69826 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2021–BT–STD–0029] 

RIN 1904–AE64 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Furnace Fans 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notification of proposed 

determination and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including consumer furnace fans. EPCA 

also requires the U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to periodically 

determine whether more-stringent, 

amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. In this 

notification of proposed determination 

(‘‘NOPD’’), DOE has initially determined 

that it could not conclude that amended 

standards would be cost effective, and 

thus, is not proposing to amend its 

energy conservation standards for these 

products. DOE requests comment on 

this proposed determination and the 

associated analyses and results. 

DATES: 

Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar 

upon request. Please request a public 

webinar no later than October 20, 2023. 

See section VII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ 

for webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before December 5, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EERE–2021–BT–STD–0029. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2021–BT–STD–0029, by 

any of the following methods: 

(1) Email: 

ConsumerFurnFan2021STD0029@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EERE–2021–BT–STD–0029 in the 

subject line of the message. 

(2) 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. 

(3) 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 

VII of this document. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2021-BT-STD-0029. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section 

VII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for further 

information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Julia Hegarty, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. 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. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

Consumer Furnace Fans 

C. Deviation From Appendix A of the 

Process Rule 

III. General Discussion 

A. General Comments 

1. Comments Opposing Amended 

Standards for Furnace Fans 

2. Comments Expressing Support for 

Amended Standards for Furnace Fans 

B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage 

C. Test Procedure 

D. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

E. Cost Effectiveness 

F. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

G. Additional Considerations 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Scope of Coverage 

2. Technology Options 

3. Impact From Other Rulemakings 

a. Screened-Out Technologies 

b. Remaining Technologies 

4. Product Classes 

B. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

a. Baseline Efficiency Level 

b. Intermediate Efficiency Levels 

c. Maximum Technology Efficiency Levels 

d. Summary of Efficiency Levels Analyzed 

2. Cost Analysis 

a. Teardown Analysis 

b. Cost Estimation Method 

3. Cost-Efficiency Results 

C. Markups Analysis 

D. Energy Use Analysis 

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Product Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

6. Product Lifetime 

7. Discount Rates 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

F. Shipments Analysis 

G. National Impact Analysis 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

H. Further Considerations Related to 

Backward-Inclined Impellers 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

B. National Impact Analysis 

1. Significance of Energy Savings 

2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69827 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

C. Proposed Determination 

1. BPM Motor With Backward-Inclined 

Impellers 

2. BPM Motor With Forward-Curved 

Impellers 

3. Summary 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 

13563, and 14094 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Submission of Comments 

C. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed 

Determination 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate 

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA 2

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309) These products include consumer 

furnace fans, the subject of this NOPD. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D)) 

DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to 

the EPCA requirement that not later 

than 6 years after issuance of any final 

rule establishing or amending a 

standard, DOE must publish either a 

notification of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) 

For this proposed determination, DOE 

analyzed consumer furnace fans subject 

to standards specified in 10 CFR 

430.32(y). DOE first analyzed the 

technological feasibility of more energy 

efficient consumer furnace fans. For 

those consumer furnace fans for which 

DOE determined higher standards to be 

technologically feasible, DOE evaluated 

whether higher standards would be cost 

effective by conducting life-cycle cost 

(‘‘LCC’’) and payback period (‘‘PBP’’) 

analyses. In addition, DOE estimated 

energy savings that would result from 

potential energy conservation standards 

by conducting a national impacts 

analysis (‘‘NIA’’), in which it estimated 

the net present value (‘‘NPV’’) of the 

total costs and benefits experienced by 

consumers. 

Based on the results of the analyses, 

summarized in section V of this 

document, DOE has tentatively 

determined that current standards for 

consumer furnace fans do not need to be 

amended. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed determination, 

as well as some of the historical 

background relevant to the 

establishment of standards for consumer 

furnace fans. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of 

EPCA established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. 

These products include consumer 

furnace fans, the subject of this 

document. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D)) 

Specifically, EPCA authorized DOE to 

establish energy conservation standards 

for electricity used for purpose of 

circulating air through duct work. (Id.) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6296). 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of 

covered products must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 

these test procedures to determine 

whether the products comply with 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test 

procedures for consumer furnace fans 

appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 430, subpart B, 

appendix AA. 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) DOE 

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) 

Pursuant to the amendments 

contained in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), 

Public Law 110–140, any final rule for 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards promulgated after July 1, 

2010, is required to address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when 

DOE adopts a standard for a covered 

product after that date, it must, if 

justified by the criteria for adoption of 

standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and 

off mode energy use into a single 

standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt 

a separate standard for such energy use 

for that product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) However, DOE has 

previously determined that there is no 

need to address standby and off mode 

energy use in the standards for 

consumer furnace fans, as the standby 

mode and off mode energy use 

associated with furnace fans is 

accounted for by the standards and test 

procedures for the products in which 

furnace fans are used (i.e., consumer 

furnaces and consumer central air 

conditioners and heat pumps). 79 FR 

499, 504. DOE maintained the same 

approach in the proposed amended test 

procedure for consumer furnace fans 

(the ‘‘May 2022 TP NOPR’’). 87 FR 

29576. 

DOE must periodically review its 

already established energy conservation 

standards for consumer furnace fans no 

later than 6 years from the issuance of 

a final rule establishing or amending a 

standard for consumer furnace fans. (42 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69828 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year look-back 

provision requires that DOE publish 

either a determination that standards do 

not need to be amended or a NOPR, 

including new proposed standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

EPCA further provides that, not later 

than 3 years after the issuance of a final 

determination not to amend standards, 

DOE must publish either a notification 

of determination that standards for the 

product do not need to be amended, or 

a NOPR including new proposed energy 

conservation standards (proceeding to a 

final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the 

analysis on which a determination is 

based publicly available and provide an 

opportunity for written comment. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)) 

A determination that amended 

standards are not needed must be based 

on consideration of whether amended 

standards will result in significant 

conservation of energy, are 

technologically feasible, and are cost 

effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 

42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of 

cost-effectiveness requires DOE to 

consider savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the standard. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE is publishing 

this NOPD in satisfaction of the 6-year 

review requirement in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)) 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

In a final rule published on July 3, 

2014 (‘‘July 2014 Final Rule’’), DOE 

prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

furnace fans manufactured on and after 

July 3, 2019. 79 FR 38130. These 

standards are set forth in DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(y) and are 

repeated in Table II.1. 

TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER FURNACE FANS

Furnace fan product class 

Fan energy rating 

(‘‘FER’’) 

(watts/1000 cubic feet per minute 

(‘‘cfm’’)) 

Non-Weatherized, Non-Condensing Gas (‘‘NWG–NC’’) .................................................................................... FER = 0.044 * Qmax + 182. 

Non-Weatherized, Condensing Gas (‘‘NWG–C’’) .............................................................................................. FER = 0.044 * Qmax + 195. 

Weatherized, Non-Condensing Gas (‘‘WG–NC’’) .............................................................................................. FER = 0.044 * Qmax + 199. 

Non-Weatherized, Non-Condensing Oil Furnace Fan (‘‘NWO–NC’’) ................................................................ FER = 0.071 * Qmax + 382. 

Non-Weatherized Electric Furnace/Modular Blower Fan (‘‘NWEF/NWMB’’) ..................................................... FER = 0.044 * Qmax + 165. 

Mobile Home Non-Weatherized, Non-Condensing Gas Furnace Fan (‘‘MH–NWG–NC’’) ................................ FER = 0.071 * Qmax + 222. 

Mobile Home Non-Weatherized, Condensing Gas Furnace Fan (‘‘MH–NWG–C’’) .......................................... FER = 0.071 * Qmax + 240. 

Mobile Home Electric Furnace/Modular Blower Fan (‘‘MH–EF/MB’’) ................................................................ FER = 0.044 * Qmax + 101. 

Mobile Home Non-Weatherized Oil Furnace Fan (‘‘MH–NWO’’) ...................................................................... Reserved. 

Mobile Home Weatherized Gas Furnace Fan (‘‘MH–WG’’) .............................................................................. Reserved. 

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

Consumer Furnace Fans 

DOE established energy conservation 

standards at 10 CFR 430.32(y) for 

furnace fans through a final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 3, 2014 (‘‘July 2014 Final Rule’’). 79 

FR 38130. As discussed in section II.A 

of this document, EPCA authorized DOE 

to establish energy conservation 

standards for electricity used for 

purpose of circulating air through duct 

work. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D)) While 

the statutory language allows for 

regulation of the electricity use of any 

electrically-powered device applied to 

residential central heating, ventilation, 

and air conditioning (‘‘HVAC’’) systems 

for the purpose of circulating air 

through duct work, in the July 2014 

Final Rule DOE established standards 

only for certain furnace fans used in 

furnaces and modular blowers. 79 FR 

38130, 38146. Compliance with the 

prescribed standards established for 

consumer furnace fans in the July 2014 

Final Rule was required as of July 3, 

2019. DOE’s energy conservation 

standards for furnace fans use the fan 

energy rating (‘‘FER’’) metric, which is 

the ratio of the electrical energy 

consumption to airflow, expressed as 

watts per 1,000 cubic feet per minute of 

airflow (‘‘W/1000 cfm’’). 10 CFR 

430.32(y). In evaluating whether 

amended standards for furnace fans are 

warranted, DOE used the test procedure 

for determining FER is established at 10 

CFR part 430 subpart B appendix AA, 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Furnace Fans 

(‘‘appendix AA’’). In parallel to this 

rulemaking, DOE is considering whether 

amendments are warranted for the 

current test procedure for furnace fans. 

On May 13, 2022, DOE published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NOPR’’) concerning the test procedure 

for furnace fans (‘‘May 2022 TP NOPR’’). 

87 FR 29576. 

In support of the present review of the 

consumer furnace fans energy 

conservation standards, DOE published 

a request for information (‘‘RFI’’), which 

identified various issues on which DOE 

sought comment to inform its 

determination of whether the standards 

need to be amended on November 23, 

2021 (the ‘‘November 2021 RFI’’). 86 FR 

66465. The following year, on 

November 1, 2022, DOE published a 

notice of availability of the preliminary 

technical support document (the 

‘‘November 2022 Preliminary Analysis’’) 

in the Federal Register. 87 FR 65687. In 

the November 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE assessed potential 

amended standard levels for consumer 

furnace fans. 

On September 20, 2022, a consent 

decree was issued for NRDC et al. v. 

DOE and New York et al. v. DOE that 

mandated that a final agency action 

pertaining to energy conservation 

standards (i.e., a final rule amending 

energy conservation standards or a final 

determination not to amend standards) 

must be issued by October 31, 2024. 

DOE received comments in response 

to the November 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis from the interested parties 

listed in Table II.2. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69829 

3The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket. (Docket No., 

which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The 

references are arranged as follows: (commenter 

name, comment docket ID number, page of that 

document). 

TABLE II.2—NOVEMBER 2022 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS COMMENTS

Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPD Comment No. 

in the docket Commenter type 

Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute .................. AHRI ......................................... 23 Trade Association. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for 

an Energy-Efficient Economy, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council.

Joint Commenters .................... 20 Efficiency Organization. 

Carrier Global Corporation ........................................................... Carrier ...................................... 19 Manufacturer. 

Charles Beach ............................................................................. Beach ....................................... 16 Individual. 

Daikin Comfort Technologies ....................................................... Daikin ....................................... * 26 Manufacturer. 

Lennox International Inc .............................................................. Lennox ...................................... 24 Manufacturer. 

Morrison Products Inc .................................................................. Morrison ................................... 27 Manufacturer. 

Nidec Motors ................................................................................ Nidec ........................................ * 26 Manufacturer. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance .......................................... NEEA ........................................ 25 Efficiency Organization. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison.CA IOUs ................................... 21 Utility. 

Rheem Manufacturing Company ................................................. Rheem ...................................... * 26 Manufacturer. 

Trane Technologies ..................................................................... Trane ........................................ 22 Manufacturer. 

Weil-McLain Technologies ........................................................... Weil-McLain .............................. * 26 Manufacturer. 

* Comment No. 26 corresponds to the transcript for the webinar held December 5, 2022. These commenters made oral comments during the 

public meeting that are summarized and discussed in this document. 

Any oral comments provided during 

the webinar that are not substantively 

addressed by written comments are 

summarized and cited separately 

throughout this NOPD. A parenthetical 

reference at the end of a comment 

quotation or paraphrase provides the 

location of the item in the public 

record.3

C. Deviation From Appendix A of the 

Process Rule 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is 

deviating from the provision in the 

appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR and 

NOPR stages for an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. 

Section 6(f)(2) of the appendix A 

specifies that the length of the public 

comment period for a NOPR will be not 

less than 75 calendar days. For this 

NOPD, DOE has opted instead to 

provide a 60-day comment period, as 

required by EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). 

DOE is opting to deviate from the 75- 

day comment period because 

stakeholders have already been afforded 

an opportunity to provide comments on 

this rulemaking. As noted previously, 

DOE requested comment on various 

issues pertaining to this standards 

rulemaking in the November 2021 RFI, 

a November 2022 preliminary analysis, 

and collectively provided stakeholders 

with more than a 90 days to comment. 

86 FR 66465 and 87 FR 65687. 

Therefore, DOE believes a 60-day 

comment period is appropriate and will 

provide interested parties with a 

meaningful opportunity to comment on 

the proposed determination. 

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed this proposed 

determination after considering 

comments, data, and information from 

interested parties that represent a 

variety of interests. This notice 

addresses issues raised by these 

commenters. 

A. General Comments 

1. Comments Opposing Amended 

Standards for Furnace Fans 

In response to the November 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, several 

commenters expressed opposition to 

amending standards for consumer 

furnace fans. 

Trane commented that it does not 

support adopting efficiency level (‘‘EL’’) 

1 for consumer furnace fan standards 

because the assumptions used in the 

TSD are flawed and when corrected will 

result in much smaller energy savings, 

higher consumer costs, and undue 

burden to manufacturers who will need 

to redesign all furnaces to adopt 

backward-inclined impellers. (Trane, 

No. 22 at p. 1) Trane commented that EL 

1 analyzed in the November 2022 

Preliminary Analysis fails to meet: (1) 

the energy savings threshold because 

the energy savings outlined in the TSD 

are overstated; (2) the technological 

feasibility requirement because there is 

a need for additional technology 

development before EL 1 is feasible; and 

(3) the economic justification criteria. 

Specifically, Trane stated that EL 1 is 

not economically justified for the 

following reasons: (1) the negative 

economic impact will be significant in 

terms of manufacturer redesign costs 

(for relatively small energy savings); (2) 

consumers will face higher product and 

installation costs; (3) consumers will 

encounter negative lifetime operating 

cost savings and energy savings will be 

lower than DOE predicted; (4) there will 

be negative impacts on safety and 

efficiency due to changes in airflow 

patterns (impacting utility or 

performance); and (5) the potential for 

lessening of competition will be 

increased because units with backwardinclined impellers do not currently 

exist. Trane therefore commented that 

the use of EL 1 should not be considered 

for furnace fans. (Id. at p. 4) Morrison 

commented that DOE’s values for the 

product cost increase were 

undercounted, the energy savings were 

overestimated, and the resulting benefit 

to consumers would be half of the 

values that DOE projects. Therefore, 

Morrison concluded that DOE 

underestimated the LCC and PBP in the 

November 2022 Preliminary Analysis, 

and that the actual numbers will reflect 

a net cost for more consumers than 

currently projected. (Morrison, No. 27 at 

p. 4) Lennox recommended DOE 

conclude that no new furnace fan 

standards are warranted for the NWG– 

NC, NWG–C, and WG–NC product 

classes due to very high levels of 

consumers experiencing net costs from 

potential amended standards. Lennox 

noted that for NWG–NC and NWG–C, 44 

percent and 48 percent, respectively, of 

consumers experience a net cost, while 

for WG–NC, 26 percent of consumers 

experience a net cost. Lennox also 

commented that for the NWO–NC 

product class, although the payback 

period and percent of consumers 

experiencing a net cost are favorable for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69830 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

EL 1, the energy savings associated with 

these products is minimal (0.00003 

quads) and does not meet the criteria of 

significant energy savings, and therefore 

amended standards are not likely 

warranted. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 2) 

Lennox also commented that the 

feasible technologies available for 

furnace fans have not changed since the 

last furnace fan standards rulemaking in 

2019, but equipment costs have 

increased over the same time period due 

to inflation and supply chain issues. 

Lennox stated that many consumers 

have been adversely impacted by the 

COVID–19 pandemic, and increasing 

furnace fan equipment costs with new 

efficiency standards is both ill-advised 

and economically unjustified at this 

time. (Id. at p. 2) 

AHRI stated that while the simple 

payback period of many maximum 

technology feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

furnace fans appears to be favorable, 

almost every class of fan provides 

minimal average cost savings to 

consumers and projections showing 

that, in all but one case, over 44 percent 

of consumers will experience a net cost. 

AHRI commented that this cost, 

combined with AHRI’s concerns about 

the misrepresentation of the cost of 

products with a backward-inclined 

impeller, lead AHRI to expect that the 

true percentage of affected consumers 

will be higher than stated. (AHRI, No. 

23 at p. 3) 

Morrison recommended that DOE 

consider the timing and length of 

analysis periods for complex 

rulemaking documents, as the public 

comment period for this rulemaking was 

at a time of year in which under-staffing 

is common, and, as a result, Morrison 

stated that it is unable to guarantee the 

thoroughness and attention to detail of 

its response to this rulemaking. 

(Morrison, No. 27 at p. 6) 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

document, DOE must periodically 

review its already established energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

furnace fans no later than 6 years from 

the issuance of a final rule establishing 

or amending a standard for consumer 

furnace fans. This 6-year look-back 

provision requires that DOE publish 

either a determination that standards do 

not need to be amended or a NOPR, 

including new proposed standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

Additionally, EPCA provides specific 

statutory criteria for amending energy 

conservation standards. EPCA generally 

requires a public notice-and-comment 

process (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)), which 

affords members of the public the 

opportunity to comment on the 

rulemaking and all documents are made 

publicly available at 

www.regulations.gov. As part of the 

process for this rulemaking, DOE 

carefully considers the benefits and 

burdens of amended standards to 

determine whether the amended 

standards are the maximum standard 

levels that are technologically feasible 

and economically justified, and would 

conserve a significant amount of energy, 

as required by EPCA (see 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)–(3)). Section IV of this 

document outlines DOE’s approach to 

analyzing various potential amended 

standard levels, which was conducted 

in accordance with the statutory 

requirements outlined in EPCA (and 

described above) for determining 

whether to establish or amend 

standards. Section V of this document 

provides the results of those analyses, as 

well as a detailed explanation of DOE’s 

weighing of the benefits and burdens 

and the rationale for proposing not to 

amend standards for consumer furnace 

fans at this time based on the criteria 

specified in EPCA. Morrison stated that 

having separate measures of energy 

efficiency for furnaces and furnace fans 

may risk confusing consumers as to 

which efficiency label they should 

choose when purchasing equipment, in 

turn increasing the potential for wasted 

energy. (Morrison, No. 27 at p. 2) 

Lennox similarly commented that when 

consumers consider energy efficiency 

while purchasing residential furnaces, 

they evaluate the annual fuel utilization 

efficiency (‘‘AFUE’’) metric for 

consumer furnaces. Lennox commented 

that furnace fans typically account for 

less than 2 percent of the overall energy 

use of a residential furnace system in 

heating operation, and DOE furnace fan 

standards are not a focus of the 

consumer purchase decision. (Lennox, 

No. 24 at p. 8) 

In response, DOE notes that EPCA 

directed DOE to consider and prescribe 

energy conservation standards or energy 

use standards for electricity used for the 

purposes of circulating air through 

ductwork. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D)) The 

AFUE metric used for furnaces does not 

account for the electricity used by the 

furnace fan to move air through 

ductwork. Therefore, to satisfy the 

requirements of EPCA, DOE established 

the FER test method and metric to 

account for the electrical energy 

consumption for circulating air through 

ductwork and will maintain AFUE and 

FER as separate metrics for consumer 

furnaces and consumer furnace fans, 

respectively. 

2. Comments Expressing Support for 

Amended Standards for Furnace Fans 

In response to the November 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, several 

commenters encouraged DOE to amend 

standards for consumer furnace fans. 

The CA IOUs commented that DOE’s 

analyses show significant lifetimeoperating-cost savings and shortpayback periods for the NWO–NC, MH– 

NWG–NC, MH–NWG–C, and MH– 

NWO–NC product classes. (CA IOUs, 

No. 21 at p. 1) The CA IOUs stated that 

they support DOE’s finding that 

brushless permanent magnet (‘‘BPM’’) 

motors are cost-effective for all product 

classes. (Id. at p. 1) 

NEEA recommended that DOE adopt 

a BPM standard level for all equipment 

classes, including those DOE proposed 

in the expansion and for any additional 

classes that DOE could cover. NEEA 

commented that by raising the standard 

to BPM motors beyond non-weatherized 

gas furnaces, DOE would ensure that 

there are fewer applications where 

inefficient furnace fans are being used 

in the market. NEEA further commented 

that the market for BPM motors is 

mature, and the adoption of additional 

product classes should not negatively 

impact manufacturers. (NEEA, No. 24 at 

p. 3) 

As part of the rulemaking process, 

DOE carefully considers the benefits 

and burdens of potential amended 

standards to determine whether the 

potential amended standards are the 

maximum standard levels that are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would 

conserve a significant amount of energy, 

as required by EPCA (see 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)–(3)). Section IV of this 

document outlines DOE’s approach to 

analyzing various potential amended 

standard levels, and section V of this 

document provides the results of those 

analyses, as well as a detailed 

explanation of DOE’s weighing of the 

benefits and burdens and the rationale 

for proposing not to amend standards 

for consumer furnace fans. 

B. Product Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered products into product 

classes by the type of energy used or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

features that justify differing standards. 

In making a determination whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard, DOE must consider 

such factors as the utility of the feature 

to the consumer and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69831 

6295(q)) The scope of coverage and 

product classes for this proposed 

determination are discussed in further 

detail in section IV.A.1 and IV.A.4, 

respectively. This proposed 

determination covers consumer furnace 

fans defined as an electrically-powered 

device used in a consumer product for 

the purpose of circulating air through 

ductwork. 10 CFR 430.2. 

C. Test Procedure 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use these test procedures to certify to 

DOE that their product complies with 

energy conservation standards and to 

quantify the efficiency of their product. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)) The test procedure for 

determining FER is established at 10 

CFR part 430 subpart B appendix AA, 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Furnace Fans 

(‘‘appendix AA’’). On May 13, 2022, 

DOE published the May 2022 TP NOPR, 

which proposed to amend the test 

procedure for consumer furnace fans. 87 

FR 29576. Specifically, the May 2022 TP 

NOPR proposed the following changes: 

(1) Specify testing instructions for 

furnace fans incapable of operating at 

the required external static pressure 

(‘‘ESP’’). (2) Incorporate by reference the 

most recent versions of industry 

standards, ASHRAE 103–2017 and 

ASHRAE 37–2009 (RA 2019), in 10 CFR 

430.3. (3) Define dual-fuel furnace fans 

and exclude them from the scope of 

appendix AA. (4) Change the term 

‘‘default airflow control settings’’ to 

‘‘specified airflow control settings.’’ (5) 

Add provisions to directly measure 

airflow. (6) Revise the ambient 

temperature conditions allowed during 

testing to between 65 degrees 

Fahrenheit (‘‘°F’’) and 85 °F for all units 

(both condensing and non-condensing). 

(7) Assign an allowable range of relative 

humidity during testing to be between 

20 percent and 80 percent. Id. at 25979. 

DOE is still considering comments 

received in response to the May 2022 TP 

NOPR and has not yet finalized any 

updates to the test procedure. 

D. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In evaluating potential amendments 

to energy conservation standards, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis based on 

information gathered on all current 

technology options and prototype 

designs that could improve the 

efficiency of the products or equipment 

that are the subject of the determination. 

As the first step in such an analysis, 

DOE develops a list of technology 

options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of those 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. Sections 

6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 

CFR part 430 subpart C (‘‘Process 

Rule’’). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. Sections 

6(b)(3)(ii)–(v) and 7(b)(2)–(5) of the 

Process Rule. Section IV.A.4 of this 

document discusses the results of the 

screening analysis for consumer furnace 

fans, particularly the designs DOE 

considered, those it screened out, and 

those that are the basis for the standards 

considered in this proposed 

determination. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

As when DOE proposes to adopt a 

new or amended standard for a type or 

class of covered product, in this analysis 

it must determine the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency or 

maximum reduction in energy use that 

is technologically feasible for such a 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) 

Accordingly, in the engineering 

analysis, DOE determined the maximum 

technologically feasible improvements 

in energy efficiency for consumer 

furnace fans, using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

products available on the market or in 

working prototypes. The max-tech 

levels that DOE determined for this 

analysis are described in section IV.B of 

this proposed determination. 

E. Cost Effectiveness 

In making a determination of whether 

amended energy conservation standards 

are needed, EPCA requires DOE to 

consider the cost effectiveness of 

amended standards in the context of the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product compared to any increase in the 

price of, or in the initial charges for, or 

maintenance expenses of, the covered 

product that are likely to result from a 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) 

In determining cost effectiveness of 

amending standards for consumer 

furnace fans, DOE conducted LCC and 

PBP analyses that estimate the costs and 

benefits to users from potential 

standards. To further inform DOE’s 

consideration of the cost effectiveness of 

potential amended standards, DOE 

considered the NPV of total costs and 

benefits estimated as part of the NIA. 

The inputs for determining the NPV of 

the total costs and benefits experienced 

by consumers are (1) total annual 

installed cost, (2) total annual operating 

costs (energy costs and repair and 

maintenance costs), and (3) a discount 

factor to calculate the present value of 

costs and savings. 

F. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each efficiency level (‘‘EL’’) 

evaluated, DOE projected energy savings 

from application of the EL to the 

consumer furnace fans purchased in the 

30-year period that begins in the 

assumed year of compliance with the 

potential standards (2030–2059). The 

savings are measured over the entire 

lifetime of the consumer furnace fans 

purchased in the previous 30-year 

period. DOE quantified the energy 

savings attributable to each EL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of 

energy consumption that reflects how 

the market for a product would likely 

evolve in the absence of amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

used its NIA spreadsheet model to 

estimate national energy savings (NES) 

from potential amended or new 

standards for consumer furnace fans. 

The NIA spreadsheet model (described 

in section IV.G of this document) 

calculates energy savings in terms of site 

energy, which is the energy directly 

consumed by products at the locations 

where they are used. For electricity, 

DOE reports NES in terms of primary 

energy savings, which is the savings in 

the energy that is used to generate and 

transmit the site electricity. DOE also 

calculates NES in terms of full-fuelcycle (FFC) energy savings. The FFC 

metric includes the energy consumed in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels), and thus presents a 

more complete picture of the impacts of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69832 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

4The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s statement 

of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 

51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 

(Aug. 17, 2012). 5The numeric threshold for determining the 

significance of energy savings established in a final 

rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 8626, 

8670) was subsequently eliminated in a final rule 

published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892). 

energy conservation standards.4 DOE’s 

approach is based on the calculation of 

an FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered products or 

equipment. For more information on 

FFC energy savings, see section IV.G of 

this document. 

2. Significance of Savings 

In determining whether amended 

standards are needed, DOE must 

consider whether such standards will 

result in significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)) The 

significance of energy savings offered by 

a new or amended energy conservation 

standard cannot be determined without 

knowledge of the specific circumstances 

surrounding a given rulemaking.5 For 

example, some covered products and 

equipment have most of their energy 

consumption occur during periods of 

peak energy demand. The impacts of 

these products on the energy 

infrastructure can be more pronounced 

than products with relatively constant 

demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates 

the significance of energy savings on a 

case-by-case basis. 

G. Additional Considerations 

Pursuant to EPCA, absent DOE 

publishing a notification of 

determination that energy conservation 

standards for furnace fans do not need 

to be amended, DOE must issue a NOPR 

that includes new proposed standards. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)). The new 

proposed standards in any such NOPR 

must be based on the criteria established 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and follow the 

procedures established under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)). The 

criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) require that 

standards be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency, which the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)). In deciding whether a 

proposed standard is economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). 

DOE must make this determination after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, and by considering, to the 

greatest extent practicable, the following 

seven statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of the covered products that 

are likely to result from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy (or as applicable, water) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE has performed for this proposed 

determination with regard to consumer 

furnace fans. Separate subsections 

address each component of DOE’s 

analyses. DOE used several analytical 

tools to estimate the impact of potential 

energy conservation standards. The first 

tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the 

LCC savings and PBP of potential energy 

conservation standards. The NIA uses a 

second spreadsheet set that provides 

shipments projections and calculates 

NES and net present value of total 

consumer costs and savings expected to 

result from potential energy 

conservation standards. These 

spreadsheet tools are available on the 

website: www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

EERE-2021-BT-STD-0029. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the products. This activity 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, based primarily 

on publicly available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this proposed 

determination include (1) a 

determination of the scope and product 

classes, (2) manufacturers and industry 

structure, (3) existing efficiency 

programs, (4) shipments information, (5) 

market and industry trends, and (6) 

technologies or design options that 

could improve the energy efficiency of 

consumer furnace fans. The key findings 

of DOE’s market assessment are 

summarized in the following sections. 

1. Scope of Coverage 

In this analysis, DOE relied on the 

definition of consumer furnace fans in 

10 CFR 430.2, which defines a 

consumer furnace fan as an electricallypowered device used in a consumer 

product for the purpose of circulating 

air through ductwork. Any product 

meeting the definition of consumer 

furnace fans is included in DOE’s scope 

of coverage, though not all products 

within the scope of coverage may be 

subject to standards. 

For this NOPD, DOE evaluated 

products within the same scope as those 

products for which DOE initially 

established energy conservation 

standards in the final rule published on 

July 3, 2014 (‘‘July 2014 Final Rule’’). 79 

FR 38130. Products evaluated in this 

NOPD include: 

• Furnace fans used in weatherized 

and non-weatherized gas furnaces, oil 

furnaces, and electric furnaces; and 

• Modular blowers. 

Consistent with the approach taken in 

the July 2014 Final Rule, products not 

addressed in this rulemaking include: 

• Furnace fans used in other 

products, such as split-system central 

air conditioner (‘‘CAC’’) and heat pump 

indoor units, through-the-wall indoor 

units, small duct high-velocity indoor 

units, energy recovery ventilators, heat 

recovery ventilators, draft inducer fans, 

exhaust fans, or hydronic air handlers; 

and 

• Fans used in any non-ducted 

products, such as whole-house 

ventilation systems without ductwork, 

CAC condensing unit fans, room fans, 

and furnace draft inducer fans because 

these products do not circulate air 

through ductwork. 

DOE has previously determined that 

the DOE test procedure for furnace fans 

is not currently equipped to address 

fans contained in CACs, heat pumps, or 

other products. 79 FR 38130, 38149. 

Therefore, DOE has not established 

standards covering such products. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Any products that are 

non-ducted or that do not move air 

through ductwork (e.g., draft inducer 

fans) would not meet the definition of 

a furnace fan and are therefore out of 

scope of the existing regulations. 

In response to the November 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, AHRI commented 

that fans used in packaged units should 

be excluded from the analysis as the 

energy use is already accounted for in 

the products’ seasonal energy efficiency 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69833 

6Although multi-stage heating components and 

controls were included in the list of technologies 

that can improve FER, DOE stated that DOE has 

tentatively found that multi-stage heating controls 

may not significantly improve furnace fan 

efficiency as measured by FER. See chapter 3 and 

chapter 5 of the Preliminary Analysis TSD. 

ratio (‘‘SEER’’) rating. AHRI stated that 

including these products in the analysis 

of the overall quad savings would 

double count their contribution because 

they are accounted for in prior 

rulemakings. (AHRI, No. 23 at p. 4) 

Morrison commented that it does not 

see the need for DOE to include fans 

used in packaged units within the 

furnace fans rulemaking, as their energy 

use is already accounted for in SEER 

and heating seasonal performance factor 

(‘‘HSPF’’) ratings and excluding them 

from the rulemaking would prevent 

unnecessary repetition across 

rulemaking documents. (Morrison, No. 

27 at p. 2) In response, DOE notes that 

for certain packaged units—WG–NC— 

there are existing standards at 10 CFR 

430.32. In the July 2014 Final Rule, DOE 

assessed these products and established 

energy conservation standards for them. 

79 FR 38130, 38209. As discussed in 

section II.A of this document, DOE must 

periodically review its already 

established energy conservation 

standards for consumer furnace fans no 

later than 6 years from the issuance of 

a final rule establishing or amending a 

standard for consumer furnace fans. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)) In accordance with 

these provisions, DOE evaluated these 

products for this NOPD. DOE notes that 

the base-case efficiency distribution of 

fans used in the analysis includes 

presence of more-efficient furnace fans 

(e.g., with BPM motors) in homes with 

higher-efficiency packaged units due to 

impacts from previous rulemakings. 

Because the energy savings considered 

from the furnace fan efficiency levels 

are measured relative to the base-case 

efficiencies, the savings calculated in 

this analysis are over and above those 

counted in previous rulemakings. 

Therefore, savings have not been double 

counted. 

The CA IOUs further commented that 

DOE has previously noted that the 

provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D) can 

encompass any electrically-powered 

devices used in residential HVAC 

products, including furnaces, and 

recommended that DOE investigate the 

savings opportunity for regulating 

furnace fans in air handlers. (Id.) 

Finally, the CA IOUs commented that 

many residential air handlers are offered 

for sale with permanent split-capacitorequipped fans and are likely unable to 

meet the current rating for fan energy 

conservation standards applicable to 

furnace fans. They added that 

manufacturers readily offer air handlers 

with BPM motors and, therefore, a 

baseline technology option 

incorporating a BPM motor is likely 

feasible for air handlers. (Id. at pp. 5– 

6) 

For the reasons discussed in the May 

2022 TP NOPR, DOE is not proposing to 

include fans used in other types of 

HVAC products, including air-handlers, 

within the scope of coverage of 

appendix AA. 87 FR 29576, 29580. In 

the May 2022 TP NOPR, DOE 

tentatively concluded that the electrical 

energy consumption of fans used in the 

aforementioned types of HVAC products 

are accounted for by the seasonal energy 

efficiency ratio 2 (‘‘SEER2’’) and heating 

seasonal performance factor 2 

(‘‘HSPF2’’) metrics measured by the test 

procedure for CACs and heat pumps at 

appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430 

(‘‘appendix M1’’). 87 FR 29576, 29580. 

Therefore, DOE did not include air 

handlers in the scope of the test 

procedure rulemaking and likewise did 

not include them in this furnace fans 

rulemaking. 

NEEA commented that it supported 

expanding coverage of furnace fans to 

include NWO–NC products in the 

analysis because of the persistence of 

this product class on the market and so 

the regulations would be more inclusive 

of the entire market and prevent any 

unfair advantage due to a gap in the 

regulations. NEEA also recommended 

that DOE include mobile home nonweatherized, non-condensing furnace 

fans as a covered product class, which, 

along with including NWO–NC, would 

encourage the transition to BPM motors 

across the furnace fan market. (NEEA, 

No. 24 at pp. 1–2) NEEA recommended 

that DOE add additional classes, such as 

non-weatherized, condensing oil 

(‘‘NWO–C’’) and weatherized, 

condensing gas (‘‘WG–C’’), to cover the 

entire consumer furnace fans market. 

(Id. at p. 2) Lennox commented that it 

finds the market impact of MH–NWO or 

WG–C furnace fans to be extremely low 

with minimal energy saving potential. 

(Lennox, No. 24 at p. 4) 

DOE notes that, because it is not 

proposing amended standards at this 

time, it is not proposing to assign new 

standards to any product classes and 

will retain those classes for which 

standards currently exist, as shown in 

Table II.1. For NWO–NC furnace fans, 

standards currently exist and these 

products were included in this analysis. 

DOE also analyzed MH–NWO–NC 

furnace fans for the purposes of making 

this proposed determination. For other 

types of furnace fans, such as NWO–C 

and WG–C furnace fans, DOE is only 

aware of a very small number of 

products on the market. DOE has 

tentatively concluded that given the 

nascent and developing state of these 

products it would be premature to 

analyze proposed energy conservation 

standards at this time. Additional 

information on the product classes 

analyzed for this NOPD is included in 

section IV.A.4 of this document. 

2. Technology Options 

In the November 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE identified several 

technology options that would be 

expected to improve the efficiency of 

consumer furnace fans, as measured by 

the DOE test procedure. Specifically, 

DOE identified the following technology 

options as having the potential to 

improve the FER rating of consumer 

furnace fans (as measured in accordance 

with appendix AA), and considered 

these technology options further in the 

screening analysis: 

• Housing design modifications 

• Multi-stage heating components and 

controls 6

• Airflow path design 

• Constant-torque BPM (‘‘CT–BPM’’) 

and constant-airflow BPM (‘‘CA– 

BPM’’) motors 

• Inverter controls for permanent split 

capacitor (‘‘PSC’’) motors 

• Higher-efficiency fan blades 

These technology options are 

described in detail in section 3.3.2 of 

the TSD accompanying the November 

2022 Preliminary Analysis. In response 

to the November 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE received several 

comments related to these technology 

options. Several commenters supported 

DOE’s tentative decision to analyze CT– 

BPM and CA–BPM motors together as a 

single design option because these 

motors appear to have comparable 

efficiency as measured by DOE’s test 

procedure. 

Lennox commented that CT–BPM and 

CA–BPM motors have similar 

efficiencies. Lennox stated that while 

there can be minor differences in the 

efficiency of BPM motors, they fall 

within a very narrow band for potential 

improvement. Lennox commented that 

the primary differences in performance 

are that a CT–BPM motor will result in 

reduced airflow as static pressure 

increases, whereas a CA–BPM motor 

will increase speed and power 

consumption to maintain airflow up to 

the limit of the motor capability. Lennox 

commented that motor efficiency as 

applied is more of a topographical map 

than a single point of operation and that 

BPM motors maintain efficiency 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69834 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

performance over their operating range. 

(Lennox, No. 24 at p. 5) 

Additionally, AHRI commented that 

constant torque and constant airflow 

motors are similarly constructed but 

operate differently. AHRI commented 

that, given consistent external static 

pressure and airflow, AHRI assumes the 

two motor types would perform 

comparably within the expected 

margins of error. (AHRI, No. 23 at pp. 

4–5) Carrier also commented that it 

agrees with DOE’s assumption that CT– 

BPM and CA–BPM motors have 

comparable efficiencies and stated that 

the motors use similar construction 

despite being operated differently. 

Carrier commented that if a furnace 

with a CT–BPM motor were compared 

to a furnace with a similarly sized CA– 

BPM motor where both were operated at 

the same external static pressure and 

airflow, these motor types would 

consume the same amount of energy. 

(Carrier, No. 19 at p. 2) In response to 

Lennox, AHRI, and Carrier, DOE notes 

that it continued to analyze CT–BPM 

and CA–BPM motors together as a single 

design option for this current analysis. 

Beach recommended that DOE 

include efficiency testing and standards 

in rudimentary equipment configuration 

descriptions. Beach recommended that 

DOE outline where and how the fan 

motor is placed within the equipment to 

avoid efficiency degradation at the spot 

where full furnace air flow deposits 

airstream dust and material on the 

motor windings. Beach commented that 

filter bypass, at a minimum, applies. 

(Beach, No. 16 at p. 1) 

In response to comments from Beach, 

DOE notes that its energy conservation 

standards are in terms of FER, which is 

a performance-based metric that 

captures the estimated annual electrical 

energy consumption of the furnace fan 

normalized by: (a) the estimated total 

number of annual fan operating hours 

and (b) the airflow in the maximum 

airflow-control setting. DOE does not 

prescribe any design requirements for 

furnace fans and therefore specifying 

the placement and installation of the 

furnace fan within a furnace unit is out 

of the scope of DOE’s regulations. 

In the November 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis TSD, DOE stated that it 

tentatively did not consider two-stage 

and multi-stage technology options as a 

design pathway for improving FER in 

the engineering analysis based on 

manufacturer feedback, certification 

data, and testing. DOE requested data or 

comment regarding the relationship 

between staging and FER. 

In response, AHRI commented that 

without performing a controlled study, 

it is difficult to properly compare a 

single-stage product to a two-stage 

product. AHRI commented that 

variables such as airflow design and 

temperature rise can affect the 

comparison, adding that it would be 

incorrect to generalize that one control 

type would have a distinct advantage 

over another. (AHRI, No. 23 at p. 5) 

Carrier commented that there is not 

adequate data to conclude whether 

single-stage and multi-stage controls 

result in different FER ratings. Carrier 

commented that comparison between 

the two control types is not 

straightforward due to multiple design 

characteristics that make each furnace 

model unique. Carrier stated that a 

controlled study is needed to eliminate 

variables that are unique to each model, 

such as airflow design and temperature 

rise selected. (Carrier, No. 19 at p. 2) 

Carrier also commented that it generally 

has not found multi-staging to improve 

FER ratings and that it does not believe 

one control type has a distinct 

advantage over the other. (Id.) 

Trane commented that the 

assumption that FER values for a multistage furnace and a single-stage furnace 

are equal contradicts the 2014 TSD 

(EERE–2010–BT–STD–001–0111), 

which states that multi-staging was a 

technology option that significantly 

differed from the single-stage furnace. 

Trane commented that this difference 

affects the energy use equations, as the 

FER was calculated with a multi-stage 

furnace and energy use was calculated 

with a single-stage furnace. (Trane, No. 

22 at p. 3) 

Morrison questioned whether the lack 

of a benefit from multi-staging is due to 

FER not appropriately capturing real 

energy use. Morrison commented that, 

based on research presented in Canada’s 

C823 efforts, average furnaces are 

oversized and rarely run at full capacity, 

leading them to use more fan energy 

than necessary. Morrison stated that 

part load operation would reduce the 

energy impact from oversizing and 

hence reduce fan energy use, and stated 

it is unclear why this option has been 

deemed not to be of benefit. (Morrison, 

No. 27 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees with commenters that 

there are uncertainties related to the 

effectiveness of two-stage or multi-stage 

in improving FER. However, DOE has 

not received any additional data to 

support or disprove any impacts on FER 

between single and multi-stage units. 

Therefore, DOE has retained multi-stage 

heating components and controls as a 

technology option in the current 

analysis but, as discussed in section 

IV.B.1.a of this document, DOE did not 

consider two-stage or multi-stage 

operation as a design pathway for 

improving FER in the engineering 

analysis. 

3. Impact From Other Rulemakings 

Lennox commented that DOE needs to 

consider the total cumulative regulatory 

burden for consumer furnaces, as there 

are multiple concurrent DOE, EPA, and 

other regulatory actions undergoing 

updates. (Lennox, No. 24 at pp. 8–9) 

Lennox stated that DOE’s consideration 

of cumulative regulatory burden has 

often been cursory and provided a list 

of relevant regulations: ‘‘2023 DOE 

Energy Conservation Standards (‘‘ECS’’) 

change for central air conditioners; 2023 

DOE Energy Conservation Standard 

change for commercial air conditioners; 

2023 DOE ECS for commercial warm air 

furnaces (‘‘CWAFs’’); EPA phase-down 

to lower GWP refrigerants to meet the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing (‘‘AIM’’) Act objectives; 

DOE ECS Furnace Standards 

rulemaking; National and Regional Cold 

Climate Heat Pump Specifications; DOE 

ECS for Three-Phase, Below 65,000 Btu/ 

h; DOE Test Procedure for VRF Systems; 

EPA Energy Star 6.0+ for Residential 

HVAC; and EPA Energy Star 4.0 for 

Light Commercial HVAC.’’ (Id.) Lennox 

stated that proposing amended 

consumer furnace fan standards would 

contribute to the significant cumulative 

regulatory burden. (Id. at p. 9) Lennox 

commented that DOE needs to 

thoroughly consider the total 

cumulative regulatory burden 

association with any consideration of 

amended FER standards. Lennox 

commented that furnace manufacturers 

are in the midst of unprecedented 

regulatory change regarding equipment 

they manufacture. Lennox commented 

that these significant cumulative 

regulatory burdens provide another 

reason why DOE should not add 

additional burden by tightening 

consumer furnace fan regulations. 

Lennox reiterated that the fans are 

components in furnaces already 

regulated by DOE. (Id. at pp. 8–9) 

AHRI asserted that DOE did not 

consider the impact of other ongoing 

rulemakings (e.g., the notice of proposed 

rulemaking for consumer furnaces). 

(AHRI, No. 23 at p. 1) Morrison stated 

that it supports the comments submitted 

by AHRI advocating for the HVAC 

industry, as the burden for furnace 

manufacturers to meet compliance will 

be high. Morrison commented that the 

added burden of furnace fan ratings will 

challenge imminent regulations and an 

industry overloaded with regulations 

already underway, and that the 

schedule of regulations impedes 

manufacturers from attempting new 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69835 

7See Docket EERE–2020–BT–STD–0007. 

product development and innovation. 

(Morrison, No. 27 at pp. 1–2) 

DOE is not proposing to amend the 

energy conservation standards for 

consumer furnace fans and therefore 

does not expect this rulemaking to 

contribute to the cumulative regulatory 

burden of manufactures. 

Lennox also commented that it 

opposes DOE expanding the regulatory 

scope for electric motors into air-over 

motors, synchronous motors and 

inverter-only motors, and expanded 

scope electric motors (ESEMs), in 

particular when those motors are 

contained in already-regulated heating, 

ventilation, air conditioning, and 

refrigeration (‘‘HVACR’’) products. 

Lennox commented that DOE should 

continue to exempt air-over and 

inverter-only motors (including AC and 

synchronous motors) from componentlevel energy conservation standards 

regulation when these motors are used 

in HVACR equipment already regulated 

at the systems level. Lennox stated that 

DOE notes in the October 2022 Electric 

Motor Test Procedure Final Rule (87 FR 

63588) that an industry test procedure 

DOE incorporated by reference is ‘‘not 

applicable to air-over electric motors 

that are synchronous electric motors 

and to air-over electric motors that are 

inverter-only’’ (10 CFR 431.25(I)). AHRI 

commented that DOE should refer to the 

comments made by NEMA on the 

energy conservation standards for Fans 

and Blowers on the issues surrounding 

setting multiple standards for the same 

product under different rulemakings in 

regards to the interaction between the 

furnace fan rulemaking and the ESEMs 

rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 23 at p. 5) 

In the ESEM rulemaking, DOE is 

considering including expanded scope 

electric motors including certain 

permanent split capacitor (PSC) motors 

that exceed 0.25 horsepower and are 

single-speed. DOE understands that the 

vast majority of furnace fans use either 

electrically commutated motors (i.e., 

‘‘ECMs’’ which are also referred to as 

BPM motors in this rulemaking) or are 

multiple-speed PSC motors, both of 

which are out of the preliminary scope 

of the ESEM rulemaking. Thus, furnace 

fans using BPM motors or multiplespeed PSC motors will not be impacted 

by the ESEM rulemaking.7

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. 

Technologies that are not incorporated 

in commercial products or in 

commercially viable, existing prototypes 

will not be considered further. 

(2) Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production of a technology in 

commercial products and reliable 

installation and servicing of the 

technology could not be achieved on the 

scale necessary to serve the relevant 

market at the time of the projected 

compliance date of the standard, then 

that technology will not be considered 

further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility. If a 

technology is determined to have a 

significant adverse impact on the utility 

of the product to subgroups of 

consumers, or result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not be considered 

further. 

(4) Safety of technologies. If it is 

determined that a technology would 

have significant adverse impacts on 

health or safety, it will not be 

considered further. 

(5) Unique-pathway proprietary 

technologies. If a technology has 

proprietary protection and represents a 

unique pathway to achieving a given 

efficiency level, it will not be 

considered further, due to the potential 

for monopolistic concerns. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b). 

In summary, 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. 

a. Screened-Out Technologies 

In the November 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE tentatively screened out 

housing design modifications and 

changes to airflow path designs from its 

analysis. In response, Lennox agreed 

with DOE’s determination to screen out 

housing designs and airflow paths that 

could impact the thermal performance 

of the furnace and decrease consumer 

utility. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 5) Carrier 

also indicated agreement with DOE’s 

decision to screen out improved 

housing designs and airflow path 

designs due to their impact on overall 

product size, stating that they could 

adversely impact consumer utility and 

the practicality of making replacement 

installations. Additionally, Carrier 

agreed there is no quantitative data 

suggesting specific housing design 

changes provide efficiency 

improvements in the same cabinet 

width. (Carrier, No. 19 at p. 3) 

The Joint Commenters commented 

that additional design options that 

increase efficiency beyond a backwardinclined impeller are currently available 

on the market. The Joint Commenters 

stated that airflow path and fan housing 

improvements represent potential 

options for improving furnace fan 

efficiency but noted that DOE screened 

out these design modifications since 

they could impact the thermal 

performance of the furnace. The Joint 

Commenters acknowledged this 

concern, but noted that one of the 

models exceeding EL 1 is used in a 

condensing furnace with an AFUE of 97 

percent, suggesting manufacturers may 

be able to optimize the furnace fan 

efficiency without negatively impacting 

the efficiency of the furnace itself. The 

Joint Commenters recommended that 

DOE continue investigating furnace fan 

efficiencies and how certain design 

features on the current market permit 

furnace fan FER levels below those 

analyzed in the TSD. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 20 at pp. 2–3) 

As discussed in section IV.A.2 of this 

document, airflow path and fan housing 

improvements can improve furnace fan 

efficiencies. However, as discussed in 

chapter 4 of the November 2022 

Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE does 

not have data that quantifies the impact 

of housing design modifications on FER. 

Additionally, DOE has found that the 

airflow path design can impact the 

performance of the larger furnace 

system with possible changes to the 

furnace efficiency as measured in 

AFUE. Though condensing furnaces can 

achieve lower FERs, DOE currently 

lacks the data necessary to conclude 

that these options will not reduce utility 

to consumers, and therefore has 

continued to screen out these 

technologies for this analysis. 

Several commenters also suggested 

that backward-inclined impeller should 

be screened out of the current analysis. 

AHRI, Trane, Lennox, and Daikin raised 

concerns about the technological 

feasibility of backward-inclined 

impellers. AHRI commented that further 

analysis of backward-inclined impellers 

is needed, stating that while backwardinclined impellers can be considered a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69836 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

mature technology in some products, it 

is nascent at best for consumer furnaces. 

AHRI commented that the analysis 

performed in the TSD does not capture 

the current state of this technology. 

(AHRI, No. 23 at pp. 2–3) Trane 

commented that the necessary 

backward-inclined impeller is not 

available for purchase and is therefore 

unavailable to furnace manufacturers for 

use in testing. (Trane, No. 22 at p. 2) 

Lennox commented that backwardinclined impellers are nascent 

technology for consumer furnaces and 

may not be practical for many 

installations. Lennox commented that 

DOE’s analysis does not accurately 

portray the current state of this 

technology regarding residential furnace 

fans. Lennox stated that current furnace 

designs are much more compact than 

when DOE conducted research 

regarding backward-inclined impellers 

and there is now less space to 

accommodate furnace fans. Lennox 

commented that including backwardinclined impellers would require 

changes to the housing design and 

airflow patterns, which DOE screened 

out in the TSD. Lennox further 

commented that backward-inclined 

impellers are not a one-size-fits-all 

application. Lennox stated that 

changing the airflow design would 

require redesign and retesting on a 

model-by-model basis to ensure proper 

operation, compliance with safety 

standards, and product reliability. 

(Lennox, No. 24 at pp. 5–6) Daikin 

commented that replacing a forwardcurved impeller with a backwardcurved impeller may change the ESP of 

the unit and require that the unit use a 

larger blower wheel. Daikin commented 

that increasing the blower wheel 

diameter requires a change to the blower 

housing design, which was a technology 

option DOE screened out in the 

preliminary analysis. Daikin 

recommended that DOE evaluate the 

impact of backward-inclined impellers 

on furnace ESP. (Daikin, No. 26 at pp. 

21–22) Rheem requested to know 

whether DOE had considered the impact 

of the backward-inclined impeller 

system on other furnace components, 

such as the evaporator coil or other 

accessories. (Rheem, No. 26 at p. 23) In 

contrast to these comments, Carrier 

stated that it uses backward-inclined 

impellers in non-weatherized gas 

furnaces that have 14-inch cabinets and 

AFUE ratings of 95 percent or higher. 

(Carrier, No. 19 at p. 1) 

Manufacturers also raised concerns 

about potential impacts on the utility 

and safety of furnaces if backwardinclined impellers are used as a 

technology option. Carrier commented 

that its experiences suggest backwardinclined impellers significantly change 

the air profile through the furnace and, 

to maintain safety and reliability, the 

airflow must be redirected, adding that 

this can reduce the performance 

improvement from the impeller change. 

Carrier further commented that in 

applications where a larger impeller 

diameter cannot be accommodated, the 

increased rotational speed increases the 

operation noise of the furnace, adding 

that the noise generated from fan 

operation is an important performance 

selection criterion to consumers. 

(Carrier, No. 19 at p. 3) Lennox 

commented that backward-inclined 

impellers present many design 

challenges. Lennox noted that 

backward-inclined impellers must have 

significantly higher tip speeds, which 

require either a larger impeller diameter 

or higher rotational speed. However, 

Lennox commented that the required 

speed increase is outside the normal 

range of motors applied in furnace fans 

and would be likely to increase sound 

levels and reduce consumer utility. 

(Lennox, No. 24 at p. 6) 

In response to these concerns, DOE 

notes that, even if there are only a 

limited number of commercially 

available product designs that 

incorporate backward-inclined 

impellers, they are sufficient to 

demonstrate technological feasibility as 

defined by EPCA. 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, sections 

6(b)(3)(i). Similarly, because these 

technologies are used in 

commercialized designs, DOE has 

determined that they can be 

implemented safely and reliably and 

with a noise level that is acceptable to 

consumers. DOE agrees, however, that 

there may be potential costs associated 

with potential redesign and retesting to 

ensure safety and to ensure acceptable 

noise levels, and this issue is discussed 

further in section IV.H of this document. 

Therefore, for the current analysis, 

DOE tentatively screened out housing 

design modifications and changes to 

airflow path designs from its analysis 

but did not screen out backwardinclined impellers. 

b. Remaining Technologies 

After reviewing each technology, DOE 

did not screen out the following 

technology options and considers them 

as design options in the engineering 

analysis: 

(1) Multi-stage heating components and 

controls 

(2) High-efficiency fan motors (i.e., use 

of BPM fan motors for product classes 

that currently use PSC motors) 

(3) Inverter controls for PSC motors 

(4) Higher-efficiency fan blades 

(backward-inclined impellers) 

DOE determined that these 

technology options are technologically 

feasible because they are being used or 

have previously been used in 

commercially available products or 

working prototypes. DOE also finds that 

all of the remaining technology options 

meet the other screening criteria (i.e., 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service and do not result in adverse 

impacts on consumer utility, product 

availability, health, or safety). 

4. Product Classes 

In general, when evaluating and 

establishing energy conservation 

standards, DOE divides the covered 

product into classes by (1) the type of 

energy used, (2) the capacity of the 

product, or (3) any other performancerelated feature that affects energy 

efficiency and justifies different 

standard levels, considering factors such 

as consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 

DOE currently categorizes furnace 

fans into 10 product classes. EPCA 

specifies criteria for product class 

separation which include: (1) the type of 

energy consumed; (2) capacity; or (3) 

other performance-related features that 

justify a higher or lower energy 

conservation standard. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q) The 10 product classes 

currently established by DOE are 

differentiated by performance related 

features, including internal structure 

and application-specific design 

differences, as presented in Table IV.1. 

For this NOPD, DOE maintained these 

10 classes, with the exception of a 

change to the mobile home nonweatherized oil furnace fan (MH–NWO) 

class discussed hereinafter. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69837 

TABLE IV.1—EXISTING FURNACE FAN PRODUCT CLASSES

Product class 

Non-weatherized, Non-condensing Gas Furnace Fan (NWG–NC). 

Non-weatherized, Condensing Gas Furnace Fan (NWG–C). 

Mobile Home Non-Weatherized, Non-condensing Gas Furnace Fan (MH–NWG–NC). 

Mobile Home Non-Weatherized, Condensing Gas Furnace Fan (MH–NWG–C). 

Mobile Home Electric Furnace/Modular Blower Fan (MH–EF/MB). 

Non-Weatherized, Non-Condensing Oil Furnace Fan (NWO–NC). 

Weatherized Non-Condensing Gas Furnace Fan (WG–NC). 

Electric Furnace/Modular Blower Fan (EF/MB). 

Mobile Home Weatherized Non-Condensing Gas Furnace Fan (MH–WG).* 

Mobile Home Non-Weatherized Oil Furnace Fan (MH–NWO).* 

* DOE created the MH–NWO and MH–MG product classes in the July 2014 Final Rule, but these classes do not currently have energy conservation standards. 

Each product class title includes 

descriptors that indicate the internal 

structure and application-specific 

performance related features of its 

included products. As directed by 

EPCA, DOE must specify a different 

standard level for a type or class of 

products that has the same function or 

intended use if DOE determines that 

products within such group: (A) 

consume a different kind of energy from 

that consumed by other covered 

products within such type (or class); or 

(B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) Weatherized and nonweatherized are descriptors that 

indicate whether the HVAC product is 

installed outdoors or indoors, 

respectively. Design constraints are 

different for products installed indoors 

compared to outdoors, which impact 

furnace fan performance because 

furnace fan energy consumption is 

dependent on clearances and airflow 

path Weatherized products are packaged 

products that also include an internal 

evaporator coil, while non-weatherized 

products are not shipped with an 

evaporator coil but may be designed to 

be paired with one. The presence of an 

evaporator coil increases internal static 

pressure and impacts furnace fan 

performance and energy consumption. 

Weatherization (i.e., the ability to be 

installed outdoors) is therefore a 

performance-related feature as outlined 

by EPCA. 

Condensing refers to the presence of 

a secondary, condensing heat exchanger 

in addition to the primary combustion 

heat exchanger in certain furnaces. The 

presence of a secondary heat exchanger 

improves the AFUE of a consumer 

furnace but also increases internal static 

pressure. As a result, DOE expects that 

furnace fans used in condensing units 

will consume more electrical energy 

than similar, non-condensing units, and 

therefore use with condensing 

technology constitutes a performancerelated feature for this product. Mobile 

home products meet certain design 

requirements that allow them to be 

installed in mobile homes. They require 

direct venting and are typically installed 

without return air ducting. As a result, 

furnace fans used in mobile home 

products consume a different amount of 

electric energy than furnace fans 

installed in similar HVAC products that 

are designed for site-built applications. 

Therefore, the ability to be installed in 

mobile home applications is a 

performance-related feature under 

EPCA. 

Descriptors like gas, oil, or electric 

indicate the type of fuel that the HVAC 

product uses to produce heat, which 

determines the type and geometry of the 

primary heat exchanger used in the 

HVAC product. Each heat exchanger 

geometry could result in a unique 

internal static pressure and therefore, 

have differing impacts on furnace fan 

performance and energy consumption 

and are considered performance-related 

features. 

In the July 2014 Final Rule, DOE 

created product classes for MH–NWO 

furnace fans and MH–WG furnace fans, 

but DOE did not analyze or prescribe 

standards for either product class 

because of the lack of available data for 

those product classes. 79 FR 38130, 

38150. DOE is not aware of any 

products that would be considered MH– 

WG furnace fans at this time. However, 

DOE has become aware of a limited 

number of MH–NWO furnace fans that 

have been introduced to the market. The 

MH–NWO furnace fans that DOE 

identified are all used in noncondensing furnaces, so DOE analyzed a 

subset of the previously established but 

unanalyzed class—mobile home nonweatherized, oil, non-condensing (MH– 

NWO–NC) furnace fans. DOE 

specifically considered MH–NWO–NC 

furnace fans because, as with furnace 

fans used in gas-fired products, DOE 

tentatively concluded that suitability for 

use with condensing technology would 

be a performance related feature that 

would justify further separating MH– 

NWO furnace fans into condensing and 

non-condensing classes. Furnace fans 

used in oil-fired products that are noncondensing as compared to those that 

are condensing would have different 

performance due to likely differences in 

internal structure of condensing 

products (if any were to be developed). 

As such, suitability for use with 

condensing technology in a furnace fan 

is a performance-related feature under 

EPCA. As DOE is not aware of any 

condensing MH–NWO products, DOE 

did not analyze them for this NOPD 

analysis and instead focused on MH– 

NWO–NC furnace fans. In summary, 

DOE considered the product classes 

shown in the following list in its 

analysis. 

(1) Non-weatherized, Non-condensing 

Gas Furnace Fan (NWG–NC) 

(2) Non-weatherized, Condensing Gas 

Furnace Fan (NWG–C) 

(3) Mobile Home Non-weatherized, 

Non-condensing Gas Furnace Fan 

(MH–NWG–NC) 

(4) Mobile Home Non-weatherized, 

Condensing Gas Furnace (MH–NWG– 

C) 

(5) Mobile Home Electric Furnace/ 

Modular Blower Fan (MH–EF/MB) 

(6) Non-weatherized, Non-condensing 

Oil Furnace Fan (NWO–NC) 

(7) Weatherized Non-Condensing Gas 

Furnace Fan (WG–NC) 

(8) Electric Furnace/Modular Blower 

(EF/MB) 

(9) Mobile Home Non-Weatherized, 

Non-Condensing Oil Furnace Fan 

(MH–NWO–NC) 

B. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency and cost of 

consumer furnace fans. There are two 

elements to consider in the engineering 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69838 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

8Chapter 5 of the TSD accompanying the July 

2014 Final Rule includes additional details about 

how this conversion factor was calculated. See 

docket no. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0011. 

analysis; 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’’). In determining 

the performance of higher-efficiency 

products, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each product class, DOE estimates 

the baseline cost, as well as the 

incremental cost for the product at 

efficiency levels above the baseline. The 

output of the engineering analysis is a 

set of manufacturer production costs 

(‘‘MPCs’’) in cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ 

that are used in downstream analyses 

(i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the 

NIA). 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the engineering analysis: (1) 

relying on observed efficiency levels in 

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level 

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

design options to a baseline model (i.e., 

the design-option approach). Using the 

efficiency-level approach, the efficiency 

levels established for the analysis are 

determined based on the market 

distribution of existing products (in 

other words, based on the range of 

efficiencies and efficiency level 

‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the 

market). Using the design option 

approach, the efficiency levels 

established for 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. 

DOE may also rely on a combination of 

these two approaches. For example, the 

efficiency-level approach (based on 

actual products on the market) may be 

extended using the design option 

approach to interpolate to define ‘‘gap 

fill’’ levels (to bridge large gaps between 

other identified efficiency levels) and/or 

to extrapolate to the ‘‘max-tech’’ level 

(particularly in cases where the ‘‘max 

tech’’ level exceeds the maximum 

efficiency level currently available on 

the market). 

Although FER data exists in DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Database 

(‘‘CCD’’) for furnace fans currently 

subject to efficiency standards, DOE has 

determined through testing that for 

many furnace fan models, the rated FER 

values may not be representative of the 

model’s actual performance. During 

confidential manufacturer interviews, 

several manufacturers confirmed that 

they rate the FER of their furnace fan 

products conservatively. Therefore, an 

efficiency level approach was not 

possible because the FER ratings of 

products currently available are largely 

not representative of their actual 

performance. Thus, DOE chose a design 

option approach to identify efficiency 

levels for the analysis in this proposed 

determination. 

a. Baseline Efficiency Level 

For each product class, DOE generally 

selects a baseline model as a reference 

point for each class, and measures 

changes resulting from potential energy 

conservation standards against the 

baseline. The baseline model in each 

product class represents the 

characteristics of a product typical of 

that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). 

Generally, a baseline model is one that 

just meets current energy conservation 

standards, or, if no standards are in 

place, the baseline is typically the most 

common or least efficient unit on the 

market. For consumer furnace fans, the 

energy conservation standard sets a 

maximum energy usage requirement 

and therefore a baseline furnace fan’s 

rated FER is just below or at the 

maximum FER threshold. 

DOE used baseline units for 

comparison in several analyses, 

including the engineering analysis, LCC 

analysis, PBP analysis, and NIA. To 

determine energy savings that will 

result from an amended energy 

conservation standard, DOE compared 

energy use at each of the higher 

efficiency levels to the energy 

consumption of the baseline unit. 

Similarly, to determine the changes in 

price to the consumer that will result 

from an amended energy conservation 

standard, DOE compared the prices of 

baseline units to the prices of units at 

each higher efficiency level. 

The identification of baseline units 

requires establishing the baseline 

efficiency level. In cases where there is 

an existing standard, DOE defines 

baseline units as units with efficiencies 

equal to the current Federal energy 

conservation standards. For MH–NWO– 

NC furnace fan product class, which 

does not currently have energy 

conservation standards, DOE developed 

the baseline equation by modifying the 

current energy conservation standards 

for the NWO–NC product class to 

account for the lower ESP experienced 

by mobile home units compared to other 

units. Specifically, DOE multiplied the 

y-intercept (382) by 0.75, which was the 

conversion factor determined in the 

analysis for the July 2014 Final Rule 

that was previously used to calculate 

the MH–NWG–NC baseline based on the 

NWG–NC baseline.8

Table IV.2 presents the maximum FER 

(i.e., the baseline level) for each product 

class of consumer furnaces analyzed in 

this preliminary analysis, as well as the 

typical characteristics of products at 

that level. 

TABLE IV.2—BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVEL FER AND ASSOCIATED DESIGN OPTION FOR EACH PRODUCT CLASS

Product class Maximum FER Design option 

Non-Weatherized, Non-Condensing Gas Furnace Fan .......................... 0.044 * QMax + 182 ... BPM Motor w/Forward Inclined Impeller. 

Non-Weatherized, Condensing Gas Furnace Fan .................................. 0.044 * QMax + 195 ... BPM Motor w/Forward Inclined Impeller. 

Weatherized, Non-Condensing Gas Furnace Fan .................................. 0.044 * QMax + 199 ... BPM Motor w/Forward Inclined Impeller. 

Non-Weatherized, Non-Condensing Oil Furnace Fan ............................ 0.071 * QMax + 382 ... Improved PSC Motor w/Forward Inclined Impeller. 

Non-Weatherized Electric Furnace Fan/Modular Blower Fan ................. 0.044 * QMax + 165 ... BPM Motor w/Forward Inclined Impeller. 

Manufactured Home, Non-Weatherized, Non-Condensing Gas Furnace 

Fan.

0.071 * QMax + 222 ... Improved PSC Motor w/Forward Inclined Impeller. 

Manufactured Home, Non-Weatherized, Condensing Gas Furnace Fan 0.071 * QMax + 240 ... Improved PSC Motor w/Forward Inclined Impeller. 

Manufactured Home, Non-Weatherized Electric Furnace Fan/Modular 

Blower Fan.

0.044 * QMax + 101 ... BPM Motor w/Forward Inclined Impeller. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69839 

TABLE IV.2—BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVEL FER AND ASSOCIATED DESIGN OPTION FOR EACH PRODUCT CLASS— 

Continued 

Product class Maximum FER Design option 

Manufactured Home, Non-Weatherized Non-Condensing Oil Furnace 

Fan.

0.071 * QMax + 287 ... Improved PSC Motor w/Forward Inclined Impeller. 

Products in the NWG–NC, NWG–C, 

WG–NC, NWEF/NWMB, and MH–EF/ 

MB products classes are currently 

subject to the standards set in the July 

2014 Final Rule, in which the efficiency 

levels adopted were understood at that 

time to reflect models with CT–BPM 

motors and multi-stage operation. 

Products in the NWO–NC and MH– 

NWG–NC product classes are currently 

subject to the standards set in the July 

2014 Final Rule in which the efficiency 

level adopted were understood to 

correspond to the performance 

associated with models including 

improved PSC motors and single-stage 

operation. Baseline products in the MH– 

NWO–NC product class were also found 

to correspond to performance associated 

with models including improved PSC 

motors and single-stage operation, based 

on DOE’s market findings for mobilehome oil-fired units certified in DOE’s 

CCD for consumer furnaces. 

Many furnaces include multi-stage or 

modulating heating controls. However, 

based on current furnace fan market 

data as well as feedback received during 

manufacturer interviews, it is unclear if 

these features impact furnace fan 

efficiency as measured by FER (see 

section IV.A.2). Therefore, DOE did not 

include the costs of multi-stage or 

modulating heating controls in the 

baseline design (i.e., DOE’s MPC 

estimates reflect single-stage units). 

However, DOE did develop separate 

cost values for multi-stage or 

modulating heating controls that can be 

applied to the above costs to represent 

the addition of multi-stage or 

modulating heating controls (see section 

IV.B.2.b of this document). These 

additional cost values are used in DOE’s 

LCC and PBP analyses in order to 

represent typical furnace fan cost 

distributions. 

In addition, the baseline motor 

technology is either BPM or PSC, 

depending on the product class. 

Manufacturers may choose a CABPM 

motor instead of a CTBPM, despite its 

relatively higher cost, to add comfort 

utility to their product. This additional 

comfort may be marketed as a premium 

feature. Therefore, DOE included the 

cost of a CT–BPM motor in the MPCs for 

furnace fans with BPM motors. DOE 

also developed cost values to represent 

the cost increase for CA–BPM motors 

relative to CT–BPM motors (see section 

IV.B.2.b of this document). These values 

were applied in the LCC analysis to 

represent the distribution of BPM 

blower motor technologies expected on 

the market because, although DOE is not 

differentiating between CA–BPM motors 

and CT–BPM motors in terms of furnace 

fan efficiency, manufacturers and 

consumers may consider CA–BPM 

motors to be a premium feature that may 

offer comfort-related consumer utility 

benefits. 

In developing the cost-efficiency 

relationship, teardowns of baseline 

units were used as a reference point for 

determining the cost-efficiency 

relationship of units with lower (more 

efficient) FERs. DOE compared the 

design features incorporated into 

products at the baseline efficiency to the 

features of units with higher energy 

efficiencies in order to determine the 

changes in manufacturing, installation, 

and operating costs that occur as FER 

decreases. 

In response to the November 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, Morrison 

commented that DOE’s estimation of 

FER values is conservative, based on 

data from OEMs and DOE, both of 

which indicate that analysis from 2014 

is not representative of current furnace 

fan function and composition. 

(Morrison, No. 27 at p. 2) Lennox 

commented that the use of BPM motors 

is required to meet current furnace fan 

efficiency standards for most consumer 

furnace fan categories and use of BPM 

motors is identified by DOE as the 

current baseline. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 

8) 

AHRI commented that baseline 

mobile home non-weatherized gas 

furnace fan technology is not 

representative of the market. AHRI 

stated that, in many cases, the current 

FER rating for mobile home nonweatherized gas furnace fans cannot be 

met using a PSC motor, adding that 

these products already incorporate a 

BPM motor to meet Federal minimum 

standards. AHRI added that because 

mobile home non-weatherized gas 

furnace fans already incorporate BPM 

motors to meet the current levels, BPM 

motors will not be able to meet the FER 

minimums proposed at EL 1. (AHRI, No. 

23 at p. 3) AHRI recommended that DOE 

validate the analysis performed for 

mobile home non-weatherized gas 

furnace fan to ensure the baseline and 

subsequent ELs are correct. (Id.) 

The Joint Commenters stated that 

current standards for both weatherized 

and non-weatherized non-condensing 

gas furnace fans were intended to 

effectively require use of efficient BPM 

motors, but stated that DOE’s analysis 

shows some non-condensing gas furnace 

fans utilizing PSC motors can meet the 

current standards. The Joint 

Commenters noted that one currently 

available furnace/furnace fan model 

utilizes a PSC motor and is marketed as 

having a small footprint and DOE 

should investigate how this model and 

others are able to meet the current 

standards with presumably less efficient 

motors. (Joint Commenters, No. 20 at p. 

2) 

The CA IOUs commented that they 

agree with DOE’s decision to use the 

costs associated with constant-torque 

BPM and single-stage controls for its 

cost analysis for EL 1, adding that DOE 

has found several furnace fans on the 

market that meet EL 1. (CA IOUs, No. 

21 at p. 2) The CA IOUs also noted that 

a 2017 California Codes and Standards 

Enhancement report evaluated air 

handlers sold with heat pumps and 

confirmed that while cabinet and 

blower design can affect internal 

resistance to airflow, a PSC motor can 

adversely affect fan efficacy. (Id. at p. 5) 

In response, DOE notes that it has 

developed baseline efficiency levels that 

are representative of the baseline 

technologies used in the current furnace 

fan market. While the FER ratings 

reported in CCMS are generally likely to 

be conservative estimates, DOE has 

conducted testing to understand the 

impacts of the technology options 

identified in section IV.A.2 on furnace 

fan efficiency, and has developed 

efficiency levels that reflect those 

impacts. DOE agrees with commenters 

that the use of BPM motors is necessary 

to meet the baseline for some product 

classes, as outlined in Table IV.2, but 

notes that some product classes can 

meet the baseline efficiency level using 

an improved PSC motor. In response to 

AHRI’s comments, although DOE 

recognizes that many mobile home 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69840 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

9Carrier’s comments related to safety and 

reliability concerns are discussed in section 

IV.A.4.a of this document. 

furnaces use BPM motors, DOE is aware 

of mobile home furnaces on the market 

that use an improved PSC motor and 

meet the current FER standards. DOE 

thus concludes that FER standards can 

be achieved using this technology and 

has maintained improved PSC motors as 

a part of the baseline design option for 

mobile home furnaces. Conversely, 

DOE’s market data shows that no nonweatherized gas furnaces currently on 

the market use PSC motors; DOE 

therefore concludes that a BPM motor 

continues to be an appropriate baseline 

motor design for this class. 

b. Intermediate Efficiency Levels 

DOE analyzed intermediate efficiency 

levels for NWO–NC, MH–NWG–NC, 

MH–NWG–C, and MH–NWO–NC 

classes of consumer furnace fans. As 

discussed in section IV.B.1.c, DOE did 

not identify any efficiency levels 

between baseline and max-tech for the 

NWG–NC, NWG–C, WG–NC, NWEF/ 

NWMB, and MH–EF/MB classes. The 

intermediate efficiency levels identified 

are representative of efficiency levels 

where major technological changes 

occur (i.e., replacing PSC motors with 

BPM motors). As discussed in section 

IV.B.1.a of this document, DOE has 

tentatively found that CT–BPM motors 

and CA–BPM motors have comparable 

impacts on FER ratings, and DOE has 

therefore only analyzed a single 

efficiency level reflecting the 

implementation of BPM motors. 

Additionally, DOE has tentatively used 

the assumption of a 12-percent 

reduction in FER for improved PSC 

motors and a 46-percent reduction in 

FER for models with a CT–BPM and 

multi-staging from the baseline used in 

the 2014 Final Rule (79 FR 38130, 

38159) to calculate a 39-percent 

reduction in FER from improved PSC 

(the current baseline) to CT–BPM with 

multi-staging. The 39-percent reduction 

in FER is implemented into the current 

analysis to represent the reduction in 

FER from improved PSC to a model 

with a CT–BPM (regardless of staging) 

because DOE has tentatively decided 

not to include staging as a technology 

option that improves FER. 

In response to the November 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, Lennox 

commented that the efficiency levels 

and design options associated with the 

use of forward curved impellers and 

BPM motors are reasonable. (Lennox, 

No. 24 at p. 7) 

The Joint Commenters commented 

that models with lower FERs than EL 1 

are available in each of the major 

furnace fan product classes. The Joint 

Commenters commented that, based on 

results in the CCD, both condensing and 

non-condensing non-weatherized 

furnace fans with efficiencies exceeding 

EL 1 are available across a broad range 

of airflows. The Joint Commenters 

stated that, as DOE acknowledged in the 

TSD, many manufacturers rate their 

furnace fans conservatively, which 

suggests the number of higher-efficiency 

furnace fans available on the market is 

understated. (Joint Commenters, No. 20 

at pp. 1–2) Additionally, the Joint 

Commenters encouraged DOE to analyze 

an EL associated with improved BPM 

motor efficiency. The Joint Commenters 

stated that a range of BPM motor 

efficiencies currently exist on the 

market but added that DOE did not 

analyze improved motor efficiency as a 

potential design option. The Joint 

Commenters encouraged DOE to gather 

additional information from motor 

manufacturers to characterize the FER 

reductions achievable with the most 

efficient BPM motors available, and to 

analyze an EL associated with these 

higher efficiency BPM motors for the 

next stage of the rulemaking. (Id. at p. 

3) 

DOE is not aware of any data showing 

the relationship between improved 

motor efficiency and FER ratings. DOE 

welcomes data exploring this 

relationship and may include efficiency 

levels corresponding to the use of more 

efficient BPM motors in a future 

analysis but did not include this 

additional efficiency level in the current 

analysis due to the lack of data. 

c. Maximum Technology Efficiency 

Levels 

As part of DOE’s analysis, the 

maximum available efficiency level is 

the highest efficiency unit currently 

available on the market. DOE also 

defines a ‘‘max-tech’’ efficiency level to 

represent the maximum possible 

efficiency for a given product. DOE 

identified the max-tech design for all 

consumer furnace fans product types as 

incorporating a BPM motor with a 

backward-inclined impeller. 

BPM motors are described in sections 

IV.B.1.a and IV.B.1.b of this chapter. For 

furnace fan models that use PSC motors, 

BPM motors can offer an improvement 

in efficiency and reduce FER. 

Backward-inclined impellers, in 

comparison to forward-inclined 

impellers used in the majority of 

furnace fans on the market, have been 

found to have a higher efficiency under 

certain operating conditions. In chapter 

5 of the TSD accompanying the 

November 2022 Preliminary Analysis, 

DOE explained that it has tentatively 

used the same assumptions about the 

percent reduction in FER associated 

with implementing backward-inclined 

impellers as in the July 2014 Final Rule 

(i.e., a 10-percent reduction in FER 

compared to models that include 

forward-inclined impellers). 79 FR 

38130, 38159. 

In response to the November 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, several 

commenters raised concerns about the 

assumption that a backward-inclined 

impellers will reduce FER by 10 

percent. Several commenters suggested 

that the impact of backward-inclined 

impellers on FER may vary by 

application. Carrier commented that 

DOE correctly concluded in the TSD 

that the efficiency improvement of a 

backward-inclined impeller is not 

uniform across the entire range of 

operation. Carrier stated that this lack of 

uniformity can require limiting the 

operating range, which reduces the 

furnace utility, or leads to unrealized 

efficiency improvements in application. 

Carrier stated that it believes backwardinclined impellers are not a 

technologically feasible design option in 

some models because they do not 

improve efficiency and in other models 

they reduce furnace utility. Carrier 

stated that its non-weatherized 95- 

percent-plus AFUE 14-inch-width gas 

furnaces use backward-inclined 

impellers to meet the current FER 

standards. (Carrier, No. 19 at pp. 3–4) 

Carrier commented that it completed 

extensive research and evaluated the 

impact of this technology in many 

furnace variations and suggested that 

DOE’s technology assessment does not 

fully account for the design challenges 

of using backward-inclined impellers in 

consumer furnaces. Carrier commented 

that the improvement in fan efficiency 

is not uniform across model sizes within 

a product family due to design changes 

needed to address the safety and 

reliability 9 of the furnaces. Carrier 

requested that DOE continue its study of 

backward-inclined impeller technology 

to better understand the efficiency 

improvement variation across product 

sizes before concluding a uniform 

reduction in FER for a product class. 

Carrier also stated that because its 

models that incorporate backwardinclined impeller use the maximum 

technology design options, any 

reduction in the FER limit would 

eliminate them from the market. (Id. at 

pp. 1–3) 

AHRI commented that it is aware of 

products on the market which use 

proprietary backward-inclined impeller 

designs that are not capable of meeting 

the FER that DOE has associated with 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69841 

that design option. AHRI further 

commented that these products are 

some of the highest-efficiency products 

on the market and stated that if the FER 

requirement is moved to a max-tech 

level, both furnace fan availability and 

high-efficiency furnace availability will 

be affected. (AHRI, No. 23 at pp. 5–6) 

The CA IOUs requested that DOE 

conduct additional research on 

backward-inclined fan performance to 

ensure the projected energy savings. The 

CA IOUs further requested that DOE 

collect current data on the performance 

of backward-inclined impellers in 

furnaces to compare with forwardcurved fans available in 2023. The CA 

IOUs commented that DOE’s 

calculations appeared to be based on 

research that may not reflect the current 

performance of forward-curved fans and 

instead overstates the performance of 

backward-inclined fans on the market. 

The CA IOUs commented that DOE’s 

findings of 10-percent energy savings 

expected from backward-inclined fans 

were first presented in the 2014 TSD 

and were based on 2003 GE testing of a 

single backward-inclined prototype 

against a single forward curved fan. The 

CA IOUs commented that a follow-up 

LBNL report found that the construction 

of the forward-curved fan tested in 2003 

was substandard and contained large 

gaps between the impeller and housing 

and misalignment between the impeller 

and inlet. The CA IOUs pointed out that 

furnace fans in 2003 had no 

performance requirements and that with 

the advent of furnace fan regulation, 

forward-curved fan design has improved 

while backward-inclined fans currently 

available are not noticeably better than 

the prototype tested in 2003. The CA 

IOUs presented data showing the 

performance of one manufacturer’s 

forward-curved and backward-inclined 

fans and commented that additional 

research is needed to confirm the 

efficiency difference before DOE 

considers using backward-inclined fans. 

(CA IOUs, No. 21 at pp. 2–5) 

Morrison stated that the GE fan 

referenced by DOE (as the basis of the 

backward inclined impeller analysis) 

was used in LBNL research and had 

limited benefit when compared to a 

forward-curved fan. Furthermore, 

Morrison commented that more 

information was needed regarding 

claims in the TSD that the use of EBM 

fans resulted in a 15–30-percent 

improvement. Morrison stated that DOE 

used an estimated 10-percent FER 

improvement from the 2014 rulemaking, 

but that would be relative to older 

designs made prior to changes seen in 

furnace fans since 2019. Morrison stated 

that consumer furnace fans have been 

improved since then to improve energy 

use. (Morrison, No. 27 at p. 2) No 

commenters submitted data supporting 

an alternative FER reduction value to 

associate with backward-inclined 

impellers. Therefore, DOE continued to 

rely on the best data available, which is 

what DOE used to arrive at the 

assumption that backward-inclined 

impellers uniformly reduce the FER of 

consumer furnace fans by a 10-percent 

reduction in the July 2014 Final Rule. 

With respect to Morrison’s comments 

that the furnace fan designs have 

changed since 2014, DOE notes that the 

estimate of a 10-percent reduction is not 

relative to the baseline design, but 

instead is relative to an equivalent 

furnace fan with a forward curved 

impeller and thus still applies. In other 

words, in the July 2014 Final Rule, DOE 

estimated that implementing a 

backward-inclined impeller in place of 

a forward-inclined impeller would 

reduce FER by 10 percent in a furnace 

fan with a constant-airflow BPM motor 

and multi-staging; it was not relative to 

a baseline furnace with a PSC motor and 

single-stage operation. 79 FR 38130, 

38159. (As previously discussed, for this 

analysis DOE did not find evidence of 

significant differentiation in FER among 

multi-stage models as compared to 

single-stage models, or between 

constant-airflow and constant-torque 

BPM motors.) However, the concerns 

and uncertainties raised by commenters 

in the above paragraphs contribute to 

DOE’s tentative decision not to adopt 

standards at max-tech levels for furnace 

fans at this time. For additional 

discussion regarding backward-inclined 

impellers, see section IV.H of this 

document. 

In response to DOE’s consideration of 

backward-inclined impellers at the maxtech level in the November 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, commenters 

discussed a number of concerns with 

implementing the technology. 

AHRI commented that there is no onesize-fits-all design for incorporating 

backward-inclined impellers into 

current products. AHRI stated that 

changes in the airflow design will 

require redesign and retesting on a 

model-by-model basis to ensure both 

proper operation and compliance with 

safety standards. (AHRI, No. 23 at p. 5) 

AHRI commented that the issues 

associated with moving from a forwardinclined impeller to a backwardinclined impeller will require safety 

testing and redesign. AHRI further 

commented that these additional costs 

are not accounted for in the analysis. 

(Id. at p. 3) 

Trane commented that, based on its 

research, a backward-inclined impeller 

is not compatible with current furnace 

dimensions, which are not large enough 

to accommodate a backward-inclined 

impeller. Trane added that it cannot be 

assumed that furnace design changes 

will have no impact on energy use and 

equipment utility when a backwardinclined impeller is used in the existing 

housing. Furthermore, Trane 

commented that, based on its research, 

the issues of the inlet cone design and 

clearances to the moving impeller 

remain a concern and require attention. 

(Trane, No. 22 at p. 2) 

Trane commented that adopting EL 1 

would require replacing the current 

forward-inclined impeller with a 

backward-inclined impeller. Trane 

added that its research showed a 7-year 

development cycle for the blower 

system technology needed to adopt EL 

1. Trane commented that this same 

research surfaced concerns with the 

ability to manufacture a high-speed 

(∼1800 RPM max) blower wheel with 

close tolerances with the inlet cones, 

and significant leakage of high-pressure 

air from the exhaust portion of the 

housing back into the low-pressure 

input region if typical 0.25-in gaps are 

implemented. Trane commented that 

improvements from only retrofitting the 

impeller were less than 10 percent 

unless blower housing modifications 

were made. Trane commented that its 

determination regarding the impellers 

was based on a study completed more 

than 20 years ago, ‘‘Final Report for the 

Variable Speed Integrated Intelligent 

HVAC Blower, Final Report for BP–2’’ 

(June 1, 2003). (Trane, No. 22 at p. 2) 

Trane acknowledged that DOE’s 

findings were based on the EBM-Papst 

furnace model, which has a backwardinclined impeller blower system. Trane 

commented that the EBM-Papst system 

is not an impeller change, but a different 

blower system that produces a different 

air flow pattern from the forwardinclined impeller and is thus not able to 

be tested according to the same 

standards as a furnace fan with a 

forward-inclined impeller. Trane 

commented that for all manufacturers to 

adopt this system would require all 

safety, performance, and AFUE testing 

to be performed in order to put it into 

production, and furthermore, due to its 

need for an inlet orifice, this system 

limits the furnace’s return air location to 

a single location (i.e., left side, right 

side, or bottom). Trane added that 

higher air flow furnaces often need more 

than a single side return to perform 

properly for CFM and watts, and 

therefore adopting the EBM-Papst 

approach would not be possible for 

many furnace fan manufacturers. Trane 

commented that, for the reasons stated 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69842 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

above and because it would reduce the 

utility of the furnace, the EBM-Papst 

system is unsuitable as a basis for 

comparison for adopting EL 1 among 

furnace fan manufacturers. (Id.) 

Furthermore, Trane commented that 

adapting all furnace fans to 

accommodate the EBM-Papst system 

would reduce the utility of the furnace 

and increase the installation time 

needed to move components to reach 

the return air location required by the 

system. Trane commented that the EBMPapst system should have been analyzed 

as a separate EL level. (Trane, No. 22 at 

pp. 2–3) 

Trane commented that testing would 

be required ahead of introducing the 

impeller change in order to determine 

the effects this difference would have on 

heat exchanger temperatures, furnace 

efficiency, and safety limit operation. 

Trane commented that according to 

DOE, housing design modifications 

were eliminated from consideration due 

to the resulting reduction in utility that 

such a change produces. Trane 

commented that the same logic should 

apply to an impeller change that creates 

a substantially different discharge 

velocity distribution. (Trane, No. 22 at 

p. 3) 

Lennox commented that the 

application of backward-inclined 

impellers would require changes in the 

housing design and airflow patterns that 

DOE has already screened out in the 

TSD. Lennox further commented that 

changes in the airflow design will 

require redesign and retesting on a 

model-by-model basis to ensure proper 

operation, compliance with safety 

standards, and product reliability. 

(Lennox, No. 24 at p. 7) 

AHRI commented that backwardinclined impellers require a larger 

diameter than the forward-inclined 

impellers they are intended to replace, 

stating that backward-inclined impellers 

will not fit in the cabinet of a fan with 

a forward-inclined impeller. They 

further commented that most all models 

will have to be redesigned to 

accommodate the larger impeller, 

adding that it will lead to housing 

design and airflow path modifications. 

AHRI stated DOE has acknowledged 

that modifications of housing design 

and airflow path have an adverse impact 

on furnace efficiency. (AHRI, No. 23 at 

p. 3) 

AHRI commented that furnace 

cabinets are limited in size due to the 

dimensions of the installation space. 

AHRI stated that smaller-sized furnaces 

are at a disadvantage when it comes to 

meeting the required FER level because 

of the relationship between the furnace 

input level and the width of the furnace. 

AHRI commented that a change to the 

efficiency level to include backwardinclined impellers, coupled with the 

proposed future change to the minimum 

AFUE, would likely eliminate the 

smallest cabinet sizes from the 

marketplace without replacement 

furnace options or with reduced choices 

for consumers in cases where the 

smallest size model is required. (AHRI, 

No. 23 at p. 6) 

The CA IOUs suggested that DOE 

refrain from implementing energy 

conservation standards that would 

require the use of backward inclined 

fans, as the CA IOUs could not identify 

furnaces incorporating backwardinclined fans available for purchase. 

(CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 2) 

In response, as discussed previously 

and as several commenters 

acknowledge, DOE is aware of 

backward-inclined impellers being used 

in other sectors of the HVAC industry 

and also in a small number of consumer 

furnace fan models available today. 

Therefore, DOE has found this design 

option to be technologically feasible. 

DOE identified and examined the 

models that currently use backward 

inclined impellers and did not identify 

any significant differences in cabinet 

dimensions, overall construction, or any 

indication of installation constraints as 

compared to similar models using a 

forward-curved impeller. As a result, 

DOE maintained backward-inclined 

impellers as a design option at max-tech 

for this analysis. However, given the 

limited number of consumer furnace fan 

models that this technology is currently 

used in, DOE recognizes that there are 

some uncertainties with applying it to 

the entire consumer furnace fans market 

and across the entire range of capacities, 

as pointed out by several commenters. 

As discussed in section V.C of this 

document, DOE is proposing not to 

amend standards and therefore use of a 

backward inclined impeller would not 

be required. While this decision is 

primarily based on the cost effectiveness 

of this design option at this time, DOE 

has also considered some analytical 

uncertainties, as discussed in sections 

IV.H and V.C of this document. 

d. Summary of Efficiency Levels 

Analyzed 

The efficiency levels and associated 

technologies analyzed for each class of 

consumer furnace fan are shown in 

Table IV.3 through Table IV.11. 

TABLE IV.3—EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND TECHNOLOGIES USED AT EACH EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR NWG–NC FANS

EL FER equation Description of technologies typically incorporated 

Percent 

reduction in 

FER from 

baseline 

0—Baseline .................................. 0.044 * QMax + 182 ...................... BPM Motor w/Forward-Curved Impeller .................. N/A 

1—Max-tech ................................. 0.04 * QMax + 164 ........................ BPM Motor w/Backward-Inclined Impeller .............. 10 

TABLE IV.4—EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND TECHNOLOGIES USED AT EACH EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR NWG–C FANS

EL FER equation Description of technologies typically incorporated 

Percent 

reduction in 

FER from 

baseline 

0—Baseline .................................. 0.044 * QMax + 195 ...................... BPM Motor w/Forward-Curved Impeller .................. N/A 

1—Max-tech ................................. 0.04 * QMax + 176 ........................ BPM Motor w/Backward-Inclined Impeller .............. 10 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69843 

TABLE IV.5—EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND TECHNOLOGIES USED AT EACH EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR WG–NC FANS

EL FER equation Description of technologies typically incorporated 

Percent 

reduction in 

FER from 

baseline 

0—Baseline .................................. 0.044 * QMax + 199 ...................... BPM Motor w/Forward-Curved Impeller .................. N/A 

1—Max-tech ................................. 0.04 * QMax + 179 ........................ BPM Motor w/Backward-Inclined Impeller .............. 10 

TABLE IV.6—EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND TECHNOLOGIES USED AT EACH EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR NWEF/NWMB FANS

EL FER equation Description of technologies typically incorporated 

Percent 

reduction in 

FER from 

baseline 

0—Baseline .................................. 0.044 * QMax + 165 ...................... BPM Motor w/Forward-Curved Impeller .................. N/A 

1—Max-tech ................................. 0.04 * QMax + 149 ........................ BPM Motor w/Backward-Inclined Impeller .............. 10 

TABLE IV.7—EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND TECHNOLOGIES USED AT EACH EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR MH–EF/MB FANS

EL FER equation Description of technologies typically incorporated 

Percent 

reduction in 

FER from 

baseline 

0—Baseline .................................. 0.044 * QMax + 101 ...................... BPM Motor w/Forward-Curved Impeller .................. N/A 

1—Max—Tech .............................. 0.04 * QMax + 91 .......................... BPM Motor w/Backward-Inclined Impeller .............. 10 

TABLE IV.8—EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND TECHNOLOGIES USED AT EACH EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR MH–NWG–NC FANS

EL FER equation Description of technologies typically incorporated 

Percent 

reduction in 

FER from 

baseline 

0—Baseline .................................. 0.071 * QMax + 222 ...................... Improved PSC Motor ............................................... N/A 

1 .................................................... 0.044 * QMax + 137 ...................... BPM Motor w/Forward-Curved Impeller .................. 39 

2—Max-tech ................................. 0.04 * QMax + 123 ........................ BPM Motor w/Backward-Inclined Impeller .............. 45 

TABLE IV.9—EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND TECHNOLOGIES USED AT EACH EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR MH–NWG–C FANS

EL FER equation Description of technologies typically incorporated 

Percent 

reduction in 

FER from 

baseline 

0—Baseline .................................. 0.071 * QMax + 240 ...................... Improved PSC Motor ............................................... N/A 

1 .................................................... 0.044 * QMax + 148 ...................... BPM Motor w/Forward-Curved Impeller .................. 39 

2—Max-tech ................................. 0.04 * QMax + 133 ........................ BPM Motor w/Backward-Inclined Impeller .............. 45 

TABLE IV.10—EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND TECHNOLOGIES USED AT EACH EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR NWO–NC FANS

EL FER equation Description of technologies typically incorporated 

Percent 

reduction in 

FER from 

baseline 

0—Baseline .................................. 0.071 * QMax + 382 ...................... Improved PSC Motor ............................................... N/A 

1 .................................................... 0.044 * QMax + 236 ...................... BPM Motor w/Forward -Curved Impeller ................. 39 

2—Max-tech ................................. 0.04 * QMax + 212 ........................ BPM Motor w/Backward-Inclined Impeller .............. 45 

TABLE IV.11—EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND TECHNOLOGIES USED AT EACH EFFICIENCY LEVEL MH–NWO–NC FANS

EL FER equation Description of technologies typically incorporated 

Percent 

reduction in 

FER from 

baseline 

0—Baseline .................................. 0.071 * QMax + 287 ...................... Improved PSC Motor ............................................... N/A 

1 .................................................... 0.044 * QMax + 176 ...................... BPM Motor w/Forward -Curved Impeller ................. 39 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69844 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE IV.11—EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND TECHNOLOGIES USED AT EACH EFFICIENCY LEVEL MH–NWO–NC FANS— 

Continued 

EL FER equation Description of technologies typically incorporated 

Percent 

reduction in 

FER from 

baseline 

2—Max-tech ................................. 0.04 * QMax + 158 ........................ BPM Motor w/Backward-Inclined Impeller .............. 45 

2. Cost Analysis 

The cost analysis portion of the 

Engineering Analysis is conducted 

using one or a combination of cost 

approaches. The selection of cost 

approach depends on a suite of factors, 

including the availability and reliability 

of public information, characteristics of 

the regulated product and the 

availability and timeliness of 

purchasing the consumer furnace fans 

on the market. The cost approaches are 

summarized as follows: 

• Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles a 

commercially available product, 

component-by-component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials for the product. 

• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing a product, 

DOE identifies each component using 

parts diagrams (available from 

manufacturer websites or appliance 

repair websites, for example) to develop 

the bill of materials for the product. 

• Price surveys: If neither a physical 

nor catalog teardown is feasible (for 

example, for tightly integrated products 

such as fluorescent lamps, which are 

infeasible to disassemble and for which 

parts diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical 

(e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE 

conducts price surveys using publicly 

available pricing data published on 

major online retailer websites and/or by 

soliciting prices from distributors and 

other commercial channels. 

In the present case, DOE conducted 

its cost analysis using a combination of 

physical and catalog teardowns to assess 

how manufacturing costs change with 

increased product efficiency. DOE 

estimated the MPC associated with each 

efficiency level to characterize the costefficiency relationship of improving 

consumer furnace fan performance. The 

MPC estimates are not for the entire 

HVAC product. Because consumer 

furnace fans are a component of the 

HVAC product in which they are 

integrated, the MPC estimates include 

costs only for the components of the 

HVAC product that impact FER. 

Products were selected for physical 

teardown analysis that have 

characteristics of typical products on 

the market at a representative input 

capacity of 80,000 Btu/h for the NWG– 

NC, NWG–C, WG–NC, NWEF/NWMB, 

MH–NWG–NC, MH–NWG–C, MH–EF/ 

MB, and MH–WG product classes and 

105,000 Btu/h for the NWO–NC and 

MH–NWO product classes (determined 

based on market data and discussions 

with manufacturers). Selections 

spanned a range of FER efficiency levels 

and designs and included most 

manufacturers. The resulting bill of 

materials provides the basis for the 

manufacturer production cost (‘‘MPC’’) 

estimates. 

To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE 

applies a multiplier (the manufacturer 

markup) to the MPC. The resulting 

manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) is 

the price at which the manufacturer 

distributes a unit into commerce. DOE 

developed an average manufacturer 

markup by examining the annual 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘SEC’’) 10–K reports filed by publiclytraded manufacturers primarily engaged 

in HVAC manufacturing and whose 

combined product range includes 

consumer furnace fans. DOE refined its 

understanding of manufacturer markups by using information obtained 

during manufacturer interviews. The 

manufacturer mark-ups were used to 

convert the MPCs into MSPs. Further 

information on this analytical 

methodology is presented in the 

following subsections. 

a. Teardown Analysis 

To assemble bills of materials 

(‘‘BOMs’’) and to calculate 

manufacturing costs for the different 

components in consumer furnace fans, 

multiple units were disassembled into 

their base components, and DOE 

estimated the materials, processes, and 

labor required to manufacture each 

individual component, a process 

referred to as a ‘‘physical teardown.’’ 

Using the data gathered from the 

physical teardowns, each component 

was characterized according to its 

weight, dimensions, material, quantity, 

and the manufacturing processes used 

to fabricate and assemble it. 

For supplementary catalog teardowns, 

product data were gathered, such as 

dimensions, weight, and design features 

from publicly available information, 

such as manufacturer catalogs. Such 

‘‘virtual teardowns’’ allowed DOE to 

estimate the major physical differences 

between a product that was physically 

disassembled and a similar product that 

was not. For this NOPD, data from a 

total of 61 physical and virtual 

teardowns of consumer furnace fans 

were used to calculate industry MPCs in 

the engineering analysis. 

The manufacturers of units chosen for 

teardowns have large market shares in 

the particular product classes for which 

their teardown units are categorized. 

Whenever possible, DOE examined 

multiple models from a given 

manufacturer that capture different 

design options and used them as direct 

points of comparison. DOE examined 

products with PSC, CT–BPM, and CA– 

BPM indoor blower motors, as well as 

products using single-stage, two-stage, 

and modulating combustion systems. As 

further discussed in section IV.B.2.b of 

this document, cost values were 

developed for some of these 

technologies to estimate the 

manufacturing cost of changing designs 

from one technology to another (i.e., 

using a CA–BPM instead of a CT–BPM, 

or two-stage combustion instead of 

single-stage combustion). 

b. Cost Estimation Method 

The costs of individual models are 

estimated using the content of the BOMs 

(i.e., relating to materials, fabrication, 

labor, and all other aspects that make up 

a production facility) to generate MPCs. 

The resulting MPCs include costs such 

as overhead and depreciation, in 

addition to materials and labor costs. 

DOE collected information on labor 

rates, tooling costs, raw material prices, 

and other factors to use as inputs into 

the cost estimates. For purchased parts, 

DOE estimates the purchase price based 

on volume-variable price quotations and 

detailed discussions with manufacturers 

and component suppliers. Furnace fans 

are a component of HVAC products that 

include other products not associated 

with the cost and/or efficiency of the 

furnace fan. Therefore, DOE focused its 

engineering analysis on the components 

that comprise the furnace fan assembly, 

including: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69845 

10For more information on MEPS Intl, please visit 

www.mepsinternational.com/gb/en (Last accessed 

March 21, 2023). 11For more information on PolymerUpdate, 

please visit www.polymerupdate.com (Last accessed 

March 21, 2023). 

12For more information on USGS metal price 

statistics, please visit www.usgs.gov/centers/ 

national-minerals-information-center/commoditystatistics-and-information (Last accessed March 21, 

2023). 

13For more information on the BLS producer 

price indices, please visit www.bls.gov/ppi/ (Last 

accessed March 21, 2023). 

• Fan motor and integrated controls 

(as applicable); 

• HVAC product control board; 

• Impeller; 

• Single-staging or multi-staging 

components and controls; 

• Fan housing; and 

• Components used to direct or guide 

airflow. 

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. For purchased 

parts, DOE estimated the purchase 

prices paid to the OEMs of these parts, 

based on discussions with 

manufacturers during confidential 

interviews. Whenever possible, DOE 

obtained price quotes directly from the 

component suppliers used by furnace 

fan manufacturers whose products were 

examined in the engineering analysis. 

DOE determined that the components in 

Table IV.12 are generally purchased 

from outside suppliers. 

TABLE IV.12—PURCHASED FURNACE

FAN COMPONENTS

Assembly Purchased sub-assemblies or 

components 

Fan Assembly.Fan motor. 

TABLE IV.12—PURCHASED FURNACE

FAN COMPONENTS—Continued 

Assembly Purchased sub-assemblies or 

components 

Motor capacitor (when applicable). 

Impeller. 

Controls ........ PCB. 

Multi-Staging Components 

(when applicable). 

Raw materials, such as plastic resins 

and insulation materials, are estimated 

on a current-market basis. The costs of 

raw materials are determined 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 

Intl.,10 PolymerUpdate,11 the U.S. 

geologic survey (‘‘USGS’’),12 and the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (‘‘BLS’’).13 To 

smooth out spikes in demand, these 

prices are estimated on the basis of 5- 

year averages spanning from 2018 

through 2022. Other ‘‘raw’’ materials 

such as plastic resins, insulation 

materials, etc. are estimated on a 

current-market basis. For non-metal raw 

material prices, DOE used prices based 

on current market data, rather than a 5- 

year average, because non-metal raw 

materials typically do not experience 

the same level of price volatility as 

metal raw materials. 

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 manufacturer feedback. 

Table IV.13 lists the factory parameter 

assumptions used in the cost model for 

both high-volume and low-volume 

manufacturers. For the engineering 

analysis, these factory parameters, 

including production volume, are the 

same at every efficiency level. The 

production volume used at each 

efficiency level corresponds with the 

average production volume, per 

manufacturer. These assumptions are 

generalized to represent typical 

production and are not intended to 

model a specific factory. For the NWG– 

NC, NWG–C, WG–NC, NWEF/NWMB, 

MH–NWG–NC, MH–NWG–C, and MH– 

EF/MB product classes, high production 

volume parameters were assumed due 

to these classes having generally high 

production volumes or using enough of 

the same major components as other 

high production volume classes. For 

NWO–NC and MH–NWO product 

classes, low production parameters were 

assumed. 

TABLE IV.13—FACTORY PARAMETER ASSUMPTIONS

Parameter 

High-volume 

furnace fan 

estimate 

Low-volume 

furnace fan 

estimate 

Actual Annual Production Volume (units/year) .................................................................................................. 1,250,000 ......... 5,000. 

Purchased Parts Volume ................................................................................................................................... 500,000 units/ 

year.

5,000 units/year. 

Work Days Per Year (days) .............................................................................................................................. 250 ................... 250. 

Assembly Shifts Per Day (shifts) ....................................................................................................................... 2 ....................... 1. 

Fabrication Shifts Per Day (shifts) ..................................................................................................................... 2 ....................... 2. 

Fabrication Labor Wages ($/h) .......................................................................................................................... 16 ..................... 16. 

Assembly Labor Wages ($/h) ............................................................................................................................ 16 ..................... 16. 

Length of Shift (hrs) ........................................................................................................................................... 8 ....................... 8. 

Average Equipment Installation Cost (% of purchase price) ............................................................................ 10% .................. 10%. 

Fringe Benefits Ratio ......................................................................................................................................... 50% .................. 50%. 

Indirect to Direct Labor Ratio ............................................................................................................................ 33% .................. 33%. 

Average Scrap Recovery Value ........................................................................................................................ 30% .................. 30%. 

Worker Downtime .............................................................................................................................................. 10% .................. 10%. 

Building Life (in years) ....................................................................................................................................... 25 ..................... 25. 

Burdened Assembly Labor Wage ($/h) ............................................................................................................. 24 ..................... 24. 

Burdened Fabrication Labor Wage ($/h) ........................................................................................................... 24 ..................... 24. 

Supervisor Span (workers/supervisor) .............................................................................................................. 25 ..................... 25. 

Supervisor Wage Premium (over fabrication and assembly wage) .................................................................. 30% .................. 30%. 

In response to the November 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, Morrison 

commented that labor costs and 

supervisory costs are not reflective of 

the current reality, adding that basic 

factory jobs pay well over $20/hour. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69846 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Morrison commented that development, 

testing, and requalification costs need to 

be added. Morrison further commented 

that the costs from the engineering 

results are only for the fan components, 

adding that fan and housing changes 

will change heat exchanger 

performance/safety controls. (Morrison, 

No. 27 at p. 3) 

In response to the comments from 

Morrison, DOE notes that the factory 

parameters outlined in chapter 5 of the 

November 2022 Preliminary Analysis 

TSD, including labor and supervisory 

costs, are developed based on 

manufacturer feedback. Available data 

indicates that the values provided in 

Table IV.13 are representative of the 

industry average, but DOE 

acknowledges that they may vary 

depending on a variety of factors. DOE 

welcomes additional feedback and data 

regarding these costs that would better 

reflect the current market. With respect 

to development, testing, and 

requalification costs, DOE notes that 

those costs are typically accounted for 

in the manufacturer impact analysis 

portion of DOE rulemakings. However, 

because DOE is not proposing to amend 

standards in this rulemaking, the 

manufacturer impact analysis was not 

conducted for this NOPD. 

Constant Airflow BPM Blower Motor 

Cost Values 

As discussed in section IV.B.1.a of 

this document, for the NWG–NC, NWG– 

C, WG–NC, MWEF/NWMB, and MH– 

WF/MB product classes, the current 

baseline motor technology is a BPM 

motor, and specifically a CT–BPM 

motor. DOE’s research suggests that the 

predominant BPM indoor blower motors 

sold on the market today are either a 

constant-torque or constant-airflow 

design. Both types of motors rely on 

electronic variable-speed motor systems 

that are typically mounted in an 

external chassis to the back of the 

motor. CA–BPM motors utilize feedback 

control to adjust torque based on ESP in 

order to maintain a desired airflow. This 

differentiates them from CT–BPM 

motors that will maintain torque and 

likely decrease airflow output in 

environments with high ESPs. 

Additionally, CA–BPM motors use 

feedback control to vary their output to 

maintain pre-programmed air flows. 

DOE has tentatively found that there are 

no significant differences in measured 

FER performance between furnace fans 

using CA–BPM and CT–BPM motors; 

however, CA–BPM motors are 

sometimes chosen for other benefits, 

such as increased consumer comfort. 

CA–BPM fan motors typically cost more 

than CT–BPM motors while not 

improving FER. Therefore, as discussed 

in section IV.B.1.a, DOE considered the 

baseline design to include CT–BPM 

motors for the NWG–NC, NWG–C, WG– 

NC, NWEF/NWMB, and MH–EF/MB 

classes. However, to better represent 

costs to consumers, DOE has developed 

cost values for CA–BPM that are applied 

in the LCC analysis to a portion of 

furnace fan installations. 

TABLE IV.14—INCREMENTAL COST ADDERS FOR BPM MOTORS

Product class 

Incremental 

cost increase 

for CT–BPM 

to CA–BPM 

(2022$) 

NWG–C, NWG–NC, WG–NC, NWEF/NWMB, MH–NWG–NC, MH–NWG–C, and MH–EF/MB .................................................. $28.07 

NWO–NC, MH–NWO–NC ............................................................................................................................................................. 83.67 

Multi-Stage Furnaces 

As discussed in section IV.A.2 of this 

document, DOE has identified a number 

of furnace fans in two-stage and 

modulating furnaces that are rated at the 

same relative FER as single-stage 

furnaces. DOE has tentatively 

determined consumers choose to 

purchase multi-stage products for the 

additional thermal comfort offered by 

furnaces with multiple stages of heating 

output. During teardowns, DOE 

examined multi-stage furnace designs to 

analyze the production cost differential 

for manufacturers to switch from singlestage to two-stage or modulating 

combustion. DOE determined a marketshare weighted-average marginal cost 

increase of $21.07 for the NWG–C, 

NWG–NC, WG–NC, NWEF/NWMB, 

MH–NWG–NC, MH–NWG–C, and MH– 

EF/MB classes to change a furnace from 

a single-stage to a two-stage design. DOE 

determined that oil units with multistaging were rare and thus not 

representative of the market, so adders 

were not developed for the NWO–NC 

and MH–NWO–NC product classes. 

Where applicable, the additional cost to 

change to a two-stage furnace includes 

the added cost of a two-stage gas valve, 

two-speed inducer assembly, additional 

pressure switch, and additional controls 

and wiring. As with the blower motor 

costs discussed above, the additional 

cost of a multi-stage burner is accounted 

for in the LCC analysis based on the 

market penetration of such designs for 

furnaces. 

Scaling to Alternative Input Capacities 

DOE also developed equations 

generate adders for scaling the MPC 

results at the representative capacity to 

the full range of input capacities 

available on the market for each motor 

type. DOE performed regression 

analyses on the discrete MPCs for each 

teardown and their respective input 

capacities—which spanned a range of 

capacities and airflows and 

encompassed a range of motor sizes—to 

generate an equation for each motor 

technology that reflects the relationship 

between these parameters. These 

parameters were derived separately for 

high-volume (NWGF–C, NWGH–NC, 

MH–NWGF–NC, MH–NWGF–C, and 

WGF–NC) and low-volume (NWOF–NC 

and MH–NWOF–NC) product classes 

These equations, which are presented in 

Table IV.15, are used in the LCC 

analysis (see section IV.E of this 

document) to analyze the impacts on 

furnace fans over the full range of input 

capacities. To estimate the MPC at a 

given input, first the appropriate adder 

is calculated using the equation and 

then the result added to or subtracted 

from (as applicable) the MPC at the 

representative input capacity. 

In the November 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE also estimated the 

relationship between consumer furnace 

fan cost and furnace fan motor airflow. 

However, DOE did not do so for this 

NOPD analysis because, upon reviewing 

market data, DOE found that scaling 

only by input capacity sufficiently 

represented the entire furnace fan 

market (including across the range of 

airflows) so it was unnecessary to also 

scale by airflow. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69847 

14The backward-inclined impeller prototype 

used for these estimates is detailed in a report titled 

California’s Secret Energy Surplus: The Potential for 

Energy Efficiency. (Available at: search.issuelab.org/ 

resource/california-s-secret-energy-surplus-thepotential-for-energy-efficiency.html) (Last accessed 

June 7, 2023). 

TABLE IV.15—EQUATIONS FOR SCALING MPCs TO ADDITIONAL INPUT CAPACITIES

Input capacity MPC adder equation: MPC adder = slope * 

(representative capacity (kBtu/h)—input capacity (kBtu/h)) 

NWGF–C, 

NWGF–NC, 

MH–NWGF–NC, 

MH–NWGF–C, 

WGF–NC 

NWOF–NC and 

MH–NWOF–NC 

Motor Technology ........................................................................................................................................ Slope Slope 

PSC .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.0650 0.7031 

Constant-torque BPM .................................................................................................................................. 0.1395 0.6272 

Constant-airflow BPM .................................................................................................................................. 0.1603 1.0069 

Backward-Inclined Impellers 

For the max-tech efficiency levels, 

DOE estimated the cost to manufacture 

a backward inclined impeller by using 

manufacturer feedback along with 

photographs and specifications found in 

research reports to determine cost 

model inputs to estimate the MPCs of 

the backward-inclined impeller. These 

costs were scaled to different capacities 

by evaluating the impact of the 

backward-inclined impeller on the 

overall furnace system, depending on 

the average cabinet width at that 

capacity. DOE estimated the 

manufacturing cost of implementing a 

backward inclined impeller and 

compared it to the cost of using the 

forward inclined impellers that are 

ubiquitous in furnace fans currently on 

the market to develop ‘‘adders’’ for 

backward inclined impellers. The cost 

adder for backward-inclined impellers 

at each capacity were applied at the 

max-tech level to estimate the MPC and 

are outlined in Table IV.16 of this 

document. 

TABLE IV.16—BACKWARD-INCLINED

IMPELLER ADDER

Input 

capacity 

(kBtu/h) 

High 

volume 

(2022$) 

Low 

volume 

(2022$) 

40 .............................. 28.60 34.15 

60 .............................. 34.93 41.71 

80 .............................. 37.21 44.43 

100 ............................ 55.18 65.89 

120 ............................ 59.09 70.56 

In response to the November 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, Morrison 

requested clarification on how DOE 

concluded that the additional MPC for 

a backward-inclined impeller would 

amount to $22.57. (Morrison, No. 27 at 

p. 4) Morrison also recommended that 

DOE reevaluate the process by which it 

estimates the costs associated with 

designing and manufacturing a 

backward-inclined impeller. Morrison 

commented that a full evaluation of 

design, tools, and process would be 

needed to assess if the technology can 

meet the expected volume. Morrison 

recommended that DOE’s analysis 

consider cost increases for the 

following: (1) necessary housing 

improvements required to realize 

potential backward-inclined impeller 

value; (2) increased strength for motor/ 

fan assembly mounting hardware, 

which will ensure tighter gaps between 

inlet and impeller and support of the 

larger impeller; (3) the equipment 

changes required to accommodate heat 

exchanger redesign or safety testing/ 

requalification; and (4) factory 

parameters. Morrison commented that 

certain installation considerations 

should be addressed, including: (1) the 

need for shipping brackets or added 

stiffening to account for the larger 

impeller and (2) the need for tighter 

clearances between impeller and 

housing to avoid damage during 

handling. (Morrison, No. 27 at pp. 3, 4) 

AHRI commented that backwardinclined impellers are often larger than 

comparable forward-inclined impellers, 

have increased sensitivity to ESP, and 

require more sophisticated controls, 

which will affect the overall energy use 

of the product. (AHRI, No. 23 at p. 6) 

AHRI stated that the addition of 

complex controls was not included in 

DOE’s cost analysis, which skews the 

economic analysis. (AHRI, No. 23 at p. 

3) 

Trane added that the cost of 

incorporating the full EBM-Papst system 

was not included in the TSD as it is not 

just a matter of replacing the impeller.) 

Trane commented the TSD assumed that 

only the impeller was changed and the 

cost estimate ignored the need for inlet 

cones with close tolerances. Trane 

commented that those estimates would 

be difficult to confirm because the 

design still needs to be developed. 

Trane commented that, as published, 

the TSD cost estimates and energy 

savings showed 44 to 48 percent of 

NWG furnace consumers negatively 

affected and when the full cost of the 

change is included, Trane believed 

these results will be found to be 

understated. (Trane, No. 22 at pp. 2–3) 

Lennox commented that the cost and 

labor required for installing backwardinclined impellers in current furnace 

designs are not fully accounted for in 

the TSD. Lennox commented that 

backward-inclined impellers are a 

nascent technology that requires a larger 

diameter or higher rotational speed than 

a centrifugal forward-curved impeller, 

adding that backward-inclined 

impellers are more sensitive to changes 

in ESP and likely require motors with 

extended RPM range and controls. 

Lennox further commented that 

installing a backward-inclined impeller 

would require significant furnace 

redesign that includes modifications in 

housing design and airflow path, both of 

which DOE has acknowledged adversely 

impact furnace efficiency. Lennox 

commented that the study DOE cites in 

the TSD (i.e., Wegman, Herman 2003 

HVAC Blower Report) was conducted 

prior to when residential furnace 

designs became more compact in height 

to accommodate larger evaporator coil 

designs required to meet increased DOE 

conservation standards, and that DOE 

should take into account the redesign, 

safety testing, and other costs placed 

upon the consumer before considering 

implementing the proposed changes. 

(Lennox, No. 24 at p. 3) 

In response, DOE clarifies that the 

MPC estimate for backward-inclined 

impellers from the November 2022 

Preliminary Analysis was based on a 

prototype used in research performed by 

General Electric and testing performed 

at national laboratories.14 However, for 

this rulemaking, DOE has incorporated 

manufacturer feedback and new market 

data to update its MPC estimates for 

backward-inclined impellers, as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69848 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

reported in Tables IV.17—IV.19 of this 

document. These costs have been 

updated to reflect costs to the full 

furnace system beyond replacing the 

impeller component (including 

advanced controls, changes to the 

airflow path, etc.), but DOE 

acknowledges that given the current 

limited use of this technology in 

consumer furnace fans there is still 

uncertainty in how the technology 

would be applied over the full range of 

products currently available. 

DOE did not extend the analysis to 

account for changes in tolerances and 

redesign of the heat exchanger and other 

furnace systems. In manufacturer 

interviews, some manufacturers noted 

that airflow changes associated with 

backward-inclined impellers could 

require a different approach to heat 

exchanger designs. These changes could 

necessitate large conversion costs as 

manufacturing to tight tolerances and 

introducing new heat exchanger designs 

are capital intensive endeavors. DOE 

recognizes the potential need for 

upfront capital investments and product 

conversion costs in addition the 

estimated changes in MPC, as discussed 

in section IV.H of this document. 

3. Cost-Efficiency Results 

The final results of the FER 

engineering analysis are the MPCs for 

each furnace fan product class analyzed 

at each efficiency level (and associated 

design option), resulting in a costefficiency relationship. The costefficiency results are shown in tabular 

form in Table IV.17 through Table IV.19 

in the form of efficiency versus MPC. 

(QMax is the airflow, in cfm, at the 

maximum airflow-control setting 

measured during the proposed DOE test 

procedure.) As described in section 

IV.B.2.b of this document, the MPC 

presented is not for the entire HVAC 

product because furnace fans are a 

component of the HVAC product in 

which they are integrated. 

As discussed in section IV.B.2.b of 

this document, separate cost values 

were developed for constant-airflow 

BPM motors and multi-staging because 

these premium design elements could 

add comfort or provide other benefits 

but were not incorporated as design 

options into efficiency levels for furnace 

fans used in this analysis. 

DOE used the cost-efficiency curves 

from the engineering analysis as an 

input to the LCC analysis to determine 

the added price of the more efficient 

furnace fan components in HVAC 

equipment sold to the customer (see 

section IV.E of this document). 

TABLE IV.17—COST EFFICIENCY RESULTS BY PRODUCT CLASS—NWG–NC, NWG–C, WGF–NC, NWEF/NWMB, AND

MH–EF/MB 

Efficiency level 

Design option 

Baseline EL 1 

BPM motor 

BPM motor + backward-inclined impeller 

MPC ...................................................................................... $108.06 ................................................................................ $136.13. 

Product Class ........................................................................ Maximum Allowable FER Equation 

NWG–NC .............................................................................. 0.044 * QMax + 182 .............................................................. 0.04 * QMax + 164. 

NWG–C ................................................................................. 0.044 * QMax + 195 .............................................................. 0.04 * QMax + 176. 

WG–NC ................................................................................. 0.044 * QMax + 199 .............................................................. 0.04 * QMax + 179. 

NWEF/NWMB ....................................................................... 0.044 * QMax + 165 .............................................................. 0.04 * QMax + 149. 

MH–EF–MB ........................................................................... 0.044 * QMax + 101 .............................................................. 0.04 * QMax + 91. 

TABLE IV.18—COST EFFICIENCY RESULTS BY PRODUCT CLASS—MH–NWG–NC AND MH–NWG–C 

Efficiency level 

Design option 

Baseline EL 1 EL 2 

Improved PSC BPM motor 

BPM motor + backward-inclined impeller 

MPC ..................................................... $82.39 .................................................. $108.06 ................................................ $136.13. 

Product Class ...................................... Maximum Allowable FER Equation 

MH–NWG–NC ..................................... 0.071 * QMax + 222 ............................. 0.044 * QMax + 137 ............................. 0.04 * QMax + 123. 

MH–NWG–C ........................................ 0.071 * QMax + 240 ............................. 0.044 * QMax + 148 ............................. 0.04 * QMax + 133. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69849 

15Because 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. 

TABLE IV.19—COST EFFICIENCY RESULTS BY PRODUCT CLASS—NWO–NC AND MH–NWO–NC 

Efficiency level 

Design option 

Baseline EL 1 EL 2 

Improved PSC BPM motor 

BPM motor + backward-inclined impeller 

MPC ..................................................... $195.61 ................................................ $216.95 ................................................ $300.62. 

Product Class ...................................... Maximum Allowable FER Equation 

NWO–NC ............................................. 0.071 * QMax + 382 ............................. 0.044 * QMax + 236 ............................. 0.04 * QMax + 212. 

MH–NWO–NC ..................................... 0.071 * QMax + 287 ............................. 0.044 * QMax + 176 ............................. 0.04 * QMax + 158. 

In response to the November 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, Morrison 

commented that the average consumer 

purchase price increase of $46–47 that 

DOE projects for consumer fans 

operating at EL 1 appears to be 

understated, considering the changes 

and variances in motor costs depending 

on whether production occurs in the 

United States or abroad. Morrison 

requested clarification on how DOE 

arrived at that estimate. Morrison 

commented that certain installation 

considerations should be addressed, 

including: (1) the need for shipping 

brackets or added stiffening to account 

for the larger impeller and (2) the need 

for tighter clearances between impeller 

and housing to avoid damage during 

handling. (Morrison, No. 27 at p. 4) 

In response, DOE notes that the 

analysis to develop MPCs for each 

efficiency level includes physical and 

virtual product teardowns of units that 

incorporate the technology options 

associated with that level. Specific 

motor costs are estimated using cost 

estimates obtained through 

manufacturer feedback, including 

impacts from production location and 

volume. The costs for these teardowns 

are then weighted based on several 

factors, including manufacturer market 

share and motor horsepower market 

share. By using the weighted average of 

these teardown costs, DOE develops an 

MPC that is representative of the market 

and takes into account the variation in 

the market. 

Nidec commented during the public 

meeting that the motor prices for the 

preliminary analysis indicated a 

dramatic increase from a baseline PSC 

to an improved PSC when compared to 

a BPM motor. Nidec commented that 

the November 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis reported a baseline PSC cost of 

around $65, an ECM cost of $100, and 

an improved PSC cost of $116. Nidec 

commented that estimates showed a 90 

percent increase in cost for the 

improved PSC versus the BPM. (Nidec, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 26 at pp. 

19–20) 

In response, DOE notes that the 

$65.73 cost reported in the November 

2022 Preliminary Analysis reflects the 

MPC for a furnace fan using an 

improved PSC motor in the NWGF–C, 

NWGF–NC, MH–NWGF–NC, MH– 

NWGF–C, WGF–NC and NWEF/NWMB 

product classes, and does not reflect a 

baseline PSC motor cost. In the 

November 2022 Preliminary Analysis, 

DOE estimated that the MPC for a 

furnace fan using an improved PSC 

motor in the NWOF–NC and MH– 

NWOF–NC product classes was 

$116.25. Therefore, the difference 

between these two costs does not reflect 

the incremental cost to transition from 

a baseline PSC motor to an improved 

PSC motor, but instead reflects the 

difference in cost of an improved PSC 

motor for the different product classes. 

This difference is largely due to the 

different production volumes assumed 

for the classes, as outlined in section 

IV.B.2 of this document. 

C. 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 the 

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. Before developing 

markups, DOE defines key market 

participants and identifies distribution 

channels. 

DOE used the same distribution 

channels for furnace fans as it used for 

furnaces in the recent energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

those products. DOE believes that this is 

an appropriate approach because the 

vast majority of the furnace fans covered 

in this rulemaking are a component of 

a furnace. DOE has concluded that there 

is insufficient evidence of a replacement 

market for furnace fans to establish a 

separate distribution channel on that 

basis. 

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.15

To estimate average baseline and 

incremental mark-ups, DOE relied on 

several sources, including: (1) the 

HARDI 2013 Profit Report (i.e., for 

wholesalers); and (2) U.S. Census 

Bureau 2017 Economic Census data on 

the residential and commercial building 

construction industry (i.e., for general 

contractors, mechanical contractors, and 

mobile home manufacturers). In 

addition, DOE used the 2005 Air 

Conditioning Contractors of America’s 

(‘‘ACCA’’) Financial Analysis on the 

Heating, Ventilation, Air-Conditioning, 

and Refrigeration contracting industry 

to disaggregate the mechanical 

contractor mark-ups into replacement 

and new construction markets. DOE also 

used various sources for the derivation 

of the mobile home dealer mark-ups (see 

chapter 6 of the PA TSD). 

DOE derived state and local taxes 

from data provided by the Sales Tax 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69850 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

16Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc., State Sales Tax 

Rates Along with Combined Average City and 

County Rates (Jan. 4, 2023). (Available at 

www.thestc.com/STrates.stm) (Last accessed Jun. 1, 

2023). 

17See www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/ 

data/2015/index.php?view=methodology (Last 

accessed Jan. 3, 2023). 

Clearinghouse.16 These data represent 

weighted averages that include county 

and city rates. DOE applied the state 

sales taxes to match the state-level 

markups for wholesalers and 

mechanical and general contractors. 

Chapter 6 of the PA TSD provides 

details on DOE’s development of 

markups for consumer furnace fans. 

Lennox recommended that DOE 

review the lower incremental markups 

for increased consumer furnace fan 

standard levels considered in the TSD. 

Lennox stated that Table ES.3.10 from 

the TSD shows a significantly 

discounted incremental markup from 

the baseline markup, which is not 

logical or aligned with business 

practices. Lennox commented that it 

does not believe an increased standard 

level would result in a lower markup for 

minimum efficiency products from the 

current base levels. Lennox 

recommended that a consistent markup 

level be applied instead of discounted 

incremental markups. (Lennox, No. 24 

at p. 7–8) 

DOE’s incremental markup approach 

assumes that an increase in profitability, 

which is implied by keeping a fixed 

markup when the product price goes up, 

is unlikely to be viable over time in 

reasonably competitive markets. DOE 

recognizes that actors in the distribution 

chains are likely to seek to maintain the 

same markup on appliances in response 

to changes in manufacturer sales prices 

after an amendment to energy 

conservation standards. However, DOE 

believes that retail pricing is likely to 

adjust over time as those actors are 

forces to readjust their markups to reach 

a medium-term equilibrium in which 

per-unit profit is relatively unchanged 

before and after standards are 

implemented. 

DOE acknowledges that markup 

practices in response to amended 

standards are complex and vary across 

business conditions. However, DOE’s 

analysis necessarily only considers 

changes in appliance offerings that 

occur in response to amended 

standards. DOE continues to maintain 

that its assumption that standards do 

not facilitate a sustainable increase in 

profitability is reasonable. 

D. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of consumer 

furnace fans at different efficiencies in 

representative U.S. single-family homes, 

multi-family residences, and 

commercial buildings, and to assess the 

energy savings potential of increased 

consumer furnace fan efficiency. The 

energy use analysis estimates the range 

of energy use of consumer furnace fans 

in the field (i.e., as they are actually 

used by consumers). The energy use 

analysis provides the basis for other 

analyses DOE performed, particularly 

assessments of the energy savings and 

the savings in consumer operating costs 

that could result from adoption of 

amended or new standards. 

To establish a reasonable range of 

energy consumption for consumer 

furnace fans, DOE primarily used data 

from the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA’s) most recent 

2015 Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey (RECS 2015). RECS 2015 is a 

national sample 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 

2015 has a sample size of 5,686 housing 

units and was constructed by EIA to be 

a national representation of the 

household population in the United 

States. DOE also considered the use of 

consumer furnace fans in commercial 

applications, based on characteristics 

from EIA’s most recent 2012 

Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS 2012) for 

a subset of building types that use 

consumer furnace fans covered by a 

potential standard. DOE utilized 

additional data sources to refine the 

development of a representative 

population of buildings for each furnace 

fan product class, as detailed in chapter 

7 of the PA TSD. 

In calculating the energy consumption 

of furnace fans, DOE adjusted the energy 

use from RECS 2015 and CBECS 2012 to 

normalize for weather. This was 

accomplished by adjusting the RECS 

2015 household and CBECS 2012 

building energy consumption values 

based on 10-year average heating 

degree-day (HDD) and average cooling 

degree-day (CDD) data for each 

geographical region. DOE also 

accounted for the change in building 

shell characteristics by applying the 

building shell efficiency index and 

projected trend in the HDD and CDD in 

EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2023. 

DOE’s analysis takes into account 

ACCA Manuals J, S, and D methods to 

size every household and building in 

the sample. DOE first uses Manual J to 

estimate the house or building design 

heating load in order to determine the 

blower requirements for the assigned 

heating and cooling equipment. DOE’s 

analysis considers that typically the 

furnace fan is sized based on the 

maximum cooling capacity required. 

The heating and cooling furnace fan 

speed setting is then varied to match the 

recommended/required airflow 

performance and takes into account 

differences in the ductwork system 

curve in the field. 

Chapter 7 of the PA TSD provides 

details on DOE’s energy use analysis for 

consumer furnace fans. 

WM technologies requested 

information regarding DOE’s use of 

RECS data and stated that RECS has 

stated that the 2015 imputation rates 

have a variability of 65.6 percent. (WM 

Technologies, No. 26 at pp. 31–32) 

In response, DOE notes that EIA 

administers the RECS to a nationally 

representative sample of U.S. housing 

units. For RECS 2015, specially trained 

interviewers collected energy 

characteristics on the housing unit, 

usage patterns, and household 

demographics. This information is 

combined with data from energy 

suppliers to these homes to estimate 

energy costs and usage for heating, 

cooling, appliances, and other end uses. 

The RECS survey data, including energy 

use, is an integral ingredient of EIA’s 

Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) and 

Monthly Energy Review (MER). EIA’s 

methodology for RECS 2015 is described 

in multiple reports.17 As described in 

these reports, RECS 2015 represents a 

substantial update to the end-use 

modeling and calibration methods. For 

example, in the 2015 RECS, the end-use 

models follow an engineering approach, 

and the calibration—which follows a 

minimum variance estimation 

approach—is based on the relative 

uncertainties of and correlations 

between the end uses being estimated. 

Instead of estimating unknown 

parameters and interpreting their 

solution values as in statistical 

modeling, engineering models improve 

upon statistical models by drawing on 

existing studies. Also, engineering 

models lead to more realistic variations 

across modeled housing units. In 

addition, calibration procedures in 

RECS 2015 use minimum variance 

estimation, which better incorporates 

household characteristics data 

uncertainty and recognizes correlations 

between end uses. DOE notes that 

households that use natural gas, 

propane, or fuel oil predominantly use 

these fuels for space heating and water 

heating. In the case of space heating, it 

is heavily seasonal, while water heating 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69851 

18See www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/ 

data/2015/pdf/microdata_v3.pdf (Last accessed Jan. 

3, 2023). 

19U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American 

Community Survey (Available at: www.census.gov/ 

programs-surveys/acs) (Last accessed Jan. 3, 2023). 

20 Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) and U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 

American Housing Survey (Available at: 

www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs.html) (Last 

accessed Jan. 3, 2023). 

21 Decision Analyst, 2022 American Home 

Comfort Study (Available at: 

www.decisionanalyst.com/syndicated/ 

homecomfort/) (Last accessed Jan. 3, 2023). 

22NEEA, 2016–2017 Residential Building Stock 

Assessment (Individua Reports for Single Family, 

Manufactured Homes and Multifamily Homes) 

(Available at: neea.org/data/residential-buildingstock-assessment) (Last accessed Jan. 3, 2023). 

23NYSERDA, 2019 Residential Building Stock 

Assessment (Available at: www.nyserda.ny.gov/ 

About/Publications/Building-Stock-and-PotentialStudies/Residential-Building-Stock-Assessment) 

(Last accessed Jan. 3, 2023). 

24Electric and Gas Program Administrators of 

Massachusetts, Massachusetts Residential Building 

Use and Equipment Characterization Study 

(Available at: ma-eeac.org/wp-content/uploads/ 

Residential-Building-Use-and-EquipmentCharacterization-Study-Comprehensive-Report2022-03-01.pdf) (Last accessed Jan. 3, 2023). 

25CEC, 2019 California Residential Appliance 

Saturation Study (Available at: www.energy.ca.gov/ 

publications/2021/2019-california-residentialappliance-saturation-study-rass) (Last accessed Jan. 

3, 2023). 

remains more constant throughout the 

year. 

For the furnace fan energy use 

analysis, DOE primarily used the RECS 

2015 sample to derive the heating and 

cooling loads to estimate furnace fan 

operating hours in the cooling and 

heating mode. DOE also notes that the 

variables used from RECS 2015 that are 

used for the furnace fan analysis have 

low imputation rates. DOE determined 

the 95-percent confidence level for the 

overall average heating and cooling 

energy use values used in its analysis 

for consumer furnace fans to be plus or 

minus 2.7 percent, using EIA’s 

methodology for calculating sampling 

error.18 DOE also compared the RECS 

2015 energy consumption estimates for 

furnaces to previous RECS energy 

consumption estimates and other 

available studies, and the Department 

found that energy consumption values 

estimated in 2015 are similar (or within 

in the RECS 2015 sampling error) of 

those other sources, after being adjusted 

for heating degree-day differences, 

building shell changes in the stock, and 

average furnace efficiency in the stock. 

This analysis included comparing 

homes using consumer furnaces by 

home sizes and type in the different 

studies, including larger sample sized 

studies at the national level such as the 

2021 American Community Survey 

(ACS),19 the 2021 American Housing 

Survey (AHS),20 the 2022 American 

Home Comfort Study,21 as well as 

regional studies such as the 2016–2017 

Residential Building Stock Assessment 

(RBSA) for the northwest region (Idaho, 

Montana, Oregon, and Washington),22

the 2019 Residential Building Stock 

Assessment for the State of New York,23

the Massachusetts Residential Baseline 

Study,24 and the 2019 California 

Residential Appliance Saturation Study 

(RASS).25 In conclusion, DOE finds that 

RECS 2015 matches other studies’ 

energy use estimates for furnace and is 

a reliable source for DOE to use to create 

a representative national sample 

reflecting variations in real world 

energy use. See appendix 7A and 7B of 

the PA TSD for more details. 

Morrison commented that DOE noted 

the CBECS 2012 and RECS 2015 values 

for HDD and CDD to be different for the 

same location, and requested further 

details that would clarify how the same 

location can have different heating and 

cooling loads for residential furnaces. 

(Morrison, No. 27 at p. 6) In response, 

DOE notes that in the PA TSD Table 

7E.3.1 shows the HDD for each of the 

360 weather stations in the NOAA data 

set that DOE used for mapping to RECS 

2015 and CBECS 2012 individual 

sampled housing units and buildings. 

The columns labeled RECS 2015 shows 

CDD and HDD for 2015 that would then 

be comparable to the HDD/CDD data 

provided by EIA in the RECS 2015 

sample. Similarly, the columns labeled 

CBECS 2012 shows CDD and HDD for 

2012 that would then be comparable to 

the HDD/CDD data provided by EIA in 

the CBECS 2012 sample. 

Morrison requested further insight 

and verification of DOE’s claim that the 

electric motor’s power is ‘‘taken into 

account by increasing the heating load, 

decreasing the cooling load or both for 

more efficient furnace fans.’’ (Morrison, 

No. 27 at p. 3) In addition, Morrison 

requested clarification on how DOE 

calculated circulation mode power and 

how it accounts for the varying levels of 

beneficial (for heating) and detrimental 

(for cooling) power use in the 

circulating-only mode. Morrison 

commented that since there is rarely no 

demand for either, the split would be 

about 50/50—half the time the power 

usage will be beneficial and half the 

time detrimental for the household. 

(Morrison, No. 27 at p. 4) 

DOE clarifies that the energy use 

analysis takes into account that heat is 

being transferred from the furnace fan 

motor to the airflow in the ductwork. 

Since higher efficiency furnace fan 

design options improve motor 

efficiency, less heat is released into the 

ductwork for higher efficiency designs. 

The heat provided by the motor reduces 

the heating load and increases the 

cooling load that the furnace needs to 

meet. Therefore, the heat load is 

increased, while cooling load is 

decreased for higher efficiency designs 

furnace fan options. For example, for 

NWOFs the average fuel energy use for 

going from EL 0 to EL 1 is increased by 

about 1 MMBtu/yr on average (or 1.6%), 

while the fuel energy use from going 

from EL 1 to EL 2 is increased by 0.2 

MMBtu/y (or about 0.3%). DOE also 

took into account the beneficial (for 

heating) and detrimental (for cooling) 

power use in the circulating-only mode 

by estimating the monthly energy use 

for circulating-only mode and 

separating the months into heating, 

cooling, or shoulder months for each 

sampled household. 

Morrison requested clarification on 

some of the equations and variables that 

DOE utilized in the TSD. Specifically, 

Morrison commented on the following: 

(1) it is not possible to reconcile 

equations 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5, because the 

same coefficients are used to set up the 

incongruent state of cfm = watts/cfm; 

and (2) DOE’s use of the pressure 

variable in place of the more typical cfm 

variable when assessing curves, 

considering that a reduction in flow— 

when not required—will reduce fan 

energy consumption and a reduction of 

only 3 percent in flow will be equal to 

10 percent in energy savings. (Morrison, 

No. 27 at p. 3–4) As explained in 

chapter 7 and appendix 7B–D of the PA 

TSD, the performance curves of CFM vs. 

pressure (equation 7.3) and watts per 

cfm (equation 7.5) are combined in the 

fan power curve equation (equation 7.4) 

to produce the wattage usage at the 

operating point. 

Morrison commented that it identified 

inconsistencies regarding DOE’s 

assumptions about consumer use and 

need. Morrison recommended that DOE 

take into account the use of furnaces by 

some consumers as a backup to heat 

pumps and therefore a secondary heat 

source. Morrison further noted that, in 

Table 7A.2.1 and Table 7A.2.2 in the PA 

TSD, Morrison identified an 

inconsistent relationship in the data 

from RECS 2015 showing reported 

replacements for various product 

classes; Morrison requested clarification 

on this uneven relationship between 

shipment numbers and numbers of 

households. (Morrison, No. 27 at p. 5) 

In response, DOE takes into account gasfired furnaces used for backup to heat 

pumps as well as furnaces used as 

secondary equipment in its analysis. 

The sample for consumer furnace fans 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69852 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

26Pigg, S. Central Electricity Use by New 

Furnaces: A Wisconsin Field Study. 2003. 

Accessible at: www.proctoreng.com/dnld/ 

WIDOE2013.pdf (last accessed: Jun. 1, 2023). 

27Wilcox, B., J. Proctor, R. Chitwood, and K. 

Nittler. Furnace Fan Watt Draw and Air Flow in 

Cooling and Air Distribution Modes. 2008 

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. 

2006. 

28See eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/ 

furnace_blower_electricity_national_and_regional_

savings_potential_lbnl_417e.pdf. 

includes those used in secondary units. 

Multiple factors could impact the 

difference between shipments and the 

available stock, including equipment 

switching (in the no-new standards 

case), changes in new construction 

saturations and growth in different 

regions due to demographic shifts, 

differences in lifetime, etc. Therefore, 

DOE relies on the historical shipments 

data that it deems most correctly reflects 

future shipments in 2030 and beyond. 

Morrison commented that DOE shows 

the test procedure for cooling as having 

pressures ranging from 0.1 to 0.2 w.c. 

for conventional split systems and noted 

that this reference is from an old test 

method; the new test method effective 

in 2023 has higher pressures (M1 vs M). 

(Morrison, No. 27 at p. 5) DOE 

acknowledges that the new test 

procedure should have been referenced 

in the previous PA TSD. The values in 

the TSD from the old test procedure 

were provided for reference only and 

are not directly used in the analysis. 

Morrison stated that appendix 7C of 

the PA TSD (Calculation of Furnace 

Blower Fan Energy Consumption), 

begins with an incorrect statement by 

DOE that ‘‘The efficiency consumption 

(and overall efficiency) of a blower 

motor depends on the speed at which 

the motor operates, the external static 

pressure difference across the blower, 

and the airflow through the blower.’’ 

Morrison commented that electrical 

consumption depends on the design of 

the furnace, the fan, and the motor in 

combination with the ductwork present 

and all are important to the FER result. 

(Morrison, No. 27 at p. 5) DOE agrees 

that the efficiency of the furnace fan 

will depend on the design of the 

furnace, the design of the furnace and 

motor, in combination with the 

ductwork. DOE’s analysis is built 

around the selected design options and 

current furnace designs that from the 

engineering analysis provide the 

efficiency and energy use characteristics 

by design option. Once these design 

options are fixed the energy 

consumption depends on the 

intersection between the furnace fan 

performance curves and the ductwork 

present. 

Morrison commented that all 

discussion in appendix 7C of the PA 

TSD misses the point and purpose of the 

furnace operation and added that Figure 

7C.1.1 (Power Determination) uses 

pressure as the x-axis independent 

variable, but the relevant independent 

variable is the volume flow rate with the 

assumption of a relatively fixed air 

density. Morrison commented that 

performance tables in furnace literature 

use pressure as the variable, stating that 

this is the easy method of operational 

determination for installers in the 

field—but not an appropriate way to 

conduct a technical analysis of 

consumer furnace fans. Morrison further 

commented that 7C.1 contains an error: 

air power is not proportional to air 

speed but rather volume rate of airflow. 

(Morrison, No. 27 at p. 6) Morrison also 

commented that, in section 7C–4 of the 

PA TSD, the method of analysis is 

confusing and the first two assumptions 

listed on 7C–4 are incorrect: (1) 

Regarding the assumption that slope of 

airflow and watts/cfm does not vary 

within the same motor technology, 

Morrison commented that performance 

curves for furnace fans will have 

varying slope dependent on the fan, 

motor and furnace system for the same 

motor technology, and that some small 

range changes could appear to have the 

same slope but the entirety of the 

performance range of interest will have 

variation; (2) Regarding the assumption 

that BPM (constant airflow) and PSC 

with controls always maintain the same 

airflow, Morrison commented that BPM 

(constant airflow) will closely maintain 

the airflow rate until the maximum 

power of the motor is achieved and then 

it will enter constant power mode, and 

unless there are new motor controller 

designs available in commerce, PSC 

motors with controls will adjust along a 

path of constant torque until the power 

limit is reached then along a constant 

power mode. Morrison added that this 

is also true for BPM (i.e., constant 

torque). (Morrison, No. 27 at p. 6) In 

addition, Morrison commented that the 

curves in section 7C.3 of the PA TSD 

have a curious feature that gives the 

reader the suggestion that the BPM–CT 

uses less power that the BPM–CA, and 

that the use of pressure for the 

independent variable gives rise to this 

curious effect. Morrison commented 

that at the same operating point, flow, 

and pressure, the two motors (assuming 

same design/manufacturer) in the same 

appliance (same furnace and fan) would 

have virtually the same efficiency and 

thus the watts consumed would be 

about the same. Morrison stated that 

because of this oddity, further limited 

response time was not spent analyzing 

these curves in greater detail, but 

Morrison commented that the oddity 

raises question as to the validity of the 

analysis as it relates to real products. 

(Morrison, No. 27 at p. 6) 

DOE’s analysis relied on the 

manufacturer product literature and 

how the data was presented in terms of 

using pressure as the variable for the 

furnace fan equations. DOE contends 

that since the furnace fan energy use 

operates at a few specific operating 

conditions (one or more at heating, 

cooling, and/or continuous fan), that 

DOE’s approach is valid in capturing the 

field energy use for furnace fans. 

Additionally, DOE validated its energy 

use methodology approach by 

comparing it to available field data 

measuring energy use of furnace fans in 

the field 26 27 and building model data.28

DOE acknowledges that it is expected to 

see a higher pressure for constant 

airflow BPM and the watts/cfm should 

be the same for both constant airflow 

BPM and constant torque BPM. DOE 

notes that there may be inconsistency 

because of some errors made in the PA 

documentation. However, for this NOPD 

analysis, DOE has largely maintained 

the methodology from the preliminary 

analysis. DOE would like to note that 

even if there were further updates to the 

energy use analysis, it would likely 

result in lower energy savings and 

consumer net cost, and thus the 

conclusions of the determination would 

remain the same. 

Trane commented that according to 

DOE, the RECS results regarding heating 

energy use identifies NWG–NC as 6.8 

and NWG-C as 43.3 MMBtu. However, 

Trane commented that based on 

industry sales, their values should be 

almost equal, or NWG–NC should be 

greater than NWG-C. (Trane, No. 22 at 

p. 3) DOE clarifies that its analysis 

assumes that in 2030 the heating load is 

26.1 MMBtu/yr for NWG–NC and 37.1 

MMBty/yr for NWG-C. This is based on 

shipments data by states that show that 

Northern states tend to have a much 

larger fraction of condensing furnaces 

compared to Rest of Country states. 

Therefore, the NWG-C sample includes 

more homes in colder climates with 

higher heating loads. 

Trane commented that DOE defines 

the AFUE of a new unit as 96 percent, 

whereas a recent NOPR defines the 

minimum AFUE as 95 percent. (Trane, 

No. 22 at p. 3) Trane questioned DOE’s 

assumption that the AFUE of an existing 

unit is 92 percent, stating that this value 

should be closer to 95 percent given that 

a unit’s AFUE does not change much 

over time. (Trane, No. 22 at p. 3) Trane 

also commented that because DOE 

identifies the AFUE for an existing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69853 

29Stanely, Liu. 2002. Proposed Revisions of Part 

of the Test Procedure for Furnaces and Boilers in 

ASHRAE Standard 103–1993. September. 

Gaithersburg, Md.: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Building Environment Division, Building and Fire 

Research Laboratory. 

30See eta.lbl.gov/publications/residential-twostage-gas-furnaces-do; and see eta.lbl.gov/ 

publications/furnace-blower-electricity-national. 

31Crystal BallTM is commercially-available 

software tool to facilitate the creation of these types 

of models by generating probability distributions 

and summarizing results within Excel, available at 

www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/ 

crystalball/overview/index.html (last accessed July 

6, 2018). 

NWG-C unit to be less than that of a 

new NWG-C unit, then the AFUE for an 

existing NWG–NC unit should also be 

less than that of a new NWG–NC unit. 

(Trane, No. 22 at p. 3) DOE clarifies that 

it defined the AFUE of new units based 

on the projected market shares by AFUE 

in 2030. For NWG-C units, the market 

share was also divided into North and 

Rest of Country and ranged from 90% 

AFUE to 98%, with an overall shipment 

weighted average 95% AFUE. In terms 

of the existing AFUE unit, DOE analysis 

is set such that the AFUE of the existing 

unit is always equal or less than the 

AFUE of the new unit. 

Trane commented that the correct 

basis for furnace fan AFUE should be 

ASHRAE 103–1993 and not ASHRAE 

103–2022, as stated by DOE in the TSD. 

(Trane, No. 22 at p. 3) DOE relies on the 

supplementary energy use equations 

found in ASHRAE 103–2022, the latest 

ASHRAE test procedure. A NIST 

report 29 and LBNL reports 30 have 

found the updated version to be more 

accurate to estimate the energy use of 

furnaces, especially two-stage and 

modulating furnaces. 

Trane commented that the use of 

adjustment factors for FER, HHL, COH, 

and HCL is inconsistent with 

adjustment factor use in the Furnace 

TSD, EERE–2014–BT–STD–0031–0320. 

(Trane, No. 22 at p. 3) Trane also 

commented on inconsistencies between 

the Preliminary Consumer Furnace Fan 

LCC and PBP Analysis document 

(EERE–2021–BT–STD–0029–0012) and 

the furnace fan TP (CFR Title 10, 

chapter 2, subchapter D, part 430, 

subpart B, appendix AA): (1) the TSD 

states the range of airflow to be 300–500 

CFM/nominal ton, but the calculations 

were conducted at 400 CFM/nominal 

ton rather than 500 CFM/nominal ton; 

(2) the TP requires the heating airflow 

control to be set at the maximum, while 

the TSD states that the heating airflow 

control setting can span a range between 

35–65 °F and that the max heating 

airflow control setting should be set to 

achieve a 35 °F rise, but the calculation 

used in the TSD utilizes a 50 °F rise 

which is much lower than the 

maximum CFM; (3) the FER adjustment 

factor was not addressed in either the 

TSD or the LCC and PA documents; and 

(4) the FER adjustment factor was only 

applied to the intercept of the 

polynomial equation to determine 

wattage and not to the entire watt/CFM 

equation. (Trane, No. 22 at p. 4) 

DOE’s LCC analysis applies a 

temperature rise distribution ranging 

from 30 degrees to 80 degrees, with an 

average of 60 degrees, which is 

consistent with manufacturer product 

literature and field installation data. The 

LCC analysis also applies a CFM/ton 

distribution ranging from 300 to 500, 

with an average of around 400 CFM/ton, 

which is the more commonly used value 

both in manufacturer product literature 

information and in the majority of 

installations. The FER adjustment factor 

is only used to make sure the 

performance curves match the FER 

ratings at each efficiency level. For this 

NOPD analysis, DOE has largely 

maintained the methodology from the 

prelim analysis. DOE would like to note 

that even if there were further updates 

to the energy use analysis, it would 

likely result in lower energy savings and 

consumer net cost, and thus the 

conclusions of the determination would 

remain the same. 

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for consumer furnace fans. 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 used 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 moreefficient 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 consumer furnace fans in 

the absence of new or amended 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 product class, DOE calculated 

the LCC and PBP for a nationally 

representative set of housing units and, 

for NWGFs, also commercial buildings. 

As stated previously, DOE developed 

household samples from 2015 RECS and 

CBECS 2012. For each sample 

household, DOE determined the energy 

consumption for the consumer furnace 

fans and the appropriate energy price. 

By developing a representative sample 

of households, the analysis captured the 

variability in energy consumption and 

energy prices associated with the use of 

consumer furnace fans. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes MPCs, 

manufacturer markups, retailer and 

distributor markups, and sales taxes— 

and installation costs. Inputs to the 

calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy consumption, 

energy prices and price projections, 

repair and maintenance costs, product 

lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE 

created distributions of values for 

product lifetime, discount rates, and 

sales taxes, with probabilities attached 

to each value, to account for their 

uncertainty and variability. 

The computer model DOE uses 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 consumer 

furnace fan user samples. For this 

determination, the Monte Carlo 

approach is implemented in MS Excel 

together with the Crystal BallTM addon.31 The model calculated the LCC and 

PBP for products 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, product efficiency is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69854 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

chosen based on its probability. If the 

chosen product 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 

products, DOE avoids overstating the 

potential benefits from increasing 

product efficiency. 

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for 

all consumers of consumer furnace fans 

as if each were to purchase a new 

product in the expected year of required 

compliance with new or amended 

standards. For purposes of its analysis, 

DOE used 2030 as the first year of 

compliance with any amended 

standards for consumer furnace fans. 

Table IV.20 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The 

subsections that follow provide further 

discussion. 

TABLE IV.20—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 

Inputs Source/method 

Product Cost ................................... Derived from the manufacturer production cost (MPC) for furnace fans at different heating input capacities 

for each efficiency level (from the engineering analysis). The MPCs are then multiplied by the various 

market participant markups (e.g., manufacturer, wholesaler, and plumbing contractor) for each distribution channel and sales taxes derived for each state and the District of Columbia. 

Installation Costs ............................. Varies by efficiency level and individual house/building characteristic. Material and labor costs are derived 

for each state and the District of Columbia mainly using RSMeans Residential Cost Data 2023. Overhead and profits are included in the RSMeans data. Probability distributions are derived for various installation cost input parameters. 

Annual Energy Use ......................... Derived mainly by using the heating energy use data for each housing unit and building from Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS 2015) and EIA’s 

2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS 2012) together with consumer furnace 

fans test procedure calculation methodologies used to determine the annual energy consumption associated with the considered standard levels. Probability distributions are derived for various input parameters. 

Energy Prices .................................. Calculated monthly marginal average electricity, natural gas or LPG, and fuel oil prices in each of the 50 

U.S. states and District of Columbia using EIA historical data and billing data for each RECS 2015 housing unit and CBECS 2012 building. 

Energy Price Trends ....................... Residential and commercial prices were escalated by using EIA’s 2023 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO 

2023) forecasts to estimate future energy prices. Escalation was performed at the census division level. 

Repair and Maintenance Costs ...... Estimated the costs associated with preventive maintenance (e.g., checking furnace fan) and repair (e.g., 

replacing motor) based on data from a variety of published sources including RSMeans 2023 Facilities 

Maintenance and Repair Data. It is assumed that maintenance and repair costs vary by efficiency level 

and probability distributions are derived for various input parameters. 

Product Lifetime .............................. Used Weibull probability distribution of lifetimes developed for consumer furnace fans based on various 

survey and shipments data. 

Discount Rates ................................ Probability distributions by income bins are derived for residential discount rates based on multiple Federal 

Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances from 1995–2019 and various interest rate sources. 

Probability distributions for commercial discount rates for various building activities (e.g., office) are derived using multiple interest rate sources. See section IV.E.7. 

Compliance Date ............................ 2030 (5 years after expected publication of the final rule). 

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the PA TSD. 

1. Product Cost 

To calculate consumer product costs, 

DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in 

the engineering analysis by the markups 

described previously (along with sales 

taxes). DOE used different markups for 

baseline products and higher-efficiency 

products, because DOE applies an 

incremental markup to the increase in 

MSP associated with higher-efficiency 

products. 

DOE assumed no price trend for 

consumer furnace fans due to 

uncertainty in future commodity prices. 

See chapter 8 of the PA TSD for details. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

product. Because consumer furnace fans 

are installed in furnaces in the factory, 

there is generally no additional 

installation cost in the home. However, 

consumer furnace fans that employ a 

constant-airflow BPM design may 

require additional installation costs. 

DOE assumed that all constant-airflow 

BPM furnace fan installations will 

require extra labor at startup to check 

and adjust airflow. 

DOE estimated the installation costs 

at each considered efficiency level using 

a variety of sources, including RSMeans 

data, manufacturer literature, and 

information from an expert consultant 

report. DOE’s analysis of installation 

costs accounted for regional differences 

in labor costs. For a detailed discussion 

of the development of installation costs, 

see appendix 8C of the PA TSD. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each sampled household or 

commercial building, DOE determined 

the energy consumption for a consumer 

furnace fan at different efficiency levels 

using the approach described previously 

in section IV.D of this document. 

4. Energy Prices 

A marginal energy price reflects the 

cost or benefit of adding or subtracting 

one additional unit of energy 

consumption. Because marginal price 

more accurately captures the 

incremental savings associated with a 

change in energy use from higher 

efficiency, it provides a better 

representation of incremental change in 

consumer costs than average electricity 

prices. Therefore, DOE applied average 

natural gas and electricity prices for the 

energy use of the product purchased in 

the no-new-standards case, and 

marginal prices for the incremental 

change in energy use associated with 

the other efficiency levels considered. 

DOE derived average monthly 

marginal residential and commercial 

electricity, natural gas, LPG, and fuel oil 

prices for each State using data from 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69855 

32U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, Form EIA–861M (formerly EIA– 

826) detailed data (2022) (Available at: 

www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861m/) (Last 

accessed Jun. 1, 2023). 

33U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, Natural Gas Navigator (2022) 

(Available at: www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.php) 

(Last accessed Jun. 1, 2023). 

34U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, 2021 State Energy Data System 

(SEDS) (2021) (Available at: www.eia.gov/state/ 

seds/) (Last accessed Jun. 1, 2023). 

35 GTI provided a reference located in the docket 

of DOE’s 2016 rulemaking to develop energy 

conservation standards for residential boilers. 

(Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–STD–0047–0068) 

(Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2012-BT-STD-0047-0068) (Last accessed June 

1, 2023). 

36EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2023 with 

Projections to 2050. Washington, DC. Available at 

www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ (last accessed Jun. 1, 

2023). 

37RSMeans Company Inc., RS Means Facilities 

Maintenance & Repair Cost Data (2021) (Available 

at: www.rsmeans.com/) (Last accessed Jun. 1, 2023). 

38 Jakob, F.E., J.J. Crisafulli, J.R. Menkedick, R.D. 

Fischer, D.B. Philips, R.L. Osbone, J.C. Cross, G.R. 

Whitacre, J.G. Murray, W.J. Sheppard, D.W. 

DeWirth, and W.H. Thrasher, Assessment of 

Technology for Improving the Efficiency of 

Residential Gas Furnaces and Boilers, Volume I and 

II—Appendices (September 1994) Gas Research 

Institute, Report No. GRI–94/0175 (Available at: 

www.gti.energy/software-and-reports/) (Last 

accessed Feb. 15, 2022). 

39U.S. Census Bureau: Housing and Household 

Economic Statistics Division, American Housing 

Survey, Multiple Years (1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 

1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 

1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 

2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, and 

2021). (Available at https://www.census.gov/ 

programs-surveys/ahs.html) (Last accessed June 1, 

2023). 

40U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information 

Administration, Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey (‘‘RECS’’), Multiple Years (1990, 1993, 1997, 

2001, 2005, 2009, and 2015). (Available at 

www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/) (Last 

accessed June 1, 2023). 

EIA.32 33 34 DOE calculated marginal 

monthly regional energy prices by: (1) 

first estimating an average annual price 

for each region; (2) multiplying by 

monthly energy price factors; and (3) 

multiplying by seasonal marginal price 

factors for electricity, natural gas, and 

LPG. The analysis used historical data 

up to 2022 for residential and 

commercial natural gas and electricity 

prices and historical data up to 2021 for 

LPG and fuel oil prices. Further details 

may be found in chapter 8 of the PA 

TSD. 

DOE compared marginal price factors 

developed by DOE from the EIA data to 

develop seasonal marginal price factors 

for 23 gas tariffs provided by the Gas 

Technology Institute for the 2016 

residential boilers energy conservation 

standards rulemaking.35 DOE found that 

the winter price factors used by DOE are 

generally comparable to those computed 

from the tariff data, indicating that 

DOE’s marginal price estimates are 

reasonable at average usage levels. The 

summer price factors are also generally 

comparable. Of the 23 tariffs analyzed, 

eight have multiple tiers, and of these 

eight, six have ascending rates and two 

have descending rates. The tariff-based 

marginal factors use an average of the 

two tiers as the commodity price. A full 

tariff-based analysis would require 

information about the household’s total 

baseline gas usage (to establish which 

tier the consumer is in), and a weight 

factor for each tariff that determines 

how many customers are served by that 

utility on that tariff. These data are 

generally not available in the public 

domain. DOE’s use of EIA State-level 

data effectively averages overall 

consumer sales in each State, and so 

incorporates information from all 

utilities. DOE’s approach is, therefore, 

more representative of a large group of 

consumers with diverse baseline gas 

usage levels than an approach that uses 

only tariffs. 

DOE notes that within a State, there 

could be significant variation in the 

marginal price factors, including 

differences between rural and urban 

rates. To take this into account, DOE 

developed marginal price factors for 

each individual household using RECS 

2015 billing data. These data are then 

normalized to match the average State 

marginal price factors, which are 

equivalent to a consumption-weighted 

average marginal price across all 

households in the State. For more 

details on the comparative analysis and 

updated marginal price analysis, see 

appendix 8D of the PA TSD. To estimate 

energy prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied the 2022 energy prices by the 

projection of annual average price 

changes for each of the nine Census 

Divisions from the Reference case in 

AEO2023, which has an end year of 

2050.36 To estimate price trends after 

2050, DOE used the average annual rate 

of change in prices from 2046 through 

2050. 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

The maintenance cost is the routine 

cost to the consumer of maintaining 

product operation. The regular furnace 

maintenance generally includes 

checking the furnace fan. DOE assumes 

that this maintenance cost is the same 

at all efficiency levels. 

The repair cost is the cost to the 

consumer for replacing or repairing 

components in the consumer furnace 

fan that have failed. DOE included 

motor replacement as a repair cost for a 

fraction of furnace fans. To estimate 

rates of motor failure, DOE developed a 

distribution of fan motor lifetime 

(expressed in operating hours) by motor 

size using data from DOE’s analysis for 

small electric motors and manufacturer 

literature. (75 FR 10874) DOE then 

paired these data with the calculated 

number of annual operating hours for 

each sample furnace fan. Motor costs 

were based on costs developed in the 

engineering analysis and the 

replacement markups developed in the 

markup analysis. DOE assumed that the 

motor cost does not apply if motor 

failure occurs during the furnace 

warranty period (assumed to be at least 

1 year and 5 or more years for a fraction 

of installations). 

The repair costs (including labor 

hours, component costs, and frequency) 

at each considered efficiency level are 

derived based on RSMeans data,37

manufacturer literature, and a report 

from the Gas Research Institute (GRI).38

DOE accounted for regional differences 

in labor costs. For a detailed discussion 

of the development of maintenance and 

repair costs, see appendix 8E of the PA 

TSD. 

6. Product Lifetime 

The product lifetime is the age at 

which a product is retired from service. 

Furnace fan lifetimes are considered 

equivalent to furnace lifetimes, so DOE 

modeled furnace fan lifetime based on 

estimated furnace lifetimes. Because 

product lifetime varies, DOE uses a 

lifetime distribution to characterize the 

probability that a product will be retired 

from service at a given age. DOE 

conducted an extensive literature 

review and took into account published 

studies. Because the basis for the 

estimates in the literature was 

uncertain, DOE developed a method 

using national survey data, along with 

shipment data, to estimate the 

distribution of consumer furnace 

lifetimes in the field. 

DOE assumed that the probability 

function for the annual survival of 

consumer furnace would take the form 

of a Weibull distribution. DOE derived 

the Weibull distribution parameters by 

using stock and age data on consumer 

furnaces from U.S. Census’s biennial 

American Housing Survey (AHS) from 

1974–2019 39 and EIA’s RECS 1990, 

1993, 2001, 2005, 2009, and 2015.40

DOE used the results from the 2019 

AHCS survey to estimate the national 

average lifetime of 21.4 years. DOE also 

determined the average lifetime for 

different regions: 22.5 years for the 

North region and 20.2 years for rest of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69856 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

41The 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. 

42The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of 

Consumer Finances (1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 

2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019) (Available at: 

www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm) (Last 

accessed Jun. 1, 2023). 

43 Damodaran, A. Data Page: Historical Returns on 

Stocks, Bonds and Bills-United States. 2023. (Last 

accessed Jun. 1, 2023) pages.stern.nyu.edu/ 

∼adamodar/. 

the country. These results are used to 

scale the average lifetime for these 

regions. 

7. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates appropriate to 

households to estimate the present 

value of future operating cost savings. 

DOE estimated a distribution of 

discount rates for consumer furnace fans 

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.41 The LCC 

analysis estimates net present value 

over the lifetime of the 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 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 42 (‘‘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. DOE assigned each 

sample household a specific discount 

rate drawn from one of the distributions. 

The average rate across all types of 

household debt and equity and income 

groups, weighted by the shares of each 

type, is 4.1 percent. See chapter 8 of the 

PA TSD for further details on the 

development of consumer discount 

rates. 

To establish commercial discount 

rates for the small fraction of consumer 

furnace fans in commercial buildings, 

DOE estimated the weighted-average 

cost of capital using data from 

Damodaran Online.43 The weightedaverage 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. DOE’s commercial 

discount rate approach is based on the 

methodology described in a LBNL 

report, and the distribution varies by 

business activity. The average rate for 

consumer furnace fans used in 

commercial applications in this 

analysis, across all business activity, is 

7.2 percent. 

See chapter 8 of the PA TSD for 

further details on the development of 

consumer and commercial discount 

rates. 

Morrison recommended that DOE take 

into account Federal rate increases, 

which are moving to a more typical state 

as compared to DOE’s selected range 

from 1995–2019, in which rates were 

historically low. (Morrison, No. 27 at p. 

4) DOE relies on the most recent Survey 

of Consumer Finance data available, 

which includes all data available from 

2015–2019. In addition, many of the 

interest rate data used in the discount 

rate analysis is based on the latest 30- 

year average, which is updated to 1993– 

2022 for this NOPD. While DOE 

acknowledges that there have been 

interest rate increases in the recent past, 

DOE cannot conclude that more recent 

data would be more representative of 

discount rates in the considered year of 

compliance, 2030, than the best 

available time series of data DOE is 

currently using. For this reason, DOE 

has not changed its methodology for 

determining consumer discount rates. 

8. Energy 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 considered the projected 

distribution (market shares) of product 

efficiencies under the no-new-standards 

case (i.e., the case without amended or 

new energy conservation standards). 

For consumer furnace fans, DOE does 

not have any shipments data by 

efficiency after the 2019 furnace fan 

standard became effective. To cover the 

lack of available shipments data, DOE 

used the DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Management System 

(CCMS) Database for furnace fans and 

furnaces to develop efficiency 

distribution based on available models. 

Table IV.21 shows the resulting market 

shares by efficiency level. For a detailed 

discussion of the development of nonew-standards case distributions based 

on models, see appendix 7F of the PA 

TSD. 

TABLE IV.21—NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS IN 2030 FOR CONSUMER FURNACE FANS

Product class EL 

No-newstandards 

case 

(%) 

Efficiency level 

(%) 

1 2 

Non-Weatherized, Non-Condensing Gas Furnace Fan ................................................................ 0 100 ................ ................

1 .................. 100 ................

Non-Weatherized, Condensing Gas Furnace Fan ........................................................................ 0 100 ................ ................


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69857 

44 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as 

a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales 

are lacking. In general, one would expect a close 

correspondence between shipments and sales. 

45Appliance Magazine. Appliance Historical 

Statistical Review: 1954–2012 (2014). 

46Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration 

Institute, Furnace Historical Shipments Data. 

(1996–2022) (Available at: https://www.ahrinet.org/ 

analytics/statistics/historical-data/furnaceshistorical-data) (Last accessed June 1, 2023). 

47Heating, Air-conditioning and Refrigeration 

Distributors International (HARDI). Gas Furnace 

Shipments Data from 2013–2022 (Provided to 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory). 

48BRG Building Solutions. The North American 

Heating & Cooling Product Markets (Available at: 

https://www.brgbuildingsolutions.com/solutions/ 

market-reports/) (Last accessed Jun. 1, 2023). 

49Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (formerly Gas Appliance Manufacturers 

Association). Updated Shipments Data for 

Residential Furnaces and Boilers, April 25, 2005 

(Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2006-STD-0102-0138) (Last accessed June 1 

2023). 

TABLE IV.21—NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS IN 2030 FOR CONSUMER FURNACE

FANS—Continued 

Product class EL 

No-newstandards 

case 

(%) 

Efficiency level 

(%) 

1 2 

1 .................. 100 ................

Weatherized Non-Condensing Gas Furnace Fan ......................................................................... 0 100 ................ ................

1 .................. 100 ................

Non-Weatherized, Non-Condensing Oil Furnace Fan .................................................................. 0 46 ................ ................

1 54 100 ................

2 .................. ................ 100 

Non-Weatherized Electric Furnace/Modular Blower Fan .............................................................. 0 100 ................ ................

1 .................. 100 ................

Mobile Home Non-Weatherized, Non-Condensing Gas Furnace Fan .......................................... 0 11 ................ ................

1 89 100 ................

2 .................. ................ 100 

Mobile Home Non-Weatherized, Condensing Gas Furnace Fan .................................................. 0 8 ................ ................

1 92 100 ................

2 .................. ................ 100 

Mobile Home Non-Weatherized Oil Furnace Fan ......................................................................... 0 90 ................ ................

1 10 100 ................

2 .................. ................ 100 

Mobile Home Electric Furnace/Modular Blower Fan ..................................................................... 0 100 ................ ................

1 .................. 100 ................

AHRI and Lennox commented that 

model counts in the certification 

directory do not reflect sales volume, 

and that a high number of models 

produced at a specific efficiency level 

does not necessarily imply a large 

market share of those products. (AHRI, 

No. 23 at p. 4; Lennox, No. 24 at p. 4) 

Lennox further stated that industry and 

manufacturers do not generally track 

shipment data of products that may 

exceed the baseline because while 

consumers may consider AFUE when 

purchasing a residential furnace, 

furnace fans are not a feature upon 

which consumers base their purchase 

decisions. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 8) 

As indicated by Lennox, DOE has not 

been able to obtain other information to 

develop a no-new-standards case 

efficiency distribution, and as such, 

continues to rely on model availability 

as a proxy. 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time it takes the consumer to recover the 

additional installed cost of moreefficient products, compared to baseline 

products, through energy cost savings. 

Payback periods are expressed in years. 

Payback periods that exceed the life of 

the product mean that the increased 

total installed cost is not recovered in 

reduced operating expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation for 

each efficiency level are the change in 

total installed cost of the product and 

the change in the first-year annual 

operating expenditures relative to the 

baseline. The PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis, except 

that discount rates are not needed. 

F. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of annual 

product shipments to calculate the 

national impacts of potential amended 

or new energy conservation standards 

on energy use, NPV, and future 

manufacturer cash flows.44 The 

shipments model takes an accounting 

approach in tracking market shares of 

each product class and the vintage of 

units in the stock. Stock accounting uses 

product shipments as inputs to estimate 

the age distribution of in-service 

product stocks for all years. The age 

distribution of in-service product stocks 

is a key input to calculations of both the 

NES and NPV, because operating costs 

for any year depend on the age 

distribution of the stock. 

DOE developed shipment projections 

based on historical data and an analysis 

of key market drivers for each product. 

The vast majority of furnace fans are 

shipped installed in furnaces, so DOE 

estimated furnace fan shipments by 

projecting furnace shipments in three 

market segments: (1) replacements, (2) 

new housing, and (3) new owners in 

buildings that did not previously have 

a central furnace. 

To project furnace replacement 

shipments, DOE developed retirement 

functions for furnaces from the lifetime 

estimates and applied them to the 

existing products in the housing stock. 

The existing stock of products is tracked 

by vintage and developed from 

historical shipments data. The 

shipments analysis uses a distribution 

of furnace lifetimes to estimate furnace 

replacement shipments. In addition, 

DOE adjusted replacement shipments by 

taking into account demolitions, using 

the estimated changes to the housing 

stock from AEO2023. 

DOE assembled historical shipments 

data for consumer furnaces from 

Appliance Magazine from 1954–2012,45

AHRI from 1996–2022,46 HARDI from 

2013–2022,47 and BRG from 2007– 

2022.48 DOE also used the 1992 and 

1994–2003 shipments data by State 

provided by AHRI 49 and 2004–2009 

and 2010–2015 shipments data by the 

North region and the rest of country 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69858 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

50Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute. Non-Condensing and Condensing 

Regional Gas Furnace Shipments for 2004–2009 and 

2010–2015 Data Provided to DOE contractors, July 

20, 2010 and November 26, 2016. 

51U.S. Census Bureau, Manufactured Homes 

Survey: Annual Shipments to States from 1994– 

2022 (Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/ 

tables/time-series/econ/mhs/latest-data.html) (Last 

accessed June 1, 2023). 

52U.S. Census Bureau, Manufactured Homes 

Survey: Historical Annual Placements by State from 

1980–2013 (Available at: www.census.gov/data/ 

tables/time-series/econ/mhs/historical-annualplacements.html) (Last accessed June 1, 2023). 

53U.S. Census Bureau—Housing and Household 

Economic Statistics Division, American Housing 

Survey, multiple years from 1973–2021 (Available 

at: www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/ 

data.html) (Last accessed June 1, 2023). 

54Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), 

multiple years from 1979–2015 (Available at: 

www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/) (Last 

accessed June 1, 2023). 

55Mortex estimated that the total number of 

MHGFs manufactured in 2014 was about 54,000, 

and about two-thirds were sold to the replacement 

market. Mortex also stated that MHGF sales have 

not been growing. (Mortex, No. 0157 at p. 3) 

(Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031-0157) (Last accessed June 

1, 2023). 

56U.S. Census. Characteristics of New Housing 

from 1999–2022 (Available at: www.census.gov/ 

construction/chars/) (Last accessed June 1, 2023). 

57 U.S. Census. Characteristics of New Housing 

(Multi-Family Units) from 1973–2022 (Available at: 

www.census.gov/construction/chars/mfu.html) 

(Last accessed June 1, 2023). 

58Home Innovation Research Labs (independent 

subsidiary of the National Association of Home 

Builders (NAHB). Annual Builder Practices Survey 

(2015–2019) (Available at: 

www.homeinnovation.com/trends_and_reports/ 

data/new_construction) (Last accessed June 1, 

2023). 

59U.S. Census Bureau, Characteristics of New 

Housing (Available at: www.census.gov/ 

construction/chars/) (Last accessed June 1, 2023). 

60 Decision Analysts, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 

2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022 American Home 

Comfort Study (Available at: 

www.decisionanalyst.com/Syndicated/ 

HomeComfort/) (Last accessed Jun. 1, 2023). 

61BRG data (Available at: 

www.brgbuildingsolutions.com/) (Last accessed Jun. 

1, 2023). 

62AHRI (formerly GAMA), Furnace and Boiler 

Shipments data provided to DOE for Furnace and 

Boiler ANOPR (Jan. 23, 2002). 

63The 2022 update includes heat pumps as a 

performance standard baseline for water heating or 

space heating in single-family homes, as well as 

space heating in multi-family homes. Under the 

California Code, builders will need to either include 

one high-efficiency heat pump in new constructions 

or subject those buildings to more-stringent energy 

efficiency standards. 

64California Air Resources Board, 2022 State 

Strategy for the State Implementation Plan. 

(Available at: ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/ 

2022-state-strategy-state-implementation-plan2022-state-sip-strategy) (Last accessed June 1, 2023). 

provided by AHRI,50 as well as HARDI 

shipments data that is disaggregated by 

region and most States to disaggregate 

shipments by region. DOE also used 

CBECS 2012 data and BRG shipments 

data to estimate the commercial fraction 

of shipments. Disaggregated shipments 

for MHGFs are not available, so DOE 

disaggregated MHGF shipments from 

the total by using a combination of data 

from the U.S. Census,51 52 American 

Housing Survey (AHS),53 RECS,54 and a 

2014 MHGF shipments estimate by 

Mortex.55

To project shipments to the new 

housing market, DOE utilized a 

projection of new housing construction 

and historic saturation rates of various 

furnaces in new housing. DOE used the 

AEO2023 housing starts and 

commercial building floor space 

projections and data from U.S. Census 

Characteristics of New Housing,56 57

Home Innovation Research Labs Annual 

Builder Practices Survey,58 RECS 2015, 

AHS 2021, and CBECS 2012 to estimate 

new construction saturations. DOE also 

estimated future furnace saturation rates 

in new single-family housing based on 

a weighted average of values from the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Characteristics of 

New Housing from 1999 through 2022, 

and for multi-family building using data 

from Census Bureau’s Characteristics of 

New Housing (Multi-Family Units) from 

1973 through 2022.59

To project shipments to the newowner market, DOE estimated the new 

owners based on the residual shipments 

from the calculated replacement and 

new construction shipments compared 

to historical shipments over five years 

(2018–2022). DOE compared this with 

data from Decision Analysts’ 2002 to 

2022 American Home Comfort Study,60

2023 BRG data,61 and AHRI’s estimated 

shipments in 2000,62 which showed 

similar historical fractions of new 

owners. DOE assumed that the newowner fraction would be the 10-year 

average (2013–2022) in 2030 and then 

decrease to zero by the end of the 

analysis period (2059). 

Lennox commented that DOE likely 

overstates shipments for gas furnaces. 

Lennox commented that DOE currently 

has open rulemakings for furnaces (e.g., 

a NOPR for NWGs and a notice of TSD 

for oil, electric, and weatherized gas 

furnace energy conservation standards), 

the outcome of which will likely result 

in reduced market shares of certain 

products and elimination of others. 

Furthermore, Lennox commented that 

the market shares will likely be affected 

by the current efforts under the Biden 

administration to decarbonize space 

heating, and that states such as 

California and New York are 

implementing plans to completely 

electrify space heating as early as 2030. 

Lennox added that furnace costs are 

likely to change due to increased energy 

conservation standards and 

decarbonization efforts to electrify space 

heating (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 2–4) 

Lennox stated that DOE TSD projections 

are not likely to be indicative of future 

furnace shipments. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 

8) 

Similarly, AHRI commented that DOE 

did not consider the impact of ongoing 

rulemakings and electrification policies 

in its analysis. AHRI commented that 

not accounting for these changes affects 

future shipment projections and the 

actual impact of a more stringent rule on 

national energy savings. (AHRI, No. 23 

at p. 1) AHRI commented that the 

impact of State, county, and local 

policies should not be discounted in 

DOE’s market projections because these 

policies impact nearly one fifth of the 

furnace fan market. AHRI provided 

examples of relevant policies in 

California, New York, Massachusetts, 

Maryland’s Montgomery County, and 

New York City related to eliminating 

NOX emissions for space and water 

heating, transitioning from combustion 

fuels to electric heat pumps, reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions, building 

decarbonization, and restricting fossil 

fuel usage in new construction. AHRI 

further commented that these policies 

need to be accounted for in the 

shipment and impact analysis. (AHRI, 

No. 23 at p. 2) 

Morrison also commented that DOE is 

not projecting the ways decarbonization 

efforts currently underway across the 

country will impact future furnace 

shipments. (Morrison, No. 27 at p. 5) 

The CA IOUs commented that they 

expect furnace shipments to flatten or 

decline in the coming years considering 

local, State, and Federal efforts on 

carbonization. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 5) 

For the consumer furnace NOPR, 

assumptions regarding future policies 

encouraging electrification of 

households were uncertain at that time, 

so such policies were not incorporated 

into the shipments projection. For the 

consumer furnace final rule, DOE 

accounted for the 2022 update to Title 

24 in California 63 and also the decision 

of the California Public Utilities 

Commission to eliminate ratepayer 

subsidies for the extension of new gas 

lines beginning in July 2023. Together, 

these policies are expected to lead to the 

eventual phase-out of gas-fired furnaces 

in new single-family homes in 

California. The California Air Resources 

Board has adopted a 2022 State Strategy 

for the State Implementation Plan that 

would effectively ban new gas furnaces 

beginning in 2030.64 However, because 

a final decision on this rule would not 

happen until 2025, DOE did not include 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69859 

65The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states 

and Washington, DC. 

this latter policy in its analysis for the 

consumer furnace final rule. 

DOE understands that ongoing 

electrification policies at the Federal, 

State, and local levels are likely to 

encourage installation of heat pumps in 

some new homes and adoption of heat 

pumps in some homes that currently 

use gas-fired furnaces. However, there 

are many uncertainties about the timing 

and effects of these policies that make 

it difficult to fully account for their 

likely impact on gas-fired furnace 

market shares in the time frame for the 

analysis (i.e., 2030 through 2059). 

Nonetheless, DOE has modified some of 

its projections to attempt to account for 

impacts that are most likely in the 

relevant time frame. The changes result 

in a decrease of gas-fired furnace 

shipments in the no-new-standards case 

compared to the consumer furnace 

NOPR analysis, with a corresponding 

decrease in estimated energy savings 

resulting from the standards. DOE 

acknowledges that electrification 

policies may result in a larger decrease 

in shipments of gas-fired furnaces than 

projected in the consumer furnace final 

rule, especially if stronger policies are 

adopted in coming years. However, this 

would occur in the no-new amended 

standards case and, thus, would only 

reduce the energy savings estimated in 

this rule. Given that DOE is tentatively 

determining that standards do not need 

to be amended, a decrease in shipments 

projected would not change that 

decision. 

AHRI commented that if DOE enacts 

the energy levels put forth in the 

consumer furnace July 2022 NOPR, 

these products will no longer be on the 

market by 2030. AHRI also commented 

that DOE should consider the 

consumers who are unable to replace 

their existing non-condensing product 

and will end up switching fuels and 

adopting a heat pump in its analysis. 

(AHRI, No. 23 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that this analysis only 

considers what has been finalized for 

consumer furnace standards. Once the 

consumer furnace standards are 

finalized, DOE will take the amended 

consumer furnace standards into 

account for future analysis. Given that 

DOE is tentatively determining that 

furnace fan standards do not need to be 

amended, potential amended consumer 

furnace standards would not change 

that decision at this time. 

Morrison commented that regarding 

shipments in the no-new-standards 

case, Figure 9.4.1 in the TSD fails to 

account for an echo demand reduction 

approximately 20 years out from the dip 

in 2010. (Morrison, No. 27 at p. 5) 

DOE updated the furnace shipments 

analysis to take into account a decrease 

in projected shipments around 2025– 

2040 due to the 2010 market dip. Given 

that DOE is tentatively determining that 

standards do not need to be amended, 

a decrease in shipments projected 

would not change that decision. 

G. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the NES and the 

NPV from a national perspective of total 

consumer costs and savings that would 

be expected to result from new or 

amended standards at specific efficiency 

levels.65 (‘‘Consumer’’ in this context 

refers to consumers of the product being 

regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and 

NPV for the potential standard levels 

considered based on projections of 

annual product 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, product 

costs, and NPV of consumer benefits 

over the lifetime of consumer furnace 

fans sold from 2030 through 2059. 

DOE evaluates the effects of new or 

amended standards by comparing a case 

without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards 

case characterizes energy use and 

consumer costs for each product 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 product class if DOE adopted new 

or amended standards at specific energy 

efficiency levels (i.e., the ELs or 

standards cases) for that class. For the 

standards cases, DOE considers how a 

given standard would likely affect the 

market shares of products with 

efficiencies greater than the standard. 

DOE uses a spreadsheet model to 

calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings 

from each EL. Interested parties can 

review DOE’s analyses by changing 

various input quantities within the 

spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet 

model uses typical values (as opposed 

to probability distributions) as inputs. 

Table IV.22 summarizes the inputs 

and methods DOE used for the NIA 

analysis for the NOPD. Discussion of 

these inputs and methods follows the 

table. See chapter 10 of the PA TSD for 

details. 

TABLE IV.22—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs Method 

Shipments ....................................... Annual shipments from shipments model. 

Modeled Compliance Date of 

Standard.

2030. 

Efficiency Trends ............................ No-new-standards case based on historical shipment data and on current consumer furnace fans model 

availability by efficiency level (see chapter 8 of the PA TSD). Roll-up in the compliance year for standards cases. 

Annual Energy Consumption per 

Unit.

Annual weighted-average values are a function of shipments-weighted unit energy use consumption. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit ........... Annual weighted-average values as a function of the efficiency distribution (see chapter 8 of the PA TSD). 

Annual Energy Cost per Unit .......... Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy consumption per unit and energy 

prices. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost per 

Unit.

Annual values as a function of efficiency level (see chapter 8 of the PA TSD). 

Energy Prices .................................. AEO2023 projections to 2050 and extrapolation thereafter. 

Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC 

Conversion.

A time-series conversion factor based on AEO2023. 

Discount Rate ................................. Three percent and seven percent. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69860 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

66 DOE reviewed an evaluation report from 

Wisconsin that indicates that a considerable 

number of homeowners who purchase constantairflow BPM furnaces significantly increase the 

frequency with which they operate their furnace fan 

subsequent to the installation of the constantairflow BPM furnace. On average, this report 

indicates that there is a doubling in the amount of 

continuous fan circulation use. DOE assumed that 

this doubling was the same for all types of furnace 

fans that had a significant decrease in energy use 

in the continuous fan circulation mode. (Evaluation 

report available at: http://www.focusonenergy.com/ 

sites/default/files/emcfurnaceimpactassessment_

evaluationreport.pdf) 

67 DOE. Energy Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation 

Standards for Small, Large, and Very Large AirCooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment and Commercial Warm Air 

Furnaces; Direct final rule. 81 FR 2419 (Jan. 15, 

2016) (Available at: www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2013-BT-STD-0021-0055) (Last 

accessed Feb. 15, 2022). 

68 DOE. Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Residential Boilers; 

Final rule. 81 FR 2319 (Jan. 15, 2016) (Available at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2012-BTSTD-0047-0078) (Last accessed Feb. 15, 2022). 

69 DOE. Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Commercial Packaged 

Boilers; Final Rule. 85 FR 1592 (Jan. 10, 2020) 

(Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2013-BT-STD-0030-0099) (Last accessed Feb. 

15, 2022). 

70For more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009), October 2009. 

Available at www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/ 

0581(2009)index.php (last accessed June 26, 2023). 

TABLE IV.22—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS—Continued 

Inputs Method 

Present Year ................................... 2023. 

1. Product 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. Section IV.E.8 of 

this document describes how DOE 

developed an energy efficiency 

distribution for the no-new-standards 

case (which yields a shipment-weighted 

average efficiency) for each of the 

considered product classes for the year 

of anticipated compliance with an 

amended or new standard. 

For the standards cases, DOE used a 

‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the 

shipment-weighted efficiency for the 

year that standards are assumed to 

become effective (2030). In this 

scenario, the market shares 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. Taking this 

efficiency distribution as a starting 

point, DOE projected standards-case 

efficiencies after 2030 using similar 

assumptions regarding future efficiency 

improvements as in the no-newstandards case. 

To project efficiencies for the no-newstandards case, DOE used historical 

shipment data and current consumer 

furnace fan model availability by 

efficiency level (see chapter 8 of the PA 

TSD). 

2. National Energy Savings 

The NES analysis involves a 

comparison of national energy 

consumption of the considered products 

between each potential standards case 

(EL) and the case with no new or 

amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE calculated the national 

energy consumption by multiplying the 

number of units (stock) of each product 

(by vintage or age) by the unit energy 

consumption (also by vintage). DOE 

calculated annual NES based on the 

difference in national energy 

consumption for the no-new-standards 

case and for each higher efficiency 

standard case. DOE estimated energy 

consumption and savings based on site 

energy and converted the electricity 

consumption and savings to primary 

energy (i.e., the energy consumed by 

power plants to generate site electricity) 

using annual conversion factors derived 

from AEO2023. Cumulative energy 

savings are the sum of the NES for each 

year over the timeframe of the analysis. 

Use of higher-efficiency products is 

sometimes associated with a direct 

rebound effect, which refers to an 

increase in utilization of the product 

due to the increase in efficiency. A 

rebound effect reduces the energy 

savings attributable to a standard. 

Where appropriate, DOE accounts for 

the direct rebound effect when 

estimating the NES from potential 

standards. In the residential sector, in 

the NIA model for product classes with 

an improved PSC motor standard, DOE 

applied a rebound effect for those 

standards cases that require a BPM 

motor furnace fan. A rebound effect 

factor of 16% was determined by 

calculating the additional electricity use 

that is required from a doubling of the 

use of continuous fan circulation 

compared to the average use assumed in 

the energy use analysis.66 Although a 

lower value might be warranted, DOE 

preferred to be conservative and not risk 

understating the rebound effect. For 

commercial applications, DOE applied 

no rebound effect, a decision consistent 

with other recent energy conservation 

standards rulemakings.67 68 69

In 2011, in response to the 

recommendations of a committee on 

‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Measurement Approaches to Energy 

Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the 

National Academy of Sciences, DOE 

announced its intention to use FFC 

measures of energy use and greenhouse 

gas and other emissions in the NIA and 

emissions analyses included in future 

energy conservation standards 

rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 

2011). After evaluating the approaches 

discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, 

DOE published a statement of amended 

policy in which DOE explained its 

determination that EIA’s National 

Energy Modeling System (NEMS) is the 

most appropriate tool for its FFC 

analysis and its intention to use NEMS 

for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 

2012). NEMS is a public domain, multisector, partial equilibrium model of the 

U.S. energy sector 70 that EIA uses to 

prepare its AEO. The FFC factors 

incorporate losses in production, and 

delivery in the case of natural gas, 

(including fugitive emissions) and 

additional energy used to produce and 

deliver the various fuels used by power 

plants. The approach used for deriving 

FFC measures of energy use and 

emissions is described in appendix 10B 

of the PA TSD. 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers are (1) total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

operating costs (energy costs and repair 

and maintenance costs), and (3) a 

discount factor to calculate the present 

value of costs and savings. DOE 

calculates net savings each year as the 

difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case 

in terms of total savings in operating 

costs versus total increases in installed 

costs. DOE calculates operating cost 

savings over the lifetime of each product 

shipped during the projection period. 

The operating cost savings are energy 

cost savings, which are calculated using 

the estimated energy savings in each 

year and the projected price of the 

appropriate form of energy. To estimate 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69861 

71United States Office of Management and 

Budget, Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 

2003) Section E (Available at: 

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4/) (Last accessed May 31, 2023). 

energy prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied the average regional energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

national-average residential energy price 

changes in the Reference case from 

AEO2023, which has an end year of 

2050. To estimate price trends after 

2050, DOE used the average annual rate 

of change in prices from 2020 through 

2050. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. For this NOPD, DOE 

estimated the NPV of consumer benefits 

using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 

real discount rate. DOE uses these 

discount rates in accordance with 

guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to 

Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis.71 The discount rates 

for the determination of NPV are in 

contrast to the discount rates used in the 

LCC analysis, which are designed to 

reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7- 

percent real value is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy. The 

3-percent real value represents the 

‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value. 

H. Further Considerations Related to 

Backward-Inclined Impellers 

Although DOE did not screen out 

backward-inclined impellers from 

further considerations in this analysis 

(for the reasons discussed in section 

IV.A.4.a), DOE is aware of several points 

of uncertainty related to the impacts of 

a potential standard that required the 

use of this technology. First, as 

discussed in section IV.B.1.c of this 

document, because there are only a 

small number of models on the market 

with backward-inclined impellers and 

several manufacturers expressed 

concerns about the implementation of 

this technology, DOE understands that 

there may be uncertainty related to 

whether this technology can be 

implemented across all input capacities 

and cabinet sizes. Similarly, as 

discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this 

document, manufacturers also raised 

concerns about the potential negative 

impacts on consumer utility because of 

increased noise in certain sizes of 

furnaces (although DOE is not aware of 

data on this subject). Additionally, the 

incorporation of backward-inclined 

impellers could require system changes 

to the furnace system that expand 

beyond the scope of the furnace fan. 

Manufacturers noted that adoption of 

backward-inclined impellers could 

necessitate system considerations to 

ensure reliability of heat exchanger 

performance, acceptable sound 

performance, and ease of installation. 

Manufacturers also raised concerns that 

constraints of backward-inclined 

impeller designs could impede the 

flexibility of installation configurations. 

For some fraction of the market, 

complete furnace redesign would be 

required to accommodate the backwardinclined impellers design option. 

Finally, as discussed in section 

IV.B.1.c of this document, DOE 

understands that there is uncertainty 

associated with the estimated 10 percent 

reduction in FER for fans using a 

backward-inclined impeller as 

compared to models that include 

forward-inclined impellers. Uncertainty 

related to the results of the energy use 

analysis contributes uncertainty to all 

the conclusions of DOE’s subsequent 

analyses, including the life-cycle cost 

and payback period analyses and the 

national impact analysis. As discussed 

in section V.C.1 of this document, DOE 

has considered these uncertainties in its 

ultimate decision of whether to propose 

amended standards for consumer 

furnace fans. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to the considered energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

furnace fans. It addresses the ELs 

examined by DOE and the projected 

impacts of each of these levels. To 

estimate the impacts of amended 

standards for consumer furnace fans, 

DOE compared the no-new-standards 

case to scenarios in which specific 

Candidate Standards Levels (‘‘CSLs’’) 

are implemented. CSL 1 analyzes a 

scenario in which standards 

corresponding to EL 1 are adopted for 

the NWO–NC, MH–NWG–NC, MH– 

NWG–C, and MH–NWO product classes 

and standards are not amended for the 

NWG–NC, NWG–C, WG–NC, NWEF/ 

NWMB, and MH–EF/MB product 

classes. CSL 2 analyzes a scenario in 

which standards are adopted 

corresponding to EL 1 for the NWG–NC, 

NWG–C, WG–NC, NWEF/NWMB, and 

MH–EF/MB product classes and as EL 2 

for the NWO–NC, MH–NWG–NC, MH– 

NWG–C, and MH–NWO product 

classes. In other words, CSL 1 analyzes 

a scenario in which BPM motors are 

required for all product classes and CSL 

2 analyzes a scenario in which BPM 

motors with backward-inclined 

impellers are required for all product 

classes, corresponding to the max-tech 

efficiency level for all product classes. 

A. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the cost effectiveness 

(i.e., the savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

consumer furnace fans compared to any 

increase in the price of, or in the initial 

charges for, or maintenance expenses of, 

the consumer furnace fans which are 

likely to result from the imposition of a 

standard at an EL by considering the 

LCC and PBP at each EL. These analyses 

are discussed in the following sections. 

In general, higher-efficiency products 

can affect consumers in two ways: (1) 

purchase price increases and (2) annual 

operating costs decrease. Inputs used for 

calculating the LCC and PBP include 

total installed costs (i.e., product price 

plus installation costs), and operating 

costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy 

prices, energy price trends, repair costs, 

and maintenance costs). The LCC 

calculation also uses product lifetime 

and a discount rate. Section IV.E of this 

NOPD provides detailed information on 

the LCC and PBP analyses. 

Table V.1 through Table V.18 show 

the average LCC and PBP results for the 

ELs considered for consumer furnace 

fans in this analysis. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69862 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.1—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR NON-WEATHERIZED, NON-CONDENSING GAS

FURNACE FAN

[NWG–NC] 

Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback period 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

0 ........................... 403 67 1,160 1,563 .............................. 20.9 

1 ........................... 495 60 1,069 1,565 12.9 20.9 

TABLE V.2—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR NON-WEATHERIZED, NONCONDENSING GAS FURNACE FAN

[NWG–NC] 

Efficiency level 

% 

Consumers 

with net cost 

Average 

savings— 

impacted 

consumers 

(2022$) 

0 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 NA 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 68.4 (1) 

TABLE V.3—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR NON-WEATHERIZED, CONDENSING GAS

FURNACE FAN

[NWG–C] 

Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback period 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

0 ........................... 420 61 1,106 1,525 .............................. 21.9 

1 ........................... 501 55 1,024 1,526 13.3 21.9 

TABLE V.4—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR NON-WEATHERIZED, 

CONDENSING GAS FURNACE FAN

[NWG–C] 

Efficiency level 

% 

Consumers 

with net cost 

Average 

savings— 

impacted 

consumers 

(2022$) 

0 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 NA 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 70.7 (0) 

TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR MOBILE HOME NON-WEATHERIZED, NONCONDENSING GAS FURNACE FAN

[MH–NWG–NC] 

Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback period 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

0 ........................... 212 54 884 1,096 .............................. 20.7 

1 ........................... 258 35 589 847 2.3 20.7 

2 ........................... 332 30 530 863 5.0 20.7 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69863 

TABLE V.6—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR MOBILE HOME NONWEATHERIZED, NON-CONDENSING GAS FURNACE FAN

[MH–NWG–NC] 

Efficiency level 

% 

consumers 

with net cost 

Average 

savings— 

impacted 

consumers 

(2022$) 

0 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 NA 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3.8 231 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 76.1 9 

TABLE V.7—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR MOBILE HOME NON-WEATHERIZED, 

CONDENSING GAS FURNACE

[MH–NWG–C] 

Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback period 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

0 ........................... 238 62 1,039 1,277 .............................. 21.5 

1 ........................... 300 37 666 966 2.5 21.5 

2 ........................... 364 34 631 995 4.6 21.5 

TABLE V.8—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR MOBILE HOME NONWEATHERIZED, CONDENSING GAS FURNACE

[MH–NWG–C] 

Efficiency level 

% 

Consumers 

with net cost 

Average 

savings— 

impacted 

consumers 

(2022$) 

0 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 NA 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 292 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 82.1 (7) 

TABLE V.9—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR MOBILE HOME ELECTRIC FURNACE/MODULAR

BLOWER FAN

[MH–EF/MB] 

Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback period 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

0 ........................... 255 36 629 885 .............................. 20.7 

1 ........................... 315 32 578 893 14.7 20.7 

TABLE V.10—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR MOBILE HOME ELECTRIC

FURNACE/MODULAR BLOWER FAN

[MH–EF/MB] 

Efficiency level 

% 

Consumers 

with net cost 

Average 

savings— 

impacted 

consumers 

(2022$) 

0 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 NA 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 71.5 (8) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69864 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.11—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR NON-WEATHERIZED, NON-CONDENSING OIL

FURNACE FAN

[NWO–NC] 

Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback period 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

0 ........................... 568 151 2,601 3,169 .............................. 22.2 

1 ........................... 654 110 1,940 2,594 2.1 22.2 

2 ........................... 765 103 1,840 2,605 4.1 22.2 

TABLE V.12—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR NON-WEATHERIZED, NONCONDENSING OIL FURNACE FAN

[NWO–NC] 

Efficiency level 

% 

Consumers 

with net cost 

Average 

savings— 

impacted 

consumers 

(2022$) 

0 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 NA 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4.4 618 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 52.2 274 

TABLE V.13—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR WEATHERIZED NON-CONDENSING GAS

FURNACE FAN

[WG–NC] 

Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback period 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

0 ........................... 385 81 1,322 1,706 .............................. 20.6 

1 ........................... 478 71 1,188 1,666 9.1 20.6 

TABLE V.14—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR WEATHERIZED NONCONDENSING GAS FURNACE FAN

[WG–NC] 

Efficiency level 

% 

Consumers 

with net cost 

Average 

savings— 

impacted 

consumers 

(2022$) 

0 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 NA 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 54.9 40 

TABLE V.15—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR ELECTRIC FURNACE/MODULAR BLOWER

[EF/MB] 

Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback period 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

0 ........................... 305 43 726 1,031 .............................. 20.7 

1 ........................... 371 39 673 1,045 16.0 20.7 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69865 

TABLE V.16—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR ELECTRIC FURNACE/MODULAR

BLOWER

[EF/MB] 

Efficiency level 

% 

Consumers 

with net cost 

Average 

savings— 

impacted 

consumers 

(2022$) 

0 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 NA 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 77.5 (14) 

TABLE V.17—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR MOBILE HOME NON-WEATHERIZED, NONCONDENSING OIL FURNACE FAN

[MH–NWO–NC] 

Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback period 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

0 ........................... 491 88 1,539 2,030 .............................. 22.5 

1 ........................... 541 66 1,187 1,728 2.3 22.5 

2 ........................... 624 61 1,105 1,729 5.0 22.5 

TABLE V.18—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR MOBILE HOME NONWEATHERIZED, NON-CONDENSING OIL FURNACE FAN

[MH–NWO–NC] 

Efficiency level 

% 

Consumers 

with net cost 

Average 

savings— 

impacted 

consumers 

(2022$) 

0 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 NA 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 21.0 308 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 54.7 276 

B. National Impact Analysis 

This section presents DOE’s estimates 

of the NES and the NPV of consumer 

benefits that would result from each of 

the ELs considered as potential 

amended standards. 

1. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential amended 

standards for consumer furnace fans, 

DOE compared their energy 

consumption under the no-newstandards case to their anticipated 

energy consumption under each CSL. 

The savings are measured over the 

entire lifetime of products purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of anticipated compliance with 

amended standards (2030–2059). Table 

V.20 presents DOE’s projections of the 

NES for each CSL considered for 

consumer furnace fans. The savings 

were calculated using the approach 

described in section IV.G of this 

document. 

TABLE V.20—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER FURNACE FANS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

[2030–2059] 

Candidate standards level 

1 2 

quads 

Primary energy ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.013 1.355 

FFC energy .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.013 1.374 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

I 

I 
69866 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

72U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ 

omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (Last accessed Sept. 9, 

2021). 

73U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ 

omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed August 29, 

2023). 

74Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review 

its standards at least once every 6 years, and 

requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after 

any new standard is promulgated before 

compliance is required, except that in no case may 

any new standards be required within 6 years of the 

compliance date of the previous standards. If DOE 

makes a determination that amended standards are 

not needed, it must conduct a subsequent review 

within three years following such a determination. 

As DOE is evaluating the need to amend the 

standards, the sensitivity analysis is based on the 

review timeframe associated with amended 

standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3- 

year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE 

notes that it may undertake reviews at any time 

within the 6-year period and that the 3-year 

compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. 

A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate 

given the variability that occurs in the timing of 

standards reviews and the fact that for some 

products, the compliance period is 5 years rather 

than 3 years. 

75U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ 

omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (Last accessed Sept. 9, 

2021). 

OMB Circular A–4 72 requires 

agencies to present analytical results, 

including separate schedules of the 

monetized benefits and costs that show 

the type and timing of benefits and 

costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies 

to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of 

benefits and costs. For this proposed 

determination, DOE undertook a 

sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather 

than 30 years, of product shipments. 

The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy 

for the timeline in EPCA for the review 

of certain energy conservation standards 

and potential revision of and 

compliance with such revised 

standards.73 74 The review timeframe 

established in EPCA is generally not 

synchronized with the product lifetime, 

product manufacturing cycles, or other 

factors specific to consumer furnace 

fans. Thus, such results are presented 

for informational purposes only and are 

not indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology. The NES 

sensitivity analysis results based on a 9- 

year analytical period are presented in 

Table V.21. The impacts are counted 

over the lifetime of consumer furnace 

fans purchased in 2030–2038. 

TABLE V.21—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL

ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER

FURNACE FANS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

[2030–2038] 

Candidate standards level 

1 2 

(quads) 

Primary energy 0.005 0.376 

FFC energy ....... 0.005 0.381 

2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from the 

CSLs considered for consumer furnace 

fans. In accordance with OMB’s 

guidelines on regulatory analysis,75

DOE calculated NPV using both a 7- 

percent and a 3-percent real discount 

rate. Table V.22 shows the consumer 

NPV results with impacts counted over 

the lifetime of products purchased in 

2030–2059. 

TABLE V.22—CUMULATIVE NET

PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER

BENEFITS FOR CONSUMER FURNACE

FANS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

[2030–2059] 

Discount rate 

Candidate standards level 

1 2 

(billion 2022$) 

3 percent ........... 0.112 1.821 

7 percent ........... 0.042 (0.150) 

Note: Number in parentheses means 

negative. 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in Table V.23. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2030–2038. As 

mentioned previously, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and are not indicative of any 

change in DOE’s analytical methodology 

or decision criteria. 

TABLE V.23—CUMULATIVE NET

PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER

BENEFITS FOR CONSUMER FURNACE

FANS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

[2030–2038] 

Discount rate 

Candidate standards level 

1 2 

(billion 2022$) 

3 percent ........... 0.056 0.716 

7 percent ........... 0.026 (0.071) 

Note: Number in parentheses means 

negative. 

C. Proposed Determination 

EPCA mandates that DOE consider 

whether amended energy conservation 

standards for consumer furnace fans 

would be technologically feasible. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2)(B)) EPCA also requires DOE 

to consider whether energy conservation 

standards for consumer furnace fans 

would be cost effective through an 

evaluation of the savings in operating 

costs throughout the estimated average 

life of the covered product compared to 

any increase in the price of, or in the 

initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of, the covered products 

which are likely to result from the 

imposition of an amended standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2)(C), and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) Finally, EPCA 

mandates that DOE consider whether 

amended energy conservation standards 

for consumer furnace fans would result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2)(A)) 

DOE conducted an LCC analysis to 

estimate the net costs/benefits to users 

from increased efficiency in the 

considered consumer furnace fans, the 

results of which are shown in Table V.1. 

DOE then aggregated the results from 

the LCC analysis to estimate the NPV of 

the total costs and benefits experienced 

by the Nation. (See results in Table V.4 

and Table V.5.) As noted, the inputs for 

determining the NPV are (1) total annual 

installed cost, (2) total annual operating 

costs (energy costs and repair and 

maintenance costs), and (3) a discount 

factor to calculate the present value of 

costs and savings. 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential amended 

standards for consumer furnace fans, 

DOE compared their energy 

consumption under the no-newstandards case to their anticipated 

energy consumption under each 

potential standard level. The savings are 

measured over the entire lifetime of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

I I 

I I 

I 

I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69867 

products purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the year of 

anticipated compliance with amended 

standards (2030–2059). The results of 

this analysis are shown in Table V.20 

and Table V.21. 

Because an analysis of potential cost 

effectiveness and energy savings first 

requires an evaluation of the relevant 

technology, DOE typically first 

discusses the technological feasibility of 

amended standards. DOE then typically 

addresses the cost effectiveness and 

energy savings associated with potential 

amended standards. For the current 

analysis, DOE reviewed the impacts of 

amended standards corresponding to 

the implementation of the two design 

options analyzed in this rule (i.e., BPM 

motor with forward-curved impellers 

and BPM motor with backward inclined 

impellers, as discussed in section IV.B 

of this document) separately. For each 

design option, DOE considered the 

technological feasibility, costeffectiveness, and significance of energy 

savings. 

1. BPM Motor With Backward-Inclined 

Impellers 

BPM motors with backward-inclined 

impellers are included in the current 

analysis as the max-tech design option 

for all furnace fan product classes. In 

other words, they are analyzed as EL 1 

for the NWG–NC, NWG–C, WG–NC, 

NWEF/NWMB, and MH–EF/MB 

product classes and as EL 2 for the 

NWO–NC, MH–NWG–NC, MH–NWG– 

C, and MH–NWO product classes. As 

discussed in section IV.A.4 of this 

document, DOE is aware of BPM motors 

with backward-inclined impellers being 

used in commercially available 

consumer furnace fans and therefore 

this technology is technologically 

feasible. 

As seen in Table V.20, DOE estimates 

that amended standards for consumer 

furnace fans would result in energy 

savings of 1.374 quads at max tech 

levels over a 30-year analysis period 

(2030–2059). However, as seen in Table 

V.1 through Table V.18 and Table V.22, 

these efficiency levels result in net lifecycle costs for the majority of 

consumers and negative net present 

value at a 7-percent discount rate. 

Therefore, DOE finds that the max-tech 

ELs (which would require the use of 

backward-inclined impellers used with 

BPM motors) are not cost effective. 

Additionally, as discussed in section 

IV.H of this document, there is a 

significant amount of uncertainty 

associated technical feasibility of 

backward-inclined impellers. In 

particular, DOE has concerns about the 

feasibility of implementing backwardinclined impellers across all input 

capacities and cabinet sizes and the 

unavailability of certain furnace product 

sizes and uncertainty related to its 

estimates of the energy reduction 

associated with backward-inclined 

impellers as opposed to forward-curved 

impellers. 

2. BPM Motor With Forward-Curved 

Impellers 

Use of BPM motors with forwardcurved impellers (which is the type of 

impeller used in the vast majority of 

consumer furnace fans on the market 

today) are included in the current 

analysis as the design option analyzed 

in CSL 1. For these product classes, the 

current standards can be met using lessefficient PSC motors, so replacing the 

motor with a BPM motor can improve 

the efficiency of the furnace fan. BPM 

motors are widely used in commercially 

available consumer furnace fans and 

therefore are technologically feasible. 

As seen in Table V.22, CSL 1 results 

in positive NPV at the 3-percent and 7- 

percent discount rates. And, as seen in 

Table V.20, DOE estimates that 

amended standards for consumer 

furnace fans would result in energy 

savings of 0.013 quads at CSL 1 over a 

30-year analysis period (2030–2059). 

However, as discussed in section IV.F, 

shipments in the affected product 

classes have declined over the past 20 

years and could decline faster than 

current shipment projections, which 

may lead to reductions in energy 

savings from amended standards. 

Given the small role of NWO–NC, 

MH–NWG–NC, MH–NWG–C, and MH– 

NWO in the overall furnace market and 

the low sales relative to the consumer 

boiler and consumer water heater 

markets, manufacturers may deprioritize furnace fan updates for these 

product classes. Depending on how 

companies prioritize resources, there 

could be reduced availability of NWO– 

NC, MH–NWG–NC, and MH–NWO 

products in the marketplace after 2030. 

Additionally, there is a potential risk 

that some manufacturers would choose 

to exit these markets rather than 

redesign affected products given the low 

shipment volumes, lack of anticipated 

growth, limited potential for cost 

recovery, and need to prioritize 

technical resources. In particular, the 

loss of a few manufacturers in the 

NWO–NC market could lead to changes 

in the competition and shifts toward the 

market becoming highly concentrated. 

As discussed previously, any 

amended standards for furnace fans 

would be required to comply with the 

economic justification and other 

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 

Based on the declining shipments of the 

affected product classes and uncertainty 

over whether manufacturers will choose 

to remain in a shrinking market, DOE 

has tentatively determined that it is 

unable to conclude that amended 

standards for furnace fans would be 

economically justified. 

3. Summary 

As discussed previously, a 

determination that amended standards 

are not needed must be based on 

consideration of whether amended 

standards will result in significant 

conservation of energy, are 

technologically feasible, and are cost 

effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 

42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Additionally, DOE 

can only propose an amended standard 

if it is, among other things, 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 

With respect to the candidate standard 

level representing the max-tech design 

option, BPM motors with backwardinclined impellers, DOE has tentatively 

determined that an amended standard at 

this level would not be cost-effective. 

And, for the candidate standard level 

representing BPM motors with forwardcurved impellers, DOE has tentatively 

determined that it is unable to conclude 

that an amended standard at this level 

would be economically justified. 

Therefore, DOE has tentatively 

determined that energy conservation 

standards for consumer furnace fans do 

not need to be amended at this time. 

DOE will consider all comments 

received on this proposed determination 

in issuing any final determination. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 

21, 2011), and amended by E.O. 14094, 

‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review,’’ 88 

FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires 

agencies, to the extent permitted by law, 

to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only 

upon a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to 

impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative 

regulations; (3) select, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69868 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this proposed 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this proposed 

regulatory action does not constitute a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within 

the scope of section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 

12866. Accordingly, this action was not 

submitted to OIRA for review under 

E.O. 12866. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

proposed rulemaking process. 68 FR 

7990. DOE has made its procedures and 

policies available on the Office of the 

General Counsel’s website 

(www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel). 

DOE reviewed this proposed 

determination under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. Because DOE is 

proposing not to amend standards for 

consumer furnace fans, if adopted, the 

determination would not amend any 

energy conservation standards. On the 

basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that 

the proposed determination, if adopted, 

would have no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared an IRFA for this proposed 

determination. DOE will transmit this 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

This proposed determination, which 

proposes to determine that amended 

energy conservation standards for 

consumer furnace fans are unneeded 

under the applicable statutory criteria, 

would impose no new informational or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, OMB clearance is not 

required under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed action 

in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR part 

1021). DOE’s regulations include a 

categorical exclusion for actions which 

are interpretations or rulings with 

respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, appendix A4. DOE 

anticipates that this action qualifies for 

categorical exclusion A4 because it is an 

interpretation or ruling in regards to an 

existing regulation and otherwise meets 

the requirements for application of a 

categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 

1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA 

review before issuing the final action. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this proposed 

determination and has tentatively 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

proposed rule. States can petition DOE 

for exemption from such preemption to 

the extent, and based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 

Therefore, no further action is required 

by E.O. 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any, 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction, (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

Executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this proposed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69869 

76 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Peer Review Report.’’ 2007. Available at energy.gov/ 

eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservationstandards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last 

accessed June 26, 2023). 

determination meets the relevant 

standards of E.O. 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at energy.gov/sites/prod/files/ 

gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. 

DOE examined this proposed 

determination according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

that the proposed determination does 

not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, nor is it expected to require 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any one year by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector. As a result, the analytical 

requirements of UMRA do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed determination would not have 

any impact on the autonomy or integrity 

of the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

determination would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for Federal agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/ 

12/f70/DOE%20Final%20

Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines

%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 

reviewed this NOPD under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

Executive Order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

This proposed determination, which 

does not propose to amend energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

furnace fans, is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. Moreover, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ Id. at 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

a Peer Review report pertaining to the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking analyses.76 Generation of 

this report involved a rigorous, formal, 

and documented evaluation using 

objective criteria and qualified and 

independent reviewers to make a 

judgment as to the technical/scientific/ 

business merit, the actual or anticipated 

results, and the productivity and 

management effectiveness of programs 

and/or projects. Because available data, 

models, and technological 

understanding have changed since 2007, 

DOE has engaged with the National 

Academy of Sciences to review DOE’s 

analytical methodologies to ascertain 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69870 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

77The report is available at 

www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards. 

whether modifications are needed to 

improve the Department’s analyses. 

DOE is in the process of evaluating the 

resulting report.77

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

DOE will hold a public webinar upon 

receiving a request by the deadline 

identified in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this proposed 

determination. Interested persons may 

submit their request for the public 

webinar to the Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program at 

ConsumerFurnFan2021STD0029@

ee.doe.gov. If a public webinar is 

requested, DOE will release webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants on DOE’s website: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/standards.aspx?

productid=14. Participants are 

responsible for ensuring their systems 

are compatible with the webinar 

software. 

B. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

determination no later than the date 

provided in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this proposed rule. 

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. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email 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. With this 

instruction followed, 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. No faxes 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email 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. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential 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). 

C. Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment 

Although DOE has not identified any 

specific issues on which it seeks 

comment, DOE welcomes comments on 

any aspect of this proposal. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notification of 

proposed determination and request for 

comment. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on September 29, 

2023, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal 

Deputy 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 69871 

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 September 

29, 2023. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22149 Filed 10–5–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2