Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers: Availability of Provisional Analysis Tools, 75742-75753 [2016-26341]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
75742
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 81, No. 211
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
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
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability
(NODA).
AGENCY:
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
(‘‘fans’’). At this time, DOE is not
proposing any energy conservation
standard for fans. However, it is
publishing this analysis so stakeholders
can review the analysis results and the
underlining assumptions and
calculations that might ultimately
support a proposed standard. DOE
encourages stakeholders to provide any
additional data or information that may
improve the analysis. The analysis is
now publically available at https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2013-BT-STD-0006.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,
and information regarding the NODA no
later than December 1, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Instructions: 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)
1904–AC55. Comments may be
submitted using any of the following
methods: Interested persons may submit
comments, identified by docket number
EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006 and/or
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Oct 31, 2016
Jkt 241001
regulatory information number (RIN)
1904–AC55, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: CIFB2013STD0006@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
and/or RIN in the subject line of the
message. Submit electronic comments
in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF,
or ASCII file format, and avoid the use
of special characters or any form of
encryption.
• Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, 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.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 586–6636. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
• Docket: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
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, some documents listed in the
index may not be publicly available,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket Web page can be found at:
https://www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006.
The docket Web page contains simple
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Ashley Armstrong, 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) 586–6590. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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. Fan Electrical Input Power
B. Scope of the Analysis and Addition of
Certain Embedded Fans
C. Equipment Classes
D. Compliance Year
E. Engineering Analysis
F. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Impacts on OEMs
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
H. National Impact Analysis
IV. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Public
Comment
I. History of Energy Conservation
Standards Rulemaking for Commercial
and Industrial Fans and Blowers
On June 28, 2011, DOE published a
notice of proposed determination of
coverage to initiate the energy
conservation standards rulemaking for
fans, blowers, and fume hoods. 76 FR
37678. Subsequently, DOE published a
notice of public meeting and availability
of the Framework document for
commercial and industrial fans and
blowers (‘‘fans’’) in the Federal Register.
78 FR 7306 (February 1, 2013). In the
Framework document, DOE requested
feedback from interested parties on
many issues, including the engineering
analysis, the manufacturer impact
analysis (MIA), the life-cycle cost (LCC)
and payback period (PBP) analyses, and
the national impact analysis (NIA).
On December 10, 2014, DOE
published a notice of data availability
(December 2014 NODA) that estimated
the potential economic impacts and
energy savings that could result from
promulgating energy conservation
standards for fans. 79 FR 73246. The
December 2014 NODA comment period
was originally scheduled to close on
January 26, 2015. However, DOE
subsequently published a notice
extending the comment period to
February 25, 2015, to allow additional
time for interested parties to submit
E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM
01NOP1
75743
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
comments. 80 FR 1477 (January 12,
2015). The December 2014 NODA
analysis used a ‘‘wire-to-air’’ fan
electrical input power metric, the fan
energy index (FEI), to characterize fan
performance. FEI is the ratio of the
weighted-average fan electrical input
power of a minimally compliant fan to
the weighted-average fan electrical
input power of a given fan, at three
specified operating points. The FEI
metric relied on an equation describing
fan efficiency as a function of airflow
and pressure in order to set the
minimum fan efficiency of each
considered efficiency level (EL)
analyzed in the December 2014 NODA.
In October 2014, several representatives
of fan manufacturers and energy
efficiency advocates 1 (Joint
Stakeholders) presented DOE with an
alternative metric approach called ‘‘Fan
Efficiency Ratio,’’ which included a fan
efficiency-only metric approach (FERH)
and a wire-to-air metric approach
(FERW).2 Both the FEI approach,
presented in the December 2014 NODA,
and the FERW approaches relied on an
equation to determine required fan
efficiency as a function of the fan’s
airflow and pressure. The main
differences between the December 2014
NODA FEI and the FERW approaches
were the form of the equation used for
the fan efficiency, and the operating
conditions at which the metric was
evaluated. While in the December 2014
NODA, the FEI was calculated as a
weighted average of the fan performance
at three specific operating points, the
FERW was calculated at all
manufacturer-declared operating points.
On May 1, 2015, based on the additional
information received and comments to
the December 2014 NODA, DOE
published a second NODA (May 2015
NODA) that announced the availability
of data from DOE analyses conducted
using a modified FEI metric. 80 FR
24841. The modified FEI metric used in
the May 2015 NODA is similar to the
FERW metric presented by the Joint
Stakeholders.
Concurrent with these efforts, DOE
also began a process through the
Appliance Standards Rulemaking
Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC)
to discuss negotiated energy
conservation standards and test
procedure for fans.3 On April 1, 2015,
DOE published a notice of intent to
establish a negotiated rulemaking
Working Group for fans. 80 FR 17359.
Twenty-five nominees were selected to
serve as members of the Working Group
in addition to one member from ASRAC
and one DOE representative. Members
of the Working Group were selected to
ensure all stakeholders’ interests and
areas of expertise were represented.
The Working Group negotiations
comprised 16 meetings and three
webinars and covered scope, metrics,
test procedures, and energy
conservation standard levels for fans.4
The negotiations were initially
scheduled to end on August 6, 2015, but
the Working Group voted to extend the
process by 30 days. The Working Group
concluded its negotiations on
September 3, 2015, with a consensus
vote to approve and publish a term
sheet containing recommendations for
DOE on scope, energy conservation
standards analysis methodology, and
the test procedure for fans. The term
sheet containing the Working Group
recommendations is available in the
fans energy conservation standard
rulemaking docket.5 ASRAC
subsequently voted to approve the
recommendations of the Working Group
during the September 24, 2015 webinar
meeting.
II. Current Status
Since the negotiations, DOE has
revised its analysis to reflect the term
sheet recommendations regarding the
metric and energy conservation
standards. DOE is publishing this
NODA to inform stakeholders of the
impacts of potential energy conservation
standards for fans based on term sheet
recommendations and to request
feedback on specific issues.
DOE made several changes to its
analysis in preparing this NODA to
address the term sheet
recommendations as well as other
stakeholder concerns expressed during
the negotiations. Table II–1 lists the
stakeholders who commented on issues
addressed in this NODA. These changes
and the ensuing results are described in
section III, the accompanying analysis
spreadsheets, or both. The most
significant changes include
(1) the augmentation of the AMCA
sales data used in the May 2015 NODA
to better account for fans made by
companies that incorporate those fans
for sale in their own equipment (see
section III.G);
(2) the augmentation of the AMCA
sales data used in the May 2015 NODA
to represent additional sales of forward
curved fans, which AMCA stated were
underrepresented in the original data
AMCA provided. (AMCA, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 85 at p. 91); and
(3) the inclusion of OEM equipment
conversion costs.
At this time, DOE is not proposing
any energy conservation standards for
fans. DOE may revise the analyses
presented in today’s NODA based on
any new or updated information or data
it obtains during the course of the
rulemaking. DOE encourages
stakeholders to provide any additional
data or information that may improve
the analysis.
TABLE II–2—LIST OF COMMENTERS ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS NODA
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Company or organization
Abbreviation
ACME Engineering & Manufacturing Corporation ...........
AcoustiFLO .......................................................................
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ......
Air Movement and Control Association, Inc .....................
Appliance Standards Awareness Program ......................
California Investor-Owned Utilities ...................................
ebm-papst, Inc ..................................................................
ACME ..............................................................................
AcoustiFLO ......................................................................
AHRI ................................................................................
AMCA ..............................................................................
ASAP ...............................................................................
CA IOUs ...........................................................................
ebm-papst ........................................................................
1 The Air Movement and Control Association
(AMCA), New York Blower Company, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Appliance
Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), and the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA).
2 Supporting documents from this meeting,
including presentation slides are available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE2013-BT-STD-0006-0029.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Oct 31, 2016
Jkt 241001
3 Information on the ASRAC, the commercial and
industrial fans Working Group, and meeting dates
is available at: https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/
appliance-standards-and-rulemaking-federaladvisory-committee.
4 Details of the negotiation sessions can be found
in the public meeting transcripts that are posted to
the docket for the energy conservation standard
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Affiliation
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Trade Association.
Trade Association.
Efficiency Advocate.
Utilities.
Manufacturer.
rulemaking at: https://www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006.
5 The term sheet, document No. 179, is posted on
the docket for the energy conservation standards
rulemaking at: https://www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006.
E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM
01NOP1
75744
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II–2—LIST OF COMMENTERS ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS NODA—
Continued
Company or organization
Abbreviation
Flowcare Engineering Inc .................................................
Greenheck Fan Corporation .............................................
Ingersoll Rand/Trane ........................................................
Morrison Products ............................................................
United Technologies/Carrier .............................................
Flowcare ..........................................................................
Greenheck .......................................................................
Ingersoll Rand/Trane .......................................................
Morrison ...........................................................................
United Technologies/Carrier ............................................
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
electric motor, or fan with motor with
transmission and/or control). The
Working Group also recommended
allowing the representation of an index
metric, the FEI, to allow for better
comparability across all regulated fans.
The engineering analysis and
conversion cost spreadsheet presents
the algorithms and default values used
by the default value testing method and
calculations of the FEP for both testing
methods. (No. 179, Recommendation
#9–16 at pp. 6–10)
As noted previously, the FEP of a fan
includes the performance of the bare
shaft fan and of its drive system.9 In the
December 2014 NODA and the May
2015 NODA, DOE calculated the FEP of
a fan that exactly meets a given
efficiency level (FEPSTD) using a fan
efficiency equation and the default
values and calculation algorithms of a
fan sold with a regulated electric motor
and transmission, such as a belt drive.
During the negotiations, the Working
Group voted to retain this approach and
provided further recommendations on
how to establish the fan efficiency
equation and default values for
standalone fans.10 (No. 179,
Recommendation #18 at p. 11)
Based on this recommendation, and
applying the same approach for
embedded fans (see Section III.B), this
NODA calculates the FEPSTD,i of a fan
based on the following equation, in kW,
at a given operating point i:
Where:
Qi = airflow (cfm) at operating point i;
Pi = total pressure for ducted fans, static
pressure for unducted fans (in.wg.) at
operating point i;
hSTD,i = standard level fan total efficiency for
ducted fans, standard level fan static
efficiency for unducted fans at operating
point i (percent), calculated in
accordance with Eq. 2;
hT,i = default transmission efficiency
(percent) at operating point i;
LM,i = default electric motor losses (hp) at
operating point i;
6343 = conversion factor for I–P units; and
0.746 = hp to kW conversion factor.
6 A notation in this form refers to a specific
recommendation from the Working Group term
sheet, document No. 179.
7 Ducted fans are: Axial cylindrical housed,
centrifugal housed, inline and mixed-flow, and
radial housed fans. Unducted fans are panel fans,
centrifugal unhoused fans, and power roof
ventilators. (No. 179, Appendix C at p. 16)
8 In this document, all pressures refer to standard
air densities. Standard air density is defined by a
density of 0.075 lb/ft3, corresponding to air at 68
°F, 50 percent relative humidity and 406.78 in.wg.
9 The drive system includes the motor and any
transmission and/or control if integrated, assembled
or packaged with the fan.
10 A standalone fan is a fan that is not exclusively
distributed in commerce for incorporation or
incorporated in a larger piece of equipment.
DOE developed provisional analyses
of fans in the following areas: (1)
Engineering; (2) manufacturer impacts;
(3) LCC and PBP; and (4) national
impacts. The Government Regulatory
Impact Model (GRIM), the engineering
spreadsheet, the life-cycle cost
spreadsheet, and the national impact
analysis spreadsheet used in preparing
these analyses and their respective
results are available at: https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2013-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 calculation of the
considered energy conservation
standard levels, of the scope, of the
provisional analyses, and of the
supporting spreadsheet tools are
provided in this preamble. If DOE
proposes energy conservation standards
for fans in a future NOPR, then DOE
will publish a technical support
document (TSD) containing 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Oct 31, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM
01NOP1
EP01NO16.152</GPH>
A. Fan Electrical Input Power
Fan energy performance is a critical
input in the provisional analyses
discussed in this notice. DOE used the
fan electrical input power metric (FEP)
as recommended by the Working Group
to characterize the efficiency levels and
represent fan performance. (No. 179,
Recommendation #6 at p. 5) 6
The recommended FEP metric
represents the electrical input power of
the fan and includes the performance of
the motor, and any transmission and/or
control if integrated, assembled, or
packaged with the fan. The Working
Group recommended to require
manufacturers to determine the FEP at
each manufacturer-declared operating
point, at standard air density, where the
operating point is characterized by a
value of airflow and total pressure for
ducted fans and by a value of airflow
and static pressure for unducted fans.7 8
Two methods were recommended by
the Working Group for determining the
FEP: (1) A fan shaft input power
measurement combined with default
values to represent the performance of
the motor and any transmission and/or
control (default value testing method);
or (2) a direct measurement of the fan
electrical input power (direct testing
method). The recommended default
value testing method provides different
sets of calculation algorithms and
default values to establish the FEP of a
fan depending on its configuration (e.g.,
bare shaft fan, fan with regulated
III. Summary of the Analyses
Performed by DOE
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Affiliation
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
75745
The Working Group recommended a
fan efficiency equation to use for all fans
when calculating FEPSTD. (No. 179,
Recommendations #19–21 at pp. 11–12)
For each efficiency level considered,
this NODA uses the equation
recommended by the Working Group to
determine the fan total efficiency for
ducted fans and the fan static efficiency
for unducted fans (percent) at a given
operating point i (percent):
Where:
hSTD,i = standard level fan total efficiency for
ducted fans, standard level fan static
efficiency for unducted fans (percent) at
operating point i and considered
efficiency level;
Qi = flow (CFM) at operating point i;
Pi = total pressure for ducted fans, static
pressure for unducted fans (in.wg.) at
operating point i;
htarget = constant (percent) used to establish
the efficiency level associated with each
standards case considered (see section
III.E).
with one modification as follows: DOE
calculated the FEI using a reference
value of FEP (FEPREF) instead of using
a value equal to the first energy
conservation standards DOE may set
(FEPSTD). As a reference value, DOE
used the mid-point efficiency level
(EL3).
DOE requests feedback on the
calculation of the FEPSTD and FEI.
on the recommendation of the Working
Group, but renames axial housed fans as
axial cylindrical housed fans and axial
unhoused fans as panel fans based on
information provided by the Working
Group. In addition, based on the
discussions of the Working Group, DOE
incorporated more embedded fans into
its analysis for this NODA.11 DOE also
added more sales of forward curved fans
for this NODA, which AMCA stated
were under-represented in the original
data AMCA provided. (AMCA, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 85 at p. 91)
Accordingly, this NODA analyzes the
fans listed in Table III–1 with the
characteristics discussed in this section
and exemptions listed in Table III–2.
(No. 179, Recommendation #1–4 at pp.
1–4)
The detailed equations and
assumptions used to calculate FEPSTD
are included in the engineering analysis
and conversion cost spreadsheet.
In addition, for this NODA, DOE
maintained the Working Group
recommendation for the FEI calculation,
B. Scope of the Analysis and Addition
of Certain Embedded Fans
In the December 2014 NODA and the
May 2015 NODA, DOE analyzed the
following fan categories: Axial housed
fans, axial unhoused fans, centrifugal
housed fans, centrifugal unhoused fans,
inline and mixed flow fans, radial fans,
and power roof ventilators. This NODA
analyzes the same fan categories based
TABLE III–1—FAN CATEGORIES ANALYZED
Family
Fan category
In NODA scope?
Axial ........................................................
Axial cylindrical housed .........................................................
Panel ......................................................................................
Power Roof Ventilator ............................................................
Induced flow fans ...................................................................
Safety fan ...............................................................................
Circulating fans ......................................................................
Centrifugal housed .................................................................
Centrifugal unhoused .............................................................
Radial shrouded .....................................................................
Radial unshrouded .................................................................
Yes *
Yes *
Yes *
No
No
No
Yes *
Yes *
Yes *
No if impeller is less than 30 inches in
diameter or less than 3 inches in
blade width.
Yes *
No
No
Yes *
Yes *
No
Centrifugal ...............................................
Mixed flow ...............................................
Cross flow ...............................................
Power Roof Ventilator ............................................................
Induced flow fans ...................................................................
Safety fan ...............................................................................
Inline ......................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
* Excluding embedded fans listed in Table III–2.
TABLE III–2—EMBEDDED FANS RECOMMENDED EXEMPTIONS
Fans exclusively embedded in:
Single phase central air conditioners and heat pumps with a certified cooling capacity rated less than 65,000 Btu per hour, subject to
DOE’s energy conservation standard at 10 CFR 430.32(c).
Three phase, air-cooled, small commercial packaged air-conditioning and heating equipment with a certified cooling capacity rated less
than 65,000 Btu per hour, subject to DOE’s energy conservation standard at 10 CFR 431.97(b).
Residential furnaces subject to DOE’s energy conservation standard at 10 CFR 430.32(y).
Transport refrigeration (i.e., Trailer refrigeration, Self-powered truck refrigeration, Vehicle-powered truck refrigeration, Marine/Rail container
refrigerant).
Vacuums.
Heat Rejection Equipment:
Packaged evaporative open circuit cooling towers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Oct 31, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM
01NOP1
EP01NO16.153</GPH>
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Equipment category
75746
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III–2—EMBEDDED FANS RECOMMENDED EXEMPTIONS—Continued
Equipment category
Evaporative field erected open circuit cooling tower.
Packaged evaporative closed circuit cooling towers.
Evaporative field erected closed circuit cooling tower.
Packaged evaporative condensers.
Field erected evaporative condensers.
Packaged air cooled (dry) coolers.
Field erected air cooled (dry) coolers.
Air cooled steam condensers.
Hybrid (water saving) versions of all of the previously listed equipment that contain both evaporative and air cooled heat exchange sections.
Air curtains.
Supply or Condenser fans, exclusively embedded in:
Air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps (CUAC, CUHP) between 5.5 and 63.5 tons regulated by DOE’s energy
conservation standard at 10 CFR 431.97(b).
Water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, and water-source commercial air conditioners or heat pumps regulated by DOE’s energy conservation
standard at 10 CFR 431.97(b).
Single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps regulated by DOE’s energy conservation standard at 10 CFR 431.97(d).
Packaged terminal air conditioners (PTAC) and packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHP) regulated by DOE’s energy conservation standard
at 10 CFR 431.97(c).
Computer room air conditioners regulated by DOE’s energy conservation standard at 10 CFR 431.97(e).
Variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps regulated by DOE’s energy conservation standard at 10 CFR 431.97(f).
In addition, based on the
recommendation of the Working Group,
this NODA only considered fans with
operating points with a fan shaft input
power equal to, or greater than, 1
horsepower and a fan airpower equal to
or less than 150 horsepower. (No. 179,
Recommendation #5 at p. 4) The
horsepower scope limitations are further
explained in the engineering analysis
and conversion cost spreadsheet.
C. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into
equipment classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other
performance-related features that justify
differing standards. In making a
determination whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different
standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the feature to the
consumer and other factors DOE
determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)) In the December 2014 and May
2015 NODAs, DOE divided commercial
and industrial fans into seven
equipment classes based primarily on
the direction of the airflow through the
fan and other features that impact the
energy use and utility of a fan (see Table
III–3). In addition, DOE grouped inline
and mixed flow fans into a single
equipment class and included all power
roof ventilators in a single equipment
class.
TABLE III–3—FAN EQUIPMENT CLASSES
Airflow
Fan category
Feature
Axial ...............................................
Axial cylindrical housed ................
Panel .............................................
Power Roof Ventilator ..................
Power Roof Ventilator ..................
Centrifugal housed .......................
Centrifugal unhoused ...................
Radial shrouded ...........................
Radial unshrouded
Inline .............................................
Cylindrical housing .......................
Orifice panel or ring ......................
Weather protection housing .........
Weather protection housing..
Scroll Housing ..............................
No Housing ...................................
Radial impellers and housing
(dust/material handling).
Cabinet or cylindrical Housing ......
Centrifugal ......................................
Equipment class
Axial cylindrical housed.
Panel.
Power Roof Ventilator.
Centrifugal housed.
Centrifugal unhoused.
Radial housed.
Inline and Mixed Flow.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Mixed flow
During the negotiations, the Working
Group did not come to a consensus
regarding the equipment classes and
stakeholders provided several
suggestions for modifying these
equipment classes. (No. 179,
Recommendation #30 at p. 19)
ASAP and AMCA, supported by the
CA IOUs, recommended grouping all
ducted fans into a single equipment
class, and all unducted fans in a single
equipment class. (ASAP and AMCA,
No. 50 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 49 at p.
2) Flowcare commented that fans
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Oct 31, 2016
Jkt 241001
should be classified into three classes:
Axial fans, centrifugal fans, and mixed
flow fans. (Flowcare, No. 46 at p. 6)
Ingersoll Rand/Trane commented that
centrifugal housed fans with a forward
curved blade design have a distinct
utility compared to other centrifugal
housed fans (e.g., backward curved
centrifugal housed fans) and should be
in a separate equipment class. Ingersoll
Rand/Trane commented that forward
curved centrifugal housed fans are
compact, have a relatively good sound
quality, and are most suitable for low-
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pressure applications, in which they are
relatively efficient. (Ingersoll Rand/
Trane, No. 153 at p. 5) AHRI provided
similar comments. AHRI stated that
forward curved centrifugal housed fans
require a separate equipment class for
the following reasons: (1) Their compact
sizes compared to backward curved fans
providing the same airflow and
pressure; (2) their specific applications
in low pressure and speed ranges,
providing good sound quality; and (3)
the European Regulation 327/2011
E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM
01NOP1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
considers them separately. (AHRI, No.
129–2 at pp. 1–6)
DOE did not group all fans into only
ducted and unducted equipment classes
because fans have other unique features
that provide different utilities to the
customer and, as a result, justify
additional equipment classes. However,
DOE recognizes that ducted and
unducted fans perform differently. For
this NODA, the FEPstd at each EL is
calculated differently for ducted and
unducted fans to account for these
performance differences. (See section
III.A for more details) For this same
reason, DOE also did not establish
equipment classes based solely on
airflow.
With respect to establishing a separate
equipment class for forward curved
centrifugal housed fans, DOE analyzed a
sample of fan selections 12 and found
forward curved centrifugal housed fans
that meet every efficiency level being
analyzed. In addition, for small
diameter fans, DOE also found an
example of a forward curved fan with a
small impeller diameter (i.e., less than
6.5 inches) that met all efficiency levels
up to EL 5, showing that it is
technologically feasible for small
forward curved fans to reach high
efficiency levels.13 DOE notes that there
may be many more forward curved fans
with small impeller diameters at high
efficiency levels in the market than its
database shows. DOE recognizes that
maintaining the utility of small forward
curved fans across all operating points
is important and requires preserving
forward curved fan availability or
acceptable non-forward curved fan
replacements across sizes and operating
points. Based on analysis of the data
available, DOE believes small forward
curved fans or acceptable non-forward
curved replacements would be available
up to EL 5 across all current sizes and
operating points. DOE therefore believes
that more-efficient forward curved
centrifugal housed fans could replace
inefficient forward curved centrifugal
housed fans up to EL 5. In addition, to
consider the possibility that an original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) might
opt to replace a forward curved
centrifugal housed fan incorporated in a
larger piece of heating, ventilation, airconditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR)
equipment with a backward curved
centrifugal housed fan, DOE included
the costs of redesigning the HVACR
equipment to accommodate a different
12 See
description of the fan selection sample in
the life cycle analysis section III.F.1.
13 See engineering analysis discussion in section
III.E for details about the considered efficiency
levels.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Oct 31, 2016
Jkt 241001
fan in the standards case fan price
calculation. (See section III.F.1 for more
details) Therefore, DOE does not believe
that forward curved centrifugal housed
fans merit a separate equipment class.
Regarding the application range, DOE
agrees with AHRI and Ingersoll Rand/
Trane that forward curved centrifugal
housed fans are most typically used in
low pressure (less than 5.0 in.wg.), low
speed applications (between 800 and
1200 rpm). DOE accounted for the
specificity of the application range in
the metric, which allows calculating the
FEPSTD of a fan based on a fan efficiency
equation that provides lower values at
decreased pressure and airflow (see Eq.
2). In other words, the required FEP at
a given efficiency level decreases with
pressure and airflow in order to account
for the fact that fans operating in these
ranges are inherently less efficient.
Finally, DOE notes that the latest
revision of the European Regulation
327/2011 14 is considering grouping
forward curved centrifugal housed fans
with backward curved centrifugal
housed fans for fans with an electrical
input power greater than 5 kW
(equivalent to approximately 6.7 hp). At
a given diameter, the European study
states that forward curved fans typically
output more flow compared to
backward bladed fans, which allows
them to run relatively slower. This
effect is more apparent for smaller
diameters and becomes less significant
as fan diameter increases. The EU
therefore concluded that forward and
backward curved centrifugal housed
fans of larger sizes (greater than 5 kW of
fan electrical input power) could be
treated in the same product category
with the same minimum efficiencies.
For capacities less than 5 kW, the latest
revision of the European regulation is
considering maintaining forward curved
centrifugal housed fans as a separate
equipment class. DOE’s fan selection
analysis found forward curved
centrifugal housed fans with electrical
input power below 5kW that were
compliant up to EL 6. Therefore, DOE
believes such distinction is not
necessary when using the FEP metric. In
addition, as previously noted, DOE
accounted for the costs of potentially
incorporating a larger fan in a larger
piece of equipment as part of the OEM
equipment conversion costs. Therefore,
DOE is not considering applying the
distinction made in the European
regulation 327/2011 and retains forward
14 Ecodesign Fan Review, Review Study of
Commission Regulation (EU) No 327/2011, Final
Report prepared by Van Holsteijn en Kemna B.V.
for the European Commission, Directorate-General
for Energy. Available at https://www.fanreview.eu/
documents.htm (last accessed 02/02/2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75747
curved centrifugal housed fans in the
same equipment class as other
centrifugal housed fans for this NODA
analysis.
AHRI and Bade commented that
regulating return fans and exhaust fans
requires special consideration because
they typically operate at similar flows
but lower static pressures compared to
supply fans, which inherently affects
the fan operating efficiency. (AHRI, No.
158 at pp. 5–6; Bade, No 116 at p. 1)
Similarly, Ingersoll Rand/Trane
commented that using efficient fans in
variable-air-volume applications might
decrease the capability of the fans to
achieve an airflow reduction at lower
system requirements, which may
increase a building’s energy
consumption by pushing consumers to
constant volume systems or requiring
different systems. (Ingersoll Rand/
Trane, No. 153 at p. 3) DOE agrees with
AHRI and Ingersoll Rand/Trane that
fans operating at lower pressures will
have a lower efficiency compared to
fans of equivalent design operating at
higher pressures. To account for this
effect and preserve the utility of lowpressure fans, DOE is considering a
metric that is a function of the operating
pressure, where the required FEP at a
given efficiency level is less stringent at
lower operating pressures.
Consequently, a return or exhaust fan
operating at a lower pressure than a
supply fan at a given flow would have
a lower required FEP at a given
efficiency level, which mitigates the
disproportionate impacts suggested by
AHRI and Ingersoll Rand/Trane.
Based on these comments, DOE
maintained the equipment classes used
in the May 2015 NODA and presented
in Table III–3.
DOE seeks comments on the
equipment classes used in this notice,
including information on specific sizes
or operating points for which forward
curved fans would no longer be
available at efficiency levels up to EL 5
and whether, at those sizes or operating
points, an acceptable non-forward
curved fan is available.
D. Compliance Year
For this analysis, DOE assumed a
compliance date of five years after
publication of a final energy
conservation standards rule. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(2)) The
Working Group did not make any
recommendation on the compliance
year, and DOE believes that five years
would allow fan manufacturers
sufficient time to redesign their existing
equipment, as necessary, to meet new
energy conservation standards. DOE
anticipates the final rule to publish in
E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM
01NOP1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
75748
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
2017, resulting in a compliance date for
the standards of 2022. Stakeholders
provided several suggestions for the
compliance date.
ebm-papst commented that a threeyear compliance period would represent
sufficient time. (ebm-papst, No. 45 at p.
2) Morrison commented that even five
years may not be enough. (Morrison, No.
51 at p. 9)
Ingersoll Rand/Trane and AHRI
commented that, in order to allow
OEMs to redesign their existing
equipment to use fans of different types
or sizes, the compliance date for fans
that are components of larger piece of
equipment should be delayed. For such
fans, Ingersoll Rand/Trane
recommended an additional two years
and AHRI recommended an additional
five years after the compliance date for
standalone fans. (Ingersoll Rand/Trane,
No. 153 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 158 at p. 9)
In the December 2014 NODA, DOE
requested comments on the redesign
time per fan model. United
Technologies/Carrier stated three years
would be too short in terms of
compliance period and that it could take
18 to 24 months per fan for an OEM to
complete a redesign for an embedded
fan and the equipment incorporating the
fan. (United Technologies/Carrier, No.
43 at p. 2)
DOE believes that manufacturers will
be able to offer fans that are compliant
with any energy conservation standards
DOE may set before 5 years after
publication of a final rule. Many fans
are compliant with the highest
efficiency levels for at least part of their
operating range. Consequently, for many
fans, any standard may only require
certifying a different operating range
rather than redesigning the fan. DOE’s
analysis estimates that at the most
stringent EL (EL 6), 70 percent of
current fan selections 15 would not meet
the standard but that more than half of
these could be replaced by existing
compliant substitutes. This means that
even at the highest EL, only 33 percent
of all fan selections would require a
redesigned fan. Therefore, DOE believes
that a five-year compliance period is
sufficient for fan manufacturers,
including OEMs to either redesign their
fans and equipment or select compliant,
alternative fans. For the analyses in this
NODA, DOE assumed a compliance date
of five years after the publication of the
final rule.
DOE seeks comments on the use a
compliance date of five years after the
publication of the final rule.
15 Based on 2012 data, see section III.G for more
details. A fan selection is the combination of a fan
model and design point at which it is purchased.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Oct 31, 2016
Jkt 241001
E. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis establishes
the relationship between the
manufacturer production cost (MPC)
and efficiency levels of fans. This
relationship serves as the basis for
calculations performed in the other
analysis tools to estimate the costs and
benefits to individual consumers,
manufacturers, and the Nation.
DOE used the same methodology in
the engineering analysis of this NODA
as for the December 2014 NODA and the
May 2015 NODA. For each fan
equipment class, DOE identified
existing technology options that could
affect efficiency. Next, DOE conducted a
screening analysis to review each
technology option and decide whether
it: (1) Is technologically feasible; (2) is
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
categorized the fan equipment classes
into subcategories by the technology
options the fans use. DOE then
conducted a market-based assessment of
the prevalence of each subcategory at
each efficiency level analyzed. DOE
estimated market prevalence using the
sales data provided by AMCA that was
within the scope of the analysis and for
which there was sufficient information.
This NODA, like the May 2015 NODA
has fewer subgroups than the December
2014 NODA due to limitations in the
sales data provided by AMCA.
For this NODA, DOE augmented the
AMCA sales data used in the May 2015
NODA to account for embedded fans
made by companies that incorporate
those fans for sale in their own
equipment (see section III.G) and to
represent additional sales of forward
curved fans, which AMCA stated were
underrepresented in the original data
AMCA provided. (AMCA, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 85 at p. 91) The
resulting engineering database was
analyzed at six efficiency levels (ELs)
representing different target efficiencies
(htarget , see section III.A). In this NODA,
efficiency levels were set separately for
ducted and unducted fans, based on the
recommendation of the working group.
(No. 179, Recommendation #18 at pp.
10–11) For ducted fans, the six
efficiency levels are calculated using the
same six total efficiency targets used in
the May 2015 NODA. At each of the
analyzed efficiency levels in this NODA,
the static efficiency targets used for
unducted fans are 0.04 less than the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
total efficiency target at each respective
level. The exact target efficiencies used
in this NODA are presented in Table 3
of the ‘‘MPC Approach’’ tab of the
engineering analysis and conversion
cost spreadsheet.
DOE calculated MPCs at each
efficiency level using the same
methodology as used in the December
2014 NODA and the May 2015 NODA.
The MPCs were derived from product
teardowns and publically available
product literature and were informed by
interviews with manufacturers. DOE
calculated the MPCs for fans in each
subcategory. DOE used these MPCs to
characterize the relationship between
MPC and blade or impeller diameter for
each subcategory. DOE found that all
fan subcategories were represented at all
ELs, so DOE did not use subcategory
MPC differences to directly represent
higher efficiency. DOE found some
subcategories to be more prevalent at
higher ELs. Therefore, DOE calculated
MPCs for each fan equipment class at
each efficiency level analyzed by
weighting the MPCs of each subcategory
within a class 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 equipment classes, 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 III.F and presented
in the LCC spreadsheet.
The main outputs of the fans
engineering analysis are the MPCs of
each fan equipment class (including
material, labor, and overhead) and
technology option distributions at each
efficiency level analyzed.
F. 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
E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM
01NOP1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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. Using a
proprietary cost model and feedback
received from manufacturers during
interviews, DOE first estimated the
average industry capital and product
conversion costs associated with
redesigning a single size of a fan series
to meet a specific efficiency level. DOE
estimated the costs for all subcategories
within each fan equipment class. DOE
multiplied these per model conversion
costs by the number of models that
would be required to be redesigned at
each efficiency level to arrive at the total
industry conversion costs. The number
of models that would be redesigned was
calculated using information from the
engineering database developed from
the AMCA sales database (see section
III.E). Additional information on the
number of models redesigned is
available in the engineering analysis
and conversion cost spreadsheet, ‘‘Total
Fan Conversion Costs’’ section of the
‘‘Database Overview and Use’’ tab.
The GRIM uses these estimated values
in conjunction with inputs from other
analyses, including the MPCs from the
engineering analysis, the annual
shipments by fan equipment class from
the NIA, and the fan manufacturer
markups for the cost recovery markup
scenario from the LCC analysis to model
industry annual cash flows from the
reference 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. DOE expects
that manufacturers may lose a portion of
INPV due to standards. The potential
loss in INPV due to standards is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Oct 31, 2016
Jkt 241001
calculated as the difference between
INPV in the no-standards case (absent
new energy conservation standards) and
the INPV in the standards cases (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 fans.
In addition to INPV, the MIA also
calculates the manufacturer markups,
which are applied to the MPCs derived
in the engineering analysis, to arrive at
the manufacturer selling prices (MSPs)
in the no-standards case. In the
standards cases manufacturers will
incur costs from the redesign of models
that do not meet the required FEP at a
given efficiency levels. DOE modeled
two markup scenarios for the standards
cases, a preservation of gross margin
markup scenario and a conversion cost
pass through markup scenario.
In the preservation of gross margin
markup scenario, DOE assumes that
manufacturers maintain the same
manufacturer markup, as a percentage,
in the standards cases as they do in the
no-standards case, despite higher levels
of investment in the standards cases.
This markup scenario represents the
lower bound, or worst-case scenario for
manufacturers, since manufacturers are
not able to pass the conversion costs
associated with complying with higher
efficiency levels on to their customers.
In the fan conversion cost recovery
markup scenario, DOE assumes that
manufacturers are able to pass on to
their customers the fan conversion costs
they incur to meet higher efficiency
levels. In this markup scenario,
manufacturer markups are based on the
total manufacturer fan conversion costs
and calculated to allow manufacturers
to recover their upfront fan conversion
costs, in addition to their normal nostandards case markup. DOE calculated
the conversion cost pass through
markups for each efficiency level by
amortizing the conversion costs over the
units shipped throughout the analysis
period that were redesigned to meet the
efficiency level being analyzed. This fan
conversion cost pass through markup
scenario represents the upper bound, or
best-case scenario for manufacturers,
since manufacturers are able to pass on
to their customers the fan conversion
costs associated with complying with
higher efficiency levels. For the
standards cases, all other downstream
analyses use the fan manufacturer
markups calculated in the fan
conversion costs pass through markup
scenario.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75749
DOE requests information on the permodel (size of a fan series) redesign
costs presented in the engineering
analysis and conversion cost
spreadsheet.
DOE requests information on the
number of models (sizes of a fan series)
that are currently in the scope of the
rulemaking nationally.
DOE requests feedback on the
quantity of redesigns, methodology, and
results used to calculate the total
industry conversion costs by equipment
class and EL, as presented in the
engineering analysis and conversion
cost spreadsheet.
DOE requests information on the
extent to which product conversion
costs and/or capital conversion costs are
shared among sizes in a fan series.
DOE requests information on the
extent to which product conversion
costs and/or capital conversion costs are
shared between belt and direct drive
fans with the same aerodynamic design.
DOE requests information on the
extent to which product conversion
costs and/or capital conversion costs are
shared between fans of different
construction classes of the same
aerodynamic design.
1. Impacts on OEMs
Several stakeholders commented that
the previous DOE analyses did not take
into account the significant costs
incurred by manufacturers who
incorporate fans into their equipment.
Ingersoll Rand/Trane, United
Technologies/Carrier, Morrison, AHRI,
and Greenheck commented that separate
costs to redesign the units in which fans
are installed would be incurred due to
this regulation. (Ingersoll Rand/Trane,
No. 42 at p. 4; United Technologies/
Carrier, No. 43 at p. 4; Morrison, No. 51
at p. 5; AHRI, No. 53 at p. 6; Greenheck,
No. 54–A at pp. 4–5) AHRI added that
the cost to redesign the units in which
fans are installed can be several times
greater in terms of both time and money
than the cost to redesign the fan itself.
(AHRI, No. 53 at p. 7) Morrison and
Ingersoll Rand/Trane commented that
fans in commercial and industrial
building applications are typically
housed within other equipment such as
air handlers or unitary rooftop units that
are sized specifically around the fan.
(Morrison, No. 51 at p. 5; Ingersoll
Rand/Trane, No. 42 at p. 11) AHRI
commented that any change to fan size,
operating range, or fan type will
increase the OEM production cost, and
urged DOE to consider the production
cost impact to OEMs as part of the
rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 53 at p. 6)
Ingersoll Rand/Trane added that this
increased cost would affect building
E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM
01NOP1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
75750
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
owners and could decrease adoption
rate by consumers. (Ingersoll Rand/
Trane, No. 42 at p. 11).
AHRI also commented that in order to
pass a regulation imposing additional
costs (testing, implementation, timeframe, spare part availability, recertification) on OEMs, DOE must
consider the costs to these
manufacturers and compare them to the
potential energy saved, and in order to
do so must conduct manufacturer
interviews with OEMs. AHRI requested
that DOE conduct such interviews and
delineate DOE-covered equipment made
by OEMs as a separate fan equipment
class to assess the costs and relative
benefits of a second layer of regulation
on currently regulated HVACR
equipment and publish a new NODA
specifically addressing the impact on
OEMs who were excluded from DOE’s
initial analysis. (AHRI, No. 158 at p. 3).
After careful consideration of these
comments and the Working Group
discussions, DOE recognizes that its
previous analyses did not accurately
account for the cost impacts of a fans
regulation on all impacted
manufacturers. DOE revised its analysis
for this NODA to better account for cost
impacts on fan manufacturers,
especially OEMs. DOE understands that
some OEMs manufacture their own fans
that they then incorporate in the
equipment that they manufacture for
sale. As discussed in section III.B, DOE
augmented the database it used for this
NODA by incorporating fans made by
companies that then incorporate those
fans for sale in their own equipment
(see section III.G). The presence of these
fans in the database DOE used for this
NODA ensures that its analysis accounts
for the impacts on MPC (see section
III.E) and conversion costs (see previous
discussion in this section) for OEMs that
manufacture fans and incorporate them
in the equipment that they manufacture
for sale. DOE also understands that
OEMs that incorporate fans may incur
additional conversion costs for their
equipment not directly associated with
improving the efficiency of the fan. For
this NODA, DOE estimated OEM
equipment conversion costs and
included them in its analysis. DOE
conducted interviews with
manufacturers of equipment with
embedded fans. DOE used information
gathered during these interviews in
conjunction with its engineering
database to estimate OEM equipment
conversion costs at each EL. In each fan
equipment class, fan models in the
engineering database that were
representing fans sold by OEMs
(whether or not the OEM made the fan)
and that needed to be redesigned or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Oct 31, 2016
Jkt 241001
reselected were determined to incur
OEM equipment conversion costs. The
aggregated industry OEM equipment
conversion costs are presented in the
engineering analysis and conversion
cost spreadsheet.
DOE applied OEM equipment
conversion costs to all embedded fans in
its analysis. For OEMs that manufacture
the fans that they incorporate in the
equipment they manufacture for sale,
DOE added the OEM equipment
conversion costs to the fan conversion
costs to develop total conversion cost
recovery markups at each EL, for each
fan equipment class, using the cost
recovery markup methodology
described in section III.F. For OEMs that
incorporate fans that they do not
manufacture themselves, the OEM
equipment conversion cost is used to
develop a cost recovery markup that is
applied downstream of the fan
conversion cost recovery markup. DOE
then used the results as an input to the
LCC analysis. Consequently, the cost to
consumers of embedded fans, and, in
turn, the cost-justification for the
analyzed efficiency levels, accounts for
both fan and OEM equipment
conversion costs in this NODA.
DOE believes the revisions made for
this NODA analysis—augmenting DOE’s
database to more completely incorporate
embedded fans and including OEM
equipment conversion costs—better
account for the costs and benefits
associated with potential energy
conservation standards for fans
incorporated in larger pieces of
equipment and address the concerns of
Ingersoll Rand/Trane, United
Technologies/Carrier, Morrison, AHRI,
and Greenheck.
DOE did not analyze a separate
equipment class for embedded fans.
DOE believes the revisions to its
analysis described previously in this
section appropriately account for the
costs and benefits associated with
embedded fans. However, the LCC
spreadsheet published as part of this
NODA provides the option to view
results by subgroup for embedded fans
and standalone fans separately.
DOE requests information on the
portion of equipment with embedded
fans that would require heat testing for
certification with any new energy
conservation standards. DOE also
requests feedback on the number of
embedded fans that would require
redesign as presented in the engineering
analysis and conversion costs
spreadsheet.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
G. 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
total cost of purchasing, installing, and
operating a commercial or industrial fan
over the course of its lifetime.
DOE determines the LCC by
considering: (1) The total installed cost
to the consumer (which consists of
manufacturer selling price, the
conversion costs, distribution channel
markups, and sales taxes); (2) the range
of fan annual energy consumption as
they are used in the field; (3) the fan
operating costs; (4) fan 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 fans through savings
in the operating cost. The 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 considered standards case
corresponding to each efficiency level,
DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the no-standards case. The
no-standards case is characterized by
the distribution of fan 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, fans
with efficiency below the standard
levels ‘‘roll-up’’ to the standard level in
the compliance year.
To characterize annual fan operating
hours, DOE established statistical
distributions of consumers of each fan
equipment class across sectors and
applications, which in turn determined
the fan operating hours. Recognizing
that several inputs to the determination
of consumer LCC and PBP are either
variable or uncertain (e.g., annual
operating hours, 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.
In addition to characterizing several
of the inputs to the analyses with
probability distributions, DOE
developed a sample of individual fan
selections representative of the
market.16 By developing this sample,
DOE was able to perform the LCC and
16 A fan selection is a fan model and the fan shaft
input power, operating flow, and pressure values
for which it was purchased.
E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM
01NOP1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
PBP calculations for each fan selection
to account for the variability in energy
consumption associated with each
selection.
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 nostandards case; and (4) the percentage of
consumers that experience a net benefit,
have no impact, or have a net cost for
each fan equipment class and efficiency
level. The average annual energy
consumption derived in the LCC
analysis is used as an input in the NIA
(see section III.H).
In the December 2014 NODA and the
May 2015 NODA, DOE developed a
sample of individual fan selections (i.e.,
representative database of fan models
including data on the design flow,
pressure, and fan shaft input power for
which they were purchased, and the
drive configuration) using fan sales data
provided by AMCA. During the
negotiations, AMCA commented that
these sales data included some
standalone fans purchased by OEMs for
incorporation into larger HVACR
equipment but was not representative of
sales of embedded fans. Specifically,
AMCA commented that forward curved
centrifugal housed fans, which are very
common in HVACR equipment, were
under-represented. (AMCA, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 85 at p. 91).
In this NODA, DOE collected
additional technical and market
information specific to embedded fans
and revised the LCC sample to represent
both the embedded fan and standalone
fan markets. For each fan equipment
class, DOE used confidential AMCA
sales data for over 57,000 fan selections
(with complete performance data),
representing over 92,000 units sold, to
develop a sample representative of fans
sold on the US market. Each row in the
sample represents a fan selection. The
number of rows was adjusted to match
the US market distributions across fan
equipment classes, subcategory, fan
shaft input power, and drive
configuration. DOE adjusted the number
of standalone fans in the LCC sample to
mirror the actual standalone fan market
distributions based on confidential
market estimates from AMCA for the
U.S standalone fan market. For
embedded fans, DOE adjusted the
number of fan selections in the LCC
sample to reflect the actual embedded
fan market distributions based on
embedded fan shipments data.17 As a
result, and in line with AMCA’s
17 See description of the LCC sample in the LCC
Spreadsheet.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Oct 31, 2016
Jkt 241001
comment, the share of forward curved
centrifugal housed fans in the sample
increased from 3 percent to 19 percent.
Using this sample, DOE was able to
perform individual energy use
calculations for each row in the sample
and account for the variability in energy
consumption associated with each fan
selection.
The ‘‘2012 Shipments’’ worksheet of
the NIA spreadsheet presents the
standalone fan market and embedded
fan market data used to calibrate the
LCC sample. The worksheet includes
breakdowns by equipment class,
subcategory, as well as the HVACR
equipment shipments and estimated
number of fans per unit used by DOE to
calculate the number of embedded fans.
The LCC sample description worksheet
in the LCC spreadsheet provides more
detailed breakdown of the fan selections
by power bins and efficiency levels.
DOE seeks feedback and input on the
2012 standalone fan and embedded fan
shipments values, by equipment class
and subcategory. Specifically, DOE
requests feedback on: (1) The estimated
number of fans per HVACR equipment;
(2) the distribution of HVACR fans
across fan subcategories by fan
application; and (3) the share of
standalone fans purchased and
incorporated in HVACR equipment.
DOE seeks feedback and input on the
distribution of fan selections by power
bin and subcategory for standalone fans
and embedded fans as presented in the
‘‘LCC sample Description’’ worksheet of
the LCC spreadsheet.
In the December 2014 NODA and the
May 2015 NODA, DOE calculated the
FEP of a fan selection in the LCC sample
using the default values and calculation
algorithms for bare shaft fans. DOE
applied this approach because the fan
selection data included performance
data for fans in bare shaft
configurations. In this NODA, in order
to establish the FEP of a fan considered
in the analysis, DOE retained this
approach and used the default values
and calculation algorithms for bare shaft
fans as recommended by the Working
Group. The engineering analysis and
conversion cost spreadsheet presents
the detailed equations and default
values used to calculate the FEP of a
given fan model in a bare shaft
configuration. In addition, based on the
Working Group recommendation, the
spreadsheet includes default values and
calculation algorithms for other fan
configurations such as fans with
dynamic continuous controls. (No. 179,
Recommendation #12–16 at pp. 7–9)
After the publication of the December
2014 NODA, Morrison and AHRI
commented that the operating hours
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75751
seemed high but did not provide
quantified estimates. (Morrison, No. 51
at p. 8; AHRI, No. 53 at p. 13) In the
December 2014 and May 2015 NODAs,
DOE used industrial plant assessment
and Energy Plus building simulation
data to estimate fan operating hours,
which averaged around 6,500 hours per
year.18 In this NODA, DOE retained the
same assumption for the operating
hours of standalone fans and developed
specific operating hours for embedded
fans based on HVAC fan operating hours
data which averaged 2,725 hours per
year.19
DOE seeks feedback and inputs on fan
operating hours.
In the December 2014 NODA and the
May 2015 NODA, DOE assumed that all
fans operated at full design flow and
pressure when performing the energy
use calculation. AHRI noted that most
fans in HVAC equipment do not run at
full design speed but at 60 percent of
full speed (equivalent to running at 60
percent of design flow). (AHRI, No. 129–
1 at p. 2) AHRI additionally provided
input on the typical fan load profiles in
VAV systems. (AHRI, No. 53 at p. 13)
ACME commented that, 50 percent of
the time, the actual operating point of a
fan is not equal to the design point
selection of the fan and has a higher
pressure value. ACME added that in
some situations, the design point of the
fan is not known and the actual
operating point of a fan may fall in a
region of operation where the fan has a
18 Database of motor nameplate and field
measurement data compiled by the Washington
State University Extension Energy Program (WSU)
and Applied Proactive Technologies (APT) under
contract with the New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority (NYSERDA) (2011);
Strategic Energy Group (Jan. 2008), Northwest
Industrial Motor Database Summary from Regional
Technical Forum. Retrieved March 5, 2013 from
https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/osumotor/
Default.htm; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EnergyPlus Energy Simulation
Software (Aug. 2014). Available at https://
apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus.
19 Arthur D. Little, Inc. ‘‘Opportunities for Energy
Savings in the Residential and Commercial Sectors
with High-Efficiency Electric Motors (Final
Report),’’ (Dec. 1999); U.S. Department of Energy–
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards for
Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled
Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and
Heating Equipment. Final Rule Technical Support
Document, Chapter 4 Energy Use Characterization
(2012). Available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029-0039; 1 U.S.
Department of Energy–Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy. Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy
Conservation Standards for Small, Large, and Very
Large Commercial Package Air Conditioning and
Heating Equipment. NOPR Technical Support
Document, Chapter 7 Energy Use Analysis (2014).
Available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0027.
E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM
01NOP1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
75752
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
poor efficiency. ACME estimated that
this could happen at least 30 percent of
the time. In addition, ACME commented
that the energy use analysis should
account for fans operating in variable air
volume (VAV) systems, for which the
actual fan operating point is different
than the design point. ACME believes
that accounting for these situations
would reduce the energy savings as
calculated in the May 2015 NODA.
(ACME, No. 149 at pp. 1–2) For
industrial fans, AcoustiFLO stated that
most fans operate at their design point.
(AcoustiFLO, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 85 at p. 193)
Based on these comments and
stakeholder feedback received during
negotiations DOE revised its December
2014 and May 2015 NODA analyses to
account for part load operation. For the
commercial sector, DOE assumed that
80 percent of the fans operated at an
airflow that differed from the design
flow at least some of the time. DOE
based the 80 percent value on results
from the EnergyPlus building energy use
simulation software 20 that indicated
that 80 percent of fans in the
commercial sector operate along a
variable load profile. To reflect this,
DOE developed variable load profiles
for 80 percent of the commercial fans
based on the information provided by
AHRI and the EnergyPlus building
energy use simulation. In the case of the
industrial sector, in line with the inputs
from the stakeholders, DOE assumed
about a third of the fans operated
outside of the design flow (30 percent).
The load profiles are presented in the
‘‘Sectors and Applications’’ worksheet
of the LCC spreadsheet.
DOE seeks feedback and inputs on the
fan load profiles used in the energy use
calculation and on the percentage of
fans used in variable load applications.
In the December 2014 NODA and the
May 2015 NODA, DOE estimated the
average fan lifetime for standalone fans
to be 30 years. AHRI commented that
the lifetimes seemed high but did not
provide quantified estimates. Morrison
commented that the lifetimes seemed
high and that fans used in HVAC
typically have 12–15 year lifetimes.
(AHRI, No. 53 at p. 5, Morrison, No. 51
at p. 8) In this NODA, DOE revised the
fan lifetimes to account for the fact that
fans in HVACR application may have
shorter lifetimes. In line with Morrison’s
comment, DOE used an average
embedded fan lifetime of 17 years based
on estimates of HVACR equipment
lifetimes, but maintained an average
20 The EnergyPlus building energy use simulation
software is available at https://
apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Oct 31, 2016
Jkt 241001
lifetime of 30 years for other fans.21 The
LCC spreadsheet includes more details
on the fan lifetime estimates and
includes a sensitivity scenario that
provides results for an average
embedded fan lifetime of 15 years.22
DOE seeks feedback and inputs on fan
lifetimes.
H. 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 no-standards
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 all fans
shipped during a 30-year analysis
period assumed to start in 2022. 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 and
efficiency distributions (for each EL) for
each potential fan equipment class. 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
21 Roth, Kurt, Detlef Westphalen, John
Dieckmann, Sephir Hamilton, and William
Goetzler. ‘‘Energy Consumption Characteristics of
Commercial Building HVAC Systems Volume III:
Energy Savings Potential.’’ National Technical
Information Service (NTIS): U.S. Department of
Commerce (July 2002). Available at https://
apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/
commercial_initiative/hvac_volume3_final_
report.pdf.
U.S. Department of Energy–Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards for
Small, Large, and Very Large Commercial Package
Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment. LifeCycle Cost Spreadsheet (NOPR) (2014). Available at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013BT-STD-0007.
22 The sensitivity scenario used a mechanical
lifetime of 45,000 hours based on typical annual
operating hours of 3000 hours and a lifetime in
years of 15. The lifetimes calculates in the LCC may
lead to different lifetimes in years due to the
variability in applications and associated annual
operating hours (i.e., fans operating fewer annual
hours may have a longer lifetime).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
fan lifetime used in the LCC analysis,
fan price, average annual energy
consumption, and efficiency
distributions from the LCC.
IV. 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 requests feedback on the
calculation of the FEPSTD and FEI.
2. DOE seeks comments on the
equipment classes used in this notice.
3. DOE seeks information on whether
there are specific sizes or operating
points where forward curved fans
would no longer be available at
efficiency levels up to EL 5.
4. DOE seeks comments on the use a
compliance date of five years after the
publication of the final rule.
5. DOE requests information on the
per-model (i.e., a single size fan within
a fan series) redesign costs presented in
the engineering analysis and conversion
cost spreadsheet.
6. DOE requests information on the
number of models that are currently in
the scope of the rulemaking nationally.
7. DOE requests feedback on the
quantity of redesigns, methodology, and
results used to calculate the total
industry conversion costs by equipment
class and EL, as presented in the
engineering analysis and conversion
cost spreadsheet.
8. DOE requests information on the
extent to which product conversion
costs and/or capital conversion costs are
shared among sizes in a fan series.
9. DOE requests information on the
extent to which product conversion
costs and/or capital conversion costs are
shared between belt and direct drive
fans with the same aerodynamic design.
10. DOE requests information on the
extent to which product conversion
costs and/or capital conversion costs are
shared between fans of different
construction classes of the same
aerodynamic design.
11. DOE requests information on the
portion of equipment with embedded
fans that would require heat testing for
certification with any new energy
conservation standards.
12. DOE requests feedback on the
number of embedded fans that would
require redesign presented in the
engineering analysis and conversion
costs spreadsheet.
13. DOE seeks feedback and input on
the 2012 standalone fan and embedded
fan shipments values, by equipment
class and subcategory. Specifically, DOE
E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM
01NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
requests feedback on: (1) The estimated
number of fans per HVACR equipment;
(2) the distribution of HVACR fans
across fan subcategory by fan
application; and (3) the share of
standalone fans purchased and
incorporated in HVACR equipment.
14. DOE seeks feedback and input on
the distribution of fan selections by
power bin and subcategory for
standalone fans and embedded fans as
presented in the ‘‘LCC sample
Description’’ worksheet of the LCC
spreadsheet.
15. DOE seeks feedback and inputs on
the fan operating hours.
16. DOE seeks feedback and inputs on
the fan load profiles used in the energy
use calculation and on the percentage of
fans used in variable load applications.
17. DOE seeks feedback and inputs on
the fan lifetimes.
The purpose of this NODA is to notify
industry, manufacturers, consumer
groups, efficiency advocates,
government agencies, and other
stakeholders of the publication of an
analysis of potential energy
conservation standards for commercial
and industrial fans and blowers.
Stakeholders should contact DOE for
any additional information pertaining to
the analyses performed for this NODA.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 19,
2016.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2016–26341 Filed 10–31–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
Comments must be received on
or before January 3, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• FDIC Web site: https://www.fdic.gov/
regulations/laws/federal/propose.html.
Follow instructions for submitting
comments on the agency Web site.
• FDIC Email: Comments@fdic.gov.
Include RIN #3064–AE47 on the subject
line of the message.
• FDIC Mail: Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary, Attention:
Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20429.
• Hand Delivery to FDIC: Comments
may be hand delivered to the guard
station at the rear of the 550 17th Street
building (located on F Street) on
business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Please include your name, affiliation,
address, email address, and telephone
number(s) in your comment. Where
appropriate, comments should include a
short Executive Summary consisting of
no more than five single-spaced pages.
All statements received, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, are part of the public record
and are subject to public disclosure.
You should submit only information
that you wish to make publicly
available.
DATES:
Please note: All comments received will be
posted generally without change to https://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/
propose.html, including any personal
information provided. Paper copies of public
comments may be requested from the Public
Information Center by telephone at 1–877–
275–3342 or 1–703–562–2200.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
12 CFR Parts 326 and 391
RIN 3064–AE47
Removal of Transferred OTS
Regulations Regarding Minimum
Security Procedures Amendments to
FDIC Regulations
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
In this notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’ or ‘‘Proposed
Rule’’), the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (‘‘FDIC’’) proposes to
rescind and remove a part from the
Code of Federal Regulations entitled
‘‘Security Procedures’’ and to amend
FDIC regulations to make the removed
Office of Thrift Supervision (‘‘OTS’’)
regulations applicable to state savings
associations.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Oct 31, 2016
Jkt 241001
Lauren Whitaker, Attorney, Consumer
Compliance Section, Legal Division
(202) 898–3872; Martha L. Ellett,
Counsel, Consumer Compliance
Section, Legal Division, (202) 898–6765;
Karen Jones Currie, Senior Examination
Specialist, Division of Risk Management
and Supervision (202) 898–3981.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Part 391,
subpart A was included in the
regulations that were transferred to the
FDIC from the Office of Thrift
Supervision (‘‘OTS’’) on July 21, 2011,
in connection with the implementation
of applicable provisions of title III of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank
Act’’). With the exception of one
provision (§ 391.5) the requirements for
State savings associations in part 391,
subpart A are substantively identical to
the requirements in the FDIC’s 12 CFR
part 326 (‘‘part 326’’), which is entitled
‘‘Minimum Security Procedures.’’ The
one exception directs savings
associations to comply with appendix B
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75753
to subpart B of Interagency Guidelines
Establishing Information Security
Standards (Interagency Guidelines)
contained in FDIC rules at part 364,
appendix B. The FDIC previously
revised part 364 to make the Interagency
Guidelines applicable to both state
nonmember banks and state savings
associations.1
The FDIC proposes to rescind in its
entirety part 391, subpart A and to
modify the scope of part 326 to include
state savings associations to conform to
and reflect the scope of the FDIC’s
current supervisory responsibilities as
the appropriate Federal banking agency.
The FDIC also proposes to define
‘‘FDIC-supervised insured depository
institution or institution’’ and ‘‘State
savings association.’’ Upon removal of
part 391, subpart A, the Security
Procedures, regulations applicable for
all insured depository institutions for
which the FDIC has been designated the
appropriate Federal banking agency will
be found at 12 CFR part 326.
I. Background
The Dodd-Frank Act
The Dodd-Frank Act 1 provided for a
substantial reorganization of the
regulation of state and Federal savings
associations and their holding
companies. Beginning July 21, 2011, the
transfer date established by section 311
of the Dodd-Frank Act, codified at 12
U.S.C. 5411, the powers, duties, and
functions formerly performed by the
OTS were divided among the FDIC, as
to state savings associations, the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency
(‘‘OCC’’), as to Federal savings
associations, and the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (‘‘FRB’’), as to savings and loan
holding companies. Section 316(b) of
the Dodd-Frank Act, codified at 12
U.S.C. 5414(b), provides the manner of
treatment for all orders, resolutions,
determinations, regulations, and
advisory materials that had been issued,
made, prescribed, or allowed to become
effective by the OTS. The section
provides that if such materials were in
effect on the day before the transfer
date, they continue to be in effect and
are enforceable by or against the
appropriate successor agency until they
are modified, terminated, set aside, or
superseded in accordance with
applicable law by such successor
agency, by any court of competent
jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
1 80
FR 65907 (Oct. 28, 2015).
Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376
(2010) (codified at 12 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).
1 Dodd-Frank
E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM
01NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75742-75753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26341]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2016 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 75742]]
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 (NODA).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
(``fans''). At this time, DOE is not proposing any energy conservation
standard for fans. However, it is publishing this analysis so
stakeholders can review the analysis results and the underlining
assumptions and calculations that might ultimately support a proposed
standard. DOE encourages stakeholders to provide any additional data or
information that may improve the analysis. The analysis is now
publically available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the
NODA no later than December 1, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Instructions: 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) 1904-AC55. Comments may be
submitted using any of the following methods: Interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006 and/
or regulatory information number (RIN) 1904-AC55, by any of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
Email: CIFB2013STD0006@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket
number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic
comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and
avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
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.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
586-6636. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register
notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 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, some documents listed in the index
may not be publicly available, such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket Web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006. The docket Web page contains simple
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, 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) 586-6590. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@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.
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. Fan Electrical Input Power
B. Scope of the Analysis and Addition of Certain Embedded Fans
C. Equipment Classes
D. Compliance Year
E. Engineering Analysis
F. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Impacts on OEMs
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
H. National Impact Analysis
IV. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Public Comment
I. History of Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for Commercial
and Industrial Fans and Blowers
On June 28, 2011, DOE published a notice of proposed determination
of coverage to initiate the energy conservation standards rulemaking
for fans, blowers, and fume hoods. 76 FR 37678. Subsequently, DOE
published a notice of public meeting and availability of the Framework
document for commercial and industrial fans and blowers (``fans'') in
the Federal Register. 78 FR 7306 (February 1, 2013). In the Framework
document, DOE requested feedback from interested parties on many
issues, including the engineering analysis, the manufacturer impact
analysis (MIA), the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP)
analyses, and the national impact analysis (NIA).
On December 10, 2014, DOE published a notice of data availability
(December 2014 NODA) that estimated the potential economic impacts and
energy savings that could result from promulgating energy conservation
standards for fans. 79 FR 73246. The December 2014 NODA comment period
was originally scheduled to close on January 26, 2015. However, DOE
subsequently published a notice extending the comment period to
February 25, 2015, to allow additional time for interested parties to
submit
[[Page 75743]]
comments. 80 FR 1477 (January 12, 2015). The December 2014 NODA
analysis used a ``wire-to-air'' fan electrical input power metric, the
fan energy index (FEI), to characterize fan performance. FEI is the
ratio of the weighted-average fan electrical input power of a minimally
compliant fan to the weighted-average fan electrical input power of a
given fan, at three specified operating points. The FEI metric relied
on an equation describing fan efficiency as a function of airflow and
pressure in order to set the minimum fan efficiency of each considered
efficiency level (EL) analyzed in the December 2014 NODA. In October
2014, several representatives of fan manufacturers and energy
efficiency advocates \1\ (Joint Stakeholders) presented DOE with an
alternative metric approach called ``Fan Efficiency Ratio,'' which
included a fan efficiency-only metric approach (FERH) and a
wire-to-air metric approach (FERW).\2\ Both the FEI
approach, presented in the December 2014 NODA, and the FERW
approaches relied on an equation to determine required fan efficiency
as a function of the fan's airflow and pressure. The main differences
between the December 2014 NODA FEI and the FERW approaches
were the form of the equation used for the fan efficiency, and the
operating conditions at which the metric was evaluated. While in the
December 2014 NODA, the FEI was calculated as a weighted average of the
fan performance at three specific operating points, the FERW
was calculated at all manufacturer-declared operating points. On May 1,
2015, based on the additional information received and comments to the
December 2014 NODA, DOE published a second NODA (May 2015 NODA) that
announced the availability of data from DOE analyses conducted using a
modified FEI metric. 80 FR 24841. The modified FEI metric used in the
May 2015 NODA is similar to the FERW metric presented by the
Joint Stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Air Movement and Control Association (AMCA), New York
Blower Company, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the
Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), and the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA).
\2\ Supporting documents from this meeting, including
presentation slides are available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concurrent with these efforts, DOE also began a process through the
Appliance Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) to
discuss negotiated energy conservation standards and test procedure for
fans.\3\ On April 1, 2015, DOE published a notice of intent to
establish a negotiated rulemaking Working Group for fans. 80 FR 17359.
Twenty-five nominees were selected to serve as members of the Working
Group in addition to one member from ASRAC and one DOE representative.
Members of the Working Group were selected to ensure all stakeholders'
interests and areas of expertise were represented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Information on the ASRAC, the commercial and industrial fans
Working Group, and meeting dates is available at: https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-standards-and-rulemaking-federal-advisory-committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Working Group negotiations comprised 16 meetings and three
webinars and covered scope, metrics, test procedures, and energy
conservation standard levels for fans.\4\ The negotiations were
initially scheduled to end on August 6, 2015, but the Working Group
voted to extend the process by 30 days. The Working Group concluded its
negotiations on September 3, 2015, with a consensus vote to approve and
publish a term sheet containing recommendations for DOE on scope,
energy conservation standards analysis methodology, and the test
procedure for fans. The term sheet containing the Working Group
recommendations is available in the fans energy conservation standard
rulemaking docket.\5\ ASRAC subsequently voted to approve the
recommendations of the Working Group during the September 24, 2015
webinar meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Details of the negotiation sessions can be found in the
public meeting transcripts that are posted to the docket for the
energy conservation standard rulemaking at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006.
\5\ The term sheet, document No. 179, is posted on the docket
for the energy conservation standards rulemaking at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Current Status
Since the negotiations, DOE has revised its analysis to reflect the
term sheet recommendations regarding the metric and energy conservation
standards. DOE is publishing this NODA to inform stakeholders of the
impacts of potential energy conservation standards for fans based on
term sheet recommendations and to request feedback on specific issues.
DOE made several changes to its analysis in preparing this NODA to
address the term sheet recommendations as well as other stakeholder
concerns expressed during the negotiations. Table II-1 lists the
stakeholders who commented on issues addressed in this NODA. These
changes and the ensuing results are described in section III, the
accompanying analysis spreadsheets, or both. The most significant
changes include
(1) the augmentation of the AMCA sales data used in the May 2015
NODA to better account for fans made by companies that incorporate
those fans for sale in their own equipment (see section III.G);
(2) the augmentation of the AMCA sales data used in the May 2015
NODA to represent additional sales of forward curved fans, which AMCA
stated were underrepresented in the original data AMCA provided. (AMCA,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 85 at p. 91); and
(3) the inclusion of OEM equipment conversion costs.
At this time, DOE is not proposing any energy conservation
standards for fans. DOE may revise the analyses presented in today's
NODA based on any new or updated information or data it obtains during
the course of the rulemaking. DOE encourages stakeholders to provide
any additional data or information that may improve the analysis.
Table II-2--List of Commenters on Energy Conservation Standard Issues Addressed in This NODA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company or organization Abbreviation Affiliation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACME Engineering & Manufacturing ACME...................... Manufacturer.
Corporation.
AcoustiFLO............................. AcoustiFLO................ Manufacturer.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI...................... Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
Air Movement and Control Association, AMCA...................... Trade Association.
Inc.
Appliance Standards Awareness Program.. ASAP...................... Efficiency Advocate.
California Investor-Owned Utilities.... CA IOUs................... Utilities.
ebm-papst, Inc......................... ebm-papst................. Manufacturer.
[[Page 75744]]
Flowcare Engineering Inc............... Flowcare.................. Manufacturer.
Greenheck Fan Corporation.............. Greenheck................. Manufacturer.
Ingersoll Rand/Trane................... Ingersoll Rand/Trane...... Manufacturer.
Morrison Products...................... Morrison.................. Manufacturer.
United Technologies/Carrier............ United Technologies/ Manufacturer.
Carrier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE
DOE developed provisional analyses of fans in the following areas:
(1) Engineering; (2) manufacturer impacts; (3) LCC and PBP; and (4)
national impacts. The Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), the
engineering spreadsheet, the life-cycle cost spreadsheet, and the
national impact analysis spreadsheet used in preparing these analyses
and their respective results are available at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?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 calculation of the considered energy
conservation standard levels, of the scope, of the provisional
analyses, and of the supporting spreadsheet tools are provided in this
preamble. If DOE proposes energy conservation standards for fans in a
future NOPR, then DOE will publish a technical support document (TSD)
containing 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.
A. Fan Electrical Input Power
Fan energy performance is a critical input in the provisional
analyses discussed in this notice. DOE used the fan electrical input
power metric (FEP) as recommended by the Working Group to characterize
the efficiency levels and represent fan performance. (No. 179,
Recommendation #6 at p. 5) \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A notation in this form refers to a specific recommendation
from the Working Group term sheet, document No. 179.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recommended FEP metric represents the electrical input power of
the fan and includes the performance of the motor, and any transmission
and/or control if integrated, assembled, or packaged with the fan. The
Working Group recommended to require manufacturers to determine the FEP
at each manufacturer-declared operating point, at standard air density,
where the operating point is characterized by a value of airflow and
total pressure for ducted fans and by a value of airflow and static
pressure for unducted fans.7 8 Two methods were recommended
by the Working Group for determining the FEP: (1) A fan shaft input
power measurement combined with default values to represent the
performance of the motor and any transmission and/or control (default
value testing method); or (2) a direct measurement of the fan
electrical input power (direct testing method). The recommended default
value testing method provides different sets of calculation algorithms
and default values to establish the FEP of a fan depending on its
configuration (e.g., bare shaft fan, fan with regulated electric motor,
or fan with motor with transmission and/or control). The Working Group
also recommended allowing the representation of an index metric, the
FEI, to allow for better comparability across all regulated fans. The
engineering analysis and conversion cost spreadsheet presents the
algorithms and default values used by the default value testing method
and calculations of the FEP for both testing methods. (No. 179,
Recommendation #9-16 at pp. 6-10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Ducted fans are: Axial cylindrical housed, centrifugal
housed, inline and mixed-flow, and radial housed fans. Unducted fans
are panel fans, centrifugal unhoused fans, and power roof
ventilators. (No. 179, Appendix C at p. 16)
\8\ In this document, all pressures refer to standard air
densities. Standard air density is defined by a density of 0.075 lb/
ft\3\, corresponding to air at 68 [deg]F, 50 percent relative
humidity and 406.78 in.wg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted previously, the FEP of a fan includes the performance of
the bare shaft fan and of its drive system.\9\ In the December 2014
NODA and the May 2015 NODA, DOE calculated the FEP of a fan that
exactly meets a given efficiency level (FEPSTD) using a fan efficiency
equation and the default values and calculation algorithms of a fan
sold with a regulated electric motor and transmission, such as a belt
drive. During the negotiations, the Working Group voted to retain this
approach and provided further recommendations on how to establish the
fan efficiency equation and default values for standalone fans.\10\
(No. 179, Recommendation #18 at p. 11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The drive system includes the motor and any transmission
and/or control if integrated, assembled or packaged with the fan.
\10\ A standalone fan is a fan that is not exclusively
distributed in commerce for incorporation or incorporated in a
larger piece of equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this recommendation, and applying the same approach for
embedded fans (see Section III.B), this NODA calculates the FEPSTD,i of
a fan based on the following equation, in kW, at a given operating
point i:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO16.152
Where:
Qi = airflow (cfm) at operating point i;
Pi = total pressure for ducted fans, static pressure for unducted
fans (in.wg.) at operating point i;
[eta]STD,i = standard level fan total efficiency for ducted fans,
standard level fan static efficiency for unducted fans at operating
point i (percent), calculated in accordance with Eq. 2;
[eta]T,i = default transmission efficiency (percent) at operating
point i;
LM,i = default electric motor losses (hp) at operating point i;
6343 = conversion factor for I-P units; and
0.746 = hp to kW conversion factor.
[[Page 75745]]
The Working Group recommended a fan efficiency equation to use for
all fans when calculating FEPSTD. (No. 179, Recommendations #19-21 at
pp. 11-12) For each efficiency level considered, this NODA uses the
equation recommended by the Working Group to determine the fan total
efficiency for ducted fans and the fan static efficiency for unducted
fans (percent) at a given operating point i (percent):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO16.153
Where:
[eta]STD,i = standard level fan total efficiency for ducted fans,
standard level fan static efficiency for unducted fans (percent) at
operating point i and considered efficiency level;
Qi = flow (CFM) at operating point i;
Pi = total pressure for ducted fans, static pressure for unducted
fans (in.wg.) at operating point i;
[eta]target = constant (percent) used to establish the efficiency
level associated with each standards case considered (see section
III.E).
The detailed equations and assumptions used to calculate
FEPSTD are included in the engineering analysis and
conversion cost spreadsheet.
In addition, for this NODA, DOE maintained the Working Group
recommendation for the FEI calculation, with one modification as
follows: DOE calculated the FEI using a reference value of FEP
(FEPREF) instead of using a value equal to the first energy
conservation standards DOE may set (FEPSTD). As a reference
value, DOE used the mid-point efficiency level (EL3).
DOE requests feedback on the calculation of the FEPSTD
and FEI.
B. Scope of the Analysis and Addition of Certain Embedded Fans
In the December 2014 NODA and the May 2015 NODA, DOE analyzed the
following fan categories: Axial housed fans, axial unhoused fans,
centrifugal housed fans, centrifugal unhoused fans, inline and mixed
flow fans, radial fans, and power roof ventilators. This NODA analyzes
the same fan categories based on the recommendation of the Working
Group, but renames axial housed fans as axial cylindrical housed fans
and axial unhoused fans as panel fans based on information provided by
the Working Group. In addition, based on the discussions of the Working
Group, DOE incorporated more embedded fans into its analysis for this
NODA.\11\ DOE also added more sales of forward curved fans for this
NODA, which AMCA stated were under-represented in the original data
AMCA provided. (AMCA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 85 at p. 91)
Accordingly, this NODA analyzes the fans listed in Table III-1 with the
characteristics discussed in this section and exemptions listed in
Table III-2. (No. 179, Recommendation #1-4 at pp. 1-4)
Table III-1--Fan Categories Analyzed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Fan category In NODA scope?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Axial........................... Axial cylindrical Yes *
housed.
Panel............. Yes *
Power Roof Yes *
Ventilator.
Induced flow fans. No
Safety fan........ No
Circulating fans.. No
Centrifugal..................... Centrifugal housed Yes *
Centrifugal Yes *
unhoused.
Radial shrouded... Yes *
Radial unshrouded. No if impeller is
less than 30
inches in
diameter or less
than 3 inches in
blade width.
Power Roof Yes *
Ventilator.
Induced flow fans. No
Safety fan........ No
Inline............ Yes *
Mixed flow...................... .................. Yes *
Cross flow...................... .................. No
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Excluding embedded fans listed in Table III-2.
Table III-2--Embedded Fans Recommended Exemptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment category
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fans exclusively embedded in:
Single phase central air conditioners and heat pumps with a
certified cooling capacity rated less than 65,000 Btu per hour,
subject to DOE's energy conservation standard at 10 CFR 430.32(c).
Three phase, air-cooled, small commercial packaged air-conditioning
and heating equipment with a certified cooling capacity rated less
than 65,000 Btu per hour, subject to DOE's energy conservation
standard at 10 CFR 431.97(b).
Residential furnaces subject to DOE's energy conservation standard
at 10 CFR 430.32(y).
Transport refrigeration (i.e., Trailer refrigeration, Self-powered
truck refrigeration, Vehicle-powered truck refrigeration, Marine/
Rail container refrigerant).
Vacuums.
Heat Rejection Equipment:
Packaged evaporative open circuit cooling towers.
[[Page 75746]]
Evaporative field erected open circuit cooling tower.
Packaged evaporative closed circuit cooling towers.
Evaporative field erected closed circuit cooling tower.
Packaged evaporative condensers.
Field erected evaporative condensers.
Packaged air cooled (dry) coolers.
Field erected air cooled (dry) coolers.
Air cooled steam condensers.
Hybrid (water saving) versions of all of the previously listed
equipment that contain both evaporative and air cooled heat
exchange sections.
Air curtains.
Supply or Condenser fans, exclusively embedded in:
Air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps (CUAC,
CUHP) between 5.5 and 63.5 tons regulated by DOE's energy
conservation standard at 10 CFR 431.97(b).
Water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, and water-source commercial air
conditioners or heat pumps regulated by DOE's energy conservation
standard at 10 CFR 431.97(b).
Single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps regulated by
DOE's energy conservation standard at 10 CFR 431.97(d).
Packaged terminal air conditioners (PTAC) and packaged terminal heat
pumps (PTHP) regulated by DOE's energy conservation standard at 10
CFR 431.97(c).
Computer room air conditioners regulated by DOE's energy
conservation standard at 10 CFR 431.97(e).
Variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat
pumps regulated by DOE's energy conservation standard at 10 CFR
431.97(f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, based on the recommendation of the Working Group, this
NODA only considered fans with operating points with a fan shaft input
power equal to, or greater than, 1 horsepower and a fan airpower equal
to or less than 150 horsepower. (No. 179, Recommendation #5 at p. 4)
The horsepower scope limitations are further explained in the
engineering analysis and conversion cost spreadsheet.
C. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In the December
2014 and May 2015 NODAs, DOE divided commercial and industrial fans
into seven equipment classes based primarily on the direction of the
airflow through the fan and other features that impact the energy use
and utility of a fan (see Table III-3). In addition, DOE grouped inline
and mixed flow fans into a single equipment class and included all
power roof ventilators in a single equipment class.
Table III-3--Fan Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airflow Fan category Feature Equipment class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Axial................................ Axial cylindrical Cylindrical housing.... Axial cylindrical
housed. housed.
Panel.................. Orifice panel or ring.. Panel.
Power Roof Ventilator.. Weather protection Power Roof Ventilator.
housing.
Centrifugal.......................... Power Roof Ventilator.. Weather protection
housing..
Centrifugal housed..... Scroll Housing......... Centrifugal housed.
Centrifugal unhoused... No Housing............. Centrifugal unhoused.
Radial shrouded........ Radial impellers and Radial housed.
Radial unshrouded...... housing (dust/material
handling).
Inline................. Cabinet or cylindrical Inline and Mixed Flow.
Housing.
Mixed flow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the negotiations, the Working Group did not come to a
consensus regarding the equipment classes and stakeholders provided
several suggestions for modifying these equipment classes. (No. 179,
Recommendation #30 at p. 19)
ASAP and AMCA, supported by the CA IOUs, recommended grouping all
ducted fans into a single equipment class, and all unducted fans in a
single equipment class. (ASAP and AMCA, No. 50 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 49
at p. 2) Flowcare commented that fans should be classified into three
classes: Axial fans, centrifugal fans, and mixed flow fans. (Flowcare,
No. 46 at p. 6)
Ingersoll Rand/Trane commented that centrifugal housed fans with a
forward curved blade design have a distinct utility compared to other
centrifugal housed fans (e.g., backward curved centrifugal housed fans)
and should be in a separate equipment class. Ingersoll Rand/Trane
commented that forward curved centrifugal housed fans are compact, have
a relatively good sound quality, and are most suitable for low-pressure
applications, in which they are relatively efficient. (Ingersoll Rand/
Trane, No. 153 at p. 5) AHRI provided similar comments. AHRI stated
that forward curved centrifugal housed fans require a separate
equipment class for the following reasons: (1) Their compact sizes
compared to backward curved fans providing the same airflow and
pressure; (2) their specific applications in low pressure and speed
ranges, providing good sound quality; and (3) the European Regulation
327/2011
[[Page 75747]]
considers them separately. (AHRI, No. 129-2 at pp. 1-6)
DOE did not group all fans into only ducted and unducted equipment
classes because fans have other unique features that provide different
utilities to the customer and, as a result, justify additional
equipment classes. However, DOE recognizes that ducted and unducted
fans perform differently. For this NODA, the FEPstd at each
EL is calculated differently for ducted and unducted fans to account
for these performance differences. (See section III.A for more details)
For this same reason, DOE also did not establish equipment classes
based solely on airflow.
With respect to establishing a separate equipment class for forward
curved centrifugal housed fans, DOE analyzed a sample of fan selections
\12\ and found forward curved centrifugal housed fans that meet every
efficiency level being analyzed. In addition, for small diameter fans,
DOE also found an example of a forward curved fan with a small impeller
diameter (i.e., less than 6.5 inches) that met all efficiency levels up
to EL 5, showing that it is technologically feasible for small forward
curved fans to reach high efficiency levels.\13\ DOE notes that there
may be many more forward curved fans with small impeller diameters at
high efficiency levels in the market than its database shows. DOE
recognizes that maintaining the utility of small forward curved fans
across all operating points is important and requires preserving
forward curved fan availability or acceptable non-forward curved fan
replacements across sizes and operating points. Based on analysis of
the data available, DOE believes small forward curved fans or
acceptable non-forward curved replacements would be available up to EL
5 across all current sizes and operating points. DOE therefore believes
that more-efficient forward curved centrifugal housed fans could
replace inefficient forward curved centrifugal housed fans up to EL 5.
In addition, to consider the possibility that an original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) might opt to replace a forward curved centrifugal
housed fan incorporated in a larger piece of heating, ventilation, air-
conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) equipment with a backward
curved centrifugal housed fan, DOE included the costs of redesigning
the HVACR equipment to accommodate a different fan in the standards
case fan price calculation. (See section III.F.1 for more details)
Therefore, DOE does not believe that forward curved centrifugal housed
fans merit a separate equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See description of the fan selection sample in the life
cycle analysis section III.F.1.
\13\ See engineering analysis discussion in section III.E for
details about the considered efficiency levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the application range, DOE agrees with AHRI and Ingersoll
Rand/Trane that forward curved centrifugal housed fans are most
typically used in low pressure (less than 5.0 in.wg.), low speed
applications (between 800 and 1200 rpm). DOE accounted for the
specificity of the application range in the metric, which allows
calculating the FEPSTD of a fan based on a fan efficiency
equation that provides lower values at decreased pressure and airflow
(see Eq. 2). In other words, the required FEP at a given efficiency
level decreases with pressure and airflow in order to account for the
fact that fans operating in these ranges are inherently less efficient.
Finally, DOE notes that the latest revision of the European
Regulation 327/2011 \14\ is considering grouping forward curved
centrifugal housed fans with backward curved centrifugal housed fans
for fans with an electrical input power greater than 5 kW (equivalent
to approximately 6.7 hp). At a given diameter, the European study
states that forward curved fans typically output more flow compared to
backward bladed fans, which allows them to run relatively slower. This
effect is more apparent for smaller diameters and becomes less
significant as fan diameter increases. The EU therefore concluded that
forward and backward curved centrifugal housed fans of larger sizes
(greater than 5 kW of fan electrical input power) could be treated in
the same product category with the same minimum efficiencies. For
capacities less than 5 kW, the latest revision of the European
regulation is considering maintaining forward curved centrifugal housed
fans as a separate equipment class. DOE's fan selection analysis found
forward curved centrifugal housed fans with electrical input power
below 5kW that were compliant up to EL 6. Therefore, DOE believes such
distinction is not necessary when using the FEP metric. In addition, as
previously noted, DOE accounted for the costs of potentially
incorporating a larger fan in a larger piece of equipment as part of
the OEM equipment conversion costs. Therefore, DOE is not considering
applying the distinction made in the European regulation 327/2011 and
retains forward curved centrifugal housed fans in the same equipment
class as other centrifugal housed fans for this NODA analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Ecodesign Fan Review, Review Study of Commission Regulation
(EU) No 327/2011, Final Report prepared by Van Holsteijn en Kemna
B.V. for the European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy.
Available at https://www.fanreview.eu/documents.htm (last accessed
02/02/2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI and Bade commented that regulating return fans and exhaust
fans requires special consideration because they typically operate at
similar flows but lower static pressures compared to supply fans, which
inherently affects the fan operating efficiency. (AHRI, No. 158 at pp.
5-6; Bade, No 116 at p. 1) Similarly, Ingersoll Rand/Trane commented
that using efficient fans in variable-air-volume applications might
decrease the capability of the fans to achieve an airflow reduction at
lower system requirements, which may increase a building's energy
consumption by pushing consumers to constant volume systems or
requiring different systems. (Ingersoll Rand/Trane, No. 153 at p. 3)
DOE agrees with AHRI and Ingersoll Rand/Trane that fans operating at
lower pressures will have a lower efficiency compared to fans of
equivalent design operating at higher pressures. To account for this
effect and preserve the utility of low-pressure fans, DOE is
considering a metric that is a function of the operating pressure,
where the required FEP at a given efficiency level is less stringent at
lower operating pressures. Consequently, a return or exhaust fan
operating at a lower pressure than a supply fan at a given flow would
have a lower required FEP at a given efficiency level, which mitigates
the disproportionate impacts suggested by AHRI and Ingersoll Rand/
Trane.
Based on these comments, DOE maintained the equipment classes used
in the May 2015 NODA and presented in Table III-3.
DOE seeks comments on the equipment classes used in this notice,
including information on specific sizes or operating points for which
forward curved fans would no longer be available at efficiency levels
up to EL 5 and whether, at those sizes or operating points, an
acceptable non-forward curved fan is available.
D. Compliance Year
For this analysis, DOE assumed a compliance date of five years
after publication of a final energy conservation standards rule. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(2)) The Working Group did not make
any recommendation on the compliance year, and DOE believes that five
years would allow fan manufacturers sufficient time to redesign their
existing equipment, as necessary, to meet new energy conservation
standards. DOE anticipates the final rule to publish in
[[Page 75748]]
2017, resulting in a compliance date for the standards of 2022.
Stakeholders provided several suggestions for the compliance date.
ebm-papst commented that a three-year compliance period would
represent sufficient time. (ebm-papst, No. 45 at p. 2) Morrison
commented that even five years may not be enough. (Morrison, No. 51 at
p. 9)
Ingersoll Rand/Trane and AHRI commented that, in order to allow
OEMs to redesign their existing equipment to use fans of different
types or sizes, the compliance date for fans that are components of
larger piece of equipment should be delayed. For such fans, Ingersoll
Rand/Trane recommended an additional two years and AHRI recommended an
additional five years after the compliance date for standalone fans.
(Ingersoll Rand/Trane, No. 153 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 158 at p. 9)
In the December 2014 NODA, DOE requested comments on the redesign
time per fan model. United Technologies/Carrier stated three years
would be too short in terms of compliance period and that it could take
18 to 24 months per fan for an OEM to complete a redesign for an
embedded fan and the equipment incorporating the fan. (United
Technologies/Carrier, No. 43 at p. 2)
DOE believes that manufacturers will be able to offer fans that are
compliant with any energy conservation standards DOE may set before 5
years after publication of a final rule. Many fans are compliant with
the highest efficiency levels for at least part of their operating
range. Consequently, for many fans, any standard may only require
certifying a different operating range rather than redesigning the fan.
DOE's analysis estimates that at the most stringent EL (EL 6), 70
percent of current fan selections \15\ would not meet the standard but
that more than half of these could be replaced by existing compliant
substitutes. This means that even at the highest EL, only 33 percent of
all fan selections would require a redesigned fan. Therefore, DOE
believes that a five-year compliance period is sufficient for fan
manufacturers, including OEMs to either redesign their fans and
equipment or select compliant, alternative fans. For the analyses in
this NODA, DOE assumed a compliance date of five years after the
publication of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Based on 2012 data, see section III.G for more details. A
fan selection is the combination of a fan model and design point at
which it is purchased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comments on the use a compliance date of five years after
the publication of the final rule.
E. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the
manufacturer production cost (MPC) and efficiency levels of fans. This
relationship serves as the basis for calculations performed in the
other analysis tools to estimate the costs and benefits to individual
consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation.
DOE used the same methodology in the engineering analysis of this
NODA as for the December 2014 NODA and the May 2015 NODA. For each fan
equipment class, DOE identified existing technology options that could
affect efficiency. Next, DOE conducted a screening analysis to review
each technology option and decide whether it: (1) Is technologically
feasible; (2) is 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 categorized the fan equipment
classes into subcategories by the technology options the fans use. DOE
then conducted a market-based assessment of the prevalence of each
subcategory at each efficiency level analyzed. DOE estimated market
prevalence using the sales data provided by AMCA that was within the
scope of the analysis and for which there was sufficient information.
This NODA, like the May 2015 NODA has fewer subgroups than the December
2014 NODA due to limitations in the sales data provided by AMCA.
For this NODA, DOE augmented the AMCA sales data used in the May
2015 NODA to account for embedded fans made by companies that
incorporate those fans for sale in their own equipment (see section
III.G) and to represent additional sales of forward curved fans, which
AMCA stated were underrepresented in the original data AMCA provided.
(AMCA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 85 at p. 91) The resulting
engineering database was analyzed at six efficiency levels (ELs)
representing different target efficiencies ([eta]target[hairsp], see
section III.A). In this NODA, efficiency levels were set separately for
ducted and unducted fans, based on the recommendation of the working
group. (No. 179, Recommendation #18 at pp. 10-11) For ducted fans, the
six efficiency levels are calculated using the same six total
efficiency targets used in the May 2015 NODA. At each of the analyzed
efficiency levels in this NODA, the static efficiency targets used for
unducted fans are 0.04 less than the total efficiency target at each
respective level. The exact target efficiencies used in this NODA are
presented in Table 3 of the ``MPC Approach'' tab of the engineering
analysis and conversion cost spreadsheet.
DOE calculated MPCs at each efficiency level using the same
methodology as used in the December 2014 NODA and the May 2015 NODA.
The MPCs were derived from product teardowns and publically available
product literature and were informed by interviews with manufacturers.
DOE calculated the MPCs for fans in each subcategory. DOE used these
MPCs to characterize the relationship between MPC and blade or impeller
diameter for each subcategory. DOE found that all fan subcategories
were represented at all ELs, so DOE did not use subcategory MPC
differences to directly represent higher efficiency. DOE found some
subcategories to be more prevalent at higher ELs. Therefore, DOE
calculated MPCs for each fan equipment class at each efficiency level
analyzed by weighting the MPCs of each subcategory within a class 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 equipment classes,
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 III.F and presented in the LCC spreadsheet.
The main outputs of the fans engineering analysis are the MPCs of
each fan equipment class (including material, labor, and overhead) and
technology option distributions at each efficiency level analyzed.
F. 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
[[Page 75749]]
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. Using a proprietary cost model and feedback received from
manufacturers during interviews, DOE first estimated the average
industry capital and product conversion costs associated with
redesigning a single size of a fan series to meet a specific efficiency
level. DOE estimated the costs for all subcategories within each fan
equipment class. DOE multiplied these per model conversion costs by the
number of models that would be required to be redesigned at each
efficiency level to arrive at the total industry conversion costs. The
number of models that would be redesigned was calculated using
information from the engineering database developed from the AMCA sales
database (see section III.E). Additional information on the number of
models redesigned is available in the engineering analysis and
conversion cost spreadsheet, ``Total Fan Conversion Costs'' section of
the ``Database Overview and Use'' tab.
The GRIM uses these estimated values in conjunction with inputs
from other analyses, including the MPCs from the engineering analysis,
the annual shipments by fan equipment class from the NIA, and the fan
manufacturer markups for the cost recovery markup scenario from the LCC
analysis to model industry annual cash flows from the reference 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. 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
no-standards case (absent new energy conservation standards) and the
INPV in the standards cases (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 fans.
In addition to INPV, the MIA also calculates the manufacturer
markups, which are applied to the MPCs derived in the engineering
analysis, to arrive at the manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) in the
no-standards case. In the standards cases manufacturers will incur
costs from the redesign of models that do not meet the required FEP at
a given efficiency levels. DOE modeled two markup scenarios for the
standards cases, a preservation of gross margin markup scenario and a
conversion cost pass through markup scenario.
In the preservation of gross margin markup scenario, DOE assumes
that manufacturers maintain the same manufacturer markup, as a
percentage, in the standards cases as they do in the no-standards case,
despite higher levels of investment in the standards cases. This markup
scenario represents the lower bound, or worst-case scenario for
manufacturers, since manufacturers are not able to pass the conversion
costs associated with complying with higher efficiency levels on to
their customers. In the fan conversion cost recovery markup scenario,
DOE assumes that manufacturers are able to pass on to their customers
the fan conversion costs they incur to meet higher efficiency levels.
In this markup scenario, manufacturer markups are based on the total
manufacturer fan conversion costs and calculated to allow manufacturers
to recover their upfront fan conversion costs, in addition to their
normal no-standards case markup. DOE calculated the conversion cost
pass through markups for each efficiency level by amortizing the
conversion costs over the units shipped throughout the analysis period
that were redesigned to meet the efficiency level being analyzed. This
fan conversion cost pass through markup scenario represents the upper
bound, or best-case scenario for manufacturers, since manufacturers are
able to pass on to their customers the fan conversion costs associated
with complying with higher efficiency levels. For the standards cases,
all other downstream analyses use the fan manufacturer markups
calculated in the fan conversion costs pass through markup scenario.
DOE requests information on the per-model (size of a fan series)
redesign costs presented in the engineering analysis and conversion
cost spreadsheet.
DOE requests information on the number of models (sizes of a fan
series) that are currently in the scope of the rulemaking nationally.
DOE requests feedback on the quantity of redesigns, methodology,
and results used to calculate the total industry conversion costs by
equipment class and EL, as presented in the engineering analysis and
conversion cost spreadsheet.
DOE requests information on the extent to which product conversion
costs and/or capital conversion costs are shared among sizes in a fan
series.
DOE requests information on the extent to which product conversion
costs and/or capital conversion costs are shared between belt and
direct drive fans with the same aerodynamic design.
DOE requests information on the extent to which product conversion
costs and/or capital conversion costs are shared between fans of
different construction classes of the same aerodynamic design.
1. Impacts on OEMs
Several stakeholders commented that the previous DOE analyses did
not take into account the significant costs incurred by manufacturers
who incorporate fans into their equipment. Ingersoll Rand/Trane, United
Technologies/Carrier, Morrison, AHRI, and Greenheck commented that
separate costs to redesign the units in which fans are installed would
be incurred due to this regulation. (Ingersoll Rand/Trane, No. 42 at p.
4; United Technologies/Carrier, No. 43 at p. 4; Morrison, No. 51 at p.
5; AHRI, No. 53 at p. 6; Greenheck, No. 54-A at pp. 4-5) AHRI added
that the cost to redesign the units in which fans are installed can be
several times greater in terms of both time and money than the cost to
redesign the fan itself. (AHRI, No. 53 at p. 7) Morrison and Ingersoll
Rand/Trane commented that fans in commercial and industrial building
applications are typically housed within other equipment such as air
handlers or unitary rooftop units that are sized specifically around
the fan. (Morrison, No. 51 at p. 5; Ingersoll Rand/Trane, No. 42 at p.
11) AHRI commented that any change to fan size, operating range, or fan
type will increase the OEM production cost, and urged DOE to consider
the production cost impact to OEMs as part of the rulemaking. (AHRI,
No. 53 at p. 6) Ingersoll Rand/Trane added that this increased cost
would affect building
[[Page 75750]]
owners and could decrease adoption rate by consumers. (Ingersoll Rand/
Trane, No. 42 at p. 11).
AHRI also commented that in order to pass a regulation imposing
additional costs (testing, implementation, time-frame, spare part
availability, re-certification) on OEMs, DOE must consider the costs to
these manufacturers and compare them to the potential energy saved, and
in order to do so must conduct manufacturer interviews with OEMs. AHRI
requested that DOE conduct such interviews and delineate DOE-covered
equipment made by OEMs as a separate fan equipment class to assess the
costs and relative benefits of a second layer of regulation on
currently regulated HVACR equipment and publish a new NODA specifically
addressing the impact on OEMs who were excluded from DOE's initial
analysis. (AHRI, No. 158 at p. 3).
After careful consideration of these comments and the Working Group
discussions, DOE recognizes that its previous analyses did not
accurately account for the cost impacts of a fans regulation on all
impacted manufacturers. DOE revised its analysis for this NODA to
better account for cost impacts on fan manufacturers, especially OEMs.
DOE understands that some OEMs manufacture their own fans that they
then incorporate in the equipment that they manufacture for sale. As
discussed in section III.B, DOE augmented the database it used for this
NODA by incorporating fans made by companies that then incorporate
those fans for sale in their own equipment (see section III.G). The
presence of these fans in the database DOE used for this NODA ensures
that its analysis accounts for the impacts on MPC (see section III.E)
and conversion costs (see previous discussion in this section) for OEMs
that manufacture fans and incorporate them in the equipment that they
manufacture for sale. DOE also understands that OEMs that incorporate
fans may incur additional conversion costs for their equipment not
directly associated with improving the efficiency of the fan. For this
NODA, DOE estimated OEM equipment conversion costs and included them in
its analysis. DOE conducted interviews with manufacturers of equipment
with embedded fans. DOE used information gathered during these
interviews in conjunction with its engineering database to estimate OEM
equipment conversion costs at each EL. In each fan equipment class, fan
models in the engineering database that were representing fans sold by
OEMs (whether or not the OEM made the fan) and that needed to be
redesigned or reselected were determined to incur OEM equipment
conversion costs. The aggregated industry OEM equipment conversion
costs are presented in the engineering analysis and conversion cost
spreadsheet.
DOE applied OEM equipment conversion costs to all embedded fans in
its analysis. For OEMs that manufacture the fans that they incorporate
in the equipment they manufacture for sale, DOE added the OEM equipment
conversion costs to the fan conversion costs to develop total
conversion cost recovery markups at each EL, for each fan equipment
class, using the cost recovery markup methodology described in section
III.F. For OEMs that incorporate fans that they do not manufacture
themselves, the OEM equipment conversion cost is used to develop a cost
recovery markup that is applied downstream of the fan conversion cost
recovery markup. DOE then used the results as an input to the LCC
analysis. Consequently, the cost to consumers of embedded fans, and, in
turn, the cost-justification for the analyzed efficiency levels,
accounts for both fan and OEM equipment conversion costs in this NODA.
DOE believes the revisions made for this NODA analysis--augmenting
DOE's database to more completely incorporate embedded fans and
including OEM equipment conversion costs--better account for the costs
and benefits associated with potential energy conservation standards
for fans incorporated in larger pieces of equipment and address the
concerns of Ingersoll Rand/Trane, United Technologies/Carrier,
Morrison, AHRI, and Greenheck.
DOE did not analyze a separate equipment class for embedded fans.
DOE believes the revisions to its analysis described previously in this
section appropriately account for the costs and benefits associated
with embedded fans. However, the LCC spreadsheet published as part of
this NODA provides the option to view results by subgroup for embedded
fans and standalone fans separately.
DOE requests information on the portion of equipment with embedded
fans that would require heat testing for certification with any new
energy conservation standards. DOE also requests feedback on the number
of embedded fans that would require redesign as presented in the
engineering analysis and conversion costs spreadsheet.
G. 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 total cost of purchasing, installing, and operating a commercial or
industrial fan over the course of its lifetime.
DOE determines the LCC by considering: (1) The total installed cost
to the consumer (which consists of manufacturer selling price, the
conversion costs, distribution channel markups, and sales taxes); (2)
the range of fan annual energy consumption as they are used in the
field; (3) the fan operating costs; (4) fan 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
fans through savings in the operating cost. The 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 considered standards case corresponding to each efficiency
level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the no-standards
case. The no-standards case is characterized by the distribution of fan
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, fans with efficiency below the
standard levels ``roll-up'' to the standard level in the compliance
year.
To characterize annual fan operating hours, DOE established
statistical distributions of consumers of each fan equipment class
across sectors and applications, which in turn determined the fan
operating hours. Recognizing that several inputs to the determination
of consumer LCC and PBP are either variable or uncertain (e.g., annual
operating hours, 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.
In addition to characterizing several of the inputs to the analyses
with probability distributions, DOE developed a sample of individual
fan selections representative of the market.\16\ By developing this
sample, DOE was able to perform the LCC and
[[Page 75751]]
PBP calculations for each fan selection to account for the variability
in energy consumption associated with each selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A fan selection is a fan model and the fan shaft input
power, operating flow, and pressure values for which it was
purchased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 no-standards case; and (4) the
percentage of consumers that experience a net benefit, have no impact,
or have a net cost for each fan equipment class and efficiency level.
The average annual energy consumption derived in the LCC analysis is
used as an input in the NIA (see section III.H).
In the December 2014 NODA and the May 2015 NODA, DOE developed a
sample of individual fan selections (i.e., representative database of
fan models including data on the design flow, pressure, and fan shaft
input power for which they were purchased, and the drive configuration)
using fan sales data provided by AMCA. During the negotiations, AMCA
commented that these sales data included some standalone fans purchased
by OEMs for incorporation into larger HVACR equipment but was not
representative of sales of embedded fans. Specifically, AMCA commented
that forward curved centrifugal housed fans, which are very common in
HVACR equipment, were under-represented. (AMCA, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 85 at p. 91).
In this NODA, DOE collected additional technical and market
information specific to embedded fans and revised the LCC sample to
represent both the embedded fan and standalone fan markets. For each
fan equipment class, DOE used confidential AMCA sales data for over
57,000 fan selections (with complete performance data), representing
over 92,000 units sold, to develop a sample representative of fans sold
on the US market. Each row in the sample represents a fan selection.
The number of rows was adjusted to match the US market distributions
across fan equipment classes, subcategory, fan shaft input power, and
drive configuration. DOE adjusted the number of standalone fans in the
LCC sample to mirror the actual standalone fan market distributions
based on confidential market estimates from AMCA for the U.S standalone
fan market. For embedded fans, DOE adjusted the number of fan
selections in the LCC sample to reflect the actual embedded fan market
distributions based on embedded fan shipments data.\17\ As a result,
and in line with AMCA's comment, the share of forward curved
centrifugal housed fans in the sample increased from 3 percent to 19
percent. Using this sample, DOE was able to perform individual energy
use calculations for each row in the sample and account for the
variability in energy consumption associated with each fan selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See description of the LCC sample in the LCC Spreadsheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``2012 Shipments'' worksheet of the NIA spreadsheet presents
the standalone fan market and embedded fan market data used to
calibrate the LCC sample. The worksheet includes breakdowns by
equipment class, subcategory, as well as the HVACR equipment shipments
and estimated number of fans per unit used by DOE to calculate the
number of embedded fans. The LCC sample description worksheet in the
LCC spreadsheet provides more detailed breakdown of the fan selections
by power bins and efficiency levels.
DOE seeks feedback and input on the 2012 standalone fan and
embedded fan shipments values, by equipment class and subcategory.
Specifically, DOE requests feedback on: (1) The estimated number of
fans per HVACR equipment; (2) the distribution of HVACR fans across fan
subcategories by fan application; and (3) the share of standalone fans
purchased and incorporated in HVACR equipment.
DOE seeks feedback and input on the distribution of fan selections
by power bin and subcategory for standalone fans and embedded fans as
presented in the ``LCC sample Description'' worksheet of the LCC
spreadsheet.
In the December 2014 NODA and the May 2015 NODA, DOE calculated the
FEP of a fan selection in the LCC sample using the default values and
calculation algorithms for bare shaft fans. DOE applied this approach
because the fan selection data included performance data for fans in
bare shaft configurations. In this NODA, in order to establish the FEP
of a fan considered in the analysis, DOE retained this approach and
used the default values and calculation algorithms for bare shaft fans
as recommended by the Working Group. The engineering analysis and
conversion cost spreadsheet presents the detailed equations and default
values used to calculate the FEP of a given fan model in a bare shaft
configuration. In addition, based on the Working Group recommendation,
the spreadsheet includes default values and calculation algorithms for
other fan configurations such as fans with dynamic continuous controls.
(No. 179, Recommendation #12-16 at pp. 7-9)
After the publication of the December 2014 NODA, Morrison and AHRI
commented that the operating hours seemed high but did not provide
quantified estimates. (Morrison, No. 51 at p. 8; AHRI, No. 53 at p. 13)
In the December 2014 and May 2015 NODAs, DOE used industrial plant
assessment and Energy Plus building simulation data to estimate fan
operating hours, which averaged around 6,500 hours per year.\18\ In
this NODA, DOE retained the same assumption for the operating hours of
standalone fans and developed specific operating hours for embedded
fans based on HVAC fan operating hours data which averaged 2,725 hours
per year.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Database of motor nameplate and field measurement data
compiled by the Washington State University Extension Energy Program
(WSU) and Applied Proactive Technologies (APT) under contract with
the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) (2011); Strategic Energy Group (Jan. 2008), Northwest
Industrial Motor Database Summary from Regional Technical Forum.
Retrieved March 5, 2013 from https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/osumotor/Default.htm; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EnergyPlus
Energy Simulation Software (Aug. 2014). Available at https://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus.
\19\ Arthur D. Little, Inc. ``Opportunities for Energy Savings
in the Residential and Commercial Sectors with High-Efficiency
Electric Motors (Final Report),'' (Dec. 1999); U.S. Department of
Energy-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy
Conservation Standards for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled
Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment. Final
Rule Technical Support Document, Chapter 4 Energy Use
Characterization (2012). Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029-0039; 1 U.S. Department of Energy-
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy
Conservation Standards for Small, Large, and Very Large Commercial
Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment. NOPR Technical
Support Document, Chapter 7 Energy Use Analysis (2014). Available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks feedback and inputs on fan operating hours.
In the December 2014 NODA and the May 2015 NODA, DOE assumed that
all fans operated at full design flow and pressure when performing the
energy use calculation. AHRI noted that most fans in HVAC equipment do
not run at full design speed but at 60 percent of full speed
(equivalent to running at 60 percent of design flow). (AHRI, No. 129-1
at p. 2) AHRI additionally provided input on the typical fan load
profiles in VAV systems. (AHRI, No. 53 at p. 13) ACME commented that,
50 percent of the time, the actual operating point of a fan is not
equal to the design point selection of the fan and has a higher
pressure value. ACME added that in some situations, the design point of
the fan is not known and the actual operating point of a fan may fall
in a region of operation where the fan has a
[[Page 75752]]
poor efficiency. ACME estimated that this could happen at least 30
percent of the time. In addition, ACME commented that the energy use
analysis should account for fans operating in variable air volume (VAV)
systems, for which the actual fan operating point is different than the
design point. ACME believes that accounting for these situations would
reduce the energy savings as calculated in the May 2015 NODA. (ACME,
No. 149 at pp. 1-2) For industrial fans, AcoustiFLO stated that most
fans operate at their design point. (AcoustiFLO, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 85 at p. 193)
Based on these comments and stakeholder feedback received during
negotiations DOE revised its December 2014 and May 2015 NODA analyses
to account for part load operation. For the commercial sector, DOE
assumed that 80 percent of the fans operated at an airflow that
differed from the design flow at least some of the time. DOE based the
80 percent value on results from the EnergyPlus building energy use
simulation software \20\ that indicated that 80 percent of fans in the
commercial sector operate along a variable load profile. To reflect
this, DOE developed variable load profiles for 80 percent of the
commercial fans based on the information provided by AHRI and the
EnergyPlus building energy use simulation. In the case of the
industrial sector, in line with the inputs from the stakeholders, DOE
assumed about a third of the fans operated outside of the design flow
(30 percent). The load profiles are presented in the ``Sectors and
Applications'' worksheet of the LCC spreadsheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The EnergyPlus building energy use simulation software is
available at https://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks feedback and inputs on the fan load profiles used in the
energy use calculation and on the percentage of fans used in variable
load applications.
In the December 2014 NODA and the May 2015 NODA, DOE estimated the
average fan lifetime for standalone fans to be 30 years. AHRI commented
that the lifetimes seemed high but did not provide quantified
estimates. Morrison commented that the lifetimes seemed high and that
fans used in HVAC typically have 12-15 year lifetimes. (AHRI, No. 53 at
p. 5, Morrison, No. 51 at p. 8) In this NODA, DOE revised the fan
lifetimes to account for the fact that fans in HVACR application may
have shorter lifetimes. In line with Morrison's comment, DOE used an
average embedded fan lifetime of 17 years based on estimates of HVACR
equipment lifetimes, but maintained an average lifetime of 30 years for
other fans.\21\ The LCC spreadsheet includes more details on the fan
lifetime estimates and includes a sensitivity scenario that provides
results for an average embedded fan lifetime of 15 years.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Roth, Kurt, Detlef Westphalen, John Dieckmann, Sephir
Hamilton, and William Goetzler. ``Energy Consumption Characteristics
of Commercial Building HVAC Systems Volume III: Energy Savings
Potential.'' National Technical Information Service (NTIS): U.S.
Department of Commerce (July 2002). Available at https://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/commercial_initiative/hvac_volume3_final_report.pdf.
U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards for Small, Large, and Very
Large Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment.
Life-Cycle Cost Spreadsheet (NOPR) (2014). Available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007.
\22\ The sensitivity scenario used a mechanical lifetime of
45,000 hours based on typical annual operating hours of 3000 hours
and a lifetime in years of 15. The lifetimes calculates in the LCC
may lead to different lifetimes in years due to the variability in
applications and associated annual operating hours (i.e., fans
operating fewer annual hours may have a longer lifetime).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks feedback and inputs on fan lifetimes.
H. 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 no-standards 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 all fans shipped during a 30-year
analysis period assumed to start in 2022. 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 and
efficiency distributions (for each EL) for each potential fan equipment
class. 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 fan
lifetime used in the LCC analysis, fan price, average annual energy
consumption, and efficiency distributions from the LCC.
IV. 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 requests feedback on the calculation of the
FEPSTD and FEI.
2. DOE seeks comments on the equipment classes used in this notice.
3. DOE seeks information on whether there are specific sizes or
operating points where forward curved fans would no longer be available
at efficiency levels up to EL 5.
4. DOE seeks comments on the use a compliance date of five years
after the publication of the final rule.
5. DOE requests information on the per-model (i.e., a single size
fan within a fan series) redesign costs presented in the engineering
analysis and conversion cost spreadsheet.
6. DOE requests information on the number of models that are
currently in the scope of the rulemaking nationally.
7. DOE requests feedback on the quantity of redesigns, methodology,
and results used to calculate the total industry conversion costs by
equipment class and EL, as presented in the engineering analysis and
conversion cost spreadsheet.
8. DOE requests information on the extent to which product
conversion costs and/or capital conversion costs are shared among sizes
in a fan series.
9. DOE requests information on the extent to which product
conversion costs and/or capital conversion costs are shared between
belt and direct drive fans with the same aerodynamic design.
10. DOE requests information on the extent to which product
conversion costs and/or capital conversion costs are shared between
fans of different construction classes of the same aerodynamic design.
11. DOE requests information on the portion of equipment with
embedded fans that would require heat testing for certification with
any new energy conservation standards.
12. DOE requests feedback on the number of embedded fans that would
require redesign presented in the engineering analysis and conversion
costs spreadsheet.
13. DOE seeks feedback and input on the 2012 standalone fan and
embedded fan shipments values, by equipment class and subcategory.
Specifically, DOE
[[Page 75753]]
requests feedback on: (1) The estimated number of fans per HVACR
equipment; (2) the distribution of HVACR fans across fan subcategory by
fan application; and (3) the share of standalone fans purchased and
incorporated in HVACR equipment.
14. DOE seeks feedback and input on the distribution of fan
selections by power bin and subcategory for standalone fans and
embedded fans as presented in the ``LCC sample Description'' worksheet
of the LCC spreadsheet.
15. DOE seeks feedback and inputs on the fan operating hours.
16. DOE seeks feedback and inputs on the fan load profiles used in
the energy use calculation and on the percentage of fans used in
variable load applications.
17. DOE seeks feedback and inputs on the fan lifetimes.
The purpose of this NODA is to notify industry, manufacturers,
consumer groups, efficiency advocates, government agencies, and other
stakeholders of the publication of an analysis of potential energy
conservation standards for commercial and industrial fans and blowers.
Stakeholders should contact DOE for any additional information
pertaining to the analyses performed for this NODA.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 19, 2016.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2016-26341 Filed 10-31-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
