Federal Register - January 19, 2021

Versión en texto ¿Qué es?Dateas es un sitio independiente no afiliado a entidades gubernamentales. La fuente de los documentos PDF aquí publicados es la entidad gubernamental indicada en cada uno de ellos. Las versiones en texto son transcripciones no oficiales que realizamos para facilitar el acceso y la búsqueda de información, pero pueden contener errores o no estar completas.

Fuente: Federal Register

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations and Electronics Engineers IEEE, Canadian Standards Association CSA, and the International Electrotechnical Commission IEC

are listed in Table III1. In addition, DOE proposed to adopt industry provisions related to the test conditions used to ensure the comparability of test
4889

results for SEMs. 84 FR 17004, 17014
17018.

TABLE III1APRIL 2019 NOPR PROPOSED INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS
Equipment description
Industry test procedure
Single-phase small electric motors
Polyphase small electric motors less than or equal to 1 horsepower
Polyphase small electric motors greater than 1 horsepower

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

C. Technological Feasibility 1. General In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation standards, DOE
conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the product or equipment at issue. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties.
DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available equipment or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. See 10 CFR
part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6c3i and 7b1; 10 CFR
431.4.
After DOE has determined that particular options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria:
1 Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; 2 adverse impacts on equipment utility or availability; 3
adverse impacts on health or safety; and 4 unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6c3iiv and 7b25; 10 CFR 431.4.
Section IV.B of this final determination discusses the results of the screening analysis for SEMs, particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the final determination. In this final determination, based on its review of the market and comments received in response to the April 2020 NOPD and September 2020 Notice, DOE has determined that no significant technical
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:33 Jan 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

advancements in induction motor technology within the scope of SEMs have been made since publication of the March 2010 Final Rule.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels When DOE evaluates the potential for new or amended standards, DOE must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such equipment. 42 U.S.C. 6316a; 42 U.S.C.
6295p1 Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible max tech improvements in energy efficiency for SEMs using the design parameters for the most efficient equipment available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE has determined are described in section IV.C of this final determination.
D. Significance of Energy Savings In determining whether to amend the current energy conservation standards for SEMs, DOE must assess whether amended standards will result in significant conservation of energy. 42
U.S.C. 6316a; 42 U.S.C. 6295m1A.
See also 42 U.S.C. 6295n2. While the term significant is not defined in EPCA, DOE has established a significance threshold for energy savings. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 6b; 10 CFR 431.4.
In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE conducts a two-step approach that considers both an absolute site energy savings threshold and a threshold that is percent reduction in the covered equipment energy use. Id. DOE first evaluates the projected energy savings from a potential maximum technologically feasible max-tech standard over a 30-year period against a 0.3 quads of site
PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

IEEE 1142010.
CSA C74709.
IEC 6003421:2014 Method 211A.
IEEE 1122017 Test Method A.
CSA C74709.
IEC 6003421:2014 Method 211A.
IEEE 1122017 Test Method B.
CSA C39010.
IEC 6003421:2014 Method 211B.

energy threshold. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR
part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 6b2. If the 0.3 quad-threshold is not met, DOE then compares the max-tech savings to the total energy usage of the covered equipment to calculate a percentage reduction in energy usage.
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 6b3. If this comparison does not yield a reduction in site energy use of at least 10 percent over a 30-year period, the analysis ends and DOE proposes that no significant energy savings would likely result from setting new or amended standards. 10
CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 6b3. The twostep approach allows DOE to ascertain whether a potential standard satisfies EPCAs significant energy savings requirements in EPCA to ensure that DOE avoids setting a standard that will not result in significant conservation of energy.
EPCA defines energy efficiency as the ratio of the useful output of services from an article of industrial equipment to the energy use of such article, measured according to the Federal test procedures. 42 U.S.C. 63113 EPCA
defines energy use as the quantity of energy directly consumed by an article of industrial equipment at the point of use, as measured by the Federal test procedures. 42 U.S.C. 63114
As discussed in section V.B of this document, 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. 6316a; 42 U.S.C.
6295m1A and 42 U.S.C.
6295n2C See also sections IV.F and V.B discussing in greater detail DOEs analysis of the available data in reaching this determination. Consequently, DOE
did not separately determine whether
E:FRFM19JAR1.SGM

19JAR1

Acerca de esta edición

Federal Register - January 19, 2021

TítuloFederal Register

PaísEstados Unidos de América

Fecha19/01/2021

Nro. de páginas1376

Nro. de ediciones7798

Primera edición14/03/1936

Ultima edición18/06/2026

Descargar esta edición

Otras ediciones

<<<Enero 2021>>>
DLMMJVS
12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31