Quiero saber acerca de...

4896

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
2010 Final Rule. 75 FR 10874, 10888.
The proposed representative equipment
classes from the April 2020 NOPD are outlined in Table IV4.

TABLE IV4REPRESENTATIVE EQUIPMENT CLASSES
Motor topology
Pole configuration
Polyphase
Single-phase CSCR

NEMA commented that the selected representative equipment classes are appropriate because there have not been any significant changes to design practices which might warrant modification. NEMA, No. 22 at p. 2
DOE did not receive any other comments regarding the representative equipment classes. Accordingly, DOE
continued to analyze the same representative equipment classes from the April 2020 NOPD in preparing this final determination.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

3. Efficiency Analysis DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: 1
Relying on observed efficiency levels in the market i.e., the efficiency-level approach, or 2 determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model i.e., the design-option approach. Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level clusters that already exist on the market. Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment.
DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach based on actual products on the market may be extended using the design option approach to interpolate to define gap fill levels to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level particularly in cases where the max tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market.
In the March 2010 Final Rule DOE
and in the April 2020 NOPD, DOE relied on the design option approach. DOE

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:33 Jan 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

maintained the design option approach for this final determination. In this design option approach, DOE considers efficiency levels corresponding to motor designs that meet or exceed the efficiency requirements of the current energy conservation standards at 10 CFR
431.446. DOE has determined that there are no additional technology options that pass the screening criteria that would enable the consideration of any additional efficiency levels representing higher efficiency levels than the maximum technologically feasible level analyzed in the March 2010 Final Rule.
For each equipment class, DOE
generally selects a baseline model as a reference point, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each equipment class represents the characteristics of a product/equipment typical of that class e.g., capacity, physical size. Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
DOE considered the current minimum energy conservation standards to establish the baseline efficiency levels for each representative equipment class.
As discussed previously, DOE selected representative equipment classes that align with the classes analyzed in the March 2010 Final Rule. See March 2010
Final Rule TSD, sec. 5.2.1. DOE
identified specific motor designs from the March 2010 Final Rule engineering analysis that exhibit full-load efficiency ratings that are representative of the minimum energy conservation standards for SEMs. DOE used these motor designs to form the baseline against which to compare improved efficiency design options in DOEs analysis. Each increase in efficiency over the baseline level that DOE
analyzed was assigned an efficiency level EL number.
For the March 2010 Final Rule engineering analysis, DOE purchased and tested motors with the lowest catalog efficiency rating available in the market for each representative
PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Motor output power hp 4
4

1.00
0.75

equipment class. DOEs technical expert tore down each motor to obtain dimensions, a BOM, and other pertinent design information. DOE worked with a subcontractor to reproduce these motor designs using modeling software and then applied design options to a modeled motor that would increase that motors efficiency to develop a series of motor designs spanning a range of efficiency levels. For the current evaluation, DOE continued to base its analysis on the modeled motor designs.
In light of its catalog review, DOE
discerned no significant technological advancements in the motor industry that could lead to more efficient or lower cost motor designs relative to the motors modeled for the March 2010
Final Rule. In addition, DOE did not receive any contrasting comments suggesting any significant technological advancements for small electric motors within current scope.
In developing the modeled motor designs and associated costs, DOE also considered both space-constrained and non-space-constrained scenarios. DOE
prepared designs of increased efficiency covering both scenarios for each representative equipment class. The design levels prepared for the spaceconstrained scenario included baseline and intermediate levels, a level for a design using a copper rotor, and a maxtech level with a design using a copper rotor and exotic core steel. The highefficiency space-constrained designs incorporate copper rotors and exotic core steel in order to meet comparable levels of efficiency to the high-efficiency non-space-constrained designs while meeting the parameters for minimally increased stack length. The design levels created for the non-spaceconstrained scenario corresponded to the same efficiency levels created for the space-constrained scenario. Further information on the development of modeled motor designs is available in section 5.3 of the March 2010 Final Rule TSD.

E:FRFM19JAR1.SGM

19JAR1