Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Fans and Blowers, 62038-62065 [2022-22141]

Download as PDF 62038 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 87, No. 197 Thursday, October 13, 2022 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 [EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002] RIN 1904–AF40 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Fans and Blowers Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notification of data availability (‘‘NODA’’). AGENCY: On February 8, 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) published a request for information regarding energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. In this NODA, DOE is publishing preliminary inputs and methodology for its technology, screening, engineering, shipments, markups, life cycle cost, and energy use analysis for air circulating fans. Air circulating fans are a subcategory of fans; however, air circulating fans were not included in the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory (‘‘ASRAC’’) negotiations undertaken in 2015 (see Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006). The purpose of this NODA is to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to review and provide comment on DOE’s preliminary technical and economic evaluation of air circulating fans, prior to DOE’s publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking for all fans and blowers. The analysis presented in this NODA is consistent with the air circulating fans scope and definitions that DOE proposed in the July 25, 2022, test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) for fans and blowers (‘‘July 2022 TP NOPR’’). DOE requests comments, data, and information regarding its analysis. DATES: Written comments and information will be accepted on or before November 28, 2022. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket number EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0002, by any of the following methods: Email: FansAndBlowers 2022STD0002@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number EERE–2022–BT–STD– 0002 in the subject line of the message. 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. Telephone: (202) 287–1445. 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) 287–1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section IV of this document. Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal Register notices, comments, public meeting transcripts, 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, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available. The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0002. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments in the docket. See section III.A of this document for information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov. Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 9870. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (240) 597– 6265. Email: matthew.schneider@ hq.doe.gov. For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 1445 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Authority B. Deviation From Appendix A C. Background II. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE A. Scope B. Technology Options C. Screening Analysis D. Engineering Analysis 1. Methodology a. Metric b. Air Circulating Fan Performance Data 2. Equipment Classes and Representative Sizes a. Equipment Classes b. Representative Sizes 3. Efficiency Model a. BESS Combined Database b. Baseline Fan Efficiencies c. Improving Efficiency With More Efficient Motors d. Improving Efficiency Through Aerodynamic Redesign e. Results for a 24-Inch, 0.5 hp Representative Unit 4. Cost Model a. Cost Model Structure and Process b. Cost Model Assumptions c. Determination of Air Circulating Fan MPC 5. Manufacturer Selling Price E. Markups Analysis F. Energy Use Analysis 1. Fans With Input Power Less Than 125 W a. Sample of Consumers b. Operating Hours 2. Fans With Input Power Greater Than or Equal to 125 W a. Sample of Consumers E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules b. Operating Hours G. Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses 1. Equipment Price 2. Installation, Repair and Maintenance Costs 3. Energy Prices 4. Lifetime 5. Discount Rates 6. Efficiency Distribution in the No-New Standards Case H. National Impact Analysis 1. Base Year Shipments 2. Shipments Projections 3. Equipment Efficiency Trends III. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary Introduction khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS A. Authority The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA),1 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–6317) Title III, Part C 1 of EPCA, added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317 as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. EPCA specifies a list of equipment that constitutes covered equipment (hereafter referred to as ‘‘covered equipment’’).2 EPCA also provides that ‘‘covered equipment’’ includes any other type of industrial equipment for which the Secretary of Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) determines inclusion is necessary to carry out the purpose of Part A–1. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(L), 6312(b)) EPCA specifies the types of industrial equipment that can be classified as covered in addition to the equipment enumerated in 42 U.S.C. 6311(1) This industrial equipment includes fans and blowers. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(ii) and (iii)) Additionally, industrial equipment must be of a type that consumes, or is designed to consume, energy in operation; is distributed in commerce 1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1 and hereafter referred to as Part A–1. 2 ‘‘Covered equipment’’ means one of the following types of industrial equipment: Electric motors and pumps; small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment; large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment; very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment; commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers; automatic commercial ice makers; walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers; commercial clothes washers; packaged terminal air-conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps; warm air furnaces and packaged boilers; and storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)–(K)) VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 for industrial or commercial use4; and is not a covered product as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2) other than a component of a covered product with respect to which there is in effect a determination under 42 U.S.C. 6312(c). (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(A)) On August 19, 2021, DOE published a final determination that the inclusion of fans and blowers as covered equipment was necessary to carry out the purpose of Part A–1 and classified fans and blowers as covered equipment. 86 FR 46579, 46588. Air circulating fans are a class of fans and blowers. The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 6316, 42 U.S.C. 6296) Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede state laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of federal preemption for particular state laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D)) In proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate a proposal against the criteria detailed in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), discussed further in section I.C of this document, and follow the rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) DOE is publishing this NODA to collect data and information to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA. B. Deviation From Appendix A In accordance with Section 3(a) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430, DOE notes that it is deviating from that appendix’s provision requiring a 75-day comment period for all preNOPR standards documents. (Section 6(d)(2) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430) DOE is instead providing a 45-day comment period which DOE believes is appropriate given the substantial stakeholder engagement to date, as discussed in section I.C of this document. The request for information on air circulating fans published on February 8, 2022, provided early notice PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 62039 to interested parties that the Department was interested in evaluating potential energy savings for this equipment. 87 FR 7048. Further, a 45-day comment period will allow DOE to review comments received in response to this NODA and use it to inform the analysis of equipment considered in evaluating potential energy conservation standards. C. Background On June 28, 2011, DOE published a notice of proposed coverage determination proposing that fans, blowers, and fume hoods would qualify as covered equipment under EPCA. 76 FR 37678. DOE noted that there were no statutory definitions for ‘‘fan,’’ ‘‘blower,’’ or ‘‘fume hood,’’ and presented definitions for consideration. 76 FR 37678, 37679. DOE subsequently published a framework document on February 1, 2013, detailing the analytical approach for developing potential energy conservation standards for commercial and industrial fans and blowers should the Secretary classify such equipment as covered equipment (‘‘Framework Document’’). 78 FR 7306. In the Framework Document, DOE determined that it lacked authority to establish energy conservation standards for fume hoods because fume hoods are not listed as a type of equipment for which DOE could establish standards. (Docket EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006, No. 1 at p. 15) DOE acknowledged that the fan, which provides ventilation for the fume hood, consumes the largest portion of energy within the fume hood system, and that DOE planned to cover all commercial and industrial fan types, which included fans used to ventilate fume hoods. Id. On December 10, 2014, DOE published a NODA presenting an analysis estimating the economic impacts and energy savings from potential energy conservation standards for certain fans and blowers. This analysis did not include air circulating fans. 79 FR 73246. On April 1, 2015, DOE published a notice of intent to establish an Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) Working Group for fans (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Working Group’’). 80 FR 17359. The Working Group 3 commenced negotiations at an open meeting on May 3 The Working Group was comprised of representatives from AAON, Inc.; AcoustiFLO LLC; AGS Consulting LLC; Air Movement and Control Association (AMCA); Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP); Berner International Corp; Buffalo Air Handling Company; E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM Continued 13OCP1 62040 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18, 2015 and held 16 meetings and three webinars to discuss scope, metrics, test procedures, and standard levels for fans and blowers.4 The Working Group concluded its negotiations on September 3, 2015, and, by consensus vote,5 approved a term sheet containing 27 recommendations related to scope, test procedure and energy conservation standards (‘‘term sheet’’). (See Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006, No. 179) ASRAC approved the term sheet on September 24, 2015. (Docket No. EERE– 2013–BT–NOC–0005; Public Meeting Transcript, No. 58, at p. 29) The Working Group term sheet recommended the exclusion of air circulating fans. (See Docket No. EERE– 2013–BT–STD–0006, No. 179, Recommendation #2 at p. 2) On November 1, 2016, DOE published a third notification of data availability (‘‘November 2016 NODA’’) that presented a revised analysis for fans and blowers other than air circulating fans, consistent with the scope and metric recommendations of the term sheet. 81 FR 75742. On January 10, 2020, DOE received a petition from the Air Movement and Control Association, International (‘‘AMCA’’), Air Conditioning Contractors of America, and Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors of America requesting that DOE establish a test procedure for certain categories of fans based on an upcoming industry test method, AMCA Standard 214, ‘‘Test Procedure for Calculating Fan Energy Index (FEI) for Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers’’ DOE published a notice of petition for rulemaking and request for public comment (‘‘April 2020 Notice of Petition for Rulemaking’’). 85 FR 22677 (Apr. 23, 2020). AMCA, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, and Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors have since withdrawn their petition (EERE–2011–BT–DET–0045– 00012, at p. 1) In conjunction with this notice of petition for rulemaking, on May 10, 2021, DOE published a request for information requesting comments on a potential fan or blower definition. 86 FR 24752. On August 19, 2021, DOE published in the Federal Register a final coverage determination classifying fans and blowers as covered equipment. 86 FR 46579. On October 1, 2021, DOE published a request for information pertaining to test procedures for fans and blowers (‘‘October 2021 TP RFI’’). 86 FR 54412. As part of the October 2021 TP RFI, DOE discussed the potential scope and definitions for air circulating fans. 86 FR 54412, 54414–54415. DOE is considering including air circulating fans in its analysis of potential energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. As noted previously, air circulating fans were not included in the scope of the term sheet and were not previously analyzed by the Department. DOE published a separate request for information on February 8, 2022, to seek input to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses regarding whether standards for air circulating fans may be warranted (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘ECS RFI’’). 87 FR 7048. DOE received comments in response to the ECS RFI from the interested parties listed in Table I–1. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS TABLE I–1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE ECS RFI Comment No. in the Docket Commenter(s) Reference in this NODA Air Movement and Control Association .................................... Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. California Investor-Owned Utilities ............................................ ebm-papst Inc. .......................................................................... Robert Akscyn ........................................................................... Rube´n Guerra ........................................................................... AMCA ...................................... Joint Commenters ................... 9,10 6 CA IOUs .................................. ebm-papst ............................... Akscyn .................................... Guerra ..................................... 7 8 2 3 Commenter type Trade Association. Efficiency Organizations. Utility. Manufacturer. Individual. Individual. A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.6 Comments received from the two individuals listed in Table I–1 are not discussed further in because they were either not relevant to the RFI or provide procedural recommendations.7 8 Some of the comments received in response to the ECS RFI were related to the fans and blower test procedure. DOE published a proposed test procedure for fans and blowers on July 25, 2022 (‘‘July 2022 TP NOPR’’) in which it addressed the ECS RFI comments related to test procedure issues, including those related to definitions, scope of the test procedure, and metrics. 87 FR 44194. To date, DOE has not proposed energy conservation standards for fans and Carnes Company; Daikin/Goodman; ebm-papst; Greenheck; Morrison Products; Natural Resources Defense Council; Newcomb & Boyd; Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance; CA IOUs; Regal Beloit Corporation; Rheem Manufacturing Company; Smiley Engineering LLC representing Ingersoll Rand/Trane; SPX Cooling Technologies/CTI; The New York Blower Company; Twin City Companies, Ltd; U.S. Department of Energy; and United Technologies/Carrier. 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: www.regulations.gov/ docket?D=EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006. 5 At the beginning of the negotiated rulemaking process, the Working Group defined that before any vote could occur, the Working Group must establish a quorum of at least 20 of the 25 members and defined consensus as an agreement with less than four negative votes. Twenty voting members of the Working Group were present for this vote. Two members (Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute and Ingersoll Rand/Trane) voted no. 6 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. (Docket No. EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0002, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov) The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document). 7 A comment from R. Guerra stated that they own a residential ceiling fan that produces its own energy (Guerra, No. 3 at p. 1). DOE notes that the fans evaluated in this rulemaking exclude both ceiling fans and furnace fans. 8 R. Akscyn recommended that DOE provide a short RFI summary so stakeholders do not have to review such lengthy documents and that DOE consider presenting the variables included in its analyses in terms of dimensional parameters. (Akscyn, No. 2 at pp. 1–3) DOE appreciates these suggestions. With respect to the structure and length of RFIs, DOE notes that it has certain legal obligations which it must fulfill for every document that is published. In most documents, DOE includes summaries and headings to aid stakeholder review. Additionally, DOE notes that the purpose of an RFI is to collect data and information. The purpose of this document is to present DOE’s analyses to support potential energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules blowers, including air circulating fans. This NODA presents DOE’s planned inputs and preliminary analysis to inform the development of potential energy conservation standards for air circulating fans. As previously discussed, DOE previously published and received public comment on three NODAs for fans and blowers, excluding air circulating fans. DOE plans to rely on the existing analysis from the Working Group for fans and blowers other than air circulating fans. This NODA focuses exclusively on air circulating fans and is intended to support DOE as it completes a notice of proposed rulemaking analysis for all fans and blowers, including air circulating fans. While the discussion in this NODA is specific to air circulating fans, DOE welcomes additional comments and data on fans and blowers other than air circulating fans relevant to its analysis of any potential energy conservation standards for all fans and blowers. In addition, DOE may consider conducting a separate rulemaking specific to air circulating fans instead of including air circulating fans as part of the fans and blowers rulemaking. II. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE This NODA focuses exclusively on air circulating fans and is intended to support DOE as it completes the notice of proposed rulemaking analysis for all fans and blowers, including air 62041 circulating fans. This NODA discusses the following for air circulating fans: (1) scope; (2) technology options; (3) engineering analysis; (4) markups analysis; (5) energy use analysis; (6) life cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) and payback period (‘‘PBP’’) analyses; and (7) national impacts analysis. The items listed in Table II–1 provide an overview of the information about which DOE is requesting feedback. A supplemental spreadsheet documenting the assumptions and approach to the engineering analysis is included in the docket and accessible via the equipment rulemaking website. (See https:// www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ appliance_standards/standards.aspx? productid=51&action=viewlive) TABLE II–1—OVERVIEW OF DATA PRESENTED IN THIS NODA Analysis Data presented Scope ....................................................................................... Scope of equipment considered in the analysis of any potential energy conservation standards and related definitions. More efficient motors. Improved aerodynamic design (inclusive of blade shape and material selection). Representative sizes. Determination of baseline fan efficiency. Determination of efficiency levels by applying different technology options. Estimates for manufacturer production cost and manufacturer conversion cost at each efficiency level. Manufacturer markup. Distribution channels. Fraction of sales going through each channel. Distribution channel markups and sales tax. Average operating hours per day. Distribution of operating hours. Fraction of time spent in each mode (i.e., speed setting). Review of repair, installation, and repair practices and costs. Energy prices. Lifetimes of air circulating fans. Discount rates. Review of available data to determine efficiency distributions. Base year shipments. Shipments growth rates and information related to shipments projections. Information related to efficiency trends. Technology Options ................................................................. Engineering Analysis ................................................................ Markups Analysis ..................................................................... Energy Use Analysis ................................................................ Life Cycle Costs and Payback Period Analysis ....................... National Impact Analysis .......................................................... khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS A. Scope As stated previously, the July 2022 TP NOPR discussed potential scope and definitions for air circulating fans, which include unhoused air circulating fan heads and housed air circulating fan heads. 87 FR 44194. In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE proposed that the test procedure would be applicable to all air circulating fans and proposed to define an air circulating fan as a fan that has no provision for connection to ducting or separation of the fan inlet from its outlet using a pressure boundary, operates against zero external static pressure loss, and is not a jet fan. 87 FR 44194, 44215. DOE is considering including all air circulating fans in its analysis of potential energy conservation standards VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 for fans and blowers. This includes unhoused air circulating fan head and housed air circulating fan head, for which DOE proposed definitions as part of the July 2022 TP NOPR (87 FR 44194, 44216). In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE also provided definitions for subsets of housed air circulating fan heads, specifically air circulating axial panel fans, box fans, cylindrical air circulating fans, and housed centrifugal air circulating fans. 87 FR 44194, 44216. DOE notes that the definitions used in this NODA are aligned with the proposed definitions in the July 2022 TP NOPR, which in turn were derived from definitions proposed by the AMCA. In response to the ECS RFI, AMCA provided additional comments to the docket on July 7, 2022, summarizing PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 definitions to terms under consideration by the committee revising the ANSI/ AMCA 230–15 standard, ‘‘Laboratory Methods of Testing Air Circulating Fans for Rating and Certification’’ (‘‘AMCA 230–15’’). (AMCA, No. 10, p. 1) AMCA’s comments focused on definitions for different categories of air circulating fans and provided context for how air circulating fans might be grouped. (AMCA, No. 10, pp. 1–10) DOE will further address the scope and definitions of air circulating fan categories in the test procedure rulemaking and plans to consider AMCA’s comments as part of the test procedure rulemaking. DOE also notes that in response to the ECS RFI, the Joint Commenters expressed their support for establishing energy conservation standards for air E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 62042 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS circulating fans, including air circulating fan heads, box fans, personnel coolers, and table fans. (Joint Commenters, No. 6 at p. 1) Additionally, the Joint Commenters agreed that, based on the definition fans and blowers, air circulating fan heads, box fans, personnel coolers, and table fans are within the scope of the fans and blowers equipment category. Id. Additionally, ebm-papst supported the inclusion of air circulating fans in the DOE test procedure and energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. (ebmpapst, No. 8 at p. 2) During the public meeting held for the July 2022 TP NOPR, AMCA commented that they believed it would be best to separate air circulating fans into a separate rulemaking from fans and blowers. (Public Meeting Transcript, EERE– 2021–BT–TP–0021, No. 18 at pp. 12, 27, 43–44) Morrison Products supported AMCA’s position that air circulating fans should be considered in a separate rulemaking. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 18 at pp. 91–92) DOE has reviewed existing regulatory definitions and market materials and believes that air circulating fans fall within the definition of fans and blowers. DOE will review stakeholder comments and may consider a separate rulemaking for air circulating fans. B. Technology Options In the ECS RFI, DOE presented improved aerodynamic design, blade shape, more efficient motors, material selection, and variable-speed drives as potential technology options for air circulating fans and requested comment on: (1) how the specific technologies would impact air circulating fan efficiency; (2) whether the technologies listed apply equally to different categories of air circulating fans; (3) the impact of curved blades and airfoil blades on air circulating fan efficiency; (4) the impact of blade materials on fan efficiency; and (5) the percentage of air circulating fans sold with a motor and with variable-speed drive. 87 FR 7048, 7052. In response, the Joint Commenters urged DOE to consider more efficient motors and more efficient blade designs in its analysis because of their energy savings potential. (Joint Commenters, No. 6 at p. 2) Specifically, they stated that alternating current (‘‘AC’’) directdrive motors offer better efficiency than belt drives and that direct current (‘‘DC’’) motors are more efficient than AC motors. Id. They added that more advanced blade designs, such as airfoil blades, can improve the efficiency of a fan relative to traditional singlethickness blades. Id. emb-papst VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 commented that to improve fan efficiency, inlet cones or bells and outlet vanes are occasionally included on air circulating fan housings and that winglets and rings are sometimes used on impellers. (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 3) Additionally, ebm-papst stated that the most efficient air circulating fans on the market (maximum available technology or ‘‘max-tech’’) often include the following features: an electronically commutated motor (‘‘ECM’’), injectionmolded axial impellers, and outlet guide vanes. (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 4) Finally, ebm-papst commented that they are unaware of any air circulating fans that are sold without a motor. (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 3) During manufacturer interviews,9 many manufacturers stated that they would switch to more efficient motors before redesigning the housing and impeller (i.e., the blade assembly), since fan redesign results in significant conversion costs. However, improving the overall fan aerodynamics with the addition of attachments, such as inlet cones or outlet vanes might be done before moving to higher efficiency and more costly motors. DOE is not aware of any circulating fans that were distributed in commerce without an electric motor. Based on review of the Bioenvironmental and Structural System Laboratory (‘‘BESS Labs’’) database and air circulating fan teardowns, most motors paired with air circulating fans are not currently in the scope of DOE energy conservation standards (because they are split-phase (‘‘SP’’) motors and permanent split capacitor (‘‘PSC’’) motors).10 As such, DOE expects that, in many cases, fan manufacturers are using lower efficiency motors. Therefore, in this NODA, DOE’s analysis focuses primarily on improving air circulating fan efficiency through the use of more efficient motors, as described in more detail in section II.D.3.c. DOE also evaluates the efficiency gains and relative costs associated with fan aerodynamic redesign. Notably, DOE is 9 DOE conducted manufacturer interviews specific to air circulating fans from May 24 to May 31, 2022, to gather information for its analyses presented in this NODA. Four manufacturers opted to participate in these interviews. 10 SP and PSC motors are types of single-phase motors that are not currently included in the scope of electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25 because only polyphase motors are included in this scope. SP and PSC motors are not currently included in the scope of small electric motors at 10 CFR 431.441 because they do not meet the statutory definition of ‘‘small electric motor’’ as defined at 10 CFR 431.442. In March 2022, DOE published a preliminary analysis for the ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking for electric motors that included SP and PSC motors in its analysis. 87 FR 11650. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 conducting a separate energy conservation rulemaking for electric motors in which it is considering standards for certain single-speed SP electric motors, single-speed shaded pole electric motors, and single-speed PSC motors. (See Docket No. EERE– 2020–BT–STD–0007) The Department will consider any outcome of the electric motors rulemaking when conducting its analysis of potential energy conservation standards for air circulating fans. Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its assumption that most motors paired with air circulating fans are lower efficiency induction motors that are not currently regulated by DOE. Additionally, DOE requests data on the percentage of air circulating fans that include a SP, PSC, shaded pole, or electronically commuted motors. C. Screening Analysis DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking: (1) Technological feasibility; (2) Practicability to manufacturer, install, and service; (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability; (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety; and (5) Unique pathway proprietary technologies. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b). If DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. DOE did not conduct a screening analysis for this NODA and instead is presenting analyses for more efficient motors with efficiency and cost estimates for aerodynamic redesign in order to receive stakeholder feedback. In future analysis to support this rulemaking, DOE may screen out some or all of the technologies discussed based on one or more of the screening criteria. Issue 2: DOE requests comment on if or how the five screening criteria may impact the application of an aerodynamic redesign (including changes to housing, impeller and/or blade design), more efficient motors, or VSDs (‘‘variable-speed drives’’) as design options in the current rulemaking analysis. D. Engineering Analysis The purpose of the engineering analysis is to determine the incremental manufacturing cost associated with producing products at higher efficiency E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules levels. The primary considerations in the engineering analysis are the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost analysis’’). DOE conducts the efficiency analysis using either an efficiency-level approach, a design option approach, or a combination of both. Under the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels to be considered in the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, observing the range of efficiency and efficiency-level ‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the market). This approach typically starts with compiling a comprehensive list of products available on the market, such as from DOE’s product certification database. Next, the list of models is ranked by efficiency level from lowest to highest, and DOE typically creates a scatter plot to visualize the distribution of efficiency levels. From these rankings and visual plots, efficiency levels can be identified by examining clusters of models around common efficiency levels. The maximum efficiency level currently available on the market can also be identified. Under the design option approach, the efficiency levels to be considered in the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. In an iterative fashion, design options can also be identified during product teardowns, described below. The design option approach is typically used when a comprehensive database of certified models is unavailable (for example, if a product is not yet regulated) and therefore the efficiency-level approach cannot be used. In certain rulemakings, the efficiencylevel approach (based on actual products on the market) will be extended using the design option approach to define ‘‘gap fill’’ levels (levels that bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the ‘‘max-tech’’ level (the level that DOE determines is the maximum achievable efficiency level), particularly in cases where the ‘‘maxtech’’ level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market. The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of the cost approach depends on a variety of factors VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 such as the availability and reliability of information on product features and pricing, the physical characteristics of the regulated product, and the practicability of purchasing the product on the market. DOE generally uses the following cost approaches: Physical teardown: Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials (‘‘BOM’’) for the product. Catalog teardown: In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using available parts diagrams (available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) to develop the BOM for the product. Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products that are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable), DOE conducts retail price surveys by scanning retailer websites and other marketing materials. This approach must be coupled with assumptions regarding distributor markups and retailer markups in order to estimate the actual manufacturing cost of the product. Manufacturer interviews: DOE may conduct voluntary interviews with manufacturers to gather confidential information that can be used in its analyses. This information can include manufacturing costs, materials prices, and markups that can be used in DOE’s cost analysis. The engineering analysis conducted for this NODA used a design option approach supplemented by an efficiency level approach. The cost analysis relied on physical and catalog tear downs, cost analyses from other rulemakings, and confidential information provided by manufacturers. 1. Methodology The engineering analysis presented in this NODA is consistent with the scope, definitions, and metric proposed in the July 2022 TP NOPR for all fans (including air circulating fans), except where described below. a. Metric In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to use the fan energy index (‘‘FEI’’) or weighted average FEI (in the case of multi-speed and variable-speed air circulating fans) as the efficiency metric for fans and blowers, including air circulating fans. (87 FR 44194, 44237–44238) FEI is an index calculated using the fan electrical input power at a given operating point, divided by the PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 62043 electrical input power of a reference fan at the same operating point. The FEI allows for the evaluation of fan or blower efficiency across a range of operating conditions, captures the performance of the motor, transmission, or motor controllers (if present), and enables differentiation of fans with motors, transmissions, and motor controller with different efficiencies. In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE proposed that the metric be determined as follows: (1) for single-speed fans, FEI would be evaluated at the single available speed and corresponding duty point; (2) for multi-speed fans and variable-speed fans, a weighted average FEI would be determined using a weighted average of all speeds tested. (87 FR 44194, 44238) DOE notes that the BESS Labs combined database does not provide performance data for multiple speed fans at all the test speeds proposed in the July 2022 TP NOPR. Therefore, for this NODA, DOE evaluated potential efficiency improvements based only on high-speed test data. Because fans are typically less efficient at their maximum speed, DOE expects that this assumption provides a conservative estimate of potential efficiency gains relative to the baseline. In future analysis, DOE expects to conduct its analysis consistent with the approach adopting in the forthcoming fans and blower test procedure. In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE also proposed FEI reference constants for flow rate, pressure and the efficiency target for air circulating fans. (87 FR 44194, 44230, 44232) Specifically, DOE proposed a flow rate constant (Q0) of 3,201, and pressure constant (P0) of 0 and an efficiency target (h0) of 0.38. Id. DOE utilized these proposed constants in its calculations of reference FEI used in the engineering analysis. In the supplemental NODA spreadsheet included in this docket, DOE also provided performance in terms of cubic feet per minute per watt (or CFM/W), since the FEI metric is still relatively new. (See Docket No. EERE–2022–BT– STD–0002, No. 11) b. Air Circulating Fan Performance Data AMCA stated that no air circulating fans are currently certified by AMCA. (AMCA, No. 9 at p. 4) Additionally, AMCA commented that air circulating fan product literature may advertise fan performance calculated using multiple versions of the AMCA 230 standard (e.g., AMCA 230–1999, AMCA 230– 2007, AMCA 230–2012, AMCA 230– 2015 without errata, and AMCA 230–15 with 2021 errata). They stated that all of these versions, except for AMCA 230–15 E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 62044 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules with 2021 errata, have at least one error with respect to thrust, volumetric flow rate, or input power. AMCA added that this is an issue for the purchaser, either because purchasers are not aware of these errors or because manufacturers are not required to state how air circulating fan performance values were obtained. (Id.) AMCA also provided a table in their response to the ECS RFI showing the corrections made between each version of AMCA 230. (AMCA, No. 9 at p. 5, Table 1) The contents of this table are reproduced below in Table II– 2. TABLE II–2—SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND CORRECTIONS IN ANSI/AMCA STANDARD 230 Year Thrust Volumetric-flow-rate equation Input power No conversion for density. to standard air Incorrect—based on actual atmospheric density, but calculation exaggerated by multiplication factor of 1.414 (√2). Not calculated ................................................................ to standard air Incorrect—uses converted thrust but actual air density No conversion for density. to standard air Correct—uses converted thrust and standard air density. Correct—uses converted thrust and standard air density. No conversion for density. 1999 ..................................... No conversion for density 2007 ..................................... Conversion density. Conversion density. Conversion density. Conversion density. 2012 ..................................... 2015 ..................................... 2015: 2021 erratum ............. to standard air During interviews, manufacturers stated that data collected by BESS Labs, associated with the University of Illinois-Champaign, is the best source for air circulating fan data.11 BESS Labs maintains a database of housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads that are used primarily in the agricultural industry (i.e., poultry houses, greenhouses, dairy barns). DOE notes that these air circulating fans heads are tested by BESS Labs according to AMCA 230–12. DOE used the BESS Labs test data and applied conversion formulas to calculate the performance data of the fans according to AMCA 230–15 with 2021 errata. Details of these performance calculations are available in the supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (EERE–2022– BT–STD–0002, No. 11) DOE did not receive sufficient air circulating fan performance data from the ECS RFI stakeholder comment responses or from manufacturers during the interview process. Therefore, for this No conversion for density. Conversion to standard air density. analysis, DOE relied primarily on the BESS Labs circulating fans database (‘‘BESS Labs Database’’). The BESS Labs Database categorizes circulating fans into the following categories: basket, box, panel, tube, tube with bell inlet, vented tube, wire basket, and wire tube. Based on the proposed definitions discussed in section II.A, DOE mapped the categories in the BESS Labs Database as shown in Table II–3. TABLE II–3—DOE CATEGORIZATION OF BESS LABS DATABASE CIRCULATING FAN CATEGORIES July 2022 TP NOPR terminology BESS labs database category khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Unhoused air circulating fan head ........................................................................................ Housed air circulating fan head Box fan ........................................................................................................................... Cylindrical air circulating fan .......................................................................................... Air circulating axial panel fan ......................................................................................... Basket. Box. Tube, Tube with Bell Inlet, Vented Tube. Panel. For this initial analysis, DOE evaluated unhoused air circulating fan heads, box fans, and cylindrical air circulating fans.12 DOE expects that the technology options evaluated in its analysis of these fans would be applicable to air circulating axial panel fans, especially improved motor efficiency. DOE expects that it will conduct additional analysis on air circulating axial panel fans in a subsequent part of this rulemaking. DOE further notes that the BESS Lab Database did not include any housed centrifugal air circulating fans. DOE expects that it will conduct additional analysis on housed centrifugal air circulating fans in a subsequent part of this rulemaking. In addition, the BESS Labs Database includes very few air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W. DOE expects that it will conduct additional analysis on air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W in a subsequent part of this rulemaking. To further inform its analysis, DOE completed testing and teardowns on a small sample of housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads.13 For this analysis, DOE is assuming that the combination of housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads listed in the BESS Labs Database and those additional fans that DOE tested at BESS Labs (‘‘BESS Labs Combined Database’’) are representative of the air circulating fan head market. However, the air circulating axial panel fans in the BESS Labs database were excluded from DOE’s analysis and housed centrifugal air circulating fans and air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W 11 BESS Labs is a research, product-testing and educational laboratory. BESS Labs provides engineering data to air in the selection and design of agricultural buildings and assists equipment manufactures in developing better products. Test reports for circulating fans are publicly available at bess.illinois.edu/current.asp. 12 The BESS Labs Database classifies circulating fans as basket, box, panel, tube, tube with bell inlet, vented tube, wire basket, and wire tube fans. DOE evaluated 58 box fans (housed circulating fan heads) and 40 tube fans (housed air circulating fan heads) and 102 basket fans (unhoused air circulating fan heads) in the BESS Labs Database, accessed on June 17, 2022. 13 DOE tested seven basket fans (unhoused air circulating fan heads) and 11 tube fans (housed air circulating fan heads) and two box fans (housed air circulating fans heads) at BESS Labs. Where DOE has relied on the test data from these fans in addition to the BESS Labs Database, DOE has used the term ‘‘BESS Labs Combined Database’’. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules were not represented in the BESS Labs Combined Database. Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its assumption that the BESS Labs Combined Database is representative of the air circulating fan head market, with the exception of housed centrifugal air circulating fans and air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W which are not represented in the BESS Labs Combined Database. Issue 4: DOE requests additional information for all categories of air circulating fans, including: manufacturer name, model number, fan diameter, blade number, blade shape, blade material, housing type, housing material, spacing between the blade tip and the housing, and housing depth with associated performance data obtained using AMCA 230–15 with 2021 errata (or sufficient information that can be used to correct to AMCA 230–15 with 2021 errata). DOE additionally requests the following information on the motors sold within each fan model: motor type (i.e., SP, PSC, ECM, polyphase, etc.), type of drive (i.e., direct or belt), motor horsepower (‘‘hp’’), motor full-load efficiency (if available), motor rotations per minute, number of speeds, motor electric requirements (i.e., volts, amps, frequency, phase, AC/DC), and whether a variable-speed drive is included with the fan. The minimum and maximum diameter housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads in the BESS Labs Combined Database are 12 inches and 52 inches, respectively. Although DOE did not evaluate fans smaller or larger than these diameters in this NODA, in the absence of additional data, DOE may consider extrapolating BESS Labs data to smaller and larger diameters using fan affinity laws to the extent such extrapolation is representative of the performance of such fans. Issue 5: DOE requests comment on the potential of using fan affinity laws to extrapolate BESS Labs performance data to air circulating fan heads with diameters less than 12 inches and greater than 52 inches. Additionally, DOE requests model characteristics and performance data obtained using AMCA 230–15 plus 2021 errata (or sufficient information than can be used to correct to AMCA 230–15 plus 2021 errata) for air circulating fans with diameters both smaller than and larger than those listed in the BESS Labs Database. 2. Equipment Classes and Representative Sizes In the ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on whether it should consider air circulating fan heads, personnel VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 coolers, box fans, and table fans as separate categories (i.e., equipment classes) or whether some or all of these four categories should be grouped together when evaluating potential energy conservation standards for air circulating fan heads. 87 FR 7048, 7051. DOE additionally requested whether these four fan categories have unique features or applications that might warrant separate consideration in the energy standards analysis. Id. Finally, DOE requested comment on whether it should consider separate equipment classes for air circulating fan heads based on diameter, operating speed, efficiency, or utility. Id. The Joint Commenters stated that portable blowers may require an equipment class separate from air circulating fans because they provide a unique application (i.e., drying floors), have centrifugal rather than axial construction, and are relatively low in efficiency. (Joint Commenters, No. 6 at p. 2) In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE proposed a definition for ‘‘housed centrifugal air circulating fan’’, which it believes is the same fan type that the Joint Commenters describe as a portable blower. 87 FR 44194, 44216. As discussed in section II.D.2.a, however, DOE has not yet finalized equipment classes for air circulating fans. DOE is requesting additional information and data on the utility of different fan categories to further inform its analysis. AMCA commented that air circulating fan heads, box fans, personnel coolers, and table fans all provide directional airflow. (AMCA, No. 9 at p. 2) ebmpapst indicated that designing an air circulating fan for high outlet velocity may be an impediment to achieving greater fan efficiency. (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 3) DOE interprets this comment to mean that the utility of an air circulating fan (i.e., a fan designed for high outlet velocity vs. more diffuse flow) may impact its efficiency. a. Equipment Classes When evaluating and establishing energy efficiency standards, DOE often divides covered equipment into separate classes by the type of energy used, equipment capacity, or some other performance-related features that justify differing standards. In deciding whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE generally considers such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and 6316(a)) DOE has not yet identified equipment classes for air circulating fans, but is considering the following performance- PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 62045 related features that may justify separate equipment classes: (1) Presence or absence of a safety guard; (2) Presence or absence of housing; (3) Housing design (i.e., box, panel, cylindrical, bladeless, thermal, etc.); (4) Blade type (axial, centrifugal); (5) Drive type (belt, direct); (6) Number of discrete speed settings (single-speed, two-speed, three-speed, etc.); (7) Power requirements (input power, phase, voltage, etc.); and (8) Air velocity or throw. For the purposes of this NODA, DOE grouped all air circulating fans analyzed into a single equipment class. Issue 6: DOE requests comment on whether, and if so how, each of the following performance-related features may impact utility of air circulating fans: presence or absence of a safety guard, presence or absence of housing, housing design, blade type, drive type, number of discrete speed settings, power requirements, and air velocity or throw. DOE requests additional feedback and data or information on other air circulating fan features that may impact utility for the end user and might form the basis for classification. Issue 7: DOE requests comment with supporting data on whether the following performance-related features provide substantially different utility, or are expected to have a significant impact on efficiency because of how they are used: (1) housed vs. unhoused air circulating fan heads; (2) directdriven vs. belt-driven air circulating fan heads; and (3) single-phase vs. polyphase air circulating fan heads. DOE also requests information on any additional features that may impact air circulating fan head utility. b. Representative Sizes The minimum and maximum diameters reported in the BESS Labs Database for housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads are 12 inches and 52 inches, respectively. DOE notes that diameter has been used to define representative units for ceiling fans and for previous analyses conducted on fans and blowers that are not air circulating fans.14 Therefore, DOE developed a diameter histogram using the BESS Labs Combined Database to determine 14 On November 1, 2016, DOE published a notification of data availability (‘‘November 2016 NODA’’) that presented an analysis for fans and blowers other than air circulating fans. 81 FR 75742. The engineering analysis evaluated manufacturer production cost as a function of efficiency level for 10-inch, 20-inch and 30-inch diameter fans and blowers that are not air circulating fans. See www.regulations.gov/ document/EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006–0189. E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 62046 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS representative diameters for analysis. Based on this distribution, DOE chose the following representative diameters for its analysis in this NODA: 12 inches, 20 inches, 24 inches, 36 inches and 50 inches. More details on the diameter distribution can be found in the supplementary spreadsheet included in the docket. (See Docket No. EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) Issue 8: DOE requests comment on whether the diameters chosen for representative units in this analysis (i.e., 12 inches, 20 inches, 24 inches, 36 inches, and 50 inches) accurately represent the diameters with the highest sales volume available in the air circulating fan market. DOE also requests comment on whether diameter is an appropriate representative metric for air circulating fans. For each representative diameter, DOE used the most common motor shaft output power value in the BESS Labs Combined Database as the representative motor hp. Table II–4 summarizes the motor hp associated with each representative diameter in DOE’s NODA analysis. More details on the motor hp distribution can be found VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 in the supplementary spreadsheet included in the docket. (See Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) inch representative unit. DOE’s analysis for other representative units is included in the supplemental spreadsheet included in the docket. (See TABLE II–4—REPRESENTATIVE DIAME- Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002, TERS AND ASSOCIATED REPRESENT- No. 11) ATIVE MOTOR INPUT POWER USE IN 3. Efficiency Model THIS ANALYSIS Representative diameter (inches) 12 20 24 36 50 The efficiency model is a key analytical tool used to construct costefficiency curves. This model is used to estimate efficiencies at different efficiency levels using a design option 0.1 0.33 approach supplemented with a 0.5 performance approach. Representative motor input power (hp) .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... 0.5 1 Issue 9: DOE requests comment on whether the motor hp it has associated with each representative diameter (i.e., 0.1 hp for 12 inches, 0.33 hp for 20 inches, 0.5 hp for 24 inches and 36 inches, and 1 hp for 50 inches) appropriately represent the motor hp for fans sold with those corresponding diameters. To simplify the discussion in this NODA, the efficiency model and the cost model are discussed using a 24- PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 a. BESS Combined Database DOE calculated FEI for all fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database by correcting the BESS data for air density, consistent with AMCA 230–15 (with 2021 errata) and using the FEI equation proposed in the July 2022 TP NOPR. 87 FR 44194, 44230, 44232. A plot of average FEI as a function of representative diameter and number of representative units analyzed in the BESS Labs Combined Database is shown in Figure 1. BILLING CODE 6450–01–P E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 62047 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules Average FEI by Representative Unit Diameters 70 w "' m .c m 60 1t; "C "C QJ C: 50 :.0 E I.LI 0 u.. u QJ 40 ~ I.LI co 00 m ....QJ ~ 1.00 C: 30 ~ ./::! .._ 0 20 <ii .c 10 z E ::, 0 12 20 24 36 50 Representative Unit Diameters (inches) Representative Unit Diameters (inches) Figure 1: Average FEI and Number of Fans in the BESS Combined Database as a Function of Representative Diameter. BILLING CODE 6450–01–C As shown in Figure 1, FEI ranges from 0.39 to 2.74. A plot showing FEI for all fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database as a function of diameter can be found in the supplemental spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) FEI has minimal variance between 20-inch and 50-inch diameter fans; however, FEI increases sharply at diameters less than 20 inches. DOE expects this is because the reference fan used in the FEI calculation assumes a belt-drive. Table II–5 shows the number of direct-drive and the number of beltdrive air circulating fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database for each representative diameter. Relative to DOE’s representative diameters, beltdriven fans are observed only at 36 inches and 50 inches. Only at 50 inches do belt-driven fans become more prevalent in the BESS Labs Combined Database than direct-drive fans. TABLE II–5—DISTRIBUTION OF DIRECT-DRIVE AND BELT-DRIVE FANS IN THE BESS LABS COMBINED DATABASE BY DIAMETER 12 20 24 36 50 Number of direct-drive ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. DOE also reviewed the BESS Labs Combined Database to understand the types of motors sold with air circulating VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 Number of belt-driven 9 28 37 62 5 fans. DOE evaluated motor type, model, and corresponding product literature for the 20 fans in the BESS Labs Combined PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Grand total 0 0 0 9 22 9 28 37 71 27 Database that DOE tested, in addition to the 10 most efficient and least efficient fans in the database. DOE found that E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 EP13OC22.002</GPH> khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Diameter (inches) 62048 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules every fan evaluated as part of this exercise used either a single-phase PSC motor, a polyphase motor,15 or an ECM. There was only one ECM fan in the BESS Labs Combined Database. Details of this analysis can be found in the supplemental spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See Docket No. EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) DOE also compared the FEI values of fans that use single-phase and fans that use polyphase motors in the BESS Labs Combined Database and did not find a significant difference between the two. However, as discussed in a notice of proposed rulemaking for dedicated purpose pool pump motors published on June 21, 2021, DOE has previously found that polyphase motors are generally more efficient than singlephase motors due to differences in their construction. 87 FR 37122, 37136. For both the efficiency and cost analyses here, DOE opted to evaluate singlephase motor technologies only. Given that polyphase motors are generally more efficient than single-phase motors, DOE believes this is a more conservative approach. While DOE evaluated only single-phase motor technologies, it utilized the FEI data of both singlephase and polyphase motor fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database when determining FEI values. DOE did this since this approach provided more FEI data, and, despite the expectation that polyphase motors are generally more efficient than single-phase motors, there was not a significant difference in FEI between single-phase and polyphase fans in the database. Although the BESS Labs Combined Database lists only PSC motors and one ECM, DOE’s review of the air circulating fan market indicated that SP motors are also used in air circulating fans. In general, SP motors are the least efficient, ECMs are the most efficient, and PSC motor efficiency falls between SP motors and ECMs. The efficiency of each motor type can be improved by using higher quality steel and magnets, or by using more magnetic material. For this analysis, DOE assumed that the least efficient fans on the market (baseline) used SP motors and therefore evaluated potential air circulating fan efficiency improvements by replacing an SP motor with a PSC motor (‘‘PSC 1’’), replacing a PSC 1 motor with a more efficient PSC motor (‘‘PSC 2’’), and replacing a PSC 2 motor with an ECM. Issue 10: DOE requests comment on its use of SP motors as the baseline for air circulating fans. Additionally, DOE seeks feedback on its choice of motor technologies (SP motor to PSC 1 motor, PSC 1 motor to PSC 2 motor, and PSC 2 motor to ECM) to estimate air circulating fan efficiency increases from one efficiency level to the next. Additionally, DOE considered the efficiency gains that might be obtained from improving the aerodynamic design of an air circulating fan. DOE’s analysis of the BESS Labs Combined Database did not indicate that any particular aerodynamic features, including blade design or housing/guard design, had a significant impact on air circulating fan efficiency. However, feedback received during manufacturer interviews indicated that blade design and housing/guard design can impact fan efficiency. For blade design, manufacturers generally responded that decreasing the number of fan blades, optimizing the blade shape for efficiency, and, for housed fans, decreasing the clearance between the blade tip and the housing can all improve the efficiency of air circulating fans. However, manufacturers added that decreasing the blade tip clearance can also increase the noise generated by the fan. For unhoused air circulating fans, manufacturers stated that increasing the spacing between wire guard wires and redesigning the motor hub supports more efficient airflow. For housed air circulating fans, manufacturers discussed the potential for improving fan efficiency by adjusting the inlet and outlet geometries to improve airflow. Table II–6 summarizes the technology options DOE analyzed for each efficiency level. TABLE II–6: TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH EFFICIENCY LEVEL EL0 (baseline) EL1 EL2 EL3 SP motor ......................................................... PSC 1 PSC 2 ECM DOE discusses its analysis of baseline efficiency and the efficiencies that it used in its analysis for each EL in the following sections. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS b. Baseline Fan Efficiencies The baseline configuration represents the lowest efficiency level commonly available in the market. Because energy conservation standards do not currently exist for air circulating fans, DOE must establish a baseline configuration using available information, as opposed to an existing energy conservation standard. The baseline configuration defines the energy consumption and associated cost for the lowest efficiency fan analyzed in each equipment class. 15 Single-phase motors have a single conductor through which the alternating current input signal is sent to the motor. Polyphase motors have multiple conductors through which alternating current input signals that are phase-shifted from each other are sent to the motor. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 EL4 ECM and Aerodynamic redesign. DOE assumed that baseline air circulating fans use SP motors because they are the least expensive type of air circulating fan motor on the market. As stated in the previous section, SP motors are less efficient than other electric motors available. Since DOE does not have test data for air circulating fans sold with a SP motor, DOE defined EL1 as a fan in the BESS Labs Combined Database with a PSC 1 motor. Using data from an electric motors database compiled by the Department (‘‘Motors Database’’), DOE established the loss in efficiency by replacing a PSC 1 motor (EL 1) with an SP motor (EL 0 or baseline). Data in the Motors Database include information on motor topology (i.e., whether the motor is SP, PSC, or another type), motor enclosure (i.e., whether the motor is enclosed 16 or not or whether it is air-over 17 or not), motor hp, and motor efficiency. DOE notes that the motors in its Motors Database are not currently subject to DOE standards. Given that motor manufacturers are not required to certify motor performance values to DOE, it is possible that the nominal efficiency values presented in the catalog data are not accurate. During its review of air circulating fan motor literature, DOE found that every fan for which the motor enclosure type was divulged used 16 ‘‘Enclosed’’ motors are dust-tight, meaning that they prevent the free exchange of air to the point that particulates cannot enter the motor enclosure. ‘‘Open’’ motors allow the free exchange of air through the motor enclosure via openings designed for ventilation. 17 ‘‘Air-over’’ motors are used specifically for fans and blowers, are placed in the pathway of the airflow, and are cooled by the airflow. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules an air-over motor. Therefore, in this analysis, DOE assumed that all motors used for air circulating fans are air-over motors, and it considered only data for air-over SP motors and for air-over PSC motors in the Motors Database. ECMs were not included in the Motors Database. To determine the differences in efficiency between SP motors and PSC motors, DOE used SP motor and PSC motor data from the motor database. DOE calculated the average efficiencies of SP motors and PSC motors for each motor output value in the database, then applied best fit curves to the average efficiency values as a function of horsepower. DOE used these equations to estimate SP motor and PSC 1 motor efficiencies and to calculate the decrease in efficiency from PSC 1 motors to SP motors for each representative unit horsepower. Using this approach, the efficiency decrease for the 24-inch diameter fan, correlating to the 0.5 hp unit, is 8.3 percent. Further details of how the efficiency difference between SP motors and PSC 1 motors was determined and applied to the fan FEI values can be found in Section II.D.3.c of this NODA and the supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See Docket No. EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) Issue 11: DOE requests comment on its assumption that motors used in air circulating fans are exclusively air-over motors. If this is not the case, DOE requests information on the other types of motors that are sold with air circulating fans and data on the percentage of air circulating fans that are sold with motors other than air-over motors. Additionally, DOE requests information on whether or not the type of motor supplied with an air circulating fan is a function of air circulating fan category (e.g., unhoused air circulating fan head, box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, etc.). To determine FEI values at EL 1, DOE established a separate FEI value at EL1 for fans less than 20 inches in diameter and for fans greater than or equal to 20 inches in diameter, consistent with the average FEI values shown in Figure 1, where FEI increases significantly below a diameter of 20 inches. Using the BESS Labs Combined Database, DOE defined EL1 as the 5th percentile of FEI values calculated for the 12-inch representative unit (FEI = 1.70) and the 5th percentile of FEI values calculated for all representative units with diameters at or above 20 inches (FEI = 0.79). The 5th percentile was chosen to conservatively capture the efficiencies of the least efficient air circulating fans in the database, which DOE assumed also used VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 the least efficient PSC 1 motors, while excluding potential outliers with very low FEI values. Further details of this analysis can be found in the supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See Docket No. EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) Since DOE estimated SP motors to be 8.3 percent less efficient than PSC 1 motors for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp representative unit, DOE defined the baseline (EL 0) for this representative unit at FEI = 0.73. FEI values calculated for the 24-inch representative unit are shown in Table II–7 at the end of this section. Further details of this analysis can be found in the supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket (see Docket No. EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11). Issue 12: DOE requests feedback on whether catalog performance data on SP motors and PSC motors is generally representative of the performance of the SP and PSC motors included with air circulating fans. Issue 13: DOE requests feedback on the methodology used to determine the baseline efficiency values for the representative units, including its method of first establishing the EL1 efficiency and then determining the baseline efficiency by reducing the EL1 efficiency by the difference in efficiency between a PSC motor and a SP motor. Additionally, DOE requests data on the expected average improvement in air circulating fan efficiency when a SP motor is replaced by a PSC 1 motor. c. Improving Efficiency With More Efficient Motors This section describes how DOE estimated improvements in air circulating fan efficiency by using more efficient motors. When substituting a more efficient motor for a less efficient motor, DOE assumed that the duty point of the fan (i.e., the fan’s airflow and pressure) remained the same, and that the only change in motor performance was a decrease in input power. Factors such as motor speed and inrush current were assumed to remain constant with the change in motor. This assumption enabled DOE to assume that a percent change in FEI is equal to a percent change in motor efficiency using the equations defined in ANSI/AMCA Standard 214–21, ‘‘Test Procedure for Calculating Fan Energy Index (FEI) for Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers.’’ This aligns with the July 2022 TP NOPR approach for calculating FEI. 87 FR 44194, 44230, 44232. A description of how DOE derived this relationship is provided in the supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See Docket No. EERE– PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 62049 2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) Throughout the remainder of this NODA, DOE will therefore discuss efficiency increases in terms of FEI and not in terms of motor efficiency increases. In the future, DOE may consider performing this analysis in terms of motor losses and shaft power, consistent with other rulemakings. See the ceiling fans preliminary analysis published February 9, 2022 (‘‘Ceiling Fan Preliminary Analysis’’). 87 FR 7758. See also the electric motors preliminary analysis published March 2, 2022 (‘‘Electric Motors Preliminary Analysis’’). 87 FR 11650. Issue 14: DOE requests feedback on its assumption that airflow, pressure, and motor performance (for example, speed and inrush current) remain constant when replacing a less efficient motor with a more efficient motor in an air circulating fan. If airflow, pressure, or motor performance are not maintained when using a more efficient motor, DOE requests feedback and data on how it should conduct this analysis. To determine the PSC 2 motor efficiencies, DOE again used PSC motor data from the motor database. Rather than fitting a curve to the average PSC motor efficiency values at each motor output power value, as it did for the PSC 1 motor curve, DOE instead fit a curve to the 95th percentile PSC motor efficiency values. The 95th percentile was chosen so that the efficiency values for PSC 2 motors were close to the maximum possible PSC motor efficiencies. DOE then used this curve to estimate PSC 2 motor efficiencies for the representative unit motor output power values. For the representative units in this NODA that used 0.5 hp motors, replacing a 0.5 hp PSC 1 motor with a 0.5 hp PSC 2 motor increases the air circulating fan FEI by 11.2 percent. The resulting FEI for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp representative unit with a PSC 2 motor is therefore 0.88. (See Table II–7 at the end of this section) The supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket provides more details on how efficiency increases from PSC 1 motors to PSC 2 motors were determined. (See Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) Issue 15: DOE requests feedback on whether the efficiency gains shown in the supplementary spreadsheet are realistic efficiency gains when replacing a lower efficiency PSC motor (i.e., PSC 1 motor) with a higher efficiency PSC motor (i.e., PSC 2 motor). If these assumptions are not realistic, DOE requests data demonstrating air circulating fan motor efficiency as a function of hp, as well as data for motor hp as a function of fan diameter. E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 62050 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules To evaluate the efficiency increase when changing to an ECM, DOE used a 2018 pool pump motor database containing information on ECMs that was compiled by DOE in support of its dedicated purpose pool pump rulemaking (‘‘DPPP Motor Database’’). Most motors in the DPPP Motor Database were 1 hp and higher; therefore, DOE fit a curve to the ECM data at each motor hp and used this curve to extrapolate the data and estimate motor efficiencies at fractional hp for ECMs. The resulting ECM efficiency for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp representative unit is 83.2 percent, an efficiency increase of 23.9 percent from a PSC 1 motor to an ECM and a FEI of 0.98 at EL 3 (see Table II–7 at the end of this section). Further details of this analysis can be found in the supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See Docket No. EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on its use of dedicated purpose pool pump motors as a source for comparing PSC motor and ECM efficiency. Additionally, DOE requests information on whether motors used for this purpose are comparable to air circulating fan motors. DOE further requests feedback on whether the efficiency increases from PSC 1 motors to ECM that DOE presents are realistic. If dedicated purpose pool pump motors are not representative of air circulating fans motors, or DOE’s estimated efficiency increases are not realistic, DOE requests data on the difference between PSC 1 motor efficiency and ECM efficiency and the difference between PSC 2 motor efficiency and ECM efficiency for air circulating fans. DOE also requests comment on its use of extrapolation of these data to obtain efficiency values at fractional hp. d. Improving Efficiency Through Aerodynamic Redesign This section describes how DOE evaluated increasing the energy efficiency of air circulating fans by improving fan component aerodynamic design. While EL3 assumes that air circulating fan efficiency is increased through the use of an ECM, EL4 evaluates the efficiency impact from adding an ECM and improving the aerodynamic design of the fan. This ‘‘max-tech’’ level represents the highest efficiency available on the market. The fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database used almost exclusively PSC motors, so DOE assumed that the maximum efficiencies in the database corresponded to the use of a PSC 2 motor with a highly efficient aerodynamic design. Presumably, the maximum efficiencies achieved by a fan with a PSC motor and no aerodynamic redesign would be captured by the FEI values determined for EL 2 for each representative unit. The efficiency gain due to improvements in aerodynamic design can therefore be quantified by determining the difference between the maximum FEI values in the database and the efficiency levels determined for EL 2. DOE used the maximum FEI values in the BESS Labs Combined Database for each representative unit to develop a curve for the PSC 2 plus aerodynamic redesign FEI values as a function of diameter. The resulting FEI value for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp representative unit is 1.89. DOE then determined the percent increase from the EL 2 FEI values to the FEI values determined from the curve fit to establish the increase in efficiency due to aerodynamic redesign for each representative unit. This percent increase for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp representative unit was 114.39 percent. DOE then applied the percent increases in FEI due to aerodynamic redesign to the EL 3 FEI values to determine the EL 4 FEI values. The resulting EL 4 FEI value for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp representative unit was 2.10. Further details of this analysis can be found in the supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See Docket No. EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) Issue 17: DOE requests feedback on the FEI values that it determined and its approach for estimating FEI values for an air circulating fan that includes both an ECM and improved aerodynamic design. e. Results for a 24-inch, 0.5 hp Representative Unit FEI values calculated for each efficiency level for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp representative unit are shown in Table II–7 . Information on the FEI values calculated for other representative units can be found in the supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) TABLE II–7—FEI VALUES FOR 24-INCH, 0.5 hp REPRESENTATIVE UNIT EL0 (baseline) EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 0.73 ..................................... 0.79 0.88 0.98 2.10 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 4. Cost Model The cost model is a key analytical tool used to construct cost-efficiency curves. This model is used to estimate manufacturing production costs at various efficiency levels using a design option approach. a. Cost Model Structure and Process This section describes the process by which the cost model converts the physical information in each product’s BOM into manufacturing cost estimates. The cost model is based on production activities and divides factory costs into materials, labor, depreciation, and overhead. The material costs include both raw materials and purchased part costs. The labor costs include fabrication, assembly, and indirect and overhead (burdened) labor rates. The depreciation costs include manufacturing equipment depreciation, tooling depreciation, and building depreciation. The overhead costs include indirect process costs, utilities, equipment and building maintenance, and rework. DOE lists the cost inputs of these categories in Table II–8. TABLE II–8—COST MODEL CATEGORIES AND DESCRIPTIONS Major category Subcategory Description Material Costs ............................................................. Direct ............................................. Raw materials (e.g., coils of sheet metal) and purchased parts (e.g., fan motors, compressors). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 62051 TABLE II–8—COST MODEL CATEGORIES AND DESCRIPTIONS—Continued Major category Manufacturing Labor ................................................... Subcategory Description Indirect ........................................... Material used during manufacturing (e.g., welding rods, die oil, release media). Part/unit assembly on manufacturing line. Conversion of raw material into parts ready for assembly. Fraction of overall labor not associated directly with product manufacturing (e.g., forklift drivers, quality control). Fraction of indirect labor that is paid a higher wage. Straight line depreciation over expected life. Cost is allocated on a per-use basis or obsolescence, whichever is shorter. A fixed fraction of all material costs meant to cover electricity and other utility costs. Based on installed equipment and tooling investment. A fixed fraction based on total unit costs. Assembly ....................................... Fabrication ..................................... Indirect ........................................... Depreciation ................................................................ Supervisory .................................... Equipment, Conveyor, Building ..... Tooling ........................................... Other Overhead .......................................................... Utilities ........................................... Maintenance .................................. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Property Tax and Insurance .......... To determine material costs, DOE followed one of two different paths, depending on whether a subassembly was purchased (outsourced) or produced in-house. For purchased parts, DOE gathered price quotations from major suppliers at different production volumes. For parts produced in-house, DOE reconstructed manufacturing processes for each part using modeling software based on internal expertise. For the raw materials being converted to ready-to-assemble parts, DOE estimated manufacturing process parameters (manufacturing equipment use and time for each item, the required initial material quantity, scrap, etc.) to determine the value of each component. Using this process, DOE was able to assign manufacturing labor time, equipment utilization, and other important factors to each subassembly for each unit considered in this analysis. The last step was to convert the information into dollar values. To perform this task, DOE collected information on such factors as labor rates, tooling depreciation, and costs of purchased raw materials. DOE assumed values for these parameters using internal expertise and confidential information available to its contractors. In sum, DOE assigned costs of labor, materials, and overhead to each part, whether purchased or produced inhouse. DOE then aggregated single-part costs into major assemblies (e.g., for air circulating fans this would include packaging, housing, impeller, controls and wiring, motor, guard, and mounting gear) and summarized these costs in a spreadsheet. All parameters related to manufacture and assembly were then aggregated to determine facility requirements at various manufacturing scales. The final cost obtained by the cost model is the manufacturer VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 production cost (‘‘MPC’’), representing the total cost to the manufacturer of producing the component. b. Cost Model Assumptions Assumptions about manufacturer practices and cost structure play an important role in estimating the MPC of the products. DOE based assumptions about the sourcing of parts and in-house fabrication on industry experience, information in trade publications, and discussions with manufacturers. DOE used assumptions regarding the manufacturing process parameters, (e.g., equipment use, labor rates, tooling depreciation, and cost of purchased raw materials) to determine the value of each component. The following sections describe the cost model assumptions related to material prices, purchased parts and factory parameters. Raw Material Prices For parts fabricated in-house, the prices of the underlying ‘‘raw’’ metals (e.g., tube, sheet metal) are estimated on the basis of 5-year averages to smooth out spikes in demand. Other ‘‘raw’’ materials such as plastic resins, insulation materials, etc. are estimated on a current-market basis. The costs of raw materials are based on manufacturer interviews, quotes from suppliers, and secondary research. Past results are updated periodically and/or inflated to present-day prices using indices from resources such as MEPS International,18 PolymerUpdate,19 the U.S. geologic 18 More information on MEPS International may be found at: www.meps.co.uk/. 19 More information on PolymerUpdate may be found at: www.polymerupdate.com. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 survey (‘‘USGS’’),20 and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (‘‘BLS’’).21 Fabricated Parts and Purchased Parts DOE characterized parts based on whether manufacturers fabricated them in-house or purchased them from outside suppliers. For fabricated parts, DOE estimated the price of intermediate materials (e.g., tube, sheet metal) and the cost of forming them into finished parts. DOE estimated initial raw material dimensions to account for scrap. For scrap materials that are recyclable, DOE assigned a scrap credit that is a fraction of the base material cost. Non-recyclable materials incur a disposal cost for all scrap. For purchased parts, DOE estimated the purchase price for original equipment manufacturers based on its confidential parts database and industry expertise. For the purpose of this analysis, DOE assumed that all components of the fan were purchased from outside suppliers. This assumption was made because of the relatively low volume of manufacturing for air circulating fans compared to other products, which increases the likelihood that parts are purchased rather than manufactured inhouse. As previously stated, variability in the costs of purchased parts can account for large changes in the overall MPC values calculated. Purchased part costs can vary significantly based on the quantities desired and the component suppliers chosen. The purchased part prices used in this study were typical values based on estimated production volume and other factors. However, 20 More information on the USGS metal price statistics may be found at: www.usgs.gov/centers/ nmic/commondity-statistics-and-information. 21 More information on the BLS producer price indices may be found at: www.bls.gov/ppi/. E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 62052 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules variability in these prices may exist on a case-by-case basis. Due to the great diversity of manufacturing scale in the fans industry, DOE estimates that the purchased parts costs could vary significantly by manufacturer. Some parts like motors, and impellers may be produced in-house by some manufacturers and purchased by others, changing likely overall system costs and investment requirements. Factory Parameters Certain factory parameters, such as fabrication rates, labor rates, and wages, also affect the cost of each unit produced. DOE factory parameter assumptions were based on internal expertise and may be updated based on manufacturer feedback. Table II–9 lists the factory parameter assumptions used in the cost models. These assumptions are generalized to represent typical production and are not intended to model a specific factory. TABLE II–9—FACTORY PARAMETER ASSUMPTIONS FOR AIR CIRCULATING FANS Parameter Estimate Actual Annual Production Volume ....................................................................................................................................................... Work Days Per Year (days) ................................................................................................................................................................ Fabrication Shifts Per Day (shifts) ....................................................................................................................................................... Assembly Shifts Per Day (shifts) ......................................................................................................................................................... Fabrication Labor Wages ($/hr) ........................................................................................................................................................... Assembly Labor Wages ($/hr) ............................................................................................................................................................. Burdened Fabrication Labor Wage ($/hr) ............................................................................................................................................ Burdened Assembly Labor Wage ($/hr) .............................................................................................................................................. Fabrication Worker Hours Per Year .................................................................................................................................................... Assembly Worker Hours Per Year ...................................................................................................................................................... Supervisor Span (workers/supervisor) ................................................................................................................................................ Supervisor Wage Premium (over fabrication and assembly wage) .................................................................................................... Fringe Benefits Ratio ........................................................................................................................................................................... Indirect to Direct Labor Ratio .............................................................................................................................................................. Length of Shift (hr) ............................................................................................................................................................................... Worker Downtime ................................................................................................................................................................................ Actual units per day ............................................................................................................................................................................. Average Equipment Installation Cost (% of purchase price) .............................................................................................................. Average Scrap Credit (relative to base material cost) ........................................................................................................................ Non-recyclable Trash Cost ($/lb) ......................................................................................................................................................... Issue 18: DOE requests comment on its factory parameter assumptions for typical air circulating fan production. c. Determination of Air Circulating Fan MPC DOE conducted teardowns on four housed and five unhoused air circulating fan heads ranging in diameter from 18 inches to 30 inches and created a BOM for each fan. For this NODA, DOE used the BOM for what DOE considered to be a representative baseline 24-inch unhoused fan without a motor and one representative baseline 24-inch housed fan without a motor. The baseline unhoused air circulating fan material and production costs were scaled to each of the unhoused representative diameters (i.e., 12, 20, 36, and 50 inches) by the ratio of the representative diameters to 24 inches. For housed air circulating fans, DOE determined material and production costs for the 24-inch housed fan, then used the ratio between the 24-inch 25,000 250 1 1 16 16 24 24 250 250 25 30% 50% 33% 8 10% 100 10% 30% $0 housed and unhoused costs to estimate housed fan costs at each representative diameter. DOE’s cost data for diameters other than 24 inches is included in the supplement spreadsheet included in the docket. (See Docket No. EERE–2022– BT–STD–0002, No. 11) Table II–10 summarizes the characteristics assumed for 24-inch housed and unhoused baseline fans. DOE assumed that these fans were manufactured in China, and that material and parts were also sourced from China. TABLE II–10—MATERIAL AND PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS FOR BASELINE 24-INCH HOUSED AND UNHOUSED AIR CIRCULATING FAN Unhoused khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Blade Type ...................................... Blade Shape .................................... Blade Material ................................. Hub Material .................................... Type of Housing .............................. Housing Material ............................. Propeller .................................................................... Rectangular ............................................................... Galvanized Cold Rolled Steel (‘‘CRS’’) ..................... Aluminum CRS .......................................................... Basket ........................................................................ CRS-Wire ................................................................... Issue 19: DOE requests comment on whether or not its baseline material assumptions are representative of baseline fans distributed into commerce. If DOE’s baseline material assumptions are not representative, DOE requests information and data on materials VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Housed Jkt 259001 Propeller. Rectangular. Galvanized CRS. Aluminum CRS. Tube. CRS-Wire and polypropylene. typically used in the air circulating fans currently on the market. Housed and unhoused baseline 24inch air circulating fan cost estimates are summarized in Table II–11. PO 00000 TABLE II–11—ESTIMATED MPCS FOR AIR CIRCULATING FANS WITH NO MOTORS Fan cost (no motor) 24-inch Unhoused ................ Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 $26.06 62053 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules used in the representative units TABLE II–11—ESTIMATED MPCS FOR baseline fans with fractional motor hp AIR CIRCULATING FANS WITH NO would be equipped with a SP motor. For evaluated for this analysis, DOE each efficiency level analyzed (i.e., EL1, determined the equation of the best fit MOTORS—Continued Fan cost (no motor) 24-inch Housed .................... 69.89 Issue 20: DOE requests comment on its estimated base MPC for air circulating fans with no motors at each of the representative diameters evaluated. (See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) As discussed previously, DOE used a design option approach to structure its engineering analysis. DOE assumed that EL2, and EL 3), DOE assumed that a more efficient motor is substituted into the same fan. At EL 4, DOE assumed the most efficient motor was paired with improved aerodynamic design of the fan. To estimate manufacturer costs for SP motors, PSC motors, and ECMs, DOE used motor costs from its internal parts database and assumed a motor to fan manufacturer markup of 1.37.22 DOE did not have specific cost data for SP motors, and therefore used costs for shaded-pole motors as a proxy for SP motor costs. See 2009 CR Report. To estimate motor costs for the motor hp line for hp as a function of motor cost and calculated motor cost at 0.1, 0.33, 0.5, and 1 hp for SP motors, PSC motors and ECMs. DOE’s parts database does not differentiate between motor efficiency. DOE therefore estimated PSC 1 motor cost using a best fit line for cost as a function of hp. For PSC 2 motor costs, DOE determined a best fit line identified the 95th cost percentile for each representative unit/motor hp, and then determined the best fit line through these points. Table II–12 summarizes estimated motor costs for the 24-inch air circulating fan at each EL evaluated. TABLE II–12—ESTIMATED MOTOR COSTS AT EACH EL FOR 24-INCH DIAMETER AIR CIRCULATING FANS Motor hp EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 0.5 ....................................... $26.05 $64.32 $79.78 $114.45 Issue 21: DOE requests comment on whether replacing a given fan motor with a more efficient fan motor will result in similar efficiency and cost impacts for housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads. Issue 22: DOE requests comment on its estimated motor costs SP motors (EL0), PSC motors (EL1), higher efficiency PSC motors (EL2), and ESMs (EL3) at each hp associated with the representative diameters evaluated. (See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) Table II–13 summarizes the total estimated cost of the fan assembly, including the motor, for 24-inch unhoused and housed fans. TABLE II–13—TOTAL AIR CIRCULATING FAN COST FOR A 24-INCH HOUSED AND UNHOUSED FAN AT EL0, EL1, EL2, AND EL3 Type Motor hp khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Unhoused ............................................................................. Housed ................................................................................. EL 0 0.5 0.5 $52.12 95.94 EL 1 EL 2 $90.38 134.21 $105.84 149.67 EL 3 $140.51 184.34 Issue 23: DOE requests comment on its estimated housed and unhoused air circulating fan costs at each EL and for each representative unit. (See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) As mentioned previously, DOE is assuming that a max-tech air circulating fan (i.e., EL4) would undergo aerodynamic redesign and contain an ECM. Aerodynamic redesign includes modifications to a fan’s housing, blade/ impeller, and/or guard that would include fan model redesign, reengineering, and upgraded/new tooling equipment. These modifications result in a one-time cost that is not captured by MPC but may be represented by capital conversion costs. DOE used the conversion costs for axial cylindrical housed fans, presented in the November 2016 NODA,23 as a proxy for estimating air circulating fan conversion costs. After adjusting for inflation, DOE estimates an air circulating fan redesign cost of $720,300 per fan. Additional information on DOE’s assumptions and analysis may be found in the supplemental spreadsheet associated with this docket (see Docket No. EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11). 22 A markup of 1.37 for motors at or below 5 hp was used in the Electric Motors Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document (TSD) (see section 5.4.8.4, Docket No. EERE–2020–BT–STD– 0007–0010 at regulations.gov). 23 See EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006–0189 at regulations.gov. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Issue 24: DOE requests comment on and additional data to support its estimated air circulating fan conversion costs to undergo aerodynamic redesign. E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 62054 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5. Manufacturer Selling Price The manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) is the price of the equipment when it is sold by the manufacturer to the first party in the distribution chain. It includes all direct and indirect production costs, other costs such as research and development, and the manufacturer’s profit. When developing cost-efficiency curves during its engineering analysis, DOE typically uses MSP as a function of efficiency. For simplicity, DOE is presenting the results of its cost model for this NODA in terms of MPC. The MSP is expressed as the product of the MPC and the manufacturer markup. Based on information obtained during interviews with manufacturers, DOE is assuming that the average manufacturer markup for a baseline fan is 1.5.50 percent, meaning the MSP is During interviews, manufacturers stated that they expected to be able to maintain their profit margin if DOE were to set energy efficiency standards for air circulating fans; therefore, DOE is assuming that the average MSP in a market with standards would also be 1.5. Issue 25: DOE requests comment on whether or not an average MSP of 1.5 is representative for the air circulating fan market. If an average MSP of 1.5 is not representative, DOE requests information of what a more representative MSP would be. Additionally, DOE requests comment on whether or not MSP for air circulating fans will remain constant in the case of new energy conservation standards. If not, DOE seeks information on the magnitude by which MSP might change under potential energy efficiency standards. E. Markups Analysis khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert MSP estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit margin. DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards.24 In the ECS RFI, DOE requested information to help characterize distribution channels for air circulating fans. DOE also requested data on the fraction of sales that go through these channels. 87 FR 7048, 7054. DOE did not receive any input on this topic. DOE identified two distribution channels for air circulating fans, depending on the input power of the fan at maximum speed. Air circulating fans with input power less than 125 Watts (W) are primarily used in residential applications.25 Data from the 24 Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable increase in profitability in the long run. 25 DOE notes that distribution for residential use does not preclude coverage as covered equipment, so long as the equipment is of a type that is also PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’) indicate that an majority of residential appliances are sold through retail outlets.26 Because DOE is not aware of any other distribution channel that plays a significant role for air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, DOE estimates that such air circulating fans are purchased by consumers from retail outlets (including online retailers). For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W, DOE estimates that the primary distribution channel is that the manufacturer sells the equipment to a distributor, who in turn sells it to the customer. DOE is also aware of another direct sale channel for air circulating fans greater than or equal to 125 W where the manufacturer sells the equipment directly to a customer through their in-house distributor. In addition, DOE considered additional channels that included a contractor based on input from manufacturer interviews. Further, DOE estimated the fraction of shipments of air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W going through each channel based on feedback from manufacturer interviews. Information from the manufacturer interviews also indicated that some fraction of shipments (10–15 percent) are sold to consumers via an original equipment manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) and a distributor. However, DOE is not aware of any OEM equipment that would incorporate an air circulating fan and therefore did not consider this channel. distributed in commerce for industrial and commercial use. 26 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Fact Book 2009. 2009. AHAM: Washington, DC. E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 62055 Table II–14 summarizes the air circulating fan distribution channels identified by DOE. TABLE II–14—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS FOR AIR CIRCULATING FANS Air circulating fan input power at maximum speed (W) Less than 125 W .......................................................... Greater than or equal to 125 W ................................... To estimate average baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution channels, DOE relied on data from the 2017 Annual Retail Trade Fraction of shipments (%) Distribution channel Manufacturer Manufacturer Manufacturer Manufacturer Manufacturer → → → → → Retailer → Consumer .................................................... Distributor → Consumer ................................................ Distributor → Contractor → Consumer ......................... In-house Distributor → Consumer ................................ In-house Distributor → Contractor → Consumer .......... Survey,27 the 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey,28 and RS Means.29 In addition to the markups, DOE obtained state and local taxes from data provided 100 40 20 30 10 by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.30 Table II–15 and Table II–16 and show the resulting baseline markups, incremental markups, and sales tax. TABLE II–15—DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL MARKUPS FOR AIR CIRCULATING FANS WITH INPUT POWER LESS THAN 125 W Manufacturer → retailer → consumer (100% shipments) Distribution channel Baseline Retailer ..................................................................................................................................................................... Sales Tax ................................................................................................................................................................. Overall Markup ........................................................................................................................................................ Incremental 1.486 1.073 1.594 1.238 1.073 1.328 TABLE II–16—DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL MARKUPS FOR AIR CIRCULATING FANS WITH INPUT POWER GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 125 W Manufacturer → distributor → consumer (40% shipments) (In-house) Distributor ........ Contractor .......................... Sales Tax .......................... Overall Markup .................. Manufacturer → distributor → contractor → consumer (20% shipments) Base.* Inc.* Base. 1.412 ........................ 1.073 1.516 1.194 ........................ 1.073 1.281 1.412 1.100 1.073 1.667 Manufacturer → in-house distributor → consumer (30% shipments) Inc. 1.194 1.100 1.073 1.409 Base. Inc. 1.412 ........................ 1.073 1.516 1.194 ........................ 1.073 1.281 Manufacturer → in-house distributor → contractor → consumer (10% shipments) Base. 1.412 1.100 1.073 1.667 Inc. 1.194 1.100 1.073 1.409 * Base. = baseline, Inc. = Incremental. Issue 26: DOE requests feedback and information on the distribution channels identified for air circulating fans, and on any other distribution channel that DOE should consider. DOE also requests data on the fraction of sales that go through these channels. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS F. Energy Use Analysis The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of air circulating fans at different efficiencies for a representative sample of consumers, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased air circulating fan efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of air 27 Available at www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/ econ/arts/annual-report.html; NAICS 443— Electronics and Appliance Stores. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 circulating fans in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE performs, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards. In any future analysis, DOE may consider calculating the energy use by combining air circulating fan input power consumption in each mode (e.g., high speed, medium speed, low speed) from the engineering analysis with operating hours spent in each mode. To characterize variability and uncertainty, the energy use is calculated for a representative sample of air circulating fan consumers. This method of analysis, referred to as a Monte Carlo method, is explained in more detail in section II.G of this document. Results of the energy use analysis for each representative air circulating fan will be derived from a sample of 10,000 consumers. DOE then plans on using the range of energy use results in the LCC and PBP analyses and the average of the energy use results in the National Impact Analysis (‘‘NIA’’) analysis. This section presents DOE’s approach to develop consumer samples and the operating hour inputs that DOE is considering using in any future energy use analysis. For each consumer in the sample, DOE will associate a value of air circulating fan operating 28 Available at: www.census.gov/programssurveys/awts.html; NAICS 4238—Machinery, equipment, and supplies merchant wholesalers. 29 RS Means Electrical Cost Data 2021. Available at: www.rsmeans.com. 30 Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc., State Sales Tax Rates Along with Combined Average City and County Rates (2022), available at https://thestc.com/ STrates.stm (last accessed June 6, 2022). PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 62056 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules hours drawn from a statistical distribution as described in the remainder of this section. b. Operating Hours 1. Fans With Input Power Less Than 125 W a. Sample of Consumers khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS DOE is considering including only residential applications in the energy use analysis of air circulating fans with input power below 125 W. Although some of these air circulating fans are used in commercial or industrial settings, DOE believes that they represent a very small portion of the total market for such air circulating fans. To develop a representative sample of consumers, DOE is considering using the Energy Information Administration (‘‘EIA’’) 2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (‘‘RECS’’) 31 to choose a random sample of households in which new air circulating fans could be installed. RECS is a national survey of housing units that collects statistical information on the consumption of, and expenditures for, energy in housing units, along with data on energy-related characteristics of the housing units and occupants. RECS collects data on thousands of housing units, and was constructed by EIA to be a national representation of the household population in the United States. Although RECS contains information on operation for many appliances, it contains no information on the operation of air circulating fans within each household. RECS reports only the number of floor or window fans in the household which is the category of appliance closest to air circulating fans. In creating the sample of RECS households, DOE is planning on using the subset of RECS records that met the criterion that the household had at least one ‘‘floor or window fan’’. DOE is planning on choosing a sample of 10,000 households from RECS to estimate annual energy use for air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W. Because RECS provides no means of determining the subset of air circulating fans in a given household, DOE will use the same sample for all equipment classes. 31 Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). 2020. (Last accessed July 6, 2022) www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/ data/2020/. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 In the ECS RFI, DOE requested information to characterize the annual operating hours of air circulating fans and time spent in each operating mode, if applicable, by sector of application, and geographical region. 87 FR 7048, 7054. In response, ebm-papst commented that the use of agricultural fans, residential fans, commercial fans, and basket fans used for distribution transformers are all very different (ebmpapst, No. 8 at p. 4). ebm-papst did not provide additional information to characterize operating conditions. DOE did not receive other comments on this topic. DOE reviewed existing studies on air circulating fans used in residential applications and found that these are often studied in combination with ceiling fans, indicating that they likely operate similarly.32 In the absence of existing data indicating the daily hours of operation specific to air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, DOE used the same annual operating hours as developed for standard, hugger, and very small diameter ceiling fans in the Ceiling Fans Preliminary Analysis to characterize the operating hours of air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W.33 The ceiling fan preliminary analysis relied on a distribution of operating hours, with an average of 6.45 hours of operation per day with 33 percent at high speed, 38 percent at medium speed, and 29 percent at low speed. DOE assumes this is also representative of air circulating fan usage with input power less than 125W and plans on applying this load profile in any future energy use calculation. DOE notes that some air circulating fans may not have three available speeds, in which case DOE plans on adjusting the time spent in each mode according to the fan’s speed capability (e.g., assuming 100 percent of operation at the one available speed for single-speed air circulating fans). 32 Ecodesign Lot 10 Comfort Fans Study, Preparatory Study on Environmental Performance of Residential Room Conditioning Appliances (airco and ventilation) Study on comfort fans—final report October 2008, after SH comments www.eceee.org/ static/media/uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/ airco-ventilation/finalreport-cf.zip. 33 See Section 7.3.2. of Chapter 7 of the ceiling fan preliminary analysis Technical Support Document, www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2021-BT-STD-0011-0015. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 2. Fans With Input Power Greater Than or Equal to 125 W a. Sample of Consumers DOE is considering including only commercial, industrial, and agricultural applications in the energy use analysis of air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W. Although some air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W are used in residential applications, DOE believes that they represent a very small portion of the total market for such fans. DOE plans on creating a sample of 10,000 consumers for each equipment class to represent the range of air circulating fan energy use in the commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors. b. Operating Hours As noted previously, DOE did not receive any information related to the operating hours of air circulating fans. In the absence of data indicating the daily hours of operation specific to air circulating fans, DOE estimated that air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W operate, on average, 12 hours per day, consistent with the hours of use estimated for large-diameter ceiling fans in the Ceiling Fan Preliminary Analysis.34 To represent a range of possible operating hours around this representative value, DOE will be drawing 10,000 samples from a uniform distribution between 6 hours per day and 18 hours per day (assuming a uniform distribution of operating hours due to the limited availability of information). In the July 2022 TP NOPR, the efficiency metric is calculated assuming that the performance at each of the five tested speeds is weighted equally, as there are not available data to suggest a different distribution of time spent at each speed. 87 FR 44194, 44238. For this NODA, DOE assumed an equal amount of time would be spent at each speed, in alignment with the approach in the July 2022 TP NOPR. Table II–17 summarizes the inputs to the energy use calculation identified by DOE. For each consumer in the samples, DOE will associate a value of air circulating fan operating hours drawn from a statistical distribution as described in Table II–17. 34 See Section 7.4.2 of Chapter 7 of the Ceiling Fan Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document, www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2021-BT-STD-0011-0015. E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 62057 TABLE II–17—INPUTS TO THE ENERGY USE CALCULATION Input to the energy use calculation Air circulating fan with input power at maximum speed less than 125 W Air circulating fan with input power at maximum speed greater than or equal to 125 W Average Operating Hours per Day ............................. Statistical Distribution .................................................. 6.45 hours per day ........................ Based on Consumer Survey ......... Fraction of time spent in each mode .......................... 33% on high speed, 38% on medium speed, 29% on low speed. 12 hours per day. Uniform Distribution between 6 hours per day and 18 hours per day. Equal amount of time at each tested speed. Issue 27: DOE seeks comment on the estimated average number of operating hours per year, distribution of operating hours, and the estimated fraction of time spent at each speed setting for air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W and those with input power greater than or equal to 125 W. In addition, if DOE should consider different operating hours for specific applications (e.g., air circulating fans used in agricultural applications, thermal mixing fans) DOE requests data on how to best characterize operating hours for these various applications. G. Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE uses the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts: • The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product. • The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect. For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the estimated efficiency distribution of air circulating fans in the absence of new energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product. For each considered efficiency level in each equipment class, DOE plans on calculating the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative sample of consumers. In addition, the computer model that DOE plans on using to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and air circulating fan consumer samples. The model calculates the LCC and PBP for equipment at each efficiency level for 10,000 consumers per simulation run. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the nonew-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, equipment efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen equipment efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more efficient equipment, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing equipment efficiency. This section presents the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis not previously described in this document. All inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses are summarized in Table II–18. TABLE II–18—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS Inputs Source/method Equipment Cost ........................................................................ Will be derived by multiplying MSPs by distribution channel markups and sales tax, as appropriate. DOE uses historical data to derive a constant price index to project equipment costs. Assumed installation costs do not vary by efficiency level. Annual energy use: Based on the time spent in each model multiplied by the input power in each mode. Variability: Based on discrete and uniform probability distributions. Electricity: Average and marginal prices based on Edison Electric Institute (‘‘EEI’’) data for 2021. Variability: Based on sector and geographical region. Based on 2022 Annual Energy Outlook (‘‘AEO2022’’) price projections (or most recent version available at the time of the analysis). Assumed maintenance costs do not vary by efficiency level. Assumed no repair costs for air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W. Assumed one motor repair for air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W, with a lifetime that exceeds the average lifetime. Installation Costs ...................................................................... Annual Energy Use .................................................................. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Energy Prices ........................................................................... Energy Price Trends ................................................................ Repair and Maintenance Costs ................................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 62058 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules TABLE II–18—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS—Continued Inputs Source/method Equipment Lifetime ................................................................... Average: 10 years for air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W. And 30 years for air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W. Variability: Based on Weibull distribution. Residential: approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. Commercial/Industrial/Agricultural: Calculated as the weighted average cost of capital for entities purchasing pool pumps. Primary data source was Damodaran Online. 5 years after publication of any final rule. Discount Rates ......................................................................... khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Compliance Date ...................................................................... Issue 28: DOE requests feedback on the inputs and considered methods used for the LCC and PBP analyses. Similarly, DOE expects to rely on a constant price trend for air circulating fans. 1. Equipment Price To calculate consumer equipment costs, DOE multiplies the MSPs developed in the engineering analysis by the distribution channel markups described previously (along with sales taxes). As previously discussed, DOE uses different distribution channel markups for baseline equipment and higher efficiency equipment, because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher efficiency equipment. To project equipment costs in the projected compliance year, DOE plans on developing an equipment price trend. Because the motor is the most costly component of the air circulating fan, DOE believes that historic prices of electric motors provide a reasonable basis for considering trends in the price of air circulating fans. DOE is planning on obtaining historical Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’) data for integral hp motors and generators manufacturing spanning the time period from 1969 to 2021 and for fractional hp motors and generators manufacturing between 1967 and 2021 from the BLS.35 The PPI data reflect nominal prices, adjusted for product quality changes. An inflation-adjusted (deflated) price index for fractional hp motors and generators manufacturing was calculated by dividing the PPI series by the Gross Domestic Product Chained Price Index. Previous DOE analysis that relied on the same approach and data sources resulted in a constant price trend assumption to project future electric motor prices.36 2. Installation, Repair and Maintenance Costs DOE reviewed available air circulating fan installation, maintenance, and repair cost information. For air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, which DOE is assuming are primarily used in residential applications, a previous study focused on air circulating fans used in residential settings estimated no installation, repair, or maintenance costs for these fans.37 DOE believes this is a representative characterization of these costs as these air circulating fans are plug-in equipment that do not require any maintenance and are unlikely to be repaired due to the relatively low equipment price. For air circulating fans with input power greater than 125 W, which DOE assumes are primarily used in commercial, industrial, and agricultural applications, DOE did not find any information supporting changes in installation and maintenance costs as a function of efficiency. Therefore, because DOE expresses results in terms of LCC savings, DOE is not planning to account for installation costs in the LCC (the difference in installation costs between a baseline and more efficient air circulating fan would be zero and would have no impact on the calculated LCC savings). In terms of repairs, DOE has identified the motor replacement as a potential repair. Depending on the 35 Series ID PCU3353123353123 and PCU3353123353121 for integral and fractional hp motors and generators manufacturing, respectively; www.bls.gov/ppi/. 36 See Electric Motors Energy Conservation Standards Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document, Chapter 8: Life Cycle Cost and Payback VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 Period Analysis (p. 269). Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BTSTD-0007-0010. 37 Ecodesign Lot 10 Comfort Fans Study, Preparatory Study on Environmental Performance of Residential Room Conditioning Appliances (airco and ventilation) Study on comfort fans—final report October 2008, after SH comments (p. 44; p. 71–73) www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ ecodesign/products/airco-ventilation/finalreportcf.zip. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 design options considered, DOE may include different repair costs by EL to reflect differences in motor replacement costs. DOE did not find any information related to motor repair frequency in air circulating fans. For air circulating fans greater than or equal to 125 W, DOE is considering accounting for one motor replacement for consumers that have an air circulating fan with a sampled lifetime exceeding the average lifetime. Issue 29: DOE requests information on its assumptions related to installation, maintenance, and repair practices of air circulating fans. Specifically, DOE requests feedback and data on whether installation, maintenance, and repair costs of air circulating fans are expected to be different at higher efficiency levels in comparison to the baseline installation, maintenance, and repair costs. To the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data and the reasons for those differences. Issue 30: DOE requests information on the repair frequency of air circulating fans (i.e., how many repairs in a lifetime) by category (i.e., unhoused air circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel fan, box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal air circulating fan) and on its approach to consider a single repair for certain air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W. 3. Energy Prices DOE is planning on using average and marginal electricity prices in 2021 for each census division using data from the EEI Typical Bills and Average Rates reports 38 and the methodology described in two Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reports.39 40 DOE’s 38 Edison Electric Institute, EEI Typical Bills and Average Rates Report (2021). Washington, DC. 39 Katie Coughlin and Berket Beraki, ‘‘NonResidential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods,’’ April 15, 2019, doi.org/10.2172/1515782. E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules methodology allows electricity prices to vary by sector, region, and season. In the analysis, variability in electricity prices is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer economic and energy use characteristics are defined in the LCC 62059 and PBP analyses. Table II–19 shows the average and marginal prices for each sector of application. TABLE II–19—ELECTRICITY PRICES IN 2021 Average price 2021$/kWh Sector Residential ............................................................................................................................................................... Commercial (small) .................................................................................................................................................. Commercial (large) .................................................................................................................................................. Industrial .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.151 0.117 0.083 0.069 The equipment lifetime is the age at which given equipment is retired from service. DOE typically develops survival probabilities using on a Weibull function to characterize variability in lifetimes. In preparation for this NODA, DOE reviewed data available for air circulating fan lifetime. For air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, which are primarily used in residential applications, a previous study focused on air circulating fans used in residential settings estimated air circulating fan lifetimes at 10 years on average.41 For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W, DOE did not find data specific to such fans and instead is considering an average lifetime of 30 years across all sectors, as used to characterize fan and blower lifetimes in a previous DOE analysis.42 In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate to consumers to estimate the present value of future operating cost savings. DOE estimated a distribution of discount rates for air circulating fan consumers based on the opportunity cost of consumer funds. DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount rates.43 The LCC analysis estimates net present value over the lifetime of the equipment, so the appropriate discount rate will reflect the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking this time scale into account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC analysis, the application of a marginal interest rate associated with an initial source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase, consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical distribution of debts and assets. To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to approximate a consumer’s opportunity cost of funds related to appliance energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the various types of debt and equity by household income group using data from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances 44 (‘‘SCF’’) for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. Using the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that may apply in the year in which amended standards would take effect. In the LCC calculation, to account for variation among households, DOE will assign each RECS household a specific discount rate drawn the distributions for the appropriate income group (RECS provides household income data). The average discount rate in 2021 across all types of household debt and equity and income groups, weighted by the shares of each type, is 4.3 percent. DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount rates. DOE notes that the LCC does not analyze the appliance purchase decision, so the implicit discount rate is not relevant in this model. The LCC estimates net present value over the lifetime of the 40 Katie Coughlin and Bereket Beraki, ‘‘Residential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods,’’ 2018. 41 Ecodesign Lot 10 Comfort Fans Study, Preparatory Study on Environmental Performance of Residential Room Conditioning Appliances (airco and ventilation) Study on comfort fans—final report October 2008, after SH comments (p. 44) www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ ecodesign/products/airco-ventilation/finalreportcf.zip. 42 On November 1, 2016, DOE published a notification of data availability (‘‘November 2016 NODA’’) that presented an analysis for fans and blowers other than air circulating fans. 81 FR 75742. The lifetime assumptions and data source supporting the life cycle cost calculation of the November 2016 NODA are available online at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BTSTD-0006-0190 (see ‘‘Lifetime’’ worksheet). The average lifetime estimate was based on input from a subject matter expert John Murphy. ‘‘Commercial and Industrial Fans Life-cycle Cost Informational Interview.’’ Telephone interview. 13 May 2014. 43 The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases. 44 U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. (Last accessed June 15, 2022) www.federalreserve.gov/ econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm. To estimate electricity prices in future years, DOE is planning on multiplying the 2021 electricity prices by the sectorspecific forecasts of annual national average price changes from EIA’s Reference case in the AEO 2022. The reference case is a business-as-usual estimate, given known market, demographic, and technological trends. AEO2022 has an end year of 2050. DOE assumes a flat rate of change in prices from 2050. The values for the industrial sector are used for the agricultural sector as well. 4. Lifetime khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 0.157 0.123 0.097 0.081 Marginal price 2021$/kWh VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 Issue 31: DOE requests comment on the estimated average equipment lifetimes for air circulating fans. DOE also requests information related to minimum and maximum equipment lifetimes (in years or total mechanical hours). 5. Discount Rates PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 62060 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS product, so the appropriate discount rate will reflect the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking this time scale into account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC, the application of a marginal interest rate associated with an initial source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase, consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical distribution of debts and assets. To establish commercial, industrial, and agricultural discount rates, DOE estimated the weighted average cost of capital using data from Damodaran Online.45 The weighted average cost of capital is commonly used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so their cost of capital is the weighted average of the cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. DOE estimated the cost of equity using the capital asset pricing model, which assumes that the cost of equity for a particular company is proportional to the systematic risk faced by that company. The average commercial, industrial, and agricultural discount rates in 2021 are 6.77 percent, 7.25 percent, and 7.15 percent respectively. 6. Efficiency Distribution in the No-New Standards Case To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s LCC analysis considers the projected distribution (market shares) of equipment efficiencies in the no-newstandards case (i.e., the case without new energy conservation standards) in the anticipated compliance year of any future energy conservations standards. For air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, DOE did not find any data regarding the distributions of equipment efficiencies in the no-newstandards case. In the absence of any data, DOE is conservatively considering assuming all shipments are at the baseline level (EL 0). For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W, 45 Damodaran Online, Data Page: Costs of Capital by Industry Sector (2020). (Last accessed February 1, 2021) pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar/. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 DOE is planning on using the distributions based on model counts at each efficiency level analyzed from the BESS Labs Database to develop 2021 distributions of equipment efficiencies in the no-new-standards case. DOE notes that the BESS Labs Database only publishes performance at limited operating points for a given model, allowing DOE to calculate the FEI at a single operating point (and not as a weighted average). In the absence of other data, DOE will use this as a proxy for determining the weighted average FEI of air circulating fans with variable and multi-speed capability. In addition, DOE will apply equipment efficiency trends (see section II.H.3 of this document) to project the efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case in the compliance year. Using the projected distribution of efficiencies for air circulating fans, DOE plans on randomly assigning an equipment efficiency to each household and commercial, industrial, or agricultural consumer drawn from the consumer samples. If a consumer is assigned an equipment efficiency that is greater than or equal to the efficiency under consideration, the consumer would not be affected by a standard at that efficiency level. Issue 32: DOE requests comment on its approach to derive efficiency distribution in the no-new standards case for each air circulating fan category and input regarding 2021 (or most recent year available) equipment efficiency distributions. Additionally, DOE seeks data that would support changes in efficiency distributions over time in the no-new standards case. To the extent any of the efficiency distributions in the no-new standards case differ by size or other consumer or design characteristic, DOE requests information to characterize these variations. 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 new standards at specific efficiency levels (referred to as candidate standard levels).46 DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard levels considered based on projections of annual equipment shipments, along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, operating cost savings, 46 The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. territories. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 equipment costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of air circulating fans sold over a 30-year period starting in the compliance year. DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing a case without such standards with standards case projections (‘‘no-new-standards case’’). The no-new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each equipment class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with projections characterizing the market for each equipment class if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels for that class. For each efficiency level, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of equipment with efficiencies greater than the standard. The NIA calculations use typical values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs. Critical inputs to this analysis include shipments projections, estimated product lifetimes, product installed costs and operating costs, product annual energy consumption, the base case efficiency projection, and discount rates. In this section, DOE discusses specific inputs to the NIA, not previously discussed in this document, for which it requests comment and feedback. 1. Base Year Shipments DOE develops shipments forecasts to calculate the national impacts of potential energy conservation standards on energy consumption, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments projections are typically based on available historical data broken out by equipment class, capacity, and efficiency. Current sales estimates allow for a more accurate model that captures recent trends in the market. For air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, DOE reviewed shipments data from the Appliance Magazine market research,47 which provides 1981–1994 shipments estimates of air circulating fans used in residential settings and of ceiling fans. On average during the period 1981– 1994, the data showed that shipments of such air circulating fans represented 91 percent of ceiling fan shipments. DOE 47 Appliance Magazine market research, Appliance Historical Statistical review, 1954–2012, January 2014. E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules assumed that this ratio is still representative of the market in 2020 and calculated shipments of air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W by multiplying the 2020 ceiling fan shipments data published in a previous DOE study 48 by 0.91, which resulted in 19.2 million units in 2020. DOE did not find data to characterize shipments by equipment classes in that input power range. For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W, DOE obtained 2021 shipments estimates from manufacturer interviews for unhoused air circulating fan heads and cylindrical air circulating fans.49 DOE then used model counts from the BESS Labs Database to estimate market shares by air circulating fan category. Table II– 20 shows the estimated market shares by category based on model counts from the BESS Labs Database. Based on this data, DOE estimated that unhoused air circulating fan headsand cylindrical air circulating fans represent a combined 30 percent of the total market of air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W. In addition, DOE adjusted the market shares of unhoused air circulating fan heads (22 percent) and cylindrical air 62061 circulating fans (8 percent) from the BESS Labs database to account for the market shares from the shipments estimates provided in manufacturer interviews (i.e., 20 percent and 10 percent, respectively). DOE then used unadjusted market shares by category as presented in Table II–20 to calculate shipments of air circulating fans for which manufacturer interviews did not provide estimates. The BESS Labs Database does not include any housed centrifugal air circulating fans. DOE did not find any data to estimate the shipments of housed centrifugal air circulating fans. TABLE II–20—AIR CIRCULATING FANS WITH INPUT POWER GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 125 W—MARKET SHARE BY EQUIPMENT CLASS (EXCLUDING HOUSED CENTRIFUGAL AIR CIRCULATING FANS) Market share based on model counts (%) Calculated market share (%) * Estimated 2021 shipments (units) DOE terminology BESS category Unhoused Air Circulating Fan Head ................................................... Box fan ................................................................................................ Air circulating axial panel fan .............................................................. Cylindrical air circulating fan ............................................................... Housed centrifugal air circulating fan .................................................. Basket fan .................. Box fan ....................... Panel fan .................... Tube fan ..................... N/A ............................. 22 11 59 8 N/A 20 11 59 10 N/A 494,950 275,018 1,475,098 255,100 N/A Total ............................................................................................. .................................... 100 100 2,500,167 * Adjusted market shares of Unhoused Air Circulating Fan Head and Cylindrical air circulating fan based on shipments estimates from manufacturer interviews. Finally for air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W, based on information from manufacturer interviews, DOE estimated that while some fans are used in commercial and industrial settings, the majority of these fans are used in agricultural applications. In the absence of any quantitative data to characterize the fraction of shipments by sector, DOE assumed 75 percent of shipments are used in agricultural settings,50 12.5 percent in commercial settings, and 12.5 percent in industrial applications. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 2. Shipments Projections In response to the February 2022 ECS RFI, ebm-papst suggested that the growth of indoor horticulture, a need for farm animal cooling due to climate change, and a need for auxiliary cooling on distribution transformers due to electrification of climate change could all be reasons for possible growth in the air circulating fan market. (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 4) 48 See Chapter 9 of the ceiling fan preliminary analysis Technical Support Document www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BTSTD-0011-0015. 49 Information from manufacturer interviews indicated shipments estimates of 494,950 units of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 To project shipments of air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, DOE is considering using an annual growth rate of 5 percent based on the Appliance Magazine market research data,51 which provides 1981–1994 shipments estimates for air circulating fans used in residential settings. For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W, DOE estimates that shipments of such fans follow similar trends as shipments of large-diameter ceiling fans. Therefore, DOE is considering projecting shipments of air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W based on the growth rates projected for shipments of large-diameter ceiling fans.52 DOE notes that this corresponds to a compound annual growth rate of 8.3 percent for the period 2020–2030. DOE may consider alternative approaches to project shipments depending on stakeholder comment and any additional data that may become available. Issue 33: DOE requests comment on the estimated 2020 shipments of air circulating fans for each market segment considered (i.e., below 125 W, and at or above 125 W) and seeks input on the fraction of shipments by air circulating fan category (i.e., unhoused air circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel fan, box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal air circulating fan). In addition, DOE requests 2021 annual sales data (or the most recent year available)—i.e., number of shipments—for air circulating fans and annual historical shipments data for 2016–2020 (or most recent years available). If disaggregated data of annual sales are not available for different air circulating fan categories, DOE requests more aggregated data of annual sales as available. Issue 34: DOE requests comment on the estimated market share by sector. DOE requests 2016–2021 data (or the most recent years available) on the fraction of shipments in the industrial, commercial, and residential sectors for unhoused air circulating fan heads and 255,100 units of cylindrical air circulating fans. 50 DOE assumed the mid-point between 50 and 100 percent of shipments (75 percent) go to agriculture. Distributed the remaining shipments equally across the commercial and industrial sectors. 51 Appliance Magazine market research, Appliance Historical Statistical review, 1954–2012, January 2014. 52 See Chapter 9 of the ceiling fan preliminary analysis Technical Support Document (TSD) https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021BT-STD-0011-0015. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 62062 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS air circulating fans. In each sector, DOE requests 2016–2021 data (or the most recent years available) on the fraction of shipments that represent replacement versus new installations. Issue 35: DOE requests comments on its approach to project shipments of air circulating fans. DOE requests information on the rate at which annual sales (i.e., number of shipments) of air circulating fans is expected to change in the next 5–10 years. If possible, DOE requests this information for each air circulating fan category (i.e., unhoused air circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel fan, box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal air circulating fan). If disaggregated data of annual sales are not available for each air circulating fan category, DOE requests more aggregated data of annual sales. 3. Equipment Efficiency Trends A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards cases over the entire 30year analysis period. To project the trend in efficiency absent amended standards for air circulating fans, DOE did not find any historical equipment efficiency data. Instead, in order to incorporate any efficiency trends, DOE may consider an approach that shifts a fraction of the market share in the single-speed levels (e.g., 1 percent) to the variable-speed efficiency levels to reflect the growing market share of variable-speed air circulating fans. DOE may consider alternative approaches to project equipment efficiency depending on stakeholder comment and any additional data that may become available. For standards cases, DOE is considering a ‘‘roll up’’ scenario to establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards are assumed to become effective. In this scenario, the market share of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the standard under consideration would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new standard level, and the market share of products above the standard would remain unchanged. To project the trend in efficiency in the various standard case considered, DOE would then apply the same shift towards variable-speed efficiency levels as in the no-newstandard case for the standards cases. Issue 36: DOE requests comments on its approach to project equipment efficiency for air circulating fans. DOE requests data and information on any trends in the fans market that could be used to forecast expected trends in market share by efficiency levels for air VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 circulating fans. If disaggregated data are not available for each air circulating fan category, DOE requests more aggregated data. III. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notification of data availability no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this document. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document. Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment. However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments. Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section. DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment. Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments. Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be accepted. Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free from any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author. Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters’ names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time. Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information believed to be confidential deleted or redacted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules status of the information and treat it according to its determination. It is DOE’s policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure). khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment As indicated in the analyses previously, DOE is seeking further comment and/or data on certain issues. For reference, these issues from the above analyses include the following: Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its assumption that most motors paired with air circulating fans are lower efficiency induction motors that are not currently regulated by DOE. Additionally, DOE requests data on the percentage of air circulating fans that include a SP, PSC, shaded pole, or electronically commuted motors. Issue 2: DOE requests comment on if or how the five screening criteria may impact the application of an aerodynamic redesign (including changes to housing, impeller and/or blade design), more efficient motors, or VSDs (‘‘variable-speed drives’’) as design options in the current rulemaking analysis. Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its assumption that the BESS Labs Combined Database is representative of the air circulating fan head market, with the exception of housed centrifugal air circulating fans and air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W which are not represented in the BESS Labs Combined Database. Issue 4: DOE requests additional information for all categories of air circulating fans, including: manufacturer name, model number, fan diameter, blade number, blade shape, blade material, housing type, housing material, spacing between the blade tip and the housing, and housing depth with associated performance data obtained using AMCA 230–15 with 2021 errata (or sufficient information that can be used to correct to AMCA 230–15 with 2021 errata). DOE additionally requests the following information on the motors sold within each fan model: motor type (i.e., SP, PSC, ECM, polyphase, etc.), type of drive (i.e., direct or belt), motor horsepower (‘‘hp’’), motor full-load efficiency (if available), motor rotations per minute, number of speeds, motor electric requirements (i.e., volts, amps, frequency, phase, AC/DC), and whether a variable-speed drive is included with the fan. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 Issue 5: DOE requests comment on the potential of using fan affinity laws to extrapolate BESS Labs performance data to air circulating fan heads with diameters less than 12 inches and greater than 52 inches. Additionally, DOE requests model characteristics and performance data obtained using AMCA 230–15 plus 2021 errata (or sufficient information than can be used to correct to AMCA 230–15 plus 2021 errata) for air circulating fans with diameters both smaller than and larger than those listed in the BESS Labs Database. Issue 6: DOE requests comment on whether, and if so how, each of the following performance-related features may impact utility of air circulating fans: presence or absence of a safety guard, presence or absence of housing, housing design, blade type, drive type, number of discrete speed settings, power requirements, and air velocity or throw. DOE requests additional feedback and data or information on other air circulating fan features that may impact utility for the end user and might form the basis for classification. Issue 7: DOE requests comment with supporting data on whether the following performance-related features provide substantially different utility, or are expected to have a significant impact on efficiency because of how they are used: (1) housed vs. unhoused air circulating fan heads; (2) directdriven vs. belt-driven air circulating fan heads; and (3) single-phase vs. polyphase air circulating fan heads. DOE also requests information on any additional features that may impact air circulating fan head utility. Issue 8: DOE requests comment on whether the diameters chosen for representative units in this analysis (i.e., 12 inches, 20 inches, 24 inches, 36 inches, and 50 inches) accurately represent the diameters with the highest sales volume available in the air circulating fan market. DOE also requests comment on whether diameter is an appropriate representative metric for air circulating fans. Issue 9: DOE requests comment on whether the motor hp it has associated with each representative diameter (i.e., 0.1 hp for 12 inches, 0.33 hp for 20 inches, 0.5 hp for 24 inches and 36 inches, and 1 hp for 50 inches) appropriately represent the motor hp for fans sold with those corresponding diameters. Issue 10: DOE requests comment on its use of SP motors as the baseline for air circulating fans. Additionally, DOE seeks feedback on its choice of motor technologies (SP motor to PSC 1 motor, PSC 1 motor to PSC 2 motor, and PSC 2 motor to ECM) to estimate air PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 62063 circulating fan efficiency increases from one efficiency level to the next. Issue 11: DOE requests comment on its assumption that motors used in air circulating fans are exclusively air-over motors. If this is not the case, DOE requests information on the other types of motors that are sold with air circulating fans and data on the percentage of air circulating fans that are sold with motors other than air-over motors. Additionally, DOE requests information on whether or not the type of motor supplied with an air circulating fan is a function of air circulating fan category (e.g., unhoused air circulating fan head, box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, etc.). Issue 12: DOE requests feedback on whether catalog performance data on SP motors and PSC motors is generally representative of the performance of the SP and PSC motors included with air circulating fans. Issue 13: DOE requests feedback on the methodology used to determine the baseline efficiency values for the representative units, including its method of first establishing the EL1 efficiency and then determining the baseline efficiency by reducing the EL1 efficiency by the difference in efficiency between a PSC motor and a SP motor. Additionally, DOE requests data on the expected average improvement in air circulating fan efficiency when a SP motor is replaced by a PSC 1 motor. Issue 14: DOE requests feedback on its assumption that airflow, pressure, and motor performance (for example, speed and inrush current) remain constant when replacing a less efficient motor with a more efficient motor in an air circulating fan. If airflow, pressure, or motor performance are not maintained when using a more efficient motor, DOE requests feedback and data on how it should conduct this analysis. Issue 15: DOE requests feedback on whether the efficiency gains shown in the supplementary spreadsheet are realistic efficiency gains when replacing a lower efficiency PSC motor (i.e., PSC 1 motor) with a higher efficiency PSC motor (i.e., PSC 2 motor). If these assumptions are not realistic, DOE requests data demonstrating air circulating fan motor efficiency as a function of hp, as well as data for motor hp as a function of fan diameter. Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on its use of dedicated purpose pool pump motors as a source for comparing PSC motor and ECM efficiency. Additionally, DOE requests information on whether motors used for this purpose are comparable to air circulating fan motors. DOE further requests feedback on whether the efficiency increases from E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 62064 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules PSC 1 motors to ECM that DOE presents are realistic. If dedicated purpose pool pump motors are not representative of air circulating fans motors, or DOE’s estimated efficiency increases are not realistic, DOE requests data on the difference between PSC 1 motor efficiency and ECM efficiency and the difference between PSC 2 motor efficiency and ECM efficiency for air circulating fans. DOE also requests comment on its use of extrapolation of these data to obtain efficiency values at fractional hp. Issue 17: DOE requests feedback on the FEI values that it determined and its approach for estimating FEI values for an air circulating fan that includes both an ECM and improved aerodynamic design. Issue 18: DOE requests comment on its factory parameter assumptions for typical air circulating fan production. Issue 19: DOE requests comment on whether or not its baseline material assumptions are representative of baseline fans distributed into commerce. If DOE’s baseline material assumptions are not representative, DOE requests information and data on materials typicaly used in the air circulating fans currently on the market. Issue 20: DOE requests comment on its estimated base MPC for air circulating fans with no motors at each of the representative diameters evaluated. (See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) Issue 21: DOE requests comment on whether replacing a given fan motor with a more efficient fan motor will result in similar efficiency and cost impacts for housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads. Issue 22: DOE requests comment on its estimated motor costs SP motors (EL0), PSC motors (EL1), higher efficiency PSC motors (EL2), and ESMs (EL3) at each hp associated with the representative diameters evaluated. (See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) Issue 23: DOE requests comment on its estimated housed and unhoused air circulating fan costs at each EL and for each representative unit. (See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 11) Issue 24: DOE requests comment on and additional data to support its estimated air circulating fan conversion costs to undergo aerodynamic redesign. Issue 25: DOE requests comment on whether or not an average MSP of 1.5 is representative for the air circulating fan market. If an average MSP of 1.5 is VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 not representative, DOE requests information of what a more representative MSP would be. Additionally, DOE requests comment on whether or not MSP for air circulating fans will remain constant in the case of new energy conservation standards. If not, DOE seeks information on the magnitude by which MSP might change under potential energy efficiency standards. Issue 26: DOE requests feedback and information on the distribution channels identified for air circulating fans, and on any other distribution channel that DOE should consider. DOE also requests data on the fraction of sales that go through these channels. Issue 27: DOE seeks comment on the estimated average number of operating hours per year, distribution of operating hours, and the estimated fraction of time spent at each speed setting for air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W and those with input ower greater than or equal to 125 W. In addition, if DOE should consider different operating hours for specific applications (e.g., air circulating fans used in agricultural applications, thermal mixing fans) DOE requests data on how to best characterize operating hours for these various applications. Issue 28: DOE requests feedback on the inputs and considered methods used for the LCC and PBP analyses. Issue 29: DOE requests information on its assumptions related to installation, maintenance, and repair practices of air circulating fans. Specifically, DOE requests feedback and data on whether installation, maintenance, and repair costs of air circulating fans are expected to be different at higher efficiency levels in comparison to the baseline installation, maintenance, and repair costs. To the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data and the reasons for those differences. Issue 30: DOE requests information on the repair frequency of air circulating fans (i.e., how many repairs in a lifetime) by category (i.e., unhoused air circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel fan, box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal air circulating fan) and on its approach to consider a single repair for certain air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W. Issue 31: DOE requests comment on the estimated average equipment lifetimes for air circulating fans. DOE also requests information related to minimum and maximum equipment lifetimes (in years or total mechanical hours). Issue 32: DOE requests comment on its approach to derive efficiency PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 distribution in the no-new standards case for each air circulating fan category and input regarding 2021 (or most recent year available) equipment efficiency distributions. Additionally, DOE seeks data that would support changes in efficiency distributions over time in the no-new standards case. To the extent any of the efficiency distributions in the no-new standards case differ by size or other consumer or design characteristic, DOE requests information to characterize these variations. Issue 33: DOE requests comment on the estimated 2020 shipments of air circulating fans for each market segment considered (i.e., below 125 W, and at or above 125 W) and seeks input on the fraction of shipments by air circulating fan category (i.e., unhoused air circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel fan, box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal air circulating fan). In addition, DOE requests 2021 annual sales data (or the most recent year available)—i.e., number of shipments—for air circulating fans and annual historical shipments data for 2016–2020 (or most recent years available). If disaggregated data of annual sales are not available for different air circulating fan categories, DOE requests more aggregated data of annual sales as available. Issue 34: DOE requests comment on the estimated market share by sector. DOE requests 2016–2021 data (or the most recent years available) on the fraction of shipments in the industrial, commercial, and residential sectors for air circulating fans. In each sector, DOE requests 2016–2021 data (or the most recent years available) on the fraction of shipments that represent replacement versus new installations. Issue 35: DOE requests comments on its approach to project shipments of air circulating fans. DOE requests information on the rate at which annual sales (i.e., number of shipments) of air circulating fans is expected to change in the next 5–10 years. If possible, DOE requests this information for each air circulating fan category (i.e., unhoused air circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel fan, box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal air circulating fan). If disaggregated data of annual sales are not available for each air circulating fan category, DOE requests more aggregated data of annual sales. Issue 36: DOE requests comments on its approach to project equipment efficiency for air circulating fans. DOE requests data and information on any trends in the fans market that could be used to forecast expected trends in E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules market share by efficiency levels for air circulating fans. If disaggregated data are not available for each air circulating fan category, DOE requests more aggregated data. IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notification of the availability of the preliminary technical support document and request for comment. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 259001 Signing Authority This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 5, 2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 62065 authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register. Signed in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2022. Treena V. Garrett, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy. [FR Doc. 2022–22141 Filed 10–12–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM 13OCP1

Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62038-62065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22141]


========================================================================
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. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 62038]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

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


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Fans and Blowers

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

ACTION: Notification of data availability (``NODA'').

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

SUMMARY: On February 8, 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') 
published a request for information regarding energy conservation 
standards for fans and blowers. In this NODA, DOE is publishing 
preliminary inputs and methodology for its technology, screening, 
engineering, shipments, markups, life cycle cost, and energy use 
analysis for air circulating fans. Air circulating fans are a 
subcategory of fans; however, air circulating fans were not included in 
the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory (``ASRAC'') 
negotiations undertaken in 2015 (see Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006). 
The purpose of this NODA is to provide stakeholders with the 
opportunity to review and provide comment on DOE's preliminary 
technical and economic evaluation of air circulating fans, prior to 
DOE's publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking for all fans and 
blowers. The analysis presented in this NODA is consistent with the air 
circulating fans scope and definitions that DOE proposed in the July 
25, 2022, test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') for 
fans and blowers (``July 2022 TP NOPR''). DOE requests comments, data, 
and information regarding its analysis.

DATES: Written comments and information will be accepted on or before 
November 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket 
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, 
identified by docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, by any of the 
following methods:
    Email: [email protected]. Include the docket 
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002 in the subject line of the message.
    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. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. 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) 287-1445. 
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not 
necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section IV of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, public meeting transcripts, 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, 
such as those containing information that is exempt from public 
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments in the docket. See 
section III.A of this document for information on how to submit 
comments through www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email: 
[email protected].
    Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 597-6265. Email: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other 
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Deviation From Appendix A
    C. Background
II. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE
    A. Scope
    B. Technology Options
    C. Screening Analysis
    D. Engineering Analysis
    1. Methodology
    a. Metric
    b. Air Circulating Fan Performance Data
    2. Equipment Classes and Representative Sizes
    a. Equipment Classes
    b. Representative Sizes
    3. Efficiency Model
    a. BESS Combined Database
    b. Baseline Fan Efficiencies
    c. Improving Efficiency With More Efficient Motors
    d. Improving Efficiency Through Aerodynamic Redesign
    e. Results for a 24-Inch, 0.5 hp Representative Unit
    4. Cost Model
    a. Cost Model Structure and Process
    b. Cost Model Assumptions
    c. Determination of Air Circulating Fan MPC
    5. Manufacturer Selling Price
    E. Markups Analysis
    F. Energy Use Analysis
    1. Fans With Input Power Less Than 125 W
    a. Sample of Consumers
    b. Operating Hours
    2. Fans With Input Power Greater Than or Equal to 125 W
    a. Sample of Consumers

[[Page 62039]]

    b. Operating Hours
    G. Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
    1. Equipment Price
    2. Installation, Repair and Maintenance Costs
    3. Energy Prices
    4. Lifetime
    5. Discount Rates
    6. Efficiency Distribution in the No-New Standards Case
    H. National Impact Analysis
    1. Base Year Shipments
    2. Shipments Projections
    3. Equipment Efficiency Trends
III. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

Introduction

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA),\1\ 
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of 
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C \1\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title 
IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317 as codified), established the 
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which 
sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy 
efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was redesignated Part A-1 and hereafter referred to as Part 
A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA specifies a list of equipment that constitutes covered 
equipment (hereafter referred to as ``covered equipment'').\2\ EPCA 
also provides that ``covered equipment'' includes any other type of 
industrial equipment for which the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') 
determines inclusion is necessary to carry out the purpose of Part A-1. 
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(L), 6312(b)) EPCA specifies the types of industrial 
equipment that can be classified as covered in addition to the 
equipment enumerated in 42 U.S.C. 6311(1) This industrial equipment 
includes fans and blowers. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(ii) and (iii)) 
Additionally, industrial equipment must be of a type that consumes, or 
is designed to consume, energy in operation; is distributed in commerce 
for industrial or commercial use\4\; and is not a covered product as 
defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2) other than a component of a covered 
product with respect to which there is in effect a determination under 
42 U.S.C. 6312(c). (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(A)) On August 19, 2021, DOE 
published a final determination that the inclusion of fans and blowers 
as covered equipment was necessary to carry out the purpose of Part A-1 
and classified fans and blowers as covered equipment. 86 FR 46579, 
46588. Air circulating fans are a class of fans and blowers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Covered equipment'' means one of the following types of 
industrial equipment: Electric motors and pumps; small commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment; large commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment; very large 
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment; 
commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers; 
automatic commercial ice makers; walk-in coolers and walk-in 
freezers; commercial clothes washers; packaged terminal air-
conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps; warm air furnaces and 
packaged boilers; and storage water heaters, instantaneous water 
heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)-
(K))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant 
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test 
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), 
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to 
require information and reports from manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 6316, 42 
U.S.C. 6296)
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment 
established under EPCA generally supersede state laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of federal preemption for particular state laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(b)(2)(D))
    In proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate a proposal against 
the criteria detailed in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), discussed further in 
section I.C of this document, and follow the rulemaking procedures set 
out in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
    DOE is publishing this NODA to collect data and information to 
inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.

B. Deviation From Appendix A

    In accordance with Section 3(a) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 
CFR part 430, DOE notes that it is deviating from that appendix's 
provision requiring a 75-day comment period for all pre-NOPR standards 
documents. (Section 6(d)(2) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 
430) DOE is instead providing a 45-day comment period which DOE 
believes is appropriate given the substantial stakeholder engagement to 
date, as discussed in section I.C of this document. The request for 
information on air circulating fans published on February 8, 2022, 
provided early notice to interested parties that the Department was 
interested in evaluating potential energy savings for this equipment. 
87 FR 7048. Further, a 45-day comment period will allow DOE to review 
comments received in response to this NODA and use it to inform the 
analysis of equipment considered in evaluating potential energy 
conservation standards.

C. Background

    On June 28, 2011, DOE published a notice of proposed coverage 
determination proposing that fans, blowers, and fume hoods would 
qualify as covered equipment under EPCA. 76 FR 37678. DOE noted that 
there were no statutory definitions for ``fan,'' ``blower,'' or ``fume 
hood,'' and presented definitions for consideration. 76 FR 37678, 
37679. DOE subsequently published a framework document on February 1, 
2013, detailing the analytical approach for developing potential energy 
conservation standards for commercial and industrial fans and blowers 
should the Secretary classify such equipment as covered equipment 
(``Framework Document''). 78 FR 7306. In the Framework Document, DOE 
determined that it lacked authority to establish energy conservation 
standards for fume hoods because fume hoods are not listed as a type of 
equipment for which DOE could establish standards. (Docket EERE-2013-
BT-STD-0006, No. 1 at p. 15) DOE acknowledged that the fan, which 
provides ventilation for the fume hood, consumes the largest portion of 
energy within the fume hood system, and that DOE planned to cover all 
commercial and industrial fan types, which included fans used to 
ventilate fume hoods. Id.
    On December 10, 2014, DOE published a NODA presenting an analysis 
estimating the economic impacts and energy savings from potential 
energy conservation standards for certain fans and blowers. This 
analysis did not include air circulating fans. 79 FR 73246.
    On April 1, 2015, DOE published a notice of intent to establish an 
Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) 
Working Group for fans (hereafter referred to as the ``Working 
Group''). 80 FR 17359.
    The Working Group \3\ commenced negotiations at an open meeting on 
May

[[Page 62040]]

18, 2015 and held 16 meetings and three webinars to discuss scope, 
metrics, test procedures, and standard levels for fans and blowers.\4\ 
The Working Group concluded its negotiations on September 3, 2015, and, 
by consensus vote,\5\ approved a term sheet containing 27 
recommendations related to scope, test procedure and energy 
conservation standards (``term sheet''). (See Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-
STD-0006, No. 179) ASRAC approved the term sheet on September 24, 2015. 
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005; Public Meeting Transcript, No. 58, 
at p. 29) The Working Group term sheet recommended the exclusion of air 
circulating fans. (See Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006, No. 179, 
Recommendation #2 at p. 2) On November 1, 2016, DOE published a third 
notification of data availability (``November 2016 NODA'') that 
presented a revised analysis for fans and blowers other than air 
circulating fans, consistent with the scope and metric recommendations 
of the term sheet. 81 FR 75742.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Working Group was comprised of representatives from 
AAON, Inc.; AcoustiFLO LLC; AGS Consulting LLC; Air Movement and 
Control Association (AMCA); Air Conditioning, Heating, and 
Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), Appliance Standards Awareness 
Project (ASAP); Berner International Corp; Buffalo Air Handling 
Company; Carnes Company; Daikin/Goodman; ebm-papst; Greenheck; 
Morrison Products; Natural Resources Defense Council; Newcomb & 
Boyd; Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance; CA IOUs; Regal Beloit 
Corporation; Rheem Manufacturing Company; Smiley Engineering LLC 
representing Ingersoll Rand/Trane; SPX Cooling Technologies/CTI; The 
New York Blower Company; Twin City Companies, Ltd; U.S. Department 
of Energy; and United Technologies/Carrier.
    \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: www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006.
    \5\ At the beginning of the negotiated rulemaking process, the 
Working Group defined that before any vote could occur, the Working 
Group must establish a quorum of at least 20 of the 25 members and 
defined consensus as an agreement with less than four negative 
votes. Twenty voting members of the Working Group were present for 
this vote. Two members (Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 
Institute and Ingersoll Rand/Trane) voted no.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 10, 2020, DOE received a petition from the Air Movement 
and Control Association, International (``AMCA''), Air Conditioning 
Contractors of America, and Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors 
of America requesting that DOE establish a test procedure for certain 
categories of fans based on an upcoming industry test method, AMCA 
Standard 214, ``Test Procedure for Calculating Fan Energy Index (FEI) 
for Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers'' DOE published a notice 
of petition for rulemaking and request for public comment (``April 2020 
Notice of Petition for Rulemaking''). 85 FR 22677 (Apr. 23, 2020). 
AMCA, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, and Sheet Metal & Air 
Conditioning Contractors have since withdrawn their petition (EERE-
2011-BT-DET-0045-00012, at p. 1)
    In conjunction with this notice of petition for rulemaking, on May 
10, 2021, DOE published a request for information requesting comments 
on a potential fan or blower definition. 86 FR 24752. On August 19, 
2021, DOE published in the Federal Register a final coverage 
determination classifying fans and blowers as covered equipment. 86 FR 
46579.
    On October 1, 2021, DOE published a request for information 
pertaining to test procedures for fans and blowers (``October 2021 TP 
RFI''). 86 FR 54412. As part of the October 2021 TP RFI, DOE discussed 
the potential scope and definitions for air circulating fans. 86 FR 
54412, 54414-54415. DOE is considering including air circulating fans 
in its analysis of potential energy conservation standards for fans and 
blowers. As noted previously, air circulating fans were not included in 
the scope of the term sheet and were not previously analyzed by the 
Department. DOE published a separate request for information on 
February 8, 2022, to seek input to aid in the development of the 
technical and economic analyses regarding whether standards for air 
circulating fans may be warranted (hereinafter referred to as the ``ECS 
RFI''). 87 FR 7048. DOE received comments in response to the ECS RFI 
from the interested parties listed in Table I-1.

                Table I-1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the ECS RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Comment No. in
              Commenter(s)                  Reference in this NODA      the Docket          Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Movement and Control Association....  AMCA......................            9,10  Trade Association.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project,    Joint Commenters..........               6  Efficiency Organizations.
 American Council for an Energy
 Efficient Economy, Natural Resources
 Defense Council, and Northwest Energy
 Efficiency Alliance.
California Investor-Owned Utilities.....  CA IOUs...................               7  Utility.
ebm-papst Inc...........................  ebm-papst.................               8  Manufacturer.
Robert Akscyn...........................  Akscyn....................               2  Individual.
Rub[eacute]n Guerra.....................  Guerra....................               3  Individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\6\ 
Comments received from the two individuals listed in Table I-1 are not 
discussed further in because they were either not relevant to the RFI 
or provide procedural recommendations.\7\ \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. (Docket No. 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov) 
The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment 
docket ID number, page of that document).
    \7\ A comment from R. Guerra stated that they own a residential 
ceiling fan that produces its own energy (Guerra, No. 3 at p. 1). 
DOE notes that the fans evaluated in this rulemaking exclude both 
ceiling fans and furnace fans.
    \8\ R. Akscyn recommended that DOE provide a short RFI summary 
so stakeholders do not have to review such lengthy documents and 
that DOE consider presenting the variables included in its analyses 
in terms of dimensional parameters. (Akscyn, No. 2 at pp. 1-3) DOE 
appreciates these suggestions. With respect to the structure and 
length of RFIs, DOE notes that it has certain legal obligations 
which it must fulfill for every document that is published. In most 
documents, DOE includes summaries and headings to aid stakeholder 
review. Additionally, DOE notes that the purpose of an RFI is to 
collect data and information. The purpose of this document is to 
present DOE's analyses to support potential energy conservation 
standards for fans and blowers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the comments received in response to the ECS RFI were 
related to the fans and blower test procedure. DOE published a proposed 
test procedure for fans and blowers on July 25, 2022 (``July 2022 TP 
NOPR'') in which it addressed the ECS RFI comments related to test 
procedure issues, including those related to definitions, scope of the 
test procedure, and metrics. 87 FR 44194.
    To date, DOE has not proposed energy conservation standards for 
fans and

[[Page 62041]]

blowers, including air circulating fans. This NODA presents DOE's 
planned inputs and preliminary analysis to inform the development of 
potential energy conservation standards for air circulating fans. As 
previously discussed, DOE previously published and received public 
comment on three NODAs for fans and blowers, excluding air circulating 
fans. DOE plans to rely on the existing analysis from the Working Group 
for fans and blowers other than air circulating fans. This NODA focuses 
exclusively on air circulating fans and is intended to support DOE as 
it completes a notice of proposed rulemaking analysis for all fans and 
blowers, including air circulating fans. While the discussion in this 
NODA is specific to air circulating fans, DOE welcomes additional 
comments and data on fans and blowers other than air circulating fans 
relevant to its analysis of any potential energy conservation standards 
for all fans and blowers. In addition, DOE may consider conducting a 
separate rulemaking specific to air circulating fans instead of 
including air circulating fans as part of the fans and blowers 
rulemaking.

II. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE

    This NODA focuses exclusively on air circulating fans and is 
intended to support DOE as it completes the notice of proposed 
rulemaking analysis for all fans and blowers, including air circulating 
fans. This NODA discusses the following for air circulating fans: (1) 
scope; (2) technology options; (3) engineering analysis; (4) markups 
analysis; (5) energy use analysis; (6) life cycle cost (``LCC'') and 
payback period (``PBP'') analyses; and (7) national impacts analysis. 
The items listed in Table II-1 provide an overview of the information 
about which DOE is requesting feedback. A supplemental spreadsheet 
documenting the assumptions and approach to the engineering analysis is 
included in the docket and accessible via the equipment rulemaking 
website. (See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=51&action=viewlive)

           Table II-1--Overview of Data Presented in This NODA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Analysis                          Data presented
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope..................................  Scope of equipment considered
                                          in the analysis of any
                                          potential energy conservation
                                          standards and related
                                          definitions.
Technology Options.....................  More efficient motors.
                                         Improved aerodynamic design
                                          (inclusive of blade shape and
                                          material selection).
Engineering Analysis...................  Representative sizes.
                                         Determination of baseline fan
                                          efficiency.
                                         Determination of efficiency
                                          levels by applying different
                                          technology options.
                                         Estimates for manufacturer
                                          production cost and
                                          manufacturer conversion cost
                                          at each efficiency level.
                                         Manufacturer markup.
Markups Analysis.......................  Distribution channels.
                                         Fraction of sales going through
                                          each channel.
                                         Distribution channel markups
                                          and sales tax.
Energy Use Analysis....................  Average operating hours per
                                          day.
                                         Distribution of operating
                                          hours.
                                         Fraction of time spent in each
                                          mode (i.e., speed setting).
Life Cycle Costs and Payback Period      Review of repair, installation,
 Analysis.                                and repair practices and
                                          costs.
                                         Energy prices.
                                         Lifetimes of air circulating
                                          fans.
                                         Discount rates.
                                         Review of available data to
                                          determine efficiency
                                          distributions.
National Impact Analysis...............  Base year shipments.
                                         Shipments growth rates and
                                          information related to
                                          shipments projections.
                                         Information related to
                                          efficiency trends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Scope

    As stated previously, the July 2022 TP NOPR discussed potential 
scope and definitions for air circulating fans, which include unhoused 
air circulating fan heads and housed air circulating fan heads. 87 FR 
44194. In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE proposed that the test procedure 
would be applicable to all air circulating fans and proposed to define 
an air circulating fan as a fan that has no provision for connection to 
ducting or separation of the fan inlet from its outlet using a pressure 
boundary, operates against zero external static pressure loss, and is 
not a jet fan. 87 FR 44194, 44215.
    DOE is considering including all air circulating fans in its 
analysis of potential energy conservation standards for fans and 
blowers. This includes unhoused air circulating fan head and housed air 
circulating fan head, for which DOE proposed definitions as part of the 
July 2022 TP NOPR (87 FR 44194, 44216).
    In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE also provided definitions for subsets 
of housed air circulating fan heads, specifically air circulating axial 
panel fans, box fans, cylindrical air circulating fans, and housed 
centrifugal air circulating fans. 87 FR 44194, 44216.
    DOE notes that the definitions used in this NODA are aligned with 
the proposed definitions in the July 2022 TP NOPR, which in turn were 
derived from definitions proposed by the AMCA. In response to the ECS 
RFI, AMCA provided additional comments to the docket on July 7, 2022, 
summarizing definitions to terms under consideration by the committee 
revising the ANSI/AMCA 230-15 standard, ``Laboratory Methods of Testing 
Air Circulating Fans for Rating and Certification'' (``AMCA 230-15''). 
(AMCA, No. 10, p. 1) AMCA's comments focused on definitions for 
different categories of air circulating fans and provided context for 
how air circulating fans might be grouped. (AMCA, No. 10, pp. 1-10) DOE 
will further address the scope and definitions of air circulating fan 
categories in the test procedure rulemaking and plans to consider 
AMCA's comments as part of the test procedure rulemaking.
    DOE also notes that in response to the ECS RFI, the Joint 
Commenters expressed their support for establishing energy conservation 
standards for air

[[Page 62042]]

circulating fans, including air circulating fan heads, box fans, 
personnel coolers, and table fans. (Joint Commenters, No. 6 at p. 1) 
Additionally, the Joint Commenters agreed that, based on the definition 
fans and blowers, air circulating fan heads, box fans, personnel 
coolers, and table fans are within the scope of the fans and blowers 
equipment category. Id. Additionally, ebm-papst supported the inclusion 
of air circulating fans in the DOE test procedure and energy 
conservation standards for fans and blowers. (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 2) 
During the public meeting held for the July 2022 TP NOPR, AMCA 
commented that they believed it would be best to separate air 
circulating fans into a separate rulemaking from fans and blowers. 
(Public Meeting Transcript, EERE-2021-BT-TP-0021, No. 18 at pp. 12, 27, 
43-44) Morrison Products supported AMCA's position that air circulating 
fans should be considered in a separate rulemaking. (Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 18 at pp. 91-92) DOE has reviewed existing regulatory 
definitions and market materials and believes that air circulating fans 
fall within the definition of fans and blowers. DOE will review 
stakeholder comments and may consider a separate rulemaking for air 
circulating fans.

B. Technology Options

    In the ECS RFI, DOE presented improved aerodynamic design, blade 
shape, more efficient motors, material selection, and variable-speed 
drives as potential technology options for air circulating fans and 
requested comment on: (1) how the specific technologies would impact 
air circulating fan efficiency; (2) whether the technologies listed 
apply equally to different categories of air circulating fans; (3) the 
impact of curved blades and airfoil blades on air circulating fan 
efficiency; (4) the impact of blade materials on fan efficiency; and 
(5) the percentage of air circulating fans sold with a motor and with 
variable-speed drive. 87 FR 7048, 7052.
    In response, the Joint Commenters urged DOE to consider more 
efficient motors and more efficient blade designs in its analysis 
because of their energy savings potential. (Joint Commenters, No. 6 at 
p. 2) Specifically, they stated that alternating current (``AC'') 
direct-drive motors offer better efficiency than belt drives and that 
direct current (``DC'') motors are more efficient than AC motors. Id. 
They added that more advanced blade designs, such as airfoil blades, 
can improve the efficiency of a fan relative to traditional single-
thickness blades. Id. emb-papst commented that to improve fan 
efficiency, inlet cones or bells and outlet vanes are occasionally 
included on air circulating fan housings and that winglets and rings 
are sometimes used on impellers. (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 3) 
Additionally, ebm-papst stated that the most efficient air circulating 
fans on the market (maximum available technology or ``max-tech'') often 
include the following features: an electronically commutated motor 
(``ECM''), injection-molded axial impellers, and outlet guide vanes. 
(ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 4) Finally, ebm-papst commented that they are 
unaware of any air circulating fans that are sold without a motor. 
(ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 3)
    During manufacturer interviews,\9\ many manufacturers stated that 
they would switch to more efficient motors before redesigning the 
housing and impeller (i.e., the blade assembly), since fan redesign 
results in significant conversion costs. However, improving the overall 
fan aerodynamics with the addition of attachments, such as inlet cones 
or outlet vanes might be done before moving to higher efficiency and 
more costly motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DOE conducted manufacturer interviews specific to air 
circulating fans from May 24 to May 31, 2022, to gather information 
for its analyses presented in this NODA. Four manufacturers opted to 
participate in these interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is not aware of any circulating fans that were distributed in 
commerce without an electric motor. Based on review of the 
Bioenvironmental and Structural System Laboratory (``BESS Labs'') 
database and air circulating fan teardowns, most motors paired with air 
circulating fans are not currently in the scope of DOE energy 
conservation standards (because they are split-phase (``SP'') motors 
and permanent split capacitor (``PSC'') motors).\10\ As such, DOE 
expects that, in many cases, fan manufacturers are using lower 
efficiency motors. Therefore, in this NODA, DOE's analysis focuses 
primarily on improving air circulating fan efficiency through the use 
of more efficient motors, as described in more detail in section 
II.D.3.c. DOE also evaluates the efficiency gains and relative costs 
associated with fan aerodynamic redesign. Notably, DOE is conducting a 
separate energy conservation rulemaking for electric motors in which it 
is considering standards for certain single-speed SP electric motors, 
single-speed shaded pole electric motors, and single-speed PSC motors. 
(See Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007) The Department will consider any 
outcome of the electric motors rulemaking when conducting its analysis 
of potential energy conservation standards for air circulating fans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ SP and PSC motors are types of single-phase motors that are 
not currently included in the scope of electric motors at 10 CFR 
431.25 because only polyphase motors are included in this scope. SP 
and PSC motors are not currently included in the scope of small 
electric motors at 10 CFR 431.441 because they do not meet the 
statutory definition of ``small electric motor'' as defined at 10 
CFR 431.442. In March 2022, DOE published a preliminary analysis for 
the ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking for electric 
motors that included SP and PSC motors in its analysis. 87 FR 11650.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its assumption that most motors 
paired with air circulating fans are lower efficiency induction motors 
that are not currently regulated by DOE. Additionally, DOE requests 
data on the percentage of air circulating fans that include a SP, PSC, 
shaded pole, or electronically commuted motors.

C. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which 
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking: (1) Technological feasibility; (2) 
Practicability to manufacturer, install, and service; (3) Impacts on 
product utility or product availability; (4) Adverse impacts on health 
or safety; and (5) Unique pathway proprietary technologies. 10 CFR part 
430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b). If DOE 
determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails 
to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded 
from further consideration in the engineering analysis.
    DOE did not conduct a screening analysis for this NODA and instead 
is presenting analyses for more efficient motors with efficiency and 
cost estimates for aerodynamic redesign in order to receive stakeholder 
feedback. In future analysis to support this rulemaking, DOE may screen 
out some or all of the technologies discussed based on one or more of 
the screening criteria.
    Issue 2: DOE requests comment on if or how the five screening 
criteria may impact the application of an aerodynamic redesign 
(including changes to housing, impeller and/or blade design), more 
efficient motors, or VSDs (``variable-speed drives'') as design options 
in the current rulemaking analysis.

D. Engineering Analysis

    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to determine the 
incremental manufacturing cost associated with producing products at 
higher efficiency

[[Page 62043]]

levels. The primary considerations in the engineering analysis are the 
selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency 
analysis'') and the determination of product cost at each efficiency 
level (i.e., the ``cost analysis'').
    DOE conducts the efficiency analysis using either an efficiency-
level approach, a design option approach, or a combination of both. 
Under the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels to be 
considered in the analysis are determined based on the market 
distribution of existing products (in other words, observing the range 
of efficiency and efficiency-level ``clusters'' that already exist on 
the market). This approach typically starts with compiling a 
comprehensive list of products available on the market, such as from 
DOE's product certification database. Next, the list of models is 
ranked by efficiency level from lowest to highest, and DOE typically 
creates a scatter plot to visualize the distribution of efficiency 
levels. From these rankings and visual plots, efficiency levels can be 
identified by examining clusters of models around common efficiency 
levels. The maximum efficiency level currently available on the market 
can also be identified.
    Under the design option approach, the efficiency levels to be 
considered in the analysis are determined through detailed engineering 
calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements 
from implementing specific design options that have been identified in 
the technology assessment. In an iterative fashion, design options can 
also be identified during product teardowns, described below. The 
design option approach is typically used when a comprehensive database 
of certified models is unavailable (for example, if a product is not 
yet regulated) and therefore the efficiency-level approach cannot be 
used.
    In certain rulemakings, the efficiency-level approach (based on 
actual products on the market) will be extended using the design option 
approach to define ``gap fill'' levels (levels that bridge large gaps 
between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to 
the ``max-tech'' level (the level that DOE determines is the maximum 
achievable efficiency level), particularly in cases where the ``max-
tech'' level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available 
on the market.
    The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted 
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of the 
cost approach depends on a variety of factors such as the availability 
and reliability of information on product features and pricing, the 
physical characteristics of the regulated product, and the 
practicability of purchasing the product on the market. DOE generally 
uses the following cost approaches:
    Physical teardown: Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a 
commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a 
detailed bill of materials (``BOM'') for the product.
    Catalog teardown: In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, 
DOE identifies each component using available parts diagrams (available 
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) 
to develop the BOM for the product.
    Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is 
feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products that are 
infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are 
unavailable), DOE conducts retail price surveys by scanning retailer 
websites and other marketing materials. This approach must be coupled 
with assumptions regarding distributor markups and retailer markups in 
order to estimate the actual manufacturing cost of the product.
    Manufacturer interviews: DOE may conduct voluntary interviews with 
manufacturers to gather confidential information that can be used in 
its analyses. This information can include manufacturing costs, 
materials prices, and markups that can be used in DOE's cost analysis.
    The engineering analysis conducted for this NODA used a design 
option approach supplemented by an efficiency level approach. The cost 
analysis relied on physical and catalog tear downs, cost analyses from 
other rulemakings, and confidential information provided by 
manufacturers.
1. Methodology
    The engineering analysis presented in this NODA is consistent with 
the scope, definitions, and metric proposed in the July 2022 TP NOPR 
for all fans (including air circulating fans), except where described 
below.
a. Metric
    In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to use the fan energy index 
(``FEI'') or weighted average FEI (in the case of multi-speed and 
variable-speed air circulating fans) as the efficiency metric for fans 
and blowers, including air circulating fans. (87 FR 44194, 44237-44238) 
FEI is an index calculated using the fan electrical input power at a 
given operating point, divided by the electrical input power of a 
reference fan at the same operating point. The FEI allows for the 
evaluation of fan or blower efficiency across a range of operating 
conditions, captures the performance of the motor, transmission, or 
motor controllers (if present), and enables differentiation of fans 
with motors, transmissions, and motor controller with different 
efficiencies. In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE proposed that the metric be 
determined as follows: (1) for single-speed fans, FEI would be 
evaluated at the single available speed and corresponding duty point; 
(2) for multi-speed fans and variable-speed fans, a weighted average 
FEI would be determined using a weighted average of all speeds tested. 
(87 FR 44194, 44238)
    DOE notes that the BESS Labs combined database does not provide 
performance data for multiple speed fans at all the test speeds 
proposed in the July 2022 TP NOPR. Therefore, for this NODA, DOE 
evaluated potential efficiency improvements based only on high-speed 
test data. Because fans are typically less efficient at their maximum 
speed, DOE expects that this assumption provides a conservative 
estimate of potential efficiency gains relative to the baseline. In 
future analysis, DOE expects to conduct its analysis consistent with 
the approach adopting in the forthcoming fans and blower test 
procedure.
    In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE also proposed FEI reference constants 
for flow rate, pressure and the efficiency target for air circulating 
fans. (87 FR 44194, 44230, 44232) Specifically, DOE proposed a flow 
rate constant (Q0) of 3,201, and pressure constant 
(P0) of 0 and an efficiency target ([eta]0) of 
0.38. Id. DOE utilized these proposed constants in its calculations of 
reference FEI used in the engineering analysis. In the supplemental 
NODA spreadsheet included in this docket, DOE also provided performance 
in terms of cubic feet per minute per watt (or CFM/W), since the FEI 
metric is still relatively new. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, 
No. 11)
b. Air Circulating Fan Performance Data
    AMCA stated that no air circulating fans are currently certified by 
AMCA. (AMCA, No. 9 at p. 4) Additionally, AMCA commented that air 
circulating fan product literature may advertise fan performance 
calculated using multiple versions of the AMCA 230 standard (e.g., AMCA 
230-1999, AMCA 230-2007, AMCA 230-2012, AMCA 230-2015 without errata, 
and AMCA 230-15 with 2021 errata). They stated that all of these 
versions, except for AMCA 230-15

[[Page 62044]]

with 2021 errata, have at least one error with respect to thrust, 
volumetric flow rate, or input power. AMCA added that this is an issue 
for the purchaser, either because purchasers are not aware of these 
errors or because manufacturers are not required to state how air 
circulating fan performance values were obtained. (Id.) AMCA also 
provided a table in their response to the ECS RFI showing the 
corrections made between each version of AMCA 230. (AMCA, No. 9 at p. 
5, Table 1) The contents of this table are reproduced below in Table 
II-2.

                     Table II-2--Summary of Errors and Corrections in ANSI/AMCA Standard 230
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Volumetric-flow-rate
                Year                         Thrust                    equation                 Input power
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999...............................  No conversion for       Incorrect--based on actual   No conversion for
                                      density.                atmospheric density, but     density.
                                                              calculation exaggerated by
                                                              multiplication factor of
                                                              1.414 ([radic]2).
2007...............................  Conversion to standard  Not calculated.............  No conversion for
                                      air density.                                         density.
2012...............................  Conversion to standard  Incorrect--uses converted    No conversion for
                                      air density.            thrust but actual air        density.
                                                              density.
2015...............................  Conversion to standard  Correct--uses converted      No conversion for
                                      air density.            thrust and standard air      density.
                                                              density.
2015: 2021 erratum.................  Conversion to standard  Correct--uses converted      Conversion to standard
                                      air density.            thrust and standard air      air density.
                                                              density.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During interviews, manufacturers stated that data collected by BESS 
Labs, associated with the University of Illinois-Champaign, is the best 
source for air circulating fan data.\11\ BESS Labs maintains a database 
of housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads that are used 
primarily in the agricultural industry (i.e., poultry houses, 
greenhouses, dairy barns). DOE notes that these air circulating fans 
heads are tested by BESS Labs according to AMCA 230-12. DOE used the 
BESS Labs test data and applied conversion formulas to calculate the 
performance data of the fans according to AMCA 230-15 with 2021 errata. 
Details of these performance calculations are available in the 
supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0002, No. 11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ BESS Labs is a research, product-testing and educational 
laboratory. BESS Labs provides engineering data to air in the 
selection and design of agricultural buildings and assists equipment 
manufactures in developing better products. Test reports for 
circulating fans are publicly available at bess.illinois.edu/current.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE did not receive sufficient air circulating fan performance data 
from the ECS RFI stakeholder comment responses or from manufacturers 
during the interview process. Therefore, for this analysis, DOE relied 
primarily on the BESS Labs circulating fans database (``BESS Labs 
Database''). The BESS Labs Database categorizes circulating fans into 
the following categories: basket, box, panel, tube, tube with bell 
inlet, vented tube, wire basket, and wire tube.
    Based on the proposed definitions discussed in section II.A, DOE 
mapped the categories in the BESS Labs Database as shown in Table II-3.

  Table II-3--DOE Categorization of BESS Labs Database Circulating Fan
                               Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       July 2022 TP NOPR terminology         BESS labs database category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unhoused air circulating fan head.........  Basket.
Housed air circulating fan head
    Box fan...............................  Box.
    Cylindrical air circulating fan.......  Tube, Tube with Bell Inlet,
                                             Vented Tube.
    Air circulating axial panel fan.......  Panel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this initial analysis, DOE evaluated unhoused air circulating 
fan heads, box fans, and cylindrical air circulating fans.\12\ DOE 
expects that the technology options evaluated in its analysis of these 
fans would be applicable to air circulating axial panel fans, 
especially improved motor efficiency. DOE expects that it will conduct 
additional analysis on air circulating axial panel fans in a subsequent 
part of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The BESS Labs Database classifies circulating fans as 
basket, box, panel, tube, tube with bell inlet, vented tube, wire 
basket, and wire tube fans. DOE evaluated 58 box fans (housed 
circulating fan heads) and 40 tube fans (housed air circulating fan 
heads) and 102 basket fans (unhoused air circulating fan heads) in 
the BESS Labs Database, accessed on June 17, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE further notes that the BESS Lab Database did not include any 
housed centrifugal air circulating fans. DOE expects that it will 
conduct additional analysis on housed centrifugal air circulating fans 
in a subsequent part of this rulemaking. In addition, the BESS Labs 
Database includes very few air circulating fans with input power less 
than 125 W. DOE expects that it will conduct additional analysis on air 
circulating fans with input power less than 125 W in a subsequent part 
of this rulemaking.
    To further inform its analysis, DOE completed testing and teardowns 
on a small sample of housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads.\13\ 
For this analysis, DOE is assuming that the combination of housed and 
unhoused air circulating fan heads listed in the BESS Labs Database and 
those additional fans that DOE tested at BESS Labs (``BESS Labs 
Combined Database'') are representative of the air circulating fan head 
market. However, the air circulating axial panel fans in the BESS Labs 
database were excluded from DOE's analysis and housed centrifugal air 
circulating fans and air circulating fans with input power less than 
125 W

[[Page 62045]]

were not represented in the BESS Labs Combined Database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ DOE tested seven basket fans (unhoused air circulating fan 
heads) and 11 tube fans (housed air circulating fan heads) and two 
box fans (housed air circulating fans heads) at BESS Labs. Where DOE 
has relied on the test data from these fans in addition to the BESS 
Labs Database, DOE has used the term ``BESS Labs Combined 
Database''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its assumption that the BESS Labs 
Combined Database is representative of the air circulating fan head 
market, with the exception of housed centrifugal air circulating fans 
and air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W which are not 
represented in the BESS Labs Combined Database.
    Issue 4: DOE requests additional information for all categories of 
air circulating fans, including: manufacturer name, model number, fan 
diameter, blade number, blade shape, blade material, housing type, 
housing material, spacing between the blade tip and the housing, and 
housing depth with associated performance data obtained using AMCA 230-
15 with 2021 errata (or sufficient information that can be used to 
correct to AMCA 230-15 with 2021 errata). DOE additionally requests the 
following information on the motors sold within each fan model: motor 
type (i.e., SP, PSC, ECM, polyphase, etc.), type of drive (i.e., direct 
or belt), motor horsepower (``hp''), motor full-load efficiency (if 
available), motor rotations per minute, number of speeds, motor 
electric requirements (i.e., volts, amps, frequency, phase, AC/DC), and 
whether a variable-speed drive is included with the fan.
    The minimum and maximum diameter housed and unhoused air 
circulating fan heads in the BESS Labs Combined Database are 12 inches 
and 52 inches, respectively. Although DOE did not evaluate fans smaller 
or larger than these diameters in this NODA, in the absence of 
additional data, DOE may consider extrapolating BESS Labs data to 
smaller and larger diameters using fan affinity laws to the extent such 
extrapolation is representative of the performance of such fans.
    Issue 5: DOE requests comment on the potential of using fan 
affinity laws to extrapolate BESS Labs performance data to air 
circulating fan heads with diameters less than 12 inches and greater 
than 52 inches. Additionally, DOE requests model characteristics and 
performance data obtained using AMCA 230-15 plus 2021 errata (or 
sufficient information than can be used to correct to AMCA 230-15 plus 
2021 errata) for air circulating fans with diameters both smaller than 
and larger than those listed in the BESS Labs Database.
2. Equipment Classes and Representative Sizes
    In the ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on whether it should consider 
air circulating fan heads, personnel coolers, box fans, and table fans 
as separate categories (i.e., equipment classes) or whether some or all 
of these four categories should be grouped together when evaluating 
potential energy conservation standards for air circulating fan heads. 
87 FR 7048, 7051. DOE additionally requested whether these four fan 
categories have unique features or applications that might warrant 
separate consideration in the energy standards analysis. Id. Finally, 
DOE requested comment on whether it should consider separate equipment 
classes for air circulating fan heads based on diameter, operating 
speed, efficiency, or utility. Id.
    The Joint Commenters stated that portable blowers may require an 
equipment class separate from air circulating fans because they provide 
a unique application (i.e., drying floors), have centrifugal rather 
than axial construction, and are relatively low in efficiency. (Joint 
Commenters, No. 6 at p. 2) In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE proposed a 
definition for ``housed centrifugal air circulating fan'', which it 
believes is the same fan type that the Joint Commenters describe as a 
portable blower. 87 FR 44194, 44216. As discussed in section II.D.2.a, 
however, DOE has not yet finalized equipment classes for air 
circulating fans. DOE is requesting additional information and data on 
the utility of different fan categories to further inform its analysis.
    AMCA commented that air circulating fan heads, box fans, personnel 
coolers, and table fans all provide directional airflow. (AMCA, No. 9 
at p. 2) ebm-papst indicated that designing an air circulating fan for 
high outlet velocity may be an impediment to achieving greater fan 
efficiency. (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 3) DOE interprets this comment to 
mean that the utility of an air circulating fan (i.e., a fan designed 
for high outlet velocity vs. more diffuse flow) may impact its 
efficiency.
a. Equipment Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy efficiency standards, DOE 
often divides covered equipment into separate classes by the type of 
energy used, equipment capacity, or some other performance-related 
features that justify differing standards. In deciding whether a 
performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE 
generally considers such factors as the utility of the feature to the 
consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q) and 6316(a))
    DOE has not yet identified equipment classes for air circulating 
fans, but is considering the following performance-related features 
that may justify separate equipment classes:
    (1) Presence or absence of a safety guard;
    (2) Presence or absence of housing;
    (3) Housing design (i.e., box, panel, cylindrical, bladeless, 
thermal, etc.);
    (4) Blade type (axial, centrifugal);
    (5) Drive type (belt, direct);
    (6) Number of discrete speed settings (single-speed, two-speed, 
three-speed, etc.);
    (7) Power requirements (input power, phase, voltage, etc.); and
    (8) Air velocity or throw.
    For the purposes of this NODA, DOE grouped all air circulating fans 
analyzed into a single equipment class.
    Issue 6: DOE requests comment on whether, and if so how, each of 
the following performance-related features may impact utility of air 
circulating fans: presence or absence of a safety guard, presence or 
absence of housing, housing design, blade type, drive type, number of 
discrete speed settings, power requirements, and air velocity or throw. 
DOE requests additional feedback and data or information on other air 
circulating fan features that may impact utility for the end user and 
might form the basis for classification.
    Issue 7: DOE requests comment with supporting data on whether the 
following performance-related features provide substantially different 
utility, or are expected to have a significant impact on efficiency 
because of how they are used: (1) housed vs. unhoused air circulating 
fan heads; (2) direct-driven vs. belt-driven air circulating fan heads; 
and (3) single-phase vs. polyphase air circulating fan heads. DOE also 
requests information on any additional features that may impact air 
circulating fan head utility.
b. Representative Sizes
    The minimum and maximum diameters reported in the BESS Labs 
Database for housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads are 12 
inches and 52 inches, respectively. DOE notes that diameter has been 
used to define representative units for ceiling fans and for previous 
analyses conducted on fans and blowers that are not air circulating 
fans.\14\ Therefore, DOE developed a diameter histogram using the BESS 
Labs Combined Database to determine

[[Page 62046]]

representative diameters for analysis. Based on this distribution, DOE 
chose the following representative diameters for its analysis in this 
NODA: 12 inches, 20 inches, 24 inches, 36 inches and 50 inches. More 
details on the diameter distribution can be found in the supplementary 
spreadsheet included in the docket. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0002, No. 11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ On November 1, 2016, DOE published a notification of data 
availability (``November 2016 NODA'') that presented an analysis for 
fans and blowers other than air circulating fans. 81 FR 75742. The 
engineering analysis evaluated manufacturer production cost as a 
function of efficiency level for 10-inch, 20-inch and 30-inch 
diameter fans and blowers that are not air circulating fans. See 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0189.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 8: DOE requests comment on whether the diameters chosen for 
representative units in this analysis (i.e., 12 inches, 20 inches, 24 
inches, 36 inches, and 50 inches) accurately represent the diameters 
with the highest sales volume available in the air circulating fan 
market. DOE also requests comment on whether diameter is an appropriate 
representative metric for air circulating fans.
    For each representative diameter, DOE used the most common motor 
shaft output power value in the BESS Labs Combined Database as the 
representative motor hp. Table II-4 summarizes the motor hp associated 
with each representative diameter in DOE's NODA analysis. More details 
on the motor hp distribution can be found in the supplementary 
spreadsheet included in the docket. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0002, No. 11)

Table II-4--Representative Diameters and Associated Representative Motor
                    Input Power Use in This Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Representative
          Representative diameter  (inches)            motor input power
                                                              (hp)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12...................................................                0.1
20...................................................               0.33
24...................................................                0.5
36...................................................                0.5
50...................................................                  1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 9: DOE requests comment on whether the motor hp it has 
associated with each representative diameter (i.e., 0.1 hp for 12 
inches, 0.33 hp for 20 inches, 0.5 hp for 24 inches and 36 inches, and 
1 hp for 50 inches) appropriately represent the motor hp for fans sold 
with those corresponding diameters.
    To simplify the discussion in this NODA, the efficiency model and 
the cost model are discussed using a 24-inch representative unit. DOE's 
analysis for other representative units is included in the supplemental 
spreadsheet included in the docket. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0002, No. 11)
3. Efficiency Model
    The efficiency model is a key analytical tool used to construct 
cost-efficiency curves. This model is used to estimate efficiencies at 
different efficiency levels using a design option approach supplemented 
with a performance approach.
a. BESS Combined Database
    DOE calculated FEI for all fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database 
by correcting the BESS data for air density, consistent with AMCA 230-
15 (with 2021 errata) and using the FEI equation proposed in the July 
2022 TP NOPR. 87 FR 44194, 44230, 44232. A plot of average FEI as a 
function of representative diameter and number of representative units 
analyzed in the BESS Labs Combined Database is shown in Figure 1.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 62047]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13OC22.002

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    As shown in Figure 1, FEI ranges from 0.39 to 2.74. A plot showing 
FEI for all fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database as a function of 
diameter can be found in the supplemental spreadsheet attached to this 
docket. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11) FEI has minimal 
variance between 20-inch and 50-inch diameter fans; however, FEI 
increases sharply at diameters less than 20 inches. DOE expects this is 
because the reference fan used in the FEI calculation assumes a belt-
drive. Table II-5 shows the number of direct-drive and the number of 
belt-drive air circulating fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database for 
each representative diameter. Relative to DOE's representative 
diameters, belt-driven fans are observed only at 36 inches and 50 
inches. Only at 50 inches do belt-driven fans become more prevalent in 
the BESS Labs Combined Database than direct-drive fans.

   Table II-5--Distribution of Direct-Drive and Belt-Drive Fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database by Diameter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Diameter  (inches)           Number of  direct-drive   Number of  belt-driven        Grand  total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12...................................                        9                        0                        9
20...................................                       28                        0                       28
24...................................                       37                        0                       37
36...................................                       62                        9                       71
50...................................                        5                       22                       27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also reviewed the BESS Labs Combined Database to understand the 
types of motors sold with air circulating fans. DOE evaluated motor 
type, model, and corresponding product literature for the 20 fans in 
the BESS Labs Combined Database that DOE tested, in addition to the 10 
most efficient and least efficient fans in the database. DOE found that

[[Page 62048]]

every fan evaluated as part of this exercise used either a single-phase 
PSC motor, a polyphase motor,\15\ or an ECM. There was only one ECM fan 
in the BESS Labs Combined Database. Details of this analysis can be 
found in the supplemental spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See 
Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Single-phase motors have a single conductor through which 
the alternating current input signal is sent to the motor. Polyphase 
motors have multiple conductors through which alternating current 
input signals that are phase-shifted from each other are sent to the 
motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also compared the FEI values of fans that use single-phase and 
fans that use polyphase motors in the BESS Labs Combined Database and 
did not find a significant difference between the two. However, as 
discussed in a notice of proposed rulemaking for dedicated purpose pool 
pump motors published on June 21, 2021, DOE has previously found that 
polyphase motors are generally more efficient than single-phase motors 
due to differences in their construction. 87 FR 37122, 37136. For both 
the efficiency and cost analyses here, DOE opted to evaluate single-
phase motor technologies only. Given that polyphase motors are 
generally more efficient than single-phase motors, DOE believes this is 
a more conservative approach. While DOE evaluated only single-phase 
motor technologies, it utilized the FEI data of both single-phase and 
polyphase motor fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database when 
determining FEI values. DOE did this since this approach provided more 
FEI data, and, despite the expectation that polyphase motors are 
generally more efficient than single-phase motors, there was not a 
significant difference in FEI between single-phase and polyphase fans 
in the database.
    Although the BESS Labs Combined Database lists only PSC motors and 
one ECM, DOE's review of the air circulating fan market indicated that 
SP motors are also used in air circulating fans. In general, SP motors 
are the least efficient, ECMs are the most efficient, and PSC motor 
efficiency falls between SP motors and ECMs. The efficiency of each 
motor type can be improved by using higher quality steel and magnets, 
or by using more magnetic material. For this analysis, DOE assumed that 
the least efficient fans on the market (baseline) used SP motors and 
therefore evaluated potential air circulating fan efficiency 
improvements by replacing an SP motor with a PSC motor (``PSC 1''), 
replacing a PSC 1 motor with a more efficient PSC motor (``PSC 2''), 
and replacing a PSC 2 motor with an ECM.
    Issue 10: DOE requests comment on its use of SP motors as the 
baseline for air circulating fans. Additionally, DOE seeks feedback on 
its choice of motor technologies (SP motor to PSC 1 motor, PSC 1 motor 
to PSC 2 motor, and PSC 2 motor to ECM) to estimate air circulating fan 
efficiency increases from one efficiency level to the next.
    Additionally, DOE considered the efficiency gains that might be 
obtained from improving the aerodynamic design of an air circulating 
fan. DOE's analysis of the BESS Labs Combined Database did not indicate 
that any particular aerodynamic features, including blade design or 
housing/guard design, had a significant impact on air circulating fan 
efficiency. However, feedback received during manufacturer interviews 
indicated that blade design and housing/guard design can impact fan 
efficiency. For blade design, manufacturers generally responded that 
decreasing the number of fan blades, optimizing the blade shape for 
efficiency, and, for housed fans, decreasing the clearance between the 
blade tip and the housing can all improve the efficiency of air 
circulating fans. However, manufacturers added that decreasing the 
blade tip clearance can also increase the noise generated by the fan. 
For unhoused air circulating fans, manufacturers stated that increasing 
the spacing between wire guard wires and redesigning the motor hub 
supports more efficient airflow. For housed air circulating fans, 
manufacturers discussed the potential for improving fan efficiency by 
adjusting the inlet and outlet geometries to improve airflow.
    Table II-6 summarizes the technology options DOE analyzed for each 
efficiency level.

                      Table II-6: Technology Options Associated with Each Efficiency Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           EL0 (baseline)                   EL1              EL2              EL3                  EL4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SP motor............................              PSC 1            PSC 2             ECM ECM and Aerodynamic
                                                                                          redesign.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE discusses its analysis of baseline efficiency and the 
efficiencies that it used in its analysis for each EL in the following 
sections.
b. Baseline Fan Efficiencies
    The baseline configuration represents the lowest efficiency level 
commonly available in the market. Because energy conservation standards 
do not currently exist for air circulating fans, DOE must establish a 
baseline configuration using available information, as opposed to an 
existing energy conservation standard. The baseline configuration 
defines the energy consumption and associated cost for the lowest 
efficiency fan analyzed in each equipment class.
    DOE assumed that baseline air circulating fans use SP motors 
because they are the least expensive type of air circulating fan motor 
on the market. As stated in the previous section, SP motors are less 
efficient than other electric motors available. Since DOE does not have 
test data for air circulating fans sold with a SP motor, DOE defined 
EL1 as a fan in the BESS Labs Combined Database with a PSC 1 motor. 
Using data from an electric motors database compiled by the Department 
(``Motors Database''), DOE established the loss in efficiency by 
replacing a PSC 1 motor (EL 1) with an SP motor (EL 0 or baseline).
    Data in the Motors Database include information on motor topology 
(i.e., whether the motor is SP, PSC, or another type), motor enclosure 
(i.e., whether the motor is enclosed \16\ or not or whether it is air-
over \17\ or not), motor hp, and motor efficiency. DOE notes that the 
motors in its Motors Database are not currently subject to DOE 
standards. Given that motor manufacturers are not required to certify 
motor performance values to DOE, it is possible that the nominal 
efficiency values presented in the catalog data are not accurate. 
During its review of air circulating fan motor literature, DOE found 
that every fan for which the motor enclosure type was divulged used

[[Page 62049]]

an air-over motor. Therefore, in this analysis, DOE assumed that all 
motors used for air circulating fans are air-over motors, and it 
considered only data for air-over SP motors and for air-over PSC motors 
in the Motors Database. ECMs were not included in the Motors Database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Enclosed'' motors are dust-tight, meaning that they 
prevent the free exchange of air to the point that particulates 
cannot enter the motor enclosure. ``Open'' motors allow the free 
exchange of air through the motor enclosure via openings designed 
for ventilation.
    \17\ ``Air-over'' motors are used specifically for fans and 
blowers, are placed in the pathway of the airflow, and are cooled by 
the airflow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the differences in efficiency between SP motors and 
PSC motors, DOE used SP motor and PSC motor data from the motor 
database. DOE calculated the average efficiencies of SP motors and PSC 
motors for each motor output value in the database, then applied best 
fit curves to the average efficiency values as a function of 
horsepower. DOE used these equations to estimate SP motor and PSC 1 
motor efficiencies and to calculate the decrease in efficiency from PSC 
1 motors to SP motors for each representative unit horsepower. Using 
this approach, the efficiency decrease for the 24-inch diameter fan, 
correlating to the 0.5 hp unit, is 8.3 percent. Further details of how 
the efficiency difference between SP motors and PSC 1 motors was 
determined and applied to the fan FEI values can be found in Section 
II.D.3.c of this NODA and the supplementary spreadsheet attached to 
this docket. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
    Issue 11: DOE requests comment on its assumption that motors used 
in air circulating fans are exclusively air-over motors. If this is not 
the case, DOE requests information on the other types of motors that 
are sold with air circulating fans and data on the percentage of air 
circulating fans that are sold with motors other than air-over motors. 
Additionally, DOE requests information on whether or not the type of 
motor supplied with an air circulating fan is a function of air 
circulating fan category (e.g., unhoused air circulating fan head, box 
fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, etc.).
    To determine FEI values at EL 1, DOE established a separate FEI 
value at EL1 for fans less than 20 inches in diameter and for fans 
greater than or equal to 20 inches in diameter, consistent with the 
average FEI values shown in Figure 1, where FEI increases significantly 
below a diameter of 20 inches. Using the BESS Labs Combined Database, 
DOE defined EL1 as the 5th percentile of FEI values calculated for the 
12-inch representative unit (FEI = 1.70) and the 5th percentile of FEI 
values calculated for all representative units with diameters at or 
above 20 inches (FEI = 0.79). The 5th percentile was chosen to 
conservatively capture the efficiencies of the least efficient air 
circulating fans in the database, which DOE assumed also used the least 
efficient PSC 1 motors, while excluding potential outliers with very 
low FEI values. Further details of this analysis can be found in the 
supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See Docket No. 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11) Since DOE estimated SP motors to be 8.3 
percent less efficient than PSC 1 motors for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp 
representative unit, DOE defined the baseline (EL 0) for this 
representative unit at FEI = 0.73. FEI values calculated for the 24-
inch representative unit are shown in Table II-7 at the end of this 
section. Further details of this analysis can be found in the 
supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket (see Docket No. EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11).
    Issue 12: DOE requests feedback on whether catalog performance data 
on SP motors and PSC motors is generally representative of the 
performance of the SP and PSC motors included with air circulating 
fans.
    Issue 13: DOE requests feedback on the methodology used to 
determine the baseline efficiency values for the representative units, 
including its method of first establishing the EL1 efficiency and then 
determining the baseline efficiency by reducing the EL1 efficiency by 
the difference in efficiency between a PSC motor and a SP motor. 
Additionally, DOE requests data on the expected average improvement in 
air circulating fan efficiency when a SP motor is replaced by a PSC 1 
motor.
c. Improving Efficiency With More Efficient Motors
    This section describes how DOE estimated improvements in air 
circulating fan efficiency by using more efficient motors.
    When substituting a more efficient motor for a less efficient 
motor, DOE assumed that the duty point of the fan (i.e., the fan's 
airflow and pressure) remained the same, and that the only change in 
motor performance was a decrease in input power. Factors such as motor 
speed and inrush current were assumed to remain constant with the 
change in motor. This assumption enabled DOE to assume that a percent 
change in FEI is equal to a percent change in motor efficiency using 
the equations defined in ANSI/AMCA Standard 214-21, ``Test Procedure 
for Calculating Fan Energy Index (FEI) for Commercial and Industrial 
Fans and Blowers.'' This aligns with the July 2022 TP NOPR approach for 
calculating FEI. 87 FR 44194, 44230, 44232. A description of how DOE 
derived this relationship is provided in the supplementary spreadsheet 
attached to this docket. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11) 
Throughout the remainder of this NODA, DOE will therefore discuss 
efficiency increases in terms of FEI and not in terms of motor 
efficiency increases. In the future, DOE may consider performing this 
analysis in terms of motor losses and shaft power, consistent with 
other rulemakings. See the ceiling fans preliminary analysis published 
February 9, 2022 (``Ceiling Fan Preliminary Analysis''). 87 FR 7758. 
See also the electric motors preliminary analysis published March 2, 
2022 (``Electric Motors Preliminary Analysis''). 87 FR 11650.
    Issue 14: DOE requests feedback on its assumption that airflow, 
pressure, and motor performance (for example, speed and inrush current) 
remain constant when replacing a less efficient motor with a more 
efficient motor in an air circulating fan. If airflow, pressure, or 
motor performance are not maintained when using a more efficient motor, 
DOE requests feedback and data on how it should conduct this analysis.
    To determine the PSC 2 motor efficiencies, DOE again used PSC motor 
data from the motor database. Rather than fitting a curve to the 
average PSC motor efficiency values at each motor output power value, 
as it did for the PSC 1 motor curve, DOE instead fit a curve to the 
95th percentile PSC motor efficiency values. The 95th percentile was 
chosen so that the efficiency values for PSC 2 motors were close to the 
maximum possible PSC motor efficiencies. DOE then used this curve to 
estimate PSC 2 motor efficiencies for the representative unit motor 
output power values.
    For the representative units in this NODA that used 0.5 hp motors, 
replacing a 0.5 hp PSC 1 motor with a 0.5 hp PSC 2 motor increases the 
air circulating fan FEI by 11.2 percent. The resulting FEI for the 24-
inch, 0.5 hp representative unit with a PSC 2 motor is therefore 0.88. 
(See Table II-7 at the end of this section) The supplementary 
spreadsheet attached to this docket provides more details on how 
efficiency increases from PSC 1 motors to PSC 2 motors were determined. 
(See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
    Issue 15: DOE requests feedback on whether the efficiency gains 
shown in the supplementary spreadsheet are realistic efficiency gains 
when replacing a lower efficiency PSC motor (i.e., PSC 1 motor) with a 
higher efficiency PSC motor (i.e., PSC 2 motor). If these assumptions 
are not realistic, DOE requests data demonstrating air circulating fan 
motor efficiency as a function of hp, as well as data for motor hp as a 
function of fan diameter.

[[Page 62050]]

    To evaluate the efficiency increase when changing to an ECM, DOE 
used a 2018 pool pump motor database containing information on ECMs 
that was compiled by DOE in support of its dedicated purpose pool pump 
rulemaking (``DPPP Motor Database''). Most motors in the DPPP Motor 
Database were 1 hp and higher; therefore, DOE fit a curve to the ECM 
data at each motor hp and used this curve to extrapolate the data and 
estimate motor efficiencies at fractional hp for ECMs. The resulting 
ECM efficiency for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp representative unit is 83.2 
percent, an efficiency increase of 23.9 percent from a PSC 1 motor to 
an ECM and a FEI of 0.98 at EL 3 (see Table II-7 at the end of this 
section). Further details of this analysis can be found in the 
supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See Docket No. 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
    Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on its use of dedicated purpose 
pool pump motors as a source for comparing PSC motor and ECM 
efficiency. Additionally, DOE requests information on whether motors 
used for this purpose are comparable to air circulating fan motors. DOE 
further requests feedback on whether the efficiency increases from PSC 
1 motors to ECM that DOE presents are realistic. If dedicated purpose 
pool pump motors are not representative of air circulating fans motors, 
or DOE's estimated efficiency increases are not realistic, DOE requests 
data on the difference between PSC 1 motor efficiency and ECM 
efficiency and the difference between PSC 2 motor efficiency and ECM 
efficiency for air circulating fans. DOE also requests comment on its 
use of extrapolation of these data to obtain efficiency values at 
fractional hp.
d. Improving Efficiency Through Aerodynamic Redesign
    This section describes how DOE evaluated increasing the energy 
efficiency of air circulating fans by improving fan component 
aerodynamic design.
    While EL3 assumes that air circulating fan efficiency is increased 
through the use of an ECM, EL4 evaluates the efficiency impact from 
adding an ECM and improving the aerodynamic design of the fan. This 
``max-tech'' level represents the highest efficiency available on the 
market. The fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database used almost 
exclusively PSC motors, so DOE assumed that the maximum efficiencies in 
the database corresponded to the use of a PSC 2 motor with a highly 
efficient aerodynamic design. Presumably, the maximum efficiencies 
achieved by a fan with a PSC motor and no aerodynamic redesign would be 
captured by the FEI values determined for EL 2 for each representative 
unit. The efficiency gain due to improvements in aerodynamic design can 
therefore be quantified by determining the difference between the 
maximum FEI values in the database and the efficiency levels determined 
for EL 2. DOE used the maximum FEI values in the BESS Labs Combined 
Database for each representative unit to develop a curve for the PSC 2 
plus aerodynamic redesign FEI values as a function of diameter. The 
resulting FEI value for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp representative unit is 
1.89. DOE then determined the percent increase from the EL 2 FEI values 
to the FEI values determined from the curve fit to establish the 
increase in efficiency due to aerodynamic redesign for each 
representative unit. This percent increase for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp 
representative unit was 114.39 percent. DOE then applied the percent 
increases in FEI due to aerodynamic redesign to the EL 3 FEI values to 
determine the EL 4 FEI values. The resulting EL 4 FEI value for the 24-
inch, 0.5 hp representative unit was 2.10. Further details of this 
analysis can be found in the supplementary spreadsheet attached to this 
docket. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
    Issue 17: DOE requests feedback on the FEI values that it 
determined and its approach for estimating FEI values for an air 
circulating fan that includes both an ECM and improved aerodynamic 
design.
e. Results for a 24-inch, 0.5 hp Representative Unit
    FEI values calculated for each efficiency level for the 24-inch, 
0.5 hp representative unit are shown in Table II-7 . Information on the 
FEI values calculated for other representative units can be found in 
the supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See Docket No. 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)

                         Table II-7--FEI Values for 24-Inch, 0.5 hp Representative Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               EL0 (baseline)                       EL1              EL2              EL3              EL4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.73........................................            0.79             0.88             0.98             2.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Cost Model
    The cost model is a key analytical tool used to construct cost-
efficiency curves. This model is used to estimate manufacturing 
production costs at various efficiency levels using a design option 
approach.
a. Cost Model Structure and Process
    This section describes the process by which the cost model converts 
the physical information in each product's BOM into manufacturing cost 
estimates. The cost model is based on production activities and divides 
factory costs into materials, labor, depreciation, and overhead. The 
material costs include both raw materials and purchased part costs. The 
labor costs include fabrication, assembly, and indirect and overhead 
(burdened) labor rates. The depreciation costs include manufacturing 
equipment depreciation, tooling depreciation, and building 
depreciation. The overhead costs include indirect process costs, 
utilities, equipment and building maintenance, and rework. DOE lists 
the cost inputs of these categories in Table II-8.

           Table II-8--Cost Model Categories and Descriptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Major category               Subcategory         Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material Costs..................  Direct............  Raw materials
                                                       (e.g., coils of
                                                       sheet metal) and
                                                       purchased parts
                                                       (e.g., fan
                                                       motors,
                                                       compressors).

[[Page 62051]]

 
                                  Indirect..........  Material used
                                                       during
                                                       manufacturing
                                                       (e.g., welding
                                                       rods, die oil,
                                                       release media).
Manufacturing Labor.............  Assembly..........  Part/unit assembly
                                                       on manufacturing
                                                       line.
                                  Fabrication.......  Conversion of raw
                                                       material into
                                                       parts ready for
                                                       assembly.
                                  Indirect..........  Fraction of
                                                       overall labor not
                                                       associated
                                                       directly with
                                                       product
                                                       manufacturing
                                                       (e.g., forklift
                                                       drivers, quality
                                                       control).
                                  Supervisory.......  Fraction of
                                                       indirect labor
                                                       that is paid a
                                                       higher wage.
Depreciation....................  Equipment,          Straight line
                                   Conveyor,           depreciation over
                                   Building.           expected life.
                                  Tooling...........  Cost is allocated
                                                       on a per-use
                                                       basis or
                                                       obsolescence,
                                                       whichever is
                                                       shorter.
Other Overhead..................  Utilities.........  A fixed fraction
                                                       of all material
                                                       costs meant to
                                                       cover electricity
                                                       and other utility
                                                       costs.
                                  Maintenance.......  Based on installed
                                                       equipment and
                                                       tooling
                                                       investment.
                                  Property Tax and    A fixed fraction
                                   Insurance.          based on total
                                                       unit costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine material costs, DOE followed one of two different 
paths, depending on whether a subassembly was purchased (outsourced) or 
produced in-house. For purchased parts, DOE gathered price quotations 
from major suppliers at different production volumes. For parts 
produced in-house, DOE reconstructed manufacturing processes for each 
part using modeling software based on internal expertise. For the raw 
materials being converted to ready-to-assemble parts, DOE estimated 
manufacturing process parameters (manufacturing equipment use and time 
for each item, the required initial material quantity, scrap, etc.) to 
determine the value of each component.
    Using this process, DOE was able to assign manufacturing labor 
time, equipment utilization, and other important factors to each 
subassembly for each unit considered in this analysis. The last step 
was to convert the information into dollar values. To perform this 
task, DOE collected information on such factors as labor rates, tooling 
depreciation, and costs of purchased raw materials. DOE assumed values 
for these parameters using internal expertise and confidential 
information available to its contractors.
    In sum, DOE assigned costs of labor, materials, and overhead to 
each part, whether purchased or produced in-house. DOE then aggregated 
single-part costs into major assemblies (e.g., for air circulating fans 
this would include packaging, housing, impeller, controls and wiring, 
motor, guard, and mounting gear) and summarized these costs in a 
spreadsheet. All parameters related to manufacture and assembly were 
then aggregated to determine facility requirements at various 
manufacturing scales. The final cost obtained by the cost model is the 
manufacturer production cost (``MPC''), representing the total cost to 
the manufacturer of producing the component.
b. Cost Model Assumptions
    Assumptions about manufacturer practices and cost structure play an 
important role in estimating the MPC of the products. DOE based 
assumptions about the sourcing of parts and in-house fabrication on 
industry experience, information in trade publications, and discussions 
with manufacturers. DOE used assumptions regarding the manufacturing 
process parameters, (e.g., equipment use, labor rates, tooling 
depreciation, and cost of purchased raw materials) to determine the 
value of each component. The following sections describe the cost model 
assumptions related to material prices, purchased parts and factory 
parameters.
Raw Material Prices
    For parts fabricated in-house, the prices of the underlying ``raw'' 
metals (e.g., tube, sheet metal) are estimated on the basis of 5-year 
averages to smooth out spikes in demand. Other ``raw'' materials such 
as plastic resins, insulation materials, etc. are estimated on a 
current-market basis. The costs of raw materials are based on 
manufacturer interviews, quotes from suppliers, and secondary research. 
Past results are updated periodically and/or inflated to present-day 
prices using indices from resources such as MEPS International,\18\ 
PolymerUpdate,\19\ the U.S. geologic survey (``USGS''),\20\ and the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics (``BLS'').\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ More information on MEPS International may be found at: 
www.meps.co.uk/.
    \19\ More information on PolymerUpdate may be found at: 
www.polymerupdate.com.
    \20\ More information on the USGS metal price statistics may be 
found at: www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/commondity-statistics-and-information.
    \21\ More information on the BLS producer price indices may be 
found at: www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fabricated Parts and Purchased Parts
    DOE characterized parts based on whether manufacturers fabricated 
them in-house or purchased them from outside suppliers. For fabricated 
parts, DOE estimated the price of intermediate materials (e.g., tube, 
sheet metal) and the cost of forming them into finished parts. DOE 
estimated initial raw material dimensions to account for scrap. For 
scrap materials that are recyclable, DOE assigned a scrap credit that 
is a fraction of the base material cost. Non-recyclable materials incur 
a disposal cost for all scrap. For purchased parts, DOE estimated the 
purchase price for original equipment manufacturers based on its 
confidential parts database and industry expertise. For the purpose of 
this analysis, DOE assumed that all components of the fan were 
purchased from outside suppliers. This assumption was made because of 
the relatively low volume of manufacturing for air circulating fans 
compared to other products, which increases the likelihood that parts 
are purchased rather than manufactured in-house.
    As previously stated, variability in the costs of purchased parts 
can account for large changes in the overall MPC values calculated. 
Purchased part costs can vary significantly based on the quantities 
desired and the component suppliers chosen. The purchased part prices 
used in this study were typical values based on estimated production 
volume and other factors. However,

[[Page 62052]]

variability in these prices may exist on a case-by-case basis.
    Due to the great diversity of manufacturing scale in the fans 
industry, DOE estimates that the purchased parts costs could vary 
significantly by manufacturer. Some parts like motors, and impellers 
may be produced in-house by some manufacturers and purchased by others, 
changing likely overall system costs and investment requirements.
Factory Parameters
    Certain factory parameters, such as fabrication rates, labor rates, 
and wages, also affect the cost of each unit produced. DOE factory 
parameter assumptions were based on internal expertise and may be 
updated based on manufacturer feedback. Table II-9 lists the factory 
parameter assumptions used in the cost models. These assumptions are 
generalized to represent typical production and are not intended to 
model a specific factory.

   Table II-9--Factory Parameter Assumptions for Air Circulating Fans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Parameter                            Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Annual Production Volume.........................          25,000
Work Days Per Year (days)...............................             250
Fabrication Shifts Per Day (shifts).....................               1
Assembly Shifts Per Day (shifts)........................               1
Fabrication Labor Wages ($/hr)..........................              16
Assembly Labor Wages ($/hr).............................              16
Burdened Fabrication Labor Wage ($/hr)..................              24
Burdened Assembly Labor Wage ($/hr).....................              24
Fabrication Worker Hours Per Year.......................             250
Assembly Worker Hours Per Year..........................             250
Supervisor Span (workers/supervisor)....................              25
Supervisor Wage Premium (over fabrication and assembly               30%
 wage)..................................................
Fringe Benefits Ratio...................................             50%
Indirect to Direct Labor Ratio..........................             33%
Length of Shift (hr)....................................               8
Worker Downtime.........................................             10%
Actual units per day....................................             100
Average Equipment Installation Cost (% of purchase                   10%
 price).................................................
Average Scrap Credit (relative to base material cost)...             30%
Non-recyclable Trash Cost ($/lb)........................              $0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 18: DOE requests comment on its factory parameter assumptions 
for typical air circulating fan production.
c. Determination of Air Circulating Fan MPC
    DOE conducted teardowns on four housed and five unhoused air 
circulating fan heads ranging in diameter from 18 inches to 30 inches 
and created a BOM for each fan. For this NODA, DOE used the BOM for 
what DOE considered to be a representative baseline 24-inch unhoused 
fan without a motor and one representative baseline 24-inch housed fan 
without a motor. The baseline unhoused air circulating fan material and 
production costs were scaled to each of the unhoused representative 
diameters (i.e., 12, 20, 36, and 50 inches) by the ratio of the 
representative diameters to 24 inches. For housed air circulating fans, 
DOE determined material and production costs for the 24-inch housed 
fan, then used the ratio between the 24-inch housed and unhoused costs 
to estimate housed fan costs at each representative diameter. DOE's 
cost data for diameters other than 24 inches is included in the 
supplement spreadsheet included in the docket. (See Docket No. EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11) Table II-10 summarizes the characteristics 
assumed for 24-inch housed and unhoused baseline fans. DOE assumed that 
these fans were manufactured in China, and that material and parts were 
also sourced from China.

  Table II-10--Material and Production Characteristics for Baseline 24-
              Inch Housed and Unhoused Air Circulating Fan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Unhoused             Housed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blade Type......................  Propeller.........  Propeller.
Blade Shape.....................  Rectangular.......  Rectangular.
Blade Material..................  Galvanized Cold     Galvanized CRS.
                                   Rolled Steel
                                   (``CRS'').
Hub Material....................  Aluminum CRS......  Aluminum CRS.
Type of Housing.................  Basket............  Tube.
Housing Material................  CRS-Wire..........  CRS-Wire and
                                                       polypropylene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 19: DOE requests comment on whether or not its baseline 
material assumptions are representative of baseline fans distributed 
into commerce. If DOE's baseline material assumptions are not 
representative, DOE requests information and data on materials 
typically used in the air circulating fans currently on the market.
    Housed and unhoused baseline 24-inch air circulating fan cost 
estimates are summarized in Table II-11.

   Table II-11--Estimated MPCs for Air Circulating Fans With No Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fan cost (no
                                                              motor)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch Unhoused........................................          $26.06

[[Page 62053]]

 
24-inch Housed..........................................           69.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 20: DOE requests comment on its estimated base MPC for air 
circulating fans with no motors at each of the representative diameters 
evaluated. (See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
    As discussed previously, DOE used a design option approach to 
structure its engineering analysis. DOE assumed that baseline fans with 
fractional motor hp would be equipped with a SP motor. For each 
efficiency level analyzed (i.e., EL1, EL2, and EL 3), DOE assumed that 
a more efficient motor is substituted into the same fan. At EL 4, DOE 
assumed the most efficient motor was paired with improved aerodynamic 
design of the fan.
    To estimate manufacturer costs for SP motors, PSC motors, and ECMs, 
DOE used motor costs from its internal parts database and assumed a 
motor to fan manufacturer markup of 1.37.\22\ DOE did not have specific 
cost data for SP motors, and therefore used costs for shaded-pole 
motors as a proxy for SP motor costs. See 2009 CR Report. To estimate 
motor costs for the motor hp used in the representative units evaluated 
for this analysis, DOE determined the equation of the best fit line for 
hp as a function of motor cost and calculated motor cost at 0.1, 0.33, 
0.5, and 1 hp for SP motors, PSC motors and ECMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ A markup of 1.37 for motors at or below 5 hp was used in 
the Electric Motors Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document 
(TSD) (see section 5.4.8.4, Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0010 at 
regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's parts database does not differentiate between motor 
efficiency. DOE therefore estimated PSC 1 motor cost using a best fit 
line for cost as a function of hp. For PSC 2 motor costs, DOE 
determined a best fit line identified the 95th cost percentile for each 
representative unit/motor hp, and then determined the best fit line 
through these points. Table II-12 summarizes estimated motor costs for 
the 24-inch air circulating fan at each EL evaluated.

             Table II-12--Estimated Motor Costs at Each EL for 24-Inch Diameter Air Circulating Fans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Motor hp                          EL0              EL1              EL2              EL3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5.........................................          $26.05           $64.32           $79.78          $114.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 21: DOE requests comment on whether replacing a given fan 
motor with a more efficient fan motor will result in similar efficiency 
and cost impacts for housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads.
    Issue 22: DOE requests comment on its estimated motor costs SP 
motors (EL0), PSC motors (EL1), higher efficiency PSC motors (EL2), and 
ESMs (EL3) at each hp associated with the representative diameters 
evaluated. (See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
    Table II-13 summarizes the total estimated cost of the fan 
assembly, including the motor, for 24-inch unhoused and housed fans.

   Table II-13--Total Air Circulating Fan Cost for a 24-Inch Housed and Unhoused Fan at EL0, EL1, EL2, and EL3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Type                   Motor hp          EL 0            EL 1            EL 2            EL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unhoused........................             0.5          $52.12          $90.38         $105.84         $140.51
Housed..........................             0.5           95.94          134.21          149.67          184.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 23: DOE requests comment on its estimated housed and unhoused 
air circulating fan costs at each EL and for each representative unit. 
(See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0002, No. 11)
    As mentioned previously, DOE is assuming that a max-tech air 
circulating fan (i.e., EL4) would undergo aerodynamic redesign and 
contain an ECM. Aerodynamic redesign includes modifications to a fan's 
housing, blade/impeller, and/or guard that would include fan model 
redesign, re-engineering, and upgraded/new tooling equipment. These 
modifications result in a one-time cost that is not captured by MPC but 
may be represented by capital conversion costs. DOE used the conversion 
costs for axial cylindrical housed fans, presented in the November 2016 
NODA,\23\ as a proxy for estimating air circulating fan conversion 
costs. After adjusting for inflation, DOE estimates an air circulating 
fan redesign cost of $720,300 per fan. Additional information on DOE's 
assumptions and analysis may be found in the supplemental spreadsheet 
associated with this docket (see Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 
11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0189 at regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 24: DOE requests comment on and additional data to support 
its estimated air circulating fan conversion costs to undergo 
aerodynamic redesign.

[[Page 62054]]

5. Manufacturer Selling Price
    The manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') is the price of the 
equipment when it is sold by the manufacturer to the first party in the 
distribution chain. It includes all direct and indirect production 
costs, other costs such as research and development, and the 
manufacturer's profit.
    When developing cost-efficiency curves during its engineering 
analysis, DOE typically uses MSP as a function of efficiency. For 
simplicity, DOE is presenting the results of its cost model for this 
NODA in terms of MPC.
    The MSP is expressed as the product of the MPC and the manufacturer 
markup. Based on information obtained during interviews with 
manufacturers, DOE is assuming that the average manufacturer markup for 
a baseline fan is 1.5.50 percent, meaning the MSP is During interviews, 
manufacturers stated that they expected to be able to maintain their 
profit margin if DOE were to set energy efficiency standards for air 
circulating fans; therefore, DOE is assuming that the average MSP in a 
market with standards would also be 1.5.
    Issue 25: DOE requests comment on whether or not an average MSP of 
1.5 is representative for the air circulating fan market. If an average 
MSP of 1.5 is not representative, DOE requests information of what a 
more representative MSP would be. Additionally, DOE requests comment on 
whether or not MSP for air circulating fans will remain constant in the 
case of new energy conservation standards. If not, DOE seeks 
information on the magnitude by which MSP might change under potential 
energy efficiency standards.

E. Markups Analysis

    The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer 
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution 
chain and sales taxes to convert MSP estimates derived in the 
engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC 
and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies 
mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit 
margin.
    DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in 
the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of 
products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are 
applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher 
efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental 
markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to 
maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or 
amended standards.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products 
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the 
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is 
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably 
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a 
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the ECS RFI, DOE requested information to help characterize 
distribution channels for air circulating fans. DOE also requested data 
on the fraction of sales that go through these channels. 87 FR 7048, 
7054. DOE did not receive any input on this topic.
    DOE identified two distribution channels for air circulating fans, 
depending on the input power of the fan at maximum speed. Air 
circulating fans with input power less than 125 Watts (W) are primarily 
used in residential applications.\25\ Data from the Association of Home 
Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') indicate that an majority of 
residential appliances are sold through retail outlets.\26\ Because DOE 
is not aware of any other distribution channel that plays a significant 
role for air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, DOE 
estimates that such air circulating fans are purchased by consumers 
from retail outlets (including online retailers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ DOE notes that distribution for residential use does not 
preclude coverage as covered equipment, so long as the equipment is 
of a type that is also distributed in commerce for industrial and 
commercial use.
    \26\ Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Fact Book 
2009. 2009. AHAM: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 
125 W, DOE estimates that the primary distribution channel is that the 
manufacturer sells the equipment to a distributor, who in turn sells it 
to the customer. DOE is also aware of another direct sale channel for 
air circulating fans greater than or equal to 125 W where the 
manufacturer sells the equipment directly to a customer through their 
in-house distributor. In addition, DOE considered additional channels 
that included a contractor based on input from manufacturer interviews. 
Further, DOE estimated the fraction of shipments of air circulating 
fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W going through each 
channel based on feedback from manufacturer interviews. Information 
from the manufacturer interviews also indicated that some fraction of 
shipments (10-15 percent) are sold to consumers via an original 
equipment manufacturer (``OEM'') and a distributor. However, DOE is not 
aware of any OEM equipment that would incorporate an air circulating 
fan and therefore did not consider this channel.

[[Page 62055]]

    Table II-14 summarizes the air circulating fan distribution 
channels identified by DOE.

       Table II-14--Distribution Channels for Air Circulating Fans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air circulating fan input power                             Fraction of
      at maximum speed (W)         Distribution channel    shipments (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 125 W................  Manufacturer [rarr]                 100
                                  Retailer [rarr]
                                  Consumer.
Greater than or equal to 125 W.  Manufacturer [rarr]                  40
                                  Distributor [rarr]
                                  Consumer.
                                 Manufacturer [rarr]                  20
                                  Distributor [rarr]
                                  Contractor [rarr]
                                  Consumer.
                                 Manufacturer [rarr] In-              30
                                  house Distributor
                                  [rarr] Consumer.
                                 Manufacturer [rarr] In-              10
                                  house Distributor
                                  [rarr] Contractor
                                  [rarr] Consumer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate average baseline and incremental markups for each actor 
in the distribution channels, DOE relied on data from the 2017 Annual 
Retail Trade Survey,\27\ the 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey,\28\ 
and RS Means.\29\ In addition to the markups, DOE obtained state and 
local taxes from data provided by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.\30\ 
Table II-15 and Table II-16 and show the resulting baseline markups, 
incremental markups, and sales tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Available at www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/arts/annual-report.html; NAICS 443--Electronics and Appliance Stores.
    \28\ Available at: www.census.gov/programs-surveys/awts.html; 
NAICS 4238--Machinery, equipment, and supplies merchant wholesalers.
    \29\ RS Means Electrical Cost Data 2021. Available at: 
www.rsmeans.com.
    \30\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc., State Sales Tax Rates Along 
with Combined Average City and County Rates (2022), available at 
https://thestc.com/STrates.stm (last accessed June 6, 2022).

 Table II-15--Distribution Channel Markups for Air Circulating Fans With
                       Input Power Less Than 125 W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Manufacturer [rarr] retailer
                                               [rarr] consumer (100%
          Distribution channel                      shipments)
                                         -------------------------------
                                             Baseline       Incremental
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retailer................................           1.486           1.238
Sales Tax...............................           1.073           1.073
Overall Markup..........................           1.594           1.328
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                       Table II-16--Distribution Channel Markups for Air Circulating Fans With Input Power Greater Than or Equal to 125 W
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Manufacturer [rarr]             Manufacturer [rarr]        Manufacturer [rarr] in-house    Manufacturer [rarr] in-house
                                                                    distributor [rarr] consumer    distributor [rarr] contractor    distributor [rarr] consumer    distributor [rarr] contractor
                                                                          (40% shipments)              [rarr] consumer (20%               (30% shipments)              [rarr] consumer (10%
                                                                 --------------------------------           shipments)           --------------------------------           shipments)
                                                                                                 --------------------------------                                -------------------------------
                                                                      Base.*           Inc.*           Base.           Inc.            Base.           Inc.            Base.           Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In-house) Distributor..........................................           1.412           1.194           1.412           1.194           1.412           1.194           1.412           1.194
Contractor......................................................  ..............  ..............           1.100           1.100  ..............  ..............           1.100           1.100
Sales Tax.......................................................           1.073           1.073           1.073           1.073           1.073           1.073           1.073           1.073
Overall Markup..................................................           1.516           1.281           1.667           1.409           1.516           1.281           1.667           1.409
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Base. = baseline, Inc. = Incremental.

    Issue 26: DOE requests feedback and information on the distribution 
channels identified for air circulating fans, and on any other 
distribution channel that DOE should consider. DOE also requests data 
on the fraction of sales that go through these channels.

F. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual 
energy consumption of air circulating fans at different efficiencies 
for a representative sample of consumers, and to assess the energy 
savings potential of increased air circulating fan efficiency. The 
energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of air 
circulating fans in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by 
consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other 
analyses DOE performs, particularly assessments of the energy savings 
and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from 
adoption of amended or new standards.
    In any future analysis, DOE may consider calculating the energy use 
by combining air circulating fan input power consumption in each mode 
(e.g., high speed, medium speed, low speed) from the engineering 
analysis with operating hours spent in each mode. To characterize 
variability and uncertainty, the energy use is calculated for a 
representative sample of air circulating fan consumers. This method of 
analysis, referred to as a Monte Carlo method, is explained in more 
detail in section II.G of this document. Results of the energy use 
analysis for each representative air circulating fan will be derived 
from a sample of 10,000 consumers. DOE then plans on using the range of 
energy use results in the LCC and PBP analyses and the average of the 
energy use results in the National Impact Analysis (``NIA'') analysis. 
This section presents DOE's approach to develop consumer samples and 
the operating hour inputs that DOE is considering using in any future 
energy use analysis. For each consumer in the sample, DOE will 
associate a value of air circulating fan operating

[[Page 62056]]

hours drawn from a statistical distribution as described in the 
remainder of this section.
1. Fans With Input Power Less Than 125 W
a. Sample of Consumers
    DOE is considering including only residential applications in the 
energy use analysis of air circulating fans with input power below 125 
W. Although some of these air circulating fans are used in commercial 
or industrial settings, DOE believes that they represent a very small 
portion of the total market for such air circulating fans. To develop a 
representative sample of consumers, DOE is considering using the Energy 
Information Administration (``EIA'') 2020 Residential Energy 
Consumption Survey (``RECS'') \31\ to choose a random sample of 
households in which new air circulating fans could be installed. RECS 
is a national survey of housing units that collects statistical 
information on the consumption of, and expenditures for, energy in 
housing units, along with data on energy-related characteristics of the 
housing units and occupants. RECS collects data on thousands of housing 
units, and was constructed by EIA to be a national representation of 
the household population in the United States. Although RECS contains 
information on operation for many appliances, it contains no 
information on the operation of air circulating fans within each 
household. RECS reports only the number of floor or window fans in the 
household which is the category of appliance closest to air circulating 
fans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 
2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). 2020. (Last 
accessed July 6, 2022) www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In creating the sample of RECS households, DOE is planning on using 
the subset of RECS records that met the criterion that the household 
had at least one ``floor or window fan''. DOE is planning on choosing a 
sample of 10,000 households from RECS to estimate annual energy use for 
air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W. Because RECS 
provides no means of determining the subset of air circulating fans in 
a given household, DOE will use the same sample for all equipment 
classes.
b. Operating Hours
    In the ECS RFI, DOE requested information to characterize the 
annual operating hours of air circulating fans and time spent in each 
operating mode, if applicable, by sector of application, and 
geographical region. 87 FR 7048, 7054. In response, ebm-papst commented 
that the use of agricultural fans, residential fans, commercial fans, 
and basket fans used for distribution transformers are all very 
different (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 4). ebm-papst did not provide 
additional information to characterize operating conditions. DOE did 
not receive other comments on this topic.
    DOE reviewed existing studies on air circulating fans used in 
residential applications and found that these are often studied in 
combination with ceiling fans, indicating that they likely operate 
similarly.\32\ In the absence of existing data indicating the daily 
hours of operation specific to air circulating fans with input power 
less than 125 W, DOE used the same annual operating hours as developed 
for standard, hugger, and very small diameter ceiling fans in the 
Ceiling Fans Preliminary Analysis to characterize the operating hours 
of air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W.\33\ The 
ceiling fan preliminary analysis relied on a distribution of operating 
hours, with an average of 6.45 hours of operation per day with 33 
percent at high speed, 38 percent at medium speed, and 29 percent at 
low speed. DOE assumes this is also representative of air circulating 
fan usage with input power less than 125W and plans on applying this 
load profile in any future energy use calculation. DOE notes that some 
air circulating fans may not have three available speeds, in which case 
DOE plans on adjusting the time spent in each mode according to the 
fan's speed capability (e.g., assuming 100 percent of operation at the 
one available speed for single-speed air circulating fans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Ecodesign Lot 10 Comfort Fans Study, Preparatory Study on 
Environmental Performance of Residential Room Conditioning 
Appliances (airco and ventilation) Study on comfort fans--final 
report October 2008, after SH comments www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/airco-ventilation/finalreport-cf.zip.
    \33\ See Section 7.3.2. of Chapter 7 of the ceiling fan 
preliminary analysis Technical Support Document, 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0011-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Fans With Input Power Greater Than or Equal to 125 W
a. Sample of Consumers
    DOE is considering including only commercial, industrial, and 
agricultural applications in the energy use analysis of air circulating 
fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W. Although some air 
circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W are 
used in residential applications, DOE believes that they represent a 
very small portion of the total market for such fans. DOE plans on 
creating a sample of 10,000 consumers for each equipment class to 
represent the range of air circulating fan energy use in the 
commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors.
b. Operating Hours
    As noted previously, DOE did not receive any information related to 
the operating hours of air circulating fans. In the absence of data 
indicating the daily hours of operation specific to air circulating 
fans, DOE estimated that air circulating fans with input power greater 
than or equal to 125 W operate, on average, 12 hours per day, 
consistent with the hours of use estimated for large-diameter ceiling 
fans in the Ceiling Fan Preliminary Analysis.\34\ To represent a range 
of possible operating hours around this representative value, DOE will 
be drawing 10,000 samples from a uniform distribution between 6 hours 
per day and 18 hours per day (assuming a uniform distribution of 
operating hours due to the limited availability of information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Section 7.4.2 of Chapter 7 of the Ceiling Fan 
Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document, 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0011-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the July 2022 TP NOPR, the efficiency metric is calculated 
assuming that the performance at each of the five tested speeds is 
weighted equally, as there are not available data to suggest a 
different distribution of time spent at each speed. 87 FR 44194, 44238. 
For this NODA, DOE assumed an equal amount of time would be spent at 
each speed, in alignment with the approach in the July 2022 TP NOPR.
    Table II-17 summarizes the inputs to the energy use calculation 
identified by DOE. For each consumer in the samples, DOE will associate 
a value of air circulating fan operating hours drawn from a statistical 
distribution as described in Table II-17.

[[Page 62057]]



            Table II-17--Inputs to the Energy Use Calculation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Air circulating     Air circulating
                                    fan with input      fan with input
     Input to the energy use       power at maximum    power at maximum
           calculation              speed less than   speed greater than
                                         125 W         or equal to 125 W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Operating Hours per Day.  6.45 hours per day  12 hours per day.
Statistical Distribution........  Based on Consumer   Uniform
                                   Survey.             Distribution
                                                       between 6 hours
                                                       per day and 18
                                                       hours per day.
Fraction of time spent in each    33% on high speed,  Equal amount of
 mode.                             38% on medium       time at each
                                   speed, 29% on low   tested speed.
                                   speed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 27: DOE seeks comment on the estimated average number of 
operating hours per year, distribution of operating hours, and the 
estimated fraction of time spent at each speed setting for air 
circulating fans with input power less than 125 W and those with input 
power greater than or equal to 125 W. In addition, if DOE should 
consider different operating hours for specific applications (e.g., air 
circulating fans used in agricultural applications, thermal mixing 
fans) DOE requests data on how to best characterize operating hours for 
these various applications.

G. Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

    The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on 
individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and 
an increase in purchase cost. DOE uses the following two metrics to 
measure consumer impacts:
     The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or 
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed 
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales 
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy 
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE 
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them 
over the lifetime of the product.
     The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it 
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for 
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
    For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC 
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the 
estimated efficiency distribution of air circulating fans in the 
absence of new energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for 
a given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product. 
For each considered efficiency level in each equipment class, DOE plans 
on calculating the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative sample 
of consumers.
    In addition, the computer model that DOE plans on using to 
calculate the LCC and PBP relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to 
incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte 
Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability 
distributions and air circulating fan consumer samples. The model 
calculates the LCC and PBP for equipment at each efficiency level for 
10,000 consumers per simulation run. The analytical results include a 
distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for 
a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards case 
efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo 
simulation for a given consumer, equipment efficiency is chosen based 
on its probability. If the chosen equipment efficiency is greater than 
or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, 
the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by 
the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase 
more efficient equipment, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits 
from increasing equipment efficiency.
    This section presents the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis not previously described in this 
document. All inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses are summarized in 
Table II-18.

 Table II-18--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Inputs                           Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Cost.........................  Will be derived by multiplying
                                          MSPs by distribution channel
                                          markups and sales tax, as
                                          appropriate. DOE uses
                                          historical data to derive a
                                          constant price index to
                                          project equipment costs.
Installation Costs.....................  Assumed installation costs do
                                          not vary by efficiency level.
Annual Energy Use......................  Annual energy use: Based on the
                                          time spent in each model
                                          multiplied by the input power
                                          in each mode.
                                         Variability: Based on discrete
                                          and uniform probability
                                          distributions.
Energy Prices..........................  Electricity: Average and
                                          marginal prices based on
                                          Edison Electric Institute
                                          (``EEI'') data for 2021.
                                         Variability: Based on sector
                                          and geographical region.
Energy Price Trends....................  Based on 2022 Annual Energy
                                          Outlook (``AEO2022'') price
                                          projections (or most recent
                                          version available at the time
                                          of the analysis).
Repair and Maintenance Costs...........  Assumed maintenance costs do
                                          not vary by efficiency level.
                                         Assumed no repair costs for air
                                          circulating fans with input
                                          power less than 125 W.
                                         Assumed one motor repair for
                                          air circulating fans with
                                          input power greater than or
                                          equal to 125 W, with a
                                          lifetime that exceeds the
                                          average lifetime.

[[Page 62058]]

 
Equipment Lifetime.....................  Average: 10 years for air
                                          circulating fans with input
                                          power less than 125 W.
                                         And 30 years for air
                                          circulating fans with input
                                          power greater than or equal to
                                          125 W.
                                         Variability: Based on Weibull
                                          distribution.
Discount Rates.........................  Residential: approach involves
                                          identifying all possible debt
                                          or asset classes that might be
                                          used to purchase the
                                          considered appliances, or
                                          might be affected indirectly.
                                          Primary data source was the
                                          Federal Reserve Board's Survey
                                          of Consumer Finances.
                                         Commercial/Industrial/
                                          Agricultural: Calculated as
                                          the weighted average cost of
                                          capital for entities
                                          purchasing pool pumps. Primary
                                          data source was Damodaran
                                          Online.
Compliance Date........................  5 years after publication of
                                          any final rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 28: DOE requests feedback on the inputs and considered 
methods used for the LCC and PBP analyses.
1. Equipment Price
    To calculate consumer equipment costs, DOE multiplies the MSPs 
developed in the engineering analysis by the distribution channel 
markups described previously (along with sales taxes). As previously 
discussed, DOE uses different distribution channel markups for baseline 
equipment and higher efficiency equipment, because DOE applies an 
incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher 
efficiency equipment.
    To project equipment costs in the projected compliance year, DOE 
plans on developing an equipment price trend. Because the motor is the 
most costly component of the air circulating fan, DOE believes that 
historic prices of electric motors provide a reasonable basis for 
considering trends in the price of air circulating fans.
    DOE is planning on obtaining historical Producer Price Index 
(``PPI'') data for integral hp motors and generators manufacturing 
spanning the time period from 1969 to 2021 and for fractional hp motors 
and generators manufacturing between 1967 and 2021 from the BLS.\35\ 
The PPI data reflect nominal prices, adjusted for product quality 
changes. An inflation-adjusted (deflated) price index for fractional hp 
motors and generators manufacturing was calculated by dividing the PPI 
series by the Gross Domestic Product Chained Price Index. Previous DOE 
analysis that relied on the same approach and data sources resulted in 
a constant price trend assumption to project future electric motor 
prices.\36\ Similarly, DOE expects to rely on a constant price trend 
for air circulating fans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Series ID PCU3353123353123 and PCU3353123353121 for 
integral and fractional hp motors and generators manufacturing, 
respectively; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
    \36\ See Electric Motors Energy Conservation Standards 
Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document, Chapter 8: Life 
Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis (p. 269). Available at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Installation, Repair and Maintenance Costs
    DOE reviewed available air circulating fan installation, 
maintenance, and repair cost information.
    For air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, which 
DOE is assuming are primarily used in residential applications, a 
previous study focused on air circulating fans used in residential 
settings estimated no installation, repair, or maintenance costs for 
these fans.\37\ DOE believes this is a representative characterization 
of these costs as these air circulating fans are plug-in equipment that 
do not require any maintenance and are unlikely to be repaired due to 
the relatively low equipment price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Ecodesign Lot 10 Comfort Fans Study, Preparatory Study on 
Environmental Performance of Residential Room Conditioning 
Appliances (airco and ventilation) Study on comfort fans--final 
report October 2008, after SH comments (p. 44; p. 71-73) 
www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/airco-ventilation/finalreport-cf.zip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For air circulating fans with input power greater than 125 W, which 
DOE assumes are primarily used in commercial, industrial, and 
agricultural applications, DOE did not find any information supporting 
changes in installation and maintenance costs as a function of 
efficiency. Therefore, because DOE expresses results in terms of LCC 
savings, DOE is not planning to account for installation costs in the 
LCC (the difference in installation costs between a baseline and more 
efficient air circulating fan would be zero and would have no impact on 
the calculated LCC savings). In terms of repairs, DOE has identified 
the motor replacement as a potential repair. Depending on the design 
options considered, DOE may include different repair costs by EL to 
reflect differences in motor replacement costs. DOE did not find any 
information related to motor repair frequency in air circulating fans. 
For air circulating fans greater than or equal to 125 W, DOE is 
considering accounting for one motor replacement for consumers that 
have an air circulating fan with a sampled lifetime exceeding the 
average lifetime.
    Issue 29: DOE requests information on its assumptions related to 
installation, maintenance, and repair practices of air circulating 
fans. Specifically, DOE requests feedback and data on whether 
installation, maintenance, and repair costs of air circulating fans are 
expected to be different at higher efficiency levels in comparison to 
the baseline installation, maintenance, and repair costs. To the extent 
that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data and the reasons for 
those differences.
    Issue 30: DOE requests information on the repair frequency of air 
circulating fans (i.e., how many repairs in a lifetime) by category 
(i.e., unhoused air circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel 
fan, box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal 
air circulating fan) and on its approach to consider a single repair 
for certain air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal 
to 125 W.
3. Energy Prices
    DOE is planning on using average and marginal electricity prices in 
2021 for each census division using data from the EEI Typical Bills and 
Average Rates reports \38\ and the methodology described in two 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reports.\39\ \40\ DOE's

[[Page 62059]]

methodology allows electricity prices to vary by sector, region, and 
season. In the analysis, variability in electricity prices is chosen to 
be consistent with the way the consumer economic and energy use 
characteristics are defined in the LCC and PBP analyses. Table II-19 
shows the average and marginal prices for each sector of application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Edison Electric Institute, EEI Typical Bills and Average 
Rates Report (2021). Washington, DC.
    \39\ Katie Coughlin and Berket Beraki, ``Non-Residential 
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation 
Methods,'' April 15, 2019, doi.org/10.2172/1515782.
    \40\ Katie Coughlin and Bereket Beraki, ``Residential 
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation 
Methods,'' 2018.

                 Table II-19--Electricity Prices in 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Average price  Marginal price
                 Sector                      2021$/kWh       2021$/kWh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential.............................           0.157           0.151
Commercial (small)......................           0.123           0.117
Commercial (large)......................           0.097           0.083
Industrial..............................           0.081           0.069
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate electricity prices in future years, DOE is planning on 
multiplying the 2021 electricity prices by the sector-specific 
forecasts of annual national average price changes from EIA's Reference 
case in the AEO 2022. The reference case is a business-as-usual 
estimate, given known market, demographic, and technological trends. 
AEO2022 has an end year of 2050. DOE assumes a flat rate of change in 
prices from 2050. The values for the industrial sector are used for the 
agricultural sector as well.
4. Lifetime
    The equipment lifetime is the age at which given equipment is 
retired from service. DOE typically develops survival probabilities 
using on a Weibull function to characterize variability in lifetimes. 
In preparation for this NODA, DOE reviewed data available for air 
circulating fan lifetime.
    For air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, which 
are primarily used in residential applications, a previous study 
focused on air circulating fans used in residential settings estimated 
air circulating fan lifetimes at 10 years on average.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Ecodesign Lot 10 Comfort Fans Study, Preparatory Study on 
Environmental Performance of Residential Room Conditioning 
Appliances (airco and ventilation) Study on comfort fans--final 
report October 2008, after SH comments (p. 44) www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/airco-ventilation/finalreport-cf.zip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 
125 W, DOE did not find data specific to such fans and instead is 
considering an average lifetime of 30 years across all sectors, as used 
to characterize fan and blower lifetimes in a previous DOE 
analysis.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ On November 1, 2016, DOE published a notification of data 
availability (``November 2016 NODA'') that presented an analysis for 
fans and blowers other than air circulating fans. 81 FR 75742. The 
lifetime assumptions and data source supporting the life cycle cost 
calculation of the November 2016 NODA are available online at 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0190 (see 
``Lifetime'' worksheet). The average lifetime estimate was based on 
input from a subject matter expert John Murphy. ``Commercial and 
Industrial Fans Life-cycle Cost Informational Interview.'' Telephone 
interview. 13 May 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 31: DOE requests comment on the estimated average equipment 
lifetimes for air circulating fans. DOE also requests information 
related to minimum and maximum equipment lifetimes (in years or total 
mechanical hours).
5. Discount Rates
    In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate 
to consumers to estimate the present value of future operating cost 
savings. DOE estimated a distribution of discount rates for air 
circulating fan consumers based on the opportunity cost of consumer 
funds.
    DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from 
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount 
rates.\43\ The LCC analysis estimates net present value over the 
lifetime of the equipment, so the appropriate discount rate will 
reflect the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking this 
time scale into account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC 
analysis, the application of a marginal interest rate associated with 
an initial source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of 
purchase, consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt 
and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the 
restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the 
relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE 
estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical 
distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer 
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with 
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate 
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net 
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the 
influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and 
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a 
consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is 
not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of 
factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the 
opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE 
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to 
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance 
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the 
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data 
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances \44\ 
(``SCF'') for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. 
Using the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates 
for each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates 
that may apply in the year in which amended standards would take 
effect. In the LCC calculation, to account for variation among 
households, DOE will assign each RECS household a specific discount 
rate drawn the distributions for the appropriate income group (RECS 
provides household income data). The average discount rate in 2021 
across all types of household debt and equity and income groups, 
weighted by the shares of each type, is 4.3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 
Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 
2013, 2016, and 2019. (Last accessed June 15, 2022) 
www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from 
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount 
rates. DOE notes that the LCC does not analyze the appliance purchase 
decision, so the implicit discount rate is not relevant in this model. 
The LCC estimates net present value over the lifetime of the

[[Page 62060]]

product, so the appropriate discount rate will reflect the general 
opportunity cost of household funds, taking this time scale into 
account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC, the 
application of a marginal interest rate associated with an initial 
source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase, 
consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt and asset 
holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the restrictions 
consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the relative size 
of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the 
aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical distribution 
of debts and assets.
    To establish commercial, industrial, and agricultural discount 
rates, DOE estimated the weighted average cost of capital using data 
from Damodaran Online.\45\ The weighted average cost of capital is 
commonly used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived 
from a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both 
debt and equity capital to fund investments, so their cost of capital 
is the weighted average of the cost to the firm of equity and debt 
financing. DOE estimated the cost of equity using the capital asset 
pricing model, which assumes that the cost of equity for a particular 
company is proportional to the systematic risk faced by that company. 
The average commercial, industrial, and agricultural discount rates in 
2021 are 6.77 percent, 7.25 percent, and 7.15 percent respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Damodaran Online, Data Page: Costs of Capital by Industry 
Sector (2020). (Last accessed February 1, 2021) pages.stern.nyu.edu/
~adamodar/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Efficiency Distribution in the No-New Standards Case
    To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be 
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular 
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considers the projected 
distribution (market shares) of equipment efficiencies in the no-new-
standards case (i.e., the case without new energy conservation 
standards) in the anticipated compliance year of any future energy 
conservations standards.
    For air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, DOE did 
not find any data regarding the distributions of equipment efficiencies 
in the no-new-standards case. In the absence of any data, DOE is 
conservatively considering assuming all shipments are at the baseline 
level (EL 0).
    For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 
125 W, DOE is planning on using the distributions based on model counts 
at each efficiency level analyzed from the BESS Labs Database to 
develop 2021 distributions of equipment efficiencies in the no-new-
standards case. DOE notes that the BESS Labs Database only publishes 
performance at limited operating points for a given model, allowing DOE 
to calculate the FEI at a single operating point (and not as a weighted 
average). In the absence of other data, DOE will use this as a proxy 
for determining the weighted average FEI of air circulating fans with 
variable and multi-speed capability. In addition, DOE will apply 
equipment efficiency trends (see section II.H.3 of this document) to 
project the efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case in 
the compliance year.
    Using the projected distribution of efficiencies for air 
circulating fans, DOE plans on randomly assigning an equipment 
efficiency to each household and commercial, industrial, or 
agricultural consumer drawn from the consumer samples. If a consumer is 
assigned an equipment efficiency that is greater than or equal to the 
efficiency under consideration, the consumer would not be affected by a 
standard at that efficiency level.
    Issue 32: DOE requests comment on its approach to derive efficiency 
distribution in the no-new standards case for each air circulating fan 
category and input regarding 2021 (or most recent year available) 
equipment efficiency distributions. Additionally, DOE seeks data that 
would support changes in efficiency distributions over time in the no-
new standards case. To the extent any of the efficiency distributions 
in the no-new standards case differ by size or other consumer or design 
characteristic, DOE requests information to characterize these 
variations.

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 new standards at specific efficiency levels (referred to as 
candidate standard levels).\46\ DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the 
potential standard levels considered based on projections of annual 
equipment shipments, along with the annual energy consumption and total 
installed cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the 
present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, operating cost 
savings, equipment costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the 
lifetime of air circulating fans sold over a 30-year period starting in 
the compliance year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. 
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing 
a case without such standards with standards case projections (``no-
new-standards case''). The no-new-standards case characterizes energy 
use and consumer costs for each equipment class in the absence of new 
or amended energy conservation standards. For this projection, DOE 
considers historical trends in efficiency and various forces that are 
likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. DOE compares the 
no-new-standards case with projections characterizing the market for 
each equipment class if DOE adopted new or amended standards at 
specific energy efficiency levels for that class. For each efficiency 
level, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the 
market shares of equipment with efficiencies greater than the standard.
    The NIA calculations use typical values (as opposed to probability 
distributions) as inputs. Critical inputs to this analysis include 
shipments projections, estimated product lifetimes, product installed 
costs and operating costs, product annual energy consumption, the base 
case efficiency projection, and discount rates. In this section, DOE 
discusses specific inputs to the NIA, not previously discussed in this 
document, for which it requests comment and feedback.
1. Base Year Shipments
    DOE develops shipments forecasts to calculate the national impacts 
of potential energy conservation standards on energy consumption, NPV, 
and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments projections are 
typically based on available historical data broken out by equipment 
class, capacity, and efficiency. Current sales estimates allow for a 
more accurate model that captures recent trends in the market.
    For air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, DOE 
reviewed shipments data from the Appliance Magazine market 
research,\47\ which provides 1981-1994 shipments estimates of air 
circulating fans used in residential settings and of ceiling fans. On 
average during the period 1981-1994, the data showed that shipments of 
such air circulating fans represented 91 percent of ceiling fan 
shipments. DOE

[[Page 62061]]

assumed that this ratio is still representative of the market in 2020 
and calculated shipments of air circulating fans with input power less 
than 125 W by multiplying the 2020 ceiling fan shipments data published 
in a previous DOE study \48\ by 0.91, which resulted in 19.2 million 
units in 2020. DOE did not find data to characterize shipments by 
equipment classes in that input power range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Appliance Magazine market research, Appliance Historical 
Statistical review, 1954-2012, January 2014.
    \48\ See Chapter 9 of the ceiling fan preliminary analysis 
Technical Support Document www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0011-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 
125 W, DOE obtained 2021 shipments estimates from manufacturer 
interviews for unhoused air circulating fan heads and cylindrical air 
circulating fans.\49\ DOE then used model counts from the BESS Labs 
Database to estimate market shares by air circulating fan category. 
Table II-20 shows the estimated market shares by category based on 
model counts from the BESS Labs Database. Based on this data, DOE 
estimated that unhoused air circulating fan headsand cylindrical air 
circulating fans represent a combined 30 percent of the total market of 
air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W. 
In addition, DOE adjusted the market shares of unhoused air circulating 
fan heads (22 percent) and cylindrical air circulating fans (8 percent) 
from the BESS Labs database to account for the market shares from the 
shipments estimates provided in manufacturer interviews (i.e., 20 
percent and 10 percent, respectively). DOE then used unadjusted market 
shares by category as presented in Table II-20 to calculate shipments 
of air circulating fans for which manufacturer interviews did not 
provide estimates. The BESS Labs Database does not include any housed 
centrifugal air circulating fans. DOE did not find any data to estimate 
the shipments of housed centrifugal air circulating fans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Information from manufacturer interviews indicated 
shipments estimates of 494,950 units of unhoused air circulating fan 
heads and 255,100 units of cylindrical air circulating fans.

  Table II-20--Air Circulating Fans With Input Power Greater Than or Equal to 125 W--Market Share by Equipment
                            Class (Excluding Housed Centrifugal Air Circulating Fans)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Market share     Calculated    Estimated 2021
            DOE terminology                   BESS category       based on model   market share      shipments
                                                                    counts (%)         (%) *          (units)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unhoused Air Circulating Fan Head.....  Basket fan..............              22              20         494,950
Box fan...............................  Box fan.................              11              11         275,018
Air circulating axial panel fan.......  Panel fan...............              59              59       1,475,098
Cylindrical air circulating fan.......  Tube fan................               8              10         255,100
Housed centrifugal air circulating fan  N/A.....................             N/A             N/A             N/A
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.............................  ........................             100             100       2,500,167
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Adjusted market shares of Unhoused Air Circulating Fan Head and Cylindrical air circulating fan based on
  shipments estimates from manufacturer interviews.

    Finally for air circulating fans with input power greater than or 
equal to 125 W, based on information from manufacturer interviews, DOE 
estimated that while some fans are used in commercial and industrial 
settings, the majority of these fans are used in agricultural 
applications. In the absence of any quantitative data to characterize 
the fraction of shipments by sector, DOE assumed 75 percent of 
shipments are used in agricultural settings,\50\ 12.5 percent in 
commercial settings, and 12.5 percent in industrial applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ DOE assumed the mid-point between 50 and 100 percent of 
shipments (75 percent) go to agriculture. Distributed the remaining 
shipments equally across the commercial and industrial sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Shipments Projections
    In response to the February 2022 ECS RFI, ebm-papst suggested that 
the growth of indoor horticulture, a need for farm animal cooling due 
to climate change, and a need for auxiliary cooling on distribution 
transformers due to electrification of climate change could all be 
reasons for possible growth in the air circulating fan market. (ebm-
papst, No. 8 at p. 4)
    To project shipments of air circulating fans with input power less 
than 125 W, DOE is considering using an annual growth rate of 5 percent 
based on the Appliance Magazine market research data,\51\ which 
provides 1981-1994 shipments estimates for air circulating fans used in 
residential settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Appliance Magazine market research, Appliance Historical 
Statistical review, 1954-2012, January 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 
125 W, DOE estimates that shipments of such fans follow similar trends 
as shipments of large-diameter ceiling fans. Therefore, DOE is 
considering projecting shipments of air circulating fans with input 
power greater than or equal to 125 W based on the growth rates 
projected for shipments of large-diameter ceiling fans.\52\ DOE notes 
that this corresponds to a compound annual growth rate of 8.3 percent 
for the period 2020-2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Chapter 9 of the ceiling fan preliminary analysis 
Technical Support Document (TSD) https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0011-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE may consider alternative approaches to project shipments 
depending on stakeholder comment and any additional data that may 
become available.
    Issue 33: DOE requests comment on the estimated 2020 shipments of 
air circulating fans for each market segment considered (i.e., below 
125 W, and at or above 125 W) and seeks input on the fraction of 
shipments by air circulating fan category (i.e., unhoused air 
circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel fan, box fan, 
cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal air circulating 
fan). In addition, DOE requests 2021 annual sales data (or the most 
recent year available)--i.e., number of shipments--for air circulating 
fans and annual historical shipments data for 2016-2020 (or most recent 
years available). If disaggregated data of annual sales are not 
available for different air circulating fan categories, DOE requests 
more aggregated data of annual sales as available.
    Issue 34: DOE requests comment on the estimated market share by 
sector. DOE requests 2016-2021 data (or the most recent years 
available) on the fraction of shipments in the industrial, commercial, 
and residential sectors for

[[Page 62062]]

air circulating fans. In each sector, DOE requests 2016-2021 data (or 
the most recent years available) on the fraction of shipments that 
represent replacement versus new installations.
    Issue 35: DOE requests comments on its approach to project 
shipments of air circulating fans. DOE requests information on the rate 
at which annual sales (i.e., number of shipments) of air circulating 
fans is expected to change in the next 5-10 years. If possible, DOE 
requests this information for each air circulating fan category (i.e., 
unhoused air circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel fan, 
box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal air 
circulating fan). If disaggregated data of annual sales are not 
available for each air circulating fan category, DOE requests more 
aggregated data of annual sales.
3. Equipment Efficiency Trends
    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency 
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards cases 
over the entire 30-year analysis period. To project the trend in 
efficiency absent amended standards for air circulating fans, DOE did 
not find any historical equipment efficiency data. Instead, in order to 
incorporate any efficiency trends, DOE may consider an approach that 
shifts a fraction of the market share in the single-speed levels (e.g., 
1 percent) to the variable-speed efficiency levels to reflect the 
growing market share of variable-speed air circulating fans. DOE may 
consider alternative approaches to project equipment efficiency 
depending on stakeholder comment and any additional data that may 
become available.
    For standards cases, DOE is considering a ``roll up'' scenario to 
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards 
are assumed to become effective. In this scenario, the market share of 
products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the standard 
under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard level, 
and the market share of products above the standard would remain 
unchanged. To project the trend in efficiency in the various standard 
case considered, DOE would then apply the same shift towards variable-
speed efficiency levels as in the no-new-standard case for the 
standards cases.
    Issue 36: DOE requests comments on its approach to project 
equipment efficiency for air circulating fans. DOE requests data and 
information on any trends in the fans market that could be used to 
forecast expected trends in market share by efficiency levels for air 
circulating fans. If disaggregated data are not available for each air 
circulating fan category, DOE requests more aggregated data.

III. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
notification of data availability no later than the date provided in 
the DATES section at the beginning of this document. Interested parties 
may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the 
methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this 
document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If 
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free from 
any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters 
or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted or redacted. 
DOE will make its own determination about the confidential

[[Page 62063]]

status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    As indicated in the analyses previously, DOE is seeking further 
comment and/or data on certain issues. For reference, these issues from 
the above analyses include the following:
    Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its assumption that most motors 
paired with air circulating fans are lower efficiency induction motors 
that are not currently regulated by DOE. Additionally, DOE requests 
data on the percentage of air circulating fans that include a SP, PSC, 
shaded pole, or electronically commuted motors.
    Issue 2: DOE requests comment on if or how the five screening 
criteria may impact the application of an aerodynamic redesign 
(including changes to housing, impeller and/or blade design), more 
efficient motors, or VSDs (``variable-speed drives'') as design options 
in the current rulemaking analysis.
    Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its assumption that the BESS Labs 
Combined Database is representative of the air circulating fan head 
market, with the exception of housed centrifugal air circulating fans 
and air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W which are not 
represented in the BESS Labs Combined Database.
    Issue 4: DOE requests additional information for all categories of 
air circulating fans, including: manufacturer name, model number, fan 
diameter, blade number, blade shape, blade material, housing type, 
housing material, spacing between the blade tip and the housing, and 
housing depth with associated performance data obtained using AMCA 230-
15 with 2021 errata (or sufficient information that can be used to 
correct to AMCA 230-15 with 2021 errata). DOE additionally requests the 
following information on the motors sold within each fan model: motor 
type (i.e., SP, PSC, ECM, polyphase, etc.), type of drive (i.e., direct 
or belt), motor horsepower (``hp''), motor full-load efficiency (if 
available), motor rotations per minute, number of speeds, motor 
electric requirements (i.e., volts, amps, frequency, phase, AC/DC), and 
whether a variable-speed drive is included with the fan.
    Issue 5: DOE requests comment on the potential of using fan 
affinity laws to extrapolate BESS Labs performance data to air 
circulating fan heads with diameters less than 12 inches and greater 
than 52 inches. Additionally, DOE requests model characteristics and 
performance data obtained using AMCA 230-15 plus 2021 errata (or 
sufficient information than can be used to correct to AMCA 230-15 plus 
2021 errata) for air circulating fans with diameters both smaller than 
and larger than those listed in the BESS Labs Database.
    Issue 6: DOE requests comment on whether, and if so how, each of 
the following performance-related features may impact utility of air 
circulating fans: presence or absence of a safety guard, presence or 
absence of housing, housing design, blade type, drive type, number of 
discrete speed settings, power requirements, and air velocity or throw. 
DOE requests additional feedback and data or information on other air 
circulating fan features that may impact utility for the end user and 
might form the basis for classification.
    Issue 7: DOE requests comment with supporting data on whether the 
following performance-related features provide substantially different 
utility, or are expected to have a significant impact on efficiency 
because of how they are used: (1) housed vs. unhoused air circulating 
fan heads; (2) direct-driven vs. belt-driven air circulating fan heads; 
and (3) single-phase vs. polyphase air circulating fan heads. DOE also 
requests information on any additional features that may impact air 
circulating fan head utility.
    Issue 8: DOE requests comment on whether the diameters chosen for 
representative units in this analysis (i.e., 12 inches, 20 inches, 24 
inches, 36 inches, and 50 inches) accurately represent the diameters 
with the highest sales volume available in the air circulating fan 
market. DOE also requests comment on whether diameter is an appropriate 
representative metric for air circulating fans.
    Issue 9: DOE requests comment on whether the motor hp it has 
associated with each representative diameter (i.e., 0.1 hp for 12 
inches, 0.33 hp for 20 inches, 0.5 hp for 24 inches and 36 inches, and 
1 hp for 50 inches) appropriately represent the motor hp for fans sold 
with those corresponding diameters.
    Issue 10: DOE requests comment on its use of SP motors as the 
baseline for air circulating fans. Additionally, DOE seeks feedback on 
its choice of motor technologies (SP motor to PSC 1 motor, PSC 1 motor 
to PSC 2 motor, and PSC 2 motor to ECM) to estimate air circulating fan 
efficiency increases from one efficiency level to the next.
    Issue 11: DOE requests comment on its assumption that motors used 
in air circulating fans are exclusively air-over motors. If this is not 
the case, DOE requests information on the other types of motors that 
are sold with air circulating fans and data on the percentage of air 
circulating fans that are sold with motors other than air-over motors. 
Additionally, DOE requests information on whether or not the type of 
motor supplied with an air circulating fan is a function of air 
circulating fan category (e.g., unhoused air circulating fan head, box 
fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, etc.).
    Issue 12: DOE requests feedback on whether catalog performance data 
on SP motors and PSC motors is generally representative of the 
performance of the SP and PSC motors included with air circulating 
fans.
    Issue 13: DOE requests feedback on the methodology used to 
determine the baseline efficiency values for the representative units, 
including its method of first establishing the EL1 efficiency and then 
determining the baseline efficiency by reducing the EL1 efficiency by 
the difference in efficiency between a PSC motor and a SP motor. 
Additionally, DOE requests data on the expected average improvement in 
air circulating fan efficiency when a SP motor is replaced by a PSC 1 
motor.
    Issue 14: DOE requests feedback on its assumption that airflow, 
pressure, and motor performance (for example, speed and inrush current) 
remain constant when replacing a less efficient motor with a more 
efficient motor in an air circulating fan. If airflow, pressure, or 
motor performance are not maintained when using a more efficient motor, 
DOE requests feedback and data on how it should conduct this analysis.
    Issue 15: DOE requests feedback on whether the efficiency gains 
shown in the supplementary spreadsheet are realistic efficiency gains 
when replacing a lower efficiency PSC motor (i.e., PSC 1 motor) with a 
higher efficiency PSC motor (i.e., PSC 2 motor). If these assumptions 
are not realistic, DOE requests data demonstrating air circulating fan 
motor efficiency as a function of hp, as well as data for motor hp as a 
function of fan diameter.
    Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on its use of dedicated purpose 
pool pump motors as a source for comparing PSC motor and ECM 
efficiency. Additionally, DOE requests information on whether motors 
used for this purpose are comparable to air circulating fan motors. DOE 
further requests feedback on whether the efficiency increases from

[[Page 62064]]

PSC 1 motors to ECM that DOE presents are realistic. If dedicated 
purpose pool pump motors are not representative of air circulating fans 
motors, or DOE's estimated efficiency increases are not realistic, DOE 
requests data on the difference between PSC 1 motor efficiency and ECM 
efficiency and the difference between PSC 2 motor efficiency and ECM 
efficiency for air circulating fans. DOE also requests comment on its 
use of extrapolation of these data to obtain efficiency values at 
fractional hp.
    Issue 17: DOE requests feedback on the FEI values that it 
determined and its approach for estimating FEI values for an air 
circulating fan that includes both an ECM and improved aerodynamic 
design.
    Issue 18: DOE requests comment on its factory parameter assumptions 
for typical air circulating fan production.
    Issue 19: DOE requests comment on whether or not its baseline 
material assumptions are representative of baseline fans distributed 
into commerce. If DOE's baseline material assumptions are not 
representative, DOE requests information and data on materials typicaly 
used in the air circulating fans currently on the market.
    Issue 20: DOE requests comment on its estimated base MPC for air 
circulating fans with no motors at each of the representative diameters 
evaluated. (See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
    Issue 21: DOE requests comment on whether replacing a given fan 
motor with a more efficient fan motor will result in similar efficiency 
and cost impacts for housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads.
    Issue 22: DOE requests comment on its estimated motor costs SP 
motors (EL0), PSC motors (EL1), higher efficiency PSC motors (EL2), and 
ESMs (EL3) at each hp associated with the representative diameters 
evaluated. (See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
    Issue 23: DOE requests comment on its estimated housed and unhoused 
air circulating fan costs at each EL and for each representative unit. 
(See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0002, No. 11)
    Issue 24: DOE requests comment on and additional data to support 
its estimated air circulating fan conversion costs to undergo 
aerodynamic redesign.
    Issue 25: DOE requests comment on whether or not an average MSP of 
1.5 is representative for the air circulating fan market. If an average 
MSP of 1.5 is not representative, DOE requests information of what a 
more representative MSP would be. Additionally, DOE requests comment on 
whether or not MSP for air circulating fans will remain constant in the 
case of new energy conservation standards. If not, DOE seeks 
information on the magnitude by which MSP might change under potential 
energy efficiency standards.
    Issue 26: DOE requests feedback and information on the distribution 
channels identified for air circulating fans, and on any other 
distribution channel that DOE should consider. DOE also requests data 
on the fraction of sales that go through these channels.
    Issue 27: DOE seeks comment on the estimated average number of 
operating hours per year, distribution of operating hours, and the 
estimated fraction of time spent at each speed setting for air 
circulating fans with input power less than 125 W and those with input 
ower greater than or equal to 125 W. In addition, if DOE should 
consider different operating hours for specific applications (e.g., air 
circulating fans used in agricultural applications, thermal mixing 
fans) DOE requests data on how to best characterize operating hours for 
these various applications.
    Issue 28: DOE requests feedback on the inputs and considered 
methods used for the LCC and PBP analyses.
    Issue 29: DOE requests information on its assumptions related to 
installation, maintenance, and repair practices of air circulating 
fans. Specifically, DOE requests feedback and data on whether 
installation, maintenance, and repair costs of air circulating fans are 
expected to be different at higher efficiency levels in comparison to 
the baseline installation, maintenance, and repair costs. To the extent 
that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data and the reasons for 
those differences.
    Issue 30: DOE requests information on the repair frequency of air 
circulating fans (i.e., how many repairs in a lifetime) by category 
(i.e., unhoused air circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel 
fan, box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal 
air circulating fan) and on its approach to consider a single repair 
for certain air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal 
to 125 W.
    Issue 31: DOE requests comment on the estimated average equipment 
lifetimes for air circulating fans. DOE also requests information 
related to minimum and maximum equipment lifetimes (in years or total 
mechanical hours).
    Issue 32: DOE requests comment on its approach to derive efficiency 
distribution in the no-new standards case for each air circulating fan 
category and input regarding 2021 (or most recent year available) 
equipment efficiency distributions. Additionally, DOE seeks data that 
would support changes in efficiency distributions over time in the no-
new standards case. To the extent any of the efficiency distributions 
in the no-new standards case differ by size or other consumer or design 
characteristic, DOE requests information to characterize these 
variations.
    Issue 33: DOE requests comment on the estimated 2020 shipments of 
air circulating fans for each market segment considered (i.e., below 
125 W, and at or above 125 W) and seeks input on the fraction of 
shipments by air circulating fan category (i.e., unhoused air 
circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel fan, box fan, 
cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal air circulating 
fan). In addition, DOE requests 2021 annual sales data (or the most 
recent year available)--i.e., number of shipments--for air circulating 
fans and annual historical shipments data for 2016-2020 (or most recent 
years available). If disaggregated data of annual sales are not 
available for different air circulating fan categories, DOE requests 
more aggregated data of annual sales as available.
    Issue 34: DOE requests comment on the estimated market share by 
sector. DOE requests 2016-2021 data (or the most recent years 
available) on the fraction of shipments in the industrial, commercial, 
and residential sectors for air circulating fans. In each sector, DOE 
requests 2016-2021 data (or the most recent years available) on the 
fraction of shipments that represent replacement versus new 
installations.
    Issue 35: DOE requests comments on its approach to project 
shipments of air circulating fans. DOE requests information on the rate 
at which annual sales (i.e., number of shipments) of air circulating 
fans is expected to change in the next 5-10 years. If possible, DOE 
requests this information for each air circulating fan category (i.e., 
unhoused air circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel fan, 
box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal air 
circulating fan). If disaggregated data of annual sales are not 
available for each air circulating fan category, DOE requests more 
aggregated data of annual sales.
    Issue 36: DOE requests comments on its approach to project 
equipment efficiency for air circulating fans. DOE requests data and 
information on any trends in the fans market that could be used to 
forecast expected trends in

[[Page 62065]]

market share by efficiency levels for air circulating fans. If 
disaggregated data are not available for each air circulating fan 
category, DOE requests more aggregated data.

IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this 
notification of the availability of the preliminary technical support 
document and request for comment.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 5, 
2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022-22141 Filed 10-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.