Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-28976

Proposed Rule2023-28976

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Fans and Blowers

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

January 19, 2024

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended ("EPCA"), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including fans and blowers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") to periodically determine whether more stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of proposed rulemaking ("NOPR"), DOE proposes energy conservation standards for two categories of fans and blowers: air circulating fans ("ACFs"), and fans and blowers that are not ACFs, referred to as general fans and blowers ("GFBs") throughout this document. DOE also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 13 (Friday, January 19, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 13 (Friday, January 19, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3714-3875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28976]

[[Page 3713]]

Vol. 89

Friday,

No. 13

January 19, 2024

Part II

Department of Energy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Fans and
Blowers; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 3714]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002]
RIN 1904-AF40

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Fans and Blowers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including fans and
blowers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') to
periodically determine whether more stringent standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in
significant energy savings. In this notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR''), DOE proposes energy conservation standards for two
categories of fans and blowers: air circulating fans (``ACFs''), and
fans and blowers that are not ACFs, referred to as general fans and
blowers (``GFBs'') throughout this document. DOE also announces a
public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and
associated analyses and results.

DATES: Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information
regarding this NOPR no later than March 19, 2024.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, February 21,
2024, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. This meeting will also
be broadcast as a webinar.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before February 20, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 6E-069, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585. See section VII of this document, ``Public
Participation,'' for further details, including procedures for
attending the in-person meeting, webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under docket number
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by
docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, by any of the following methods:
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e4a2858a97a58a80a6888b93819697d6d4d6d6b7b0a0d4d4d4d6a48181ca808b81ca838b92">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include docket number
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the
docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments
through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Division at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#284d464d5a4f51065b5c49464c495a4c5b685d5b4c4742064f475e">[email&#160;protected]</a> on or
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this
proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0c4d7c7c60656d626f695f786d62686d7e687f5d79697f786563627f4c696922686369226b637a">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7839151d141119562f10110c11161f381009561c171d561f170e">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#602110100c09010e03053314010e04011204133115051314090f0e132005054e040f054e070f16">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE maintains previously approved
incorporations by reference (AMCA 210-16, AMCA 214-21, and ISO
5801:2017) and incorporates by reference the following material into
part 431:
IEC 61800-9-2:2023, Adjustable speed electrical power drive systems
(PDS)--Part 9-2: Ecodesign for motor systems--Energy efficiency
determination and classification, Edition 2.0, 2023-10.
IEC TS 60034-30-2:2016, Rotating electrical machines--Part 30-2:
Efficiency classes of variable speed AC motors (IE-code), Edition 1.0,
2016-12.
IEC TS 60034-31:2021, Rotating electrical machines--Part 31:
Selection of energy-efficient motors including variable speed
applications--Application guidelines, Edition 2.0, 2021-03.
Copies of IEC 61800-9-2:2023, IEC TS 60034-30-2:2016 and IEC TS
60034-31:2021 are available from the International Electrotechnical
Committee (IEC), Central Office, 3, rue de Varemb[eacute], P.O. Box
131, CH-1211 GENEVA 20, Switzerland; + 41 22 919 02 11;
webstore.iec.ch.
For a further discussion of these standards, see section VI.M of
this document.

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
1. General Fans and Blowers
2. Air Circulating Fans
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Fans and Blowers
C. Deviation From Process Rule
1. Framework Document
2. Public Comment Period
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Coverage
1. General Fans and Blowers
2. Air Circulating Fans
a. Ceiling Fan Distinction

[[Page 3715]]

C. Test Procedure and Metric
1. General Fans and Blowers
a. General
b. Combined Motor and Motor Controller Efficiency Calculation
2. Air Circulating Fans
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes
a. General Fans and Blowers
b. Air Circulating Fans
2. Scope of Analysis and Data Availability
a. General Fans and Blowers
b. Air Circulating Fans
3. Technology Options
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. General Fans and Blowers
a. Baseline Efficiency
b. Selection of Efficiency Levels
c. Higher Efficiency Levels
d. Cost Analysis
2. Air Circulating Fans
a. Representative Units
b. Baseline Efficiency and Efficiency Level 1
c. Selection of Efficiency Levels
d. Cost Analysis
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. General Fans and Blowers
2. Air-Circulating fans
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Equipment Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
1. General Fans and Blowers
2. Air Circulating Fans
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Markup Scenarios
3. Manufacturer Interviews
4. Discussion of MIA Comments
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Fans and Blowers
Standards
a. General Fans and Blowers
b. Air Circulating Fans
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
a. General Fans and Blowers
b. Air Circulating Fans
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
E. Representations and Enforcement Provisions
1. Representations for General Fans and Blowers
2. Enforcement Provisions for General Fans and Blowers
a. Testing a Single Fan at Multiple Duty Points
b. Testing Multiple Fans at One or Several Duty Points
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
VII. Public Participation
A. Attendance at the Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) Such equipment includes fans and blowers. This proposed rule
concerns two categories of fans and blowers: air circulating fans
(``ACFs''), and fans and blowers that are not ACFs, which are referred
to as general fans and blowers (``GFBs'') throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.

[[Page 3716]]

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later
than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending
a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that
standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of
proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of six trial
standard levels (``TSLs'') for two categories of fans and blowers: GFBs
and ACFs. The TSLs and their associated benefits and burdens are
discussed in detail in sections V.A through V.C of this document. As
discussed in section V.C, DOE has tentatively determined that TSL 4
represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified. The proposed
standards, which are expressed in terms of a fan energy index (``FEI'')
for GFBs, are shown in Table I-1 through Table I-3. The proposed
standards, which are expressed in terms of efficacy in cubic feet per
minute per watt (``CFM/W'') at maximum speed for ACFs, are shown in
Table I-3. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all
GFBs listed in Table I-1 and Table I-2 and ACFs listed in Table I-3
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the
date 5 years after the publication of the final rule for this
rulemaking. For GFBs, DOE proposes that every duty point at which the
basic model is offered for sale would need to meet the proposed energy
conservation standards. (See section III.C.1 of this document).
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.000

[[Page 3717]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.002

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I-4 and Table I-5 present DOE's evaluation of the economic
impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of GFBs and ACFs, as
measured by the average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the
simple payback period (``PBP'').\3\ The average LCC savings are
positive for all equipment classes, and the PBP is less than the
average lifetime of the considered equipment, which is estimated to be
16.0 years for GFBs and 6.3 years for ACFs (see section IV.F.6 of this
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards
(see section IV.E.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is also measured
relative to the no-new-standards case (see section IV.C of this
document).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3718]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.004

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the
end of the analysis period (2024-2059). Using a real discount rate of
11.4 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of fans and
blowers in the case without new standards is $649 million in 2022
dollars for ACFs and $4,935 million in 2022 dollars for GFBs. Under the
proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from -10.9
percent to less than 0.1 percent for ACFs, which represents a change in
INPV of approximately -$71 million to less than $0.1 million, and from
-9.2 percent to less than 0.1 percent for GFBs, which represents a
change in INPV of approximately -$455 million to $1 million. In order
to bring products into compliance with new standards, it is estimated
that the industry would incur total conversion costs of $118 million
for ACFs and $770 million for GFBs.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are
presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This section presents the combined results for GFBs and ACFs.
Specific results for GFBs and ACFs are also discussed in sections I.C.1
and I.C.2 of this document, respectively.
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards for GFBs and ACFs would save a significant amount of energy.
Relative to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy savings
for GFBs and ACFs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the
anticipated first full year of compliance with the new standards (2030-
2059) amount to 18.3 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or
quads.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.G.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the proposed standards for GFBs and ACFs ranges from $19.0
billion (at a 7 percent discount rate) to $49.5 billion (at a 3 percent
discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future
operating cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment and
installation costs for GFBs and ACFs purchased in 2030-2059.
In addition, the proposed standards for GFBs and ACFs are projected
to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the
proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over
the same period as for energy savings) of 317.9

[[Page 3719]]

million metric tons (``Mt'') \6\ of carbon dioxide
(``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 92.7 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide
(``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 598.9 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 2,760.5 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 2.9 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.6 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\7\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023''). AEO2023 represents current Federal and
State legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the
time of its preparation. See section IV.J of this document for
further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that affect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of
methane (``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SC-N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of
GHG (``SC-GHG''). DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(``IWG'').\8\ The derivation of these values is discussed in section
IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate
benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount
rate are estimated to be $16.3 billion. DOE does not have a single
central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and
value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-
GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, published in February
2021 by the IWG (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates
from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this
document. DOE did not monetize the reduction in mercury emissions
because the quantity is very small. DOE estimated the present value of
the health benefits would be $11.4 billion using a 7 percent discount
rate, and $31.6 billion using a 3 percent discount rate.\9\ DOE is
currently only monetizing (for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>)
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor health benefits and (for NO<INF>X</INF>)
ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the
ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from
reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered trial standards levels
(``TSLs'') for the purpose of complying with the requirements of
Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I-6 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to
result from the proposed standards for GFBs and ACFs. There are other
important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate
benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of
toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security
benefits, and distributional effects, among others.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 3720]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.005

[[Page 3721]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.006

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the monetized value of climate and health
benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year
to 2024. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed
annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance
year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S.
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the
covered products and are measured for the lifetime of GFBs and ACFs
shipped in 2030-2059. The benefits associated with reduced emissions
achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated
based on the lifetime of GFBs and ACFs shipped in 2030-2059. Total
benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are presented using
the average GHG social costs with a 3-percent discount rate.\11\
Estimates of total benefits are presented for all four SC-GHG discount
rates in section V.B.6 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ As discussed in section IV.L.1 of this document, DOE agrees
with the IWG that using consumption-based discount rates e.g., 3
percent) is appropriate when discounting the value of climate
impacts. Combining climate effects discounted at an appropriate
consumption-based discount rate with other costs and benefits
discounted at a capital-based rate (i.e., 7 percent) is reasonable
because of the different nature of the types of benefits being
measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I-7 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7 percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and the 3 percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards
proposed in this rule is $360 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $2,506 million in
reduced equipment operating costs, $963 million in monetized climate
benefits, and $1,285 million in monetized health benefits. In this
case, the monetized net benefit would amount to $4,394 million per
year.
Using a 3 percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $374 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are
$3,302 million in reduced operating costs, $963 million in monetized
climate benefits, and $1,869 million in monetized health benefits. In
this case, the monetized net benefit would amount to $5,760 million per
year.

[[Page 3722]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.007

[[Page 3723]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.008

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.
1. General Fans and Blowers
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards for GFBs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative
to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy savings for GFBs
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated first
full year of compliance with the new standards (2030-2059) amount to
13.8 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or quads.\12\ This
represents a savings of 11.4 percent relative to the energy use of
these products in the case without standards (referred to as the ``no-
new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.G.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the proposed standards for GFBs ranges from $13.7 billion
(at a 7 percent discount rate) to $36.9 billion (at a 3 percent
discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future
operating cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment and
installation costs for GFBs purchased in 2030-2059.
In addition, the proposed standards for GFBs are projected to yield
significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed
standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same
period as for energy savings) of 239.4 Mt of CO<INF>2</INF>, 73.1
thousand tons of SO<INF>2</INF>, 450.9 thousand tons of NO<INF>X</INF>,
2,073.9 thousand tons of CH<INF>4</INF>, 2.3 thousand tons of
N<INF>2</INF>O, and 0.5 tons of Hg''.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in AEO 2023. AEO2023
represents current Federal and State legislation and final
implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation. See
section IV.J of this document for further discussion of AEO2023
assumptions that affect air pollutant emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of
methane (``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SC-N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of
GHG (``SC-GHG''). DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(``IWG'').\14\ The derivation of these values is discussed in section
IV.K of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate
benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount
rate are estimated to be $11.9 billion. DOE does not have a single
central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and
value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-
GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, published in February
2021 by the IWG (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupport">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupport</a>
Document_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrous Oxide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3724]]

using a 3 percent discount rate.\15\ DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>) PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor
health benefits and (for NO<INF>X</INF>) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered trial standards levels
(``TSLs'') for the purpose of complying with the requirements of
Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I-8 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to
result from the proposed standards for GFBs. There are other important
unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits,
unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air
pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits,
and distributional effects, among others.

[[Page 3725]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.009

[[Page 3726]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.010

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the monetized value of climate and health
benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year
to 2024. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed
annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance
year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S.
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the
covered products and are measured for the lifetime of GFBs shipped in
2030-2059. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a
result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the
lifetime of GFBs shipped in 2030-2059. Total benefits for both the 3
percent and 7 percent cases are presented using the average GHG social
costs with a 3-percent discount rate.\17\ Estimates of total benefits
are presented for all four SC-GHG discount rates in section V.B.6 of
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ As discussed in section IV.L.1 of this document, DOE agrees
with the IWG that using consumption-based discount rates e.g., 3
percent) is appropriate when discounting the value of climate
impacts. Combining climate effects discounted at an appropriate
consumption-based discount rate with other costs and benefits
discounted at a capital-based rate (i.e., 7 percent) is reasonable
because of the different nature of the types of benefits being
measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I-9 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7 percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and the 3 percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards
proposed in this rule is $329 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,880 million in
reduced equipment operating costs, $703 million in monetized climate
benefits, and $932 million in monetized health benefits. In this case,
the monetized net benefit would amount to $3,185 million per year.
Using a 3 percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $340 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are
$2,524 million in reduced operating costs, $703 million in monetized
climate benefits, and $1,384 million in monetized health benefits. In
this case, the monetized net benefit would amount to $4,271 million per
year.

[[Page 3727]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.011

[[Page 3728]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.012

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.
2. Air Circulating Fans
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards for ACFs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative
to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy savings for ACFs
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated first
full year of compliance with the new standards (2030-2059) amount to
4.5 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or quads.\18\ This
represents a savings of 37.3 percent relative to the energy use of
these products in the case without standards (referred to as the ``no-
new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the proposed standards for ACFs ranges from $5.3 billion
(at a 7 percent discount rate) to $12.6 billion (at a 3 percent
discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs
for ACFs purchased in 2030-2059.
In addition, the proposed standards for ACFs are projected to yield
significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed
standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same
period as for energy savings) of 78.5 Mt \19\ of CO<INF>2</INF>, 19.7
thousand tons of SO<INF>2</INF>, 148.0 thousand tons of NO<INF>X</INF>,
686.7 thousand tons of CH<INF>4</INF>, 0.6 thousand tons of
N<INF>2</INF>O, and 0.1 tons of mercury Hg.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\20\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in AEO2023. AEO2023
represents current Federal and State legislation and final
implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation. See
section IV.K of this document for further discussion of AEO2023
assumptions that affect air pollutant emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (GHG) using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of
methane (``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SC-N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of
GHG (SC-GHG). DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(IWG).\21\ The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L
of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits
associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
estimated to be $4.4 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG
point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of
considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive order 13990, published in February
2021 by the IWG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3729]]

is currently only monetizing (for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>)
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor health benefits and (for NO<INF>X</INF>)
ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the
ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from
reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I-10 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to
result from the proposed standards for ACFs. There are other important
unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits,
unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air
pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits,
and distributional effects, among others.

[[Page 3730]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.013

[[Page 3731]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.014

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the monetized value of climate and health
benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year
to 2022. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed
annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance
year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S.
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the
covered products and are measured for the lifetime of GFBs shipped in
2030-2059. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a
result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the
lifetime of GFBs shipped in 2030-2059. Total benefits for both the 3
percent and 7 percent cases are presented using the average GHG social
costs with 3 percent discount rate.\24\ Estimates of total benefits are
presented for all four SC-GHG discount rates in section V.B.6 of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ As discussed in section IV.L.1 of this document, DOE agrees
with the IWG that using consumption-based discount rates e.g., 3
percent) is appropriate when discounting the value of climate
impacts. Combining climate effects discounted at an appropriate
consumption-based discount rate with other costs and benefits
discounted at a capital-based rate (i.e., 7 percent) is reasonable
because of the different nature of the types of benefits being
measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I-11 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and
costs associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of
annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are as
follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards
proposed in this rule is $31 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $626 million in reduced
equipment operating costs, $261 million in monetized climate benefits,
and $353 million in monetized health benefits. In this case. The net
monetized benefit would amount to $1,209 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $34 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $778
million in reduced operating costs, $261 million in monetized climate
benefits, and $485 million in monetized health benefits. In this case,
the monetized net benefit would amount to $1,489 million per year.

[[Page 3732]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.015

[[Page 3733]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.016

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the
significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to
technological feasibility products achieving these standard levels are
already commercially available for all equipment classes covered by
this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that
the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the
burdens of the proposed standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for GFBs is $329 million per year in increased GFB
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,880 million in
reduced GFB operating costs, $703 million in monetized climate benefits
and $932 million in monetized health benefits. The net monetized
benefit amounts to $3,185 million per year. DOE notes that the net
benefits are substantial even in the absence of the climate
benefits,\25\ and DOE would adopt the same standards in the absence of
such benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ The information on climate benefits is provided in
compliance with Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for ACFs is $31 million per year in increased ACF
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $626 million in reduced
ACF operating costs, $261 million in monetized climate benefits and
$353 million in monetized health benefits. The net monetized benefit
amounts to $1,209 million per year.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\26\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have substantial energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously mentioned, the proposed standards are projected to
result in estimated national energy savings of 13.8 quad FFC for GFBs
and 4.5 quads FFC for ACFs, the equivalent of the primary annual energy
use of 148 and 48 million homes, respectively. In addition, they are
projected to reduce CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 239.4 Mt and 78.5 Mt,
for GFBs and ACFs, respectively. Based on these findings, DOE has
initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard
levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these
tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document
and the NOPR TSD.
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as
potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking.
However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of
the more stringent energy

[[Page 3734]]

efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in
response to this document and related information collected and
analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt
energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either
higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of
level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
fans and blowers.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency.
EPCA specifies a list of equipment that constitutes covered
equipment (hereafter referred to as ``covered equipment'').\27\ EPCA
also provides that ``covered equipment'' includes any other type of
industrial equipment for which the Secretary of Energy (``the
Secretary'') determines inclusion is necessary to carry out the purpose
of Part A-1. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(L); 42 U.S.C. 6312(b)) EPCA specifies
the types of industrial equipment that can be classified as covered in
addition to the equipment enumerated in 42 U.S.C. 6311(1). This
industrial equipment includes fans and blowers, the subjects of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(ii) and (iii)) Additionally, industrial
equipment must be of a type that consumes, or is designed to consume,
energy in operation; is distributed in commerce for industrial or
commercial use; and is not a covered product as defined in 42 U.S.C.
6291(a)(2) other than a component of a covered product with respect to
which there is in effect a determination under 42 U.S.C. 6312(c). (42
U.S.C. 6311(2)(A)) On August 19, 2021, DOE published a final
determination concluding that the inclusion of fans and blowers as
covered equipment was necessary to carry out the purpose of Part A-1
and classifying fans and blowers as covered equipment. 86 FR 46579,
46588.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ ``Covered equipment'' means one of the following types of
industrial equipment: electric motors and pumps; small commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment; large commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment; very large
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment;
commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers;
automatic commercial ice makers; walk-in coolers and walk-in
freezers; commercial clothes washers; packaged terminal air-
conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps; warm air furnaces and
packaged boilers; and storage water heaters, instantaneous water
heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)-
(K))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) There are currently no Federal
energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. However, as noted
in the Existing Efficiency Standards subsection of section IV.C.1.b of
this document, the California Energy Commission (``CEC'') has finalized
a rulemaking that requires manufacturers to report fan operating
boundaries that result in operation at a FEI of greater than or equal
to 1.00 for all fans within the scope of that rulemaking.\28\ The scope
of the CEC rulemaking includes some, but not all, GFBs that are
considered in the scope of this energy conservation rulemaking. The CEC
rulemaking goes into effect on November 1, 2023. However, if the
Federal standards in this NOPR are finalized and made effective, they
will supersede the CEC standard requirements. The CEC standards with
respect to fans and blowers covered by a standard set in a final rule
would be superseded once the Federal standard takes effect, meaning on
the compliance date applicable to GFBs, which is expected to be 5 years
after the publication of any final rule. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ California Energy Commission. Commercial and Industrial
Fans and Blowers. Docket No. 22-AAER-01. Available at
<a href="http://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=22-AAER-01">efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=22-AAER-01</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy
efficiency and energy use, including those made on marketing materials
and product labels, for certain equipment, including fans and blowers,
must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure, beginning
180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
(42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) DOE notes that Federal test procedures generally
supersede any State regulation insofar as such State regulation
provides for the disclosure of information with respect to any measure
of energy consumption or water use of any covered product (42 U.S.C
6297(a)(1)) The Federal test procedure for fans and blowers was
published on May 1, 2023, and all representations of energy efficiency
and energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product
labels, must be made in accordance with this test procedure beginning
October 30, 2023. 88 FR 27312. Therefore, DOE notes that any disclosure
of information regarding any measure of energy consumption for fans
required by the CEC must be tested in accordance with the Federal test
procedure beginning October 30, 2023.
DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures
and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)
(applying the preemption waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297).)
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295I) Manufacturers of covered
equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for: (1)
certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must
use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies
with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for fans and blowers appear at
title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, subpart
J, appendices A and B.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment, including fans and blowers.
Any new or

[[Page 3735]]

amended standard for covered equipment must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in
the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain
equipment, including fans and blowers, if no test procedure has been
established for the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that
the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a
proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether
the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the equipment subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered equipment that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or, as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
equipment likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') considers
relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing equipment complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))

EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of covered equipment.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not
prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any
covered equipment type (or class) of performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United
States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for covered equipment that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of equipment that has the same function or intended use, if
DOE determines that equipment within such group: (A) consume a
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment
within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other equipment within such type (or
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining
whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard
for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility
to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of
the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

B. Background

1. Current Standards
DOE does not currently have energy conservation standards for fans
and blowers. The following section summarizes relevant background
information regarding DOE's consideration of energy conservation
standards for fans and blowers.
On May 10, 2021, DOE published a request for information requesting
comments on a potential fan or blower definition. 86 FR 24752. DOE
followed this with a publication of a final determination on August 19,
2021, classifying fans and blowers as covered equipment (``August 2021
Final Coverage Determination''). 86 FR 46579. At this time, DOE
determined that the term ``blower'' is used interchangeably in the U.S.
market with the term ``fan.'' 86 FR 46579, 46583. DOE defines a fan (or
blower) as a rotary bladed machine used to convert electrical or
mechanical power to air power, with an energy output limited to 25
kilojoule (``kJ'') per kilogram (``kg'') of air. It consists of an
impeller, a shaft and bearings and/or driver to support the impeller,
as well as a structure or housing. A fan (or blower) may include a
transmission, driver, and/or motor controller. 10 CFR 431.172.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Fans and Blowers
In considering whether to establish standards, on June 28, 2011 DOE
published a notice of proposed determination of coverage to initiate an
energy conservation standards rulemaking for fans, blowers, and fume
hoods. 76 FR 37678. Subsequently, DOE published a notice of public
meeting and availability of the Framework document for GFBs in the
Federal Register. 78 FR 7306 (February 1, 2013). In the Framework
document (``2013 Framework Document''), DOE requested feedback from
interested parties on many issues, including the engineering analysis,
the MIA, the LCC and PBP analyses, and the national impact analysis
(``NIA'').
On December 10, 2014, DOE published a notice of data availability
(``December 2014 NODA'') that estimated the potential economic impacts
and energy savings that could result from promulgating energy
conservation standards for fans. 79 FR 73246. The December 2014 NODA
analysis used FEI, a ``wire-to-air'' fan electrical input power metric,
to characterize fan performance.
In October 2014, several representatives of fan manufacturers and
energy efficiency advocates \29\ (``Joint Stakeholders'') presented DOE
with an alternative metric approach, the ``Fan Efficiency Ratio,''
which included a fan efficiency-only metric approach
(``FER<INF>H</INF>'') and a wire-to-air metric approach
(``FER<INF>W</INF>'').\30\ On May 1, 2015,

[[Page 3736]]

based on the additional information received and comments to the
December 2014 NODA, DOE published a second NODA (``May 2015 NODA'')
that announced data availability from DOE analyses conducted using a
modified FEI metric, similar to the FER<INF>W</INF> metric presented by
the Joint Stakeholders. 80 FR 24841, 24843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ The Air Movement and Control Association (AMCA), New York
Blower Company, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the
Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), and the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA).
\30\ Supporting documents from this meeting, including
presentation slides are available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0029">www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0029</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concurrent with these efforts, DOE established an Appliance
Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') Working
Group (``Working Group'') to discuss negotiated energy conservation
standards and test procedures for fans.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ Information on the ASRAC, the commercial and industrial
fans Working Group, and meeting dates is available at: <a href="http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-standards-and-rulemaking-federal-advisory-committee">energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-standards-and-rulemaking-federal-advisory-committee</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Working Group concluded its negotiations on September 3, 2015,
and, by consensus vote,\32\ approved a term sheet containing 27
recommendations related to scope, test procedure, and energy
conservation standards (``term sheet''). (See Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-
STD-0006, No. 179.) ASRAC approved the term sheet on September 24,
2015. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005; Public Meeting Transcript, No.
58, at p. 29)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ At the beginning of the negotiated rulemaking process, the
Working Group defined that before any vote could occur, the Working
Group must establish a quorum of at least 20 of the 25 members and
defined consensus as an agreement with less than 4 negative votes.
Twenty voting members of the Working Group were present for this
vote. Two members (Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute and Ingersoll Rand/Trane) voted no on the term sheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On November 1, 2016, DOE published a third notification of data
availability (``November 2016 NODA'') that presented a revised analysis
for GFBs consistent with the scope and metric recommendations in the
term sheet. 81 FR 75742, 75743. As recommended by the working group,
the November 2016 NODA used the fan electrical input power metric (FEP)
\33\ in conjunction with FEI to characterize fan performance. DOE made
several additional updates to the November 2016 NODA to address the
term sheet recommendations developed by the Working Group as well as
stakeholder feedback submitted via public comment. Specifically, the
analysis presented in the November 2016 NODA was updated to include (1)
augmentation of the Air Movement and Control Association International
(``AMCA'') sales data used in the May 2015 NODA to better account for
fans made by companies that incorporate those fans for sale in their
own equipment, (2) augmentation of the AMCA sales data to represent
additional sales of forward-curved fans, and (3) inclusion of original
equipment manufacturer (``OEM'') conversion costs. Id. The November
2016 NODA evaluated only fans with a fan shaft input power equal to, or
greater than, 1 horsepower (``hp'') and a fan airpower equal to or less
than 150 hp. 81 FR 75742, 75746.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ The FEP metric represents the electrical input power of the
fan and includes the performance of the motor, and any transmission
and/or control if integrated, assembled, or packaged with the fan.
In the November 2016 NODA, DOE developed standards based on FEI
values evaluated relative to the EL 3 standard FEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On October 1, 2021, DOE published a request for information
pertaining to test procedures for fans and blowers (``October 2021 TP
RFI''). 86 FR 54412. As part of the October 2021 TP RFI, DOE discussed
definitions and potential scope for ACFs. 86 FR 54412, 54414-54415. DOE
published a separate request for information on February 8, 2022
(``February 2022 RFI''), to seek input to aid in its development of the
technical and economic analyses regarding whether standards for ACFs
may be warranted. 87 FR 7048. On October 13, 2022, DOE published a
notice of data availability (``October 2022 NODA'') to present its
preliminary engineering analysis for ACFs and to seek input to support
DOE in completing a notice of proposed rulemaking analysis for all fans
and blowers. 87 FR 62038.
DOE received comments in response to the October 2022 NODA from the
interested parties listed in Table II-1.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 3737]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.017

[[Page 3738]]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
DOE also acknowledges that it received numerous identical comments
via a mass email campaign stating that standards for fans and blowers
is an important issue and requesting that DOE pursue an approach that
is fair and equitable to both businesses and consumers. \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ Comment numbers 14-118 in the docket (Docket No. EERE-2022-
BT-STD-0002, maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. (Docket No.
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deviation From Process Rule

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``Process Rule''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in the Process Rule regarding the pre-NOPR and NOPR stages
for an energy conservation standards rulemaking.
1. Framework Document
Section 6(a)(2) of the Process Rule states that if DOE determines
it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages
of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that
DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary
analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
As described in section II.B.2 of this document, DOE published the
2013 Framework Document, the December 2014 NODA, the May 2015 NODA, and
the November 2016 NODA for GFBs. 78 FR 7306; 79 FR 73246; 80 FR 24841;
81 FR 75742. The three NODAs presented DOE's analysis at various
points, provided stakeholders opportunity to review and provide
comment. Furthermore, while DOE published the February 2022 RFI and
October 2022 NODA for ACFs, DOE did not publish a framework document in
conjunction with the NODA for ACFs. 87 FR 62038. DOE notes that ACFs
and GFBs are analyzed separately, however, the general analytical
framework that DOE uses in evaluating and developing potential new
energy conservation standards for both GFBs and ACFs is similar. As
such, publication of a separate framework document for ACFs would be
largely redundant of previously published documents.
2. Public Comment Period
Section 6(f)(2) of the Process Rule specifies that the length of
the public comment period for a NOPR will be not less than 75 calendar
days. For this NOPR, DOE is instead providing a 60-day comment period,
consistent with EPCA requirements. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(p). DOE is opting to deviate from the 75-day comment period
because of the robust opportunities already afforded to stakeholders to
provide comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DOE is providing a 60-day comment period, which DOE believes is
appropriate given the substantial stakeholder engagement for general
fans and blowers to date, as discussed in section II.B.2 of this
document. Furthermore, the request for information on air circulating
fans that was published on February 8, 2022, provided early notice to
interested parties that DOE was interested in evaluating potential
energy conservation standards for air circulating fans. DOE also
provided a 45-day comment period for the notice of data availability
that was published on October 13, 2022. Therefore, DOE believes a 60-
day comment period is appropriate and will provide interested parties
with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues
raised by these commenters.

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested
parties in response to the October 2022 NODA regarding rulemaking
timing, process, and impact.
In response to many of DOE's requests for comment, AMCA recommended
that DOE obtain the requested information through confidential
interviews with fan manufacturers. (AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 6-14) DOE
notes that it used information collected during manufacturer interviews
to inform its engineering, market, and manufacturer analyses.
NEMA commented that its interpretation of DOE's analysis in the
October 2022 NODA was that DOE was proposing energy efficiency
requirements for motors that are used in ACFs, which would be confusing
and problematic for the motor industry, since there is a separate
rulemaking for motors. (NEMA, No. 125 at pp. 2, 4). Additionally, NEMA
stated that DOE's inclusion of higher efficiency small, non-``small
electric motor'' electric motors (``SNEMs'') as a technology option for
increasing the efficiency of ACFs could be an issue because of an
ongoing rulemaking for SNEMs. (NEMA, No. 125 at p. 2) DOE notes that in
a NOPR for expanded scope electric motors (``ESEMs'') published on
December 15, 2023 (``December 2023 ESEM NOPR''), motors that were
previously referred to as SNEMs were redefined to be ESEMs. 88 FR 87062
DOE will use the term ``ESEM'' throughout the remainder of this
document to refer to these motors. Morrison commented that it is
concerned about the small motors rulemaking being in progress at the
same time as this fans and blowers rulemaking. (Morrison, No. 128 at p.
1)
DOE notes that it is proposing energy conservation standards for
fans and blowers, including ACFs and GFBs, and that it is not proposing
energy conservation standards for motors in this rulemaking. DOE
typically defines a likely design path to structure its engineering
analysis; however, DOE notes that this design path is not prescriptive.
DOE heard from ACF manufacturers that replacing a less efficient motor
with a more efficient motor would be one of the first options they
would evaluate. Therefore, DOE considered more efficient motors as an
option that a manufacturer might apply to reach a given ACF efficiency
level. DOE acknowledges that the electric motors rulemaking involving
ESEMs is ongoing (see EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007) and that stakeholders made
a joint recommendation for the efficiencies at which they believe the
standards for ESEMs should be set. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007,
Joint Stakeholders, No. 38 at p. 6, Table 2) As discussed in section
IV.C.2.c, DOE defined an efficiency level (EL 2) in its ACF engineering
analysis based on the efficiencies recommended for ESEMs by the Joint
Stakeholders. DOE may consider adjusting the baseline efficiency level
for ACFs if it sets a standard in the ESEM rulemaking at the
recommended ESEM levels.
AMCA commented that it generally supports NEMA's comments. (AMCA,
No. 132 at pp. 2, 21) DOE therefore notes that throughout this
document, reference to comments made by NEMA are understood to be
representative of the viewpoints of AMCA as well.
Greenheck stated that it would be beneficial for the ACF rulemaking
to be delayed until after AMCA 230-2023 is

[[Page 3739]]

published. (Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 1) AMCA commented that DOE should
finalize a test procedure before proceeding with its fans and blowers
energy conservation standards rulemaking so that stakeholders can make
informed comments on the energy conservation standards rulemaking.
(AMCA, No. 132 at p. 10) DOE notes that ACMA 230-23 was published on
February 10, 2023, and that DOE has since published its test procedure
final rule for fans and blowers, on May 1, 2023. 88 FR 27312.
MIAQ commented that it disagrees with DOE's decision to provide a
45-day comment period instead of the usual 75-day comment period for
the October 2022 NODA. (MIAQ, No. 124 at p. 2) In the October 2022
NODA, DOE discussed its decision to deviate from section 3(a) of
appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430 and reduce the comment
period. 87 FR 62038, 62039. DOE provided a 45-day comment period given
the substantial stakeholder engagement prior to the publication of the
NODA and to provide DOE with ample time to review comments to inform
this NOPR analysis. Id.
The CA IOUs commented that they are concerned that the energy
conservation standards may supersede the fan input power limits
currently in place for building codes, such as the California Building
Energy Code (Title 24), American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'') Standard 90.1, ``Energy
Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,'' and the
International Energy Conservation Code (``IECC'') 2021, which would
reduce the influence of these building codes and ultimately result in
an increase in the energy consumption of the equipment in which fans
are embedded because the fan power limits in those codes are
significantly more stringent than the FEI requirements and ensure the
overall fan system in a building is designed efficiently. (CA IOUs, No.
127 at p. 6) Damas and Boldt also expressed their concern that energy
conservation standards may preempt the limits on fan system power in
building energy codes such as ASHRAE 90.1 and therefore could
potentially increase energy use in new construction. (Damas and Boldt,
No. 131 at p. 5) AHRI commented that an energy conservation standard is
not needed for fans because all States are obligated to comply with
ASHRAE 90.1. (AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 16-17)
DOE notes that neither ASHRAE 90.1 nor IECC 2021 are federally
mandated standards. Although ASHRAE 90.1 and IECC 2021 may be
incorporated into municipal and/or building codes, this is not required
and is performed on a State and local level. Furthermore, their
incorporation does not always mandate standard efficiency requirements.
DOE also acknowledges that as stated in section II.A, Federal energy
efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA
generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy
conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and
(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, if energy conservation standards for
fans and blowers were to be adopted, they would supersede State laws
and regulations for the efficiency of individual fans and blowers at
the product or equipment level. DOE considered the fan efficiency
requirements in ASHRAE 90.1 and IECC 2021 in its analysis, as discussed
in section IV.C.1.b of this document. With regard to CA IOUs concern
that DOE's regulation would supersede current regulations for fan input
power limits, DOE notes that the standards proposed in this NOPR apply
only to individual fans, whether embedded or standalone, that are
within the proposed scope of this rulemaking. DOE is not proposing
minimum input power requirements for fan systems that may be
incorporated into buildings. Therefore, although the individual fans
used in fan systems would be required to comply with DOE's minimum FEI
requirements if the fan is within the proposed scope of this
rulemaking, DOE's proposed regulations would not supersede input power
requirements for fan systems.

B. Scope of Coverage

This NOPR covers those commercial and industrial equipment that
meet the definition of ``fan'' or ``blower,'' as codified at 10 CFR
431.172 and for which DOE has finalized test procedures in subpart J of
10 CFR part 431.
As discussed, DOE defines a ``fan'' or ``blower'' as a rotary
bladed machine used to convert electrical or mechanical power to air
power, with an energy output limited to 25 kJ/kg of air. It consists of
an impeller, a shaft and bearings and/or driver to support the
impeller, as well as a structure or housing. A fan or blower may
include a transmission, driver, and/or motor controller. 10 CFR
431.172. DOE separates fans and blowers into general fans and blowers
and air circulating fans.
An ``air circulating fan'' means a fan that has no provision for
connection to ducting or separation of the fan inlet from its outlet
using a pressure boundary, operates against zero external static
pressure loss, and is not a jet fan. 10 CFR 431.172. Fans and blowers
that are not ACFs are referred to as general fans and blowers
(``GFBs'') throughout this document.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, DOE received comments on the
fans considered within the scope of its analysis.
Greenheck, AMCA, and Morrison commented that ACFs should be
considered in a separate rule from GFBs since ACFs and GFBs are
utilized in different applications and use different industry test
procedures (i.e., AMCA 230 for ACFs and AMCA 214 for GFBs). (Greenheck,
No. 122 at p. 1; AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 1, 20-21; Morrison, No. 128 at p.
2)
DOE acknowledges that ACFs and GFBs have separate utilities and
test procedures. In the test procedure final rule that was published on
May 1, 2023 (``May 2023 TP Final Rule''), DOE adopted separate test
procedures for GFBs and ACFs (see appendix A and appendix B,
respectively, to subpart J of 10 CFR part 431). 88 FR 27312. Similarly,
in this NOPR, separate analyses were conducted for ACFs and GFBs to
account for the difference in test procedures, metrics, and utility.
DOE is proposing separate standards for GFBs and ACFs, expressed in
different metrics, as discussed in later sections.
1. General Fans and Blowers
In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established the scope of the
test procedure. 88 FR 27312. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing energy
conservation standards for GFBs consistent with the scope of coverage
defined in the May 2023 TP Final Rule.
Specifically, in this NOPR, DOE proposes energy conservation
standards for the following GFB categories, as defined in the DOE test
procedure: (1) axial inline fan; (2) axial panel fan; (3) centrifugal
housed fan; (4) centrifugal unhoused fan; (5) centrifugal inline fan;
(6) radial housed fan; and (7) power roof/wall ventilator (``PRV'').
Furthermore, consistent with the DOE test procedure, DOE proposes that
the scope of this energy conservation standards rulemaking for GFBs
would apply to fans with duty points with a fan shaft input power equal
to or greater than 1 hp and a fan static or total air power equal to or
less than 150 hp.
Additionally, DOE did not evaluate or consider potential energy
conservation standards for GFBs that were not included in the scope of
its test procedure. See 10 CFR 431.174. DOE notes that its test
procedure excludes fans that create a vacuum of 30 inches water gauge
or greater. 10 CFR

[[Page 3740]]

431.174(a)(2)(vii) In this NOPR, DOE proposes to further clarify that
this provision excludes fans that are manufactured and marketed
exclusively to create a vacuum of 30 inches water gauge or greater.
DOE requests comment on its proposed clarification for fans that
create a vacuum. Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether fans
that are manufactured and marketed exclusively to create a vacuum of 30
inches water gauge or greater could also be used in positive pressure
applications. Additionally, DOE requests information on the
applications in which a fan not manufactured or marketed exclusively
for creating a vacuum would be used to create a vacuum of 30 inches
water gauge or greater.
Consistent with the test procedure, DOE has excluded certain
embedded fans, listed in Table III-1, from its analysis. See the May
2023 TP Final Rule for a detailed discussion of these exclusions. 88 FR
27312, 27322-27331.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 3741]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.018

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
In response to the October 2022 NODA, DOE received comments
regarding the scope of the energy conservation standards for GFBs.
AHAM agreed with DOE's proposal to only cover GFBs that were rated
at 1 hp or higher because it effectively excluded most fans used in
consumer product applications. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 5) AHRI commented
that regulating GFBs

[[Page 3742]]

with an input power of less than 1 hp would include residential fans.
(AHRI, No. 130 at p. 3) Morrison expressed concern with the minimum
power limit for GFBs being 0.1 hp instead of 1 hp since most GFBs with
input powers less than 1 hp are not commercial or industrial.
(Morrison, No. 128 at p. 1). DOE interprets Morrison's reference to a
0.1 hp limit to be a reference to the 0.1 hp representative unit for
ACFs in the October 2022 NODA. DOE notes that a minimum power limit of
0.1 hp for GFBs was not proposed in the October 2022 NODA. As
discussed, GFBs with an input power of less than 1 hp are excluded from
the scope of this rulemaking, which is consistent with the scope of
coverage in the DOE test procedure. See 10 CFR 431.174(a)(4)(i).
In response to both the October 2022 NODA and the July 2022 TP
NOPR, AHRI and Morrison commented that they were concerned about how
energy conservation standards would apply to replacement fans.
(Morrison, No. 128 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 2, 5, 12) Morrison and
AHRI stated that replacement fans should be exempt from the standards
rulemaking because a fan with the same specific performance and safety
devices needs to be used for replacement in order to achieve the same
system performance and to comply with safety requirements. Id. DOE
notes that the comments from AHRI and Morrison submitted in response to
the October 2022 NODA are identical in content to the comments
submitted from these and other stakeholders to the July 2022 NOPR.
These comments are fully summarized in the May 2023 TP Final Rule. 88
FR 27312, 27334.
CA IOUs stated that consumers seeking to replace low-pressure fans
in constrained spaces may not be able to find replacement fans that
meet a higher FEI. Since a more efficient fan may require a larger
diameter, it might not fit in the constrained space. Therefore, either
the constrained space will need to be enlarged to fit the larger fan
(which is likely to be costly for the consumer) or the consumer would
select a replacement fan of the same size but with higher pressure
(resulting in more power use to achieve the same airflow). (CA IOUs,
No. 127 at p. 6) CA IOUs therefore proposed a narrow exception for
[non-embedded] centrifugal fans with a rated pressure not greater than
1.5 inches water gauge. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at p. 7)
Consistent with DOE's response to these comments in the April 2023
Final Rule, DOE is proposing to exclude certain embedded fans from
potential energy conservation standards in this rulemaking, whether
sold for incorporation into the equipment or already incorporated in
the equipment, if embedded in equipment listed in Table III-1. This
approach would exclude replacement fans for the equipment listed in
Table III-1. For equipment not listed in Table III-1, DOE notes that it
is not excluding replacement fans from the scope of the rulemaking,
consistent with the scope of the DOE test procedure. In its analysis,
which is discussed in further detail in section IV.C.1 of this
document, DOE evaluated improved efficiency options while maintaining
constant diameter and duty point (i.e., air flow and operating
pressures remained constant as efficiency increased); therefore, DOE
has tentatively concluded that a compliant fan of the same size and
performance would be available for use as an embedded fan or
replacement for an embedded fan. Additionally, DOE does not expect that
manufacturers of equipment that contain embedded fans would need to
redesign their equipment. Furthermore, DOE is not excluding centrifugal
fans based on its rated pressure. In its analysis, DOE specifically
examined centrifugal housed fans designed at both lower- and higher-
pressure duty points. Based on that analysis, DOE did not find a
significant difference in the achievable FEI values between the higher-
and lower-pressure duty points. Accordingly, DOE has tentatively
determined that centrifugal housed fans do not require an exclusion
based on rated pressure. Additional details on DOE's analysis are
presented in chapter 3 of the accompanying TSD.
DOE also received multiple comments from stakeholders about fans
that should be excluded from the scope of the rulemaking; these
comments were similar to the comments received in response to the July
2022 TP NOPR. Morrison and AHRI commented that they are concerned over
double regulation of products. (Morrison, No. 128 at pp. 2-3; AHRI, No.
130 at p. 2) AHRI commented that fans embedded in boilers and
commercial water heaters should be excluded. (AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 10-
11) DOE notes that these comments were summarized and responded to in
the May 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 27312, 27329-27330. Additionally,
AHRI commented that the regulation of fans within air-cooled water
chillers would not improve the efficiency of the entire equipment, nor
would it lead to net energy savings because ASHRAE 90.1 already sets
efficiency standards for the equipment and the entire system is
designed to meet the ASHRAE 90.1 efficiency standards. (AHRI, No. 130
at pp. 9-10) MIAQ commented that energy conservation standards for
embedded fans would not necessarily improve the performance of the
products in which the fans are embedded if the products are already
regulated. (MIAQ, No. 124 at p. 4)
As previously discussed, DOE is exempting fans embedded in the
equipment listed in Table III-1, consistent with the DOE test
procedure, and continues to exclude fans in covered equipment in which
the fan energy use is already captured in the equipment-specific test
procedures. Furthermore, as discussed in section III.A of this
document, ASHRAE 90.1 is not a federally mandated standard, though it
may be adopted by State and local governments, and therefore DOE is not
specifically exempting fans that are in equipment that are regulated by
IECC and ASHRAE 90.1.
More details regarding the scope of GFBs that are included in this
NOPR can be found in the May 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 27312, 27317-
27336.
2. Air Circulating Fans
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE stated that it was considering all
air circulating fans in its analysis of potential energy conservation
standards for fans and blowers, including unhoused air circulating fan
heads and housed air circulating fan heads. 87 FR 62038, 62041. DOE
received comments from stakeholders in response to the scope discussion
in the October 2022 NODA.
AHAM commented there is a lack of clarity about which products are
included and excluded in DOE's proposed scope and that DOE was
improperly expanding the scope of products included in the fans and
blowers category by including residential products. AHAM stated that it
did not believe that the metric, technology options, assumptions, and
test procedure discussed in the October 2022 NODA are relevant to
residential fans. (AHAM, No. 123 at pp. 1-2) Specifically, AHAM
commented that the proposed test procedure from the July 2022 TP NOPR
and AMCA 214-21 are not applicable to residential fans and that no
energy conservation standards should be set for residential fans until
a test procedure for residential fans is established. (AHAM, No. 123 at
pp. 5, 9) AHAM, Greenheck, and AMCA also commented that ACFs with an
input power less than 125 W should be excluded from scope to coincide
with the scope limit in AMCA 230-23 and IEC 60879. (AHAM, No. 123

[[Page 3743]]

at pp. 5-6; Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 2; AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 1-2, 19-
20) AHAM noted that this would effectively differentiate between
residential and consumer products, so long as the 125 W threshold
applies to the fan rating alone and not to the entire product or the
fan and motor. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 5) DOE notes that ACFs are tested
in a configuration that measures electrical input power to the fan,
inclusive of the motor, and that the existing test procedures (i.e.,
AMCA 230-23 or IEC 60879:2019) do not allow measuring the mechanical
shaft power to the fan, exclusive of the motor. Therefore, DOE has
determined that a limit in terms of electrical input power (applicable
to the fan and motor) is more appropriate. DOE notes that AHAM
submitted additional comments recommending exclusion of residential
fans and fans embedded in residential products that were also submitted
in response to the July 2022 TP NOPR. (AHAM, No. 123 at pp. 2-5) DOE
addressed those comments in the May 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 27312,
27326. In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established the scope of the
test procedure for ACFs and excluded ACFs with an input power of less
than 125 W at maximum speed. 88 FR 27312, 27331. In this NOPR, DOE is
proposing energy conservation standards for ACFs consistent with the
scope of coverage defined in the May 2023 TP Final Rule. (see 10 CFR
431.174(b)). Therefore, DOE proposes that ACFs with an input power of
less than 125 W at maximum speed are excluded from the scope of this
standards rulemaking. DOE is aware, however, that ACFs with an input
power less than 125 W at maximum speed could be distributed in commerce
for industrial and commercial use, and that ACFs with an input power
greater than 125 W at maximum speed could be distributed in commerce
for residential use. However, any equipment that meets the definition
of air circulating fan, has an input power greater than or equal to 125
W at maximum speed, as measured by the test procedure at high speed,
and is of a type that is not a covered consumer product and is, to any
significant extent, distributed in commerce for industrial or
commercial purposes would be subject to these proposed energy
conservation standards, regardless of whether it is sold for use in
commercial, industrial, or residential settings.
AHAM commented that the terminology used in the October 2022 NODA
for fan head diameter, rather than fan blade diameter, is inconsistent
with how residential ACFs are typically analyzed. (AHAM, No. 123 at p.
8) DOE notes that while it works to use terminology that is consistent
with industry terminology, it is not always possible given the size and
maturity of test standards development in a given industry. DOE
clarifies that its usage of the term ``fan head diameter'' in the
October 2022 NODA was intended to be analogous to ``fan blade
diameter.'' Additionally, DOE notes that it is proposing a definition
for ``diameter'' for fans and blowers that is consistent with the term
``fan blade diameter'' in this NOPR, which is discussed in section
IV.A.1.b of this document.
AHAM also commented that it did not believe that DOE has enough
data on residential fans to analyze them. AHAM stated that DOE's
analysis in the October 2022 NODA had an ACF with a 24-inch (``in.'')
blade and a 0.5 hp motor, which is not representative of residential
ACFs. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 8) DOE notes that in the October 2022 NODA,
it analyzed ACFs at multiple representative sizes and motor
horsepowers, including a 12 in. diameter, 0.1 motor hp unit; a 20 in.
diameter, 0.33 motor hp unit; a 24 in. diameter, 0.5 motor hp unit; a
36 in. diameter, 0.5 motor hp unit; and 50 in. diameter, 1 motor hp
unit. 87 FR 62038, 62046. DOE had determined that these diameters and
motor horsepowers were representative of the full scope of ACFs
considered in the October 2022 NODA. Id.
AHAM stated that the size of motors that are typically used in
residential ACFs are excluded from the scope of the ongoing electric
motors rulemaking; therefore, residential ACFs should be excluded from
this rulemaking since DOE would not see potential savings. (AHAM, No.
123 at p. 9) DOE notes that this is a rulemaking for fans and blowers.
For ACFs, DOE considers higher-efficiency motors as a design option as
well as other design options but emphasizes that the approach that DOE
uses to evaluate potential efficiency standards is not prescriptive
(see section IV.A.3 of this document). Furthermore, DOE considers both
potential economic and energy savings in its analysis, which is
discussed in section IV.G of this document.
Additionally, AHAM commented that it was their understanding that
the proposed definitions for ACFs in the July 2022 TP NOPR did not
include bladeless fans and agreed with the exclusion of bladeless ACFs
from scope. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 5) The definition of air circulating
fan, ``a fan that has no provision for connection to ducting or
separation of the fan inlet from its outlet using a pressure boundary,
operates against zero external static pressure loss, and is not a jet
fan,'' does not exclude bladeless fans. See 10 CFR 431.172. However, as
discussed above, ACFs with input powers less than 125 W at maximum
speed are excluded from the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore,
bladeless fans, which have input power less than 125 W are excluded
from the scope of this NOPR.
NEMA expressed concern that the July 2022 TP NOPR proposed only
including fans with a shaft input power between 1 hp and 150 hp, but
that the October 2022 NODA proposed including fans with a shaft input
power of less than 1 hp. (NEMA, No. 125 at p. 2). DOE notes that, as
specified in the test procedure, the 1 hp and 150 hp limits are
applicable to GFBs, and that GFBs with an input power of less than 1 hp
are excluded from scope. See 10 CFR 431.174(a)(4)(i). Additionally, DOE
clarifies that the 150-hp limit applies to the fan air power. 10 CFR
431.174(a)(4)(ii) DOE notes that the ACF scope evaluated in this NOPR
is consistent with the scope DOE adopted in the May 2023 TP Final Rule,
which excludes ACFs with an input power of less than 125 W. 88 FR
27312, 27333.
a. Ceiling Fan Distinction
DOE explained in the coverage determination that fans and blowers,
the subjects of this rulemaking, do not include ceiling fans, as
defined at 10 CFR 430.2. See 86 FR 46579, 46586 and 10 CFR 431.171.
Therefore, as stated in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, equipment that
meets the definition of a ceiling fan would be excluded from the scope
of equipment included under ``fan and blower''. 88 FR 27312, 27365. A
ceiling fan means a nonportable device that is suspended from a ceiling
for circulating air via the rotation of fan blades. 10 CFR 430.2. In
the ceiling fan test procedure final rule published on August 16, 2022,
DOE finalized an amendment to the ceiling fan definition at 10 CFR
430.2 to specify that a ceiling fan provides ``circulating air,'' which
means ``the discharge of air in an upward or downward direction. A
ceiling fan that has a ratio of fan blade span (in inches) to maximum
rotation rate (in revolutions per minute) greater than 0.06 provides
circulating air.'' 87 FR 50396, 50402. Specifically, the 0.06 in/RPM
ratio was added in the ceiling fans definition to distinguish fans with
directional airflow from circulating airflow. Id.
DOE also finalized a definition for ``high-speed belt-driven
ceiling fan'' (``HSBD'') and added language to clarify that high-speed
belt-driven ceiling fans were to be subject to the AMCA 230-15

[[Page 3744]]

test procedure and subject to a similar efficiency metric as large-
diameter ceiling fans (namely the ceiling fan energy index ``CFEI'').
Id. at 87 FR 50424, 50426, 50431.
In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established the definitions of
ACF and related terms. DOE defined the term air circulating fan as ``a
fan that has no provision for connection to ducting or separation of
the fan inlet from its outlet using a pressure boundary, operates
against zero external static pressure loss, and is not a jet fan''. In
addition, DOE defined an unhoused circulating fan as ``an air
circulating fan without housing, having an axial impeller with a ratio
of fan blade span (in inches) to maximum rate of rotation (in
revolutions per minute) less than or equal to 0.06. The impeller may or
may not be guarded.'' 88 FR 27312, 27389-27390. DOE relied on the blade
span to maximum rpm ratio to distinguish these ACFs from ceiling fans.
87 FR 44194, 44216. For housed ACFs however, DOE defined a housed ACF
as an air circulating fan with an axial or centrifugal impeller, and a
housing. 88 FR 27312, 27390. This definition aligns with the housed ACF
definition in AMCA 230-23 and does not specify a diameter to speed
ratio limit because housed ACFs can have blade span to maximum rpm
ratios that are in the same range as ceiling fans (i.e., greater than
0.06).
In the Ceiling Fan ECS NOPR published on June 22, 2023, DOE noted
that that a ceiling fan must be ``distributed in commerce with
components that enable it to be suspended from a ceiling.'' 88 FR
40932, 40943. Belt-driven fans are often distributed in commerce
without components that enable the fan to be suspended from a ceiling.
For example, some belt-driven fans are sold connected to wheels or to a
pedestal base. In this case, such a fan would not meet the definition
of a ceiling fan because it has not been manufactured to be suspended
from the ceiling, and therefore would not be subject to the HSBD test
procedure or any potential energy conservation standards for HSBDs even
though a consumer could independently purchase their own straps or
chains and elect to hang this fan from the ceiling. 88 FR 40932, 40943.
DOE stated that HSBD ceiling fans, in contrast to belt-driven fans
connected to wheel or a pedestal base, are distributed in commerce with
specific straps, chains, or other similar components that are designed
and tested by the manufacturer to safely support the weight of the
ceiling fan in an overhead configuration. Further, they circulate air
since they meet the 0.06 blade span to maximum rpm ratio. 88 FR 40932,
40943.
Many belt-driven fans are housed (i.e., the fan blades are
contained within a cylindrical enclosure, often with solid metal sides
and a cage on the front and back). However, the presence of a housing
is not relevant in determining whether a product meets the definition
of ceiling fan. While a housing is generally included to better direct
air, a housing could be added to a ceiling fan, including those that
are clearly intended to circulate air. As such, DOE emphasizes that the
definition of a ceiling fan requires that fan to be ``suspended from a
ceiling'' and to ``circulate air'', rather than the presence or absence
of a fan housing. 88 FR 40932, 40943.
In response to the June 2023 Ceiling Fan ECS NOPR (88 FR 40932), CA
IOUs commented that CFEI is not intended for small-diameter ceiling
fans.\36\ (CA IOUs, No. EERE-2021-BT-STD-0011-0049 at p. 3). All HSBD
ceiling fans identified by DOE would be small-diameter ceiling fans.
Therefore, DOE interprets CA IOU's comment to mean that the CFEI metric
is not intended for HSBD ceiling fans. VES also pointed out in response
to the September 2019 Ceiling Fan TP NOPR (84 FR 51440) that they sell
shrouded fans that currently are not subject to ceiling fan energy
conservation standards because they are belt-driven. VES added that if
they transition to a direct-drive motor they would be subject to high-
speed small-diameter ceiling fan standards, which are not appropriate
as the airflow of their products is significantly higher than high-
speed small-diameter ceiling fans given the intended directional
application. (VES, No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0050-0026 at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ According to the DOE test procedure for ceiling fans at
appendix U to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, a small diameter ceiling
fan means ``a ceiling fan that has a represented value of blade
span, as determined in 10 CFR 429.32(a)(3)(i), less than or equal to
seven feet.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE notes that VES did not make a statement as to whether or not
the 0.06 blade span to rpm ratio would appropriately distinguish
between their circulating fans and traditional ceiling fans. However,
as the air circulating fan definitions have pointed out, the 0.06 blade
span to rpm ratio is most appropriate for distinguishing between
unhoused air circulating fans. Housed air circulating fans may exceed
the 0.06 blade span to rpm ratio and commonly do, despite the fact that
they are typically thought of in industry as air circulating fans and
not ceiling fans, even if they are ceiling mounted.
Based on the interpretation of the ceiling fan definition in the
June 2023 Ceiling Fan ECS NOPR, an identical fan product could switch
between being regulated as a high-speed belt-driven ceiling fan and a
housed air circulating fan based only on if the equipment is sold with
straps or chains for mounting overhead. Similarly, an identical direct
drive fan product could switch between being regulated as a high-speed
small-diameter ceiling fan and a housed air circulating fan based only
on the if the product is sold with straps or chains for mounting
overhead. Further complicating the analysis is the fact that high-speed
belt-driven ceiling fans, air circulating fans and high-speed small-
diameter ceiling fans are subject to different test procedures and
different efficiency standards. DOE believes this confusion
necessitates further refinement.
To avoid this confusion, DOE is reinterpreting the scope of the
ceiling fan definition based on the potential overlap of products with
housed air circulating fans. As DOE noted in the September 2019 Ceiling
Fan TP NOPR, the intent of the ceiling fan definition is to be limited
to ``nonportable'' devices that ``circulate air''. 84 FR 51440, 51444.
Specifically, to clarify the distinction between air circulating fans
and ceiling fans, DOE is interpreting the elements of the ceiling fan
definition in the following way:
<bullet> Portable--means: (1) that a fan is offered for mounting on
surfaces other than or in addition to the ceiling; and (2) that a
consumer can vary the location of the product/equipment throughout the
product/equipment lifetime. A ceiling fan is only mounted to the
ceiling and is not intended to be installed in any other mounting
configuration or change location after it's been installed. This is in
contrast to housed air circulating fans sold with straps and chains,
where the products are intended to be regularly modified to direct air
in different directions or move airflow around different obstacles or
in different areas. DOE also notes that once a ceiling fan is mounted
to the ceiling, it is often hard-wired in place;
<bullet> Not for the purpose of circulating air--While DOE has
traditionally emphasized the 0.06 fan blade span to maximum rotation
rate ratio as the distinction between circulating air and direction
airflow, DOE notes that the definition of ``circulating air'' in the
ceiling fan definition is provided in contrast to directional airflow.
DOE is interpreting the presence of a housing as evidence of airflow
that is intended to be directional. In addition, DOE is interpreting
the ability for the consumer

[[Page 3745]]

to easily modify the direction of the airflow via mounting by ceiling
mounted chains, straps or via a ceiling bracket wherein the fan is able
to be pointed in different directions as evidence that the fan is
providing directional airflow.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ See example of ``ceiling mounted fans'' that are intended
to provide directional, rather than circulating air at
<a href="http://www.trianglefans.com/type/ceiling-mounted-fans">www.trianglefans.com/type/ceiling-mounted-fans</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the interpretation, the scope of the ceiling fan
definition would be limited to only traditional ceiling fan products
that are connected to the ceiling via a downrod, flush mounting, or
similar, non-portable device. All other portable ceiling mounted fans
that provide directional airflow would be regulated under the air
circulating fan regulation. While the June 2023 Ceiling Fan ECS NOPR
included proposed efficiency standards for high-speed belt-driven
ceiling fans, under the proposed interpretation of the ceiling fan
definition, all high-speed belt-driven ceiling fan products identified
by DOE would not be within the scope of the ceiling fan definition and
would instead meet the definition of housed air-circulating fans.
Further, any direct-drive ceiling-mounted fan that is portable and
provides directional airflow (i.e., with a housing) would meet the
housed air circulating fan definition and be subject to the air
circulating fan test procedure and standards. In line with this
interpretation of the ceiling fan definition, all housed air-
circulating fans have been included within this NOPR analysis
regardless of whether they are sold with a straps or chains to hang
them from the ceiling or with wheels or other mounting configurations.

C. Test Procedure and Metric

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product.
As previously discussed, DOE published its test procedure final
rule on May 1, 2023, which established separate uniform test procedures
for GFBs and ACFs. 88 FR 27312. The test procedure for GFBs is based on
American National Standards Institute (``ANSI'')/AMCA Standard 214-21
``Test Procedure for Calculating Fan Energy Index (FEI) for Commercial
and Industrial Fans and Blowers'' (``AMCA 214-21'') with some
modification and prescribes test methods for measuring the fan
electrical input power and determining the FEI of GFBs. The test
procedure for ACFs is based on ANSI/AMCA Standard 230-23 ``Laboratory
Methods of Testing Air Circulating Fans for Rating and Certification''
(``AMCA 230-23'') with some modification and prescribes test methods
for measuring the fan airflow in cubic feet per minute per watt (``CFM/
W'') of electric input power to an ACF. (See 10 CFR part 431, subpart
J, appendices A and B, respectively.) 88 FR 27312, 27315.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, AHAM commented that the test
procedure proposed in the July 2022 TP NOPR was inconsistent with
agreements made in the 2015 ASRAC negotiations, which diminishes the
value of participating in ASRAC negotiations. (AHAM, No. 123 at pp. 10-
11) DOE notes that the context of this comment is the same as an AHAM
comment submitted by AHAM to the July 2022 TP NOPR that DOE summarized
and responded to in the May 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 27312, 27377.
1. General Fans and Blowers
a. General
DOE is proposing energy conservation standards for GFBs in terms of
FEI, which is calculated in accordance with the DOE test procedure. See
10 CFR part 431, subpart J, appendix A. In accordance with the DOE test
procedure, the FEI metric would be evaluated at each duty point as
specified by the manufacturer and, if adopted, DOE proposes that each
duty point at which the fan is offered for sale would need to meet the
proposed energy conservation standards.
FEI provides for evaluation of the efficiency of a GFB across a
range of operating conditions, captures the performance of the motor,
transmission, or motor controllers (if any), and allows for the
differentiation of fans with motors, transmissions, and motor
controllers with differing efficiency levels. FEI is a wire-to-air
metric, which means that it considers the efficiency from the input
power to the output power of a fan, including the efficiencies of the
motor, motor controller (if included), transmission, and fan itself.
The inclusion of all of these components encourages the improvement of
motor, motor controller, and transmission efficiencies, in addition to
the improvement of a fan's aerodynamic efficiency. In addition, FEI
aligns with the industry test standard (AMCA 214-21) and can help drive
better fan selections by making it easier to compare performance of
different fans. AMCA 214-21 defines FEI as the ratio of the electrical
input power (``FEP'') of a reference fan to the FEP of the fan for
which the FEI is calculated, both established at the same duty point.
The DOE test procedure provides methods to calculate both FEP and FEI
of a fan at a given duty point.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, DOE received comment on the
metric used for GFBs. Morrison and AHRI commented that they disagreed
with using the weighted FEI (``WFEI'') metric that was discussed in the
July 2022 TP NOPR. (Morrison, No. 128 at pp. 1, 3; AHRI, No. 130 at p.
2-3). DOE notes that these comments are similar to the comments
submitted to the July 2022 TP NOPR that DOE summarized in the May 2023
TP Final Rule. MIAQ commented in support of using FEI as the metric
used for regulation and disagreed with the use of WFEI because it has
not been evaluated by fan manufacturers or their customers (MIAQ, No.
124 at p. 2). In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE responded to similar
comments and ultimately defined FEI as the metric for general fans and
blowers. 88 FR 27312, 27367-27369.
Morrison commented that the FEI metric aligned well with the
agreements made in the ASRAC Term Sheet and that FEI is now being used
by numerous standards as the metric for efficiency. (Morrison, No. 128
at pp. 2-3) DOE interprets Morrison's comment as support for using the
FEI metric.
Morrison commented that variable-frequency drive (``VFD'') control
provides a good method to dynamically achieve part-load operation to
promote energy savings. Morrison stated that since the FEP calculation
metric penalizes the use of VFDs, DOE should consider providing an
equivalent bonus factor, at a minimum, to gain back the losses in the
calculation. Morrison commented that operating at part load saves
significantly more energy than any other efficiency change. (Morrison,
No. 128 at p. 3) As discussed in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE is not
adopting a control credit in the calculation of FEP for fans with a
motor controller, such as a VFD; however, as shown in Table I-1, DOE is
proposing lower standards for fans sold with motor controllers to
account for the motor controller losses in the FEP metric associated
with testing a fan with a controller.
As discussed in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, to the extent that
manufacturers of general fans and blowers are making voluntary
representations of FEI, then they would need to ensure that the product
is tested in accordance with the DOE test

[[Page 3746]]

procedure and that any voluntary representations of FEI (such as in
marketing materials or on any label affixed to the product) disclosure
the results of such testing. DOE recognizes that the ability to make an
additional voluntary representation of the EU metric in marketing
materials and on product labels may limit manufacturer burden. DOE is
clarifying that manufacturers may represent the additional EU metric,
but if doing so they must also represent the FEI metric in accordance
with the existing DOE test procedure.
b. Combined Motor and Motor Controller Efficiency Calculation
For fans with a polyphase regulated motor and a controller, AMCA
214-21 allows testing these fans using a shaft-to-air test (i.e., a
test that does not include the motor and controller performance). When
conducting a shaft-to-air test, the mechanical fan shaft input power is
measured and the FEP is calculated by using a mathematical model to
represent the performance of the combined motor and controller (i.e.,
its part-load efficiency). The FEP is then used to calculate the FEI of
the fan.
Section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214-21, which relies on Annex B, ``Motor
Constants if Used With VFD (Normative),'' and Annex C, ``VFD
Performance Constants (Normative),'' provides a method to estimate the
combined motor and controller part-load efficiency for certain electric
motors and controller combinations that meet the requirements in
sections 6.4.1.3 and 6.4.1.4 of AMCA 214-21, which specify that the
motor must be polyphase regulated motor (i.e., an electric motor
subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25).
In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE stated its concerns that the
equations described in section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214-21 may not be
appropriately representative, resulting in FEI ratings that would be
higher than FEI ratings obtained using the wire-to-air test method
described in section 6.1 of AMCA 214-21. Therefore, in the July 2022 TP
NOPR, DOE did not propose to allow the use of section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA
214-21. Instead, DOE proposed that fans with a motor and controller be
tested in accordance with section 6.1 of AMCA 214-21. DOE indicated
that manufacturers would still be able to rely on a mathematical model
(including the same mathematical model as described in section 6.4.2.4
of AMCA 214-21, if the mathematical model met the AEDM requirements) in
lieu of testing to determine the FEI of a fan with a motor and
controller. 87 FR 44194, 44223. In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE also
reviewed the reference motor and controller (``power drive system'')
efficiency provided in IEC 61800-9-2:2017 ``Adjustable speed electrical
power drive systems Part 9-2: Ecodesign for power drive systems, motor
starters, power electronics and their driven applications--Energy
efficiency indicators for power drive systems and motor starters,''
which also provides equations to represent the performance of a motor
and controller used with fans, and found that the IEC model predicted
values of efficiency that were significantly lower (more than 10
percent on average) than the model included in AMCA 214-21. Id.
In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE further reviewed the model in
AMCA 214-21 section 6.4.2.4 and stated that it continued to have
concerns that applying the model in section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214-21 may
result in fan FEI ratings that would be higher than FEI ratings
obtained using the wire-to-air test method described in section 6.1 of
AMCA 214-21. 88 FR 27312, 27347. Specifically, DOE reviewed information
provided by AMCA analyzing the AHRI 1210 database of certified motor
controllers and providing graphical representations comparing the AHRI
data to the AMCA 207 model and found that there were several AHRI-
certified motor and motor controller combinations that had a tested
efficiency that is lower than the model in section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214-
21. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-TP-0021-0046, AMCA, No. 41 at pp. 18-19)
In their comments, AMCA stated that the model in AMCA 214-21, section
6.4.2.4, was not intended to be a conservative estimate of losses.
Instead, according to AMCA, the model was intended to provide a level
playing field between manufacturers that chose to test wire-to-air and
those that chose to test fan shaft power and calculate wire-to-air
losses. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-TP-0021-0046, AMCA, No. 41 at p. 18)
88 FR 27312, 27348.
Therefore, to minimize the possibility that using the calculation
approach would result in better energy efficiency ratings than when
testing the equipment inclusive of the motor and controller, in the May
2023 TP Final Rule, DOE did not allow the use of section 6.4.2.4 of
AMCA 214-21. Instead, DOE required that fans with motor and controller
be tested in accordance with section 6.1 of AMCA 214-21. DOE noted that
manufacturers would still be able to rely on a mathematical model
(including the same mathematical model as described in section 6.4.2.4
of AMCA 214-21) in lieu of testing to determine the FEI of a fan with a
motor and controller, as long as the mathematical model meets the AEDM
requirements. Id. In other words, manufacturers would not be able to
generally apply the model in section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214-21.
Manufacturers would have to first go through the AEDM validation
process to demonstrate that the FEI as established by the AEDM (or a
calculation method that would rely on the model in section 6.4.2.4 of
AMCA 214-21) would be less than or equal to 105 percent of the FEI
determined from the wire-to-air test of the basic models used to
validate the AEDM. See 10 CFR 429.70(n).
Since the publication of the May 2023 Final Rule, the IEC published
a new version of IEC 61800-9-2 (``IEC 61800-9-2: 2023''). Compared to
IEC 61800-9-2:2017, which included a calculation method to directly
establish typical losses of a reference motor and motor controller
combination (or ``Power Drive System'', ``PDS''), this version provides
the reference motor controller. It also points to a separate IEC
publication (IEC TS 60034-30-2:2016 ``Rotating electrical machines--
Part 30-2: Efficiency classes of variable speed AC motors (IE-code)'')
for establishing the reference motor losses. The detailed calculations
of losses for a reference motor and motor controller are also described
in IEC TS 60034-31: 2021 (``Rotating electrical machines--Part 31:
Selection of energy-efficient motors including variable speed
applications--Application guidelines'').
IEC 61800-9-2:2023 also characterizes the reference motor
controller or ``complete drive module'' (``CDM'') as corresponding to
an IE1 efficiency class.\38\ See section 6.2 of IEC 61800-9-2:2023. IEC
61800-9-2:2023 further establishes efficiency classes for PDS based on
pairing different levels of efficiency motors to baseline efficiency
CDMs at IE2 levels. See section 6.5 of IEC 61800-9-2:2023. DOE reviewed
a report from the International Energy Agency, Electric Motor Systems
Annex \39\ which included test data from 179 tests on 57 motor
controllers, as well as additional market data and showed that VFDs on
the market today are all within the same efficiency class corresponding
to ``IE2'', in line with the baseline levels used in IEC 61800-9-2

[[Page 3747]]

Ed. 2:2023. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that the IE2
level is appropriate to represent a baseline CDM or motor controller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ IEC 61900-9-2 Ed.2:2023 establishes three efficiency
classes (IE0, IE1, and IE2) to characterize the different efficiency
levels of CDMs on the market.
\39\ International Energy Agency, Electric Motor Systems Annex,
Report on Round Robin of Converter Losses, Final Report of Results.
<a href="http://www.iea-4e.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/rrc_report_final_2022dec.pdf">www.iea-4e.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/rrc_report_final_2022dec.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to support an alternative credit calculation (See
discussion in section IV.C.1.b) and potentially reduce test burden, DOE
evaluated the model in IEC 61800-9-2:2023 assuming a polyphase
regulated motor that exactly meets the standards at 10 CFR 431.25, and
a motor controller at IE2 level. In addition, DOE adjusted the IE3
levels \40\ to exactly match the standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and be
comparable to the motor losses in AMCA 214-21.\41\ DOE found that
compared to the AMCA model, the IEC 61800-9-2:2023 model resulted in
generally lower combined motor and motor controller efficiencies.\42\
Based on this analysis, DOE has tentatively determined that the IEC
model provides a better representation of a baseline motor and VFD
combination (i.e., resulting in a conservative estimate of losses) as
by definition it relies on a regulated polyphase motor that exactly
meets the standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and on a baseline IE2 motor
controller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ The IEC defines motor efficiency classes. See IEC TS 60034-
30-2:2016, Rotating electrical machines--Part 30-2: Efficiency
classes of variable speed AC motors (IE-code).
\41\ For the purposes of this analysis, DOE considered a 4-pole
motor. DOE relied on the coefficients provided in the EXCEL sheet
accompanying the IEC TS 60034-31 Ed.2:2021 to calculate the motor
losses equivalent to an IE3 motor (See Table 4 of IEC TS 60034-30-
2:2016) and multiplied each coefficient by ((100-[eta]<INF>r</INF>)
[eta]<INF>IE3</INF>)/((100-[eta]<INF>IE3</INF>) [eta]<INF>r</INF>
where [eta]<INF>r</INF> is the minimum value of full-load efficiency
at 10 CFR 431.25 at a given horsepower across open and enclosed
enclosure categories and [eta]<INF>IE3</INF> is the IE3 full load
efficiency at the same horsepower and pole configuration.
\42\ Two percent lower on average for 4 poles motors at 1, 10,
15, 25, 75, and 200 hp for loads between 0.25 and 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, DOE proposes to reduce test burden by adding a combined
motor and controller efficiency calculation to allow establishing the
FEI of fans sold with a regulated polyphase motor and a motor
controller based on a shaft-to-air test and calculated motor and
controller efficiency. DOE proposes that the performance of the motor
and motor controller combination be allowed for certain electric motors
and controller combinations that meet the requirements in sections
6.4.1.3 and 6.4.1.4 of AMCA 214-21, which specify that the motor must
be polyphase regulated motor (i.e., an electric motor subject to energy
conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25). To support this approach, DOE
proposes that the performance of the motor and motor controller
combination be calculated in accordance with the model described in IEC
61800-9-2:2023 and the calculation in IEC TS 60034-31: 2016, and
assuming a regulated polyphase motor that exactly meets the standards
at 10 CFR 431.25 and a baseline IE2 motor controller. For the final
rule, DOE may also consider an approach where the calculation of AMCA
214-21 would be preserved but adjusted (i.e., same equations but with
different coefficients) to align with the results of the IEC 61800-9-
2:2023 model as proposed.
DOE requests comments and feedback on the proposed methodology and
calculation of motor and motor controller losses as well as potentially
using an alternative calculation based on adjusted AMCA 214-21
equations.
2. Air Circulating Fans
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE used FEI as the metric for ACFs in
its analysis. DOE requested feedback on the FEI values that it
determined and its approach for estimating FEI values for ACFs. 87 FR
62038, 62050.
AHAM commented that FEI is not an appropriate metric to use for
residential ACFs because the reference fan used for FEI is based on a
commercial fan. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 7) Furthermore, AHAM commented
that the AMCA 214-21 test procedure, which DOE proposed to incorporate
by reference in the July 2022 TP NOPR, is not applicable to residential
ACFs. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 6) DOE notes that, as discussed in section
III.B.2 of this document, ACFs with an input power of less than 125 W
are excluded from the scope of the rulemaking.
The CA IOUs and AMCA commented that the reason FEI values are much
higher for ACFs at diameters less than 20 in. is because the airflow
constant in the FEI calculation (3,210 CFM) is more impactful for ACFs
with lower CFM. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at pp. 4-5; AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 10-
11, 19) To support their comment, the CA IOUs provided data
demonstrating how, at lower airflows, there is a ``bonus'' value added
to reference shaft input power as a result of the airflow constant. (CA
IOUs, No. 127 at pp. 4-5) Ultimately, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE
consider using a different airflow constant for lower airflow fans to
counter this effect. Id. Greenheck explained that the airflow constant
in AMCA 214-21 is higher than the 12-in. representative unit can
generate; therefore, Greenheck would expect that efficiencies of the
12-in. representative unit would be greater than the efficiencies of
larger units, which is why AMCA 214-21 limits the application of FEI to
fans with airpowers of at least 125 W. (Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 2)
NEEA suggested that DOE review and confirm the increases in FEI for
ACFs at diameters of 20 in. or less. (NEEA, No. 129 at p. 4) AMCA
commented that there was a discrepancy between the airflow constant
defined for ACFs in the July 2022 TP NOPR (3,210 CFM) and the airflow
constant that DOE used in the October 2022 NODA (3,201 CFM). (AMCA, No.
132 at p. 10) In response, DOE confirms that the airflow constant used
in the October 2022 NODA is consistent with that in the July 2022 TP
NOPR (3,210 CFM) and that the value of 3,201 CFM was a typographical
error in the October 2022 NODA. Greenheck commented that using the FEI
metric for both GFBs and ACFs would cause confusion regarding which
constants should be used for GFBs and which constants should be used
for ACFs. (Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 1)
Based on additional evaluation and stakeholder feedback on the
airflow constant in the FEI calculation, DOE has adopted the efficacy
metric in terms of CFM/W at maximum speed for ACFs in appendix B to
subpart J of 10 CFR part 431 (see section 2.2). In the May 2023 TP
Final Rule, DOE explained that it has concerns over the readiness of an
FEI metric for ACFs and acknowledged the uncertainty regarding the
airflow and pressure constant values that should be used when
calculating FEI for ACFs. Additionally, the efficacy metric is
consistent with the metric used in the ACF industry. 88 FR 27312,
27371. Therefore, DOE conducted its analysis for this NOPR and is
proposing standards in efficacy in terms of CFM/Wat maximum speed.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the equipment that is the subject of the rulemaking. As
the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology
options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design
engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of
those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE
considers technologies incorporated in commercially available equipment
or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4;
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 6I(3)(i) and 7(b)(1)
(``Process Rule'').

[[Page 3748]]

After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10
CFR 431.4; Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process
Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the
screening analysis for fans and blowers, particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the
standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the
screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR
technical support document (``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt a standard for a type or class of
covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically
feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1))
Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy
efficiency for fans and blowers, using the design parameters for the
most efficient products available on the market or in working
prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking
are described in section IV.C of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of
the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to fans and blowers purchased in
the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of compliance
with the proposed standards (2030-2059).\43\ The savings are measured
over the entire lifetime of fans and blowers purchased in the previous
30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each
TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case
and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for
equipment would likely evolve in the absence of energy conservation
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each
product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in
section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential new
standards for fans and blowers. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in
section IV.I of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of
site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by equipment at the
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national
energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings
in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site
electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings.
The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing,
and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.\44\ DOE's approach is based on the
calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by
covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy
savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for covered equipment, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\45\ For
example, some covered equipment have most of their energy consumption
occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these
equipment on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
equipment with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into
account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the
cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the
global climate crisis, among other factors. DOE has initially
determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are
``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14,
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has
addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a potential new standard on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash flow approach to determine
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2)
cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new standards. These measures
are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the
aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the
consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.

[[Page 3749]]

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC
and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the equipment. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy prices,
maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount rates
appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability
in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE
uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each
value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of more efficient equipment through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered equipment in the first full year of compliance
with new standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.E, DOE uses the NIA
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing equipment classes and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards
proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance
of the equipment under consideration in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to
determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to
result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to
the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule,
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy
of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this
issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's
determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public
regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this
proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments
separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES
section for information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards
are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of
the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity
also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the
Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation
capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases (``GHGs'') associated with energy
production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section
IV.K; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of
this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section
V.C.1 of this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant
information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the
other categories described previously, DOE could consider such
information under ``other factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation
standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the
equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate
values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation
standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These
analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period
contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE
routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range
of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the
environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for
DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard
level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary
determination of

[[Page 3750]]

economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation
is discussed in section V.B.1.c of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regard to fans and blowers. Separate subsections
address each component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential new energy
conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second
spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates
national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs
and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation
standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer impacts of
potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the
DOE website for this proposed rulemaking: <a href="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=51">www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=51</a>&action=viewlive. Additionally, DOE used
output from the latest version of the Energy Information
Administration's (``EIA's'') Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO''), a widely
known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and
utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment
concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) determination of equipment
classes, (2) scope of the analysis and data availability, and (3)
technology and design options that could improve the energy efficiency
of fans and blowers. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are
summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for
further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
is required to establish separate standards for a group of covered
equipment (i.e., establish a separate equipment class) based on the
type of energy used. DOE may also establish separate standards if DOE
determines that an equipment's capacity or other performance-related
feature that other equipment lacks justifies a different standard. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination whether a
performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must
consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and
other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (Id.)
a. General Fans and Blowers
As discussed, DOE develops equipment classes based on specific
performance-related features that impact utility and may necessarily
impact efficiency in serving that utility. For GFBs, DOE identified the
direction of airflow through the fan, the outlet configuration of the
fan, housing features, and impeller features as characteristics that
may justify establishing separate equipment classes. DOE also
considered the presence of motor controllers as an additional factor
for developing equipment classes.
Based on the direction of airflow through a fan impeller, the
classification of a fan may be either axial or centrifugal. Axial fans
move air parallel to their axis of rotation and are suitable for
applications requiring high airflow at relatively low pressures.
Alternatively, centrifugal fans move air radially outward from the axis
of rotation, resulting in a change in direction of the air from the
inlet of the fan to the impeller edge occurring at or close to 90
degrees. This air is often redirected by a housing, which may
concentrate the airflow into a perpendicular outlet, as in the case of
a scroll housing, or again redirect the air to move parallel to the
inlet flow, as in the case of an inline fan. Centrifugal fans can
overcome much higher pressures than axial fans, but operate at lower
airflow, resulting in a difference in utility where different airflows
and pressures are required. DOE has tentatively determined that the
differences between axial- and centrifugal-flow fans result in a
difference in utility based on the pressure and airflow ranges under
which they are able to operate. For example, an axial fan may be better
suited for a general-purpose ventilation application, in which large
volumes of air are required at low pressure, whereas a centrifugal fan
may be more appropriate for an air conditioning application, which may
require a greater operating pressure than could be achieved by an axial
fan. Mixed-flow fans utilize a combination of axial and centrifugal
flows to provide similar pressures at higher airflows compared to
centrifugal fans where the outlet flow is parallel to the inlet flow.
Based on a review of the market, DOE has tentatively determined that
mixed-flow fans do not provide a unique utility from centrifugal fans
in similar arrangements, due to their similar operating pressure and
airflow ranges. Therefore, DOE separated GFBs into equipment classes
based on whether they utilize an axial or centrifugal airflow in this
NOPR.
The outlet configuration of a fan can also affect its efficiency.
In the DOE test procedure, DOE established test configuration and
measurement requirements based on whether the immediate outlet of a fan
is ducted or not ducted.\46\ See appendix A to subpart J of 10 CFR part
431. For GFBs, ducted fans may be utilized to move air directly from
the outlet of the fan through HVAC ducting internal to a building,
while not ducted fans discharge air into a plenum or open space. For
example, not ducted fans may be utilized to exhaust large quantities of
air from a building. Not ducted fans are also better suited for
applications in which the fan discharge needs to split into multiple
directions, such as ventilation systems which recirculate air from one
room to other parts of a building via multiple branching outlets. When
a fan outlet is ducted, the outlet air moves through the duct system,
and the velocity pressure associated with that air can be regained as
static pressure as it travels through the ducting. In this case, FEI is
calculated based on a total pressure basis accounting for both the
static pressure and the pressure associated with the speed of the
outlet air of the fan.\47\ When a fan outlet is not ducted,

[[Page 3751]]

the outlet air is immediately released into the surroundings, and the
velocity pressure of this air is lost to its surroundings. In this
case, FEI is calculated only on a static pressure basis since the
pressure associated with the outlet speed of the air is not aiding the
system. Because these outlet configurations have different utilities,
and in providing this utility the efficiency is calculated differently
according to the DOE test procedure, DOE is proposing to separate GFBs
into equipment classes based on their outlet configuration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ For the purposes of DOE's test procedure, ducting refers to
the immediate discharge of a fan and not the fan's application. For
example, a centrifugal unhoused fan which exhausts air in all
directions into a plenum or open space would be considered not
ducted, and tested via the corresponding test configuration, even if
that fan is ultimately installed in ducted ventilation system.
\47\ Static pressure is defined as the pressure exerted by a
fluid that is not in motion. Total pressure is defined as the sum of
the static pressure and the pressure that arises from the movement
of a fluid, or the velocity pressure. A fan's static pressure is the
static pressure at the outlet of the fan minus the total pressure at
the inlet of the fan. The total pressure of a fan is the total
pressure at the outlet of the fan minus the total pressure at the
inlet of the fan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has determined that a fan's housing may also impact utility. A
fan housing is the structure that encloses and guides the airflow of a
fan. Fans require certain housing features for specific utilities. For
example, PRVs require a special housing to prevent precipitation from
entering buildings. Further, different fan housings result in different
outlet directions for airflow. For example, centrifugal fans with a
scroll-shaped housing redirect airflow perpendicular to the fan inlet,
while centrifugal fans with a cylindrical or inline housing have
parallel inlet and outlet airflow. In applications that require
continuous airflow in a single direction, such as in a long ventilation
duct, a centrifugal fan with inline housing could be directly placed in
the duct to push air along the single direction. Inserting a
centrifugal fan with a scroll housing in the same application, however,
would create unnecessary complexity because it would create multiple
changes of direction of airflow, may require changes to the ducting
work, and could lead to reduced performance in a space-constrained
environment. Because the described housings have specific utilities and
DOE has observed different FEI ranges for fans with the described
housings, DOE is proposing to separate GFBs into separate equipment
classes by whether they are housed or unhoused, and to further separate
GFBs by the types of housings described.
DOE also considered impeller features for separating fans into
equipment classes. DOE identified that radial impellers as defined in
AMCA 214-21 offer unique self-cleaning characteristics that allow them
to be utilized with significantly less maintenance in airstreams with a
high density of particulate matter, such as fume exhaust from a
mine.\48\ However, these impellers are also less efficient than other
centrifugal impellers. Therefore, DOE is proposing a separate equipment
class for fans that use a radial impeller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ AMCA 214-21 defines a radial impeller as a form of
centrifugal impeller with several blades extending radially from a
central hub. Airflow enters axially through a single inlet and exits
radially at the impeller periphery into a housing with impeller
blades; the blades are positioned so their outward direction is
perpendicular within 25 degrees to the axis of rotation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The last feature that DOE evaluated for separating GFBs into
equipment classes was the use of motor controllers, which allow a fan
to adapt to changing load requirements. This enables a fan to run at
lower speed when the system requirements allow, thus saving energy.
While this may result in energy savings during operation, the DOE test
procedure for fans does not account for these possible changes in
operation and energy savings. Furthermore, FEI is a wire-to-air metric,
as discussed in section III.C.1 of this document, which means that the
use of a motor controller would act to reduce the FEI of a fan at each
of its individual operating points. Any efficiency standard set without
consideration of the motor controller would be more stringent. DOE
recognizes the energy savings benefits of using a motor controller with
a fan to allow the energy consumption of fan to be adjusted based on
the changing load requirements of the system; therefore, to avoid
penalizing the use of such technology, DOE proposes to create equipment
classes for GFBs sold with and without motor controllers.
In the DOE Test Procedure, DOE adopted definitions consistent with
AMCA 214-21 for several categories of fans and blowers that are within
the scope of this NOPR. See 10 CFR 431.172. DOE also established a
modified definition for axial-panel fans to distinguish these fans from
ACFs. Id. Table IV-1 presents the fan categories and corresponding
definitions adopted by DOE.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 3752]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.019

During its analysis, DOE tentatively determined that additional
definitions would help to clarify certain fan equipment classes. DOE is
proposing in this NOPR to adopt the definitions for ``radial
impeller'', ``mixed-flow impeller'' and ``housing'' presented in Table
IV-2. DOE notes that these proposed definitions are consistent with
those in AMCA 214-21, with some minor modifications for clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ AMCA 214-21 defines fan flow angle as the angle of the
centerline of the air-conducting surface of a fan blade measured at
the midpoint of its trailing edge with the centerline of the
rotation axis in a plane through the rotation axis and the midpoint
of the trialing edge.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.020

DOE found some fans are sold as radial fans but have impellers that
incorporate both radial and non-radial features, such as blades with a
slight backward-inclined design or blades with both straight and
backward-curved portions. To ensure that these fans are properly and
consistently classified as either radial or centrifugal housed, DOE

[[Page 3753]]

is proposing a definition for ``radial impeller''.
Additionally, DOE is proposing to define ``mixed flow impeller'' to
distinguish mixed flow impellers from axial and centrifugal impellers
and to ensure that fans sold with a mixed flow impeller are correctly
classified. DOE notes that, as defined in Table IV-1, inline fans with
mixed flow impellers are considered in the centrifugal inline equipment
class.
Lastly, DOE is proposing to define ``fan housing'' since housing is
a criterion used to separate equipment classes. In its evaluation of
the market, DOE found some fans that may not be easily classified
without a clear and consistent definition for housing. For example,
cabinet fans are sold with an enclosure surrounding their internal
moving components and an additional enclosure further directing
airflow. DOE has observed that cabinet fans are commonly marketed as
inline fans since the outermost enclosure directs the airflow to be
inline; however, the internal enclosure, which directs airflow into and
out of the impeller, directs airflow at a 90-degree angle, which would
be consistent with a centrifugal housed fan. Based on DOE's proposed
definitions, cabinet fans would be part of the centrifugal housed
equipment class.
DOE evaluated each of the fan categories defined in the DOE test
procedure using the identified GFB performance features and proposes
that each fan category defined in the test procedure will be evaluated
as a separate equipment class. For PRVs, DOE has found that they can be
either axial or centrifugal, and their outlets can either be ducted or
not ducted. PRVs used for supply will have a ducted outlet, while PRVs
used for exhaust will not have a ducted outlet. DOE notes that while
centrifugal PRVs serve both supply and exhaust functions, DOE did not
find a significant number of axial PRVs being used for supply in the
market. Therefore, DOE is proposing to further divide PRVs into three
distinct equipment classes: axial PRVs, centrifugal PRV exhaust fans,
and centrifugal PRV supply fans. Table IV-3 presents the proposed
definitions for each of the three PRV fan equipment classes, which
align with the definitions in AMCA 214-21.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.021

Additionally, DOE is proposing that each GFB equipment class be
split into a class of fans that are sold with motor controllers and a
class of fans that are sold without motor controllers. For example,
there would be two equipment classes for axial PRVs--one for axial PRVs
sold with motor controllers and one for axial PRVs sold without motor
controllers. This would be the same for all remaining proposed GFB
equipment classes.
In summary, DOE is proposing to separate GFBs into 18 equipment
classes in this NOPR. These equipment classes are shown in Table IV-4.
As just discussed, DOE notes that each equipment class shown in the
table has a variable-speed and a constant-speed variant. As mentioned
previously, these equipment classes directly correspond to the GFB fan
categories defined in the DOE test procedure, with the exception of
PRVs.

[[Page 3754]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.022

Although GFBs were not discussed in the October 2022 NODA, DOE
received comment on GFB equipment classes. Specifically, AHRI commented
that forward-curved fans, which are typically used in low-pressure
applications, could be removed from the market by energy conservation
standards. (AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 12-13) AHRI stated that forward-curved
fans should have a separate equipment class because they provide code-
required sound quality in low-pressure and low-speed ranges. Id.
Morrison and AHRI also commented that return or relief fans, which are
commonly used for energy-saving economizer functions in systems, could
be removed from the market if they are regulated by a DOE energy
conservation standard. (Morrison, No. 128 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 130 at p.
2, 13)
DOE notes that the FEI metric is a function of the operating
pressure. As mentioned in section III.C.1 of this document, FEI is the
ratio of the reference FEP to the actual FEP. The reference fan is used
to normalize the FEI calculation by evaluating fan performance compared
to a consistent reference fan at each duty point and configuration.
Evaluating FEI in this manner allows for comparison of different fans
independent of the wide variety of fan types and duty points.
Consequently, a return or relief fan operating at a lower pressure than
a supply fan at a given airflow would be compared to a reference FEP
specific to that duty point, which accounts for the lower operating
pressure and mitigates disproportionate impacts; therefore, DOE has
tentatively concluded that return and relief fans do not need a
separate equipment class.
To address AHRI's comment that forward-curved fans provide code-
required sound quality in low-pressure and low-speed ranges, DOE
evaluated data on inlet and outlet noise obtained from manufacturer fan
selection software for centrifugal-housed fans at low-pressure duty
points. Based on this analysis, DOE observed centrifugal-housed fans
with both backward-inclined and airfoil impellers that provided
equivalent or nearly equivalent noise levels, in A-weighted decibels,
to forward-curved fans operating at the same duty point. Furthermore,
DOE observed that noise levels significantly decreased as the FEI of
the fan increased, indicating that energy conservation standards would
not inhibit fans from complying with sound quality requirements.
Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that forward-curved fans do
not require a separate equipment class. However, to ensure that
forward-curved fans were adequately evaluated, DOE evaluated a parallel
design path in which it assumed that all forward-curved fans would be
redesigned to meet any proposed energy conservation standards, rather
than replacing the forward-curved impeller with another impeller
topology such as airfoil or backward-inclined. DOE evaluated this
parallel design path to consider the costs required to preserve
forward-curved fans in the market. Additional details on the parallel
design path for forward-curved fans are provided in section IV.C.1.b of
this document and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE received no further comments on GFB equipment classes and is
therefore proposing the equipment classes in Table IV-4.
b. Air Circulating Fans
In response to the October 2022 NODA, AMCA recommended that DOE use
the same ACF definitions as those used in AMCA 230-23. (AMCA, No. 132
at pp. 2, 18) As discussed in the May 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule,
the definitions that DOE adopted for ACF, unhoused air circulating fan
head (``ACFH''), housed ACFH, air circulating axial panel fan, box fan,
cylindrical

[[Page 3755]]

ACF, and housed centrifugal ACF align with the definitions published in
AMCA 230-23. 88 FR 27312, 27339. DOE additionally adopted definitions
for air circulating axial panel fan, box fan, cylindrical ACF, and
housed centrifugal ACF in the DOE test procedure, as defined in Annex B
of AMCA 230-23. See 10 CFR 431.172. These definitions are reproduced
Table IV-5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.023

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE did not evaluate separate equipment
classes for housed and unhoused ACFs and requested comment and
supporting data on whether housed and unhoused ACFs have significant
differences in utility and/or efficiency. 87 FR 62038, 62045. NEEA
stated that DOE should analyze unhoused and housed ACFs separately in
its analysis because the efficiencies of housed and unhoused fans
differ enough that an analysis of both together could result in non-
representative EL values. To support this point, NEEA referenced a plot
that was included in the supplementary spreadsheet for the October 2022
NODA that showed ACF efficiency distribution overlayed on the
efficiency levels analyzed in the NODA \50\ and stated that the
efficiency distributions in the plot were wide for all diameters.
(NEEA, No. 129 at p. 1-2) NEEA commented that, given the many
performance-related features with unquantifiable impacts on the fan
efficiency data DOE used for its analysis, DOE should separate housed
and unhoused ACFs into separate equipment classes to ensure that housed
and unhoused ACFs are fairly analyzed. NEEA added that the separation
of housed and unhoused fans aligns with the approach taken for GFBs in
NODA 3. (NEEA, No. 129 at p. 2-3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11 for the
supplementary spreadsheet associated with the October 2022 NODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE should group ACFHs, box
fans, panel fans, and personnel coolers together into a single axial
ACF class since they are all axial fans that provide directional
airflow and do not differ significantly in FEI. (Efficiency Advocates,
No. 126 at p. 3) They noted that the ACF subcategories in AMCA 230 are
delineated in AMCA 230 primarily for descriptive purposes and not for
regulatory purposes. Id. DOE interprets ACFHs and personnel coolers, as
referenced by the Efficiency Advocates, to align with the definitions
given for unhoused ACFHs and cylindrical ACFs, respectively, in Table
IV-5. DOE therefore interprets the Efficiency Advocates' comment as a
recommendation to combine all axial ACFs into a single equipment class.
DOE's review of the ACF market generally indicated that air
circulating axial panel fans, box fans, cylindrical ACFs, and unhoused
ACFHs could all be used interchangeably for air circulation
applications. DOE did observe that cylindrical ACFs are sometimes
marketed toward high-velocity applications. To verify whether design in
high-velocity applications would warrant separating cylindrical ACFs
into their own equipment class, DOE reviewed available air velocity and
thrust data for air circulating axial panel fans, box fans, cylindrical
ACFs, and unhoused ACFHs. Based on this analysis, DOE did not find a
consistent trend of one or more of these subcategories of ACFs
producing more air velocity or thrust than another, further indicating
that they may be used interchangeably. DOE therefore

[[Page 3756]]

evaluated air circulating axial panel fans, box fans, cylindrical ACFs,
and unhoused ACFHs as a single ``axial ACF'' equipment class in this
NOPR. DOE is therefore proposing that an axial ACF be defined as ``an
ACF with an axial impeller that is either housed or unhoused.'' DOE
considers all fans that meet the axial ACF definition to be subject to
the DOE test procedure, and these fans, unless specifically excluded,
would be subject to any future energy conservation standards.
DOE requests comment on whether there are specific fans that meet
the axial ACF definition that provide utility substantially different
from the utility provided from other axial ACFs and that would impact
energy use. If so, DOE requests information on how the utility of these
fans differs from other axial ACFs and requests data showing the
differences in energy use due to differences in utility between these
fans and other axial ACFs.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE also requested comment on whether
each of the following design characteristics may impact the utility of
air circulating fans: presence or absence of a safety guard, presence
or absence of housing, housing design, blade type, power requirements,
and air velocity or throw. 87 FR 62038, 62045. Additionally, DOE
requested information on any additional design characteristics that may
impact ACF utility. Id. In response, AMCA commented that all the design
variables on which DOE requested comment are combined to influence an
ACF's performance characteristics. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 6-7). DOE
reviewed the market and found that adjusting these design variables
while keeping other design parameters constant did not produce a
significant difference in efficiency, impact the operation, or impact
the fan's application. Therefore, DOE has tentatively decided not to
delineate separate equipment classes for axial ACFs based on safety
guards, housing, blade type, power requirements, or air velocity and
throw.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE additionally requested comment and
supporting data on whether belt-driven and direct-driven ACFs have
significant differences in utility or efficiency. 87 FR 62038, 62045.
The Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE should not consider belt-
driven fans as a separate equipment class because those fans are merely
a low-cost alternative to the more efficient direct-drive fans rather
than a different performance or utility consideration, and that a
separate equipment class for belt-driven ACFs could undermine the
potential energy savings for larger diameter ACFs. (Efficiency
Advocates, No. 126 at p. 3) DOE's review of belt-driven ACFs on the
market indicated that, while belt drives do provide a utility for
adjusting the rotational speed of the ACF, VFDs also allow users to
adjust the rotational speed of the ACF. Therefore, DOE has tentatively
determined that belt drives do not provide a unique utility and DOE did
not treat belt-driven ACFs as an equipment class in its NOPR analysis.
The shift from belt drive to direct drive is instead discussed as a
design option in section IV.C.2.b of this document.
DOE further reviewed the ACF market to determine if additional
equipment classes were appropriate for axial ACFs. DOE observed that
axial ACFs with larger impeller diameters tended to be more efficient
than axial ACFs with smaller impeller diameters. DOE also received
feedback during manufacturer interviews that fans with larger diameters
are generally more efficient. Therefore, DOE considered diameter as a
class-setting variable for axial ACFs in this NOPR. DOE found multiple
efficiency incentive programs that provide rebates to agricultural fan
manufacturers if they meet certain efficiency targets.\51\ For axial
ACFs, these agricultural rebate programs typically define four diameter
ranges to which the rebate efficiency levels applied: ``12-inch to less
than 24-inch diameter range,'' ``24-inch to less than 36-inch diameter
range,'' ``36-inch to less than 48-inch diameter range,'' and ``48-inch
diameter or greater range.'' To align with these programs, DOE
initially considered four different equipment classes for axial ACFs,
one for each diameter range. However, after reviewing efficacy data for
axial ACFs, DOE did not find a significant difference in efficacy
between axial ACFs in the 12-inch to less than 24-inch diameter range
and the 24-inch to less than 36-inch diameter range. Therefore, DOE
combined these two diameter ranges into a single equipment class: the
``12-inch to less than 36-inch diameter axial ACF'' class. DOE assigned
the 36-inch to less than 48-inch diameter range to a ``36-inch to less
than 48-inch diameter axial ACF'' class and the 48-inch diameter or
greater range to a ``48-inch diameter or greater axial ACF'' class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ See <a href="http://cecnet.net/agriculture">cecnet.net/agriculture</a>; www.ecirec.coop/rebate-forms-
and-specifications; and <a href="http://www.tiprec.com/rebates">www.tiprec.com/rebates</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The term ``diameter'' in the context of fans and blowers refers to
the impeller diameter of a fan. Impeller diameter is typically
determined by measuring the radial distance from the tip of one of the
impeller blades to the center of the impeller hub and doubling that
value. DOE is therefore proposing to define diameter for fans and
blowers as ``the impeller diameter of a fan, which is twice the
measured radial distance between the tip of one of the impeller blades
of a fan to the center axis of its impeller hub.'' DOE notes that
impeller diameter may often be different than nominal diameter.
Additionally, in the October 2022 NODA, DOE summarized a comment
from the Efficiency Advocates stating that portable blowers may require
an equipment class separate from other ACFs because they provide a
unique application (i.e., drying floors), have centrifugal rather than
axial construction, and are relatively low in efficiency. 87 FR 62038,
62045. DOE understands the term ``portable blower'' to be a housed
centrifugal ACF. As discussed in section IV.A.1.a of this document, DOE
tentatively determined that axial and centrifugal fans generally have
different utilities. DOE also reviewed the housed centrifugal ACF
market and found that housed-centrifugal ACFs are used primarily as
carpet dryers. Additionally, DOE observed that housed-centrifugal ACFs
with input powers greater than or equal to 125 W typically have
impeller diameters of 4 in. to 20 in., while axial ACFs with input
powers greater than 125 W often have impeller diameters exceeding 20
in. DOE also reviewed housed centrifugal ACF efficiency data and found
that the most efficient housed centrifugal ACFs can be 3 to 4 times
less efficient than the most efficient axial ACFs with a comparable
diameter. Since housed centrifugal ACFs have a different construction,
are only used as carpet dryers, are smaller, and are less efficient
than axial ACFs, DOE has created a separate equipment class for housed
centrifugal ACFs. DOE did not consider different diameter ranges for
the housed centrifugal ACF equipment class because it did not observe a
significant variation in efficiency for housed centrifugal ACFs with
diameter. The proposed equipment classes for ACFs are summarized in
Table IV-6.

[[Page 3757]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA24.024

2. Scope of Analysis and Data Availability
a. General Fans and Blowers
DOE conducted the GFB engineering analysis for this NOPR using a
database of confidential sales information provided by AMCA (``AMCA
sales database''), performance data from manufacturer online fan
selection software, and performance data provided from confidential
manufacturer interviews.
In response to the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE received comments about
the data used in its historical analyses. Specifically, AHRI expressed
concern with DOE's use of the AMCA sales database in the December 2014
NODA, the May 2015 NODA, and the November 2016 NODA, which contains
efficiencies established at a variety of different speeds. (Docket No.
EERE-2021-BT-TP-0021, AHRI, No. 40 at p. 13). AHRI stated that this
approach was inconsistent with the ASRAC Working Group agreement for
establishing product performance and, as disclosed during ASRAC
negotiations, much of the data in the database was not certified
performance and may not be reliable for evaluating the impact of
efficiency standards. (Id.)
With respect to the AMCA sales database providing efficiency data
at a variety of speeds, DOE notes that, in accordance with the DOE test
procedure, fans must be tested at a range of duty points over which
they may operate. Duty points are characterized by a given airflow and
pressure at a corresponding operating speed. In other words, fans could
be tested at a variety of different speeds depending on the duty point
at which the fan is being operated. As discussed in section IV.B of
this document, DOE evaluated the entire range of duty points when
developing the proposed efficiency levels for each class; therefore,
DOE has used the performance data provided in the AMCA sales database
as a basis for its engineering analysis. Furthermore, in response to
the data in the database not being certified performance data, DOE
compared the fan models in the AMCA sales database with the fan models
in the AMCA Certified Rating Program.\52\ DOE found that the fan models
in the AMCA sales database are certified as part of AMCA's Certified
Rating Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ Detail on AMCA's Certified Ratings Program can be found at
<a href="http://www.amca.org/certify/#about-crp">www.amca.org/certify/#about-crp</a> (last accessed September 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The AMCA sales database that DOE used in this analysis is the same
database that was used in the May 2015 NODA and the November 2016 NODA.
To validate that the AMCA sales database remains representative of the
current market, DOE verified the data with current manufacture product
literature. DOE selected several fans from the AMCA sales database from
each manufacturer and equipment class and verified that those fans are
currently available with the same performance data. DOE specifically
checked that the model, diameter, operating pressure, airflow, and
brake horsepower (``bhp'') aligned between the AMCA sales database and
current product literature. DOE was able to verify a majority of the
fans selected from each manufacturer and equipment class. Additionally,
DOE obtained recent performance and sales data from confidential
manufacturer interviews and determined that the data were consistent
with the data in the AMCA sales database; therefore, DOE has
tentatively concluded that the AMCA sales database that it uses in its
engineering analysis for this NOPR is representative of the current
market.
DOE notes that it made some updates to the AMCA sales database to
ensure consistency with the proposed scope and equipment classes for
PRVs. The AMCA sales database grouped all centrifugal PRVs together;
however, as discussed in section IV.A.1.a, DOE has separated
centrifugal PRVs by whether they are supply or exhaust (ducted or non-
ducted). To separately analyze the two classes, DOE manually
recategorized the centrifugal PRVs as either supply or exhaust fans
using the manufacturer and model provided in the AMCA sales database
for most fans to identify from manufacturer literature which
centrifugal PRVs were supply and which were exhaust. Centrifugal PRVs
that could not be identified by their model name were left categorized
as exhaust for the analysis since, based on data collected during
confidential manufacturer interviews, DOE believes that there are more
centrifugal PRV exhaust fan product lines and models than centrifugal
PRV supply fans.
Additionally, DOE determined that the AMCA sales database included
many radial fans that are considered out of scope in the DOE test
procedure. 10 CFR 431.174((a)2)(i). As discussed in section III.B.1,
radial fans that are unshrouded and have an impeller diameter less than
30 in. or a blade width of less than 3 in. are excluded from the scope
of the DOE test procedure. DOE identified these radial fans by looking
up each model in manufacturer product literature to determine whether
it contained a shrouded impeller. Some fans in the database could not
be identified by model, or the impeller characteristics could not be
determined from their catalogs. DOE opted to include these fans in the
database for analysis because including them likely results in a more
conservative estimate of FEI since DOE has found that unshrouded
impellers typically have lower FEI.
DOE acknowledges that there are limitations to the data provided in
the AMCA sales database. For example, factors such as drive type, motor
horsepower, and the presence of motor controllers were not specified in
the AMCA sales database, unless indicated by the model number.
Additionally, DOE estimates that AMCA members make up 60 percent of fan
manufacturers. DOE understands that the AMCA sales database includes
only a portion of the sales data from AMCA members; however, given the
range in equipment classes, FEIs, and costs in the AMCA sales database,
DOE believes that the data are representative of the U.S. GFB market.
Furthermore, to supplement the data from the AMCA sales database, DOE
also pulled

[[Page 3758]]

performance data from online fan manufacturer selection software. DOE
notes that it did not select representative units, such as a particular
fan model, to conduct its analysis since fan performance relies on fan
diameter and operating point. Instead, DOE identified between three and
ten representative diameters and operating points for each equipment
class in the AMCA sales database and pulled additional performance data
for these operating points from manufacturer fan selection software.
Each representative operating point was defined by equipment class,
diameter, operating pressure, and airflow. DOE analyzed data points
from multiple fan models and manufacturers for each representative
diameter and operating point representing a variety of fan designs and
efficiencies. Using the data from manufacturer fan selection software,
DOE was able to identify the drive type, motor horsepower, and whether
or not motor controllers were present for each evaluated fan.
More detail on the databases DOE used in its analyses can be found
in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
b. Air Circulating Fans
During manufacturer interviews conducted prior to the October 2022
NODA, manufacturers recommended that DOE use ACF data from a publicly
available database provided by the Bioenvironmental and Structural
Systems Laboratory associated with the University of Illinois-Champaign
(``BESS Labs database'').\53\ Based on this feedback, DOE conducted its
October 2022 NODA analyses using data from the BESS Labs database and
data collected from ACF testing performed by DOE at BESS Labs. DOE
referred to this collective database as the ``BESS Labs combined
database'' in the October 2022 NODA. DOE notes that, although BESS Labs
uses the test setups defined in the 2012 edition of AMCA 230 for its
testing, BESS Labs does not apply standard air density conversions to
its measurements, which are required by the DOE test procedure. See
section 2.2.2 of appendix B to subpart J to 10 CFR part 431. Therefore,
in the October 2022 NODA, DOE applied conversion formulas to the BESS
Labs combined database performance data to align the airflow and input
power calculations with the DOE test procedure. Details on these
conversions can be found in chapter 5 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ BESS Labs is a research, product testing, and educational
laboratory. BESS Labs provides engineering data to aid in the
selection and design of agricultural buildings and assists equipment
manufacturers in developing better products. Test reports for ACFs
are publicly available at <a href="http://bess.illinois.edu/searchc.asp">bess.illinois.edu/searchc.asp</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in section III.B.2, all ACFs with input power less
than 125 W are outside the proposed scope of this rulemaking.
Therefore, DOE removed all ACFs with input powers less than 125 W from
the BESS Labs combined database prior to its analysis for this NOPR.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE requested comment on whether the BESS
Labs combined database was representative of the performance of the
entire ACF market. 87 FR 62038, 62045. In response, AMCA commented that
it expects the fan efficiencies reported in the BESS Labs database to
be higher than the typical efficiencies seen on the market for ACFs.
AMCA stated that this is because the fans in the BESS Labs database are
typically agricultural fans, and these fans are the subject of utility
rebates to encourage the production of higher-efficiency fans. AMCA
further stated that it is unlikely performance data for a fan was
voluntarily added to the public BESS Labs database unless the fan was
eligible for these utility rebates. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 4-5) Greenheck
also commented that the ACF efficiencies in the BESS Labs database
would generally be higher than typical ACFs on the market because of
their participation in rebate efficiency incentive programs, and
Greenheck suggested that DOE utilize more data sources than just the
BESS Labs combined database. (Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 2)
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE also requested information on ACF
performance data. 87 FR 62038, 62045. In response, AMCA commented that
ACF catalog data is publicly available. However, AMCA also stated that
it believes that public performance data for fans not listed in the
BESS Labs database was likely either not collected using the most
recent version of AMCA 230 or not collected using any version of AMCA
230 at all. AMCA further commented that testing of ACFs at an AMCA-
accredited facility yielded performance data that was inconsistent with
the performance data published in catalogs for certain tested fans, and
because of this, AMCA cautioned DOE on the use of catalog data that has
not been certified by a third party. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 5-6)
Similarly, Greenheck recommended that DOE only use ACF data that has
been certified by an independent performance certification program to
ensure that the data are accurate. (Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 2) In the
October 2022 NODA, DOE discussed a comment from AMCA stating that ACF
product literature may advertise performance calculated using outdated
versions of AMCA 230 and that all versions aside from AMCA 230-15 had
at least one error pertaining to the calculations of thrust, airflow,
or input power. 87 FR 62038, 62043-62044. A table summarizing these
errors can be found in the October 2022 NODA. Id.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE also requested comment on whether the
fan affinity laws could be used to extrapolate ACF performance data to
smaller and larger diameters to increase the size of its ACF dataset.
87 FR 62038, 62045. In response, NEEA stated that since the fan
affinity laws assume that efficiency remains constant, utilizing them
for determining efficiency gains would be incorrect. Instead, NEEA
recommended that DOE obtain data on smaller- and larger-diameter ACFs
by either testing additional smaller- and larger-diameter ACFs or by
using empirical relationships to extrapolate data to smaller and larger
diameters. (NEEA, No. 129 at p. 3-4) AMCA stated that the fan affinity
laws require knowledge of the impeller shaft power, which is often not
measured for ACFs. AMCA added that electrical input power, which is
often measured for ACFs, cannot be scaled to obtain reasonable
estimates. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 6) In response to this feedback, DOE
did not utilize the fan affinity laws to extrapolate fan performance
data to different diameters and instead included catalog data in its
dataset for this NOPR.
DOE acknowledges that the BESS Labs combined database likely
contains higher efficiency fans than the overall ACF market, since many
agricultural incentive programs require that fans be tested at BESS
Labs and meet certain performance requirements. Additionally, DOE notes
that the BESS Labs combined database contains data on axial ACFs only.
Therefore, to supplement the BESS Labs combined database and gain
additional information representative of the ACF market, DOE collected
ACF catalog data from manufacturer and distributor websites. DOE did
not consider catalog data in the October 2022 NODA because catalog data
did not include information on the air density measured during testing,
which is required to calculate FEI. Since DOE updated the ACF metric to
be efficacy instead of FEI, DOE was able to use catalog data for this
NOPR. In response to AMCA and Greenheck's concerns about the accuracy
of catalog data that have not been certified by a third party, DOE
notes that, while the catalog data it collected is not certified by a
third party, there were no ACFs listed in AMCA's certified product

[[Page 3759]]

database at the time of DOE's market review,\54\ and DOE is not aware
of any other certification programs for ACFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ AMCA's certified product database for ACFs can be found

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on January 19, 2024.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.