Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

4892

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

AHAM and AHRI referenced the statutory exemption regarding the application of energy conservation standards for SEMs that are components of covered products 42 U.S.C.
6317b3 and requested that DOE
interpret the exemption to apply to all SEMs destined for or used in covered products or equipment. AHAM and AHRI, No. 25 at p. 4 Lennox commented that it opposes regulating components used in products and equipment already regulated by DOE, instead it supports a finished-product approach to energy efficiency regulation. Lennox, No. 21 at p. 2 GEA
commented that any regulation of individual components in products whose energy consumption is regulated on a product level will provide little to no energy savings for consumers, will disrupt the complex balance of component selection and design, and will likely increase cost for consumers for no benefit to consumers. GEA, No.
26 at p. 2 NEMA commented that because SEMs are always used as a component in larger product systems that consume electricity, there already exist dozens of applianceand devicelevel regulations that address energy consumption of those end-use products.
NEMA suggested examining and measuring energy savings at the end-use device makes the most sense, as system dynamics can vary for designs within each product class and from class to class. NEMA, No. 22 at p. 2
As noted, EPCA directs DOE to establish test procedures and energy conservation standards for SEMs, see 42
U.S.C. 6317b, both of which DOE has already done. EPCA further provides that standards shall not apply to any SEM which is a component of a covered product or covered equipment. 42
U.S.C. 6317b3 DOE has evaluated the scope of the SEM standards in this final determination in accordance with EPCA.
2. Equipment Classes When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify a different standard. 42 U.S.C. 6316a;
42 U.S.C. 6295q In determining whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature small electric motor. Comments related to the scope of applicability of the DOE test procedure for small electric motors were discussed as part of DOEs test procedure NOPR. 84 FR 17004, 17009 April 23, 2019.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:33 Jan 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

to the consumer and other factors DOE
deems appropriate. Id. For the April 2020 NOPD, DOE assessed the 62
equipment classes currently established based on phase count i.e., single-phase versus polyphase, topology of singlephase motors, number of poles, and horsepower. This section reviews the motor characteristics used to delineate equipment classes for SEMs.
The first characteristic used to establish equipment classes is phase count. Polyphase and single-phase equipment classes are used to differentiate motors based on the fundamental differences in how the two types of motors operate. 10 CFR
431.446a. For a rotor to move, the stator i.e., the stationary part of the motor must produce a rotating magnetic field. To operate on singlephase alternating current AC power, the single-phase motor uses an auxiliary winding or start winding with current and voltage out of phase with the original main winding to produce a net rotating magnetic field. To operate on three-phase power, the polyphase motor uses windings arranged such that when supplied by three-phase alternating current, a rotating magnetic field is produced. In short, three-phase power in a polyphase motor naturally produces rotation, whereas a single-phase motor requires the auxiliary winding to engineer the conditions for rotation.
Due to these differences, polyphase motors are inherently more efficient but require use of a three-phase power source. Based on the differences in efficiency and consumer utility, DOE
separated equipment classes based on phase count in the March 2010 Final Rule. 75 FR 10874, 10886. DOE relied on the same approach for the proposed determination. See 85 FR 24146, 24153.
In addition to differentiating equipment classes by phase count, equipment classes are differentiated by the topology of single-phase motors. 10
CFR 431.446a. DOE identified two topologies of single-phase motors meeting the statutory definition of SEMs: CSIR and CSCR. CSIR and CSCR
motors both utilize a capacitor startcapacitor and two windings startwinding and run-winding. The difference between the two motors occurs when reaching operating speed;
while CSIR motors run on the runwinding alone with no capacitor, CSCR
motors run using an additional runcapacitor and both windings. While this additional capacitor can boost CSCR motor efficiency to levels higher than those exhibited by CSIR motor designs, it usually constitutes dimensional changes due to the need to mount the run-capacitor externally on
PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

the motor housing. This additional spatial requirement could potentially limit the use of CSCR motors in spaceconstrained applications, and would cause motor topology to directly impact consumer utility. Given that motor topology can affect motor performance and consumer utility, DOE
differentiated single-phase equipment classes by topology in the March 2010
Final Rule. 75 FR 10886. DOE proposed to use the same approach in the April 2020 NOPD. See 85 FR 24146, 24153.
The current energy conservation standards also differentiate classes based on the number of poles in a motor. 10 CFR 431.446a. The number of poles in an induction motor determines the synchronous speed i.e., revolutions per minute. There is an inverse relationship between the number of poles and speed: As a motor design increases from two to eight poles, the synchronous speed drops from 3,600
to 900 revolutions per minute. The desired synchronous speed varies by end use application, making the number of poles in a motor a factor directly impacting consumer utility. By examining the efficiency ratings for 1
200 horsepower polyphase electric motors 10 CFR 431.25,8 motors meeting the NEMA Premium Motor standard, and manufacturer catalogs, DOE observed that full-load efficiency percentages tend to decrease with the number of poles. Therefore, DOE
determined that the number of poles has a direct impact on the motors performance and consumer utility, and consequently, the number of poles is a further means of differentiating among equipment classes. 75 FR 10886. DOE
relied on the same approach for the proposed determination. See 85 FR
24146, 24153.
Finally, DOE employs motor horsepower as an equipment class setting factor under the current energy conservation standards. 10 CFR
431.446a. Average full load efficiency generally correlates with motor horsepower e.g., a 3-horsepower motor is usually more efficient than a 14horsepower motor. DOE found that motor efficiency varies with motor horsepower by evaluating manufacturers catalog data, the efficiency ratings of the established SEM
energy conservation standards 10 CFR
431.446, and the efficiency 8 While there is no overlap between the scope of applicability for electric motor standards at 10 CFR
431.25 and small electric motors standards at 10
CFR 431.446, the pole-efficiency relationships observed in the electric motor standards from 1 to 3 horsepower can be considered when determining appropriate pole-efficiency relationships for small electric motors in this horsepower range.

E:FRFM19JAR1.SGM

19JAR1