[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6743-6751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-02936]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0014]
RIN 1904-AF39
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Small Electric Motors
AGENCY: Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, Department
of Energy.
ACTION: Final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 small
electric motors (``SEMs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of
Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified,
and would result in significant conservation of energy. In this final
determination, DOE has determined that more-stringent energy
conservation standards for SEMs would not be cost-effective and,
therefore, DOE has determined that energy conservation standards for
SEMs should not be amended.
DATES: The effective date of this final determination is March 16,
2026.
ADDRESSES: Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register
notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and
other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the
index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0014. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Critical
Minerals and Energy Innovation, Building
[[Page 6744]]
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 994-8232. Email:
[email protected].
Mr. Uchechukwu ``Emeka'' Eze, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Small Electric Motors
III. Rationale of Analysis and Discussion of Related Comments
A. General Comments
B. Technological Feasibility
C. Cost-Effectiveness
IV. Final Determination
A. Technological Feasibility
B. Cost-Effectiveness
C. Significant Conservation of Energy
D. Conclusion
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Additional Executive Orders and Presidential
Memoranda
M. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
N. Congressional Notification
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) Such equipment includes small electric motors (``SEMs''), the
subject of this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is issuing this final determination pursuant to the EPCA
requirement that not later than 3 years after a determination that
standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, DOE must publish
either a notification of determination that standards for the equipment
do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR'') 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)(3)(B)).
For this final determination, DOE analyzed small electric motors
subject to standards specified in 10 CFR 431.446. DOE first analyzed
the technological feasibility of more energy-efficient SEMs. For those
SEMs for which DOE determined higher standards to be technologically
feasible, DOE evaluated whether higher standards would be cost-
effective by conducting life-cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period
(``PBP'') analyses.
Based on the results of the analyses, summarized in section VII of
this document, DOE has determined that current standards for SEMs do
not need to be amended and is issuing this final determination
accordingly.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final determination, as well as some of the historical
background relevant to the establishment of standards for SEMs.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by Public Law 95-
619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment
includes SEMs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G))
EPCA directed DOE to prescribe initial test procedures and standards
for this equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296(a), (b), and (d)).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy use or efficiency of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297(b)-(c)) 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. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a), applying the
preemption waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
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 equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 6295(r)) Manufacturers of
covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for
certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) and when making representations about the
energy consumption 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 SEMs appear at
10 CFR 431.444.
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 equipment 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(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) EPCA further provides that,
not later than 3 years after the issuance of a final determination not
to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notification of
determination that standards for the equipment 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.
[[Page 6745]]
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
A determination that amended standards are not needed must be based
on consideration of whether amended standards will result in
significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and
are cost-effective. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation
of cost-effectiveness requires DOE to consider savings in operating
costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in
the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial
charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are
likely to result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE is publishing this
final determination in satisfaction of the 3-year review requirement in
EPCA.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on March 9, 2010, DOE prescribed the
current energy conservation standards for SEMs. 75 FR 10873 (``March
2010 Final Rule''). These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations
at 10 CFR 431.446 and are shown in Table II-1 and Table II-2. These
standards are expressed in terms of average full-load efficiency.
Table II-1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Polyphase Small Electric Motors Manufactured on or After
March 9, 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average full-load efficiency
-----------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent Open motors (number of poles)
-----------------------------------------------
6 4 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25/0.18....................................................... 67.5 69.5 65.6
0.33/0.25....................................................... 71.4 73.4 69.5
0.5/0.37........................................................ 75.3 78.2 73.4
0.75/0.55....................................................... 81.7 81.1 76.8
1/0.75.......................................................... 82.5 83.5 77.0
1.5/1.1......................................................... 83.8 86.5 84.0
2/1.5........................................................... N/A 86.5 85.5
3/2.2........................................................... N/A 86.9 85.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: In the case of a SEM which requires listing or certification by a nationally recognized safety-testing
laboratory, the compliance date is March 9, 2017.
Table II-2--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Capacitor-Start Induction-Run and Capacitor-Start
Capacitor-Run Small Electric Motors Manufactured on or After March 9, 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average full-load efficiency
-----------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent Open motors (number of poles)
-----------------------------------------------
6 4 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25/0.18....................................................... 62.2 68.5 66.6
0.33/0.25....................................................... 66.6 72.4 70.5
0.5/0.37........................................................ 76.2 76.2 72.4
0.75/0.55....................................................... 80.2 81.8 76.2
1/0.75.......................................................... 81.1 82.6 80.4
1.5/1.1......................................................... N/A 83.8 81.5
2/1.5........................................................... N/A 84.5 82.9
3/2.2........................................................... N/A N/A 84.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: In the case of a SEM which requires listing or certification by a nationally recognized safety-testing
laboratory, the compliance date is March 9, 2017.
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Small Electric Motors
On March 9, 2010, DOE established the current energy conservation
standards for small electric motors. 75 FR 10874 (``March 2010 Final
Rule''). On January 19, 2021, DOE published a notice of final
determination for small electric motors that these standards need not
be amended (``January 2021 Final Determination''). 86 FR 4885. In the
January 2021 Final Determination, while DOE determined that more
stringent standards would be technologically feasible, DOE also
determined that more stringent energy conservation standards would not
be cost-effective. 86 FR 4885, 4906. Therefore, DOE determined that the
current standards for SEMs did not need to be amended. Id.
In support of the present review of the SEM energy conservation
standards, DOE published a request for information, which identified
various issues on which DOE sought comment to inform its determination
of whether the standards need to be amended. 87 FR 23471; April 20,
2022 (``April 2022 RFI''). On May 11, 2022, DOE published a notice that
extended the comment period for the April 2022 RFI to no later than
June 20, 2022. 87 FR 28782. On February 6, 2023, DOE published a notice
of proposed determination (``February 2023 NOPD'') with the tentative
determination that energy conservation standards for SEMs do not need
to be amended. 88 FR 7629. The comment period for this notice closed on
April 7, 2023.
On March 15, 2023, DOE held a public meeting to solicit feedback
from stakeholders concerning the February 2023 NOPD.
[[Page 6746]]
DOE received three comments from interested parties in response to
the February 2023 NOPD. These comments are listed in Table II-3.
Table II-3--February 2023 NOPD Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter/organization(s) Reference in this NOPD Organization type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI and AHAM................... Trade Associations.
Refrigeration Institute and Association
of Home Appliance Manufacturers.
California Investor-Owned Utilities-- CA IOUs......................... Utilities.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San
Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern
California Edison.
National Electrical Manufacturers NEMA............................ Trade Association.
Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\3\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the March 15, 2023, public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this final determination. There were no oral
comments provided during the public meeting that were not substantively
addressed by written comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket. (Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0014, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Rationale of Analysis and Discussion of Related Comments
DOE developed this final determination after considering oral and
written comments, data, and other information submitted by interested
parties. This final determination addresses the relevant issues raised
in those comments.
This final determination covers SEMs as defined by EPCA and
codified by DOE at 10 CFR 431.442. ``Small electric motor'' is defined
as a NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed induction
motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA
Standards Publication MG1-1987, including IEC metric equivalent motors.
10 CFR 431.442. (See also 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) Therefore, the scope
of this determination does not include any non-induction electric
motors or any other electric motors that do not meet the SEM
definition. As a result, comments regarding or implicating electric
motors outside the scope of the SEMs definition, were deemed outside
the scope of this final determination.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE received one comment related to expanded scope electric
motors (ESEMs) which were the subject of a separate DOE rulemaking
(Docket EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. General Comments
In response to the February 2023 NOPD, DOE received several general
comments from interested parties regarding support of DOE's final
determination.
The CA IOUs commented that they concurred with DOE's proposed
determination that more stringent energy conservation standards would
not be cost-effective and, therefore, that the current standards for
SEMs do not need to be amended. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 1)
AHAM and AHRI commented in support of the notice of proposed
determination and agreed with DOE's proposal to maintain the scope of
the current energy conservation standards (and test procedure) for
SEMs. AHAM and AHRI reiterated their prior comments submitted in
response to the April 2022 RFI \5\ emphasizing that efficient small
electric motors destined for finished products already play a major
part of the energy equation when original equipment manufacturers
consider what design options to apply to meet new standards. AHAM and
AHRI commented that applying separate standards and test procedures to
these products adds costs, reduces choice, and does little, if
anything, to further energy savings goals. As such, AHAM and AHRI
recommended that DOE finalize its proposed determination not to amend
standards for SEMs and maintain its decision not to expand the SEM test
procedure or coverage to special and definite purpose motors. (AHAM and
AHRI, No. 19 at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See AHAM and AHRI Comments on DOE's notice of proposed
rulemaking on Test Procedures for Electric Motors, Docket No. EERE-
2020-BT-TP-0011 (filed Feb. 28, 2022); Joint Comments on Electric
Motor Preliminary Technical Support Document (NEMA, AHAM, AHRI,
MITA, OPEI, HVI, PTI), Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0011, RIN
1904-AE63 (filed May 2, 2022); AHAM and AHRI Comments on DOE's
Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors, Availability of
the Preliminary Technical Support Document, Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-
STD-0007-0011, RIN 1904-AE63 (filed May 2, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA stated that they agree with the Department of energy's
conclusions and that there have been no significant advancements that
would justify updating energy conversation standards. (NEMA, No. 20 at
p. 1) In addition, NEMA commented that increasing efficiency levels
would have substantial downstream market impacts on utility as motors
would need to become significantly larger while several essential
operating characteristics (e.g., starting torque) would be compromised,
resulting in little (and sometimes negative) energy savings in the end-
product. (NEMA, No. 20 at p. 2)
In this final determination, DOE maintains that the current
standards for SEMs do not need to be amended.
B. Technological Feasibility
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), 6295(m)(1)(A), and 6295(n)(2), DOE's
determination regarding amended standards must consider whether such
standards are technologically feasible, are cost effective as described
in subsection 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) and will result in significant
conservation of energy.
In the February 2023 NOPD, DOE evaluated technological feasibility
by reviewing the current SEM market, available motor technologies, and
the engineering analysis presented in the January 2021 Final
Determination. As discussed in that NOPD, DOE tentatively concluded
that both the technology options identified and the incremental cost
relationships established in the January 2021 analysis remain
applicable (88 FR 7629, 7635-7638).
NEMA reaffirmed its agreement with DOE's conclusion that the
results of that engineering analysis continue to be valid. (NEMA, No.
20 at p. 2)
DOE also found no significant advancements in induction motor
technology that would enable higher efficiency or lower-cost designs
relative to those analyzed in the January 2021 Final Determination. As
a result, the standards for Capacitor-Star-Induction-Run (``CSIR'')
motors already reflect the maximum technologically feasible efficiency
and no new viable design
[[Page 6747]]
options could be identified for this topology. Consistent with the
January 2021 Final Determination, DOE was only able to identify
technologically feasible options for increasing efficiency for
capacitor-start capacitor-run (``CSCR'') motors. 88 FR 7629, 7637. In
this final determination, DOE maintains that the technology options
identified in February 2023 NOPD. (88 FR 7629, 7635-7638)
C. Cost-Effectiveness
A determination that amended standards are not needed must also be
based on consideration of whether amended standards would be cost-
effective, among other factors. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) In evaluating cost-
effectiveness, EPCA requires DOE to consider savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges,
or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to
result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) To evaluate cost-effectiveness, in the
February 2023 NOPD, DOE conducted a review of the inputs to the LCC and
PBP analyses (which also included a review of the inputs to the markups
and energy use analyses). 88 FR 7629, 7639-7644. In the February 2023
NOPD, DOE tentatively concluded that the inputs for each of these
analyses were comparable to the estimates developed for the January
2021 Final Determination. Id. Therefore, in determining cost-
effectiveness of amending standards for SEMs, DOE relied on the life-
cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP'') analyses conducted
for the January 2021 Final Determination that estimate the costs and
benefits to users from potential standards. 88 FR 7629, 7645-7646
For this final determination, DOE conducted an updated review of
inputs to the markups analysis, energy use analysis, LCC and PBP
analyses. Specifically, DOE further assessed the impact of updated
energy price and discount rate estimates. For energy prices, DOE
performed the same comparison as in the February 2023 NOPD, but with an
updated starting year,\6\ and used 2023 EEI Typical Bills and Average
Rates reports and AEO2023 energy price trends.\7\ DOE has determined
that, similar to its conclusion in the February 2023 NOPD, the energy
prices have not changed significantly from those estimated in the
January 2021 Final Determination. To estimate updated average
residential, commercial, and industrial discount rates, DOE relied on
updated data sources 8 9 and the same methodology as
described in the February 2023 NOPD (See 88 FR 7629, 7643). In line
with the February 2023 NOPD, DOE determined that the more recent (2024)
residential, commercial and industrial discount rates have not changed
significantly from those in the January 2021 Final Determination and
these minor changes would have no significant impact on the LCC
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For purposes of its final determination analysis, DOE
estimated that any amended standards would apply to small electric
motors manufactured 5 years after the date on which the amended
standard is published. DOE estimated publication of a final rule in
the second half of 2025. Therefore, for purposes of its analysis,
DOE used 2031 as the year of compliance.
\7\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration,
Annual Energy Outlook 2023 with Projections to 2050, available at
www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ (last accessed June 20, 2023).
\8\ U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF). 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007,
2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022. (Last accessed June 1, 2024.)
www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm.
\9\ Damodaran, A. Data Page: Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds
and Bills-United States. (Last accessed June 1, 2024.)
www.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pc/datasets/histretSP.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the February 2023 NOPD, NEMA commented that it
agreed with DOE's conclusion that the revised market shares by
distribution channel and revised markups and sales taxes would still
result in SEM consumer costs and LCC savings that are comparable to the
estimates developed for the January 2021 Final Determination. NEMA also
agreed with DOE's conclusion that the average energy use results for
small electric motors are the same as the estimates developed for the
January 2021 Final Determination and that SEMs are not typically
repaired. NEMA further commented that it supported DOE's conclusion
that lifetimes have remained the same as estimated in the January 2021
Final Determination (NEMA, No. 20 at p. 2) Additionally, NEMA agreed
with DOE's conclusion to rely on the same no-new-standards case
efficiency distributions as in the January 2021 Final Determination.
(Id. at p. 3)
In response to the February 2023 NOPD, NEMA commented that
increasing efficiency generally increases installation costs (an input
to the LCC calculation). For existing end-user product lines, NEMA
commented that the enclosure often needs to increase in size and/or
components need to be moved to accommodate a larger motor. NEMA stated
that for repair of end products, higher-efficiency motors often will
not fit in the existing application or will require significant rework.
(NEMA, No. 20 at p. 2)
For space-constrained applications, DOE assumed that the higher
levels of efficiency would be reached based on technology options that
would not significantly increase the physical footprint of the motor
and would not increase the installation costs. 88 FR 7629, 7638.
Therefore, DOE maintains its conclusion that installation costs are not
impacted by increased efficiency levels. In addition, any increase in
installation costs would further substantiate the determination that
amended standards would not satisfy the cost-effectiveness criterion as
required by EPCA because it would increase the total installed costs of
higher efficiency SEMs and, therefore, lower any LCC savings.
In response to the February 2023 NOPD, NEMA commented that the
electric motor industry had experienced higher-than-average levels of
inflation compared to the overall U.S. economy, which led to smaller
discounts and, therefore, higher end prices. (NEMA, No. 20 at p. 3) DOE
clarifies that the consumer discount rates applied in the LCC analysis
are used to compute the present value of future energy savings accrued
by the consumer through purchase of a higher-efficiency model. The
consumer discount rates do not relate to the specific conditions of the
electric motor manufacturing industry (i.e., it is not a price discount
offered by motor manufacturers or sellers, nor is it a reflection of
the electric motor manufacturer's present value of future savings). In
addition, DOE notes that higher end prices would further substantiate
the determination that amended standards would not satisfy the cost-
effectiveness criterion as required by EPCA because it would increase
the total installed costs of higher efficiency SEMs and, therefore,
lower any LCC savings.
DOE did not receive any other comments specific to these inputs and
concluded that the inputs to the markups analysis, energy use analysis,
LCC and PBP analyses have not changed significantly. Accordingly in
this final determination, DOE maintains that energy prices, discounts
rates, and other inputs to the markups analysis, energy use analysis,
LCC and PBP analyses have not significantly changed as described in the
2023 NOPD.
In assessing cost effectiveness, DOE also reviewed changes in
manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) since the January 2021 Final
Determination. DOE determined that manufacturer selling
[[Page 6748]]
prices (MSPs) for SEMs are likely to increase due to higher component
costs; however, such increases would apply uniformly across all
efficiency levels. As a result, incremental costs between efficiency
levels are not expected to change materially. Any increase in MSPs
without corresponding efficiency improvements would further support
DOE's determination that amended standards would not be cost-effective.
In line with the tentative conclusions of the February 2023 NOPD,
DOE has determined that the inputs used in the markups, energy use, LCC
and PBP calculations have not changed significantly since the January
2021 Final Determination.
IV. Final Determination
As required by EPCA, this final determination analyzes whether
amended standards for SEMs would result in significant conservation of
energy, be technologically feasible, and be cost-effective. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) The criteria
considered under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and the additional analysis
are discussed in the following sections. Because an analysis of
potential cost-effectiveness and energy savings first requires an
evaluation of the relevant technology, DOE first discusses the
technological feasibility of amended standards. DOE then addresses the
cost-effectiveness and energy savings associated with potential amended
standards.
A. Technological Feasibility
EPCA requires DOE to determine whether amended energy conservation
standards for SEMs would be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE
identified several technology options capable of improving the
efficiency of polyphase and CSCR SEMs. These technology options are
currently implemented in commercially available SEMs and are,
therefore, technologically feasible.
Consistent with the conclusions presented in the January 2021 Final
Determination, DOE did not consider a CSIR motor as a representative
unit. 86 FR 4885, 4895. The minimum energy conservation standards
established in the March 2010 Final Rule (which are established in 10
CFR 431.446(a)) reflect the maximum technologically feasible efficiency
for CSIR motors, and DOE was unable to identify any additional design
options meeting the screening criteria that would indicate a higher
efficiency level for CSIR motors is both technologically feasible and
commercially viable. Id.
B. Cost-Effectiveness
EPCA requires DOE to consider whether energy conservation standards
for SEMs would be cost-effective through an evaluation of the savings
in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered
equipment compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial
charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment which
are likely to result from the imposition of an amended standard. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C), and
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducted an LCC analysis in the
January 2021 Final Determination to estimate the net costs/benefits to
users from increased efficiency in the considered equipment. As
described previously, DOE has determined that the results of the LCC
analysis in the January 2021 Final Determination are still valid. These
results show that the average LCC savings from higher energy
conservation standards at the considered ELs would be negative for all
equipment classes. 86 FR 4885, 4904-4906 Based on the results from the
January 2021 Final Determination, which DOE has concluded are still
valid, DOE has determined that none of the considered efficiency levels
would be cost-effective.
C. Significant Conservation of Energy
EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy
conservation standards for SEMs would result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and
42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(A)) However, as discussed in the previous section,
DOE has determined that amended standards would not satisfy the cost-
effectiveness criterion as required by EPCA when determining whether to
amend its standards for a given covered product or equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C))
for the purpose of 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2). Therefore, DOE concludes that
quantification of energy savings from potential amended standards is
not necessary in the case of this final determination.
D. Conclusion
In this final determination, based on the determination that
amended standards would not be cost-effective, DOE has determined that
energy conservation standards for SEMs do not need to be amended.
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1)
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts;
and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices
can be made by the public. The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB''), in
its guidance, has emphasized that agencies use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and
costs as accurately as possible, and identify changing future
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in this
preamble, this final regulatory action is consistent with these
principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this final regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
[[Page 6749]]
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 reviewed this final determination under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. Because DOE is not amending standards for SEMs, the
determination will not amend any energy conservation standards. On the
basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the final determination will
have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an FRFA for this final
determination. DOE has transmitted this certification and supporting
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This final determination, which concludes that no amended energy
conservation standards for SEMs are needed, imposes no new information
or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not
required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In the February 2023 NOPD, DOE analyzed the proposed determination
in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021)
in effect at the time of the February 2023 NOPD's publication. In the
February 2023 NOPD, DOE anticipated that the February 2023 NOPD
qualified for a categorical exclusion under appendix A4 to subpart D of
part 1021 because the NOPD was an interpretation or ruling with respect
to an existing regulation and otherwise met the requirements for
application of a categorical exclusion. 88 FR 67989, 67995. In July
2025, DOE revised part 1021 to remove appendix A and, concurrently, DOE
issued Implementing Procedures.\10\ The actions formally identified in
appendix A of subpart D to part 1021 now represent administrative and
routine actions that are excepted from NEPA based on the definition of
``major Federal action'' in section 111(10) of NEPA. DOE's
determination that current standards for SEMs do not need to be amended
is administrative and routine under category A4 of the Implementing
Procedures; therefore, it is not a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of
NEPA and no further environmental review is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures June 30, 2025, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2025-06-30-DOE-NEPA-Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735 DOE has examined this final determination and
has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
equipment that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition
DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297)
Therefore, no further action is required by E.O. 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light
of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine
whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them.
DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this final determination meets the relevant
standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any 1 year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for
[[Page 6750]]
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy
statement is also available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
DOE examined this final determination according to UMRA and its
statement of policy and determined that the final determination does
not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to
require expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This final determination would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE has determined that this final determination would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines, which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20%Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this final determination under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB a Statement of
Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866,
or any successor E.O.; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is
designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action.
For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to
the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution,
and use.
This final determination, which does not amend energy conservation
standards for SEMs, is not a significant regulatory action under E.O.
12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as
such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Additional Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda
DOE has examined this final determination and has determined that
it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O.
14154 ``Unleashing American Energy,'' E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation,'' and Presidential Memorandum,
``Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating
the Cost-of-Living Crisis.'' DOE has determined that more stringent
SEMs standards would not be cost-effective, and that standards for SEMs
should not be amended. DOE's final determination effectively preserves
consumer choice, and provides manufacturers with regulatory certainty,
which may allow for more market innovations as well as a reduction in
consumer costs. Accordingly, DOE considers this final determination to
be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
M. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan.
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared a Peer Review report
pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking
analyses.\11\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal,
and documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects.
Because available data, models, and technological understanding have
changed since 2007, DOE has engaged with the National Academy of
Sciences to review DOE's analytical methodologies to ascertain whether
modifications are needed to improve DOE's analyses. DOE is in the
process of evaluating the resulting report.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report.'' 2007. Available at energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last
accessed Nov. 7, 2022).
\12\ The December 2021 NAS report is available at
www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
N. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this final determination prior to its effective date.
The report will state that it has been determined that this final
[[Page 6751]]
determination is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
notification of final determination.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 5,
2026, by Audrey Robertson, Assistant Secretary (EERE) for Critical
Minerals and Energy Innovation, U.S. Department of 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 February 11, 2026.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2026-02936 Filed 2-12-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P