Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations April 2020 NOPD in this final determination and is screening out the following technology options: Reducing the air gap below .0125 inches, amorphous metal laminations, and plastic bonded iron powder PBIP.
DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety, and do not represent unique pathway proprietary technologies. Chapter 4 of the TSD
provides details on the DOEs screening analysis for SEMs.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

C. Engineering Analysis The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the efficiency and cost of an SEM. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze i.e., the efficiency analysis and the determination of product cost at each efficiency level i.e., the cost analysis. In determining the performance of higher-efficiency equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis.
For each equipment class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the equipment at efficiency levels above the baseline.
The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency curves that are used in downstream analyses i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses. The following sections provide further details on the engineering analysis methodology.
1. Summary of Significant Data Sources DOE utilized two principal data sources for the engineering analysis: 1
The database of SEM manufacturer suggested retail price MSRP and performance data based on the current market as evaluated in the April 2020
NOPD, and 2 motor modeling data, test data, and performance specifications from the March 2010
Final Rule. DOE determined that relying on the data from the March 2010 Final Rule was reasonable because a review of the catalog data suggested that there were 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 response to the April 2020 NOPD, NEMA also commented that the motor designs and associated efficiency levels adopted from the March 2010 Final Rule analysis are appropriate. NEMA, No. 22 at p. 3

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:33 Jan 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

Accordingly, in preparing this determination, DOE continued to evaluate the motor designs that were modeled for the March 2010 Final Rule analysis.
DOE collected MSRP and performance data from product literature and catalogs distributed by four major motor manufacturers: ABB
which includes the manufacturer formerly known as Baldor Electric Company, Nidec Motor Corporation which includes the US Motors brand, Regal-Beloit Corporation which includes the Marathon and Leeson brands, and WEG Electric Motors Corporation.13 Based on market information from the Low-Voltage Motors World Market Report,14 DOE
estimates that the four major motor manufacturers noted comprise the majority of the U.S. SEM market and are consistent with the motor brands considered in the March 2010 Final Rule. Throughout this document this data will be referred to as the manufacturer catalog data.
2. Representative Equipment Classes Due to the large number of equipment classes, DOE did not directly analyze all 62 equipment classes of SEMs considered under this final determination. Instead, DOE selected representative classes based on two factors: 1 The quantity of motor models available within an equipment class and 2 the ability to scale to other equipment classes.
DOE notes that the minimum energy conservation standards adopted in the March 2010 Final Rule correspond to the efficiency level that represented the maximum technologically feasible efficiency for CSIR motors. As discussed previously, DOE was unable to identify any additional design options that passed the screening criteria that would indicate that a motor design meeting a higher efficiency level is technologically feasible and commercially viable. In addition, DOE was unable to identify any CSIR motors in the manufacturer 13 ABB Baldor-Reliance: Online Manufacturer Catalog, accessed January 3, 2019. Available at https www.baldor.com/catalogcategory=2; Nidec:
Online Manufacturer Catalog, accessed December 26, 2018. Available at ecatalog.motorboss.com/
Catalog/Motors/ALL; Regal Marathon and Leeson:
Online Manufacturer Catalog, accessed December 27, 2018. Available at https www.regalbeloit.com/
Products/Faceted-Search?category=
Motors&brand=Leeson,Marathon%20Motors; WEG:
Online Manufacturer Catalog, accessed December 24, 2018. Available at http
catalog.wegelectric.com/.
14 Based on the Low-Voltage Motors, World Market Report IHS Markit Report September 2017, Edition 20172018 Table 5.15: Market Share Estimates for Low-voltage Motors: Americas;
Suppliers share of the Market in 2015 and 2016.

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

4895

catalog data that exhibited efficiency levels exceeding the current energy conservation standards for CSIR motors.
From this information, DOE proposed in the April 2020 NOPD that more stringent energy conservation standards for CSIR motors do not appear to be technologically feasible. Consequently, DOE did not include a representative CSIR equipment class as part of the engineering analysis.
The minimum energy conservation standards adopted in the March 2010
Final Rule corresponded to efficiency levels below the maximum technologically feasible levels for the CSCR and polyphase topologies, and therefore DOE elected to analyze one representative equipment class for each of these motor topologies. Equipment classes in both the polyphase and CSCR
topologies were directly analyzed due to the fundamental differences in their starting and running electrical characteristics. These differences in operation have a direct impact on performance and indicate that polyphase motors are typically more efficient than single-phase motors. In addition, the efficiency relationships across horsepower and pole configuration are different between single-phase and polyphase motors.
DOE did not vary the pole configuration of the representative classes it analyzed because analyzing the same pole configuration provided the strongest relationship upon which to base its scaling. See section IV.C.5 of this document for details on DOEs scaling methodology. Keeping as many design characteristics constant as possible enabled DOE to more accurately identify how design changes affect efficiency across horsepower ratings. For each motor topology, DOE
directly analyzed the most common pole-configuration. For both motor topologies analyzed, 4-pole motors constitute the largest fraction of motor models on the market.
When DOE selected its representative equipment classes, DOE chose the horsepower ratings that constitute a high volume of motor models and approximate the middle of the range of covered horsepower ratings so that DOE
could develop a reasonable scaling methodology. DOE notes that the representative equipment classes for polyphase and CSCR motors that were selected for the engineering analysis align with the representative classes that were directly analyzed in the March
E:FRFM19JAR1.SGM

19JAR1