of selected utility impacts of 

potential new or amended energy 

conservation standards. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a proposed standard. 

Employment impacts from new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

include both direct and indirect 

impacts. Direct employment impacts are 

any changes in the number of 

employees of manufacturers of the 

products subject to standards, their 

suppliers, and related service firms. The 

MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect 

employment impacts are changes in 

national employment that occur due to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37160 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

113See U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User 

Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling 

System (RIMS II). 1997. U.S. Government Printing 

Office: Washington, DC. Available at www.bea.gov/ 

scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf (last 

accessed July 6, 2021). 

114Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and 

R.W. Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies Model Description and User Guide. 

2015. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: 

Richland, WA. PNNL–24563. 

115Best approximation based on the efficiency 

level analyzed. 

the shift in expenditures and capital 

investment caused by the purchase and 

operation of more-efficient appliances. 

Indirect employment impacts from 

standards consist of the net jobs created 

or eliminated in the national economy, 

other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, caused by (1) reduced 

spending by consumers on energy, (2) 

reduced spending on new energy supply 

by the utility industry, (3) increased 

consumer spending on the products to 

which the new standards apply and 

other goods and services, and (4) the 

effects of those three factors throughout 

the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (‘‘BLS’’). BLS regularly 

publishes its estimates of the number of 

jobs per million dollars of economic 

activity in different sectors of the 

economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy.113 There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital-intensive and less 

labor-intensive than other sectors. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing consumer utility bills. 

Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and service sectors). Thus, the BLS data 

suggest that net national employment 

may increase due to shifts in economic 

activity resulting from energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE estimated indirect national 

employment impacts for the standard 

levels considered in this NOPR using an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies version 4 (‘‘ImSET’’).114

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (‘‘I–O’’) model, which was 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model having structural coefficients that 

characterize economic flows among 187 

sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use. 

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 

equilibrium forecasting model, and that 

there are uncertainties involved in 

projecting employment impacts, 

especially changes in the later years of 

the analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may over-estimate actual job impacts 

over the long run for this rule. 

Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to 

generate results for near-term 

timeframes (2026–2031), where these 

uncertainties are reduced. For more 

details on the employment impact 

analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to the considered energy 

conservation standards for DPPP 

motors. It addresses the TSLs examined 

by DOE, the projected impacts of each 

of these levels if adopted as energy 

conservation standards for DPPP 

motors, and the standards levels that 

DOE is proposing to adopt in this 

NOPR. Additional details regarding 

DOE’s analyses are contained in the 

NOPR TSD supporting this document. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

In general, DOE typically evaluates 

potential amended standards for 

products and equipment by grouping 

individual efficiency levels for each 

class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE 

to identify and consider manufacturer 

cost interactions between the equipment 

classes, to the extent that there are such 

interactions, and market cross elasticity 

from consumer purchasing decisions 

that may change when different 

standard levels are set. 

In the analysis conducted for this 

NOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of eight TSLs for DPPP motors. 

DOE developed TSLs that combine 

specific efficiency levels for each of the 

DPPP motor equipment classes analyzed 

by DOE. The TSLs that were chosen in 

the NOPR represent DPPPM at 

maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) energy efficiency levels 

and similar performance (i.e., variablespeed, 2-speed, multi-speed and/or 

single-speed). DOE presents the results 

for the TSLs in this document, while the 

results for all efficiency levels that DOE 

analyzed are in the NOPR TSD. 

Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding efficiency levels that 

DOE has identified for potential 

amended energy conservation standards 

for DPPP motors. TSL 8 represents the 

maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) energy efficiency for all 

equipment classes, and freeze protection 

control requirements for DPPP motors 

greater than and equal to 0.5 THP. TSL 

7 represents the California CEC 

standards 115 and includes a variable 

speed requirement for DPPP motors at 

or above 0.5 THP, an EL1 efficiency 

requirement below 0.5 THP, and freeze 

protection control requirements for 

DPPP motors greater than and equal to 

0.5 THP. TSL 6 represents the 

performance requirements included in 

UL 1004–10:2022, which ensures DPPP 

motors operate similarly to motors in 

DPPPs that comply with the DOE 

standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f) and 

includes a variable speed requirement 

for DPPP motors at or above 1.15 THP, 

an EL1 efficiency requirement below 

1.15 THP, and freeze protection control 

requirements for DPPP motors greater 

than and equal to 1.15 THP. TSL 5 

represents the 2-speed/multi-speed 

DPPP motor EL 5 level DPPP motor for 

applicable equipment classes and freeze 

protection control requirements for 

DPPP motors greater than and equal to 

0.5 THP. TSL 4 represents the 2-speed/ 

multi-speed DPPP motor EL 4 level for 

applicable equipment classes and freeze 

protection control requirements for 

DPPP motors greater than and equal to 

0.5 THP. TSL 3 represents the 2-speed/ 

multi-speed DPPP motor EL 3 level for 

applicable equipment classes and freeze 

protection control requirements for 

DPPP motors greater than and equal to 

0.5 THP. TSL 2 represents the highest 

efficiency single-speed DPPP motor 

level for all equipment classes. TSL 1 

represents the medium efficiency singlespeed DPPP motor level for all 

equipment classes. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37161 

TABLE V.1–TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR DPPP MOTORS

TSL TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 TSL6 TSL7 TSL8 

Extra Small (<0.5 THP) .................... EL 1 ......... EL 2 ......... EL 2 ......... EL 2 ......... EL 2 ......... EL 1 ......... EL 1 ......... EL 2. 

Small Size (0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15) ........ EL 1 ......... EL 2 ......... EL 3 * ....... EL 4 * ....... EL 5 * ....... EL 1 ......... EL 6 * ....... EL 6.* 

Standard Size (1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5) ...... EL 1 ......... EL 2 ......... EL 3 * ....... EL 4 * ....... EL 5 * ....... EL 6 * ....... EL 6 * ....... EL 6.* 

* Includes freeze protection control requirements. 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on DPPP motor consumers by 

considering the effects that potential 

standards at each TSL would have on 

the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined 

the impacts of potential standards on 

selected consumer subgroups. These 

analyses are discussed in the following 

sections. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

In general, higher-efficiency 

equipment affects consumers in two 

ways: (1) purchase price increases and 

(2) annual operating costs decrease. 

Inputs used for calculating the LCC and 

PBP include total installed costs (i.e., 

equipment price plus installation costs), 

and operating costs (i.e., annual energy 

use, energy prices, energy price trends, 

repair costs, and maintenance costs). 

The LCC calculation also uses product 

lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 

of the NOPR TSD provides detailed 

information on the LCC and PBP 

analyses. 

Table V.2 through Table V.7 of this 

NOPR show the LCC and PBP results for 

the TSLs considered for the three DPPP 

motor equipment classes. In the first of 

each pair of tables, the simple payback 

is measured relative to the baseline 

equipment. In the second table, impacts 

are measured relative to the efficiency 

distribution in the no-new-standards 

case in the compliance year (see section 

IV.F.8 of this document). Because some 

consumers purchase products with 

higher efficiency in the no-newstandards case, the average savings are 

less than the difference between the 

average LCC of the baseline equipment 

and the average LCC at each TSL. The 

savings refer only to consumers who are 

affected by a standard at a given TSL. 

Those who already purchase a product 

with efficiency at or above a given TSL 

are not affected. Consumers for whom 

the LCC increases at a given TSL 

experience a net cost. 

TABLE V.2–AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR EXTRA SMALL-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2020$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

1, 6, 7 ......................................................................... 1 $61 $58 $192 $253 0.7 3.6 

2–5, 8 ......................................................................... 2 92 53 175 267 2.1 3.6 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.3—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR EXTRA SMALL-SIZE DPPP 

MOTORS

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

(2020$) 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

(%) 

1,6,7 .......................................................................... 1 ................................................................................ $3 0 

2–5,8 ......................................................................... 2 ................................................................................ (6) 54 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

TABLE V.4–AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SMALL-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2020$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

1, 6 ............................................................................. 1 $131 $205 $726 $857 0.3 4.5 

2 ................................................................................. 2 162 186 660 822 0.7 4.5 

3 ................................................................................. 3 308 199 721 1,029 3.3 4.5 

4 ................................................................................. 4 330 171 620 950 2.5 4.5 

5 ................................................................................. 5 354 162 586 940 2.5 4.5 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37162 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.4–AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SMALL-SIZE DPPP MOTORS—Continued 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2020$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

7, 8 ............................................................................. 6 493 92 358 852 2.3 4.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR SMALL-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

(2020$) 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

(%) 

1, 6 ............................................................................ 1 ................................................................................ $11 0 

2 ................................................................................ 2 ................................................................................ 20 11 

3 ................................................................................ 3 ................................................................................ (38) 42 

4 ................................................................................ 4 ................................................................................ 3 36 

5 ................................................................................ 5 ................................................................................ 7 38 

7,8 ............................................................................. 6 ................................................................................ 69 30 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

TABLE V.6—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR STANDARD-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2020$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

1 ................................................................................. 1 $251 $576 $2,406 $2,657 0.4 4.5 

2 ................................................................................. 2 282 531 2,218 2,500 0.5 4.5 

3 ................................................................................. 3 444 358 1,515 1,958 0.7 4.5 

4 ................................................................................. 4 472 317 1,341 1,813 0.7 4.5 

5 ................................................................................. 5 502 286 1,210 1,712 0.7 4.5 

6–8 ............................................................................. 6 609 246 1,086 1,695 0.9 4.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.7—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR STANDARD-SIZE DPPP MOTORS

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

(2020$) 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

1 ................................................................................ 1 ................................................................................ $32 0 

2 ................................................................................ 2 ................................................................................ 50 0 

3 ................................................................................ 3 ................................................................................ 120 15 

4 ................................................................................ 4 ................................................................................ 156 13 

5 ................................................................................ 5 ................................................................................ 176 13 

6–8 ............................................................................ 6 ................................................................................ 292 2 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In the consumer subgroup analysis, 

DOE estimated the impact of the 

considered TSLs on senior-only 

households. Table V.8 through Table 

V.13 compare the average LCC savings 

and PBP at each efficiency level for the 

consumer subgroup, with similar 

metrics for the entire consumer sample 

for DPPP motors. The average LCC 

savings and PBP for senior-only 

households at the considered efficiency 

levels are not substantially different 

from the average for all households. 

Chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD presents 

the complete LCC and PBP results for 

the subgroup. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37163 

TABLE V.8—COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUP AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR

EQUIPMENT CLASS 1 EXTRA SMALL MOTORS

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2020$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

1, 6, 7 ............................................................................................................... $3 $3 0.7 0.7 

2–5, 8 ............................................................................................................... ¥6 ¥6 2.1 2.1 

TABLE V.9—COMPARISON OF FRACTION OF CONSUMERS EXPERIENCING NET BENEFIT AND NET COST FOR CONSUMER

SUBGROUP AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS 1 EXTRA SMALL MOTORS

TSL 

Percent of consumers that 

experience net cost 

(%) 

Percent of consumers that 

experience net benefit 

(%) 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

1, 6, 7 ............................................................................................................... 0 0 8 8 

2–5, 8 ............................................................................................................... 54 54 11 12 

TABLE V.10—COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUP AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS

FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS 2 SMALL MOTORS

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2020$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

Senior-only 

Households 

All 

households 

1, 6 ................................................................................................................... $11 $11 0.3 0.3 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 18 20 0.7 0.7 

3 ....................................................................................................................... (40) (38) 3.7 3.3 

4 ....................................................................................................................... (2) 3 2.7 2.5 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 1 7 2.7 2.5 

7,8 .................................................................................................................... 53 69 2.4 2.3 

TABLE V.11—COMPARISON OF FRACTION OF CONSUMERS EXPERIENCING NET BENEFIT AND NET COST FOR CONSUMER

SUBGROUP AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS 2 SMALL MOTORS

TSL 

Percent of consumers that 

experience net cost 

(%) 

Percent of consumers that 

experience net benefit 

(%) 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

1, 6 ................................................................................................................... 0 0 6 6 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 11 11 25 25 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 42 42 10 10 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 36 36 16 16 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 38 38 18 18 

7, 8 ................................................................................................................... 31 30 25 26 

TABLE V.12—COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUP AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS

FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS 3 STANDARD SIZE MOTORS

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2020$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

1 ....................................................................................................................... $28 $32 0.4 0.4 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 45 50 0.5 0.5 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 108 120 0.8 0.7 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 140 156 0.8 0.7 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 157 176 0.8 0.7 

6–8 ................................................................................................................... 259 292 1.0 0.9 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37164 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.13—COMPARISON OF FRACTION OF CONSUMERS EXPERIENCING NET BENEFIT AND NET COST FOR CONSUMER

SUBGROUP AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS 3 STANDARD SIZE MOTORS

TSL 

Percent of consumers that 

experience net cost 

(%) 

Percent of consumers that 

experience net benefit 

(%) 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

Senior-only 

households 

All 

households 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0 0 8 8

2 ....................................................................................................................... 0 0 12 12 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 15 15 18 18 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 13 13 21 21 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 13 13 22 23 

6–8 ................................................................................................................... 2 2 18 19

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section III.E.2 of this 

document, EPCA establishes a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the increased purchase cost 

for a product that meets the standard is 

less than three times the value of the 

first-year energy savings resulting from 

the standard. In calculating a rebuttable 

presumption payback period for each of 

the considered TSLs, DOE used discrete 

values, and, as required by EPCA, based 

the energy use calculation on the DOE 

test procedure for DPPP motors. In 

contrast, the PBPs presented in section 

V.B.1.a were calculated using 

distributions that reflect the range of 

energy use in the field. 

Table V.14 presents the rebuttablepresumption payback periods for the 

considered TSLs for DPPP motors. 

While DOE examined the rebuttablepresumption criterion, it considered 

whether the standard levels considered 

for the NOPR are economically justified 

through a more detailed analysis of the 

economic impacts of those levels, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), 

that considers the full range of impacts 

to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, 

and environment. The results of that 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

definitively evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level, thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic justification. 

TABLE V.14—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS

[years] 

Equipment class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Extra-Small ....................................................................................................... 0.8 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 0.8 0.8 2.4 

Small-Size ........................................................................................................ 0.3 0.7 3.0 2.4 2.4 0.3 2.9 2.9 

Standard-Size .................................................................................................. 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of DPPP motors. The 

following section describes the expected 

impacts on manufacturers at each 

considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD explains the analysis in 

further detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

In this section, DOE provides GRIM 

results from the analysis, which 

examines changes in the industry that 

would result from a standard. Table 

V.15 and Table V.16 summarize the 

estimated financial impacts (represented 

by changes in INPV) of potential 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of DPPP motors, as 

well as the conversion costs that DOE 

estimates manufacturers of DPPP motors 

would incur at each TSL. 

As discussed in section IV.J.2.d of this 

document, DOE modeled two 

manufacturer markup scenarios to 

evaluate a range of cash flow impacts on 

the DPPP motor industry: (1) the 

preservation of gross margin percentage 

markup scenario and (2) the 

preservation of operating profit. DOE 

considered the preservation of gross 

margin percentage scenario by applying 

a ‘‘gross margin percentage’’ markup for 

each product class across all efficiency 

levels. As MPCs increase with 

efficiency, this scenario implies that the 

absolute dollar markup will increase. 

DOE assumed a manufacturer markup of 

1.37 for DPPP motors. This 

manufacturer markup is with the same 

as the one DOE assumed in the 

engineering analysis and the no-newstandards case of the GRIM. Because 

this scenario assumes that a 

manufacturer’s absolute dollar markup 

would increase as MPCs increase in the 

standards cases, it represents the upperbound to industry profitability under 

potential new energy conservation 

standards. 

The preservation of operating profit 

scenario reflects manufacturers’ 

concerns about their inability to 

maintain margins as MPCs increase to 

reach more-stringent efficiency levels. 

In this scenario, while manufacturers 

make the necessary investments 

required to convert their facilities to 

produce compliant products, operating 

profit does not change in absolute 

dollars and decreases as a percentage of 

revenue. 

Each of the modeled manufacturer 

markup scenarios results in a unique set 

of cash-flows and corresponding 

industry values at each TSL. In the 

following discussion, the INPV results 

refer to the difference in industry value 

between the no-new-standards case and 

each standards case resulting from the 

sum of discounted cash-flows from 2021 

through 2055. To provide perspective 

on the short-run cash-flow impact, DOE 

includes in the discussion of results a 

comparison of free cash flow between 

the no-new-standards case and the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37165 

standards case at each TSL in the year 

before new standards are required. 

TABLE V.15—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR DPPP MOTORS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

MARKUP SCENARIO

Units 

No-newstandards 

case 

Trial standard level * 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

INPV ........................................ 2020$ millions ...... 798 800 804 823 829 835 826 901 901 

Change in INPV ....................... 2020$ millions ...... .................. 1.8 6.3 25.3 31.1 37.7 28.4 102.9 103.6 

% .......................... .................. 0.2 0.8 3.2 3.9 4.7 3.6 12.9 13.0 

Product Conversion Costs ....... 2020$ millions ...... .................. 0.1 0.8 6.2 6.2 6.5 0.1 8.7 8.8 

Capital Conversion Costs ........ 2020$ millions ...... .................. ............ ............ 6.4 6.4 6.4 15.4 37.5 37.5 

Total Investment Required ** ... 2020$ millions ...... .................. 0.1 0.8 12.6 12.6 12.9 15.5 46.2 46.3 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate a negative number. 

** Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. 

TABLE V.16—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR DPPP MOTORS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

MARKUP SCENARIO

Units 

No-newstandards 

case 

Trial standard level * 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

INPV ........................................ 2020$ millions ...... 798 797 795 770 768 765 704 608 608 

Change in INPV ....................... 2020$ millions ...... .................. (0.6) (3.0) (28.0) (30.1) (32.8) (93.4) (189.3) (189.7) 

% .......................... .................. (0.1) (0.4) (3.5) (3.8) (4.1) (11.7) (23.7) (23.8) 

Product Conversion Costs ....... 2020$ millions ...... .................. 0.1 0.8 6.2 6.2 6.5 0.1 8.7 8.8 

Capital Conversion Costs ........ 2020$ millions ...... .................. ............ ............ 6.4 6.4 6.4 15.4 37.5 37.5 

Total Investment Required ** ... 2020$ millions ...... .................. 0.1 0.8 12.6 12.6 12.9 15.5 46.2 46.3 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate a negative number. 

** Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. 

At TSL 1, DOE estimates that impacts 

on INPV will range from ¥$0.6 million 

to $1.8 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥0.1 to 0.2 percent. At TSL 1, industry 

free cash-flow is $33.8 million, which is 

a decrease of less than $0.1 million 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $33.9 million in 2025, the year 

leading up to the proposed standards. 

TSL 1 would set the energy 

conservation standard for all equipment 

classes at EL 1. DOE estimates that 93 

percent of extra small size DPPP motors, 

95 percent of small size DPPP motors, 

and 87 percent of standard size DPPP 

motors already meet or exceed the 

efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 1. At 

TSL 1, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers will incur approximately 

$0.1 million in product conversion 

costs, as some single speed DPPP motor 

models will need to be redesigned to 

comply with the standard. DOE also 

estimates that DPPP motor 

manufacturers will incur minimal to no 

capital conversion costs at TSL 1. 

At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

increases by 1.0 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all DPPP 

motors in 2026. In the preservation of 

gross margin markup scenario, 

manufacturers are able to fully pass on 

this slight cost increase to consumers. 

The slight increase in shipmentweighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $0.1 million in 

conversion costs, causing a slightly 

positive change in INPV at TSL 1 under 

the preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, manufacturers 

earn the same per-unit operating profit 

as would be earned in the no-newstandards case, but manufacturers do 

not earn additional profit from their 

investments. In this scenario, the 1.0 

percent shipment-weighted average 

MPC increase results in a reduction in 

the manufacturer markup after the 

analyzed compliance year. This 

reduction in the manufacturer markup 

and the $0.1 million in conversion costs 

incurred by manufacturers cause a 

slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 

1 under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimates that impacts 

on INPV will range from ¥$3.0 million 

to $6.3 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥0.4 percent to 0.8 percent. At TSL 2, 

industry free cash-flow is $33.6 million, 

which is a decrease of approximately 

$0.3 million compared to the no-newstandards case value of $33.9 million in 

2025, the year leading up to the 

proposed standards. 

TSL 2 would set all equipment classes 

at EL 2, which is max-tech for the extra 

small size DPPP motors. DOE estimates 

33 percent of extra small size DPPP 

motors, 73 percent of small size DPPP 

motors, and 81 percent of standard size 

DPPP motors already meet or exceed the 

efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 2. At 

TSL 2, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers will incur approximately 

$0.8 million in product conversion 

costs, as many single speed DPPP motor 

models will need to be redesigned to 

comply with the set efficiency level. 

DOE also estimates that DPPP motor 

manufacturers will incur minimal to no 

capital conversion costs at TSL 2. 

At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

increases by 2.8 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all DPPP 

motors in 2026. In the preservation of 

gross margin markup scenario, the slight 

increase in shipment-weighted average 

MPC for DPPP motors outweighs the 

$0.8 million in conversion costs, 

causing a slightly positive change in 

INPV at TSL 2 under the preservation of 

gross margin markup scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 2.8 percent 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37166 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

shipment-weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer markup after the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer markup and the $0.8 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a slightly negative 

change in INPV at TSL 2 under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimates that impacts 

on INPV will range from ¥$28.0 million 

to $25.3 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥3.5 percent to 3.2 percent. At TSL 3, 

industry free cash-flow is $28.8 million, 

which is a decrease of approximately 

$5.1 million compared to the no-newstandards case value of $33.9 million in 

2025, the year leading up to the 

proposed standards. 

TSL 3 would set extra small size 

DPPP motors at EL 2 (max-tech) and set 

EL 3 for small and standard size DPPP 

motors. DOE estimates that 33 percent 

of extra small size DPPP motors, 44 

percent of small size DPPP motors, and 

70 percent of standard size DPPP motors 

already meet or exceed the efficiency 

levels analyzed at TSL 3. At TSL 3, DOE 

estimates that manufacturers will incur 

approximately $6.2 million in product 

conversion costs, as small and standard 

sized single speed DPPP motors will 

most likely be unable to comply with 

the standard and would need to be 

redesigned into dual-speed or variablespeed DPPP motor models. DOE also 

estimates that DPPP motor 

manufacturers will incur $6.4 million in 

capital conversion costs at TSL 3, to 

accommodate this increase in dualspeed and variable-speed DPPP motor 

manufacturing production capacity. 

At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

increases by 11.5 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all DPPP 

motors in 2026. In the preservation of 

gross margin markup scenario, the 

moderate increase in shipmentweighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $12.6 million in 

conversion costs, causing a slightly 

positive change in INPV at TSL 3 under 

the preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the moderate 

11.5 percent shipment-weighted average 

MPC increase results in a reduction in 

the manufacturer markup after the 

analyzed compliance year. This 

reduction in the manufacturer markup 

and the $12.6 million in conversion 

costs incurred by manufacturers cause a 

slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 

3 under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario. 

At TSL 4, DOE estimates that impacts 

on INPV will range from ¥$30.1 million 

to $31.1 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥3.8 percent to 3.9 percent. At TSL 4, 

industry free cash-flow is $28.8 million, 

which is a decrease of approximately 

$5.1 million compared to the no-newstandards case value of $33.9 million in 

2025, the year leading up to the 

proposed standards. 

TSL 4 would set extra small size 

DPPP motors at EL 2 (max-tech), and 

small size and standard size DPPP 

motors at EL 4. DOE estimates that 33 

percent of extra small DPPP motors, 43 

percent of small size DPPP motors, and 

69 percent already meet or exceed the 

efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 4. At 

TSL 4, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers will incur approximately 

$6.2 million in product conversion costs 

as, in addition to single-speed motors 

most likely not being able to comply 

with the standards, some dual-speed 

DPPP motor models will need to be 

redesigned for higher efficiency. DOE 

also estimates that DPPP motor 

manufacturers will incur $6.4 million in 

capital conversion costs at TSL 4, to 

accommodate this increase in dualspeed and variable-speed DPPP motor 

manufacturing production capacity. 

At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

increases by 13.5 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all DPPP 

motors in 2026. In the preservation of 

gross margin markup scenario, the 

moderate increase in shipmentweighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $12.6 million in 

conversion costs, causing a slightly 

positive change in INPV at TSL 4 under 

the preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the moderate 

13.5 percent shipment-weighted average 

MPC increase results in a reduction in 

the manufacturer markup after the 

analyzed compliance year. This 

reduction in the manufacturer markup 

and the $12.6 million in conversion 

costs incurred by manufacturers causing 

a slightly negative change in INPV at 

TSL 4 under the preservation of 

operating profit markup scenario. 

At TSL 5, DOE estimates that impacts 

on INPV will range from ¥$32.8 million 

to $37.7 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥4.1 percent to 4.7 percent. At TSL 5, 

industry free cash-flow is $28.7 million, 

which is a decrease of approximately 

$5.2 million compared to the no-newstandards case value of $33.9 million in 

2025, the year leading up to the 

proposed standards. 

TSL 5 would set extra small size 

DPPP motors at EL 2 (max-tech), and 

small and standard size DPPP motors at 

EL 5. DOE estimates that 33 percent of 

extra small size DPPP motors, 41 

percent of small size DPPP motors, and 

67 percent of standard size DPPP motors 

already meet or exceed the efficiency 

levels analyzed at TSL 5. At TSL 5, DOE 

estimates that manufacturers will incur 

approximately $6.5 million in product 

conversion costs as, in addition to 

single-speed motors not being able to 

comply with the standard, many dualspeed DPPP motor models will need to 

be redesigned for higher efficiency. DOE 

also estimates that DPPP motor 

manufacturers will incur $6.4 million in 

capital conversion costs at TSL 5, to 

accommodate this increase in dualspeed and variable-speed DPPP motor 

manufacturing production capacity. 

At TSL 5, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

increases by 15.7 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all DPPP 

motors in 2025. In the preservation of 

gross margin markup scenario, the 

moderate increase in shipmentweighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $12.9 million in 

conversion costs, causing a slightly 

positive change in INPV at TSL 5 under 

the preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 15.7 percent 

shipment-weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer markup after the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in 

manufacturer markup and the $12.9 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a slightly negative 

change in INPV at TSL 5 under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario. 

At TSL 6, DOE estimates that impacts 

on INPV will range from ¥$93.4 million 

to $28.4 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥11.7 percent to 3.6 percent. At TSL 6, 

industry free cash-flow is $26.9 million, 

which is a decrease of approximately 

$7.0 million compared to the no-newstandards case value of $33.9 million in 

2025, the year leading up to the 

proposed standards. 

TSL 6 would set extra small size and 

small size DPPP motors at EL 1 and 

standard size DPPP motors at EL 6 (maxtech). DOE estimates 93 percent of extra 

small size DPPP motors, 95 percent of 

small size DPPP motors, and 66 percent 

of standard size DPPP motors already 

meet the efficiency levels analyzed at 

TSL 6. At TSL 6, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers will incur approximately 

$0.1 million in product conversion costs 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37167 

as some pool filter pumps that use 

standard size motors downsize to a 

smaller sized single speed motors— 

necessitating redesign costs for standard 

size motor models. DOE also estimates 

that DPPP motor manufacturers will 

incur $15.4 million in capital 

conversion costs at TSL 6, to 

accommodate this increase in variablespeed DPPP motor manufacturing 

production capacity, for the standard 

size DPPP motors. 

At TSL 6, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

significantly increases by 18.9 percent 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

shipment-weighted average MPC for all 

DPPP motors in 2026. In the 

preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario, the large increase in shipmentweighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $15.5 million in 

conversion costs, causing a slightly 

positive change in INPV at TSL 6 under 

the preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 18.9 percent 

shipment-weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer markup after the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in 

manufacturer markup and the $15.5 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a moderately 

negative change in INPV at TSL 6 under 

the preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario. 

At TSL 7, DOE estimates that impacts 

on INPV will range from ¥$189.3 

million to $102.9 million, or a change in 

INPV of ¥23.7 percent to 12.9 percent. 

At TSL 7, industry free cash-flow is 

$13.9 million, which is a decrease of 

approximately $20.0 million compared 

to the no-new-standards case value of 

$33.9 million in 2025, the year leading 

up to the proposed standards. 

TSL 7 would set extra small size 

DPPP motors at EL 1; and small and 

standard size DPPP motors at EL 6, 

which is max-tech for both equipment 

classes. DOE estimates 93 percent of 

extra small size DPPP motors, 39 

percent of small size DPPP motors, and 

66 percent of standard size DPPP motors 

already meet the efficiency levels 

analyzed at TSL 7. At TSL 7, DOE 

estimates that manufacturers will incur 

approximately $8.7 million in product 

conversion costs. At TSL 7, most DPPP 

motor manufacturers would need to 

introduce variable-speed small size 

DPPP motor models into the market. 

DOE also estimates that DPPP motor 

manufacturers will incur $37.5 million 

in capital conversion costs at TSL 7, to 

accommodate a significant increase in 

variable-speed DPPP motor 

manufacturing production capacity for 

both the small size and standard size 

DPPP motors. 

At TSL 7, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

significantly increases by 45.0 percent 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

shipment-weighted average MPC for all 

DPPP motors in 2026. In the 

preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario, the large increase in shipmentweighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $46.2 million in 

conversion costs, causing a moderately 

positive change in INPV at TSL 7 under 

the preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 45.0 percent 

shipment-weighted average MPC 

increase results in a significant 

reduction in the manufacturer markup 

after the analyzed compliance year. This 

large reduction in manufacturer markup 

and the significant $46.2 million in 

conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a significantly 

negative change in INPV at TSL 7 under 

the preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario. 

At TSL 8, DOE estimates that impacts 

on INPV will range from ¥$189.7 

million to $103.6 million, or a change in 

INPV of ¥23.8 percent to 13.0 percent. 

At TSL 8, industry free cash-flow is 

$13.9 million, which is a decrease of 

approximately $20.0 million compared 

to the no-new-standards case value of 

$33.9 million in 2025, the year leading 

up to the proposed standards. 

TSL 8 would set extra small size 

DPPP motors at EL 2 (max-tech); and 

small and standard size DPPP motors at 

EL 6, which is max-tech for both 

equipment classes. DOE estimates 33 

percent of extra small size DPPP motors, 

39 percent of small size DPPP motors, 

and 66 percent of standard size DPPP 

motors already meet the efficiency 

levels analyzed at TSL 8. At TSL 8, DOE 

estimates that manufacturers will incur 

approximately $8.8 million in product 

conversion costs. At TSL 8, most DPPP 

motor manufacturers would need to 

introduce variable-speed small size 

DPPP motor models into the market. 

DOE also estimates that DPPP motor 

manufacturers will incur $37.5 million 

in capital conversion costs at TSL 8, to 

accommodate a significant increase in 

variable-speed DPPP motor 

manufacturing production capacity for 

both the small size and standard size 

DPPP motors. 

At TSL 8, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all DPPP motors 

significantly increases by 45.2 percent 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

shipment-weighted average MPC for all 

DPPP motors in 2026. In the 

preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario, the large increase in shipmentweighted average MPC for DPPP motors 

outweighs the $46.3 million in 

conversion costs, causing a moderately 

positive change in INPV at TSL 8 under 

the preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 45.2 percent 

shipment-weighted average MPC 

increase results in a significant 

reduction in the manufacturer markup 

after the analyzed compliance year. This 

large reduction in manufacturer markup 

and the significant $46.3 million in 

conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a significantly 

negative change in INPV at TSL 8 under 

the preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario. 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

To quantitatively assess the potential 

impacts of new energy conservation 

standards on direct employment in the 

DPPP motors industry, DOE used the 

GRIM to estimate the domestic labor 

expenditures, number of direct 

employees, and non-production 

employees in the no-new-standards case 

and in each of the standards cases 

during the analysis period. 

Production employees are those who 

are directly involved in fabricating and 

assembling products within an original 

equipment manufacturer facility. 

Workers performing services that are 

closely associated with production 

operations, such as materials handling 

tasks using forklifts, are included as 

production labor, as well as line 

supervisors. 

DOE used the GRIM to calculate the 

number of production employees from 

labor expenditures. DOE used statistical 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2019 

Annual Survey of Manufacturers 

(‘‘ASM’’) and the results of the 

engineering analysis to calculate 

industry-wide labor expenditures. Labor 

expenditures related to product 

manufacturing depend on the labor 

intensity of the product, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages 

remain fixed in real terms over time. 

The total labor expenditures in the 

GRIM were then converted to domestic 

production employment levels by 

dividing production labor expenditures 

by the annual payment per production 

worker. 

Non-production employees account 

for those workers that are not directly 

engaged in the manufacturing of the 

covered product. This could include 

sales, human resources, engineering, 

and management. DOE estimated nonVerDate Sep<11>2014 20:59 Jun 17, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP3.SGM 21JNP3

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37168 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

production employment levels by 

multiplying the number of DPPP motor 

production workers by a scaling factor. 

The scaling factor is calculated by 

taking the ratio of the total number of 

employees, and the total number of 

production workers associated with the 

industry NAICS code 335312, which 

covers DPPP motor manufacturing. 

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that 

there would be approximately 675 

domestic production workers and 

approximately 352 non-production 

workers for DPPP motors in 2026 in the 

absence of new energy conservation 

standards. Table V.17 shows the range 

of the impacts of energy conservation 

standards on U.S. production of DPPP 

motors. 

TABLE V.17—TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC DPPP MOTOR WORKERS IN 2026 

No-newstandards 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Domestic Production Workers in 

2026 .............................................. 675 678 684 728 736 746 757 904 905 

Production Workers in 2026 ............ 352 354 357 380 384 389 395 472 472 

Total Direct Employment in 2026 .... 1,027 1,032 1,041 1,108 1,120 1,135 1,152 1,376 1,377 

Potential Changes in Total Direct 

Employment in 2026 .................... .................... 0–5 0–14 0–81 0–93 0–108 (169)–125 (279)–349 (279)–350 

The direct employment impacts 

shown in Table V.17 represent the 

potential changes in direct employment 

that could result following the 

compliance date for the DPPP motors 

covered in this proposed rulemaking. 

Employment could increase or decrease 

due to the labor content of the 

equipment being manufactured 

domestically or if manufacturers 

decided to move production facilities 

abroad because of the new standards. At 

the less severe end of the range, DOE 

assumes that all manufacturers continue 

to manufacture the same scope of the 

equipment domestically after 

compliance with the analyzed new 

standards. The other end of the range 

assumes that some domestic 

manufacturing either is eliminated or 

moves abroad due to the analyzed new 

standards. 

DOE assumes that for DPPP motors, 

manufacturing is only potentially 

negatively impacted at TSLs that would 

most likely require variable-speed DPPP 

motors. At these TSLs, the maximum 

number of employees that could be 

eliminated are the number of domestic 

employees that would be manufacturing 

single-speed and dual-speed DPPP 

motors in the absence of new energy 

conservation standards. DOE estimated 

that there would be approximately 72 

domestic production employees 

involved in the production of singlespeed and dual-speed small-size DPPP 

motors and 38 non-production 

employees (for a total of 110 total 

employees) in 2026 in the absence of 

new DPPP motor standards. DOE also 

estimated that there would be 

approximately 111 domestic production 

employees involved in the production 

of single-speed and dual-speed 

standard-size DPPP motors and 58 nonproduction employees (for a total of 169 

total employees) in 2026 in the absence 

of new DPPP motor standards. However, 

DOE notes that motors used in DPPPs 

are frequently used in other non-DPPP 

applications and motor manufacturers 

may choose to continue to manufacture 

single-speed and dual-speed motors 

(even at TSL 6, TSL 7, and TSL 8) that 

would be allowed to be used in other 

non-DPPP applications. If 

manufacturers choose to do this there 

would likely not be a significant impact 

on the overall domestic motor 

employment. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

DOE did not identify any significant 

capacity constraints for the design 

options being evaluated for this NOPR. 

The design options evaluated for this 

NOPR are available as equipment that is 

on the market currently. The materials 

used to manufacture DPPP motor 

models at all efficiency levels are 

widely available on the market. While 

there were a limited number of small 

size variable-speed DPPP motor models 

currently on the market, all 

manufacturers are capable of 

manufacturing standard size variablespeed DPPP motor models and would be 

able to manufacture small size variablespeed DPPP motor models if they 

choose to make the investments 

described in section IV.J.2.c of this 

document. As a result, DOE does not 

anticipate that the industry will likely 

experience any capacity constraints 

directly resulting from energy 

conservation standards at any of the 

TSLs considered. 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

As discussed in section IV.J.1 of this 

document, using average cost 

assumptions to develop an industry 

cash-flow estimate may not be adequate 

for assessing differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche manufacturers, 

and manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure substantially different from the 

industry average could be affected 

disproportionately. DOE used the 

results of the industry characterization 

to group manufacturers exhibiting 

similar characteristics. Consequently, 

DOE identified small business 

manufacturers as a subgroup for a 

separate impact analysis. 

For the small business subgroup 

analysis, DOE applied the small 

business size standards published by 

the Small Business Administration 

(‘‘SBA’’) to determine whether a 

company is considered a small business. 

The size standards are codified at 13 

CFR part 121. To be categorized as a 

small business under NAICS code 

335312, ‘‘Motor and Generator 

Manufacturing,’’ a DPPP motor 

manufacturer and its affiliates may 

employ a maximum of 1,250 employees. 

The 1,250-employee threshold includes 

all employees in a business’s parent 

company and any other subsidiaries. 

Based on this classification, DOE 

identified one potential manufacturers 

that could qualify as domestic small 

businesses. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden involves looking at the 

cumulative impact of multiple DOE 

standards and the product-specific 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies that affect the manufacturers of 

a covered product or equipment. While 

any one regulation may not impose a 

significant burden on manufacturers, 

the combined effects of several existing 

or impending regulations may have 

serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37169 

116www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BTSTD-0007. 

117www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BTSTD-0018. 

118U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/ 

circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed July 6, 2021). 

119Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to 

review its standards at least once every 6 years, and 

requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after 

any new standard is promulgated before 

compliance is required, except that in no case may 

any new standards be required within 6 years of the 

compliance date of the previous standards. While 

adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 

period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may 

undertake reviews at any time within the 6 year 

period and that the 3-year compliance date may 

yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis 

period may not be appropriate given the variability 

that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and 

the fact that for some products, the compliance 

period is 5 years rather than 3 years. 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing products. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis 

of cumulative regulatory burden as part 

of its rulemakings pertaining to 

appliance efficiency. 

DOE is aware that DPPP motor 

manufacturers produce other products 

or equipment that are subject to DOE’s 

energy conservation standards. DOE has 

ongoing rulemakings for some of these 

other products or equipment that DPPP 

motor manufactures produce, including 

electric motors 116 and distribution 

transformers.117 None of these 

equipment have proposed or adopted 

energy conservation standards that 

require compliance within 3 years of the 

estimated compliance date (2026) for 

DPPP motors in this NOPR. If DOE 

proposes or finalizes any energy 

conservation standards for this 

equipment prior to finalizing energy 

conservation standards for DPPP 

motors, DOE will include the energy 

conservation standards for these other 

equipment as part of the cumulative 

regulatory burden for this DPPP motor 

proposed rulemaking. 

DOE requests information regarding 

the impact of cumulative regulatory 

burden on manufacturers of DPPP 

motors associated with multiple DOE 

standards or product-specific regulatory 

actions of other Federal agencies. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

This section presents DOE’s estimates 

of the national energy savings and the 

NPV of consumer benefits that would 

result from each of the TSLs considered 

as potential amended standards. 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential amended 

standards for DPPP motors, DOE 

compared their energy consumption 

under the no-new-standards case to 

their anticipated energy consumption 

under each TSL. The savings are 

measured over the entire lifetime of 

products purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the first full year 

of anticipated compliance with 

amended standards (2026–2055). Table 

V.18 presents DOE’s projections of the 

national energy savings for each TSL 

considered for DPPP motors. The 

savings were calculated using the 

approach described in section IV.H of 

this document. 

TABLE V.18—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR DPPP MOTORS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

[2026–2055] 

Trial standard levels 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

(quads) 

Primary energy ................................................................. 0.09 0.15 0.41 0.53 0.61 0.65 0.95 0.95 

FFC energy ...................................................................... 0.09 0.15 0.43 0.55 0.63 0.67 0.99 0.99 

OMB Circular A–4 118 requires 

agencies to present analytical results, 

including separate schedules of the 

monetized benefits and costs that show 

the type and timing of benefits and 

costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies 

to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of 

benefits and costs. For this proposed 

rulemaking, DOE undertook a 

sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather 

than 30 years of shipments. The choice 

of a 9-year period is a proxy for the 

timeline in EPCA for the review of 

certain energy conservation standards 

and potential revision of and 

compliance with such revised 

standards.119 The review timeframe 

established in EPCA is generally not 

synchronized with the equipment 

lifetime, product manufacturing cycles, 

or other factors specific to DPPP motors. 

Thus, such results are presented for 

informational purposes only and are not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology. The NES 

sensitivity analysis results based on a 9- 

year analytical period are presented in 

Table V.19. The impacts are counted 

over the lifetime of DPPP motors 

purchased in 2026–2034. 

TABLE V.19—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR DPPP MOTORS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

[2026–2034] 

Trial standard levels 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

(quads) 

Primary energy ................................................................. 0.03 0.05 0.14 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.29 0.29 

FFC energy ...................................................................... 0.03 0.05 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.30 0.30 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37170 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

120U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a4/ (last accessed July 6, 2021). 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from the 

TSLs considered for DPPP motors. In 

accordance with OMB’s guidelines on 

regulatory analysis,120 DOE calculated 

NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent real discount rate. Table V.20 

shows the consumer NPV results with 

impacts counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2026–2055. 

TABLE V.20 CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR DPPP MOTORS; 30 YEARS OF

SHIPMENTS

[2026–2055) 

Discount rate 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

(billion 2020$) 

3 percent .......................................................................... 0.7 1.1 1.4 2.3 2.7 5.4 6.3 6.3 

7 percent .......................................................................... 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.3 2.7 3.0 3.0 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in Table V.21. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2026–2034. As 

mentioned previously, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and are not indicative of any 

change in DOE’s analytical methodology 

or decision criteria. 

TABLE V.21—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR DPPP MOTORS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

[2026–2034] 

Discount rate 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

(billion 2020$) 

3 percent .......................................................................... 0.3 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.2 2.0 2.1 2.1 

7 percent .......................................................................... 0.22 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.3 1.3 

The previous results reflect the use of 

a default trend to estimate the change in 

price for DPPP motors over the analysis 

period (see section IV.F.1 of this 

document). DOE also conducted a 

sensitivity analysis that considered one 

scenario with a lower rate of price 

decline than the reference case and one 

scenario with a higher rate of price 

decline than the reference case. The 

results of these alternative cases are 

presented in appendix 10C of the NOPR 

TSD. In the high-price-decline case, the 

NPV of consumer benefits is higher than 

in the default case. In the low-pricedecline case, the NPV of consumer 

benefits is lower than in the default 

case. 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

It is estimated that that amended 

energy conservation standards for DPPP 

Motors would reduce energy 

expenditures for consumers of those 

products, with the resulting net savings 

being redirected to other forms of 

economic activity. These expected shifts 

in spending and economic activity 

could affect the demand for labor. As 

described in section IV.N of this 

document, DOE used an input/output 

model of the U.S. economy to estimate 

indirect employment impacts of the 

TSLs that DOE considered. There are 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Therefore, DOE generated 

results for near-term timeframes (2026– 

2031), where these uncertainties are 

reduced. 

The results suggest that the proposed 

standards would be likely to have a 

negligible impact on the net demand for 

labor in the economy. The net change in 

jobs is so small that it would be 

imperceptible in national labor statistics 

and might be offset by other, 

unanticipated effects on employment. 

Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents 

detailed results regarding anticipated 

indirect employment impacts. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

As discussed in section IV.C.1.b of 

this document, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the standards proposed 

in this NOPR would not lessen the 

utility or performance of the DPPP 

motors under consideration in this 

rulemaking. Manufacturers of these 

products currently offer units that meet 

or exceed the proposed standards. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE considered any lessening of 

competition that would be likely to 

result from new or amended standards. 

As discussed in section III.E.1.e of this 

NOPR, the Attorney General determines 

the impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard, and transmits such 

determination in writing to the 

Secretary, together with an analysis of 

the nature and extent of such impact. To 

assist the Attorney General in making 

this determination, DOE has provided 

DOJ with copies of this NOPR and the 

accompanying TSD for review. DOE will 

consider DOJ’s comments on the 

proposed rule in determining whether 

to proceed to a final rule. DOE will 

publish and respond to DOJ’s comments 

in that document. DOE invites comment 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37171 

from the public regarding the 

competitive impacts that are likely to 

result from this proposed rule. In 

addition, stakeholders may also provide 

comments separately to DOJ regarding 

these potential impacts. See the 

ADDRESSES section for information to 

send comments to DOJ. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

Enhanced energy efficiency, where 

economically justified, improves the 

Nation’s energy security, strengthens the 

economy, and reduces the 

environmental impacts (costs) of energy 

production. Reduced electricity demand 

due to energy conservation standards is 

also likely to reduce the cost of 

maintaining the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the 

NOPR TSD presents the estimated 

impacts on electricity generating 

capacity, relative to the no-newstandards case, for the TSLs that DOE 

considered in this rulemaking. 

Energy conservation resulting from 

potential energy conservation standards 

for DPPP motors is expected to yield 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of certain air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table 

V.22 provides DOE’s estimate of 

cumulative emissions reductions 

expected to result from the TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking. The 

emissions were calculated using the 

multipliers discussed in section IV.K. of 

this document. DOE reports annual 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.22—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DPPP MOTORS SHIPPED IN 2026–2055 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Power Sector Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................. 3.1 5.3 14.9 19.2 21.8 23.0 33.8 33.9 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................ 0.3 0.4 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.8 2.8 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................ 0.04 0.06 0.17 0.22 0.25 0.26 0.39 0.39 

NOX (thousand tons) ........................................................ 1.3 2.3 6.4 8.3 9.4 9.9 14.5 14.5 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................ 1.4 2.4 6.9 8.9 10.1 10.7 15.6 15.7 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.10 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................. 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.6 2.4 2.4 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................ 21.5 36.2 102.4 132.1 150.5 159.9 234.4 234.9 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................ 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

NOX (thousand tons) ........................................................ 3.2 5.5 15.4 19.9 22.7 24.1 35.4 35.4 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................ 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.19 0.19 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total FFC Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................. 3.3 5.6 15.9 20.5 23.4 24.7 36.2 36.3 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................ 21.7 36.6 103.7 133.6 152.3 161.8 237.2 237.7 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................ 0.04 0.06 0.18 0.23 0.26 0.27 0.40 0.40 

NOX (thousand tons) ........................................................ 4.6 7.7 21.9 28.2 32.1 34.0 49.9 50.0 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................ 1.5 2.5 7.0 9.0 10.2 10.8 15.8 15.9 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.10 

As part of the analysis for this 

proposed rulemaking, DOE estimated 

monetary benefits likely to result from 

the reduced emissions of CO2 that DOE 

estimated for each of the considered 

TSLs for DPPP motors. Section IV.L of 

this document discusses the SC–CO2

values that DOE used. Table V.23 

presents the value of CO2 emissions 

reduction at each TSL for each of the 

SC–CO2 cases. The time-series of annual 

values is presented for the proposed 

TSL in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.23—PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DPPP MOTORS SHIPPED IN 2026–2055 

TSL 

SC–CO2 case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

(Million 2020$) 

1 ....................................................................................................... 34 140 216 427 

2 ....................................................................................................... 58 237 366 721 

3 ....................................................................................................... 165 671 1,034 2,040 

4 ....................................................................................................... 212 863 1,331 2,626 

5 ....................................................................................................... 241 983 1,516 2,990 

6 ....................................................................................................... 250 1,028 1,587 3,128 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37172 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.23—PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DPPP MOTORS SHIPPED IN 2026–2055—Continued 

TSL 

SC–CO2 case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

(Million 2020$) 

7 ....................................................................................................... 367 1,508 2,329 4,590 

8 ....................................................................................................... 367 1,511 2,334 4,599 

As discussed in section IV.L.2, DOE 

estimated the climate benefits likely to 

result from the reduced emissions of 

CH4 and N2O that DOE estimated for 

each of the considered TSLs for DPPP 

motors. Table V.24 presents the value of 

the CH4 emissions reduction at each 

TSL, and Table V.25 presents the value 

of the N2O emissions reduction at each 

TSL. The time-series of annual values is 

presented for the proposed TSL in 

chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.24—PRESENT VALUE OF METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DPPP MOTORS SHIPPED IN 2026–2055 

TSL 

SC–CH4 case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

(Million 2020$) 

1 ....................................................................................................... 10 28 38 74 

2 ....................................................................................................... 17 47 64 124 

3 ....................................................................................................... 48 132 181 351 

4 ....................................................................................................... 62 170 234 453 

5 ....................................................................................................... 70 194 266 516 

6 ....................................................................................................... 73 205 282 546 

7 ....................................................................................................... 108 301 414 800 

8 ....................................................................................................... 108 301 415 802 

TABLE V.25—PRESENT VALUE OF NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DPPP MOTORS SHIPPED IN 2026–2055 

TSL 

SC–N2O case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

(Million 2020$) 

1 ....................................................................................................... 0.1 0.5 0.8 1.4 

2 ....................................................................................................... 0.2 0.9 1.4 2.4 

3 ....................................................................................................... 0.7 2.6 3.9 6.8 

4 ....................................................................................................... 0.9 3.3 5.0 8.7 

5 ....................................................................................................... 1.0 3.7 5.7 10.0 

6 ....................................................................................................... 1.0 3.9 6.0 10.4 

7 ....................................................................................................... 1.5 5.7 8.8 15.3 

8 ....................................................................................................... 1.5 5.8 8.8 15.3 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed on reduced GHG emissions 

in this proposed rulemaking is subject 

to change. That said, because of omitted 

damages, DOE agrees with the IWG that 

these estimates most likely 

underestimate the climate benefits of 

greenhouse gas reductions. DOE, 

together with other Federal agencies, 

will continue to review methodologies 

for estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other GHG 

emissions. This ongoing review will 

consider the comments on this subject 

that are part of the public record for this 

and other rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues. 

DOE notes that the proposed standards 

would be economically justified even 

without inclusion of monetized benefits 

of reduced GHG emissions. 

DOE also estimated the monetary 

value of the health benefits associated 

with NOX emissions reductions 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37173 

anticipated to result from the 

considered TSLs for DPPP motors. The 

dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are 

discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. Table V.26 presents the 

present value for NOX emissions 

reduction for each TSL calculated using 

7-percent and 3-percent discount rates. 

TABLE V.26—PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DPPP MOTORS SHIPPED IN 2026–2055 

TSL 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

(Million 2020$) 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 107 214 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 182 363 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 514 1,026 

4 ................................................................................................................................................................... 659 1,321 

5 ................................................................................................................................................................... 750 1,504 

6 ................................................................................................................................................................... 761 1,575 

7 ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,118 2,312 

8 ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,120 2,316 

DOE also estimated the monetary 

value of the health benefits associated 

with SO2 emissions reductions 

anticipated to result from the 

considered TSLs for DPPP motors. The 

dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are 

discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. Table V.27 presents the 

present value for SO2 emissions 

reduction for each TSL calculated using 

7-percent and 3-percent discount rates. 

TABLE V.27—PRESENT VALUE OF SO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DPPP MOTORS SHIPPED IN 2026–2055 

TSL 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

(Million 2020$) 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 46 91 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 79 155 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 222 437 

4 ................................................................................................................................................................... 285 562 

5 ................................................................................................................................................................... 324 640 

6 ................................................................................................................................................................... 327 666 

7 ................................................................................................................................................................... 480 977 

8 ................................................................................................................................................................... 481 979 

The benefits of reduced CO2, CH4, and 

N2O emissions are collectively referred 

to as climate benefits. The benefits of 

reduced SO2 and NOX emissions are 

collectively referred to as health 

benefits. For the time series of estimated 

monetary values of reduced emissions, 

see chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE has not considered the monetary 

benefits of the reduction of Hg for this 

final rule. Not all the public health and 

environmental benefits from the 

reduction of greenhouse gases, NOX, 

and SO2 are captured in the values 

above, and additional unquantified 

benefits from the reductions of those 

pollutants as well as from the reduction 

of Hg, direct PM, and other copollutants may be significant. 

7. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, may consider 

any other factors that the Secretary 

deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) 

8. Summary of Economic Impacts 

Table V.28 presents the NPV values 

that result from adding the estimates of 

the potential economic benefits 

resulting from reduced GHG and NOX

and SO2 emissions to the NPV of 

consumer benefits calculated for each 

TSL considered in this proposed 

rulemaking. The consumer benefits are 

domestic U.S. monetary savings that 

occur as a result of purchasing the 

covered DPPP motors, and are measured 

for the lifetime of products shipped in 

2026–2055. The climate benefits 

associated with reduced GHG emissions 

resulting from the adopted standards are 

global benefits, and are also calculated 

based on the lifetime of DPPP motors 

shipped in 2026–2055. 

TABLE V.28—CONSUMER NPV COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF CLIMATE AND HEALTH BENEFITS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 TSL 8 

3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2020$) 

5% Average SC–GHG case ............................................ 1.1 1.7 3.1 4.4 5.1 8.0 10.1 10.0 

3% Average SC–GHG case ............................................ 1.2 1.9 3.7 5.2 6.0 8.9 11.4 11.4 

2.5% Average SC–GHG case ......................................... 1.3 2.0 4.1 5.7 6.6 9.5 12.3 12.3 

3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case .................................. 1.5 2.4 5.3 7.2 8.3 11.3 15.0 15.0 

7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2020$) 

5% Average SC–GHG case ............................................ 0.6 0.9 1.6 2.4 2.7 4.1 5.1 5.1 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37174 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

121P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household 

Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic 

Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853–883. doi: 10.1111/ 

0034–6527.00354. 

122Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory. Available at: www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_

theory.pdf (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

TABLE V.28—CONSUMER NPV COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF CLIMATE AND HEALTH BENEFITS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 TSL 8 

3% Average SC–GHG case ............................................ 0.7 1.1 2.2 3.1 3.6 5.0 6.4 6.4 

2.5% Average SC–GHG case ......................................... 0.8 1.3 2.6 3.6 4.2 5.7 7.4 7.4 

3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case .................................. 1.0 1.7 3.8 5.2 5.9 7.5 10.0 10.0 

C. Conclusion 

When considering new or amended 

energy conservation standards, the 

standards that DOE adopts for any type 

(or class) of covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

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

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, the Secretary 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens by, to 

the greatest extent practicable, 

considering the seven statutory factors 

discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 

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

new or amended standard must also 

result in significant conservation of 

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

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

For this NOPR, DOE considered the 

impacts of potential new standards for 

DPPP motors at each TSL, beginning 

with the maximum technologically 

feasible level, to determine whether that 

level was economically justified. Where 

the max-tech level was not justified, 

DOE then considered the next most 

efficient level and undertook the same 

evaluation until it reached the highest 

efficiency level that is both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

tables in this section present a summary 

of the results of DOE’s quantitative 

analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 

quantitative results presented in the 

tables, DOE also considers other 

burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification. These include 

the impacts on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers who may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard and impacts on employment. 

DOE also notes that the economics 

literature provides a wide-ranging 

discussion of how consumers trade off 

upfront costs and energy savings in the 

absence of government intervention. 

Much of this literature attempts to 

explain why consumers appear to 

undervalue energy efficiency 

improvements. There is evidence that 

consumers undervalue future energy 

savings as a result of (1) a lack of 

information, (2) a lack of sufficient 

salience of the long-term or aggregate 

benefits, (3) a lack of sufficient savings 

to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases, (4) excessive focus on the 

short term, in the form of inconsistent 

weighting of future energy cost savings 

relative to available returns on other 

investments, (5) computational or other 

difficulties associated with the 

evaluation of relevant tradeoffs, and (6) 

a divergence in incentives (for example, 

between renters and owners, or builders 

and purchasers). Having less than 

perfect foresight and a high degree of 

uncertainty about the future, consumers 

may trade off these types of investments 

at a higher than expected rate between 

current consumption and uncertain 

future energy cost savings. 

In DOE’s current regulatory analysis, 

potential changes in the benefits and 

costs of a regulation due to changes in 

consumer purchase decisions are 

included in two ways. First, if 

consumers forego the purchase of a 

product in the standards case, this 

decreases sales for product 

manufacturers, and the impact on 

manufacturers attributed to lost revenue 

is included in the MIA. Second, DOE 

accounts for energy savings attributable 

only to products actually used by 

consumers in the standards case; if a 

standard decreases the number of 

products purchased by consumers, this 

decreases the potential energy savings 

from an energy conservation standard. 

DOE provides estimates of shipments 

and changes in the volume of product 

purchases in chapter 9 of the NOPR 

TSD. However, DOE’s current analysis 

does not explicitly control for 

heterogeneity in consumer preferences, 

preferences across subcategories of 

products or specific features, or 

consumer price sensitivity variation 

according to household income.121

While DOE is not prepared at present 

to provide a fuller quantifiable 

framework for estimating the benefits 

and costs of changes in consumer 

purchase decisions due to an energy 

conservation standard, DOE is 

committed to developing a framework 

that can support empirical quantitative 

tools for improved assessment of the 

consumer welfare impacts of appliance 

standards. DOE has posted a paper that 

discusses the issue of consumer welfare 

impacts of appliance energy 

conservation standards, and potential 

enhancements to the methodology by 

which these impacts are defined and 

estimated in the regulatory process.122

DOE welcomes comments on how to 

more fully assess the potential impact of 

energy conservation standards on 

consumer choice and how to quantify 

this impact in its regulatory analysis in 

future rulemakings. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for DPPP Motors Standards 

Table V.29 and Table V.30 summarize 

the quantitative impacts estimated for 

each TSL for DPPP motors. The national 

impacts are measured over the lifetime 

of DPPP motors purchased in the 30- 

year period that begins in the 

anticipated first full year of compliance 

with amended standards (2026–2055). 

The energy savings, emissions 

reductions, and value of emissions 

reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle 

results. DOE exercises its own judgment 

in presenting monetized climate 

benefits as recommended in applicable 

Executive orders and DOE would reach 

the same conclusion presented in this 

notice in the absence of the social cost 

of greenhouse gases, including the 

February 2021 Interim Estimates 

presented by the Interagency Working 

Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse 

Gases. The efficiency levels contained 

in each TSL are described in section 

V.A of this document. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37175 

TABLE V.29—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DPPP MOTORS TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 TSL 8 

Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings 

Quads ................................................................................................................................ 0.09 0.15 0.43 0.55 0.63 0.67 0.99 0.99 

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (million metric tons) ................................................................................................... 3.3 5.6 15.9 20.5 23.4 24.7 36.2 36.3 

CH4 (thousand tons) ......................................................................................................... 21.7 36.6 103.7 133.6 152.3 161.8 237.2 237.7 

N2O (thousand tons) ......................................................................................................... 0.04 0.06 0.18 0.23 0.26 0.27 0.40 0.40 

SO2 (thousand tons) ......................................................................................................... 4.6 7.7 21.9 28.2 32.1 34.0 49.9 50.0 

NOX (thousand tons) ......................................................................................................... 1.5 2.5 7.0 9.0 10.2 10.8 15.8 15.9 

Hg (tons) ........................................................................................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.10 

Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2020$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................................................................. 0.8 1.4 3.9 5.0 5.7 5.9 8.8 8.8 

Climate Benefits * .............................................................................................................. 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 

Health Benefits ** .............................................................................................................. 0.3 0.5 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.2 3.3 3.3 

Total Benefits † .................................................................................................................. 1.3 2.2 6.2 7.9 9.0 9.4 13.9 13.9 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs .............................................................................. 0.1 0.3 2.5 2.8 3.1 0.5 2.5 2.5 

Consumer Net Benefits ..................................................................................................... 0.7 1.1 1.4 2.3 2.7 5.4 6.3 6.3 

Total Net Benefits ............................................................................................................. 1.2 1.9 3.7 5.2 6.0 8.9 11.4 11.4 

Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2020$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................................................................. 0.4 0.7 2.1 2.7 3.1 3.1 4.6 4.6 

Climate Benefits * .............................................................................................................. 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 

Health Benefits ** .............................................................................................................. 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.6 

Total Benefits † .................................................................................................................. 0.8 1.3 3.6 4.7 5.3 5.4 8.0 8.0 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs .............................................................................. 0.1 0.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 0.4 1.5 1.6 

Consumer Net Benefits ..................................................................................................... 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.3 2.7 3.0 3.0 

Total Net Benefits ............................................................................................................. 0.7 1.1 2.2 3.1 3.6 5.0 6.4 6.4 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026–2055. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue 

after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026–2055. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2), methane (SC–CH4), and nitrous oxide (SC–N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate), as shown in Table V.23 through Table V.25. Together these 

represent the global SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are 

shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. See section IV.L of this document for more details. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth 

Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction 

issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that 

case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible 

under law. 

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

PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent 

cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC–GHG estimates. 

TABLE V.30—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DPPP MOTORS TSLS: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 TSL 8 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV (million 2020$) (No-new-standards case INPV = 798) .............. 797–800 795–804 770–823 768–829 765–835 704–826 608–901 608–901 

Industry NPV (% change) ................................................................................. (0.1)– 

0.2 

(0.4)– 

0.8 

(3.5)– 

3.2 

(3.8)– 

3.9 

(4.1)– 

4.7 

(11.7)– 

3.6 

(23.7)– 

12.9 

(23.8)– 

13.0 

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2020$) 

Extra Small-Size ................................................................................................ 3 (6) (6) (6) (6) 3 3 (6) 

Small-Size ......................................................................................................... 11 20 (38) 3 7 11 69 69 

Standard-Size .................................................................................................... 32 50 120 156 176 292 292 292 

Shipment-Weighted Average * .......................................................................... 19 32 30 68 78 129 161 161 

Consumer Simple PBP (years) 

Extra Small-Size ................................................................................................ 0.7 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.7 0.7 2.1 

Small-Size ......................................................................................................... 0.3 0.7 3.3 2.5 2.5 0.3 2.3 2.3 

Standard-Size .................................................................................................... 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 

Shipment-Weighted Average * .......................................................................... 0.4 0.6 2.2 1.7 1.8 0.6 1.7 1.7 

Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost 

Extra Small-Size ................................................................................................ 0% 54% 54% 54% 54% 0% 0% 54% 

Small-Size ......................................................................................................... 0% 11% 42% 36% 38% 0% 30% 30% 

Standard-Size .................................................................................................... 0% 0% 15% 13% 13% 2% 2% 2% 

Shipment-Weighted Average * .......................................................................... 0% 8% 31% 27% 28% 1% 17% 19% 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37176 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

* Weighted by shares of each equipment class in total projected shipments in 2026. 

DOE first considered TSL 8, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 8 would save an estimated 

0.99 quads of FFC energy, an amount 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 8, 

the NPV of consumer benefit would be 

$3.0 billion using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $6.3 billion using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 8 are 36.3 Mt of CO2, 15.9 

thousand tons of SO2, 50.0 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.1 ton of Hg, 237.7 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.4 thousand 

tons of N2O. The estimated monetary 

value of the climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions (associated 

with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent 

discount rate) at TSL 8 is $1.8 billion. 

The estimated monetary value of the 

health benefits from reduced SO2 and 

NOX emissions at TSL 8 is $1.6 billion 

using a 7-percent discount rate and $3.3 

billion using a 3-percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 8 is $6.4 billion. Using 

a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 

and costs, the estimated total NPV at 

TSL 8 is $11.4 billion. The estimated 

total NPV is provided for additional 

information, however DOE primarily 

relies upon the NPV of consumer 

benefits when determining whether a 

proposed standard level is economically 

justified. 

At TSL 8, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of ¥$6 for extra small-size 

DPPP motors, $69 for small size DPPP 

motors, and $292 for standard-size 

DPPP motors. The simple payback 

period is 2.1 years for extra small-size 

DPPP motors, 2.3 years for small-size 

DPPP motors, and 0.9 years for 

standard-size DPPP motors. The fraction 

of consumers experiencing a net LCC 

cost is 54 percent for extra small-size 

DPPP motors, 30 percent for small-size 

DPPP motors, and 2 percent for 

standard-size DPPP motors. 

At TSL 8, the projected change in 

manufacturer INPV ranges from a 

decrease of $189.7 million to an 

increase of $103.6 million, which 

correspond to a decrease of 23.8 percent 

and an increase of 13.0 percent, 

respectively. DOE estimates that 

industry must invest $46.3 million to 

comply with standards set at TSL 8. 

DOE estimates that approximately 33 

percent of extra-small size DPPP motor 

shipments, 39 percent of small size 

DPPP motor shipments, and 66 percent 

of standard size DPPP motor shipments 

would meet the efficiency levels 

analyzed at TSL 8. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes 

that at TSL 8 for DPPP motors, the 

benefits of energy savings, positive NPV 

of consumer benefits, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary 

value of the emissions reductions would 

be outweighed by the economic burden 

on some consumers, including average 

negative LCC for extra small-size DPPP 

motors, including those consumers in 

senior-only households. Consequently, 

the Secretary has tentatively concluded 

that TSL 8 is not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 7, which 

would save an estimated 0.99 quads of 

FFC energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Under TSL 7, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be $3.0 billion 

using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 

$6.3 billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 7 are 36.2 Mt of CO2, 15.8 

thousand tons of SO2, 49.9 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.1 tons of Hg, 237.2 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.4 thousand 

tons of N2O. The estimated monetary 

value of the climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions (associated 

with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent 

discount rate) at TSL 7 is $1.8 billion. 

The estimated monetary value of the 

health benefits from reduced SO2 and 

NOX emissions at TSL 7 is $1.6 billion 

using a 7-percent discount rate and $3.3 

billion using a 3-percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 7 is $6.4 billion. Using 

a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 

and costs, the estimated total NPV at 

TSL 7 is $11.4 billion. The estimated 

total NPV is provided for additional 

information, however DOE primarily 

relies upon the NPV of consumer 

benefits when determining whether a 

proposed standard level is economically 

justified. 

At TSL 7, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $3 for extra small-size DPPP 

motors, $69 for small size DPPP motors, 

and $292 for standard-size DPPP 

motors. The simple payback period is 

0.7 years for extra small-size DPPP 

motors, 2.3 years for small-size DPPP 

motors, and 0.9 years for standard-size 

DPPP motors. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing a net LCC cost is zero 

percent for extra small-size DPPP 

motors, 30 percent for small-size DPPP 

motors, and 2 percent for standard-size 

DPPP motors. 

At TSL 7, the projected change in 

manufacturer INPV ranges from a 

decrease of $193.3 million to an 

increase of $102.9 million, which 

represent a decrease of 23.7 percent and 

an increase of 12.9 percent, respectively. 

DOE estimates that industry must invest 

$46.2 million to comply with standards 

set at TSL 7. DOE estimates that 

approximately 93 percent of extra-small 

size DPPP motor shipments, 39 percent 

of small size DPPP motor shipments, 

and 66 percent of standard size DPPP 

motor shipments would meet the 

efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 7. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and burdens, the 

Secretary has tentatively concluded that 

at TSL 7 for DPPP motors, the benefits 

of energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, emission reductions, 

the estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions, and positive 

average LCC savings would outweigh 

the negative impacts on some 

consumers and on manufacturers, 

including the $46.2 million in 

conversion costs that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers of 

up to 23.8 percent. 

As stated, DOE conducts the walkdown analysis to determine the TSL that 

represents the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified as required under 

EPCA. The walk-down is not a 

comparative analysis, as a comparative 

analysis would result in the 

maximization of net benefits instead of 

energy savings that are technologically 

feasible and economically justified, 

which would be contrary to the statute. 

86 FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has 

not conducted a comparative analysis to 

select the proposed energy conservation 

standards, DOE notes at TSL 7, average 

LCC savings are positive for all 

equipment classes which is not the case 

at TSL 8. 

Although DOE considered proposed 

amended standard levels for DPPP 

motors by grouping the efficiency levels 

for each equipment category into TSLs, 

DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency 

levels in its analysis. TSL 8 represents 

the max-tech energy efficiency for all 

equipment classes. As discussed 

previously, the max-tech level for extra 

small DPPPM would lead to average 

negative LCC for extra small-size DPPP 

motors, including those consumers in 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37177 

senior-only households. The benefits of 

max-tech efficiency levels for extra 

small DPPPM do not outweigh the 

negative impacts to consumers. DOE has 

tentatively concluded that TSL 8 is not 

economically justified. 

Therefore, based on the previous 

considerations, DOE proposes to adopt 

the energy conservation standards for 

DPPP motors at TSL 7. The proposed 

amended energy conservation standards 

for DPPP motors, which are expressed 

as performance and design requirements 

are shown in Table V.31 of this 

document. 

TABLE V.31—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DPPP MOTORS

Motor total horsepower 

(THP) 

Performance 

standard: fullload efficiency 

(%) 

Design requirement: speed capability Design requirement: freeze protection 

THP < 0.5 ............................................... 69 None ....................................................... None. 

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15 ................................... ............................ Variable speed control ........................... Only for DPPP motors with freeze protection controls. 

1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5 ....................................... ............................ Variable speed control ........................... Only for DPPP motors with freeze protection controls. 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Proposed Standards 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

net benefit is (1) the annualized national 

economic value (expressed in 2020$) of 

the benefits from operating products 

that meet the proposed standards 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in product purchase costs, and 

(2) the annualized monetary value of the 

climate and health benefits from 

emission reductions. 

Table V.32 shows the annualized 

values for DPPP motors under TSL 7, 

expressed in 2020$. The results under 

the primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

cost of the standards proposed in this 

rule is $163.5 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual benefits are $482.3 

million in reduced equipment operating 

costs, $104.2 million in climate benefits, 

and $168.7 million in health benefits. In 

this case, the net benefit would amount 

to $591.6 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards is $142.9 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $504.2 million in reduced 

operating costs $104.2 million in 

climate benefits, and $188.9 million in 

health benefits. In this case, the net 

benefit would amount to $654.4 million 

per year. 

TABLE V.32—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DPPP 

MOTORS

[TSL 7] 

Million 2020$/year 

Primary estimate Low-net-benefits 

estimate 

High-net-benefits 

estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................... 504.2 436.2 580.9 

Climate Benefits * ..................................................................................... 104.2 92.6 115.6 

Health Benefits ** ..................................................................................... 188.9 168.1 209.3 

Total Benefits † ........................................................................................ 797.3 696.9 905.9 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ................................................ 142.9 110.0 178.0 

Net Benefits ............................................................................................. 654.4 587.0 727.9 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................... 482.3 424.8 546.8 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ...................................................... 104.2 92.6 115.6 

Health Benefits ** ..................................................................................... 168.7 152.0 185.0 

Total Benefits † ........................................................................................ 755.2 669.5 847.5 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ................................................ 163.5 129.2 199.0 

Net Benefits ............................................................................................. 591.6 540.3 648.5 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026–2055. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026–2055. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2021 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. 

In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections 

IV.F.1 and IV.H.1of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37178 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC–GHG). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits 

associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point 

estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC–GHG estimates. On March 16, 

2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, 

the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. 

Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying 

upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening 

court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under 

law. 

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

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

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

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

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 

2011), requires agencies, to the extent 

permitted by law, to (1) propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) 

tailor regulations to impose the least 

burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account, among other things, and to 

the extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, OIRA has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this proposed 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) for review. OIRA has 

determined that this proposed 

regulatory action constitutes a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 

12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an 

assessment, including the underlying 

analysis, of benefits and costs 

anticipated from the proposed 

regulatory action, together with, to the 

extent feasible, a quantification of those 

costs; and an assessment, including the 

underlying analysis, of costs and 

benefits of potentially effective and 

reasonably feasible alternatives to the 

planned regulation, and an explanation 

why the planned regulatory action is 

preferable to the identified potential 

alternatives. A summary of the potential 

costs and benefits of the regulatory 

action is presented in Table VI.1. 

TABLE VI.1—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DPPP 

MOTORS

[TSL 7] 

Million 2020$/year 

Primary estimate Low-net-benefits 

estimate 

High-net-benefits 

estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................... 504.2 436.2 580.9 

Climate Benefits * ..................................................................................... 104.2 92.6 115.6 

Health Benefits ** ..................................................................................... 188.9 168.1 209.3 

Total Benefits † ........................................................................................ 797.3 696.9 905.9 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ................................................ 142.9 110.0 178.0 

Net Benefits ............................................................................................. 654.4 587.0 727.9 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................... 482.3 424.8 546.8 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ...................................................... 104.2 92.6 115.6 

Health Benefits ** ..................................................................................... 168.7 152.0 185.0 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37179 

123The Joint Petition is available at 

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

TABLE VI.1—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DPPP 

MOTORS—Continued 

[TSL 7] 

Million 2020$/year 

Primary estimate Low-net-benefits 

estimate 

High-net-benefits 

estimate 

Total Benefits † ........................................................................................ 755.2 669.5 847.5 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ................................................ 163.5 129.2 199.0 

Net Benefits ............................................................................................. 591.6 540.3 648.5 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026–2055. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026–2055. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2021 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. 

In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections 

IV.F.1 and IV.H.1of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this notice). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does 

not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all 

four SC–GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency 

motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. 

La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal 

of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits 

where appropriate and permissible under law. 

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

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

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

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (energy.gov/gc/officegeneral-counsel). DOE has prepared the 

following IRFA for the products that are 

the subject of this rulemaking. 

For manufacturers of DPPP motors, 

the SBA has set a size threshold, which 

defines those entities classified as 

‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of 

the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small 

business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of the rule. 

(See 13 CFR part 121.) The size 

standards, listed by respective North 

American Industry Classification 

System Codes (‘‘NAICS’’) and industry 

descriptions, are available at 

www.sba.gov/document/support—tablesize-standards. Manufacturing of DPPP 

motors is classified under NAICS 

335312, ‘‘Motor and Generator 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer 

for an entity in this category to be 

considered as a small business. This 

threshold includes employees of the 

entity itself as well as any parent, 

subsidiary, or sister organizations. 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

On January 18, 2017, DOE published 

a direct final rule establishing energy 

conservation standards for DPPPs. (82 

FR 5650) Following this, DOE received 

feedback from manufacturers in support 

of regulating DPPP motors that would 

serve as replacement motors to the 

regulated pool pumps. On August 14, 

2018, DOE received a petition submitted 

by a variety of entities (collectively, the 

‘‘Joint Petitioners’’) requesting that DOE 

issue a direct final rule to establish 

prescriptive standards and a labeling 

requirement for DPPP motors (‘‘Joint 

Petition’’).123 On February 5, 2019, the 

Association of Pool & Spa Professionals 

(‘‘APSP’’), National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (‘‘NEMA’’), 

Hayward, Pentair, Nidec Motors, Regal 

Beloit, WEG Commercial Motors, and 

Zodiac Pool Systems met with DOE to 

present an alternative approach to the 

Joint Petition, suggesting DOE propose a 

labeling requirement for DPPP motors. 

(February 2019 Ex Parte Meeting, No. 43 

at p. 1) 

On October 5, 2020, in response to the 

Joint Petition and the alternative 

recommendation, DOE published a 

NOPR proposing to establish a test 

procedure and an accompanying 

labeling requirement for DPPP motors. 

Following this, on July 29, 2021, DOE 

published a final rule adopting a test 

procedure for DPPP motors. 86 FR 

40765. DOE did not establish a labeling 

requirement and stated that it intends to 

address any such labeling and/or energy 

conservation standards requirement in a 

separate notification. 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, 

Rule 

As discussed previously in section 

II.A, EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37180 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

124The small business’s annual revenue estimate 

is taken from D&B Hoovers (app.avention.com). 

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of 

EPCA, added by Public Law 95–619, 

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

6317, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, which 

sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency. 

This equipment includes those electric 

motors that are DPPP motors, the subject 

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

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered equipment, 

including those electric motors that are 

DPPP motors. Any new or amended 

standard for a covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary of Energy determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

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

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

may not adopt any standard that would 

not result in the significant conservation 

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

6295(o)(3)) 

3. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

DOE reviewed the potential standard 

levels considered in this NOPR under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. During its market survey, DOE 

used publicly available information to 

identify potential small manufacturers. 

DOE’s research involved industry trade 

association membership directories 

(e.g., AHRI), information from previous 

rulemakings, individual company 

websites, and market research tools 

(e.g., D&B Hoover’s reports) to create a 

list of companies that manufacture 

DPPP motors. 

As previously stated, manufacturing 

of DPPP motors is classified under 

NAICS 335312, ‘‘Motor and Generator 

Manufacturing,’’ for which the SBA sets 

a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer 

for an entity to be considered as a small 

business. DOE screened out companies 

that do not offer products impacted by 

this rulemaking, do not meet the 

definition of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are 

foreign owned and operated. 

DOE identified five companies 

manufacturing DPPP motors for the 

domestic market, of those DOE 

determined that one company met the 

SBA definition of a small business. DOE 

contacted this small business regarding 

a discussion of potential DPPP motor 

standards, but the small business was 

not interested in discussing potential 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards on DPPP motors. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements Including 

Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different 

Groups of Small Entities 

DOE reviewed the website and catalog 

offerings of the identified small business 

and determined that the manufacturer 

offers extra small sized DPPP motors 

that would meet requirements under the 

proposed standards as well as standard 

sized DPPP motors that are capable of 

variable speed. The small business is 

expected to need to introduce one 

variable speed, small sized DPPP motor 

model in order to comply with the 

energy conservation standards proposed 

in this NOPR. 

There are two types of costs the small 

business could incur due to the 

proposed standards for DPPP motors: 

product conversion costs and capital 

conversion costs. Product conversion 

costs are investments in R&D, testing, 

marketing, and other non-capitalized 

costs necessary to make equipment 

designs comply with new energy 

conservation standards. Capital 

conversion costs are investments in 

property, plant, and equipment 

necessary to adapt or change existing 

production facilities such that new 

compliant equipment designs can be 

fabricated and assembled. 

DOE anticipates that the small 

business will incur approximately $1.1 

million in product conversion costs— 

accounting for the compensation of four 

full-time engineers for 24 months of 

product design and testing work—and 

approximately $2.5 million in capital 

conversion costs to build a suitable 

production line to manufacture one 

small size DPPP motor model that 

would comply with the energy 

conservation standards for the small 

size DPPP motors proposed in this 

NOPR. Therefore, this small business 

would incur a total of approximately 

$3.6 million in conversion costs. DOE 

was able to identify an annual revenue 

estimate of approximately $28.2 million 

for the small business.124 The $3.6 

million in conversion cost represents 

12.8 percent of the estimated annual 

revenue of the small business. 

DOE assumes that all DPPP motor 

manufacturers would spread these costs 

over the five-year compliance 

timeframe, as standards are expected to 

require compliance approximately five 

years after the publication of a final 

rule. Therefore, DOE assumes that this 

small business would incur on average 

about $720,000 or approximately 2.6 

percent of its annual revenue in each of 

the five years leading up to the 

compliance date. 

DOE requests comment on its findings 

that there is one domestic small 

business that manufactures DPPP 

motors and on its estimate of the 

potential impacts on this small 

business. 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being considered. 

DOE has established test procedures, 

labeling requirements, and energy 

conservation standards for certain 

electric motors (10 CFR part 431 subpart 

B), but those requirements do not apply 

to DPPP motors subject to the proposed 

energy conservation standards 

requirements because they do not fall 

within any of the specific classes of 

electric motors that are currently 

regulated by DOE. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The discussion in the previous 

section analyzes impacts on small 

businesses that would result from DOE’s 

proposed rule, represented by TSL 7. In 

reviewing alternatives to the proposed 

rule, DOE examined energy 

conservation standards set at lower 

efficiency levels. While TSL 1 through 

TSL 6 would reduce the impacts on 

small business manufacturers, it would 

come at the expense of a reduction in 

energy savings. TSL 1 through TSL 6 

achieve 91 percent to 32 percent lower 

energy savings compared to the energy 

savings at TSL 7. 

Based on the presented discussion, 

establishing standards at TSL 7 balances 

the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 

7 with the potential burdens placed on 

DPPP motor manufacturers, including 

small business manufacturers. 

Accordingly, DOE does not propose one 

of the other TSLs considered in the 

analysis, or the other policy alternatives 

examined as part of the regulatory 

impact analysis and included in chapter 

17 of the NOPR TSD. 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

EPCA provides that a manufacturer 

whose annual gross revenue from all of 

its operations does not exceed $8 

million may apply for an exemption 

from all or part of an energy 

conservation standard for a period not 

longer than 24 months after the effective 

date of a final rule establishing the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)). 

Additionally, manufacturers subject to 

DOE’s energy efficiency standards may 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37181 

apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings and 

Appeals for exception relief under 

certain circumstances. Manufacturers 

should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional 

details. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

DOE’s certification and compliance 

activities ensure accurate and 

comprehensive information about the 

energy and water use characteristics of 

covered products and covered 

equipment sold in the United States. 

Manufacturers of all covered products 

and covered equipment with applicable 

standards must submit a certification 

report before a basic model is 

distributed in commerce, annually 

thereafter, and if the basic model is 

redesigned in such a manner to increase 

the consumption or decrease the 

efficiency of the basic model such that 

the certified rating is no longer 

supported by the test data. Additionally, 

manufacturers must report when 

production of a basic model has ceased 

and is no longer offered for sale as part 

of the next annual certification report 

following such cessation. DOE requires 

the manufacturer of any covered 

product or covered equipment to 

establish, maintain, and retain the 

records of certification reports, of the 

underlying test data for all certification 

testing, and of any other testing 

conducted to satisfy the requirements of 

10 CFR part 429, 10 CFR part 430, and/ 

or 10 CFR part 431. Certification reports 

provide DOE and consumers with 

comprehensive, up-to date efficiency 

information and support effective 

enforcement. 

DOE is not proposing certification or 

reporting requirements for DPPPM in 

this NOPR. Were DOE to establish 

energy conservation standards for 

DPPPM, certification of compliance 

would not be required until such time 

as DOE establishes such energy 

conservation standards and 

manufacturers are required to comply 

with those standards. DOE may consider 

proposals to establish certification 

requirements and reporting for DPPPM 

under a separate rulemaking regarding 

appliance and equipment certification. 

DOE will address changes to OMB 

Control Number 1910–1400 at that time, 

as necessary. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of the law, no person is 

required to respond to, nor shall any 

person be subject to a penalty for failure 

to comply with, a collection of 

information subject to the requirements 

of the PRA, unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed 

regulation in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR part 

1021). DOE’s regulations include a 

categorical exclusion for rulemakings 

that establish energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE 

anticipates that this proposed 

rulemaking qualifies for categorical 

exclusion B5.1 because it is a 

rulemaking that establishes energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

products or industrial equipment, none 

of the exceptions identified in 

categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

require further environmental analysis, 

and it otherwise meets the requirements 

for application of a categorical 

exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE 

will complete its NEPA review before 

issuing the final rule. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this proposed 

rule and has tentatively determined that 

it would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the equipment 

that are the subject of this proposed 

rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 

U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any, 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction, (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

Executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 

12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, 

section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 

For a proposed regulatory action likely 

to result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37182 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

125The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the 

following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed 10/ 

27/21). 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at energy.gov/sites/prod/files/ 

gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. 

Although this proposed rule does not 

contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may require expenditures of 

$100 million or more in any one year by 

the private sector. Such expenditures 

may include: (1) investment in research 

and development and in capital 

expenditures by DPPPM manufacturers 

in the years between the final rule and 

the compliance date for the new 

standards and (2) incremental 

additional expenditures by consumers 

to purchase higher-efficiency DPPPM, 

starting at the compliance date for the 

applicable standard. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) 

The content requirements of section 

202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private 

sector mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this NOPR and the TSD for this 

proposed rule respond to those 

requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

(2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the proposed rule unless DOE 

publishes an explanation for doing 

otherwise, or the selection of such an 

alternative is inconsistent with law. As 

required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(A) 

through 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), this proposed 

rule would establish energy 

conservation standards for DPPPM that 

are designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

DOE has determined to be both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. A full discussion 

of the alternatives considered by DOE is 

presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for 

this proposed rule. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

rule would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for Federal agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/ 

12/f70/DOE%20Final%20

Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines

%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 

reviewed this NOPR under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy 

Effects for any proposed significant 

energy action. A ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ is defined as any action by an 

agency that promulgates or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule, 

and that (1) is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, or 

any successor order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

this regulatory action, which proposes 

energy conservation standards for 

DPPPM, is not a significant energy 

action because the proposed standards 

are not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on this proposed rule. 

L. Information Quality 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

Bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

a report describing that peer review.125


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37183 

126The report is available at 

www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards. 

Generation of this report involved a 

rigorous, formal, and documented 

evaluation using objective criteria and 

qualified and independent reviewers to 

make a judgment as to the technical/ 

scientific/business merit, the actual or 

anticipated results, and the productivity 

and management effectiveness of 

programs and/or projects. Because 

available data, models, and 

technological understanding have 

changed since 2007, DOE has engaged 

with the National Academy of Sciences 

to review DOE’s analytical 

methodologies to ascertain whether 

modifications are needed to improve the 

Department’s analyses. DOE is in the 

process of evaluating the resulting 

report.126

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to 

incorporate by reference the standard 

published by UL, titled, Standard For 

Pool Pump Motors, UL 1004–10:2022. 

UL 1004–10:2022 establishes definitions 

for certain pool pump motors, and 

includes test requirements to verify 

variable-speed capability and applicable 

freeze protection design requirements. 

UL 1004–10 is readily available at UL’s 

website at https://

www.shopulstandards.com/ 

ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL1004- 

10_1_S_20200228. 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date of the webinar 

meeting are listed in the DATES section 

at the beginning of this document. 

Webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published on DOE’s website: 

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/publicmeetings-and-comment-deadlines 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this document, or 

who is representative of a group or class 

of persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the 

webinar. Such persons may submit to 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and the 

topics they wish to discuss. Such 

persons should also provide a daytime 

telephone number where they can be 

reached. 

Persons requesting to speak should 

briefly describe the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and provide 

a telephone number for contact. DOE 

requests persons selected to make an 

oral presentation to submit an advance 

copy of their statements at least two 

weeks before the webinar. At its 

discretion, DOE may permit persons 

who cannot supply an advance copy of 

their statement to participate, if those 

persons have made advance alternative 

arrangements with the Building 

Technologies Office. As necessary, 

requests to give an oral presentation 

should ask for such alternative 

arrangements. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar and may also use 

a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

webinar. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar and 

until the end of the comment period, 

interested parties may submit further 

comments on the proceedings and any 

aspect of the rulemaking. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present a general overview of the 

topics addressed in this proposed 

rulemaking, allow time for prepared 

general statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

proposed rulemaking. Each participant 

will be allowed to make a general 

statement (within time limits 

determined by DOE), before the 

discussion of specific topics. DOE will 

allow, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this proposed 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the previous procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this 

document and will be accessible on the 

DOE website. In addition, any person 

may buy a copy of the transcript from 

the transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments, data, and other 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37184 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. No 

telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. 

Provide documents that are not secured, 

that are written in English, and that are 

free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE seeks comment on updating 

the UL 1004–10 reference from the 2020 

version to the 2022 version. 

(2) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed equipment classes for DPPP 

motors based on motor THP thresholds. 

(3) DOE seeks comment on the 

technologies considered for higher 

DPPP motor efficiency. DOE seeks 

comment on whether other motor 

topologies should be considered as 

applicable in pool pumps. 

(4) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed representative units and 

associated DPPP applications used for 

the engineering analysis. 

(5) DOE seeks comment on the 

efficiency levels, including the 

associated full load efficiencies and 

design requirements evaluated in the 

engineering analysis. 

(6) DOE seeks comment on using a 

1.37 manufacturer markup for the cost 

analysis. 

(7) DOE seeks comment on the cost 

methodology and associated costs for 

each of efficiency levels evaluated in the 

engineering analysis, including any 

associated costs for the proposed freeze 

protection controls requirement. 

(8) DOE seeks comment on the 

distribution channels identified for 

DPPP motors and fraction of sales that 

go through each of these channels. 

(9) DOE seeks comment on the overall 

methodology to develop consumer 

samples and on the fraction of DPPP 

motor existing stock across the five 

following markets: (1) single-family 

homes with a swimming pool; (2) 

indoor swimming pools in commercial 

applications; (3) single-family 

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

(5) outdoor swimming pools in 

commercial applications. 

(10) DOE seeks comment on the 

overall methodology and inputs used to 

estimate DPPP motor energy use. 

Specifically, DOE seeks feedback on the 

average daily operating hours and 

annual days of operation used in the 

energy use analysis. 

(11) DOE seeks comment on the 

approach and inputs used to project an 

equipment price trend for DPPP motors. 

(12) DOE seeks comment on 

installation costs estimates used in the 

LCC analysis. 

(13) DOE seeks comment on its 

decision to not include DPPP motor 

repair and maintenance costs in the LCC 

analysis. 

(14) DOE seeks comment on the 

approach and inputs used to develop 

DPPP motor lifetime estimates. 

(15) DOE seeks comment on the 

approach and inputs used to develop 

no-new standards case efficiency 

distributions in 2021. DOE seeks 

feedback on the approach used to 

project no-new standards case efficiency 

distributions in future years. 

(16) DOE seeks comment on the 

approach and inputs used to develop 

base year shipments and for DPPP 

motors. 

(17) DOE seeks comment on the 

approach and inputs used to develop 

no-new standards case shipments 

projections. 

(18) DOE seeks comment on the 

approach and inputs used to develop 

the different standards case shipments 

projections. Specifically, at TSL 6. DOE 

requests information and feedback on 

the estimated fraction of standard-size 

DPPP motors used in small self-priming 

pool filter pumps and in non-selfpriming pool filter pumps that will 

downsize to small-size DPPP motors. 

(19) DOE requests information 

regarding the impact of cumulative 

regulatory burden on manufacturers of 

DPPP motors associated with multiple 

DOE standards or product-specific 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies. 

(20) DOE requests comment on its 

findings that there is one domestic small 

business that manufactures DPPP 

motors and on its estimate of the 

potential impacts on this small 

business. 

Additionally, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this proposed rulemaking 

that may not specifically be identified in 

this document. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37185 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking and announcement of 

public meeting. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Incorporation by reference, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on May 25, 2022, by 

Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, 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 May 26, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 

429 and 431 of chapter II, title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Amend § 429.4 by revising 

paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (g) 

to read as follows: 

§ 429.4 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 

any edition other than that specified in 

this section, DOE must publish a 

document in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at DOE, and at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). Contact DOE 

at: the U.S. Department of Energy, Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Sixth Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–9127, 

Buildings@ee.doe.gov, www.energy.gov/ 

eere/buildings/building-technologiesoffice. For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

email: fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to: 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html. The material may be 

obtained from the sources in the 

following paragraphs of this section: 

* * * * * 

(g) UL. Underwriters Laboratories, 333 

Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, 

(841) 272–8800, or go to https://

www.ul.com. 

(1) UL 1004–10:2022, ‘‘Standard for 

Safety for Pool Pump Motors,’’ First 

Edition, Dated February 28, 2020, 

including revisions through March 24, 

2022; IBR approved for § 429.134. 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 3. Amend § 429.134 by adding 

paragraph (s) to read as follows: 

§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

(s) Dedicated-purpose pool pump 

motors. 

(1) To verify the dedicated-purpose 

pool pump motor variable speed 

capability, a test in accordance with 

Section 5 of UL 1004–10:2022 

(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4) 

will be conducted. 

(2) To verify that dedicated-purpose 

pool pump motor comply with the 

applicable freeze protection design 

requirements, a test in accordance with 

Section 6 of UL 1004–10:2022 will be 

conducted. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 5. Section 431.481(b) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 431.481 Purpose and scope. 

* * * * * 

(b) Scope. The requirements of this 

subpart apply to dedicated-purpose pool 

pump motors, as specified in paragraphs 

1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of UL 1004–10:2022 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.482). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 431.482 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.482 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this subpart with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 

any edition other than that specified in 

this section, DOE must publish a 

document in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at DOE, and at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). Contact DOE 

at: the U.S. Department of Energy, Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Sixth Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–9127, 

Buildings@ee.doe.gov, https://

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

building-technologies-office. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, email: fr.inspection@

nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

The material may be obtained from the 

sources in the following paragraphs of 

this section: 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) UL 1004–10 (1004–10:2022), 

‘‘Standard for Safety for Pool Pump 

Motors,’’ First Edition, Dated February 

28, 2020, including revisions through 

March 24, 2022; IBR approved for 

§§ 431.481 and 431.483. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 431.483 is revised to read 

as follows: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
37186 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

§ 431.483 Definitions. 

The definitions applicable to this 

subpart are defined in Section 2 

‘‘Glossary’’ of UL 1004–10:2022 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.482). In addition, the following 

definition applies: 

Basic model means all units of 

dedicated purpose pool pump motors 

manufactured by a single manufacturer, 

that are within the same equipment 

class, have electrical characteristics that 

are essentially identical, and do not 

have any differing physical or 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption or efficiency. 

■ 8. Section 431.485 is added to subpart 

Z to read as follows: 

§ 431.485 Energy conservation standards. 

(a) For the purpose of paragraph (b) of 

this section, ‘‘THP’’ means dedicatedpurpose-pool pump motor total 

horsepower. 

(b) Each dedicated-purpose pool 

pump motor manufactured starting on 

[date 24 months after date of final rule 

publication in the Federal Register] 

with a THP less than 0.5 THP, must 

have a full-load efficiency that is not 

less than 69 percent. 

(c) All dedicated-purpose pool pump 

motors manufactured starting on [date 

24 months after date of final rule 

publication in the Federal Register] 

with a THP greater than or equal to 0.5 

THP must be a variable speed control 

dedicated-purpose pool pump motor. 

(d) For all dedicated-purpose pool 

pump motors with a THP greater than 

or equal to 0.5 THP, distributed in 

commerce with freeze protection 

controls, the motor must be shipped 

with freeze protection disabled or with 

the following default, user-adjustable 

settings: 

(1) The default dry-bulb air 

temperature setting is no greater than 

40 °F; 

(2) The default run time setting shall 

be no greater than 1 hour (before the 

temperature is rechecked); and 

(3) The default motor speed (in 

revolutions per minute, or rpm) in 

freeze protection mode shall not be 

more than half of the maximum 

operating speed. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11745 Filed 6–17–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3