Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations NEMA commented that improving efficiency in SEMs may not always result in overall equipment-level efficiency improvements. It noted that any modification to energy conservation standards or scope of regulated SEMs would require a revised analysis of the downstream impact of SEM design changes on OEM devices and appliances. NEMA asserted that changes in motor size, weight, rotational speed, slip,15 and other factors due to more stringent energy conservation standards have not been sufficiently evaluated. It added that because of the potential increase in the speed of the motor due to increases in efficiency, more stringent energy conservation standards could have significant downstream impacts in OEM devices which use these motors and would not always guarantee higher efficiency or better performance by that
end-use device. NEMA, No. 22 at pp.
12, 5; No. 32 at p. 2
DOE continued to use the designs analyzed for the March 2010 Final Rule in preparing this final determination.
The designs analyzed in the engineering analysis did not show a significant less than 2 percent and consistent increase in speed with increasing efficiency some more efficient designs had slightly lower speeds across all ELs See Final Determination TSD Chapter 5. In addition, as discussed previously, to account for motor size and weight limitations, DOE also analyzed both space-constrained and non-spaceconstrained scenarios. However, in this final determination, DOE is not considering amending the current energy conservation standards for this equipment.
Given that DOE was unable to identify any additional design options for
4897

improving efficiency that passed the screening criteria and were not already considered in the March 2010 Final Rule engineering analysis, DOE
analyzed the same motor designs that were developed for the March 2010
Final Rule except for CSIR motors which, as indicated earlier, did not appear to have any technologicallyfeasible options available to improve their efficiency. For each representative equipment class, DOE established an efficiency level for each motor design that exhibited improved efficiency over the baseline design. As discussed previously, DOE considered the current minimum energy conservation standards as the baseline efficiency levels for each representative equipment class. These April 2020 NOPD efficiency levels are summarized in Table IV5.

TABLE IV5SUMMARY OF EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Representative equipment class Single-phase CSCR, 4-pole, 0.75-hp

Polyphase, 4-pole, 1-hp

As mentioned previously, NEMA
commented that the motor designs and associated efficiency levels adopted into this analysis from the March 2010 Final Rule analysis are appropriate. NEMA, No. 22 at p. 3 Accordingly, similar to the April 2020 NOPD, DOE adopted the motor modeling approach used in support of the March 2010 Final Rule to analyze and establish efficiency levels and incremental motor MSPs. DOE did not identify any additional design options in the market for improving efficiency that were not already considered in the March 2010 Final Rule.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

4. Cost Analysis The cost analysis portion of the Engineering Analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of 15 Motor slip is the difference between the speed of the rotor operating speed and the speed of the rotating magnetic field of the stator
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:33 Jan 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

Efficiency %

EL
0 1
2 3
4 5
0 1
2 3

81.8
82.8
84.0
84.6
86.7
87.9
83.5
85.2
86.3
87.8

the regulated product and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the equipment on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example to develop the bill of materials BOM for the product.
Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is feasible for example, for tightly integrated products such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical
e.g. large commercial boilers, DOE
conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and other commercial channels.
In the present case, a standard BOM
was constructed for each motor design that includes direct material costs and labor time estimates along with costs.
DOE notes that the costs established for direct material costs and labor time were initially determined in terms of $2009 for the March 2010 Final Rule.
For the April 2020 NOPD, DOE updated these material and labor costs to be representative of the market in 2018.
DOE adjusted historical material prices to $2018 using the historical Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Indices PPI 16 for each commoditys industry. In addition, DOE updated labor costs and markups based on the most recent and complete version i.e.

synchronous speed. When net rotor resistance of a motor design is reduced, efficiency of the motor
increases but slip decreases, resulting in higher operating speeds.
16 www.bls.gov/ppi/.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:FRFM19JAR1.SGM

19JAR1