Nat'l Elec. Manufacturers Ass'n v. United States Dep't of Energy

• Decision Date: 16 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. 10–1533.,10–1533.
• Citation: 654 F.3d 496
• Parties: NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; United States of America, Respondents.Natural Resources Defense Council, Amicus Supporting Respondents.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

654 F.3d 496

NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner,

v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; United States of America, Respondents.Natural Resources Defense Council, Amicus Supporting Respondents.

No. 10–1533.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: May 12, 2011.Decided: Aug. 16, 2011.

ARGUED: John Andrews Hodges, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. H. Thomas Byron, III, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. ON BRIEF: Clark R. Silcox, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, Virginia; Eric Andreas, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Scott Blake Harris, General Counsel, Daniel Cohen, Assistant General Counsel, Michael Kido, Bettina Mumme, United States Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.; Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Michael S. Raab, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Timothy D. Ballo, Earthjustice, Washington, D.C.; Katherine Kennedy, Christine Chang, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, New York, for Amicus Supporting Respondents.Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.Petition for review denied by published opinion. Judge KING wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge WYNN joined. Judge SHEDD wrote a dissenting opinion.

OPINION

KING, Circuit Judge:

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (“NEMA”) petitions for review of a final rule promulgated by the United States Department of Energy (the “DOE”) setting forth energy conservation standards for electric induction motors ranging in power output from .25 to 3 horsepower. See Energy Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors: Final Rule, 75 Fed.Reg. 10874 (Mar. 9, 2010) (codified at 10 C.F.R. pt. 431) (the “Final Rule”). In promulgating the Final Rule, the DOE invoked its authority to establish energy conservation standards for “small electric motor[s],” a term defined by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (the “EPCA”). See 42 U.S.C. § 6311(13)(G). NEMA contends that the relevant statutory definition unambiguously excludes all such motors exceeding 1 horsepower, as well as certain motors rated at and less than 1 horsepower, from being regulated as small electric motors. As explained below, because the Final Rule embodies a permissible interpretation of the statutory definition, we deny the petition for review.

I.

A “small electric motor” is a type of electric induction motor, which is a machine that converts electricity into rotational mechanical power. The more efficient electric induction motors create more mechanical power using less electricity. The Final Rule is the DOE's response to the EPCA's directive that the DOE promulgate energy conservation (or efficiency) standards to govern certain small electric motors. The motors covered by the Final Rule are manufactured in two-, four-, and six-pole configurations and range from .25 to 3 horsepower.¹ The covered motors have a wide variety of industrial and commercial applications, the largest of which are used in pumping and in heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (“HVAC”) systems. The DOE estimates that the standards pronounced in the Final Rule “will save approximately 2.2 quads ... of energy over 30 years,” which “is equivalent to about 2.2 [percent] of total annual U.S. energy consumption” and will “eliminate the need for approximately eight new 250–megawatt ... power plants” as well as “result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of ... an amount equal to that produced by approximately 25 million new cars in a year.” Final Rule, 75 Fed.Reg. 10874, 10876 (Mar. 9, 2010) (codified at 10 C.F.R. pt. 431).

NEMA's petition for review challenges whether certain of the electric induction motors covered by the Final Rule fall within the statutory definition of the term “small electric motor.” Resolving this challenge requires us to examine a highly technical regulatory framework that governs a complex market and is characterized by fine technological distinctions. Accordingly, we begin by sketching the regulatory architecture of which the definition is a part, as well as the relevant provisions of NEMA Standards Publication MG1–1987, the industry publication to which the definition refers. We then describe the process culminating in the promulgation of the Final Rule and NEMA's challenge thereto.

A.

The story underlying this litigation begins with the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub.L. No. 102–486, 106 Stat. 2776 (the “Energy Policy Act”). The Energy Policy Act amended the EPCA, directing the DOE to promulgate energy conservation standards for various products and equipment. Among other things, the EPCA requires the DOE to “prescribe, by rule, energy conservation standards for those small electric motors for which” the DOE determines that such standards are “technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings.” 42 U.S.C. § 6317(b)(1)-(2).² Such standards must satisfy the criteria specified in 42 U.S.C. § 6295( o ). See id. § 6316(a).³

The resolution of this challenge turns on the meaning of the term “small electric motor,” which, as provided by the EPCA, “means 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 6311(13)(G). MG1–1987 is an industry publication that sets forth specifications for electric motors and generators, which collectively are called “machines.” The publication classifies machines in various ways, such as by size, application, electrical type, and variability of speed. See J.A. 13–22.⁴ Two of those classifications are relevant here: size and application.

With respect to classification by size, a machine may be a “Small (Fractional) Machine,” a “Medium (Integral) Machine,” or a “Large Machine.” J.A. 13–14. Paragraph 1.02 of MG1–1987 provides that a motor is a “small machine” if it “is either (1) a machine built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with [¶] 11.01.1 or (2) a machine built in a frame smaller than that frame of a medium machine ... which has a continuous, open-construction rating at 1700–1800 rpm of 1 horsepower.” Id. at 13 (emphases added).⁵ By contrast, under ¶ 1.03.1, “[a]n alternating-current medium machine is a machine (1) built in a three- or four-digit frame number series in accordance with [¶] 11.01.2 ... and (2) having a continuous, open-construction rating up to and including” 500 horsepower. Id. at 13–14 (emphasis added).

MG1–1987 also classifies machines by application. Relevant here is ¶ 1.05, which defines the term “general-purpose alternating-current motor” as

an induction motor, rated 200 horsepower and less, which incorporates all of the following:

1. Open construction.

2. Rated continuous duty.

3. Service factor in accordance with MG1–12.47.

4. Class A insulation system with a temperature rise as specified in MG1–12.42 for small motors or Class B insulation system with a temperature rise as specified in MG 1–12.43 for medium motors.

It is designed in standard ratings with standard operating characteristics and mechanical construction for use under usual service conditions without restriction to a particular application or type of application.

J.A. 14. Paragraph 1.05 of MG1–1987 thus limits general purpose motors to a maximum of 200 horsepower and requires that they be built in an open (rather than enclosed) construction.⁶ A subsequent version of MG1 expanded ¶ 1.05 to provide that such motors may also be built in an enclosed construction. Paragraphs 12.42 and 12.43, referenced in ¶ 1.05, make no mention of horsepower rating.

Two other aspects of the definition in ¶ 1.05 are important for our inquiry. First, it references ¶ 12.47, which sets forth, in Table 12–2, the service factor specifications for small and medium general-purpose alternating-current electric induction motors. See J.A. 72.⁷ Table 12–2, in turn, delineates small and medium motors at certain horsepower ratings. Specifically, for two-pole motors operating at 3600 rpm, 1 horsepower motors are “small” while 1.5 horsepower motors are “medium.” For four-pole motors operating at 1800 rpm, a .75 horsepower motor is small while a 1 horsepower motor is medium; for six-pole motors operating at 1200 rpm, a .5 horsepower motor is small while a .75 horsepower motor is medium. Second, ¶ 1.05 requires a general purpose motor to be designed in “standard ratings with standard operating characteristics,” which means that such motors must meet prescribed performance characteristics, one example of which is locked rotor torque as specified in ¶ 12.32. Subparagraphs 12.32.2 and .3 reflect the same delineations between small and medium motors as found in Table 12–2.⁸

B.

In 2006, the DOE took the first step toward establishing energy conservation standards for small electric motors when it determined that such standards appeared to be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. See Determination Concerning the Potential for Energy Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors, 71 Fed.Reg. 38799 (published July 10, 2006) (the “Determination”). In the Determination, the DOE identified one “key issue” as “the definition of a ‘small electric motor’ and precisely which motors are covered by this rule-making.” Id. at 38800. The DOE consulted MG1–1987 to address this question, observing that “the two-digit frame series” specified in the statutory definition “encompasses NEMA frame sizes 42, 48, and 56, and motors with horsepower ratings ranging from [.25] to 3 horsepower.” Id.

In the Determination, the DOE also recognized that the statutory definition requires small electric motors to be “NEMA general purpose ... motor[s],” prompting the DOE to state that “[t]he EPCA definition of a small motor is tied to the NEMA Standards...