Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers: Availability of Provisional Analysis Tools, 73246-73252 [2014-28918]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73246
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
guidance to USDA agencies, employees,
recipients, and beneficiaries on Age Act
requirements. In the final rule section of
this issue of the Federal Register, USDA
is publishing this action as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because
USDA views this as a non-controversial
action and expects no adverse
comments. If no adverse comments are
received in response to the direct final
rule, no further action will be taken on
this proposed rule, and the action will
become effective at the time specified in
the direct final rule. If USDA receives
adverse comments, a timely document
will be published withdrawing the
direct final rule, and all public
comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this
action.
Comments on this proposed
action must be received by USDA or
carry a postmark or equivalent no later
than January 9, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit adverse comments
on the proposed rule to Anna G.
Stroman, Chief, Policy Division, by mail
at Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250.
You may also submit adverse comments
on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anna Stroman at anna.stroman@
ascr.usda.gov.
DATES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION in the
direct final rule located in the Rules and
Regulations section of this issue of the
Federal Register.
Dated: November 17, 2014.
Thomas J. Vilsack,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–28453 Filed 12–9–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
RIN 1904–AC55
Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial and Industrial Fans and
Blowers: Availability of Provisional
Analysis Tools
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) has completed a
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
provisional analysis that estimates the
potential economic impacts and energy
savings that could result from
promulgating a regulatory energy
conservation standard for commercial
and industrial fans and blowers. At this
time, DOE is not proposing an energy
conservation standard for commercial
and industrial fans and blowers. DOE is
publishing this analysis and the
underlining assumptions and
calculations, which may be used to
ultimately support a proposed energy
conservation standard, for stakeholder
review. DOE encourages stakeholders to
provide any additional data or
information that may improve the
analysis.
Comments: DOE will accept
comments, data, and information
regarding this notice of data availability
(NODA) no later than January 26, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The analysis is now
publically available at: https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/
ruleid/25. Any comments submitted
must identify the NODA for Energy
Conservation Standards for commercial
and industrial fans and blowers, and
provide docket number EERE–2013–
BT–STD–0006 and/or regulatory
information number (RIN) number
1904–AC55. Comments may be
submitted using any of the following
methods:
1. Federal Rulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: CIFB2013STD0006@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
and/or RIN in the subject line of the
message.
3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. If
possible, please submit all items on a
compact disc (CD), in which case it is
not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Office, 950
L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:
(202) 586–2945. If possible, please
submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed
copies.
For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see section IV, ‘‘Public Participation.’’
Docket: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, comments,
and other supporting documents/
materials, is available for review at
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
not all documents listed in the index
may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public
disclosure. A link to the docket Web
page can be found at: https://
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD0006. The www.regulations.gov Web
page contains instructions on how to
access all documents in the docket,
including public comments. See section
IV, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for further
information on how to submit
comments through
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Ron Majette, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–7935. Email:
CIFansBlowers@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email:
peter.cochran@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment and review other
public comments and the docket,
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202)
586–2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. History of Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking for Commercial and
Industrial Fans and Blowers
II. Current Status
III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by
DOE
A. Energy Metric
B. Engineering Analysis
C. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
E. National Impact Analysis
IV. Public Participation Submission of
Comments
V. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Public
Comment
I. History of Energy Conservation
Standards Rulemaking for Commercial
and Industrial Fans and Blowers
Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C.
6291, et seq; ‘‘EPCA’’), Pub. L. 94–163,
sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency.1
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the American
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Current Status
The analyses described in this NODA
were developed to support a potential
energy conservation standard for
commercial and industrial fans and
blowers. Using these analyses, DOE
intends to move forward with its
traditional regulatory rulemaking
activities and develop a notice of
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act
(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1.
3 Supporting documents from this public meeting,
including presentation slides and meeting
transcript, are available at: https://
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013BT-STD-0006
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for an
energy conservation standard for
commercial and industrial fans and
blowers. The NOPR will include a
Technical Support Document (TSD),
which will contain a detailed written
account of the analyses performed in
support of the NOPR, which will
include updates to the analyses made
available in this NODA.
In this NODA, DOE is not proposing
any energy conservation standards for
commercial and industrial fans and
blowers. DOE may revise the analysis
presented in this NODA based on any
new or updated information or data it
obtains between now and the
publication of any future NOPR
proposing energy conservation
standards for commercial and industrial
fans and blowers. DOE encourages
stakeholders to provide any additional
data or information that may improve
the analysis.
III. Summary of the Analyses
Performed by DOE
As DOE has proposed to define
blowers as a type of centrifugal fan,4 the
ensuing discussion uses fans to refer to
both fans and blowers. DOE developed
a fan energy performance metric and
conducted provisional analyses of
commercial and industrial fans in the
following areas: (1) Engineering; (2)
manufacturer impacts; (3) LCC and PBP;
and (4) national impacts. The fan energy
perfomrance metric and the tools used
in preparing these analyses and their
respective results are available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD0006. Each individual spreadsheet
includes an introduction that provides
an overview of the contents of the
spreadsheet. These spreadsheets present
the various inputs and outputs to the
analysis and, where necessary,
instructions. Brief descriptions of the
fan energy performance metric, of the
provisional analyses, and of the
supporting spreadsheet tools are
provided below. If DOE proposes an
energy conservation standard for
commercial and industrial fans in a
future NOPR, then DOE will publish a
TSD, which will contain a detailed
written account of the analyses
performed in support of the NOPR,
which will include updates to the
analyses made available in this NODA.
4 76
PO 00000
FR 37678, 37679 (June 28, 2011).
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A. Energy Metric
Commercial and industrial fan energy
performance is a critical input in the
provisional analyses discussed in
today’s notice. For the purpose of this
NODA, DOE developed a fan energy
metric, the fan energy index (FEI), to
represent fan performance and
characterize the different efficiency
levels analyzed. FEI is defined as the fan
energy rating (FERSTD) of a fan that
exactly meets the efficiency level being
analyzed, divided by the fan energy
rating (FER) of a given fan model. FER
is defined as the weighted average
electric input power of a fan over a
specified load profile, in horsepower,
and measured at a given speed. An FEI
value less than 1.0 would indicate that
the fan does not meet the efficiency
level being analyzed, while a value
greater than 1.0 would indicate that the
fan is more efficient than the efficiency
level being analyzed. The FEI is
calculated as:
For this analysis, DOE used the
following load profile: 100 percent of
the flow at best efficiency point (BEP),
110 percent of the flow at BEP, and 115
percent of the flow at BEP.5 DOE
calculated the FER of a given fan model,
using the maximum of the following
speeds included in the operating range
of a given fan model: 850 RPM, 1150
RPM, 1750 RPM, and 3550 RPM.6 In
order to calculate the FER of a fan, DOE
assumed default motor full load and
part load efficiency values, as well as
default belt losses 7 (where appropriate):
5 The efficiency of a fan is defined as the ratio of
air output power to mechanical input power. Fan
efficiency varies depending on the output flow and
pressure. The best efficiency point or BEP
represents the flow and pressure values at which
the fan efficiency is maximized when operating at
a given speed.
6 Initially, DOE considered calculating the FEI at
the maximum recommended speed of the fan.
However, because the calculation of the FER
requires fan performance to be combined with
default motor performance data, which depend on
the motor’s synchronous speed (or pole
configuration), DOE calculated the FER of a given
fan at the speed corresponding to the highest
electric motor synchronous speed configuration that
exists within the fan’s operational speed range. DOE
subtracted 50 RPM from the synchronous speeds in
order to reflect the motor’s slip.
7 These default losses assumptions are presented
in the LCC spreadsheet, in the ‘‘Default Losses’’
worksheet.
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
EP10DE14.000</GPH>
Part C of title III establishes the ‘‘Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment.’’ 2
EPCA specifies a list of equipment
that constitutes covered commercial and
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(A)–(L)) The list includes 11
types of equipment and a catch-all
provision for certain other types of
industrial equipment classified as
covered the Secretary of Energy
(Secretary). EPCA also specifies the
types of equipment that can be
classified as covered in addition to the
equipment enumerated in 42 U.S.C.
6311(1). This equipment includes fans
and blowers. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B))
DOE initiated the current rulemaking
by publishing a proposed coverage
determination for commercial and
industrial fans and blowers. 76 FR
37678 (June 28, 2011). This was
followed by the publication of a Notice
of Public Meeting and Availability of
the Framework Document for
commercial and industrial fans and
blowers in the Federal Register on
February 1, 2013. 78 FR 7306. DOE held
a public meeting on February 21, 2013
at which it described the various
analyses DOE would conduct as part of
the rulemaking, such as the engineering
analysis, the manufacturer impact
analysis (MIA), the life-cycle cost (LCC)
and payback period (PBP) analyses, and
the national impact analysis (NIA). DOE
also solicited feedback from
stakeholders. Representatives for
manufacturers, trade associations,
environmental and energy efficiency
advocates, and other interested parties
attended the meeting.3 Comments
received since publication of the
Framework Document have helped DOE
in the development of the initial
analyses presented in this NODA.
73247
73248
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Where:
Q = flow;
P = pressure; and
a, b, g = constants
AMCA presented two possible
approaches: (1) Use of the PBER
equation to establish a minimum
efficiency requirement at the BEP
pressure and flow; (2) use of the PBER
equation to establish minimum
efficiency requirements across all
operating points (pressure and flow
points) specified by the manufacturer.
Both the FEI approach presented by
DOE and the PBER approaches provide
an equation to determine the fan
efficiency as a function of flow and
pressure, with lower efficiency
requirements at lower flows and
pressures.
There are two main differences
between the PBER and FEI approaches.
First, the two approaches use different
forms for the fan efficiency equation.
Second, unlike the FEI approach, the
PBER approach does not prescribe
particular operating conditions at which
the PBER is to be evaluated in order to
calculate the energy metric. In the FEI
approach, DOE calculates the FEI at the
maximum of the following speeds
included in the operating range of a
given fan model: 850 RPM, 1150 RPM,
1750 RPM, and 3550 RPM. For example,
if a given fan model can operate
between 1000 and 2500 RPM, its FEI
would be calculated at 1750 RPM. The
input power is then calculated for three
specific load points: at BEP flow, 110%
of BEP flow, and 115% of BEP flow. The
PBER approach, on the other hand, does
not prescribe particular operating
conditions. In the case where the PBER
is used at BEP, the maximum operating
speed of the fan (initially established by
the fan’s structural rigidity) would be
reduced (if necessary) to a speed for
which the BEP efficiency, flow, and
pressure meet the PBER equation. And,
in the case where the PBER is required
to be met at all operating points, the
operating range of a given fan
(characterized by pressure and flow
points) would be reduced (if necessary)
to ensure that all operating points meet
the PBER equation.
In contrast with DOE’s FEI approach,
DOE understands that neither of the two
PBER approaches are likely to require
redesign of a fan model that does not
meet the PBER. Instead, the operating
range of the fan model would be
8 Fan efficiency is defined as the ratio of air
output power to mechanical input power. Fan
efficiency varies depending on the output flow and
pressure. The best efficiency point or BEP
represents the flow and pressure values at which
the fan efficiency is maximized when operating a
given speed.
9 A C-Value is the translational component of a
two-variable, second degree polynomial equation
that describes fan efficiency as a function of flow
and total pressure at BEP. Defining the proper CValue for the two-variable polynomial of second
degree order allows the FEI to be set at a level that
removes a percentage of the lowest performing
models from the market, and does so equivalently
across the full range of operating flow and pressures
of fan considered in this analysis.
10 In order to simplify the calculation process,
and still account for the different speeds at which
the FER of a fan can be calculated (850, 1550, 1750
and 3550 RPM), DOE proposes to use a single
equation for calculating the fan total efficiency of
a minimally compliant fan at BEP as a function of
flow and total pressure and to allow manufacturers
to use the fan laws to adjust the total pressure and
flow at BEP to a speed equal to 85 percent of the
fan’s maximum recommended speed.
11 A detailed explanation of how the two-variable,
second degree polynomial equation was obtained is
available in the ‘‘Database Methodology’’
worksheet. The C-values associated with different
market cut offs are presented in the ‘‘FEI Calculator
Assumptions’’ worksheet.
12 The Air Movement and Control Association
(AMCA), New York Blower Company, Natural
Resources Defence Council (NRDC), the Appliance
Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), and the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA).
13 Supporting documents from this meeting,
including presentation slides are available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=
EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0029.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
EP10DE14.002</GPH>
DOE considered different C-Values to
establish efficiency levels that target the
removal of 5 to 70 percent of existing
fan models for different equipment
groups. For reference, the two-variable
polynomial of second degree equation,
the percent of models removed from the
market and the associated C-Values are
presented in the engineering
spreadsheet.11 A detailed explanation of
how the FEI is calculated is also
available in the ‘‘FEI Calculator’’
worksheet of the engineering
spreadsheet.
In October 2014 several
representatives of fan manufacturers
and energy efficiency advocates 12
presented an energy metric approach
called ‘‘Performance Based Efficiency
Requirement’’ (PBER) to DOE.13 The
PBER approach sets efficiency targets
expressed as a function of pressure and
flow. The combination of the PBER and
default values for motors and
transmissions allows the calculation of
the electric input power of a fan that
exactly meets the efficient target set by
the PBER, similar to the calculation of
the FERSTD. The PBER equation is as
follows:
hfans,STD = [C + 10.2205 * ln(Q) + 2.8085
* ln(P) ¥ 0.3932 * ln(Q)2 + 0.8530
* ln(Q) * ln(P) ¥ 2.1379 * ln(P)2]/
100
EP10DE14.001</GPH>
Where:
Q = flow at BEP adjusted to 85 percent
maximum recommended speed 10 in
cubic feet per minute at 60Hz,
P = total pressure at BEP adjusted to 85
percent maximum recommended speed
in inches of water gauge at 60 Hz, and
C = an intercept that is set for the surface,
which is set based on the fan group of
the applicable fan model.
For the FERSTD calculation of a fan
that exactly meets the efficiency level
being analyzed, DOE used the same FER
equation, except it used a default fan
total efficiency unique to each fan
model, expressed as a function of each
fan model’s flow and total pressure at
BEP,8 as well as a specified C-Value: 9
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Where:
wi = weighting at each load point (equal
weighting);
Pout,i = the output air power of the fan at load
point i;
hfan,i = the total fan efficiency at each load
point i;
hT,i = the default transmission losses at each
load point i;
LM,i = the default motor losses at each load
point i; and
i = the flow points of the load profile (100,
110, and 115 percent of the flow at BEP
at the considered speed: 850 RPM, 1150
RPM, 1750 RPM, or 3550 RPM)
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
restricted to meet the PBER
requirements.
To compare the form of the equation
used to express fan efficiency as a
function of flow and pressure, DOE
conducted a comparative investigation
of the impacts of setting a fan efficiency
standard using either the PBER equation
or the two variable polynomial equation
to express fan efficiency. DOE found
that using the two variable polynomial
equation to eliminate a given percentage
of models leads to a distribution of
eliminated models that is uniform
across all ranges of air flow and pressure
while using the PBER equation did not.
B. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis establishes
the relationship between the
manufacturer production cost (MPC)
and efficiency levels of commercial and
industrial fans. This relationship serves
as the basis for cost-benefit calculations
performed in the other analysis tools for
individual consumers, manufacturers,
and the Nation.
As a first step in the engineering
analysis, DOE established 7 provisional
fan groups based on characteristics such
as the direction of airflow through the
fan andthe presence of a housing. For
each of these groupings, DOE identified
existing technology options that could
affect the efficiency of commercial
industrial fans and conducted a
screening analysis to review each
technology option and decide whether
it: (1) Was technologically feasible; (2)
was practicable to manufacture, install,
and service; (3) would adversely affect
product utility or product availability;
or (4) would have adverse impacts on
health and safety. The technology
options remaining after the screening
analysis consisted of a variety of
impeller types and guide vanes. DOE
used these technology options to divide
the fan groups into subgroups and
conducted a market-based assessment of
the prevalence of each subgroup at the
different efficiency levels analyzed. Six
efficiency levels were analyzed,
targeting the removal of 0–70% of fan
models. The baseline level, removing no
fan models, is referred to as FEI 0, and
the higher efficiency levels are FEI 5, 10,
15, 20, 50, and 70. These levels were set
independently for each fan group.
DOE estimated the MPCs for each
technology option for each fan group as
a function of blade or impeller diameter,
independent of efficiency level. The
MPCs were derived from product
teardowns and publically-available
product literature and informed by
interviews with manufacturers. DOE
then calculated MPCs for each fan group
at each efficiency level analyzed by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
weighting the MPCs of each technology
option within a group by its prevalence
at the efficiency level being analyzed.
DOE’s preliminary MPC estimates
indicate that the changes in MPC as
efficiency level increases are small or, in
some fan groups, zero. However, DOE is
aware that aerodynamic redesigns are a
primary method by which
manufacturers improve fan
performance. These redesigns require
manufacturers to make large upfront
investments for R&D, testing and
prototyping, and purchasing new
production equipment. DOE’s
preliminary findings indicate that the
magnitude of these upfront costs are
more significant than the difference in
MPC of a fan redesigned for efficiency
compared to its precursor. For this
NODA, DOE included a conversion cost
markup in its calculation of the
manufacturer selling price (MSP) to
account for these conversion costs.
These markups and associated MSPs
were developed and applied in
downstream analyses. They are
discussed in section C and presented in
the conversion cost spreadsheet.
The main outputs of the commercial
and industrial fans engineering analysis
are the MPCs of each fan group
(including material, labor, and
overhead) and technology option
distributions at each efficiency level
analyzed.
C. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
For the MIA, DOE used the
Government Regulatory Impact Model
(GRIM) to assess the economic impact of
potential standards on commercial and
industrial fan manufacturers. DOE
developed key industry average
financial parameters for the GRIM using
publicly available data from corporate
annual reports along with information
received through confidential
interviews with manufacturers. These
values include average industry tax rate;
working capital rate; net property, plant,
and equipment rate; selling, general,
and administrative expense rate;
research and development expense rate;
depreciation rate; capital expenditure
rate; and manufacturer discount rate.
Additionally, DOE calculated total
industry capital and product conversion
costs associated with meeting all
analyzed efficiency levels. DOE first
estimated the average industry capital
and product conversion costs associated
with redesigning a single fan model to
meet a specific efficiency level using a
proprietary cost model and feedback
from manufacturers during interviews.
DOE estimated these costs for all fan
subgroups. DOE then multiplied the per
model conversion costs by the number
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73249
of models that would be required to be
redesigned at each potential standard
level to arrive at the total industry
conversion costs.
The GRIM uses these estimated values
in conjunction with inputs from other
analyses including the MPCs from the
engineering analysis and LCC analysis,
the annual shipments by fan group from
the NIA, and the manufacturer markups
for the cost recovery markup scenario
from the LCC analysis to model industry
annual cash flows from the base year
through the end of the analysis period.
The primary quantitative output of this
model is the industry net present value
(INPV), which DOE calculates as the
sum of industry annual cash flows,
discounted to the present day using the
industry specific weighted average cost
of capital, or manufacturer discount
rate.
Standards can affect INPV in several
ways including requiring upfront
investments in manufacturing capital as
well as research and development
expenses, which increase the cost of
production and potentially alter
manufacturer markups. Under potential
standards for commercial and industrial
fans, DOE expects that manufacturers
may lose a portion of INPV due to
standards. The potential loss in INPV
due to standards is calculated as the
difference between INPV in the basecase (absent new energy conservation
standards) and the INPV in the
standards case (with new energy
conservation standards in effect). DOE
examines a range of possible impacts on
industry by modeling various pricing
strategies commercial and industrial fan
manufacturers may adopt following the
adoption of new energy conservations
standards for commercial and industrial
fans.
In addition to INPV, the MIA also
calculates the manufacturer markups,
which are applied to the MPCs, derived
in the engineering analysis and the LCC
analysis, to arrive at the manufacturer
selling price. For efficiency levels that
require manufacturers to redesign
models that do not meet the potential
standards, DOE calibrated the
manufacturer markups to allow
manufacturers to recover their upfront
conversion costs by amortizing those
investment over the units shipped that
were redesigned to meet the efficiency
level being analyzed throughout the
analysis period.
D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
The LCC and PBP analyses determine
the economic impact of potential
standards on individual consumers, in
the compliance year. The LCC is the
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73250
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
total cost of purchasing, installing and
operating a commercial or industrial fan
over the course of its lifetime.
DOE determines LCCs by considering:
(1) Total installed cost to the consumer
(which consists of manufacturer selling
price, distribution channel markups,
and sales taxes); (2) the range of annual
energy consumption of commercial and
industrial fans as they are used in the
field; (3) the operating cost of
commercial and industrial fans (e.g.,
energy cost); (4) equipment lifetime; and
(5) a discount rate that reflects the real
consumer cost of capital and puts the
LCC in present-value terms. The PBP
represents the number of years needed
to recover the increase in purchase price
of higher-efficiency commercial and
industrial fans through savings in the
operating cost. PBP is calculated by
dividing the incremental increase in
installed cost of the higher efficiency
product, compared to the baseline
product, by the annual savings in
operating costs.
For each standards case
corresponding to each efficiency level,
DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the base case. The base case
is characterized by the distribution of
equipment efficiencies in the absence of
new standards (i.e., what consumers
would have purchased in the
compliance year in the absence of new
standards. In the standards cases,
equipment with efficiency below the
standard levels ‘‘roll-up’’ to the standard
level in the compliance year.
For commercial and industrial fans,
DOE established statistical distributions
of consumers of each fan group across
sectors (industry or commercial) and
applications (clean air ventilation,
exhaust, combustion, drying, process
air, process heating/cooling, and others),
which in turn determined the fan’s
operating conditions (flow and pressure
points and operating speed), annual
operating hours, and fan load. The load
is defined as the fan’s air flow divided
by the flow at BEP when operating at a
given speed.14 Recognizing that several
inputs to the determination of consumer
LCC and PBP are either variable or
uncertain (e.g., annual energy
consumption, lifetime, discount rate),
DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis
by modeling both the uncertainty and
variability in the inputs using Monte
Carlo simulations and probability
distributions.
14 The efficiency of a fan is defined as the ratio
of air output power to mechanical input power. Fan
efficiency varies depending on the output flow and
pressure. The BEP represents the flow and pressure
values at which the fan efficiency is maximized
when operating a given speed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
The primary outputs of the LCC and
PBP analyses are: (1) Average LCC in
each standards case; (2) average PBPs;
(3) average LCC savings at each
standards case relative to the base case;
and (4) the percentage of consumers that
experience a net benefit, have no
impact, or have a net cost for each fan
group and efficiency level. The average
annual energy consumption derived in
the LCC analysis is used as an input in
the NIA.
E. National Impact Analysis
The NIA estimates the national energy
savings (NES) and the net present value
(NPV) of total consumer costs and
savings expected to result from potential
new standards at each EL. DOE
calculated NES and NPV for each EL as
the difference between a base case
forecast (without new standards) and
the standards case forecast (with
standards). Cumulative energy savings
are the sum of the annual NES
determined for the lifetime of a
commercial or industrial fan shipped
during a 30 year analysis period
assumed to start in 2018. Energy savings
include the full-fuel cycle energy
savings (i.e., the energy needed to
extract, process, and deliver primary
fuel sources such as coal and natural
gas, and the conversion and distribution
losses of generating electricity from
those fuel sources). The NPV is the sum
over time of the discounted net savings
each year, which consists of the
difference between total energy cost
savings and increases in total equipment
costs. NPV results are reported for
discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.
To calculate the NES and NPV, DOE
projected future shipments 15 and
efficiency distributions (for each EL) for
each potential commercial and
industrial fan group. DOE recognizes the
uncertainty in projecting shipments and
electricity prices; as a result the NIA
includes several different scenarios for
each. Other inputs to the NIA include
the estimated commercial and industrial
fan lifetime used in the LCC analysis,
manufacturer selling prices from the
MIA, average annual energy
consumption, and efficiency
distributions from the LCC.
The purpose of this NODA is to notify
industry, manufacturers, consumer
groups, efficiency advocates,
government agencies, and other
stakeholders of the publication of the
initial analysis of potential energy
conservation standards for commercial
15 The ‘‘shipments’’ worksheet of the NIA
spreadsheet presents the scope of the analysis and
the total shipments value in units for the fans in
scope.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and industrial fans. Stakeholders should
contact DOE for any additional
information pertaining to the analyses
performed for this NODA.
IV. Public Participation
Submission of Comments
DOE welcomes comments on all
aspects of this NODA and on other
issues relevant to potential test
procedures and energy conservation
standards for commercial and industrial
fans and blowers, but no later than the
date provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this NODA. Interested
parties may submit comments, data, and
other information using any of the
methods described in the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this NODA.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov Web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
Web site will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section below.
DOE processes submissions made
through www.regulations.gov before
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Please keep the comment tracking
number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand
delivery, or mail also will be posted to
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and
that are free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email, postal mail, or hand
delivery/courier two well-marked
copies: One copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email or on
a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include: (1)
A description of the items; (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known or available from other
sources; (4) whether the information has
previously been made available to
others without obligation concerning its
confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting
person which would result from public
disclosure; (6) when such information
might lose its confidential character due
to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be
contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
V. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Public
Comment
DOE is interested in receiving
comment on all aspects of this analysis.
DOE is particularly interested in
receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the
following issues:
1. DOE generated formulae for
manufacturer production cost (MPC) as
a function of subgroup and diameter
(which DOE believes can be used as a
general proxy for airflow). DOE requests
comments on whether there are any
other parameters, such as pressure,
construction class, rating RPM, etc.,
which DOE should use as inputs in
calculating the MPC, in addition to or
instead of diameter. If so, DOE
encourages stakeholders to submit data
illustrating the relationship of MPC with
these parameters.
2. DOE assumed that the cost to
redesign multiple fan models was equal
to the number of models times an
estimated cost to redesign one fan
model. DOE recognizes that
manufacturers may be able to share
resources between redesigns in the same
company, or in the same product line
(i.e., different diameters). If this is
current practice or possible, DOE
requests comments on the scenarios in
which resource sharing can occur and to
what extent.
3. DOE estimated the cost to redesign
a fan as a function of the subgroup of
fan resulting from the redesign. There
may be other parameters, such as the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73251
fan’s diameter, RPM properties, FEI or
efficiency, construction class, or the
properties of the fan before it was
redesigned, that DOE should take into
consideration. If so, DOE requests
information on which parameters
should be taken into consideration and
how each affects the cost to redesign a
fan.
4. DOE used a redesign time of 6
months per fan model in its calculation
of redesign costs. DOE requests
comment on this assumption and
whether this time period is sufficient for
prototyping and revising marketing
materials.
5. DOE did not explicitly consider fan
noise performance in its analyses. DOE
requests comment on whether noise
considerations provide barriers to
increased fan efficiency.
6. DOE requests information on the
number of models and number of
shipments of forward curved fans.
7. DOE requests comment on its use
of a database of over 2500 fan models
as approximately representing all fan
models in the scope of this rulemaking
currently available in the United States
today.
8. DOE used current subgroup
distributions of fan models within each
fan group at each efficiency level
analyzed to weight the total conversion
cost per model regardless of the
efficiency level or the subclass of the fan
model before redesign. In other words,
DOE assumed that fan model impeller
distributions at a given efficiency level
would not change as a result of
standards. DOE requests comment on
this assumption.
9. DOE requests comment on the
inclusion of tubeaxial and vaneaxial
fans into a single fan group separate
from centrifugal inline and mixed flow
fans. DOE requests information
regarding whether these two groups of
fans provide distinct utility that justifies
the separation and resulting different
FEIs for the same rated flow and
pressure.
10. DOE requests comment on the cost
drivers included in the engineering
analysis (e.g., aerodynamic redesign,
impeller type, and presence of
guidevanes).
11. DOE requests information on the
design and manufacturing differences
between commercial and industrial
fans.
12. DOE requests information on how
forward curved impeller manufacturing
differs from the manufacturing of other
impeller types. DOE also requests
comment on how other fan components
differ between forward curved models
and non-forward curved models, such
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73252
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
as component materials and material
gauges.
13. DOE requests comment on its
MPC calculation as a function of
diameter equation and multipliers.
14. DOE did not consider variable
pitch blades in its analysis. DOE
requests information on the effect
variable-pitch blades have on efficiency
in the field, the mechanism of that
effect, and how testing can be
conducted to capture any benefit from
variable-pitch blades.
15. DOE requests comment on any of
the industry financials (working capital
rate; net property, plant, and equipment
rate; selling, general, and administrative
expense rate; research and development
rate; depreciation rate; capital
expenditure rate, and tax rate) used in
the GRIM (located in the ‘‘Financials’’
tab of the GRIM spreadsheet).
16. DOE requests comment on the use
of 11.4 percent as the real industry
manufacturer discount rate (also
referred to as the weighted average cost
of capital) for commercial and industrial
fan manufacturers (located in the
‘‘Financials’’ tab of the GRIM
spreadsheet).
17. DOE requests comment on the use
of 1.45 as a manufacturer markup (this
corresponds to a 31 percent gross
margin) for all fan groups and efficiency
levels in the base case (located in the
‘‘Markups’’ tab of the GRIM
spreadsheet). DOE requests information
regarding manufacturer markups and
whether they vary by fan efficiency, fan
group, fan subgroup, or any other
attribute.
18. DOE requests comment on both its
methodology of calculating total
industry capital and product conversion
costs and the specific industry average
per model capital and product
conversion cost estimates for each fan
subgroup (located in the Conversion
Cost spreadsheet).
19. DOE assumed that every fan
model that did not meet a candidate
standard level being analyzed would be
redesigned to meet that level. DOE
requests comment on this assumption
and on what portion of fan models that
do not meet a standard level would be
redesigned to meet the level as opposed
to being eliminated from the American
market.
20. DOE seeks inputs on its
characterization of market channels for
the considered fan groups, particularly
whether the channels include all
intermediate steps, and estimated
market shares of each channel.
21. DOE seeks inputs and comments
on the estimates of flow operating
points used in the energy use analysis
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
(expressed as a function of the flow at
best efficiency point).
22. DOE seeks inputs and comments
on the estimates of annual operating
hours by sector and application and on
the estimated distributions of fans
across sectors and applications.
23. DOE seeks comments on its
proposal to use a constant price trend
for projecting future commercial and
industrial fan prices.
24. DOE requests comment on
whether any of the efficiency levels
considered in this analysis might lead to
an increase in installation, repair, and
25. maintenance costs, and if so, data
regarding the magnitude of the
increased cost for each relevant
efficiency level.
26. DOE seeks comments on a
potential compliance date of three years
after the publication of a final rule
establishing energy conservation
standards for commercial and industrial
fans and blowers.
27. DOE seeks comments on the use
of constant efficiency trends in the base
case and in the standards cases.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 3,
2014.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2014–28918 Filed 12–9–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
software, and accomplishing a
functional test. We are proposing this
AD to prevent extended dry running of
the jettison fuel pumps, which can be a
potential ignition source inside the
main fuel tanks, and consequent fuel
tank fire or explosion in the event that
the jettison pump overheats or has an
electrical fault.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by January 26, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data
& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707,
MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207;
telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1;
fax 206–766–5680; Internet https://
www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view
this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call 425–227–1221.
14 CFR Part 39
Examining the AD Docket
[Docket No. FAA–2014–0920; Directorate
Identifier 2014–NM–192–AD]
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2014–
0920; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Takahisa Kobayashi, Aerospace
Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–
140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6499;
fax: 425–917–6590; email:
takahisa.kobayashi@faa.gov.
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 777–200,
–200LR, –300ER, and 777F series
airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a report of a jettison fuel
pump that was shut off by the automatic
shutoff system during the center tank
fuel scavenge process on a short-range
flight. This proposed AD would require
making wiring changes, modifying
certain power panels, installing
electrical load management system
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73246-73252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28918]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006]
RIN 1904-AC55
Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Fans
and Blowers: Availability of Provisional Analysis Tools
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has completed a
provisional analysis that estimates the potential economic impacts and
energy savings that could result from promulgating a regulatory energy
conservation standard for commercial and industrial fans and blowers.
At this time, DOE is not proposing an energy conservation standard for
commercial and industrial fans and blowers. DOE is publishing this
analysis and the underlining assumptions and calculations, which may be
used to ultimately support a proposed energy conservation standard, for
stakeholder review. DOE encourages stakeholders to provide any
additional data or information that may improve the analysis.
DATES: Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information
regarding this notice of data availability (NODA) no later than January
26, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The analysis is now publically available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/25. Any comments submitted must identify the NODA for Energy
Conservation Standards for commercial and industrial fans and blowers,
and provide docket number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006 and/or regulatory
information number (RIN) number 1904-AC55. Comments may be submitted
using any of the following methods:
1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: CIFB2013STD0006@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on
a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to
include printed copies.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see section IV, ``Public
Participation.''
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure. A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006. The
www.regulations.gov Web page contains instructions on how to access all
documents in the docket, including public comments. See section IV,
``Public Participation,'' for further information on how to submit
comments through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ron Majette, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7935. Email: CIFansBlowers@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: peter.cochran@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to submit a comment and review other
public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202)
586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. History of Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for
Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers
II. Current Status
III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE
A. Energy Metric
B. Engineering Analysis
C. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
E. National Impact Analysis
IV. Public Participation Submission of Comments
V. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Public Comment
I. History of Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for Commercial
and Industrial Fans and Blowers
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42
U.S.C. 6291, et seq; ``EPCA''), Pub. L. 94-163, sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency.\1\
[[Page 73247]]
Part C of title III establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the American Manufacturing Technical Corrections
Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA specifies a list of equipment that constitutes covered
commercial and industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)-(L)) The
list includes 11 types of equipment and a catch-all provision for
certain other types of industrial equipment classified as covered the
Secretary of Energy (Secretary). EPCA also specifies the types of
equipment that can be classified as covered in addition to the
equipment enumerated in 42 U.S.C. 6311(1). This equipment includes fans
and blowers. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B))
DOE initiated the current rulemaking by publishing a proposed
coverage determination for commercial and industrial fans and blowers.
76 FR 37678 (June 28, 2011). This was followed by the publication of a
Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of the Framework Document for
commercial and industrial fans and blowers in the Federal Register on
February 1, 2013. 78 FR 7306. DOE held a public meeting on February 21,
2013 at which it described the various analyses DOE would conduct as
part of the rulemaking, such as the engineering analysis, the
manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), the life-cycle cost (LCC) and
payback period (PBP) analyses, and the national impact analysis (NIA).
DOE also solicited feedback from stakeholders. Representatives for
manufacturers, trade associations, environmental and energy efficiency
advocates, and other interested parties attended the meeting.\3\
Comments received since publication of the Framework Document have
helped DOE in the development of the initial analyses presented in this
NODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Supporting documents from this public meeting, including
presentation slides and meeting transcript, are available at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Current Status
The analyses described in this NODA were developed to support a
potential energy conservation standard for commercial and industrial
fans and blowers. Using these analyses, DOE intends to move forward
with its traditional regulatory rulemaking activities and develop a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for an energy conservation
standard for commercial and industrial fans and blowers. The NOPR will
include a Technical Support Document (TSD), which will contain a
detailed written account of the analyses performed in support of the
NOPR, which will include updates to the analyses made available in this
NODA.
In this NODA, DOE is not proposing any energy conservation
standards for commercial and industrial fans and blowers. DOE may
revise the analysis presented in this NODA based on any new or updated
information or data it obtains between now and the publication of any
future NOPR proposing energy conservation standards for commercial and
industrial fans and blowers. DOE encourages stakeholders to provide any
additional data or information that may improve the analysis.
III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE
As DOE has proposed to define blowers as a type of centrifugal
fan,\4\ the ensuing discussion uses fans to refer to both fans and
blowers. DOE developed a fan energy performance metric and conducted
provisional analyses of commercial and industrial fans in the following
areas: (1) Engineering; (2) manufacturer impacts; (3) LCC and PBP; and
(4) national impacts. The fan energy perfomrance metric and the tools
used in preparing these analyses and their respective results are
available at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-
STD-0006. Each individual spreadsheet includes an introduction that
provides an overview of the contents of the spreadsheet. These
spreadsheets present the various inputs and outputs to the analysis
and, where necessary, instructions. Brief descriptions of the fan
energy performance metric, of the provisional analyses, and of the
supporting spreadsheet tools are provided below. If DOE proposes an
energy conservation standard for commercial and industrial fans in a
future NOPR, then DOE will publish a TSD, which will contain a detailed
written account of the analyses performed in support of the NOPR, which
will include updates to the analyses made available in this NODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 76 FR 37678, 37679 (June 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Energy Metric
Commercial and industrial fan energy performance is a critical
input in the provisional analyses discussed in today's notice. For the
purpose of this NODA, DOE developed a fan energy metric, the fan energy
index (FEI), to represent fan performance and characterize the
different efficiency levels analyzed. FEI is defined as the fan energy
rating (FERSTD) of a fan that exactly meets the efficiency
level being analyzed, divided by the fan energy rating (FER) of a given
fan model. FER is defined as the weighted average electric input power
of a fan over a specified load profile, in horsepower, and measured at
a given speed. An FEI value less than 1.0 would indicate that the fan
does not meet the efficiency level being analyzed, while a value
greater than 1.0 would indicate that the fan is more efficient than the
efficiency level being analyzed. The FEI is calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE14.000
For this analysis, DOE used the following load profile: 100 percent
of the flow at best efficiency point (BEP), 110 percent of the flow at
BEP, and 115 percent of the flow at BEP.\5\ DOE calculated the FER of a
given fan model, using the maximum of the following speeds included in
the operating range of a given fan model: 850 RPM, 1150 RPM, 1750 RPM,
and 3550 RPM.\6\ In order to calculate the FER of a fan, DOE assumed
default motor full load and part load efficiency values, as well as
default belt losses \7\ (where appropriate):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The efficiency of a fan is defined as the ratio of air
output power to mechanical input power. Fan efficiency varies
depending on the output flow and pressure. The best efficiency point
or BEP represents the flow and pressure values at which the fan
efficiency is maximized when operating at a given speed.
\6\ Initially, DOE considered calculating the FEI at the maximum
recommended speed of the fan. However, because the calculation of
the FER requires fan performance to be combined with default motor
performance data, which depend on the motor's synchronous speed (or
pole configuration), DOE calculated the FER of a given fan at the
speed corresponding to the highest electric motor synchronous speed
configuration that exists within the fan's operational speed range.
DOE subtracted 50 RPM from the synchronous speeds in order to
reflect the motor's slip.
\7\ These default losses assumptions are presented in the LCC
spreadsheet, in the ``Default Losses'' worksheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73248]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE14.001
Where:
[omega]i = weighting at each load point (equal
weighting);
Pout,i = the output air power of the fan at load point i;
[eta]fan,i = the total fan efficiency at each load point
i;
[eta]T,i = the default transmission losses at each load
point i;
LM,i = the default motor losses at each load point i; and
i = the flow points of the load profile (100, 110, and 115 percent
of the flow at BEP at the considered speed: 850 RPM, 1150 RPM, 1750
RPM, or 3550 RPM)
For the FERSTD calculation of a fan that exactly meets
the efficiency level being analyzed, DOE used the same FER equation,
except it used a default fan total efficiency unique to each fan model,
expressed as a function of each fan model's flow and total pressure at
BEP,\8\ as well as a specified C-Value: \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Fan efficiency is defined as the ratio of air output power
to mechanical input power. Fan efficiency varies depending on the
output flow and pressure. The best efficiency point or BEP
represents the flow and pressure values at which the fan efficiency
is maximized when operating a given speed.
\9\ A C-Value is the translational component of a two-variable,
second degree polynomial equation that describes fan efficiency as a
function of flow and total pressure at BEP. Defining the proper C-
Value for the two-variable polynomial of second degree order allows
the FEI to be set at a level that removes a percentage of the lowest
performing models from the market, and does so equivalently across
the full range of operating flow and pressures of fan considered in
this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[eta]fans,STD = [C + 10.2205 * ln(Q) + 2.8085 * ln(P) - 0.3932 *
ln(Q)\2\ + 0.8530 * ln(Q) * ln(P) - 2.1379 * ln(P)\2\]/100
Where:
Q = flow at BEP adjusted to 85 percent maximum recommended speed
\10\ in cubic feet per minute at 60Hz,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In order to simplify the calculation process, and still
account for the different speeds at which the FER of a fan can be
calculated (850, 1550, 1750 and 3550 RPM), DOE proposes to use a
single equation for calculating the fan total efficiency of a
minimally compliant fan at BEP as a function of flow and total
pressure and to allow manufacturers to use the fan laws to adjust
the total pressure and flow at BEP to a speed equal to 85 percent of
the fan's maximum recommended speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P = total pressure at BEP adjusted to 85 percent maximum recommended
speed in inches of water gauge at 60 Hz, and
C = an intercept that is set for the surface, which is set based on
the fan group of the applicable fan model.
DOE considered different C-Values to establish efficiency levels
that target the removal of 5 to 70 percent of existing fan models for
different equipment groups. For reference, the two-variable polynomial
of second degree equation, the percent of models removed from the
market and the associated C-Values are presented in the engineering
spreadsheet.\11\ A detailed explanation of how the FEI is calculated is
also available in the ``FEI Calculator'' worksheet of the engineering
spreadsheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A detailed explanation of how the two-variable, second
degree polynomial equation was obtained is available in the
``Database Methodology'' worksheet. The C-values associated with
different market cut offs are presented in the ``FEI Calculator
Assumptions'' worksheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2014 several representatives of fan manufacturers and
energy efficiency advocates \12\ presented an energy metric approach
called ``Performance Based Efficiency Requirement'' (PBER) to DOE.\13\
The PBER approach sets efficiency targets expressed as a function of
pressure and flow. The combination of the PBER and default values for
motors and transmissions allows the calculation of the electric input
power of a fan that exactly meets the efficient target set by the PBER,
similar to the calculation of the FERSTD. The PBER equation
is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Air Movement and Control Association (AMCA), New York
Blower Company, Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), the
Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), and the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA).
\13\ Supporting documents from this meeting, including
presentation slides are available at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0029.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE14.002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:
Q = flow;
P = pressure; and
[alpha], [beta], [gamma] = constants
AMCA presented two possible approaches: (1) Use of the PBER
equation to establish a minimum efficiency requirement at the BEP
pressure and flow; (2) use of the PBER equation to establish minimum
efficiency requirements across all operating points (pressure and flow
points) specified by the manufacturer. Both the FEI approach presented
by DOE and the PBER approaches provide an equation to determine the fan
efficiency as a function of flow and pressure, with lower efficiency
requirements at lower flows and pressures.
There are two main differences between the PBER and FEI approaches.
First, the two approaches use different forms for the fan efficiency
equation. Second, unlike the FEI approach, the PBER approach does not
prescribe particular operating conditions at which the PBER is to be
evaluated in order to calculate the energy metric. In the FEI approach,
DOE calculates the FEI at the maximum of the following speeds included
in the operating range of a given fan model: 850 RPM, 1150 RPM, 1750
RPM, and 3550 RPM. For example, if a given fan model can operate
between 1000 and 2500 RPM, its FEI would be calculated at 1750 RPM. The
input power is then calculated for three specific load points: at BEP
flow, 110% of BEP flow, and 115% of BEP flow. The PBER approach, on the
other hand, does not prescribe particular operating conditions. In the
case where the PBER is used at BEP, the maximum operating speed of the
fan (initially established by the fan's structural rigidity) would be
reduced (if necessary) to a speed for which the BEP efficiency, flow,
and pressure meet the PBER equation. And, in the case where the PBER is
required to be met at all operating points, the operating range of a
given fan (characterized by pressure and flow points) would be reduced
(if necessary) to ensure that all operating points meet the PBER
equation.
In contrast with DOE's FEI approach, DOE understands that neither
of the two PBER approaches are likely to require redesign of a fan
model that does not meet the PBER. Instead, the operating range of the
fan model would be
[[Page 73249]]
restricted to meet the PBER requirements.
To compare the form of the equation used to express fan efficiency
as a function of flow and pressure, DOE conducted a comparative
investigation of the impacts of setting a fan efficiency standard using
either the PBER equation or the two variable polynomial equation to
express fan efficiency. DOE found that using the two variable
polynomial equation to eliminate a given percentage of models leads to
a distribution of eliminated models that is uniform across all ranges
of air flow and pressure while using the PBER equation did not.
B. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the
manufacturer production cost (MPC) and efficiency levels of commercial
and industrial fans. This relationship serves as the basis for cost-
benefit calculations performed in the other analysis tools for
individual consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation.
As a first step in the engineering analysis, DOE established 7
provisional fan groups based on characteristics such as the direction
of airflow through the fan andthe presence of a housing. For each of
these groupings, DOE identified existing technology options that could
affect the efficiency of commercial industrial fans and conducted a
screening analysis to review each technology option and decide whether
it: (1) Was technologically feasible; (2) was practicable to
manufacture, install, and service; (3) would adversely affect product
utility or product availability; or (4) would have adverse impacts on
health and safety. The technology options remaining after the screening
analysis consisted of a variety of impeller types and guide vanes. DOE
used these technology options to divide the fan groups into subgroups
and conducted a market-based assessment of the prevalence of each
subgroup at the different efficiency levels analyzed. Six efficiency
levels were analyzed, targeting the removal of 0-70% of fan models. The
baseline level, removing no fan models, is referred to as FEI 0, and
the higher efficiency levels are FEI 5, 10, 15, 20, 50, and 70. These
levels were set independently for each fan group.
DOE estimated the MPCs for each technology option for each fan
group as a function of blade or impeller diameter, independent of
efficiency level. The MPCs were derived from product teardowns and
publically-available product literature and informed by interviews with
manufacturers. DOE then calculated MPCs for each fan group at each
efficiency level analyzed by weighting the MPCs of each technology
option within a group by its prevalence at the efficiency level being
analyzed.
DOE's preliminary MPC estimates indicate that the changes in MPC as
efficiency level increases are small or, in some fan groups, zero.
However, DOE is aware that aerodynamic redesigns are a primary method
by which manufacturers improve fan performance. These redesigns require
manufacturers to make large upfront investments for R&D, testing and
prototyping, and purchasing new production equipment. DOE's preliminary
findings indicate that the magnitude of these upfront costs are more
significant than the difference in MPC of a fan redesigned for
efficiency compared to its precursor. For this NODA, DOE included a
conversion cost markup in its calculation of the manufacturer selling
price (MSP) to account for these conversion costs. These markups and
associated MSPs were developed and applied in downstream analyses. They
are discussed in section C and presented in the conversion cost
spreadsheet.
The main outputs of the commercial and industrial fans engineering
analysis are the MPCs of each fan group (including material, labor, and
overhead) and technology option distributions at each efficiency level
analyzed.
C. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
For the MIA, DOE used the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM)
to assess the economic impact of potential standards on commercial and
industrial fan manufacturers. DOE developed key industry average
financial parameters for the GRIM using publicly available data from
corporate annual reports along with information received through
confidential interviews with manufacturers. These values include
average industry tax rate; working capital rate; net property, plant,
and equipment rate; selling, general, and administrative expense rate;
research and development expense rate; depreciation rate; capital
expenditure rate; and manufacturer discount rate. Additionally, DOE
calculated total industry capital and product conversion costs
associated with meeting all analyzed efficiency levels. DOE first
estimated the average industry capital and product conversion costs
associated with redesigning a single fan model to meet a specific
efficiency level using a proprietary cost model and feedback from
manufacturers during interviews. DOE estimated these costs for all fan
subgroups. DOE then multiplied the per model conversion costs by the
number of models that would be required to be redesigned at each
potential standard level to arrive at the total industry conversion
costs.
The GRIM uses these estimated values in conjunction with inputs
from other analyses including the MPCs from the engineering analysis
and LCC analysis, the annual shipments by fan group from the NIA, and
the manufacturer markups for the cost recovery markup scenario from the
LCC analysis to model industry annual cash flows from the base year
through the end of the analysis period. The primary quantitative output
of this model is the industry net present value (INPV), which DOE
calculates as the sum of industry annual cash flows, discounted to the
present day using the industry specific weighted average cost of
capital, or manufacturer discount rate.
Standards can affect INPV in several ways including requiring
upfront investments in manufacturing capital as well as research and
development expenses, which increase the cost of production and
potentially alter manufacturer markups. Under potential standards for
commercial and industrial fans, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose
a portion of INPV due to standards. The potential loss in INPV due to
standards is calculated as the difference between INPV in the base-case
(absent new energy conservation standards) and the INPV in the
standards case (with new energy conservation standards in effect). DOE
examines a range of possible impacts on industry by modeling various
pricing strategies commercial and industrial fan manufacturers may
adopt following the adoption of new energy conservations standards for
commercial and industrial fans.
In addition to INPV, the MIA also calculates the manufacturer
markups, which are applied to the MPCs, derived in the engineering
analysis and the LCC analysis, to arrive at the manufacturer selling
price. For efficiency levels that require manufacturers to redesign
models that do not meet the potential standards, DOE calibrated the
manufacturer markups to allow manufacturers to recover their upfront
conversion costs by amortizing those investment over the units shipped
that were redesigned to meet the efficiency level being analyzed
throughout the analysis period.
D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
The LCC and PBP analyses determine the economic impact of potential
standards on individual consumers, in the compliance year. The LCC is
the
[[Page 73250]]
total cost of purchasing, installing and operating a commercial or
industrial fan over the course of its lifetime.
DOE determines LCCs by considering: (1) Total installed cost to the
consumer (which consists of manufacturer selling price, distribution
channel markups, and sales taxes); (2) the range of annual energy
consumption of commercial and industrial fans as they are used in the
field; (3) the operating cost of commercial and industrial fans (e.g.,
energy cost); (4) equipment lifetime; and (5) a discount rate that
reflects the real consumer cost of capital and puts the LCC in present-
value terms. The PBP represents the number of years needed to recover
the increase in purchase price of higher-efficiency commercial and
industrial fans through savings in the operating cost. PBP is
calculated by dividing the incremental increase in installed cost of
the higher efficiency product, compared to the baseline product, by the
annual savings in operating costs.
For each standards case corresponding to each efficiency level, DOE
measures the change in LCC relative to the base case. The base case is
characterized by the distribution of equipment efficiencies in the
absence of new standards (i.e., what consumers would have purchased in
the compliance year in the absence of new standards. In the standards
cases, equipment with efficiency below the standard levels ``roll-up''
to the standard level in the compliance year.
For commercial and industrial fans, DOE established statistical
distributions of consumers of each fan group across sectors (industry
or commercial) and applications (clean air ventilation, exhaust,
combustion, drying, process air, process heating/cooling, and others),
which in turn determined the fan's operating conditions (flow and
pressure points and operating speed), annual operating hours, and fan
load. The load is defined as the fan's air flow divided by the flow at
BEP when operating at a given speed.\14\ Recognizing that several
inputs to the determination of consumer LCC and PBP are either variable
or uncertain (e.g., annual energy consumption, lifetime, discount
rate), DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis by modeling both the
uncertainty and variability in the inputs using Monte Carlo simulations
and probability distributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The efficiency of a fan is defined as the ratio of air
output power to mechanical input power. Fan efficiency varies
depending on the output flow and pressure. The BEP represents the
flow and pressure values at which the fan efficiency is maximized
when operating a given speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary outputs of the LCC and PBP analyses are: (1) Average
LCC in each standards case; (2) average PBPs; (3) average LCC savings
at each standards case relative to the base case; and (4) the
percentage of consumers that experience a net benefit, have no impact,
or have a net cost for each fan group and efficiency level. The average
annual energy consumption derived in the LCC analysis is used as an
input in the NIA.
E. National Impact Analysis
The NIA estimates the national energy savings (NES) and the net
present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings expected to
result from potential new standards at each EL. DOE calculated NES and
NPV for each EL as the difference between a base case forecast (without
new standards) and the standards case forecast (with standards).
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the annual NES determined for
the lifetime of a commercial or industrial fan shipped during a 30 year
analysis period assumed to start in 2018. Energy savings include the
full-fuel cycle energy savings (i.e., the energy needed to extract,
process, and deliver primary fuel sources such as coal and natural gas,
and the conversion and distribution losses of generating electricity
from those fuel sources). The NPV is the sum over time of the
discounted net savings each year, which consists of the difference
between total energy cost savings and increases in total equipment
costs. NPV results are reported for discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.
To calculate the NES and NPV, DOE projected future shipments \15\
and efficiency distributions (for each EL) for each potential
commercial and industrial fan group. DOE recognizes the uncertainty in
projecting shipments and electricity prices; as a result the NIA
includes several different scenarios for each. Other inputs to the NIA
include the estimated commercial and industrial fan lifetime used in
the LCC analysis, manufacturer selling prices from the MIA, average
annual energy consumption, and efficiency distributions from the LCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The ``shipments'' worksheet of the NIA spreadsheet presents
the scope of the analysis and the total shipments value in units for
the fans in scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this NODA is to notify industry, manufacturers,
consumer groups, efficiency advocates, government agencies, and other
stakeholders of the publication of the initial analysis of potential
energy conservation standards for commercial and industrial fans.
Stakeholders should contact DOE for any additional information
pertaining to the analyses performed for this NODA.
IV. Public Participation
Submission of Comments
DOE welcomes comments on all aspects of this NODA and on other
issues relevant to potential test procedures and energy conservation
standards for commercial and industrial fans and blowers, but no later
than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this
NODA. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this NODA.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through
the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted.
For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business
Information section below.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
[[Page 73251]]
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail.
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also
will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal
contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your
comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in
which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles
(faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known or available from other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
V. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Public Comment
DOE is interested in receiving comment on all aspects of this
analysis. DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and
views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. DOE generated formulae for manufacturer production cost (MPC) as
a function of subgroup and diameter (which DOE believes can be used as
a general proxy for airflow). DOE requests comments on whether there
are any other parameters, such as pressure, construction class, rating
RPM, etc., which DOE should use as inputs in calculating the MPC, in
addition to or instead of diameter. If so, DOE encourages stakeholders
to submit data illustrating the relationship of MPC with these
parameters.
2. DOE assumed that the cost to redesign multiple fan models was
equal to the number of models times an estimated cost to redesign one
fan model. DOE recognizes that manufacturers may be able to share
resources between redesigns in the same company, or in the same product
line (i.e., different diameters). If this is current practice or
possible, DOE requests comments on the scenarios in which resource
sharing can occur and to what extent.
3. DOE estimated the cost to redesign a fan as a function of the
subgroup of fan resulting from the redesign. There may be other
parameters, such as the fan's diameter, RPM properties, FEI or
efficiency, construction class, or the properties of the fan before it
was redesigned, that DOE should take into consideration. If so, DOE
requests information on which parameters should be taken into
consideration and how each affects the cost to redesign a fan.
4. DOE used a redesign time of 6 months per fan model in its
calculation of redesign costs. DOE requests comment on this assumption
and whether this time period is sufficient for prototyping and revising
marketing materials.
5. DOE did not explicitly consider fan noise performance in its
analyses. DOE requests comment on whether noise considerations provide
barriers to increased fan efficiency.
6. DOE requests information on the number of models and number of
shipments of forward curved fans.
7. DOE requests comment on its use of a database of over 2500 fan
models as approximately representing all fan models in the scope of
this rulemaking currently available in the United States today.
8. DOE used current subgroup distributions of fan models within
each fan group at each efficiency level analyzed to weight the total
conversion cost per model regardless of the efficiency level or the
subclass of the fan model before redesign. In other words, DOE assumed
that fan model impeller distributions at a given efficiency level would
not change as a result of standards. DOE requests comment on this
assumption.
9. DOE requests comment on the inclusion of tubeaxial and vaneaxial
fans into a single fan group separate from centrifugal inline and mixed
flow fans. DOE requests information regarding whether these two groups
of fans provide distinct utility that justifies the separation and
resulting different FEIs for the same rated flow and pressure.
10. DOE requests comment on the cost drivers included in the
engineering analysis (e.g., aerodynamic redesign, impeller type, and
presence of guidevanes).
11. DOE requests information on the design and manufacturing
differences between commercial and industrial fans.
12. DOE requests information on how forward curved impeller
manufacturing differs from the manufacturing of other impeller types.
DOE also requests comment on how other fan components differ between
forward curved models and non-forward curved models, such
[[Page 73252]]
as component materials and material gauges.
13. DOE requests comment on its MPC calculation as a function of
diameter equation and multipliers.
14. DOE did not consider variable pitch blades in its analysis. DOE
requests information on the effect variable-pitch blades have on
efficiency in the field, the mechanism of that effect, and how testing
can be conducted to capture any benefit from variable-pitch blades.
15. DOE requests comment on any of the industry financials (working
capital rate; net property, plant, and equipment rate; selling,
general, and administrative expense rate; research and development
rate; depreciation rate; capital expenditure rate, and tax rate) used
in the GRIM (located in the ``Financials'' tab of the GRIM
spreadsheet).
16. DOE requests comment on the use of 11.4 percent as the real
industry manufacturer discount rate (also referred to as the weighted
average cost of capital) for commercial and industrial fan
manufacturers (located in the ``Financials'' tab of the GRIM
spreadsheet).
17. DOE requests comment on the use of 1.45 as a manufacturer
markup (this corresponds to a 31 percent gross margin) for all fan
groups and efficiency levels in the base case (located in the
``Markups'' tab of the GRIM spreadsheet). DOE requests information
regarding manufacturer markups and whether they vary by fan efficiency,
fan group, fan subgroup, or any other attribute.
18. DOE requests comment on both its methodology of calculating
total industry capital and product conversion costs and the specific
industry average per model capital and product conversion cost
estimates for each fan subgroup (located in the Conversion Cost
spreadsheet).
19. DOE assumed that every fan model that did not meet a candidate
standard level being analyzed would be redesigned to meet that level.
DOE requests comment on this assumption and on what portion of fan
models that do not meet a standard level would be redesigned to meet
the level as opposed to being eliminated from the American market.
20. DOE seeks inputs on its characterization of market channels for
the considered fan groups, particularly whether the channels include
all intermediate steps, and estimated market shares of each channel.
21. DOE seeks inputs and comments on the estimates of flow
operating points used in the energy use analysis (expressed as a
function of the flow at best efficiency point).
22. DOE seeks inputs and comments on the estimates of annual
operating hours by sector and application and on the estimated
distributions of fans across sectors and applications.
23. DOE seeks comments on its proposal to use a constant price
trend for projecting future commercial and industrial fan prices.
24. DOE requests comment on whether any of the efficiency levels
considered in this analysis might lead to an increase in installation,
repair, and
25. maintenance costs, and if so, data regarding the magnitude of
the increased cost for each relevant efficiency level.
26. DOE seeks comments on a potential compliance date of three
years after the publication of a final rule establishing energy
conservation standards for commercial and industrial fans and blowers.
27. DOE seeks comments on the use of constant efficiency trends in
the base case and in the standards cases.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 3, 2014.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2014-28918 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
