Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

18

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
testing is needed. Similar to what was done for small electric motors, DOE
assumed that 10 percent of electric motor models sold in the U.S. that are tested with either the CSA or IEEE
methods referenced in the Federal test procedure are also tested with the IEC
6003421 method. Based on these calculations, DOE determined that approximately 20 new electric motor basic models per year i.e., 10 percent of 203 that already would be tested with the IEC 6003421 method would no longer have to conduct an additional test to comply with DOEs amended test procedure when introduced into the U.S
market and therefore would realize costs savings due to the test procedure amendments.44
DOE estimated the cost of testing a single electric motor unit to be $2,000
at a third-party facility and approximately $500 at an in-house facility. DOE requires at least five units to be tested per basic model. 10 CFR
431.17b2 In addition, based on DOEs understanding that this equipment is tested both in-house and at third-party testing labs, DOE assumed an even split in testing between the two venues.
Based on these estimates, DOE
anticipates annual industry cost savings of approximately $127,000 for electric motors that are currently subject to the standards at 10 CFR 431.25.
3. Additional Amendments The remainder of the amendments adopted in this final rule will not impact test costs. The other amendments adopted in this final rule include new definitions for rated load, rated output power, breakdown torque, rated frequency, and rated voltage. The addition of these definitions will improve test procedure repeatability. Furthermore, the definitions reflect current industry practice, and therefore do not impose any new requirements on manufacturers of regulated small electric motors and electric motors.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget OMB has determined that this test procedure rulemaking does not constitute a significant regulatory action under section 3f of Executive Order E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 Oct.
4, 1993. Accordingly, this action was 44 This yields an estimate of 20.28, since DOE
estimates 10 percent of the 202.8 new electric motor models introduced each year are already tested with the IEC 6003421 method.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:17 Dec 31, 2020

Jkt 253001

not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs OIRA in OMB.
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. See 82 FR 9339 Feb. 3, 2017.
E.O. 13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. 82 FR 12285 March 1, 2017.
E.O. 13777 required the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer RRO.
Each RRO oversees the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory task force at each agency.
The regulatory task force is required to make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must attempt to identify regulations that:
1 Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
2 Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
3 Impose costs that exceed benefits;
4 Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
5 Are inconsistent with the requirements of the Information Quality Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or 6 Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
DOE concludes that this rulemaking is consistent with the directives set forth in these executive orders. This final rule is estimated to result in a cost savings.
The final rule yields annualized cost
PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

savings of approximately $106,000
using a perpetual time horizon discounted to 2016 at a 7 percent discount rate. Therefore, this final rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. requires preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis FRFA for any final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a rule 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 DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsels website: http energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel.
These amendments would neither expand the scope of test procedure applicability to small electric motors beyond those currently subject to test procedures, nor would it place additional requirements on those small electric motors currently subject to DOEs test procedures. Furthermore, this proposal would not place any additional requirements on those electric motors that are already subject to DOEs test procedures, nor would it require manufacturers to retest existing electric motors. Accordingly, manufacturers would not be required under this rule to retest any existing small electric motors or electric motors already subject to DOEs test procedures.
These amendments would also not increase testing costs nor would it impose any additional testing burden on any manufacturers, including all small businesses. Therefore, DOE concludes that the cost effects accruing from this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and that the preparation of a FRFA is not warranted.
DOE has submitted a 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. 605b.

E:FRFM04JAR1.SGM

04JAR1