[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35765-35780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10018]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 35765]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

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


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Electric Motors

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''), 
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products 
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including electric 
motors. In this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation 
standards for electric motors identical to those set forth in a direct 
final rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register. If DOE 
receives an adverse comment and determines that such comment may 
provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule, DOE 
will publish a notice withdrawing the direct final rule and will 
proceed with this proposed rule.

DATES: 
    Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding 
this NOPR no later than September 19, 2023.
    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 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket 
number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, 
identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007, by any of the 
following methods:
    Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number 
EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007 in the subject line of the message.
    Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza, SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. 
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not 
necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section V of this document.
    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/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section V 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 [email protected] 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, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Matthew Ring, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 586-2555. Email: [email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
III. Proposed Standards
    A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Electric Motor 
Standards
    B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. 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
V. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Public Meeting
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate

[[Page 35766]]

the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain 
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of 
EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial 
Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317). Such equipment includes electric 
motors, the subject of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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)) 
EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any 
final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either 
a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to 
be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed 
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
    Elsewhere in this Federal Register, DOE is issuing a direct final 
rule amending the energy conservation standards for electric motors, 
along with this proposed rule as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(A)(i)) The amended standard levels in that document were 
submitted in a joint recommendation (the ``November 2022 Joint 
Recommendation'') \3\ by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient 
Economy (``ACEEE''), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (``ASAP''), 
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (``NEMA''), Natural 
Resources Defense Council (``NRDC''), Northwest Energy Efficiency 
Alliance (``NEEA''), Pacific Gas & Electric Company (``PG&E''), San 
Diego Gas & Electric (``SDG&E''), and Southern California Edison 
(``SCE''), hereinafter referred to as ``the Electric Motors Working 
Group.'' In a letter comment submitted December 12, 2022, the New York 
State Energy Research and Development Authority (``NYSERDA'') expressed 
its support of the November 2022 Joint Recommendation and urged DOE to 
implement it in a timely manner. DOE has determined that the November 
2022 Joint Recommendation complies with the requirements of EPCA for 
issuance of a direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Joint comment response to the published Notification of a 
webinar and availability of preliminary technical support document; 
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed 
in this document, DOE proposes new and amended energy conservation 
standards for electric motors. The proposed standards, which are 
expressed in full-load efficiency, are shown in Table I.1, Table I.2 
and Table I.3.

 Table I.1--Proposed Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or
              NY Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors and Air-Over Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Motor horsepower/standard          2 Pole               4 Pole               6 Pole               8 Pole
     kilowatt equivalent     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75.......................       77.0      77.0       85.5      85.5       82.5      82.5       75.5      75.5
1.5/1.1.....................       84.0      84.0       86.5      86.5       87.5      86.5       78.5      77.0
2/1.5.......................       85.5      85.5       86.5      86.5       88.5      87.5       84.0      86.5
3/2.2.......................       86.5      85.5       89.5      89.5       89.5      88.5       85.5      87.5
5/3.7.......................       88.5      86.5       89.5      89.5       89.5      89.5       86.5      88.5
7.5/5.5.....................       89.5      88.5       91.7      91.0       91.0      90.2       86.5      89.5
10/7.5......................       90.2      89.5       91.7      91.7       91.0      91.7       89.5      90.2
15/11.......................       91.0      90.2       92.4      93.0       91.7      91.7       89.5      90.2
20/15.......................       91.0      91.0       93.0      93.0       91.7      92.4       90.2      91.0
25/18.5.....................       91.7      91.7       93.6      93.6       93.0      93.0       90.2      91.0
30/22.......................       91.7      91.7       93.6      94.1       93.0      93.6       91.7      91.7
40/30.......................       92.4      92.4       94.1      94.1       94.1      94.1       91.7      91.7
50/37.......................       93.0      93.0       94.5      94.5       94.1      94.1       92.4      92.4
60/45.......................       93.6      93.6       95.0      95.0       94.5      94.5       92.4      93.0
75/55.......................       93.6      93.6       95.4      95.0       94.5      94.5       93.6      94.1
100/75......................       95.0      94.5       96.2      96.2       95.8      95.8       94.5      95.0
125/90......................       95.4      94.5       96.2      96.2       95.8      95.8       95.0      95.0
150/110.....................       95.4      94.5       96.2      96.2       96.2      95.8       95.0      95.0
200/150.....................       95.8      95.4       96.5      96.2       96.2      95.8       95.4      95.0
250/186.....................       96.2      95.4       96.5      96.2       96.2      96.2       95.4      95.4
300/224.....................       95.8      95.4       96.2      95.8       95.8      95.8  .........  ........
350/261.....................       95.8      95.4       96.2      95.8       95.8      95.8  .........  ........
400/298.....................       95.8      95.8       96.2      95.8  .........  ........  .........  ........
450/336.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
500/373.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
550/410.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
600/447.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
650/485.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
700/522.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
750/559.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 35767]]


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


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

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 
electric 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 \4\ 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 the energy efficiency of certain types 
of industrial equipment, including electric motors, the subject of this 
proposed rule. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). The Energy Policy Act of 1992 
(``EPACT 1992'') (Pub. L. 102-486 (Oct. 24, 1992)) further amended EPCA 
by establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures for 
certain commercial and industrial electric motors that are manufactured 
alone or as a component of another piece of equipment. In December 
2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
(``EISA 2007'') (Pub. L. 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007)). Section 313(b)(1) of 
EISA 2007 updated the energy conservation standards for those electric 
motors already covered by EPCA and established energy conservation 
standards for a larger scope of motors not previously covered by 
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) EISA 2007 also revised certain 
statutory definitions related to electric motors. See EISA 2007, sec. 
313 (amending statutory definitions related to electric motors at 42 
U.S.C. 6311(13)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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),

[[Page 35768]]

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) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or 
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set 
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption 
waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297))
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(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 electric motors 
appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 
431, subpart B, appendix B.
    EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the 
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE 
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the 
product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking 
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a 
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered equipment, including electric 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 
products, including electric motors, if no test procedure has been 
established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the 
standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a 
proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether 
the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(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, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption 
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that 
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying 
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three 
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the 
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under 
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing 
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy 
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary 
may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have 
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is 
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any 
covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics 
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that 
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United 
States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
    Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an 
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more 
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type 
or class of products that has the same function or intended use, if DOE 
determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different 
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such 
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related 
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have 
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, 
DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a 
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule 
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on 
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 
42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
    Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE 
authority to issue a final rule (i.e., a ``direct final rule'') 
establishing an energy conservation standard on receipt of a statement 
submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative 
of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers 
of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined 
by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with respect to an 
energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the 
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine whether a jointly-
submitted recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard 
satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.
    The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a NOPR 
that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is 
identical

[[Page 35769]]

to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must 
provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Based on the comments received during 
this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE 
will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if (1) one 
or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those 
comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the 
direct final rule, provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 
direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), or 
any other applicable law. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an 
alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the same manner. Id. After withdrawing a 
direct final rule, DOE must proceed with the notice of proposed 
rulemaking published simultaneously with the direct final rule and 
publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule 
was withdrawn. Id.
    Typical of other rulemakings, it is the substance, rather than the 
quantity, of comments that will ultimately determine whether a direct 
final rule will be withdrawn. To this end, the substance of any adverse 
comment(s) received will be weighed against the anticipated benefits of 
the jointly-submitted recommendations and the likelihood that further 
consideration of the comment(s) would change the results of the 
rulemaking. DOE notes that, to the extent an adverse comment had been 
previously raised and addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a 
submission will not typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a 
direct final rule.

B. Background

    In the May 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI, DOE stated that it was 
initiating an early assessment review to determine whether any new or 
amended standards would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a 
new or amended energy conservation standard for electric motors and 
sought information related to that effort. Specifically, DOE sought 
data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether 
DOE should propose a ``no new standard'' determination because a more 
stringent standard: (1) would not result in a significant savings of 
energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically 
justified; or (4) any combination of the foregoing. 85 FR 30878, 30879.
    On March 2, 2022, DOE published the preliminary analysis for 
electric motors. 87 FR 11650 (``March 2022 Preliminary Analysis''). In 
conjunction with the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE published a 
technical support document (``March 2022 Prelim TSD'') which presented 
the results of the in-depth technical analyses in the following areas: 
(1) Engineering; (2) markups to determine equipment price; (3) energy 
use; (4) life cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP''); and 
(5) national impacts. The results presented included the current scope 
of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, in addition to an 
expanded scope of motors, including electric motors above 500 
horsepower, air-over electric motors, and small, non-small-electric-
motor, electric motors (``SNEM''). See Chapter 2 of the March 2022 
Prelim TSD.
    By letter dated on November 15, 2022, DOE received a joint 
recommendation for energy conservation standards for electric motors 
(``November 2022 Joint Recommendation''). The November 2022 Joint 
Recommendation represented the motors industry, energy efficiency 
organizations and utilities (collectively, ``the Electric Motors 
Working Group'').\5\ The November 2022 Joint Recommendation addressed 
energy conservation standards for medium electric motors that are 1-750 
hp and polyphase, and air-over medium electric motors. On December 9, 
2022, DOE received a supplemental letter to the November 2022 Joint 
Recommendation from the Electric Motors Working Group. The supplemental 
letter provided additional guidance on the recommended levels for open 
medium electric motors rated 100 hp to 250 hp, and a recommended 
compliance date for standards presented in the November 2022 Joint 
Recommendation. A summary of the specific recommendations contained in 
the November 2022 Joint Recommendation may be found in the direct final 
rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The members of the Electric Motors Working Group included 
ACEEE, ASAP, NEMA, NRDC, NEEA, PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After carefully considering the November 2022 Joint Recommendation 
and supplement for amending the energy conservation standards for 
electric motors submitted by the Electric Motors Working Group, DOE has 
determined that these recommendations are in accordance with the 
statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a 
direct final rule.
    More specifically, these recommendations comprise a statement 
submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of 
relevant points of view on this matter. In appendix A to subpart C of 
10 CFR part 430 (``appendix A''), DOE explained that to be ``fairly 
representative of relevant points of view,'' the group submitting a 
joint statement must, where appropriate, include larger concerns and 
small business in the regulated industry/manufacturer community, energy 
advocates, energy utilities, consumers, and States. However, it will be 
necessary to evaluate the meaning of ``fairly representative'' on a 
case-by-case basis, subject to the circumstances of a particular 
rulemaking, to determine whether fewer or additional parties must be 
part of a joint statement in order to be ``fairly representative of 
relevant points of view.'' Section 10 of appendix A. In reaching this 
determination, DOE took into consideration the fact that the Joint 
Recommendation was signed and submitted by a broad cross-section of 
interests, including a manufacturers' trade association, environmental 
and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, and electric utility 
companies. NYSERDA, a state organization, also submitted a letter 
supporting the Joint Recommendation. DOE notes that these organizations 
include the relevant points of view specifically identified by 
Congress: manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency 
advocates. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A))
    DOE has evaluated the November 2022 Joint Recommendation and 
believes that it meets the EPCA requirements for issuance of a direct 
final rule. As a result, DOE published a direct final rule establishing 
energy conservation standards for electric motors elsewhere in this 
Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse comments that may provide a 
reasonable basis for withdrawal and withdraws the direct final rule, 
DOE will consider those comments and any other comments received in 
determining how to proceed with this proposed rule.
    For further background information on these proposed standards and 
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this Federal Register. That document, and the accompanying 
technical support document (``TSD''), include additional discussion of 
the EPCA requirements for promulgation of energy conservation 
standards; the history of the standards rulemaking for electric motors; 
and information on the test procedures used to measure the energy

[[Page 35770]]

efficiency of electric motors. Those documents also contain an in-depth 
discussion of the analyses conducted in support of this proposed 
rulemaking, the methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses, 
and the analytical results.

III. Proposed Standards

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Electric Motor Standards

    Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for electric motors. The national impacts are 
measured over the lifetime of electric motors purchased in the 30-year 
period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended 
standards (2027-2056). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and 
value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results.

              Table III.1--Summary of Analytical Results for Electric Motors TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Category                               TSL 1        TSL 2        TSL 3        TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads.......................................................          0.1          3.0         10.4         23.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...................................         4.42        91.69       319.24       725.80
CH4 (thousand tons).........................................        32.75       690.10     2,379.75     5,415.99
N2O (thousand tons).........................................         0.04         0.82         2.90         6.59
NOX (thousand tons).........................................         7.13       148.74       516.00     1,173.58
SO2 (thousand tons).........................................         1.71        35.12       122.75       278.95
Hg (tons)...................................................         0.01         0.23         0.80         1.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.............................         0.51         8.82        34.86        73.26
Climate Benefits *..........................................         0.19         3.14        13.49        30.07
Health Benefits **..........................................         0.33         5.72        23.16        51.90
Total Benefits [dagger].....................................         1.04        17.68        71.50       155.23
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].................         0.18         1.35        39.70        84.56
Consumer Net Benefits.......................................         0.33         7.47        -4.85       -11.30
Total Net Benefits..........................................         0.85        16.33        31.80        70.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.............................         0.21         2.95        13.44        27.14
Climate Benefits *..........................................         0.19         3.14        13.49        30.07
Health Benefits **..........................................         0.12         1.76         8.19        18.13
Total Benefits [dagger].....................................         0.53         7.85        35.11        75.34
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].................         0.10         0.72        21.03        44.80
Consumer Net Benefits.......................................         0.11         2.23        -7.60       -17.67
Total Net Benefits..........................................         0.43         7.13        14.08        30.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2027-2056. These
  results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together,
  these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated
  with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single
  central SC-GHG point estimate. 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 has reverted 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 NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
  of this document for more details.
[dagger] 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.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.


      Table III.2--Summary of Analytical Results for Electric Motor TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                      TSL 1              TSL 2              TSL 3              TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2021$) (No-new-       4,896-4,899        4,690-4,720        3,659-4,681    (6,066)-(3,840)
 standards case INPV = 5,023).......
Industry NPV (% change).............              (2.5)        (6.6)-(6.0)       (27.2)-(6.8)    (220.8)-(176.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 35771]]

 
                                      Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RU1.................................                N/A                N/A             -101.8             -276.4
RU2.................................                N/A                N/A             -336.9             -309.4
RU3.................................                N/A                N/A             -916.7           -1,439.6
RU4.................................                N/A              567.1              567.1           -2,541.1
RU5.................................                N/A                N/A             -945.5           -5,257.2
RU6.................................            2,550.1            2,550.1           -2,287.8           -6,710.3
RU7.................................               57.6               57.6              -39.2             -156.5
RU8.................................              472.4              472.4             -160.8             -105.5
RU9 *...............................  .................  .................             -930.5           -1,795.0
RU10................................              608.8              930.7              930.7           -1,846.6
RU11................................               49.9               49.9                2.5             -153.2
Shipment-Weighted Average **........              159.8              337.4             -196.2             -404.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Consumer Simple PBP (Years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RU1.................................                N/A                N/A               16.7               20.3
RU2.................................                N/A                N/A               15.4               11.9
RU3.................................                N/A                N/A               30.2               20.6
RU4.................................                N/A                4.1                4.1               18.1
RU5.................................                N/A                N/A               11.8               17.7
RU6.................................                3.7                3.7                9.6               12.6
RU7.................................                4.0                4.0                6.5                9.0
RU8.................................                1.6                1.6                5.9                6.1
RU9 *...............................  .................  .................                9.0               10.6
RU10................................                6.1                4.9                4.9               10.1
RU11................................                4.1                4.1                5.6                7.9
Shipment-Weighted Average **........                3.8                3.9               15.6               16.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RU1.................................                N/A                N/A               64.1               95.9
RU2.................................                N/A                N/A               82.2               75.0
RU3.................................                N/A                N/A               88.4               90.5
RU4.................................                N/A               20.2               20.2               89.1
RU5.................................                N/A                N/A               66.9               89.0
RU6.................................                2.1                2.1               58.3               83.2
RU7.................................               10.3               10.3               62.9               80.7
RU8.................................                0.9                0.9               73.9               64.5
RU9 *...............................  .................  .................               99.9               96.4
RU10................................                6.3               11.7               11.7               79.0
RU11................................               32.1               32.1               53.4               74.5
Shipment-Weighted Average **........               10.9               14.9               70.6               86.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entry ``N/A'' means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain TSLs.
* No impact because there are no shipments below the efficiency level corresponding to TSL1 and TSL2 for RU9.
** Weighted by shares of each equipment class in total projected shipments in 2027 for impacted consumers.

    DOE first considered TSL 4, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. At this level, DOE expects that all equipment 
classes would require 35H210 silicon steel and die-cast copper rotors. 
DOE estimates that approximately 0.34 percent of annual shipments 
across all electric motor equipment classes currently meet the max-tech 
efficiencies required. TSL 4 would save an estimated 23.6 quads of 
energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of 
consumer benefit would be -$17.67 billion using a discount rate of 7 
percent, and -$11.30 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 725.80 Mt of 
CO2, 278.95 thousand tons of SO2, 1,173.58 
thousand tons of NOX, 1.82 tons of Hg, 5,415.99 thousand 
tons of CH4, and 6.59 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 4 is $30.07 billion. The estimated monetary value of the 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions at TSL 4 is $18.13 billion using a 7-percent discount rate 
and $51.90 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 4 is $30.54 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $70.67 billion.
    At TSL 4, for the largest equipment class group and horsepower 
ranges, which are represented by RU1 and RU2, which together represent 
approximately 90 percent of annual shipments, there is a life cycle 
cost savings of -$276.4 and -$309.4 and a payback period of 20.3 years 
and 11.9 years, respectively. For these equipment classes, the fraction 
of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 95.9 percent and 75.0 
percent due to increases in total installed cost of $434.7 and 
$1,003.0, respectively. Overall, for the remaining equipment class 
groups

[[Page 35772]]

and horsepower ranges, a majority of electric motor consumers (84.5 
percent) would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings would 
be negative for all remaining equipment class groups and horsepower 
ranges.
    At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$11,090 million to a decrease of $8,863 million, which corresponds to 
decreases of 220.8 percent and 176.4 percent, respectively. DOE 
estimates that industry must invest $13,516 million to comply with 
standards set at TSL 4. The significant increase in product and capital 
conversion costs is because DOE assumes that electric motor 
manufacturers will need to use die-cast copper rotors for most, if not 
all, electric motors manufactured to meet this TSL. This technology 
requires a significant level of investment because almost all existing 
electric motor production machinery would need to be replaced or 
significantly modified. Based on the shipments analysis used in the 
NIA, DOE estimates that approximately 0.3 percent of all electric motor 
shipments will meet the efficiency levels required at TSL 4, in the no-
new-standards case in 2027, the compliance year of new and amended 
standards.
    The Secretary concludes that at TSL 4 for electric motors, the 
benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and the estimated 
monetary value of the emissions reductions are outweighed by the 
negative NPV of consumer benefits, economic burden on many consumers, 
and the impacts on manufacturers, including the extremely large 
conversion costs, profit margin impacts that will result in a negative 
INPV, and the lack of manufacturers currently offering products meeting 
the efficiency levels required at this TSL. A majority of electric 
motor consumers (86.3 percent) would experience a net cost and the 
average LCC savings for each representative unit DOE examined is 
negative. In both manufacturer markup scenarios, INPV is negative at 
TSL 4, which implies that manufacturers would never recover the 
conversion costs they must make to produce electric motors at TSL 4. 
Consequently, the Secretary concludes that TSL 4 is not economically 
justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 3, which represents a level corresponding 
to the IE4 level, except for AO-polyphase specialized frame size 
electric motors, where it corresponds to a lower level of efficiency 
(i.e., NEMA Premium level). TSL 3 would save an estimated 10.4 quads of 
energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of 
consumer benefit would be -$7.60 billion using a discount rate of 7 
percent, and -$4.85 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 319.24 Mt of 
CO2, 122.75 thousand tons of SO2, 516.00 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.80 tons of Hg, 2,379.75 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 2.90 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 3 is $13.49 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 3 is 8.19 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $23.16 
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 3 is $14.08 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $31.80 billion.
    At TSL 3, for the largest equipment class group and horsepower 
ranges, which are represented by RU1 and RU2, there is a life cycle 
cost savings of -$101.8 and -$336.9 and a payback period of 16.7 and 
15.4, respectively.\6\ For these equipment classes, the fraction of 
customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 64.1 percent and 82.2 percent 
due to increases in total installed cost of $171.3 and $690.5, 
respectively. Overall, for the remaining equipment class groups and 
horsepower ranges, a majority of electric motor consumers (55.5 
percent) would experience a net cost and the shipments-weighted average 
LCC savings would be negative for all remaining equipment class groups 
and horsepower ranges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For RU1 and RU2, EL1 = EL2. See section IV.C.1.c. of the 
associated direct final rule published elsewhere in this Federal 
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$1,364 million to a decrease of $342 million, which correspond to 
decreases of 27.2 percent and 6.8 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that industry must invest $1,618 million to comply with standards set 
at TSL 3. Based on the shipments analysis used in the NIA, DOE 
estimates that approximately 13.3 percent of all electric motor 
shipments will meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 3, 
in the no-new-standards case in 2027, the compliance year of new and 
amended standards.
    The Secretary concludes that at TSL 3 for electric motors, the 
benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and the estimated 
monetary value of the emissions reductions are outweighed by the 
negative NPV of consumer benefits, economic burden on many consumers, 
and the impacts on manufacturers, including the large conversion costs, 
profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV, 
and the lack of manufacturers currently offering products meeting the 
efficiency levels required at this TSL. A majority of electric motor 
consumers (70.6 percent) would experience a net cost and the average 
LCC savings would be negative. The potential reduction in INPV could be 
as high as 27.2 percent. Consequently, the Secretary concludes that TSL 
3 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2, the standard levels recommended in the 
November 2022 Joint Recommendation by the Electric Motors Working 
Group. TSL 2 would also align with the EU Ecodesign Directive 2019/
1781, which requires IE4 levels for 75-200 kW motors.\7\ TSL 2 would 
save an estimated 3.0 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers 
significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $2.23 
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $7.47 billion using a 
discount rate of 3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In terms of standardized horsepowers, this would correspond 
to 100-250 hp when applying the from 10 CFR 431.25(k) (and new 10 
CFR 431.25(q)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 91.69 Mt of 
CO2, 35.12 thousand tons of SO2, 148.74 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.23 tons of Hg, 690.10 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.82 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 2 is $3.14 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 2 is $1.76 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $5.72 
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 2 is $7.13 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $16.33 billion.
    At TSL 2, for the largest equipment class group and horsepower 
ranges, which are represented by RU1 and RU2, there would be no changes 
in the standards. Overall, for the remaining

[[Page 35773]]

equipment class groups and horsepower ranges, 14.9 percent of electric 
motor consumers would experience a net cost and the shipments-weighted 
average LCC savings would be positive for all remaining equipment class 
groups and horsepower ranges.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$333 million to a decrease of $303 million, which correspond to 
decreases of 6.6 percent and 6.0 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that industry must invest $468 million to comply with standards set at 
TSL 2. Based on the shipments analysis used in the NIA, DOE estimates 
that approximately 96.2 percent of all electric motor shipments will 
meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 2, in the no-new-
standards case in 2027, the compliance year of new and amended 
standards.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary concludes that a standard set at TSL 2 for 
electric motors would be economically justified. At this TSL, the 
average LCC savings is positive. Only an estimated 14.9 percent of 
electric motor consumers experience a net cost. The FFC national energy 
savings are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive 
using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the 
benefits to consumers vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers. 
Notably, at TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the 
more conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 6 times higher 
than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard 
levels at TSL 2 are economically justified even without weighing the 
estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions 
reductions are included--representing $3.14 billion in climate benefits 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and 
$5.72 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $1.76 billion (using 
a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--the rationale becomes 
stronger still.
    As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down 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 
energy conservation standards, DOE notes that as compared to TSL 3 and 
TSL 4, TSL 2 has higher average LCC savings for consumers, 
significantly smaller percentages of electric motor consumers 
experiencing a net cost, a lower maximum decrease in INPV, and lower 
manufacturer conversion costs.
    Although DOE considered amended standard levels for electric motors 
by grouping the efficiency levels for each equipment class groups and 
horsepower ranges into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency 
levels in its analysis. For all equipment class groups and horsepower 
ranges, TSL 2 represents the maximum energy savings that does not 
result in the majority of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost. The 
ELs at the proposed TSL result in average positive LCC savings for all 
equipment class groups and horsepower ranges, significantly reduce the 
number of consumers experiencing a net cost, and reduce the decrease in 
INPV and conversion costs to the point where DOE has concluded they are 
economically justified, as discussed for TSL 2 in the preceding 
paragraphs.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to 
adopt the energy conservation standards for electric motors at TSL 2. 
The proposed amended energy conservation standards for electric motors, 
which are expressed as full-load efficiency, are shown in Table I.1, 
Table I.2, and Table I.3.

B. 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 2021$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, 
minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized 
monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission 
reductions.
    Table III.3 shows the annualized values for electric motors under 
TSL 2, expressed in 2021$. The results under the primary estimate are 
as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent 
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the 
standards for electric motors is $62.1 million per year in increased 
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $254.8 million 
from reduced equipment operating costs, $164.8 million from GHG 
reductions, and $151.4 million from reduced NOX and 
SO2 emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to 
$508.9 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the standards for electric motors is $71.0 million 
per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual 
benefits are $463.6 million in reduced operating costs, $164.8 million 
from GHG reductions, and $300.7 million from reduced NOX and 
SO2 emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to 
$858.2 million per year.

    Table III.3--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors
                                                     [TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Million 2021$/year
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Low-net-benefits  High-net-benefits
                                                          Primary estimate       estimate           estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................              463.6              405.1              542.9
Climate Benefits*......................................              164.8              148.0              186.5
Health Benefits**......................................              300.7              269.5              341.0
Total Benefits [dagger]................................              929.1              822.5             1070.4
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger]..........               71.0               73.7               73.0

[[Page 35774]]

 
Net Benefits...........................................              858.2              748.8              997.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................              254.8              225.3              293.6
Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate)...................              164.8              148.0              186.5
Health Benefits **.....................................              151.4              137.1              169.5
Total Benefits [dagger]................................              571.0              510.4              649.6
Consumer Incremental Product Costs.....................               62.1               63.8               63.9
Net Benefits...........................................              508.9              446.6              585.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2027-2056. These
  results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056. The
  Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the
  AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition,
  incremental equipment costs reflect a constant rate in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low Net
  Benefits Estimate, and a declining rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive
  projected price trends are explained in section IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may
  not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
  document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
  at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
  estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four 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 has reverted 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.
[dagger] 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.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

    The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule, except for 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act discussed in section IV.A, are identical 
to those conducted for the direct final rule published elsewhere in 
this Federal Register. Please see the direct final rule for further 
details.

A. 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'') 
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required 
by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and 
policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of 
its rules on small entities are properly considered during the 
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and 
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website 
(www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has prepared the 
following IRFA for the products that are the subject of this proposed 
rulemaking.
    For manufacturers of electric motors, the SBA has set a size 
threshold, which defines those entities classified as ``small 
businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small 
business size standards to determine whether any small entities would 
be subject to the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The 
size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification 
System (``NAICS'') code and industry description and are available at 
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. Manufacturing of 
electric motors is classified under NAICS 335312, ``Motor and Generator 
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer 
for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of 
any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish 
either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not 
need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy 
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). 
(42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Additionally, under the 
authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing a direct 
final rule establishing energy conservation standards for electric 
motors These standard levels were submitted jointly to DOE on November 
15, 2022, by groups representing manufacturers, energy and 
environmental advocates, and consumer groups (the Electric Motors 
Working Group).\8\ This collective set of

[[Page 35775]]

comments, the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, recommends specific 
energy conservation standards for electric motors that DOE has 
determined satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Electric Motors working Group includes the American 
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (``ACEEE''), Appliance 
Standards Awareness Project (``ASAP''), National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association (``NEMA''), Natural Resources Defense 
Council (``NRDC''), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (``NEEA''), 
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (``PG&E''), San Diego Gas & Electric 
(``SDG&E''), and Southern California Edison (``SCE''). In a letter 
comment submitted December 12, 2022, the New York State Energy 
Research and Development Authority (``NYSERDA'') expressed its 
support of the November 2022 Joint Recommendation and urged DOE to 
implement it in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
C \9\ of EPCA added by Pub. L. 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 the energy efficiency of certain types 
of industrial equipment, including electric motors, the subject of this 
proposed rule. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). DOE has previously established 
energy conservation standards for electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25. 
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance 
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish 
either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not 
need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new 
proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE must follow 
specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards 
for covered equipment, including electric motors. Any new or amended 
standard for a covered equipment 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)). 
As noted previously, DOE has the authority to issue a final rule (i.e., 
a ``direct final rule'') establishing an energy conservation standard 
on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that 
are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including 
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and 
efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary, that contains 
recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation 
standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was redesignaated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    To estimate the number of companies that could be small business 
manufacturers of electric motors covered by this proposed rulemaking, 
DOE conducted a market survey using publicly available information. 
DOE's research involved DOE's publicly available Compliance 
Certification Database (``CCD''), industry trade association membership 
directories (including NEMA), and information from previous 
rulemakings. DOE also asked stakeholders and industry representatives 
if they were aware of any other small manufacturers during manufacturer 
interviews and DOE working groups. DOE used information from these 
sources to create a list of companies that potentially manufacture 
electric motors covered by this proposed rulemaking. As necessary, DOE 
contacted companies to determine whether they met the SBA's definition 
of a small business manufacturer. DOE screened out companies that do 
not offer equipment covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the 
definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign owned and operated.
    DOE initially identified approximately 74 unique potential 
manufacturers of electric motors sold in the U.S that are covered by 
this proposed rulemaking. DOE screened out companies that had more than 
1,250 employees or companies that were completely foreign owned and 
operated. Of the 74 manufacturers that potentially manufacture electric 
motors covered by this proposed rulemaking, DOE identified 11 companies 
that meet SBA's definition of a small business.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    Six major manufacturers supply approximately 90 percent of the 
market for electric motors covered by this proposed rulemaking. None of 
the major electric motor manufacturers covered by this proposed 
rulemaking are a small business. DOE is adopting new energy 
conservation standards for some AO electric motors and NEMA Design A 
and B electric motors between 500 hp and 75 hp. Additionally, DOE is 
amending energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A and B electric 
motors between 100 hp and 250 hp. Based on a review on the 11 small 
businesses' equipment offerings online, DOE was not able to identify 
any small business electric motor manufacturer that manufactures AO 
electric motors covered by this proposed rulemaking. Therefore, the 
remainder of the discussion in this section focuses on NEMA Design A 
and B electric motors between 100 hp and 250 hp and NEMA Design A and B 
electric motors between 500 hp and 750 hp that are covered by this 
proposed rulemaking.
    Most of the identified small businesses primarily focus on selling 
application specific motors to OEMs (which are then embedded in the 
OEM's machinery). DOE estimates that approximately 97 percent of NEMA 
Design A and B electric motor sales covered by this proposed rulemaking 
are between 1-100 hp or 250-500 hp. DOE is not proposing to amend 
energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A and B electric motors 
between these horsepower ranges. Therefore, the majority of the NEMA 
Design A and B electric motors that are manufactured by the identified 
small businesses will not need to be remodeled in order to meet the 
proposed energy conservation standards.
    The primary value added by these small businesses is creating 
electric motors that fit the application specific purpose that the OEMs 
require. This includes combining an electric motor with specific 
mechanic couplings, weatherproofing, or controls to suit the OEM's 
needs. Most small businesses manufacturer the motor housing and 
couplings, but do not manufacture the rotors and stators used in the 
electric motors they sell. While these small businesses may have to 
create new electric motor housings and/or couplings if the frame size 
or stack length of an electric motor changes in response to energy 
conservation standards, DOE was not able to identify any small 
businesses that own their own lamination dies sets and winding machines 
that are used to manufacture electric motor rotors and stators.
    The primary investment that electric motor manufacturers will have 
to make is to upgrade or replace lamination die sets and winding 
machines and to have engineers develop equipment designs to create more 
efficient electric motors. These investments (both capital and product 
conversion costs) would only be for electric motor manufacturers that 
manufacture electric motor rotors and stators. Electric motor 
manufacturers that do not manufacture the rotors and

[[Page 35776]]

stators of an electric motor and instead purchase these components from 
other electric motor manufacturers would not need to purchase the 
machinery necessary to manufacture these components (i.e., would not 
need to purchase costly lamination dies sets and winding machines) nor 
would they need to spend R&D efforts to develop electric motor designs 
to meet energy conservation standards. Instead, these small 
manufacturers might have to create new moldings for larger electric 
motor housings (if the size of the motor core increases in response to 
energy conservation standards).
    DOE estimates the average small business would have to redesign 
four electric motor housings. DOE estimates this will cost 
approximately $50,000 in molding equipment per electric motor housing; 
$35,314 in engineering design effort per electric motor housing; \10\ 
and $10,000 in testing costs per electric motor housing. Based on these 
estimates, each electric motor housing that will need to be redesigned 
would cost small businesses approximately $95,314, or $381,254 to 
redesign four electric motor housings per small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ DOE estimated that it would take approximately three months 
of engineering time to redesign each electric motor housing. Based 
on data from BLS, the mean hourly wage of an electrical engineer is 
$51.87 (www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172071.htm) and wages comprise 
70.5 percent of an employee's total compensation (www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_12152022.pdf).
    $51.87 (hourly wage) / 0.705 (wage as a percentage of total 
compensation) = $73.57 (fully burdened hourly labor rate).
    $73.57 x 8 (hours in a workday) x 20 (working days in a month) x 
3 (months) = $35,314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE displays in Table VI-1 the estimated average conversion costs 
per small business compared to the annual revenue for each small 
business. DOE used D&B Hoovers \11\ to estimate the annual revenue for 
each small business. Manufacturers will have 4 years between 
publication of the direct final rule and compliance with the energy 
conservation standards. Therefore, DOE presents the estimated 
conversion costs and testing costs as a percent of the estimated 4 
years of annual revenue for each small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ app.avention.com.

                Table VI-1--Estimated Conversion Costs and Annual Revenue for Each Small Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Conversion costs
            Manufacturer               Total conversion    Annual revenue       4-Years of     as a % of 4-years
                                      and testing costs                       annual revenue   of annual revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business 1....................           $250,000        $78,000,000       $312,000,000                0.1
Small Business 2....................            250,000         60,000,000        240,000,000                0.1
Small Business 3....................            250,000         30,000,000        120,000,000                0.2
Small Business 4....................            250,000         29,000,000        116,000,000                0.2
Small Business 5....................            250,000         25,000,000        100,000,000                0.3
Small Business 6....................            250,000         23,000,000         92,000,000                0.3
Small Business 7....................            250,000         11,000,000         44,000,000                0.6
Small Business 8....................            250,000         10,000,000         40,000,000                0.6
Small Business 9....................            250,000         10,000,000         40,000,000                0.6
Small Business 10...................            250,000          4,600,000         18,400,000                1.4
Small Business 11...................            250,000          3,300,000         13,200,000                1.9
Average Small Business..............          2,750,000        283,900,000      1,135,600,000                0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small 
businesses that would result from DOE's proposal, represented by TSL 2, 
as recommended in the November 2022 Joint Recommendation. In reviewing 
alternatives to the rule, DOE examined energy conservation standards 
set at lower efficiency levels. While TSL 1 would reduce the impacts on 
small business manufacturers, it would come at the expense of a 
reduction in energy savings. TSL 1 achieves 97 percent lower energy 
savings and 96 percent lower consumer NPV compared to the energy 
savings and consumer NPV at TSL 2.
    Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 2 
balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 2 with the potential 
burdens placed on electric motors manufacturers, including small 
business manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does not adopt one of the 
other TSLs considered in the analysis.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. Manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may 
apply to DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief 
under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 
430, subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

V. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule until 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.

[[Page 35777]]

Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    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, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail 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. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
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, WordPerfect, 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).

B. Public Meeting

    If DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere in this 
Federal Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a 
public meeting to allow for additional comment on this proposed rule. 
DOE will publish notice of any meeting in the Federal Register.
    NEMA MG 1-2016 was previously approved for incorporation by 
reference in the section where it appears in this proposed rule and no 
change to the standard is made.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by 
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 1, 
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on May 5, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 
431 of chapter II of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as 
set forth below:

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Amend Sec.  431.12 by adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for 
``Specialized frame size'' and ``Standard frame size,'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  431.12  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Specialized frame size means an electric motor frame size for which 
the rated output power of the motor exceeds the motor frame size limits 
specified for standard frame size. Specialized frame sizes have maximum 
diameters corresponding to the following NEMA Frame Sizes:

[[Page 35778]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Maximum NEMA frame diameters
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Motor horsepower/standard          2 Pole               4 Pole               6 Pole               8 Pole
     kilowatt equivalent     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75.......................         48  ........         48        48         48        48        140       140
1.5/1.1.....................         48        48         48        48        140       140        140       140
2/1.5.......................         48        48         48        48        140       140        180       180
3/2.2.......................        140        48        140       140        180       180        180       180
5/3.7.......................        140       140        140       140        180       180        210       210
7.5/5.5.....................        180       140        180       180        210       210        210       210
10/7.5......................        180       180        180       180        210       210  .........  ........
15/11.......................        210       180        210       210  .........  ........  .........  ........
20/15.......................        210       210        210       210  .........  ........  .........  ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Standard frame size means a motor frame size that aligns with the 
specifications in NEMA MG 1-2016, section 13.2 for open motors, and 
NEMA MG 1-2016, section 13.3 for enclosed motors (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.15).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  431.25 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text; and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (m) through (r).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  431.25  Energy conservation standards and effective dates.

* * * * *
    (h) Each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design B motor, and IEC Design N 
(including NE, NEY, or NY variants) motor that is an electric motor 
meeting the criteria in paragraph (g) of this section and with a power 
rating from 1 horsepower through 500 horsepower, but excluding fire 
pump electric motors, manufactured (alone or as a component of another 
piece of equipment) on or after June 1, 2016, but before [date 4 years 
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], shall 
have a nominal full-load efficiency of not less than the following:
* * * * *
    (m) The standards in tables 8 through 10 of this section apply only 
to electric motors, including partial electric motors, that satisfy the 
following criteria:
    (1) Are single-speed, induction motors;
    (2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type 
S1 (IEC);
    (3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) 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 
750 horsepower (559 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, NE, NEY, NY or H, HE, HEY, HY motor.
    (n) Starting on [date 4 years after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design B 
motor, and IEC Design N (including NE, NEY, or NY variants) motor that 
is an electric motor meeting the criteria in paragraph (m) of this 
section and with a power rating from 1 horsepower through 750 
horsepower, but excluding fire pump electric motors and air-over 
electric motors, manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece 
of equipment) shall have a nominal full-load efficiency of not less 
than the following:

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

[[Page 35779]]

 
150/110.....................       95.4      94.5       96.2      96.2       96.2      95.8       95.0      95.0
200/150.....................       95.8      95.4       96.5      96.2       96.2      95.8       95.4      95.0
250/186.....................       96.2      95.4       96.5      96.2       96.2      96.2       95.4      95.4
300/224.....................       95.8      95.4       96.2      95.8       95.8      95.8  .........  ........
350/261.....................       95.8      95.4       96.2      95.8       95.8      95.8  .........  ........
400/298.....................       95.8      95.8       96.2      95.8  .........  ........  .........  ........
450/336.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
500/373.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
550/410.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
600/447.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
650/485.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
700/522.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
750/559.....................       95.8      96.2       96.2      96.2  .........  ........  .........  ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (o) Starting on [date 4 years after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design B 
motor, and IEC Design N (including NE, NEY, or NY variants) motor that 
is an air-over electric motor meeting the criteria in paragraph (m) of 
this section and with a power rating from 1 horsepower through 250 
horsepower, built in a standard frame size, but excluding fire pump 
electric motors, manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece 
of equipment) shall have a nominal full-load efficiency of not less 
than the following:

 Table 9 to Paragraph (o)--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE,
      NEY or NY Standard Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Motor horsepower/standard          2 Pole               4 Pole               6 Pole               8 Pole
     kilowatt equivalent     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open     Enclosed    Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75.......................       77.0      77.0       85.5      85.5       82.5      82.5       75.5      75.5
1.5/1.1.....................       84.0      84.0       86.5      86.5       87.5      86.5       78.5      77.0
2/1.5.......................       85.5      85.5       86.5      86.5       88.5      87.5       84.0      86.5
3/2.2.......................       86.5      85.5       89.5      89.5       89.5      88.5       85.5      87.5
5/3.7.......................       88.5      86.5       89.5      89.5       89.5      89.5       86.5      88.5
7.5/5.5.....................       89.5      88.5       91.7      91.0       91.0      90.2       86.5      89.5
10/7.5......................       90.2      89.5       91.7      91.7       91.0      91.7       89.5      90.2
15/11.......................       91.0      90.2       92.4      93.0       91.7      91.7       89.5      90.2
20/15.......................       91.0      91.0       93.0      93.0       91.7      92.4       90.2      91.0
25/18.5.....................       91.7      91.7       93.6      93.6       93.0      93.0       90.2      91.0
30/22.......................       91.7      91.7       93.6      94.1       93.0      93.6       91.7      91.7
40/30.......................       92.4      92.4       94.1      94.1       94.1      94.1       91.7      91.7
50/37.......................       93.0      93.0       94.5      94.5       94.1      94.1       92.4      92.4
60/45.......................       93.6      93.6       95.0      95.0       94.5      94.5       92.4      93.0
75/55.......................       93.6      93.6       95.4      95.0       94.5      94.5       93.6      94.1
100/75......................       95.0      94.5       96.2      96.2       95.8      95.8       94.5      95.0
125/90......................       95.4      94.5       96.2      96.2       95.8      95.8       95.0      95.0
150/110.....................       95.4      94.5       96.2      96.2       96.2      95.8       95.0      95.0
200/150.....................       95.8      95.4       96.5      96.2       96.2      95.8       95.4      95.0
250/186.....................       96.2      95.4       96.5      96.2       96.2      96.2       95.4      95.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (p) Starting on [date 4 years after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design B 
motor, and IEC Design N (including NE, NEY, or NY variants) motor that 
is an air-over electric motor meeting the criteria in paragraph (m) of 
this section and with a power rating from 1 horsepower through 20 
horsepower, built in a specialized frame size, but excluding fire pump 
electric motors, manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece 
of equipment) shall have a nominal full-load efficiency of not less 
than the following:

[[Page 35780]]



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

    (q) For purposes of determining the required minimum nominal full-
load efficiency of an electric motor that has a horsepower or kilowatt 
rating between two horsepower or two kilowatt ratings listed in any 
table of energy conservation standards in paragraphs (n) through (p) 
through of this section, each such motor shall be deemed to have a 
listed horsepower or kilowatt rating, determined as follows:
    (1) A horsepower at or above the midpoint between the two 
consecutive horsepowers shall be rounded up to the higher of the two 
horsepowers;
    (2) A horsepower below the midpoint between the two consecutive 
horsepowers shall be rounded down to the lower of the two horsepowers; 
or
    (3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly converted from kilowatts to 
horsepower using the formula 1 kilowatt = (\1/0.746\) horsepower. The 
conversion should be calculated to three significant decimal places, 
and the resulting horsepower shall be rounded in accordance with 
paragraphs (q)(1) or (2) of this section, whichever applies.
    (r) The standards in tables 8 through 10 of this section do not 
apply to the following electric motors exempted by the Secretary, or 
any additional electric motors that the Secretary may exempt:
    (1) Component sets of an electric motor;
    (2) Liquid-cooled electric motors;
    (3) Submersible electric motors; and
    (4) Inverter-only electric motors.

[FR Doc. 2023-10018 Filed 5-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P