Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
4891

TABLE IV1SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDSContinued Manufactured alone or as a component of another piece of non-covered equipment Pole configuration
Motor topology CSCR
Polyphase

2, 4, 6
2, 4, 6

Motor output power 0.253 hp. 0.182.2 kW.
0.253 hp. 0.182.2 kW.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Certain motor categories are not currently subject to standards. These include:
Polyphase, 6-pole, 2 and 3 hp motors;
CSCR and CSIR, 6-pole, 1.5, 2, and 3 hp motors;
CSCR and CSIR, 4-pole, 3 hp motors.
The values in parentheses are the equivalent metric ratings.

In response to the April 2020 NOPD
and September 2020 Notice, DOE
received a number of comments relevant to the scope of applicability of energy conservation standards for SEMs.
Lennox, AHRI and AHAM supported maintaining the existing standards scope for SEMs. Lennox, No. 21 at p.
2; AHRI and AHAM, No. 25 at p. 2 In addition, NEMA stated that motor efficiency has reached its peak of practicality, and that system efficiency in applications must be the focus.
NEMA commented in support of DOEs efforts investigating or already establishing Extended Product Rulemakings e.g., pumps which set a system efficiency, rather than continue to focus on components i.e,. the motor.
NEMA, No. 32 at p. 2
The Efficiency Advocates asserted that given DOEs mandate to carry out the energy conservation purposes of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, DOE must consider expanding the scope of its motor standards, either in this docket or the electric motors docket.
Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 2
Similarly, the CA IOUs commented that there is limited opportunity for additional energy efficiency gains in the current scope of regulation for SEMs and added that the industry technical standards on which the current SEM
definition is basedNEMA MG1
1987is no longer representative of the market. CA IOUs, No. 24 at p. 2; No. 33
at p. 2
In the view of the CA IOUs, DOE
should expand the scope of the SEM
rulemaking to consider advances in motor technology and incorporate brushless direct current DC and synchronous permanent magnet AC
PMAC motors, irrespective of the limits already defined by Congress. See 42 U.S.C. 631113G defining the term small electric motor and 10 CFR
431.442 incorporating motors meeting the statutory definition that are built in metric units. The CA IOUs provided an analysis and market data and technical information as to the energy savings potential, cost, and technical feasibility
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:33 Jan 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

of brushless DC motors such as electronically commutated motors ECMs and PMAC motors compared to other available motor technologies such as permanent-split capacitor PSC motors. The CA IOUs further commented that motor consumers and regulators in other markets are already considering advanced motor technologies as substitutes for SEMs within the current scope of DOEs energy conservation standards. CA
IOUs, No. 24 at p. 27; No. 33 at p. 2
8 In addition, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider expanding the definition of SEMs beyond the general purpose motor definition included in NEMA MG1
1987 and as specified in the statute to include additional motors used in general purpose applications such as split-phase, shaded pole, and PSC
motors. In cases where the application requirements rely on part-load operation, the CA IOUs recommended that these motors be compared in a technology-neutral manner against other motor designs optimized for part load operation i.e., brushless DC, synchronous PMAC/Q-Sync. CA IOUs, No. 24 at p. 7; No. 33 at p. 89
Regarding the potential coverage of ECMs, NEMA commented that ECMs were not squirrel cage induction motors but instead are permanent magnet synchronous motors with electronic controls/drives integral to the machine and were not included in the scope of SEMs NEMA, No. 32 at p. 2.6 In addition, NEMA commented that ECMs tend to be more expensive than singlespeed SEMs, and typically installed as components in appliances that DOE
already regulates. In these instances, strict energy efficiency requirements on those appliances and the use of better motor controls outweigh the increased expense of using ECMs. NEMA added that making ECMs more efficient would not make regulated appliances more efficient because of component 6 DOE notes that the definition of a SEM only includes single speed induction motors.

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

efficiency tradeoffs in satisfying efficiency requirements and protections from double-regulation. NEMA, No. 32
at p. 23 NEMA commented that bringing ECMs into scope could have significant impacts on Original Equipment Manufacturers OEMs.
NEMA added that ECMs are not dropin fit replacements for SEMs and that DOE has not sufficiently examined the downstream impacts of adding such motors in scope on OEMs. NEMA, No.
32 at p. 2 Regarding PMAC/Q-sync designs, NEMA noted that such PMAC/
Q-sync motors did not meet NEMA MG
11987 torque requirements and were not effective substitutes for SEMs, as indicated by their small market share.
NEMA, No. 32 at p. 3
As previously stated in section III.A, this document pertains only to equipment meeting the definition of small electric motor, as codified in 10
CFR 431.442, which includes general purpose single speed induction motors.
See 42 U.S.C. 631113G and 10 CFR
431.442. Single-speed induction motors, as delineated and described in MG1
1987, fall into five categories: Splitphase, shaded-pole, capacitor-start both CSIR and CSCR, PSC, and polyphase.
Of these five motor categories, DOE
determined in the March 2010 Final Rule that only CSIR, CSCR, and polyphase motors were able to meet the relevant performance requirements in NEMA MG11987 and fell within the general purpose alternating current motor category, as indicated by the listings found in manufacturers catalogs. 75 FR 10874, 1088210883.
Therefore, for this determination, DOE
only considered the regulated SEMs currently subject to energy conservation standards.7
7 DOE also notes that were it to determine that expansion of the scope is warranted and permissible, it would first need to establish test methods for any such motors. See 10 CFR 431.4; 10
CFR part 430 subpart C appendix A section 8d.
Nothing DOE has reviewedor that commenters have submittedsuggests that the existing test procedures for SEM are appropriate for motors that fall outside of the already prescribed small electric motor scope set by Congress and the definition of
E:FRFM19JAR1.SGM

Continued
19JAR1