3714 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002] 

RIN 1904–AF40 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Fans and 

Blowers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and announcement of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including fans and blowers. EPCA also 

requires the U.S. Department of Energy 

(‘‘DOE’’) to periodically determine 

whether more stringent standards would 

be technologically feasible and 

economically justified and would result 

in significant energy savings. In this 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NOPR’’), DOE proposes energy 

conservation standards for two 

categories of fans and blowers: air 

circulating fans (‘‘ACFs’’), and fans and 

blowers that are not ACFs, referred to as 

general fans and blowers (‘‘GFBs’’) 

throughout this document. DOE also 

announces a public meeting to receive 

comment on these proposed standards 

and associated analyses and results. 

DATES: Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this NOPR no later than 

March 19, 2024. 

Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

meeting on Wednesday, February 21, 

2024, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., in 

Washington, DC. This meeting will also 

be broadcast as a webinar. 

Comments regarding the likely 

competitive impact of the proposed 

standard should be sent to the 

Department of Justice contact listed in 

the ADDRESSES section on or before 

February 20, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 6E–069, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585. See section VII of this 

document, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

further details, including procedures for 

attending the in-person meeting, 

webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Interested persons are encouraged to 

submit comments using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. Alternatively, interested 

persons may submit comments, 

identified by docket number EERE– 

2022–BT–STD–0002, by any of the 

following methods: 

Email: 

FansAndBlowers2022STD0002@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002 in the 

subject line of the message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

VII of this document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

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/EERE– 

2022–BT–STD–0002. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section VII 

of this document for information on 

how to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

EPCA requires the Attorney General 

to provide DOE a written determination 

of whether the proposed standard is 

likely to lessen competition. The U.S. 

Department of Justice Antitrust Division 

invites input from market participants 

and other interested persons with views 

on the likely competitive impact of the 

proposed standard. Interested persons 

may contact the Division at 

energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or 

before the date specified in the DATES

section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’ 

line of your email the title and Docket 

Number of this proposed rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

9870. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2588. Email: 

Amelia.Whiting@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by 

email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

maintains previously approved 

incorporations by reference (AMCA 

210–16, AMCA 214–21, and ISO 

5801:2017) and incorporates by 

reference the following material into 

part 431: 

IEC 61800–9–2:2023, Adjustable 

speed electrical power drive systems 

(PDS)—Part 9–2: Ecodesign for motor 

systems—Energy efficiency 

determination and classification, 

Edition 2.0, 2023–10. 

IEC TS 60034–30–2:2016, Rotating 

electrical machines—Part 30–2: 

Efficiency classes of variable speed AC 

motors (IE-code), Edition 1.0, 2016–12. 

IEC TS 60034–31:2021, Rotating 

electrical machines—Part 31: Selection 

of energy-efficient motors including 

variable speed applications— 

Application guidelines, Edition 2.0, 

2021–03. 

Copies of IEC 61800–9–2:2023, IEC TS 

60034–30–2:2016 and IEC TS 60034– 

31:2021 are available from the 

International Electrotechnical 

Committee (IEC), Central Office, 3, rue 

de Varembe ́, P.O. Box 131, CH–1211 

GENEVA 20, Switzerland; + 41 22 919 

02 11; webstore.iec.ch. 

For a further discussion of these 

standards, see section VI.M of this 

document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

1. General Fans and Blowers 

2. Air Circulating Fans 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Fans and Blowers 

C. Deviation From Process Rule 

1. Framework Document 

2. Public Comment Period 

III. General Discussion 

A. General Comments 

B. Scope of Coverage 

1. General Fans and Blowers 

2. Air Circulating Fans 

a. Ceiling Fan Distinction 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3715 

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 C was redesignated Part A–1. 

C. Test Procedure and Metric 

1. General Fans and Blowers 

a. General 

b. Combined Motor and Motor Controller 

Efficiency Calculation 

2. Air Circulating Fans 

D. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

E. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

F. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to 

Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Equipment Classes 

a. General Fans and Blowers 

b. Air Circulating Fans 

2. Scope of Analysis and Data Availability 

a. General Fans and Blowers 

b. Air Circulating Fans 

3. Technology Options 

B. Screening Analysis 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. General Fans and Blowers 

a. Baseline Efficiency 

b. Selection of Efficiency Levels 

c. Higher Efficiency Levels 

d. Cost Analysis 

2. Air Circulating Fans 

a. Representative Units 

b. Baseline Efficiency and Efficiency Level 

1 

c. Selection of Efficiency Levels 

d. Cost Analysis 

3. Cost-Efficiency Results 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

1. General Fans and Blowers 

2. Air-Circulating fans 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

1. Equipment Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

6. Equipment Lifetime 

7. Discount Rates 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

G. Shipments Analysis 

1. General Fans and Blowers 

2. Air Circulating Fans 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. Equipment Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

b. Shipments Projections 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

d. Markup Scenarios 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

4. Discussion of MIA Comments 

K. Emissions Analysis 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in 

DOE’s Analysis 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

a. Social Cost of Carbon 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

2. Monetization of Other Emissions 

Impacts 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

8. Summary of Economic Impacts 

C. Conclusion 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Fans and Blowers 

Standards 

a. General Fans and Blowers 

b. Air Circulating Fans 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Proposed Standards 

a. General Fans and Blowers 

b. Air Circulating Fans 

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling 

Plan 

E. Representations and Enforcement 

Provisions 

1. Representations for General Fans and 

Blowers 

2. Enforcement Provisions for General Fans 

and Blowers 

a. Testing a Single Fan at Multiple Duty 

Points 

b. Testing Multiple Fans at One or Several 

Duty Points 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 

13563, and 14094 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 

3. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements Including Differences in 

Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of 

Small Entities 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Information Quality 

M. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended 

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

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

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

6317) Title III, Part C2 of EPCA 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) Such 

equipment includes fans and blowers. 

This proposed rule concerns two 

categories of fans and blowers: air 

circulating fans (‘‘ACFs’’), and fans and 

blowers that are not ACFs, which are 

referred to as general fans and blowers 

(‘‘GFBs’’) throughout this document. 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 

Furthermore, the new or amended 

standard must result in a significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3716 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA 

also provides that not later than 6 years 

after issuance of any final rule 

establishing or amending a standard, 

DOE must publish either a notice of 

determination that standards for the 

product do not need to be amended, or 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

including new proposed energy 

conservation standards (proceeding to a 

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

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) 

In accordance with these and other 

statutory provisions discussed in this 

document, DOE analyzed the benefits 

and burdens of six trial standard levels 

(‘‘TSLs’’) for two categories of fans and 

blowers: GFBs and ACFs. The TSLs and 

their associated benefits and burdens 

are discussed in detail in sections V.A 

through V.C of this document. As 

discussed in section V.C, DOE has 

tentatively determined that TSL 4 

represents the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. The proposed 

standards, which are expressed in terms 

of a fan energy index (‘‘FEI’’) for GFBs, 

are shown in Table I–1 through Table I– 

3. The proposed standards, which are 

expressed in terms of efficacy in cubic 

feet per minute per watt (‘‘CFM/W’’) at 

maximum speed for ACFs, are shown in 

Table I–3. These proposed standards, if 

adopted, would apply to all GFBs listed 

in Table I–1 and Table I–2 and ACFs 

listed in Table I–3 manufactured in, or 

imported into, the United States starting 

on the date 5 years after the publication 

of the final rule for this rulemaking. For 

GFBs, DOE proposes that every duty 

point at which the basic model is 

offered for sale would need to meet the 

proposed energy conservation 

standards. (See section III.C.1 of this 

document). 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.000</GPH>

T a bl e I 1 P - ropose dE ner !!V C onserva f ion St an d d f ar s or GFB s 

Equipment Class With or Without Fan Energy Index 

Motor Controller (FEI)* 

Axial Inline Without 1.18 * A 

Axial Panel Without 1.48 * A 

Axial Power Roof Ventilator Without 0.85 * A 

Centrifugal Housed Without 1.31 * A 

Centrifugal Unhoused Without 1.35 * A 

Centrifugal Inline Without 1.28 * A 

Radial Housed Without 1.17*A 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator Without 1.00 * A 

- Exhaust 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator Without 1.19 * A 

- Supply 

Axial Inline With 1.18*A*B 

Axial Panel With 1.48 *A* B 

Axial Power Roof Ventilator With 0.85 * A* B 

Centrifugal Housed With 1.31*A*B 

Centrifugal Unhoused With 1.35 *A* B 

Centrifugal Inline With 1.28 * A* B 

Radial Housed With 1.17*A*B 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator With 1.00 * A* B 

- Exhaust 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator With 1.19*A*B 

- Supply 

* A is a constant representing an adjustment in FEI for motor hp, which can be found in Table 1-2. B is a 

constant representing an adjustment in FEI for motor controllers, which can be found in Table 1-2 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3717 

3The average LCC savings refer to consumers that 

are affected by a standard and are measured relative 

to the efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case, which depicts the market in the 

compliance year in the absence of new or amended 

standards (see section IV.E.9 of this document). The 

simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific 

efficiency levels, is also measured relative to the nonew-standards case (see section IV.C of this 

document). 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I–4 and Table I–5 present DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic impacts of 

the proposed standards on consumers of 

GFBs and ACFs, as measured by the 

average life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) savings 

and the simple payback period 

(‘‘PBP’’).3 The average LCC savings are 

positive for all equipment classes, and 

the PBP is less than the average lifetime 

of the considered equipment, which is 

estimated to be 16.0 years for GFBs and 

6.3 years for ACFs (see section IV.F.6 of 

this document). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.001</GPH> EP19JA24.002</GPH>

Table 1-2 Constants for GFB Proposed Ener2v Conservation Standards 

Constant Condition Value 

A Motor hp < I 00 hp A= 1.00 

Motor hp 2: I 00 hp and :S 250 hp A= Y/mtr,ZOZ3act 

Y/mtr,Z014ref 

B With Motor FEPact of< B= FEPact-Credit h 

; were: 

Controller 20 kW (26.8 FEPact 

hp) Credit= 0.03 X FEPact + 0.08 

[SI] 

Credit= 0.03 X FEPact + 0.08 X 

1.341 rIPl 

FEPact of 2: B = 0.966 

20 kW (26.8 

hp) 

l]m1r,2023 is the motor efficiency in accordance with table 8 at 10 CFR 431.25, l]m1r,2014 is the motor efficiency 

in accordance with table 5 at 10 CFR 431.25, which DOE is proposing to adopt into 10 CFR 431.175, and 

FEP act is determined according to the DOE test procedure in appendix A to subpart J of part 431. 

Table 1-3 Proposed Enerev Conservation Standards for ACFs 

Equipment Class . Efficacy at Maximum Speed 

(CFM/W) 

Axial ACFs; 12 inches :'.SD < 36 inches 12.2 

Axial ACFs; 36 inches :'.SD < 48 inches 17.3 

Axial ACFs; 48 inches :'.S D 21.5 

Housed Centrifugal ACFs NIA 

•D: Diameter in inches 

NIA: Not applicable; DOE is not proposing to set a standard for this equipment class. 
3718 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

4All monetary values in this document are 

expressed in 2022 dollars. 

5The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) 

energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 

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

petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency 

standards. For more information on the FFC metric, 

see section IV.G.1 of this document. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed standards on consumers is 

described in section IV.F of this 

document. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value 

(‘‘INPV’’) is the sum of the discounted 

cash flows to the industry from the base 

year through the end of the analysis 

period (2024–2059). Using a real 

discount rate of 11.4 percent, DOE 

estimates that the INPV for 

manufacturers of fans and blowers in 

the case without new standards is $649 

million in 2022 dollars for ACFs and 

$4,935 million in 2022 dollars for GFBs. 

Under the proposed standards, the 

change in INPV is estimated to range 

from ¥10.9 percent to less than 0.1 

percent for ACFs, which represents a 

change in INPV of approximately ¥$71 

million to less than $0.1 million, and 

from ¥9.2 percent to less than 0.1 

percent for GFBs, which represents a 

change in INPV of approximately 

¥$455 million to $1 million. In order to 

bring products into compliance with 

new standards, it is estimated that the 

industry would incur total conversion 

costs of $118 million for ACFs and $770 

million for GFBs. 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed standards on manufacturers is 

described in section IV.J of this 

document. The analytic results of the 

manufacturer impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) 

are presented in section V.B.2 of this 

document. 

C. National Benefits and Costs 4

This section presents the combined 

results for GFBs and ACFs. Specific 

results for GFBs and ACFs are also 

discussed in sections I.C.1 and I.C.2 of 

this document, respectively. 

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for GFBs and ACFs would save a 

significant amount of energy. Relative to 

the case without new standards, the 

lifetime energy savings for GFBs and 

ACFs purchased in the 30-year period 

that begins in the anticipated first full 

year of compliance with the new 

standards (2030–2059) amount to 18.3 

quadrillion British thermal units 

(‘‘Btu’’), or quads.5

The cumulative net present value 

(‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer benefits of 

the proposed standards for GFBs and 

ACFs ranges from $19.0 billion (at a 7 

percent discount rate) to $49.5 billion 

(at a 3 percent discount rate). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating cost savings minus the 

estimated increased equipment and 

installation costs for GFBs and ACFs 

purchased in 2030–2059. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

for GFBs and ACFs are projected to 

yield significant environmental benefits. 

DOE estimates that the proposed 

standards would result in cumulative 

emission reductions (over the same 

period as for energy savings) of 317.9 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.003</GPH> EP19JA24.004</GPH>

Table 1-4 Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of 

GFBs 

Equipment Class Average LCC Savings Simple Payback Period 

2022$ Years 

Axial Inline 550 9.6 

Axial Panel 1,702 1.7 

Centrifugal Housed 2,423 0.6 

Centrifugal Inline 955 6.1 

Centrifugal Unhoused 1,170 1.2 

Axial Power Roof Ventilator 945 7.0 

Centrifugal Power Roof 154 8.9 Ventilator - Exhaust 

Centrifugal Power Roof 973 1.7 Ventilator - Supply 

Radial Housed 3,714 1.7 

Table 1-5 Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of 

ACFs 

Equipment Class . Average LCC Savings Simple Payback Period 

2022$ Years 

Axial ACFs; 12 inches :'.SD < 327 0.5 36inches 

Axial ACFs; 36 inches :'.SD < 478 0.2 48inches 

Axial ACFs; 48 inches :'.S D 668 0.1 

Housed Centrifugal ACFs NIA NIA 

•o: diameter in inches 

NIA: Not applicable; DOE is not proposing to set a standard for this equipment class. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3719 

6A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented 

in short tons. 

7 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to 

the no-new-standards case, which reflects key 

assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2023 

(‘‘AEO2023’’). AEO2023 represents current Federal 

and State legislation and final implementation of 

regulations as of the time of its preparation. See 

section IV.J of this document for further discussion 

of AEO2023 assumptions that affect air pollutant 

emissions. 

8To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG 

emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates 

presented in the Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 

published in February 2021 by the IWG (‘‘February 

2021 SC–GHG TSD’’). www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/ 

TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. 

9 DOE estimates the economic value of these 

emissions reductions resulting from the considered 

trial standards levels (‘‘TSLs’’) for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of Executive 

Order 12866. 

million metric tons (‘‘Mt’’) 6 of carbon 

dioxide (‘‘CO2’’), 92.7 thousand tons of 

sulfur dioxide (‘‘SO2’’), 598.9 thousand 

tons of nitrogen oxides (‘‘NOX’’), 2,760.5 

thousand tons of methane (‘‘CH4’’), 2.9 

thousand tons of nitrous oxide (‘‘N2O’’), 

and 0.6 tons of mercury (‘‘Hg’’).7

DOE estimates the value of climate 

benefits from a reduction in greenhouse 

gases (‘‘GHG’’) using four different 

estimates of the social cost of CO2 (‘‘SC– 

CO2’’), the social cost of methane (‘‘SC– 

CH4’’), and the social cost of nitrous 

oxide (‘‘SC–N2O’’). Together these 

represent the social cost of GHG (‘‘SC– 

GHG’’). DOE used interim SC–GHG 

values developed by an Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (‘‘IWG’’).8 The 

derivation of these values is discussed 

in section IV.L of this document. For 

presentational purposes, the climate 

benefits associated with the average SC– 

GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are 

estimated to be $16.3 billion. DOE does 

not have a single central SC–GHG point 

estimate and it emphasizes the 

importance and value of considering the 

benefits calculated using all four sets of 

SC–GHG estimates. 

DOE estimated the monetary health 

benefits of SO2 and NOX emissions 

reductions using benefit per ton 

estimates from the scientific literature, 

as discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. DOE did not monetize the 

reduction in mercury emissions because 

the quantity is very small. DOE 

estimated the present value of the health 

benefits would be $11.4 billion using a 

7 percent discount rate, and $31.6 

billion using a 3 percent discount rate.9

DOE is currently only monetizing (for 

SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health 

benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor 

health benefits, but will continue to 

assess the ability to monetize other 

effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. 

Table I–6 summarizes the monetized 

benefits and costs expected to result 

from the proposed standards for GFBs 

and ACFs. There are other important 

unquantified effects, including certain 

unquantified climate benefits, 

unquantified public health benefits from 

the reduction of toxic air pollutants and 

other emissions, unquantified energy 

security benefits, and distributional 

effects, among others. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3720 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.005</GPH>

Table 1-6 Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy 

Conservation Standards for GFBs and ACFs (TSL 4) 

Billion $2022 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 55.8 

Climate Benefits* 16.3 

Health Benefits** 31.6 

Total Monetized Benefitst 103.7 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 6.3 Costs! 

Net Monetized Benefits 97.4 

Change in Producer Cashflow (0.5) - 0 (INPV:1:t) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 22.2 

Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate) 16.3 

Health Benefits** 11.4 

Total Monetized Benefitst 49.8 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 3.2 Costs:;: 

Net Monetized Benefits 46.6 

Change in Producer Cashflow (0.5) - 0 (INPV:1::1:) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GFBs and ACFs shipped in 2030-2059. 

These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2059 from the products 

shipped in 2030-2059. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), 

methane (SC-C~), and nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of this document). Together 

these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits 

associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a 

single central SC-GHG point estimate. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis 

uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, A/ethane, 

and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, published in February 2021 by the 

IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for S~ and NOx) PM2s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health 

benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2_5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

t Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and 

moncti7.cd. For presentation pmposcs, total and net benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases arc 

presented using the average SC-GHG with a 3 percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single 

central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits 

calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. 

l Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

tt Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis 

as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.Hof this document. DOE's NIA includes all 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3721 

10To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2024, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (e.g., 2030), and then discounted 

the present value from each year to 2024. Using the 

present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 

payment over a 30-year period, starting in the 

compliance year, that yields the same present value. 

11As discussed in section IV.L.1 of this 

document, DOE agrees with the IWG that using 

consumption-based discount rates e.g., 3 percent) is 

appropriate when discounting the value of climate 

impacts. Combining climate effects discounted at an 

appropriate consumption-based discount rate with 

other costs and benefits discounted at a capitalbased rate (i.e., 7 percent) is reasonable because of 

the different nature of the types of benefits being 

measured. 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The monetary 

values for the total annualized net 

benefits are (1) the reduced consumer 

operating costs, minus (2) the increase 

in product purchase prices and 

installation costs, plus (3) the monetized 

value of climate and health benefits of 

emission reductions, all annualized.10

The national operating cost savings 

are domestic private U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered products and 

are measured for the lifetime of GFBs 

and ACFs shipped in 2030–2059. The 

benefits associated with reduced 

emissions achieved as a result of the 

proposed standards are also calculated 

based on the lifetime of GFBs and ACFs 

shipped in 2030–2059. Total benefits for 

both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases 

are presented using the average GHG 

social costs with a 3-percent discount 

rate.11 Estimates of total benefits are 

presented for all four SC–GHG discount 

rates in section V.B.6 of this document. 

Table I–7 presents the total estimated 

monetized benefits and costs associated 

with the proposed standard, expressed 

in terms of annualized values. The 

results under the primary estimate are 

as follows. 

Using a 7 percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced NOX and SO2

emissions, and the 3 percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

cost of the standards proposed in this 

rule is $360 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual benefits are $2,506 

million in reduced equipment operating 

costs, $963 million in monetized 

climate benefits, and $1,285 million in 

monetized health benefits. In this case, 

the monetized net benefit would 

amount to $4,394 million per year. 

Using a 3 percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards is $374 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the estimated annual benefits are 

$3,302 million in reduced operating 

costs, $963 million in monetized 

climate benefits, and $1,869 million in 

monetized health benefits. In this case, 

the monetized net benefit would 

amount to $5,760 million per year. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.006</GPH>

impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the 

manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the 

consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). 

See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions 

based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces 

a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present 

value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and 

manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of 

capital value of 11.4 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete 

description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For GFB & ACF, those values are -$526 

million and $1 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is 

economically justified. See section V. C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the 

INPV under two markup scenarios: the Conversion Cost Recovery scenario, which is the manufacturer 

markup scenario where manufacturers increase their markups in response to changes in energy 

conservation standards, and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed 

manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in 

manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on 

the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the 

estimated impacts of this rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which 

is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. IfDOE were to include the INPV into the net 

benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the net benefits would range from $96.9 billion to $97.4 billion at 

3-percent discount rate and would range from $46.1 billion to $46.6 billion at 7-percent discount rate. 

Parentheses indicate negative values. 
3722 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.007</GPH>

Table I-7 Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy 

Conservation Standards for GFBs and ACFs (TSL 4) 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary Low-Net- High-NetBenefits Benefits Estimate Estimate Estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 3,302 3,074 3,521 

Climate Benefits* 963 926 1,002 

Health Benefits** 1,869 1,796 1,945 

Total Benefitst 6,134 5,796 6,469 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 374 478 276 Costs! 

Net Benefits 5,760 5,317 6,192 

Change in Producer Cashflow (62)- 0 (62) - 0 (62) - 0 (INPV:t:t) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 2,506 2,346 2,658 

Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate) 963 926 1,002 

Health Benefits** 1,285 1,240 1,330 

Total Benefitst 4,754 4,513 4,991 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 360 441 280 Costs! 

Net Benefits 4,394 4,072 4,710 

Change in Producer Cashflow (62)- 0 (62) - 0 (62) - 0 (INPV:t:t) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GFBs and ACFs shipped in 2030-2059. 

These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2059 from the products 

shipped in 2030-2059. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize 

projections of energy prices from lheAEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic GrowU1 case, and High 

Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a constant rate in the 

Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a declining rate in the High Net 

Benefits Estimate for GFBs, and a low declining rate in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low 

Net Benefits Estimate, and a high declining rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate for ACFs. The methods 

used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note 

that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of 

this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average 

SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point 

estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four 

sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the 

interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, }.!ethane, and 

Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Eicecutive Order 13990, published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for SO2 and NOx) PM2.s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) owne precursor health 

benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2.s emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3723 

12The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) 

energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 

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

petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency 

standards. For more information on the FFC metric, 

see section IV.G.1 of this document. 

13 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative 

to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key 

assumptions in AEO 2023. AEO2023 represents 

current Federal and State legislation and final 

implementation of regulations as of the time of its 

preparation. See section IV.J of this document for 

further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that 

affect air pollutant emissions. 

14To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG 

emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates 

presented in the Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 

published in February 2021 by the IWG (‘‘February 

2021 SC–GHG TSD’’). www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupport 

Document_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrous 

Oxide.pdf. 

DOE’s analysis of the national impacts 

of the proposed standards is described 

in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this 

document. 

1. General Fans and Blowers 

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for GFBs would save a significant 

amount of energy. Relative to the case 

without new standards, the lifetime 

energy savings for GFBs purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

anticipated first full year of compliance 

with the new standards (2030–2059) 

amount to 13.8 quadrillion British 

thermal units (‘‘Btu’’), or quads.12 This 

represents a savings of 11.4 percent 

relative to the energy use of these 

products in the case without standards 

(referred to as the ‘‘no-new-standards 

case’’). 

The cumulative net present value 

(‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer benefits of 

the proposed standards for GFBs ranges 

from $13.7 billion (at a 7 percent 

discount rate) to $36.9 billion (at a 3 

percent discount rate). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating cost savings minus the 

estimated increased equipment and 

installation costs for GFBs purchased in 

2030–2059. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

for GFBs are projected to yield 

significant environmental benefits. DOE 

estimates that the proposed standards 

would result in cumulative emission 

reductions (over the same period as for 

energy savings) of 239.4 Mt of CO2, 73.1 

thousand tons of SO2, 450.9 thousand 

tons of NOX, 2,073.9 thousand tons of 

CH4, 2.3 thousand tons of N2O, and 0.5 

tons of Hg’’.13

DOE estimates the value of climate 

benefits from a reduction in greenhouse 

gases (‘‘GHG’’) using four different 

estimates of the social cost of CO2 (‘‘SC– 

CO2’’), the social cost of methane (‘‘SC– 

CH4’’), and the social cost of nitrous 

oxide (‘‘SC–N2O’’). Together these 

represent the social cost of GHG (‘‘SC– 

GHG’’). DOE used interim SC–GHG 

values developed by an Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (‘‘IWG’’).14 The 

derivation of these values is discussed 

in section IV.K of this document. For 

presentational purposes, the climate 

benefits associated with the average SC– 

GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are 

estimated to be $11.9 billion. DOE does 

not have a single central SC–GHG point 

estimate and it emphasizes the 

importance and value of considering the 

benefits calculated using all four sets of 

SC–GHG estimates. 

DOE estimated the monetary health 

benefits of SO2 and NOX emissions 

reductions using benefit per ton 

estimates from the scientific literature, 

as discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. DOE did not monetize the 

reduction in mercury emissions because 

the quantity is very small. DOE 

estimated the present value of the health 

benefits would be $8.2 billion using a 7 

percent discount rate, and $23.4 billion 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.008</GPH>

t Total benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with a 

3 percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. 

t Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

U Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis 

as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.Hof this document. DOE's NIA includes all 

impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the 

manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the 

consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). 

See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions 

based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces 

a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present 

value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and 

manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted 

average cost of capital value of 11.4 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD 

for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For GFB & ACF, those values 

are -$62 million and less than $0 .1 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing 

whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of 

impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Conversion Cost Recovery scenario, which is the 

manufacturer marlmp scenario where manufacturers increase their markups in response to changes in 

energy conservation standards, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE 

assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in 

manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the 

above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional 

context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to society, including potential changes in production 

and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. IfDOE were to include 

the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits 

would range from $5,698 million to $5,760 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $4,332 

million to $4,394 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses indicate negative values. 
3724 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

15 DOE estimates the economic value of these 

emissions reductions resulting from the considered 

trial standards levels (‘‘TSLs’’) for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of Executive 

Order 12866. 

using a 3 percent discount rate.15 DOE 

is currently only monetizing (for SO2

and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health 

benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor 

health benefits, but will continue to 

assess the ability to monetize other 

effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. 

Table I–8 summarizes the monetized 

benefits and costs expected to result 

from the proposed standards for GFBs. 

There are other important unquantified 

effects, including certain unquantified 

climate benefits, unquantified public 

health benefits from the reduction of 

toxic air pollutants and other emissions, 

unquantified energy security benefits, 

and distributional effects, among others. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3725 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.009</GPH>

Table 1-8 Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy 

Conservation Standards for GFBs (TSL 4) 

Billion $2022 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 42.7 

Climate Benefits* 11.9 

Health Benefits** 23.4 

Total Monetized Benefitst 78.0 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costsl 5.1 

Net Monetized Benefits 72.2 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPVU) (0.5)- 0.0 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 16.6 

Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate) 11.9 

Health Benefits** 8.2 

Total Monetized Benefitst 36.8 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs; 2.9 

Net Monetized Benefits 33.8 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPVU) (0.5)- 0.0 

Note: This table presents U1e costs and benefits associated wiU1 GFBs shipped in 2030-2059. These results 

include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2059 from the products shipped in 

2030-2059. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), 

methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of this document). Together 

these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits 

associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a 

single central SC-GHG point estimate. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis 

uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, 11.1ethane, 

and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, published in February 2021 by the 

IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for SO2 and NOx) PM2.s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health 

benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2s emissions. See section IV.L_ofthis document for more details. 

t Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and 

monetized. For presentation purposes. total and net benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are 

presented using the average SC-GHG with a 3 percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single 

central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits 

calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. 

l Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

tt Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis 

as discussed in detail below. Sec sections IV.F and IV.H oftlris document. DOE's NIA includes all 

impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the 
3726 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

16To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2024, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (e.g., 2030), and then discounted 

the present value from each year to 2024. Using the 

present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 

payment over a 30-year period, starting in the 

compliance year, that yields the same present value. 

17As discussed in section IV.L.1 of this 

document, DOE agrees with the IWG that using 

consumption-based discount rates e.g., 3 percent) is 

appropriate when discounting the value of climate 

impacts. Combining climate effects discounted at an 

appropriate consumption-based discount rate with 

other costs and benefits discounted at a capitalbased rate (i.e., 7 percent) is reasonable because of 

the different nature of the types of benefits being 

measured. 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The monetary 

values for the total annualized net 

benefits are (1) the reduced consumer 

operating costs, minus (2) the increase 

in product purchase prices and 

installation costs, plus (3) the monetized 

value of climate and health benefits of 

emission reductions, all annualized.16

The national operating cost savings 

are domestic private U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered products and 

are measured for the lifetime of GFBs 

shipped in 2030–2059. The benefits 

associated with reduced emissions 

achieved as a result of the proposed 

standards are also calculated based on 

the lifetime of GFBs shipped in 2030– 

2059. Total benefits for both the 3 

percent and 7 percent cases are 

presented using the average GHG social 

costs with a 3-percent discount rate.17

Estimates of total benefits are presented 

for all four SC–GHG discount rates in 

section V.B.6 of this document. 

Table I–9 presents the total estimated 

monetized benefits and costs associated 

with the proposed standard, expressed 

in terms of annualized values. The 

results under the primary estimate are 

as follows. 

Using a 7 percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced NOX and SO2

emissions, and the 3 percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

cost of the standards proposed in this 

rule is $329 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual benefits are $1,880 

million in reduced equipment operating 

costs, $703 million in monetized 

climate benefits, and $932 million in 

monetized health benefits. In this case, 

the monetized net benefit would 

amount to $3,185 million per year. 

Using a 3 percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards is $340 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the estimated annual benefits are 

$2,524 million in reduced operating 

costs, $703 million in monetized 

climate benefits, and $1,384 million in 

monetized health benefits. In this case, 

the monetized net benefit would 

amount to $4,271 million per year. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.010</GPH>

manufacturer to manufacture the GFB and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. 

DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section 

IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on 

assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range 

of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPVis the present value of all 

changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and 

manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of 

capital value of 11.4 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the final rule TSD for a 

complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For GFB, those values are -$455 

million and $1 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is 

economically justified. See section V. C. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two 

markup scenarios: the Conversion Cost Recovery scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario 

where manufacturers increase their markups in response to changes in energy conservation standards, and 

the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to 

increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE 

includes the range of estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section 

IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to 

society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's 

Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this 

proposed rule, the net benefits would range from $71.7 billion to $72.2 billion at 3-percent discount rate 

and would range from $33.3 billion to $33.8 billion at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses indicate 

negative values. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3727 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.011</GPH>

Table 1-9 Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy 

Conservation Standards for GFBs (TSL 4) 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary Low-Net- High-NetBenefits Benefits Estimate Estimate Estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 2,524 2,321 2,724 

Climate Benefits* 703 666 742 

Health Benefits** 1,384 1,311 1,461 

Total Benefitst 4,611 4,297 4,927 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 340 442 243 Costs! 

Net Benefits 4,271 3,855 4,684 

Change in Producer Cashflow (53) - 0 (53) - 0 (53) - 0 ONPV:t:t) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 1,880 1,739 2,017 

Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate) 703 666 742 

Health Benefits** 932 888 978 

Total Benefitst 3,515 3,293 3,736 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 329 409 251 Costd 

Net Benefits 3,185 2,884 3,486 

Change in Producer Cashflow (53) - 0 (53) - 0 (53) - 0 ONPV:t:I:) 

Note: This table presents Ure costs and benefits associated with GFBs shipped in 2030-2059. These results 

include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2059 from the products shipped in 

2030-2059. The Primacy, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy 

prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, 

respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a constant rate in the Primacy Estimate, an 

increasing rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a declining rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. 

The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.l and IV.H.3 of this 

document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of 

this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average 

SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate arc shown, but DOE docs not have a single central SC-GHG point 

estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four 

sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the 

interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, A1ethane, and 

Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for SO2 and NOx) PM2s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) owne precursor health 

benefits, but will continue lo assess the ability to monetize 0U1er eITects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2.s emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 
3728 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

18The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) 

energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 

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

petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency 

standards. For more information on the FFC metric, 

see section IV.H.2 of this document. 

19A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented 

in short tons. 

20 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative 

to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key 

assumptions in AEO2023. AEO2023 represents 

current Federal and State legislation and final 

implementation of regulations as of the time of its 

preparation. See section IV.K of this document for 

further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that 

affect air pollutant emissions. 

21To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG 

emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates 

presented in the Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates Under Executive order 13990, 

published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

22 DOE estimates the economic value of these 

emissions reductions resulting from the considered 

DOE’s analysis of the national impacts 

of the proposed standards is described 

in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this 

document. 

2. Air Circulating Fans 

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for ACFs would save a significant 

amount of energy. Relative to the case 

without new standards, the lifetime 

energy savings for ACFs purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

anticipated first full year of compliance 

with the new standards (2030–2059) 

amount to 4.5 quadrillion British 

thermal units (‘‘Btu’’), or quads.18 This 

represents a savings of 37.3 percent 

relative to the energy use of these 

products in the case without standards 

(referred to as the ‘‘no-new-standards 

case’’). 

The cumulative net present value 

(‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer benefits of 

the proposed standards for ACFs ranges 

from $5.3 billion (at a 7 percent 

discount rate) to $12.6 billion (at a 3 

percent discount rate). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating-cost savings minus the 

estimated increased equipment costs for 

ACFs purchased in 2030–2059. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

for ACFs are projected to yield 

significant environmental benefits. DOE 

estimates that the proposed standards 

would result in cumulative emission 

reductions (over the same period as for 

energy savings) of 78.5 Mt 19 of CO2, 

19.7 thousand tons of SO2, 148.0 

thousand tons of NOX, 686.7 thousand 

tons of CH4, 0.6 thousand tons of N2O, 

and 0.1 tons of mercury Hg.20

DOE estimates the value of climate 

benefits from a reduction in greenhouse 

gases (GHG) using four different 

estimates of the social cost of CO2 (‘‘SC– 

CO2’’), the social cost of methane (‘‘SC– 

CH4’’), and the social cost of nitrous 

oxide (‘‘SC–N2O’’). Together these 

represent the social cost of GHG (SC– 

GHG). DOE used interim SC–GHG 

values developed by an Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (IWG).21 The 

derivation of these values is discussed 

in section IV.L of this document. For 

presentational purposes, the climate 

benefits associated with the average SC– 

GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are 

estimated to be $4.4 billion. DOE does 

not have a single central SC–GHG point 

estimate and it emphasizes the 

importance and value of considering the 

benefits calculated using all four sets of 

SC–GHG estimates. 

DOE estimated the monetary health 

benefits of SO2 and NOX emissions 

reductions using benefit per ton 

estimates from the scientific literature, 

as discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. DOE did not monetize the 

reduction in mercury emissions because 

the quantity is very small. DOE 

estimated the present value of the health 

benefits would be $3.1 billion using a 7- 

percent discount rate, and $8.2 billion 

using a 3-percent discount rate.22 DOE 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.012</GPH>

t Total benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with a 

3 percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. 

t Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

U Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis 

as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.Hof this document. DOE's NIA includes all 

impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the 

manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the 

consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). 

See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions 

based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces 

a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present 

value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and 

manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted 

average cost of capital value of 11.4 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD 

for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For GFB, those values are -

$53 million and less than $0.1 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether 

a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts 

to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Conversion Cost Recovery scenario, which is the 

manufacturer marlmp scenario where manufacturers increase their markups in response to changes in 

energy conservation standards, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE 

assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in 

manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the 

above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional 

context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to society, including potential changes in production 

and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. IfDOE were to include 

the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits 

would range from $4,218 million to $4,271 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $3,132 

million to $3,185 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses indicate negative values. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3729 

TSLs for the purpose of complying with the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

is currently only monetizing (for SO2

and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health 

benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor 

health benefits, but will continue to 

assess the ability to monetize other 

effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. 

Table I–10 summarizes the monetized 

benefits and costs expected to result 

from the proposed standards for ACFs. 

There are other important unquantified 

effects, including certain unquantified 

climate benefits, unquantified public 

health benefits from the reduction of 

toxic air pollutants and other emissions, 

unquantified energy security benefits, 

and distributional effects, among others. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3730 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.013</GPH>

Table 1-10 Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy 

Conservation Standards for ACFs (TSL 4) 

Billion $2022 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost 13.2 Savings 

Climate Benefits* 4.4 

Health Benefits** 8.2 

Total Monetized Benefitst 25.8 

Consumer Incremental 0.6 Eauinment Costs: 

Net Monetized Benefits 25.2 

Change in Producer (0.1) - 0 Cashflow (INPVtt) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost 5.5 Savings 

Climate Benefits* (3% 4.4 discount rate) 

Health Benefits** 3.1 

Total Monetized Benefitst 13.1 

Consumer Incremental 0.3 Equipment Costs; 

Net Monetized Benefits 12.8 

Change in Producer (0.1) - 0 Cashflow (INPVtt) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with ACFs shipped in 2030- 2059. These 

results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2059 from the products shipped in 

2030-2059. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO:!), 

methane (SC-CH~), and nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of this document). Together 

these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits 

associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the 

importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To 

monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the 

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, 11.1ethane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates 

Under Executive Order 13990 published inFebruazy 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for SO2 and NOx) PM2s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health 

benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM25 emissions. See section l V.L of this document for more details. 

t Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and 

monetized. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are 

presented using the average SC-GHG with a 3 percent discount rate. 

t Costs include incremental equipment costs. 

tt Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis 

as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.Hof this document. DOE's NIA includes all 

impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3731 

23To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2022, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (e.g., 2030), and then discounted 

the present value from each year to 2022. Using the 

present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 

payment over a 30-year period, starting in the 

compliance year, that yields the same present value. 

24As discussed in section IV.L.1 of this 

document, DOE agrees with the IWG that using 

consumption-based discount rates e.g., 3 percent) is 

appropriate when discounting the value of climate 

impacts. Combining climate effects discounted at an 

appropriate consumption-based discount rate with 

other costs and benefits discounted at a capitalbased rate (i.e., 7 percent) is reasonable because of 

the different nature of the types of benefits being 

measured. 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The monetary 

values for the total annualized net 

benefits are (1) the reduced consumer 

operating costs, minus (2) the increase 

in product purchase prices and 

installation costs, plus (3) the monetized 

value of climate and health benefits of 

emission reductions, all annualized.23

The national operating cost savings 

are domestic private U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered products and 

are measured for the lifetime of GFBs 

shipped in 2030–2059. The benefits 

associated with reduced emissions 

achieved as a result of the proposed 

standards are also calculated based on 

the lifetime of GFBs shipped in 2030– 

2059. Total benefits for both the 3 

percent and 7 percent cases are 

presented using the average GHG social 

costs with 3 percent discount rate.24

Estimates of total benefits are presented 

for all four SC–GHG discount rates in 

section V.B.6 of this document. 

Table I–11 presents the total 

estimated monetized benefits and costs 

associated with the proposed standard, 

expressed in terms of annualized values. 

The results under the primary estimate 

are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced NOX and SO2

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

cost of the standards proposed in this 

rule is $31 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the estimated 

annual benefits are $626 million in 

reduced equipment operating costs, 

$261 million in monetized climate 

benefits, and $353 million in monetized 

health benefits. In this case. The net 

monetized benefit would amount to 

$1,209 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards is $34 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the estimated annual benefits are 

$778 million in reduced operating costs, 

$261 million in monetized climate 

benefits, and $485 million in monetized 

health benefits. In this case, the 

monetized net benefit would amount to 

$1,489 million per year. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.014</GPH>

manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the 

consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). 

See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions 

based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces 

a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present 

value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and 

manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of 

capital value of 11.4 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete 

description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For ACF, those values are -$71 million and 

no change in INPV. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is 

economically justified. See section V.C. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two 

markup scenarios: the Conversion Cost Recovery scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario 

where manufacturers increase their markups in response to changes in energy conservation standards, and 

the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to 

increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE 

includes the range of estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section 

IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to 

society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with 0MB' s 

Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. IfDOE were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this 

proposed rule, the net benefits would range from $25.1 billion to $25.2 billion at 3-percent discount rate 

and would range from $12.7 billion to $12.8 billion at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses indicate 

negative values. 
3732 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.015</GPH>

Table 1-11 Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy 

Conservation Standards for ACFs (TSL 4) 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary Low-Net- High-Net-Benefits 

Benefits Estimate Estimate Estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 778 753 796 

Climate Benefits* 261 261 261 

Health Benefits** 485 485 485 

Total Benefitst 1,523 1,498 1,542 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 34 36 33 Costs:t 

Net Benefits 1,489 1,462 1,509 

Change in Producer Cashflow (8) - 0 (8) - 0 (8) - 0 (INPV:t:t) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 626 607 641 

Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate) 261 261 261 

Health Benefits** 353 353 353 

Total Benefitst 1,239 1,221 1,254 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 31 32 30 Costst 

Net Benefits 1,209 1,188 1,225 

Change in Producer Cashflow (8) - 0 (8) - 0 (8) - 0 (INPV:t:t) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with ACFs shipped in 2030-2059. These results 

include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2059 from the products shipped in 

2030-2059. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy 

prices from the AEO 2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, 

respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a low declining rate in the Primary Estimate, 

an increasing rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high declining rate in the High Net Benefits 

Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.HJ of 

this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of 

this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average 

SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown: however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of 

considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of 

reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support 

Document: Social Casi of Carbon, ]\;[ethane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Eslimaies Under Executive Order 

13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for SO2 and NOx) PM25 precursor health benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health 

benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3733 

25The information on climate benefits is provided 

in compliance with Executive Order 12866. 26Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

DOE’s analysis of the national impacts 

of the proposed standards is described 

in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this 

document. 

D. Conclusion 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Specifically, 

with regards to technological feasibility 

products achieving these standard levels 

are already commercially available for 

all equipment classes covered by this 

proposal. As for economic justification, 

DOE’s analysis shows that the benefits 

of the proposed standard exceed, to a 

great extent, the burdens of the 

proposed standards. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3- 

percent discount rate case for GHG 

social costs, the estimated cost of the 

proposed standards for GFBs is $329 

million per year in increased GFB costs, 

while the estimated annual benefits are 

$1,880 million in reduced GFB 

operating costs, $703 million in 

monetized climate benefits and $932 

million in monetized health benefits. 

The net monetized benefit amounts to 

$3,185 million per year. DOE notes that 

the net benefits are substantial even in 

the absence of the climate benefits,25

and DOE would adopt the same 

standards in the absence of such 

benefits. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3- 

percent discount rate case for GHG 

social costs, the estimated cost of the 

proposed standards for ACFs is $31 

million per year in increased ACF costs, 

while the estimated annual benefits are 

$626 million in reduced ACF operating 

costs, $261 million in monetized 

climate benefits and $353 million in 

monetized health benefits. The net 

monetized benefit amounts to $1,209 

million per year. 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.26 For example, some 

covered products and equipment have 

substantial energy consumption occur 

during periods of peak energy demand. 

The impacts of these products on the 

energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than products with 

relatively constant demand. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis. 

As previously mentioned, the 

proposed standards are projected to 

result in estimated national energy 

savings of 13.8 quad FFC for GFBs and 

4.5 quads FFC for ACFs, the equivalent 

of the primary annual energy use of 148 

and 48 million homes, respectively. In 

addition, they are projected to reduce 

CO2 emissions by 239.4 Mt and 78.5 Mt, 

for GFBs and ACFs, respectively. Based 

on these findings, DOE has initially 

determined the energy savings from the 

proposed standard levels are 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed 

discussion of the basis for these 

tentative conclusions is contained in the 

remainder of this document and the 

NOPR TSD. 

DOE also considered more-stringent 

energy efficiency levels as potential 

standards, and is still considering them 

in this rulemaking. However, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the potential 

burdens of the more stringent energy 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.016</GPH>

t Total benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with a 

3 percent discount rate. 

l Costs include incremental equipment costs. 

U Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis 

as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H document. DOE's NIA includes all impacts (both 

costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to 

manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also 

separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of this 

document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions 

regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, 

which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in 

industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit 

margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital 

value of 11.4 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete 

description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For ACF, those values are -$8 million and no 

annualized change in INPV. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is 

economically justified. See section V. C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the 

INPV under two markup scenarios: the Conversion Cost Recovery scenario, which is the manufacturer 

markup scenario where manufacturers increase their markups in response to changes in energy 

conservation standards, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed 

manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in 

manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the 

above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional 

context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to society, including potential changes in production 

and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. IfDOE were to include 

the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits 

would range from $1,481 million to $1,489 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $1,201 

million to $1,209 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses indicate negative values. 
3734 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

27 ‘‘Covered equipment’’ means one of the 

following types of industrial equipment: electric 

motors and pumps; small commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment; large 

commercial package air conditioning and heating 

equipment; very large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment; commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers; 

automatic commercial ice makers; walk-in coolers 

and walk-in freezers; commercial clothes washers; 

packaged terminal air-conditioners and packaged 

terminal heat pumps; warm air furnaces and 

packaged boilers; and storage water heaters, 

instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water 

storage tanks. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)–(K)) 

28California Energy Commission. Commercial 

and Industrial Fans and Blowers. Docket No. 22– 

AAER–01. Available at efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/ 

DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=22-AAER-01. 

efficiency levels would outweigh the 

projected benefits. 

Based on consideration of the public 

comments DOE receives in response to 

this document and related information 

collected and analyzed during the 

course of this rulemaking effort, DOE 

may adopt energy efficiency levels 

presented in this document that are 

either higher or lower than the proposed 

standards, or some combination of 

level(s) that incorporate the proposed 

standards in part. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed rule, as well 

as some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for fans and blowers. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of 

EPCA, added by Public Law 95–619, 

Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, which 

sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency. 

EPCA specifies a list of equipment 

that constitutes covered equipment 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘covered 

equipment’’).27 EPCA also provides that 

‘‘covered equipment’’ includes any 

other type of industrial equipment for 

which the Secretary of Energy (‘‘the 

Secretary’’) determines inclusion is 

necessary to carry out the purpose of 

Part A–1. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(L); 42 

U.S.C. 6312(b)) EPCA specifies the types 

of industrial equipment that can be 

classified as covered in addition to the 

equipment enumerated in 42 U.S.C. 

6311(1). This industrial equipment 

includes fans and blowers, the subjects 

of this document. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(2)(B)(ii) and (iii)) Additionally, 

industrial equipment must be of a type 

that consumes, or is designed to 

consume, energy in operation; is 

distributed in commerce for industrial 

or commercial use; and is not a covered 

product as defined in 42 U.S.C. 

6291(a)(2) other than a component of a 

covered product with respect to which 

there is in effect a determination under 

42 U.S.C. 6312(c). (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(A)) 

On August 19, 2021, DOE published a 

final determination concluding that the 

inclusion of fans and blowers as covered 

equipment was necessary to carry out 

the purpose of Part A–1 and classifying 

fans and blowers as covered equipment. 

86 FR 46579, 46588. 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

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

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 

6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), 

labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), 

energy conservation standards (42 

U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to 

require information and reports from 

manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 

U.S.C. 6296). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) There 

are currently no Federal energy 

conservation standards for fans and 

blowers. However, as noted in the 

Existing Efficiency Standards subsection 

of section IV.C.1.b of this document, the 

California Energy Commission (‘‘CEC’’) 

has finalized a rulemaking that requires 

manufacturers to report fan operating 

boundaries that result in operation at a 

FEI of greater than or equal to 1.00 for 

all fans within the scope of that 

rulemaking.28 The scope of the CEC 

rulemaking includes some, but not all, 

GFBs that are considered in the scope of 

this energy conservation rulemaking. 

The CEC rulemaking goes into effect on 

November 1, 2023. However, if the 

Federal standards in this NOPR are 

finalized and made effective, they will 

supersede the CEC standard 

requirements. The CEC standards with 

respect to fans and blowers covered by 

a standard set in a final rule would be 

superseded once the Federal standard 

takes effect, meaning on the compliance 

date applicable to GFBs, which is 

expected to be 5 years after the 

publication of any final rule. 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a)(10). 

Furthermore, EPCA prescribes that all 

representations of energy efficiency and 

energy use, including those made on 

marketing materials and product labels, 

for certain equipment, including fans 

and blowers, must be made in 

accordance with an amended test 

procedure, beginning 180 days after 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) 

DOE notes that Federal test procedures 

generally supersede any State regulation 

insofar as such State regulation provides 

for the disclosure of information with 

respect to any measure of energy 

consumption or water use of any 

covered product (42 U.S.C 6297(a)(1)) 

The Federal test procedure for fans and 

blowers was published on May 1, 2023, 

and all representations of energy 

efficiency and energy use, including 

those made on marketing materials and 

product labels, must be made in 

accordance with this test procedure 

beginning October 30, 2023. 88 FR 

27312. Therefore, DOE notes that any 

disclosure of information regarding any 

measure of energy consumption for fans 

required by the CEC must be tested in 

accordance with the Federal test 

procedure beginning October 30, 2023. 

DOE may, however, grant waivers of 

Federal preemption for particular State 

laws or regulations, in accordance with 

the procedures and other provisions set 

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

6316(a) (applying the preemption 

waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297).) 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

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

42 U.S.C. 6295I) Manufacturers of 

covered equipment must use the Federal 

test procedures as the basis for: (1) 

certifying to DOE that their equipment 

complies with the applicable energy 

conservation standards adopted 

pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making 

representations about the efficiency of 

that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). 

Similarly, DOE must use these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

equipment complies with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The 

DOE test procedures for fans and 

blowers appear at title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 431, 

subpart J, appendices A and B. 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered equipment, 

including fans and blowers. Any new or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3735 

29The Air Movement and Control Association 

(AMCA), New York Blower Company, Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), and the 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA). 

30Supporting documents from this meeting, 

including presentation slides are available at 

Continued 

amended standard for covered 

equipment must be designed to achieve 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 

determines is technologically feasible 

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

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE 

may not adopt any standard that would 

not result in the significant conservation 

of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)) 

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard: (1) for certain equipment, 

including fans and blowers, if no test 

procedure has been established for the 

equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by 

rule that the standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) In deciding whether a 

proposed standard is economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this 

determination after receiving comments 

on the proposed standard, and by 

considering, to the greatest extent 

practicable, the following seven 

statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the equipment subject to 

the standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered equipment in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered equipment that 

are likely to result from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy (or, as applicable, water) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered equipment 

likely to result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing equipment 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the applicable test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

EPCA also contains what is known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing 

any amended standard that either 

increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of covered 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard 

if interested persons have established by 

a preponderance of the evidence that 

the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States in 

any covered equipment type (or class) of 

performance characteristics (including 

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 

and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the 

United States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

Additionally, EPCA specifies 

requirements when promulgating an 

energy conservation standard for 

covered equipment that has two or more 

subcategories. DOE must specify a 

different standard level for a type or 

class of equipment that has the same 

function or intended use, if DOE 

determines that equipment within such 

group: (A) consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered equipment within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

equipment within such type (or class) 

do not have and such feature justifies a 

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

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In 

determining whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different 

standard for a group of equipment, DOE 

must consider such factors as the utility 

to the consumer of the feature and other 

factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any 

rule prescribing such a standard must 

include an explanation of the basis on 

which such higher or lower level was 

established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 

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

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

DOE does not currently have energy 

conservation standards for fans and 

blowers. The following section 

summarizes relevant background 

information regarding DOE’s 

consideration of energy conservation 

standards for fans and blowers. 

On May 10, 2021, DOE published a 

request for information requesting 

comments on a potential fan or blower 

definition. 86 FR 24752. DOE followed 

this with a publication of a final 

determination on August 19, 2021, 

classifying fans and blowers as covered 

equipment (‘‘August 2021 Final 

Coverage Determination’’). 86 FR 46579. 

At this time, DOE determined that the 

term ‘‘blower’’ is used interchangeably 

in the U.S. market with the term ‘‘fan.’’ 

86 FR 46579, 46583. DOE defines a fan 

(or blower) as a rotary bladed machine 

used to convert electrical or mechanical 

power to air power, with an energy 

output limited to 25 kilojoule (‘‘kJ’’) per 

kilogram (‘‘kg’’) of air. It consists of an 

impeller, a shaft and bearings and/or 

driver to support the impeller, as well 

as a structure or housing. A fan (or 

blower) may include a transmission, 

driver, and/or motor controller. 10 CFR 

431.172. 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Fans and Blowers 

In considering whether to establish 

standards, on June 28, 2011 DOE 

published a notice of proposed 

determination of coverage to initiate an 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for fans, blowers, and fume 

hoods. 76 FR 37678. Subsequently, DOE 

published a notice of public meeting 

and availability of the Framework 

document for GFBs in the Federal 

Register. 78 FR 7306 (February 1, 2013). 

In the Framework document (‘‘2013 

Framework Document’’), DOE requested 

feedback from interested parties on 

many issues, including the engineering 

analysis, the MIA, the LCC and PBP 

analyses, and the national impact 

analysis (‘‘NIA’’). 

On December 10, 2014, DOE 

published a notice of data availability 

(‘‘December 2014 NODA’’) that 

estimated the potential economic 

impacts and energy savings that could 

result from promulgating energy 

conservation standards for fans. 79 FR 

73246. The December 2014 NODA 

analysis used FEI, a ‘‘wire-to-air’’ fan 

electrical input power metric, to 

characterize fan performance. 

In October 2014, several 

representatives of fan manufacturers 

and energy efficiency advocates 29

(‘‘Joint Stakeholders’’) presented DOE 

with an alternative metric approach, the 

‘‘Fan Efficiency Ratio,’’ which included 

a fan efficiency-only metric approach 

(‘‘FERH’’) and a wire-to-air metric 

approach (‘‘FERW’’).30 On May 1, 2015, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3736 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BTSTD-0006-0029. 31 Information on the ASRAC, the commercial 

and industrial fans Working Group, and meeting 

dates is available at: energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

appliance-standards-and-rulemaking-federaladvisory-committee. 32At the beginning of the negotiated rulemaking 

process, the Working Group defined that before any 

vote could occur, the Working Group must establish 

a quorum of at least 20 of the 25 members and 

defined consensus as an agreement with less than 

4 negative votes. Twenty voting members of the 

Working Group were present for this vote. Two 

members (Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute and Ingersoll Rand/Trane) 

voted no on the term sheet. 

33The FEP metric represents the electrical input 

power of the fan and includes the performance of 

the motor, and any transmission and/or control if 

integrated, assembled, or packaged with the fan. In 

the November 2016 NODA, DOE developed 

standards based on FEI values evaluated relative to 

the EL 3 standard FEP. 

based on the additional information 

received and comments to the December 

2014 NODA, DOE published a second 

NODA (‘‘May 2015 NODA’’) that 

announced data availability from DOE 

analyses conducted using a modified 

FEI metric, similar to the FERW metric 

presented by the Joint Stakeholders. 80 

FR 24841, 24843. 

Concurrent with these efforts, DOE 

established an Appliance Standards 

Rulemaking Federal Advisory 

Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) Working Group 

(‘‘Working Group’’) to discuss 

negotiated energy conservation 

standards and test procedures for fans.31

The Working Group concluded its 

negotiations on September 3, 2015, and, 

by consensus vote,32 approved a term 

sheet containing 27 recommendations 

related to scope, test procedure, and 

energy conservation standards (‘‘term 

sheet’’). (See Docket No. EERE–2013–

BT–STD–0006, No. 179.) ASRAC 

approved the term sheet on September 

24, 2015. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0005; Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 58, at p. 29) 

On November 1, 2016, DOE published 

a third notification of data availability 

(‘‘November 2016 NODA’’) that 

presented a revised analysis for GFBs 

consistent with the scope and metric 

recommendations in the term sheet. 81 

FR 75742, 75743. As recommended by 

the working group, the November 2016 

NODA used the fan electrical input 

power metric (FEP) 33 in conjunction 

with FEI to characterize fan 

performance. DOE made several 

additional updates to the November 

2016 NODA to address the term sheet 

recommendations developed by the 

Working Group as well as stakeholder 

feedback submitted via public comment. 

Specifically, the analysis presented in 

the November 2016 NODA was updated 

to include (1) augmentation of the Air 

Movement and Control Association 

International (‘‘AMCA’’) sales data used 

in the May 2015 NODA to better 

account for fans made by companies 

that incorporate those fans for sale in 

their own equipment, (2) augmentation 

of the AMCA sales data to represent 

additional sales of forward-curved fans, 

and (3) inclusion of original equipment 

manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) conversion 

costs. Id. The November 2016 NODA 

evaluated only fans with a fan shaft 

input power equal to, or greater than, 1 

horsepower (‘‘hp’’) and a fan airpower 

equal to or less than 150 hp. 81 FR 

75742, 75746. 

On October 1, 2021, DOE published a 

request for information pertaining to test 

procedures for fans and blowers 

(‘‘October 2021 TP RFI’’). 86 FR 54412. 

As part of the October 2021 TP RFI, 

DOE discussed definitions and potential 

scope for ACFs. 86 FR 54412, 54414– 

54415. DOE published a separate 

request for information on February 8, 

2022 (‘‘February 2022 RFI’’), to seek 

input to aid in its development of the 

technical and economic analyses 

regarding whether standards for ACFs 

may be warranted. 87 FR 7048. On 

October 13, 2022, DOE published a 

notice of data availability (‘‘October 

2022 NODA’’) to present its preliminary 

engineering analysis for ACFs and to 

seek input to support DOE in 

completing a notice of proposed 

rulemaking analysis for all fans and 

blowers. 87 FR 62038. 

DOE received comments in response 

to the October 2022 NODA from the 

interested parties listed in Table II–1. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3737 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.017</GPH>

Table 11-1 October 2022 NODA Written Comments 

Commenter(s) Abbreviation Comment No. in the Commenter Type Docket 

Association of Home 

Appliance AHAM 123 Trade Association 

Manufacturers 

Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and AHRI 130 Trade Association Refrigeration 

Institute 

Air Movement and 

Control Association AMCA 132 Trade Association 

International 

Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project, 

American Council for 

an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, Consumer Efficiency Federation of Efficiency Advocates 126 Organizations America, National 

Consumer Law 

Center, Natural 

Resources Defense 

Council 

Ava Rohleder* Rohleder 13 Individual 

Brandon Damas, P.E. Damas and Boldt 131 Individuals and Jeff Boldt, P.E. 

California InvestorOwned Utilities: 

Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company, CAIOUs 127 Utilities San Diego Gas and 

Electric, and 

Southern California 

Edison 

Ethan Dwver* Dwver 119 Individual 

Greenheck Group Greenheck 122 Manufacturer 

Madison Indoor Air MIAQ 124 Manufacturer Quality 

Morrison Products Morrison 128 Manufacturer Inc. 

National Electrical 

Manufacturers NEMA 125 Trade Association 

Association 

Northwest Energy NEEA 129 Efficiency 

Efficiency Alliance Organization 

* DOE reviewed the comments from Rohleder, who supports adoptmg energy conservation standards for ACFs. 

However, Rohleder's comments otherwise do not provide information or feedback that could be used for this NOPR 

analysis and instead encouraged DOE to conduct ASRAC negotiations. Sinrilarly, DOE reviewed the comments from 

Dwyer and detennined that Dwyer's comments summarize the October 2022 NODA and otherwise generally note their 

support of DOE regulating fans and blowers, are out of scope of this rulemaking, or do not provide concrete 

recommendations that DOE could use in the development of this NOPR analysis. Therefore, comments from these 

stakeholders are not summarized in the document. 
3738 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

34Comment numbers 14–118 in the docket 

(Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002, maintained 

at www.regulations.gov). 

35The parenthetical reference provides a 

reference for information located in the docket of 

DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for fans and blowers. (Docket No. EERE– 

2022–BT–STD–0002, maintained at 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID 

number, page of that document). 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

DOE also acknowledges that it 

received numerous identical comments 

via a mass email campaign stating that 

standards for fans and blowers is an 

important issue and requesting that DOE 

pursue an approach that is fair and 

equitable to both businesses and 

consumers. 34

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.35

C. Deviation From Process Rule 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘Process Rule’’), DOE notes that it is 

deviating from the provision in the 

Process Rule regarding the pre-NOPR 

and NOPR stages for an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

1. Framework Document 

Section 6(a)(2) of the Process Rule 

states that if DOE determines it is 

appropriate to proceed with a 

rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a 

rulemaking to issue or amend an energy 

conservation standard that DOE will 

undertake will be a framework 

document and preliminary analysis, or 

an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

As described in section II.B.2 of this 

document, DOE published the 2013 

Framework Document, the December 

2014 NODA, the May 2015 NODA, and 

the November 2016 NODA for GFBs. 78 

FR 7306; 79 FR 73246; 80 FR 24841; 81 

FR 75742. The three NODAs presented 

DOE’s analysis at various points, 

provided stakeholders opportunity to 

review and provide comment. 

Furthermore, while DOE published the 

February 2022 RFI and October 2022 

NODA for ACFs, DOE did not publish 

a framework document in conjunction 

with the NODA for ACFs. 87 FR 62038. 

DOE notes that ACFs and GFBs are 

analyzed separately, however, the 

general analytical framework that DOE 

uses in evaluating and developing 

potential new energy conservation 

standards for both GFBs and ACFs is 

similar. As such, publication of a 

separate framework document for ACFs 

would be largely redundant of 

previously published documents. 

2. Public Comment Period 

Section 6(f)(2) of the Process Rule 

specifies that the length of the public 

comment period for a NOPR will be not 

less than 75 calendar days. For this 

NOPR, DOE is instead providing a 60- 

day comment period, consistent with 

EPCA requirements. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 

42 U.S.C. 6295(p). DOE is opting to 

deviate from the 75-day comment 

period because of the robust 

opportunities already afforded to 

stakeholders to provide comments on 

this proposed rulemaking. 

DOE is providing a 60-day comment 

period, which DOE believes is 

appropriate given the substantial 

stakeholder engagement for general fans 

and blowers to date, as discussed in 

section II.B.2 of this document. 

Furthermore, the request for information 

on air circulating fans that was 

published on February 8, 2022, 

provided early notice to interested 

parties that DOE was interested in 

evaluating potential energy conservation 

standards for air circulating fans. DOE 

also provided a 45-day comment period 

for the notice of data availability that 

was published on October 13, 2022. 

Therefore, DOE believes a 60-day 

comment period is appropriate and will 

provide interested parties with a 

meaningful opportunity to comment on 

the proposed rule. 

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed this proposal after 

considering oral and written comments, 

data, and information from interested 

parties that represent a variety of 

interests. The following discussion 

addresses issues raised by these 

commenters. 

A. General Comments 

This section summarizes general 

comments received from interested 

parties in response to the October 2022 

NODA regarding rulemaking timing, 

process, and impact. 

In response to many of DOE’s requests 

for comment, AMCA recommended that 

DOE obtain the requested information 

through confidential interviews with fan 

manufacturers. (AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 

6–14) DOE notes that it used 

information collected during 

manufacturer interviews to inform its 

engineering, market, and manufacturer 

analyses. 

NEMA commented that its 

interpretation of DOE’s analysis in the 

October 2022 NODA was that DOE was 

proposing energy efficiency 

requirements for motors that are used in 

ACFs, which would be confusing and 

problematic for the motor industry, 

since there is a separate rulemaking for 

motors. (NEMA, No. 125 at pp. 2, 4). 

Additionally, NEMA stated that DOE’s 

inclusion of higher efficiency small, 

non-‘‘small electric motor’’ electric 

motors (‘‘SNEMs’’) as a technology 

option for increasing the efficiency of 

ACFs could be an issue because of an 

ongoing rulemaking for SNEMs. (NEMA, 

No. 125 at p. 2) DOE notes that in a 

NOPR for expanded scope electric 

motors (‘‘ESEMs’’) published on 

December 15, 2023 (‘‘December 2023 

ESEM NOPR’’), motors that were 

previously referred to as SNEMs were 

redefined to be ESEMs. 88 FR 87062 

DOE will use the term ‘‘ESEM’’ 

throughout the remainder of this 

document to refer to these motors. 

Morrison commented that it is 

concerned about the small motors 

rulemaking being in progress at the 

same time as this fans and blowers 

rulemaking. (Morrison, No. 128 at p. 1) 

DOE notes that it is proposing energy 

conservation standards for fans and 

blowers, including ACFs and GFBs, and 

that it is not proposing energy 

conservation standards for motors in 

this rulemaking. DOE typically defines 

a likely design path to structure its 

engineering analysis; however, DOE 

notes that this design path is not 

prescriptive. DOE heard from ACF 

manufacturers that replacing a less 

efficient motor with a more efficient 

motor would be one of the first options 

they would evaluate. Therefore, DOE 

considered more efficient motors as an 

option that a manufacturer might apply 

to reach a given ACF efficiency level. 

DOE acknowledges that the electric 

motors rulemaking involving ESEMs is 

ongoing (see EERE–2020–BT–STD– 

0007) and that stakeholders made a joint 

recommendation for the efficiencies at 

which they believe the standards for 

ESEMs should be set. (Docket No. 

EERE–2020–BT–STD–0007, Joint 

Stakeholders, No. 38 at p. 6, Table 2) As 

discussed in section IV.C.2.c, DOE 

defined an efficiency level (EL 2) in its 

ACF engineering analysis based on the 

efficiencies recommended for ESEMs by 

the Joint Stakeholders. DOE may 

consider adjusting the baseline 

efficiency level for ACFs if it sets a 

standard in the ESEM rulemaking at the 

recommended ESEM levels. 

AMCA commented that it generally 

supports NEMA’s comments. (AMCA, 

No. 132 at pp. 2, 21) DOE therefore 

notes that throughout this document, 

reference to comments made by NEMA 

are understood to be representative of 

the viewpoints of AMCA as well. 

Greenheck stated that it would be 

beneficial for the ACF rulemaking to be 

delayed until after AMCA 230–2023 is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3739 

published. (Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 1) 

AMCA commented that DOE should 

finalize a test procedure before 

proceeding with its fans and blowers 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking so that stakeholders can 

make informed comments on the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

(AMCA, No. 132 at p. 10) DOE notes 

that ACMA 230–23 was published on 

February 10, 2023, and that DOE has 

since published its test procedure final 

rule for fans and blowers, on May 1, 

2023. 88 FR 27312. 

MIAQ commented that it disagrees 

with DOE’s decision to provide a 45-day 

comment period instead of the usual 75- 

day comment period for the October 

2022 NODA. (MIAQ, No. 124 at p. 2) In 

the October 2022 NODA, DOE discussed 

its decision to deviate from section 3(a) 

of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR 

part 430 and reduce the comment 

period. 87 FR 62038, 62039. DOE 

provided a 45-day comment period 

given the substantial stakeholder 

engagement prior to the publication of 

the NODA and to provide DOE with 

ample time to review comments to 

inform this NOPR analysis. Id. 

The CA IOUs commented that they 

are concerned that the energy 

conservation standards may supersede 

the fan input power limits currently in 

place for building codes, such as the 

California Building Energy Code (Title 

24), American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) Standard 90.1, 

‘‘Energy Standard for Buildings Except 

Low-Rise Residential Buildings,’’ and 

the International Energy Conservation 

Code (‘‘IECC’’) 2021, which would 

reduce the influence of these building 

codes and ultimately result in an 

increase in the energy consumption of 

the equipment in which fans are 

embedded because the fan power limits 

in those codes are significantly more 

stringent than the FEI requirements and 

ensure the overall fan system in a 

building is designed efficiently. (CA 

IOUs, No. 127 at p. 6) Damas and Boldt 

also expressed their concern that energy 

conservation standards may preempt the 

limits on fan system power in building 

energy codes such as ASHRAE 90.1 and 

therefore could potentially increase 

energy use in new construction. (Damas 

and Boldt, No. 131 at p. 5) AHRI 

commented that an energy conservation 

standard is not needed for fans because 

all States are obligated to comply with 

ASHRAE 90.1. (AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 

16–17) 

DOE notes that neither ASHRAE 90.1 

nor IECC 2021 are federally mandated 

standards. Although ASHRAE 90.1 and 

IECC 2021 may be incorporated into 

municipal and/or building codes, this is 

not required and is performed on a State 

and local level. Furthermore, their 

incorporation does not always mandate 

standard efficiency requirements. DOE 

also acknowledges that as stated in 

section II.A, Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) 

Therefore, if energy conservation 

standards for fans and blowers were to 

be adopted, they would supersede State 

laws and regulations for the efficiency 

of individual fans and blowers at the 

product or equipment level. DOE 

considered the fan efficiency 

requirements in ASHRAE 90.1 and IECC 

2021 in its analysis, as discussed in 

section IV.C.1.b of this document. With 

regard to CA IOUs concern that DOE’s 

regulation would supersede current 

regulations for fan input power limits, 

DOE notes that the standards proposed 

in this NOPR apply only to individual 

fans, whether embedded or standalone, 

that are within the proposed scope of 

this rulemaking. DOE is not proposing 

minimum input power requirements for 

fan systems that may be incorporated 

into buildings. Therefore, although the 

individual fans used in fan systems 

would be required to comply with 

DOE’s minimum FEI requirements if the 

fan is within the proposed scope of this 

rulemaking, DOE’s proposed regulations 

would not supersede input power 

requirements for fan systems. 

B. Scope of Coverage 

This NOPR covers those commercial 

and industrial equipment that meet the 

definition of ‘‘fan’’ or ‘‘blower,’’ as 

codified at 10 CFR 431.172 and for 

which DOE has finalized test 

procedures in subpart J of 10 CFR part 

431. 

As discussed, DOE defines a ‘‘fan’’ or 

‘‘blower’’ as a rotary bladed machine 

used to convert electrical or mechanical 

power to air power, with an energy 

output limited to 25 kJ/kg of air. It 

consists of an impeller, a shaft and 

bearings and/or driver to support the 

impeller, as well as a structure or 

housing. A fan or blower may include 

a transmission, driver, and/or motor 

controller. 10 CFR 431.172. DOE 

separates fans and blowers into general 

fans and blowers and air circulating 

fans. 

An ‘‘air circulating fan’’ means a fan 

that has no provision for connection to 

ducting or separation of the fan inlet 

from its outlet using a pressure 

boundary, operates against zero external 

static pressure loss, and is not a jet fan. 

10 CFR 431.172. Fans and blowers that 

are not ACFs are referred to as general 

fans and blowers (‘‘GFBs’’) throughout 

this document. 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, DOE received comments on the 

fans considered within the scope of its 

analysis. 

Greenheck, AMCA, and Morrison 

commented that ACFs should be 

considered in a separate rule from GFBs 

since ACFs and GFBs are utilized in 

different applications and use different 

industry test procedures (i.e., AMCA 

230 for ACFs and AMCA 214 for GFBs). 

(Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 1; AMCA, No. 

132 at pp. 1, 20–21; Morrison, No. 128 

at p. 2) 

DOE acknowledges that ACFs and 

GFBs have separate utilities and test 

procedures. In the test procedure final 

rule that was published on May 1, 2023 

(‘‘May 2023 TP Final Rule’’), DOE 

adopted separate test procedures for 

GFBs and ACFs (see appendix A and 

appendix B, respectively, to subpart J of 

10 CFR part 431). 88 FR 27312. 

Similarly, in this NOPR, separate 

analyses were conducted for ACFs and 

GFBs to account for the difference in 

test procedures, metrics, and utility. 

DOE is proposing separate standards for 

GFBs and ACFs, expressed in different 

metrics, as discussed in later sections. 

1. General Fans and Blowers 

In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE 

established the scope of the test 

procedure. 88 FR 27312. In this NOPR, 

DOE is proposing energy conservation 

standards for GFBs consistent with the 

scope of coverage defined in the May 

2023 TP Final Rule. 

Specifically, in this NOPR, DOE 

proposes energy conservation standards 

for the following GFB categories, as 

defined in the DOE test procedure: (1) 

axial inline fan; (2) axial panel fan; (3) 

centrifugal housed fan; (4) centrifugal 

unhoused fan; (5) centrifugal inline fan; 

(6) radial housed fan; and (7) power 

roof/wall ventilator (‘‘PRV’’). 

Furthermore, consistent with the DOE 

test procedure, DOE proposes that the 

scope of this energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for GFBs would 

apply to fans with duty points with a 

fan shaft input power equal to or greater 

than 1 hp and a fan static or total air 

power equal to or less than 150 hp. 

Additionally, DOE did not evaluate or 

consider potential energy conservation 

standards for GFBs that were not 

included in the scope of its test 

procedure. See 10 CFR 431.174. DOE 

notes that its test procedure excludes 

fans that create a vacuum of 30 inches 

water gauge or greater. 10 CFR 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3740 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

431.174(a)(2)(vii) In this NOPR, DOE 

proposes to further clarify that this 

provision excludes fans that are 

manufactured and marketed exclusively 

to create a vacuum of 30 inches water 

gauge or greater. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed clarification for fans that 

create a vacuum. Specifically, DOE 

requests comment on whether fans that 

are manufactured and marketed 

exclusively to create a vacuum of 30 

inches water gauge or greater could also 

be used in positive pressure 

applications. Additionally, DOE 

requests information on the applications 

in which a fan not manufactured or 

marketed exclusively for creating a 

vacuum would be used to create a 

vacuum of 30 inches water gauge or 

greater. 

Consistent with the test procedure, 

DOE has excluded certain embedded 

fans, listed in Table III–1, from its 

analysis. See the May 2023 TP Final 

Rule for a detailed discussion of these 

exclusions. 88 FR 27312, 27322–27331. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3741 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, DOE received comments 

regarding the scope of the energy 

conservation standards for GFBs. 

AHAM agreed with DOE’s proposal to 

only cover GFBs that were rated at 1 hp 

or higher because it effectively excluded 

most fans used in consumer product 

applications. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 5) 

AHRI commented that regulating GFBs 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.018</GPH>

Table 111-1 Embedded Fans Proposed for Exclusion from the Scope of the Energy 

Conservation Standards Rulemakine 

Fans embedded in: 

Direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air systems ("DX-DOASes") subject to any DOE 

test procedures in appendix B to subpart F of part 431 

Single-phase central air conditioners and heat pumps rated with a certified cooling 

capacity less than 65,000 British thermal units per hour ("Btu/h"), that are subject to 

DOE's energv conservation standard at 10 CFR 430.32(e) 

Three-phase, air-cooled, small commercial packaged air-conditioning and heating 

equipment rated with a certified cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, that are 

subject to DOE's energy conservation standard at 10 CFR 431.97(b) 

Transport refrigeration (i.e., Trailer refrigeration, Self-powered truck refrigeration, 

Vehicle-powered truck refrigeration, Marine/Rail container refrigerant), and fans 

exclusively powered by combustion engines 

Vacuum cleaners 

Heat Rejection Equipment: 

• Packaged evaporative open circuit cooling towers 

• Evaporative field-erected open circuit cooling towers 

• Packaged evaporative closed-circuit cooling towers 

• Evaporative field-erected closed-circuit cooling towers 

• Packaged evaporative condensers 

• Field-erected evaporative condensers 

• Packaged air-cooled (dry) coolers 

• Field-erected air-cooled (dry) coolers 

• Air-cooled steam condensers 

• Hybrid (water saving) versions of all of the previously listed equipment that 

contain both evaporative and air-cooled heat exchange sections 

Air curtains 

* Air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps (CUAC, CUHP) 

with a certified cooling capacity between 5.5 tons (65,000 Btu/h) and 63.5 tons 

(760,000 Btu/h) that are subject to DOE's energy conservation standard at 10 CFR 

431.97(b) 

*Water-cooled and evaporatively cooled commercial air conditioners and water-source 

commercial heat pumps that are subject to DOE's energy conservation standard at 10 

CFR 431.97(b) 

*Single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps that are subject to DOE's 

energy conservation standard at 10 CFR 431.97(d) 

*Packaged terminal air conditioners (PTAC) and packaged terminal heat pumps 

(PTHP) that are subject to DOE's energv conservation standard at 10 CFR 431.97(e) 

*Computer room air conditioners that are subject to DOE's energy conservation 

standard at 10 CFR 431.97(e) 

*Variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps that are subject 

to DOE's energy conservation standard at 10 CFR 431.97([) 

* The exclusion only applies to supply and condenser fans embedded in this equipment. 
3742 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

with an input power of less than 1 hp 

would include residential fans. (AHRI, 

No. 130 at p. 3) Morrison expressed 

concern with the minimum power limit 

for GFBs being 0.1 hp instead of 1 hp 

since most GFBs with input powers less 

than 1 hp are not commercial or 

industrial. (Morrison, No. 128 at p. 1). 

DOE interprets Morrison’s reference to a 

0.1 hp limit to be a reference to the 0.1 

hp representative unit for ACFs in the 

October 2022 NODA. DOE notes that a 

minimum power limit of 0.1 hp for 

GFBs was not proposed in the October 

2022 NODA. As discussed, GFBs with 

an input power of less than 1 hp are 

excluded from the scope of this 

rulemaking, which is consistent with 

the scope of coverage in the DOE test 

procedure. See 10 CFR 431.174(a)(4)(i). 

In response to both the October 2022 

NODA and the July 2022 TP NOPR, 

AHRI and Morrison commented that 

they were concerned about how energy 

conservation standards would apply to 

replacement fans. (Morrison, No. 128 at 

p. 2; AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 2, 5, 12) 

Morrison and AHRI stated that 

replacement fans should be exempt 

from the standards rulemaking because 

a fan with the same specific 

performance and safety devices needs to 

be used for replacement in order to 

achieve the same system performance 

and to comply with safety requirements. 

Id. DOE notes that the comments from 

AHRI and Morrison submitted in 

response to the October 2022 NODA are 

identical in content to the comments 

submitted from these and other 

stakeholders to the July 2022 NOPR. 

These comments are fully summarized 

in the May 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 

27312, 27334. 

CA IOUs stated that consumers 

seeking to replace low-pressure fans in 

constrained spaces may not be able to 

find replacement fans that meet a higher 

FEI. Since a more efficient fan may 

require a larger diameter, it might not fit 

in the constrained space. Therefore, 

either the constrained space will need to 

be enlarged to fit the larger fan (which 

is likely to be costly for the consumer) 

or the consumer would select a 

replacement fan of the same size but 

with higher pressure (resulting in more 

power use to achieve the same airflow). 

(CA IOUs, No. 127 at p. 6) CA IOUs 

therefore proposed a narrow exception 

for [non-embedded] centrifugal fans 

with a rated pressure not greater than 

1.5 inches water gauge. (CA IOUs, No. 

127 at p. 7) 

Consistent with DOE’s response to 

these comments in the April 2023 Final 

Rule, DOE is proposing to exclude 

certain embedded fans from potential 

energy conservation standards in this 

rulemaking, whether sold for 

incorporation into the equipment or 

already incorporated in the equipment, 

if embedded in equipment listed in 

Table III–1. This approach would 

exclude replacement fans for the 

equipment listed in Table III–1. For 

equipment not listed in Table III–1, DOE 

notes that it is not excluding 

replacement fans from the scope of the 

rulemaking, consistent with the scope of 

the DOE test procedure. In its analysis, 

which is discussed in further detail in 

section IV.C.1 of this document, DOE 

evaluated improved efficiency options 

while maintaining constant diameter 

and duty point (i.e., air flow and 

operating pressures remained constant 

as efficiency increased); therefore, DOE 

has tentatively concluded that a 

compliant fan of the same size and 

performance would be available for use 

as an embedded fan or replacement for 

an embedded fan. Additionally, DOE 

does not expect that manufacturers of 

equipment that contain embedded fans 

would need to redesign their 

equipment. Furthermore, DOE is not 

excluding centrifugal fans based on its 

rated pressure. In its analysis, DOE 

specifically examined centrifugal 

housed fans designed at both lower- and 

higher-pressure duty points. Based on 

that analysis, DOE did not find a 

significant difference in the achievable 

FEI values between the higher- and 

lower-pressure duty points. 

Accordingly, DOE has tentatively 

determined that centrifugal housed fans 

do not require an exclusion based on 

rated pressure. Additional details on 

DOE’s analysis are presented in chapter 

3 of the accompanying TSD. 

DOE also received multiple comments 

from stakeholders about fans that 

should be excluded from the scope of 

the rulemaking; these comments were 

similar to the comments received in 

response to the July 2022 TP NOPR. 

Morrison and AHRI commented that 

they are concerned over double 

regulation of products. (Morrison, No. 

128 at pp. 2–3; AHRI, No. 130 at p. 2) 

AHRI commented that fans embedded 

in boilers and commercial water heaters 

should be excluded. (AHRI, No. 130 at 

pp. 10–11) DOE notes that these 

comments were summarized and 

responded to in the May 2023 TP Final 

Rule. 88 FR 27312, 27329–27330. 

Additionally, AHRI commented that the 

regulation of fans within air-cooled 

water chillers would not improve the 

efficiency of the entire equipment, nor 

would it lead to net energy savings 

because ASHRAE 90.1 already sets 

efficiency standards for the equipment 

and the entire system is designed to 

meet the ASHRAE 90.1 efficiency 

standards. (AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 9–10) 

MIAQ commented that energy 

conservation standards for embedded 

fans would not necessarily improve the 

performance of the products in which 

the fans are embedded if the products 

are already regulated. (MIAQ, No. 124 at 

p. 4) 

As previously discussed, DOE is 

exempting fans embedded in the 

equipment listed in Table III–1, 

consistent with the DOE test procedure, 

and continues to exclude fans in 

covered equipment in which the fan 

energy use is already captured in the 

equipment-specific test procedures. 

Furthermore, as discussed in section 

III.A of this document, ASHRAE 90.1 is 

not a federally mandated standard, 

though it may be adopted by State and 

local governments, and therefore DOE is 

not specifically exempting fans that are 

in equipment that are regulated by IECC 

and ASHRAE 90.1. 

More details regarding the scope of 

GFBs that are included in this NOPR 

can be found in the May 2023 TP Final 

Rule. 88 FR 27312, 27317–27336. 

2. Air Circulating Fans 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

stated that it was considering all air 

circulating fans in its analysis of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for fans and blowers, including 

unhoused air circulating fan heads and 

housed air circulating fan heads. 87 FR 

62038, 62041. DOE received comments 

from stakeholders in response to the 

scope discussion in the October 2022 

NODA. 

AHAM commented there is a lack of 

clarity about which products are 

included and excluded in DOE’s 

proposed scope and that DOE was 

improperly expanding the scope of 

products included in the fans and 

blowers category by including 

residential products. AHAM stated that 

it did not believe that the metric, 

technology options, assumptions, and 

test procedure discussed in the October 

2022 NODA are relevant to residential 

fans. (AHAM, No. 123 at pp. 1–2) 

Specifically, AHAM commented that 

the proposed test procedure from the 

July 2022 TP NOPR and AMCA 214–21 

are not applicable to residential fans 

and that no energy conservation 

standards should be set for residential 

fans until a test procedure for 

residential fans is established. (AHAM, 

No. 123 at pp. 5, 9) AHAM, Greenheck, 

and AMCA also commented that ACFs 

with an input power less than 125 W 

should be excluded from scope to 

coincide with the scope limit in AMCA 

230–23 and IEC 60879. (AHAM, No. 123 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3743 

at pp. 5–6; Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 2; 

AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 1–2, 19–20) 

AHAM noted that this would effectively 

differentiate between residential and 

consumer products, so long as the 125 

W threshold applies to the fan rating 

alone and not to the entire product or 

the fan and motor. (AHAM, No. 123 at 

p. 5) DOE notes that ACFs are tested in 

a configuration that measures electrical 

input power to the fan, inclusive of the 

motor, and that the existing test 

procedures (i.e., AMCA 230–23 or IEC 

60879:2019) do not allow measuring the 

mechanical shaft power to the fan, 

exclusive of the motor. Therefore, DOE 

has determined that a limit in terms of 

electrical input power (applicable to the 

fan and motor) is more appropriate. 

DOE notes that AHAM submitted 

additional comments recommending 

exclusion of residential fans and fans 

embedded in residential products that 

were also submitted in response to the 

July 2022 TP NOPR. (AHAM, No. 123 at 

pp. 2–5) DOE addressed those 

comments in the May 2023 TP Final 

Rule. 88 FR 27312, 27326. In the May 

2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established the 

scope of the test procedure for ACFs and 

excluded ACFs with an input power of 

less than 125 W at maximum speed. 88 

FR 27312, 27331. In this NOPR, DOE is 

proposing energy conservation 

standards for ACFs consistent with the 

scope of coverage defined in the May 

2023 TP Final Rule. (see 10 CFR 

431.174(b)). Therefore, DOE proposes 

that ACFs with an input power of less 

than 125 W at maximum speed are 

excluded from the scope of this 

standards rulemaking. DOE is aware, 

however, that ACFs with an input 

power less than 125 W at maximum 

speed could be distributed in commerce 

for industrial and commercial use, and 

that ACFs with an input power greater 

than 125 W at maximum speed could be 

distributed in commerce for residential 

use. However, any equipment that meets 

the definition of air circulating fan, has 

an input power greater than or equal to 

125 W at maximum speed, as measured 

by the test procedure at high speed, and 

is of a type that is not a covered 

consumer product and is, to any 

significant extent, distributed in 

commerce for industrial or commercial 

purposes would be subject to these 

proposed energy conservation 

standards, regardless of whether it is 

sold for use in commercial, industrial, 

or residential settings. 

AHAM commented that the 

terminology used in the October 2022 

NODA for fan head diameter, rather 

than fan blade diameter, is inconsistent 

with how residential ACFs are typically 

analyzed. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 8) DOE 

notes that while it works to use 

terminology that is consistent with 

industry terminology, it is not always 

possible given the size and maturity of 

test standards development in a given 

industry. DOE clarifies that its usage of 

the term ‘‘fan head diameter’’ in the 

October 2022 NODA was intended to be 

analogous to ‘‘fan blade diameter.’’ 

Additionally, DOE notes that it is 

proposing a definition for ‘‘diameter’’ 

for fans and blowers that is consistent 

with the term ‘‘fan blade diameter’’ in 

this NOPR, which is discussed in 

section IV.A.1.b of this document. 

AHAM also commented that it did not 

believe that DOE has enough data on 

residential fans to analyze them. AHAM 

stated that DOE’s analysis in the 

October 2022 NODA had an ACF with 

a 24-inch (‘‘in.’’) blade and a 0.5 hp 

motor, which is not representative of 

residential ACFs. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 

8) DOE notes that in the October 2022 

NODA, it analyzed ACFs at multiple 

representative sizes and motor 

horsepowers, including a 12 in. 

diameter, 0.1 motor hp unit; a 20 in. 

diameter, 0.33 motor hp unit; a 24 in. 

diameter, 0.5 motor hp unit; a 36 in. 

diameter, 0.5 motor hp unit; and 50 in. 

diameter, 1 motor hp unit. 87 FR 62038, 

62046. DOE had determined that these 

diameters and motor horsepowers were 

representative of the full scope of ACFs 

considered in the October 2022 NODA. 

Id. 

AHAM stated that the size of motors 

that are typically used in residential 

ACFs are excluded from the scope of the 

ongoing electric motors rulemaking; 

therefore, residential ACFs should be 

excluded from this rulemaking since 

DOE would not see potential savings. 

(AHAM, No. 123 at p. 9) DOE notes that 

this is a rulemaking for fans and 

blowers. For ACFs, DOE considers 

higher-efficiency motors as a design 

option as well as other design options 

but emphasizes that the approach that 

DOE uses to evaluate potential 

efficiency standards is not prescriptive 

(see section IV.A.3 of this document). 

Furthermore, DOE considers both 

potential economic and energy savings 

in its analysis, which is discussed in 

section IV.G of this document. 

Additionally, AHAM commented that 

it was their understanding that the 

proposed definitions for ACFs in the 

July 2022 TP NOPR did not include 

bladeless fans and agreed with the 

exclusion of bladeless ACFs from scope. 

(AHAM, No. 123 at p. 5) The definition 

of air circulating fan, ‘‘a fan that has no 

provision for connection to ducting or 

separation of the fan inlet from its outlet 

using a pressure boundary, operates 

against zero external static pressure loss, 

and is not a jet fan,’’ does not exclude 

bladeless fans. See 10 CFR 431.172. 

However, as discussed above, ACFs 

with input powers less than 125 W at 

maximum speed are excluded from the 

scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, 

bladeless fans, which have input power 

less than 125 W are excluded from the 

scope of this NOPR. 

NEMA expressed concern that the 

July 2022 TP NOPR proposed only 

including fans with a shaft input power 

between 1 hp and 150 hp, but that the 

October 2022 NODA proposed 

including fans with a shaft input power 

of less than 1 hp. (NEMA, No. 125 at p. 

2). DOE notes that, as specified in the 

test procedure, the 1 hp and 150 hp 

limits are applicable to GFBs, and that 

GFBs with an input power of less than 

1 hp are excluded from scope. See 10 

CFR 431.174(a)(4)(i). Additionally, DOE 

clarifies that the 150-hp limit applies to 

the fan air power. 10 CFR 

431.174(a)(4)(ii) DOE notes that the ACF 

scope evaluated in this NOPR is 

consistent with the scope DOE adopted 

in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, which 

excludes ACFs with an input power of 

less than 125 W. 88 FR 27312, 27333. 

a. Ceiling Fan Distinction 

DOE explained in the coverage 

determination that fans and blowers, the 

subjects of this rulemaking, do not 

include ceiling fans, as defined at 10 

CFR 430.2. See 86 FR 46579, 46586 and 

10 CFR 431.171. Therefore, as stated in 

the May 2023 TP Final Rule, equipment 

that meets the definition of a ceiling fan 

would be excluded from the scope of 

equipment included under ‘‘fan and 

blower’’. 88 FR 27312, 27365. A ceiling 

fan means a nonportable device that is 

suspended from a ceiling for circulating 

air via the rotation of fan blades. 10 CFR 

430.2. In the ceiling fan test procedure 

final rule published on August 16, 2022, 

DOE finalized an amendment to the 

ceiling fan definition at 10 CFR 430.2 to 

specify that a ceiling fan provides 

‘‘circulating air,’’ which means ‘‘the 

discharge of air in an upward or 

downward direction. A ceiling fan that 

has a ratio of fan blade span (in inches) 

to maximum rotation rate (in 

revolutions per minute) greater than 

0.06 provides circulating air.’’ 87 FR 

50396, 50402. Specifically, the 0.06 in/ 

RPM ratio was added in the ceiling fans 

definition to distinguish fans with 

directional airflow from circulating 

airflow. Id. 

DOE also finalized a definition for 

‘‘high-speed belt-driven ceiling fan’’ 

(‘‘HSBD’’) and added language to clarify 

that high-speed belt-driven ceiling fans 

were to be subject to the AMCA 230–15 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3744 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

36According to the DOE test procedure for ceiling 

fans at appendix U to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, 

a small diameter ceiling fan means ‘‘a ceiling fan 

that has a represented value of blade span, as 

determined in 10 CFR 429.32(a)(3)(i), less than or 

equal to seven feet.’’ 

test procedure and subject to a similar 

efficiency metric as large-diameter 

ceiling fans (namely the ceiling fan 

energy index ‘‘CFEI’’). Id. at 87 FR 

50424, 50426, 50431. 

In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE 

established the definitions of ACF and 

related terms. DOE defined the term air 

circulating fan as ‘‘a fan that has no 

provision for connection to ducting or 

separation of the fan inlet from its outlet 

using a pressure boundary, operates 

against zero external static pressure loss, 

and is not a jet fan’’. In addition, DOE 

defined an unhoused circulating fan as 

‘‘an air circulating fan without housing, 

having an axial impeller with a ratio of 

fan blade span (in inches) to maximum 

rate of rotation (in revolutions per 

minute) less than or equal to 0.06. The 

impeller may or may not be guarded.’’ 

88 FR 27312, 27389–27390. DOE relied 

on the blade span to maximum rpm 

ratio to distinguish these ACFs from 

ceiling fans. 87 FR 44194, 44216. For 

housed ACFs however, DOE defined a 

housed ACF as an air circulating fan 

with an axial or centrifugal impeller, 

and a housing. 88 FR 27312, 27390. This 

definition aligns with the housed ACF 

definition in AMCA 230–23 and does 

not specify a diameter to speed ratio 

limit because housed ACFs can have 

blade span to maximum rpm ratios that 

are in the same range as ceiling fans 

(i.e., greater than 0.06). 

In the Ceiling Fan ECS NOPR 

published on June 22, 2023, DOE noted 

that that a ceiling fan must be 

‘‘distributed in commerce with 

components that enable it to be 

suspended from a ceiling.’’ 88 FR 40932, 

40943. Belt-driven fans are often 

distributed in commerce without 

components that enable the fan to be 

suspended from a ceiling. For example, 

some belt-driven fans are sold 

connected to wheels or to a pedestal 

base. In this case, such a fan would not 

meet the definition of a ceiling fan 

because it has not been manufactured to 

be suspended from the ceiling, and 

therefore would not be subject to the 

HSBD test procedure or any potential 

energy conservation standards for 

HSBDs even though a consumer could 

independently purchase their own 

straps or chains and elect to hang this 

fan from the ceiling. 88 FR 40932, 

40943. 

DOE stated that HSBD ceiling fans, in 

contrast to belt-driven fans connected to 

wheel or a pedestal base, are distributed 

in commerce with specific straps, 

chains, or other similar components that 

are designed and tested by the 

manufacturer to safely support the 

weight of the ceiling fan in an overhead 

configuration. Further, they circulate air 

since they meet the 0.06 blade span to 

maximum rpm ratio. 88 FR 40932, 

40943. 

Many belt-driven fans are housed (i.e., 

the fan blades are contained within a 

cylindrical enclosure, often with solid 

metal sides and a cage on the front and 

back). However, the presence of a 

housing is not relevant in determining 

whether a product meets the definition 

of ceiling fan. While a housing is 

generally included to better direct air, a 

housing could be added to a ceiling fan, 

including those that are clearly intended 

to circulate air. As such, DOE 

emphasizes that the definition of a 

ceiling fan requires that fan to be 

‘‘suspended from a ceiling’’ and to 

‘‘circulate air’’, rather than the presence 

or absence of a fan housing. 88 FR 

40932, 40943. 

In response to the June 2023 Ceiling 

Fan ECS NOPR (88 FR 40932), CA IOUs 

commented that CFEI is not intended 

for small-diameter ceiling fans.36 (CA 

IOUs, No. EERE–2021–BT–STD–0011– 

0049 at p. 3). All HSBD ceiling fans 

identified by DOE would be smalldiameter ceiling fans. Therefore, DOE 

interprets CA IOU’s comment to mean 

that the CFEI metric is not intended for 

HSBD ceiling fans. VES also pointed out 

in response to the September 2019 

Ceiling Fan TP NOPR (84 FR 51440) that 

they sell shrouded fans that currently 

are not subject to ceiling fan energy 

conservation standards because they are 

belt-driven. VES added that if they 

transition to a direct-drive motor they 

would be subject to high-speed smalldiameter ceiling fan standards, which 

are not appropriate as the airflow of 

their products is significantly higher 

than high-speed small-diameter ceiling 

fans given the intended directional 

application. (VES, No. EERE–2013–BT– 

TP–0050–0026 at pp. 1–2) 

DOE notes that VES did not make a 

statement as to whether or not the 0.06 

blade span to rpm ratio would 

appropriately distinguish between their 

circulating fans and traditional ceiling 

fans. However, as the air circulating fan 

definitions have pointed out, the 0.06 

blade span to rpm ratio is most 

appropriate for distinguishing between 

unhoused air circulating fans. Housed 

air circulating fans may exceed the 0.06 

blade span to rpm ratio and commonly 

do, despite the fact that they are 

typically thought of in industry as air 

circulating fans and not ceiling fans, 

even if they are ceiling mounted. 

Based on the interpretation of the 

ceiling fan definition in the June 2023 

Ceiling Fan ECS NOPR, an identical fan 

product could switch between being 

regulated as a high-speed belt-driven 

ceiling fan and a housed air circulating 

fan based only on if the equipment is 

sold with straps or chains for mounting 

overhead. Similarly, an identical direct 

drive fan product could switch between 

being regulated as a high-speed smalldiameter ceiling fan and a housed air 

circulating fan based only on the if the 

product is sold with straps or chains for 

mounting overhead. Further 

complicating the analysis is the fact that 

high-speed belt-driven ceiling fans, air 

circulating fans and high-speed smalldiameter ceiling fans are subject to 

different test procedures and different 

efficiency standards. DOE believes this 

confusion necessitates further 

refinement. 

To avoid this confusion, DOE is 

reinterpreting the scope of the ceiling 

fan definition based on the potential 

overlap of products with housed air 

circulating fans. As DOE noted in the 

September 2019 Ceiling Fan TP NOPR, 

the intent of the ceiling fan definition is 

to be limited to ‘‘nonportable’’ devices 

that ‘‘circulate air’’. 84 FR 51440, 51444. 

Specifically, to clarify the distinction 

between air circulating fans and ceiling 

fans, DOE is interpreting the elements of 

the ceiling fan definition in the 

following way: 

• Portable—means: (1) that a fan is 

offered for mounting on surfaces other 

than or in addition to the ceiling; and 

(2) that a consumer can vary the 

location of the product/equipment 

throughout the product/equipment 

lifetime. A ceiling fan is only mounted 

to the ceiling and is not intended to be 

installed in any other mounting 

configuration or change location after 

it’s been installed. This is in contrast to 

housed air circulating fans sold with 

straps and chains, where the products 

are intended to be regularly modified to 

direct air in different directions or move 

airflow around different obstacles or in 

different areas. DOE also notes that once 

a ceiling fan is mounted to the ceiling, 

it is often hard-wired in place; 

• Not for the purpose of circulating 

air—While DOE has traditionally 

emphasized the 0.06 fan blade span to 

maximum rotation rate ratio as the 

distinction between circulating air and 

direction airflow, DOE notes that the 

definition of ‘‘circulating air’’ in the 

ceiling fan definition is provided in 

contrast to directional airflow. DOE is 

interpreting the presence of a housing as 

evidence of airflow that is intended to 

be directional. In addition, DOE is 

interpreting the ability for the consumer 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3745 

37See example of ‘‘ceiling mounted fans’’ that are 

intended to provide directional, rather than 

circulating air at www.trianglefans.com/type/ 

ceiling-mounted-fans. 

to easily modify the direction of the 

airflow via mounting by ceiling 

mounted chains, straps or via a ceiling 

bracket wherein the fan is able to be 

pointed in different directions as 

evidence that the fan is providing 

directional airflow.37

Based on the interpretation, the scope 

of the ceiling fan definition would be 

limited to only traditional ceiling fan 

products that are connected to the 

ceiling via a downrod, flush mounting, 

or similar, non-portable device. All 

other portable ceiling mounted fans that 

provide directional airflow would be 

regulated under the air circulating fan 

regulation. While the June 2023 Ceiling 

Fan ECS NOPR included proposed 

efficiency standards for high-speed beltdriven ceiling fans, under the proposed 

interpretation of the ceiling fan 

definition, all high-speed belt-driven 

ceiling fan products identified by DOE 

would not be within the scope of the 

ceiling fan definition and would instead 

meet the definition of housed aircirculating fans. Further, any directdrive ceiling-mounted fan that is 

portable and provides directional 

airflow (i.e., with a housing) would meet 

the housed air circulating fan definition 

and be subject to the air circulating fan 

test procedure and standards. In line 

with this interpretation of the ceiling 

fan definition, all housed air-circulating 

fans have been included within this 

NOPR analysis regardless of whether 

they are sold with a straps or chains to 

hang them from the ceiling or with 

wheels or other mounting 

configurations. 

C. Test Procedure and Metric 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) 

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use these test procedures to certify to 

DOE that their product complies with 

energy conservation standards and to 

quantify the efficiency of their product. 

As previously discussed, DOE 

published its test procedure final rule 

on May 1, 2023, which established 

separate uniform test procedures for 

GFBs and ACFs. 88 FR 27312. The test 

procedure for GFBs is based on 

American National Standards Institute 

(‘‘ANSI’’)/AMCA Standard 214–21 ‘‘Test 

Procedure for Calculating Fan Energy 

Index (FEI) for Commercial and 

Industrial Fans and Blowers’’ (‘‘AMCA 

214–21’’) with some modification and 

prescribes test methods for measuring 

the fan electrical input power and 

determining the FEI of GFBs. The test 

procedure for ACFs is based on ANSI/ 

AMCA Standard 230–23 ‘‘Laboratory 

Methods of Testing Air Circulating Fans 

for Rating and Certification’’ (‘‘AMCA 

230–23’’) with some modification and 

prescribes test methods for measuring 

the fan airflow in cubic feet per minute 

per watt (‘‘CFM/W’’) of electric input 

power to an ACF. (See 10 CFR part 431, 

subpart J, appendices A and B, 

respectively.) 88 FR 27312, 27315. 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, AHAM commented that the test 

procedure proposed in the July 2022 TP 

NOPR was inconsistent with agreements 

made in the 2015 ASRAC negotiations, 

which diminishes the value of 

participating in ASRAC negotiations. 

(AHAM, No. 123 at pp. 10–11) DOE 

notes that the context of this comment 

is the same as an AHAM comment 

submitted by AHAM to the July 2022 TP 

NOPR that DOE summarized and 

responded to in the May 2023 TP Final 

Rule. 88 FR 27312, 27377. 

1. General Fans and Blowers 

a. General 

DOE is proposing energy conservation 

standards for GFBs in terms of FEI, 

which is calculated in accordance with 

the DOE test procedure. See 10 CFR part 

431, subpart J, appendix A. In 

accordance with the DOE test 

procedure, the FEI metric would be 

evaluated at each duty point as 

specified by the manufacturer and, if 

adopted, DOE proposes that each duty 

point at which the fan is offered for sale 

would need to meet the proposed 

energy conservation standards. 

FEI provides for evaluation of the 

efficiency of a GFB across a range of 

operating conditions, captures the 

performance of the motor, transmission, 

or motor controllers (if any), and allows 

for the differentiation of fans with 

motors, transmissions, and motor 

controllers with differing efficiency 

levels. FEI is a wire-to-air metric, which 

means that it considers the efficiency 

from the input power to the output 

power of a fan, including the 

efficiencies of the motor, motor 

controller (if included), transmission, 

and fan itself. The inclusion of all of 

these components encourages the 

improvement of motor, motor controller, 

and transmission efficiencies, in 

addition to the improvement of a fan’s 

aerodynamic efficiency. In addition, FEI 

aligns with the industry test standard 

(AMCA 214–21) and can help drive 

better fan selections by making it easier 

to compare performance of different 

fans. AMCA 214–21 defines FEI as the 

ratio of the electrical input power 

(‘‘FEP’’) of a reference fan to the FEP of 

the fan for which the FEI is calculated, 

both established at the same duty point. 

The DOE test procedure provides 

methods to calculate both FEP and FEI 

of a fan at a given duty point. 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, DOE received comment on the 

metric used for GFBs. Morrison and 

AHRI commented that they disagreed 

with using the weighted FEI (‘‘WFEI’’) 

metric that was discussed in the July 

2022 TP NOPR. (Morrison, No. 128 at 

pp. 1, 3; AHRI, No. 130 at p. 2–3). DOE 

notes that these comments are similar to 

the comments submitted to the July 

2022 TP NOPR that DOE summarized in 

the May 2023 TP Final Rule. MIAQ 

commented in support of using FEI as 

the metric used for regulation and 

disagreed with the use of WFEI because 

it has not been evaluated by fan 

manufacturers or their customers 

(MIAQ, No. 124 at p. 2). In the May 

2023 TP Final Rule, DOE responded to 

similar comments and ultimately 

defined FEI as the metric for general 

fans and blowers. 88 FR 27312, 27367– 

27369. 

Morrison commented that the FEI 

metric aligned well with the agreements 

made in the ASRAC Term Sheet and 

that FEI is now being used by numerous 

standards as the metric for efficiency. 

(Morrison, No. 128 at pp. 2–3) DOE 

interprets Morrison’s comment as 

support for using the FEI metric. 

Morrison commented that variablefrequency drive (‘‘VFD’’) control 

provides a good method to dynamically 

achieve part-load operation to promote 

energy savings. Morrison stated that 

since the FEP calculation metric 

penalizes the use of VFDs, DOE should 

consider providing an equivalent bonus 

factor, at a minimum, to gain back the 

losses in the calculation. Morrison 

commented that operating at part load 

saves significantly more energy than any 

other efficiency change. (Morrison, No. 

128 at p. 3) As discussed in the May 

2023 TP Final Rule, DOE is not adopting 

a control credit in the calculation of FEP 

for fans with a motor controller, such as 

a VFD; however, as shown in Table I– 

1, DOE is proposing lower standards for 

fans sold with motor controllers to 

account for the motor controller losses 

in the FEP metric associated with 

testing a fan with a controller. 

As discussed in the May 2023 TP 

Final Rule, to the extent that 

manufacturers of general fans and 

blowers are making voluntary 

representations of FEI, then they would 

need to ensure that the product is tested 

in accordance with the DOE test 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3746 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

38 IEC 61900–9–2 Ed.2:2023 establishes three 

efficiency classes (IE0, IE1, and IE2) to characterize 

the different efficiency levels of CDMs on the 

market. 

39 International Energy Agency, Electric Motor 

Systems Annex, Report on Round Robin of 

Converter Losses, Final Report of Results. www.iea4e.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/rrc_report_

final_2022dec.pdf. 

procedure and that any voluntary 

representations of FEI (such as in 

marketing materials or on any label 

affixed to the product) disclosure the 

results of such testing. DOE recognizes 

that the ability to make an additional 

voluntary representation of the EU 

metric in marketing materials and on 

product labels may limit manufacturer 

burden. DOE is clarifying that 

manufacturers may represent the 

additional EU metric, but if doing so 

they must also represent the FEI metric 

in accordance with the existing DOE test 

procedure. 

b. Combined Motor and Motor 

Controller Efficiency Calculation 

For fans with a polyphase regulated 

motor and a controller, AMCA 214–21 

allows testing these fans using a shaftto-air test (i.e., a test that does not 

include the motor and controller 

performance). When conducting a shaftto-air test, the mechanical fan shaft 

input power is measured and the FEP is 

calculated by using a mathematical 

model to represent the performance of 

the combined motor and controller (i.e., 

its part-load efficiency). The FEP is then 

used to calculate the FEI of the fan. 

Section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214–21, 

which relies on Annex B, ‘‘Motor 

Constants if Used With VFD 

(Normative),’’ and Annex C, ‘‘VFD 

Performance Constants (Normative),’’ 

provides a method to estimate the 

combined motor and controller partload efficiency for certain electric 

motors and controller combinations that 

meet the requirements in sections 

6.4.1.3 and 6.4.1.4 of AMCA 214–21, 

which specify that the motor must be 

polyphase regulated motor (i.e., an 

electric motor subject to energy 

conservation standards at 10 CFR 

431.25). 

In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE stated 

its concerns that the equations 

described in section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 

214–21 may not be appropriately 

representative, resulting in FEI ratings 

that would be higher than FEI ratings 

obtained using the wire-to-air test 

method described in section 6.1 of 

AMCA 214–21. Therefore, in the July 

2022 TP NOPR, DOE did not propose to 

allow the use of section 6.4.2.4 of 

AMCA 214–21. Instead, DOE proposed 

that fans with a motor and controller be 

tested in accordance with section 6.1 of 

AMCA 214–21. DOE indicated that 

manufacturers would still be able to rely 

on a mathematical model (including the 

same mathematical model as described 

in section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214–21, if 

the mathematical model met the AEDM 

requirements) in lieu of testing to 

determine the FEI of a fan with a motor 

and controller. 87 FR 44194, 44223. In 

the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE also 

reviewed the reference motor and 

controller (‘‘power drive system’’) 

efficiency provided in IEC 61800–9– 

2:2017 ‘‘Adjustable speed electrical 

power drive systems Part 9–2: 

Ecodesign for power drive systems, 

motor starters, power electronics and 

their driven applications—Energy 

efficiency indicators for power drive 

systems and motor starters,’’ which also 

provides equations to represent the 

performance of a motor and controller 

used with fans, and found that the IEC 

model predicted values of efficiency 

that were significantly lower (more than 

10 percent on average) than the model 

included in AMCA 214–21. Id. 

In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE 

further reviewed the model in AMCA 

214–21 section 6.4.2.4 and stated that it 

continued to have concerns that 

applying the model in section 6.4.2.4 of 

AMCA 214–21 may result in fan FEI 

ratings that would be higher than FEI 

ratings obtained using the wire-to-air 

test method described in section 6.1 of 

AMCA 214–21. 88 FR 27312, 27347. 

Specifically, DOE reviewed information 

provided by AMCA analyzing the AHRI 

1210 database of certified motor 

controllers and providing graphical 

representations comparing the AHRI 

data to the AMCA 207 model and found 

that there were several AHRI-certified 

motor and motor controller 

combinations that had a tested 

efficiency that is lower than the model 

in section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214–21. 

(Docket No. EERE–2021–BT–TP–0021– 

0046, AMCA, No. 41 at pp. 18–19) In 

their comments, AMCA stated that the 

model in AMCA 214–21, section 6.4.2.4, 

was not intended to be a conservative 

estimate of losses. Instead, according to 

AMCA, the model was intended to 

provide a level playing field between 

manufacturers that chose to test wire-toair and those that chose to test fan shaft 

power and calculate wire-to-air losses. 

(Docket No. EERE–2021–BT–TP–0021– 

0046, AMCA, No. 41 at p. 18) 88 FR 

27312, 27348. 

Therefore, to minimize the possibility 

that using the calculation approach 

would result in better energy efficiency 

ratings than when testing the equipment 

inclusive of the motor and controller, in 

the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE did 

not allow the use of section 6.4.2.4 of 

AMCA 214–21. Instead, DOE required 

that fans with motor and controller be 

tested in accordance with section 6.1 of 

AMCA 214–21. DOE noted that 

manufacturers would still be able to rely 

on a mathematical model (including the 

same mathematical model as described 

in section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214–21) in 

lieu of testing to determine the FEI of a 

fan with a motor and controller, as long 

as the mathematical model meets the 

AEDM requirements. Id. In other words, 

manufacturers would not be able to 

generally apply the model in section 

6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214–21. Manufacturers 

would have to first go through the 

AEDM validation process to 

demonstrate that the FEI as established 

by the AEDM (or a calculation method 

that would rely on the model in section 

6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214–21) would be less 

than or equal to 105 percent of the FEI 

determined from the wire-to-air test of 

the basic models used to validate the 

AEDM. See 10 CFR 429.70(n). 

Since the publication of the May 2023 

Final Rule, the IEC published a new 

version of IEC 61800–9–2 (‘‘IEC 61800– 

9–2: 2023’’). Compared to IEC 61800–9– 

2:2017, which included a calculation 

method to directly establish typical 

losses of a reference motor and motor 

controller combination (or ‘‘Power Drive 

System’’, ‘‘PDS’’), this version provides 

the reference motor controller. It also 

points to a separate IEC publication (IEC 

TS 60034–30–2:2016 ‘‘Rotating 

electrical machines—Part 30–2: 

Efficiency classes of variable speed AC 

motors (IE-code)’’) for establishing the 

reference motor losses. The detailed 

calculations of losses for a reference 

motor and motor controller are also 

described in IEC TS 60034–31: 2021 

(‘‘Rotating electrical machines—Part 31: 

Selection of energy-efficient motors 

including variable speed applications— 

Application guidelines’’). 

IEC 61800–9–2:2023 also 

characterizes the reference motor 

controller or ‘‘complete drive module’’ 

(‘‘CDM’’) as corresponding to an IE1 

efficiency class.38 See section 6.2 of IEC 

61800–9–2:2023. IEC 61800–9–2:2023 

further establishes efficiency classes for 

PDS based on pairing different levels of 

efficiency motors to baseline efficiency 

CDMs at IE2 levels. See section 6.5 of 

IEC 61800–9–2:2023. DOE reviewed a 

report from the International Energy 

Agency, Electric Motor Systems 

Annex 39 which included test data from 

179 tests on 57 motor controllers, as 

well as additional market data and 

showed that VFDs on the market today 

are all within the same efficiency class 

corresponding to ‘‘IE2’’, in line with the 

baseline levels used in IEC 61800–9–2 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3747 

40The IEC defines motor efficiency classes. See 

IEC TS 60034–30–2:2016, Rotating electrical 

machines—Part 30–2: Efficiency classes of variable 

speed AC motors (IE-code). 

41For the purposes of this analysis, DOE 

considered a 4-pole motor. DOE relied on the 

coefficients provided in the EXCEL sheet 

accompanying the IEC TS 60034–31 Ed.2:2021 to 

calculate the motor losses equivalent to an IE3 

motor (See Table 4 of IEC TS 60034–30–2:2016) and 

multiplied each coefficient by ((100-hr) hIE3)/((100- 

hIE3) hr where hr is the minimum value of full-load 

efficiency at 10 CFR 431.25 at a given horsepower 

across open and enclosed enclosure categories and 

hIE3 is the IE3 full load efficiency at the same 

horsepower and pole configuration. 

42Two percent lower on average for 4 poles 

motors at 1, 10, 15, 25, 75, and 200 hp for loads 

between 0.25 and 1. 

Ed. 2:2023. Therefore, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the IE2 level 

is appropriate to represent a baseline 

CDM or motor controller. 

In order to support an alternative 

credit calculation (See discussion in 

section IV.C.1.b) and potentially reduce 

test burden, DOE evaluated the model in 

IEC 61800–9–2:2023 assuming a 

polyphase regulated motor that exactly 

meets the standards at 10 CFR 431.25, 

and a motor controller at IE2 level. In 

addition, DOE adjusted the IE3 levels 40

to exactly match the standards at 10 

CFR 431.25 and be comparable to the 

motor losses in AMCA 214–21.41 DOE 

found that compared to the AMCA 

model, the IEC 61800–9–2:2023 model 

resulted in generally lower combined 

motor and motor controller 

efficiencies.42 Based on this analysis, 

DOE has tentatively determined that the 

IEC model provides a better 

representation of a baseline motor and 

VFD combination (i.e., resulting in a 

conservative estimate of losses) as by 

definition it relies on a regulated 

polyphase motor that exactly meets the 

standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and on a 

baseline IE2 motor controller. 

Therefore, DOE proposes to reduce 

test burden by adding a combined motor 

and controller efficiency calculation to 

allow establishing the FEI of fans sold 

with a regulated polyphase motor and a 

motor controller based on a shaft-to-air 

test and calculated motor and controller 

efficiency. DOE proposes that the 

performance of the motor and motor 

controller combination be allowed for 

certain electric motors and controller 

combinations that meet the 

requirements in sections 6.4.1.3 and 

6.4.1.4 of AMCA 214–21, which specify 

that the motor must be polyphase 

regulated motor (i.e., an electric motor 

subject to energy conservation standards 

at 10 CFR 431.25). To support this 

approach, DOE proposes that the 

performance of the motor and motor 

controller combination be calculated in 

accordance with the model described in 

IEC 61800–9–2:2023 and the calculation 

in IEC TS 60034–31: 2016, and 

assuming a regulated polyphase motor 

that exactly meets the standards at 10 

CFR 431.25 and a baseline IE2 motor 

controller. For the final rule, DOE may 

also consider an approach where the 

calculation of AMCA 214–21 would be 

preserved but adjusted (i.e., same 

equations but with different 

coefficients) to align with the results of 

the IEC 61800–9–2:2023 model as 

proposed. 

DOE requests comments and feedback 

on the proposed methodology and 

calculation of motor and motor 

controller losses as well as potentially 

using an alternative calculation based 

on adjusted AMCA 214–21 equations. 

2. Air Circulating Fans 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE used 

FEI as the metric for ACFs in its 

analysis. DOE requested feedback on the 

FEI values that it determined and its 

approach for estimating FEI values for 

ACFs. 87 FR 62038, 62050. 

AHAM commented that FEI is not an 

appropriate metric to use for residential 

ACFs because the reference fan used for 

FEI is based on a commercial fan. 

(AHAM, No. 123 at p. 7) Furthermore, 

AHAM commented that the AMCA 214– 

21 test procedure, which DOE proposed 

to incorporate by reference in the July 

2022 TP NOPR, is not applicable to 

residential ACFs. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 

6) DOE notes that, as discussed in 

section III.B.2 of this document, ACFs 

with an input power of less than 125 W 

are excluded from the scope of the 

rulemaking. 

The CA IOUs and AMCA commented 

that the reason FEI values are much 

higher for ACFs at diameters less than 

20 in. is because the airflow constant in 

the FEI calculation (3,210 CFM) is more 

impactful for ACFs with lower CFM. 

(CA IOUs, No. 127 at pp. 4–5; AMCA, 

No. 132 at pp. 10–11, 19) To support 

their comment, the CA IOUs provided 

data demonstrating how, at lower 

airflows, there is a ‘‘bonus’’ value added 

to reference shaft input power as a 

result of the airflow constant. (CA IOUs, 

No. 127 at pp. 4–5) Ultimately, the CA 

IOUs recommended that DOE consider 

using a different airflow constant for 

lower airflow fans to counter this effect. 

Id. Greenheck explained that the airflow 

constant in AMCA 214–21 is higher 

than the 12-in. representative unit can 

generate; therefore, Greenheck would 

expect that efficiencies of the 12-in. 

representative unit would be greater 

than the efficiencies of larger units, 

which is why AMCA 214–21 limits the 

application of FEI to fans with 

airpowers of at least 125 W. (Greenheck, 

No. 122 at p. 2) NEEA suggested that 

DOE review and confirm the increases 

in FEI for ACFs at diameters of 20 in. 

or less. (NEEA, No. 129 at p. 4) AMCA 

commented that there was a 

discrepancy between the airflow 

constant defined for ACFs in the July 

2022 TP NOPR (3,210 CFM) and the 

airflow constant that DOE used in the 

October 2022 NODA (3,201 CFM). 

(AMCA, No. 132 at p. 10) In response, 

DOE confirms that the airflow constant 

used in the October 2022 NODA is 

consistent with that in the July 2022 TP 

NOPR (3,210 CFM) and that the value of 

3,201 CFM was a typographical error in 

the October 2022 NODA. Greenheck 

commented that using the FEI metric for 

both GFBs and ACFs would cause 

confusion regarding which constants 

should be used for GFBs and which 

constants should be used for ACFs. 

(Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 1) 

Based on additional evaluation and 

stakeholder feedback on the airflow 

constant in the FEI calculation, DOE has 

adopted the efficacy metric in terms of 

CFM/W at maximum speed for ACFs in 

appendix B to subpart J of 10 CFR part 

431 (see section 2.2). In the May 2023 

TP Final Rule, DOE explained that it has 

concerns over the readiness of an FEI 

metric for ACFs and acknowledged the 

uncertainty regarding the airflow and 

pressure constant values that should be 

used when calculating FEI for ACFs. 

Additionally, the efficacy metric is 

consistent with the metric used in the 

ACF industry. 88 FR 27312, 27371. 

Therefore, DOE conducted its analysis 

for this NOPR and is proposing 

standards in efficacy in terms of CFM/ 

Wat maximum speed. 

D. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening 

analysis based on information gathered 

on all current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the equipment that is 

the subject of the rulemaking. As the 

first step in such an analysis, DOE 

develops a list of technology options for 

consideration in consultation with 

manufacturers, design engineers, and 

other interested parties. DOE then 

determines which of those means for 

improving efficiency are technologically 

feasible. DOE considers technologies 

incorporated in commercially available 

equipment or in working prototypes to 

be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 

431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

appendix A, section 6I(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) 

(‘‘Process Rule’’). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3748 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

43Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency 

levels for each product class. The TSLs considered 

for this NOPR are described in section V.A of this 

document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis 

that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9- 

year period. 

44The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s 

statement of policy and notice of policy 

amendment. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as 

amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). 

45The 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). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; 

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

the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this 

document discusses the results of the 

screening analysis for fans and blowers, 

particularly the designs DOE 

considered, those it screened out, and 

those that are the basis for the standards 

considered in this rulemaking. For 

further details on the screening analysis 

for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the 

NOPR technical support document 

(‘‘TSD’’). 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt a 

standard for a type or class of covered 

equipment, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) 

Accordingly, in the engineering 

analysis, DOE determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficiency for 

fans and blowers, using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

products available on the market or in 

working prototypes. The max-tech 

levels that DOE determined for this 

rulemaking are described in section IV.C 

of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 

of the NOPR TSD. 

E. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each trial standard level (‘‘TSL’’), 

DOE projected energy savings from 

application of the TSL to fans and 

blowers purchased in the 30-year period 

that begins in the first full year of 

compliance with the proposed 

standards (2030–2059).43 The savings 

are measured over the entire lifetime of 

fans and blowers purchased in the 

previous 30-year period. DOE quantified 

the energy savings attributable to each 

TSL as the difference in energy 

consumption between each standards 

case and the no-new-standards case. 

The no-new-standards case represents a 

projection of energy consumption that 

reflects how the market for equipment 

would likely evolve in the absence of 

energy conservation standards. 

DOE used its national impact analysis 

(‘‘NIA’’) spreadsheet model to estimate 

national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) from 

potential new standards for fans and 

blowers. The NIA spreadsheet model 

(described in section IV.I of this 

document) calculates energy savings in 

terms of site energy, which is the energy 

directly consumed by equipment at the 

locations where they are used. For 

electricity, DOE reports national energy 

savings in terms of primary energy 

savings, which is the savings in the 

energy that is used to generate and 

transmit the site electricity. DOE also 

calculates NES in terms of FFC energy 

savings. The FFC metric includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

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

fuels), and thus presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards.44 DOE’s 

approach is based on the calculation of 

an FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered products or 

equipment. For more information on 

FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 

of this document. 

2. Significance of Savings 

To adopt any new or amended 

standards for covered equipment, DOE 

must determine that such action would 

result in significant energy savings. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.45 For example, some 

covered equipment have most of their 

energy consumption occur during 

periods of peak energy demand. The 

impacts of these equipment on the 

energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than equipment with 

relatively constant demand. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis, taking into account the 

significance of cumulative FFC national 

energy savings, the cumulative FFC 

emissions reductions, and the need to 

confront the global climate crisis, among 

other factors. DOE has initially 

determined the energy savings from the 

proposed standard levels are 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). 

F. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted previously, EPCA provides 

seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) The following 

sections discuss how DOE has 

addressed each of those seven factors in 

this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a 

potential new standard on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, 

as discussed in section IV.J of this 

document. DOE first uses an annual 

cash flow approach to determine the 

quantitative impacts. This step includes 

both a short-term assessment—based on 

the cost and capital requirements during 

the period between when a regulation is 

issued and when entities must comply 

with the regulation—and a long-term 

assessment over a 30-year period. The 

industry-wide impacts analyzed include 

(1) INPV, which values the industry on 

the basis of expected future cash flows, 

(2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in 

revenue and income, and (4) other 

measures of impact, as appropriate. 

Second, DOE analyzes and reports the 

impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including impacts on 

small manufacturers. Third, DOE 

considers the impact of standards on 

domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of various DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and PBP associated with new 

standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value of the consumer costs and 

benefits expected to result from 

particular standards. DOE also evaluates 

the impacts of potential standards on 

identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be affected disproportionately 

by a standard. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3749 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

equipment in the type (or class) 

compared to any increase in the price 

of, or in the initial charges for, or 

maintenance expenses of, the covered 

equipment that are likely to result from 

a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this 

comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of equipment (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the equipment. The LCC 

analysis requires a variety of inputs, 

such as equipment prices, equipment 

energy consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, 

equipment lifetime, and discount rates 

appropriate for consumers. To account 

for uncertainty and variability in 

specific inputs, such as equipment 

lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a 

distribution of values, with probabilities 

attached to each value. 

The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of more efficient 

equipment through lower operating 

costs. DOE calculates the PBP by 

dividing the change in purchase cost 

due to a more-stringent standard by the 

change in annual operating cost for the 

year that standards are assumed to take 

effect. 

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE 

assumes that consumers will purchase 

the covered equipment in the first full 

year of compliance with new standards. 

The LCC savings for the considered 

efficiency levels are calculated relative 

to the case that reflects projected market 

trends in the absence of new or 

amended standards. DOE’s LCC and 

PBP analysis is discussed in further 

detail in section IV.F of this document. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in 

section III.E, DOE uses the NIA 

spreadsheet models to project national 

energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing equipment classes and 

in evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE 

evaluates potential standards that would 

not lessen the utility or performance of 

the considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 

Based on data available to DOE, the 

standards proposed in this document 

would not reduce the utility or 

performance of the equipment under 

consideration in this rulemaking. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It 

also directs the Attorney General to 

determine the impact, if any, of any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard and to 

transmit such determination to the 

Secretary within 60 days of the 

publication of a proposed rule, together 

with an analysis of the nature and 

extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will 

transmit a copy of this proposed rule to 

the Attorney General with a request that 

the Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) 

provide its determination on this issue. 

DOE will publish and respond to the 

Attorney General’s determination in the 

final rule. DOE invites comment from 

the public regarding the competitive 

impacts that are likely to result from 

this proposed rule. In addition, 

stakeholders may also provide 

comments separately to DOJ regarding 

these potential impacts. See the 

ADDRESSES section for information to 

send comments to DOJ. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

DOE also considers the need for 

national energy and water conservation 

in determining whether a new or 

amended standard is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings 

from the proposed standards are likely 

to provide improvements to the security 

and reliability of the Nation’s energy 

system. Reductions in the demand for 

electricity also may result in reduced 

costs for maintaining the reliability of 

the Nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

Nation’s needed power generation 

capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of 

this document. 

DOE maintains that environmental 

and public health benefits associated 

with the more efficient use of energy are 

important to take into account when 

considering the need for national energy 

conservation. The proposed standards 

are likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases (‘‘GHGs’’) associated 

with energy production and use. DOE 

conducts an emissions analysis to 

estimate how potential standards may 

affect these emissions, as discussed in 

section IV.K; the estimated emissions 

impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of 

this document. DOE also estimates the 

economic value of emissions reductions 

resulting from the considered TSLs, as 

discussed in section V.C.1 of this 

document. 

g. Other Factors 

In determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified, DOE may consider any other 

factors that the Secretary deems to be 

relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE 

identifies any relevant information 

regarding economic justification that 

does not fit into the other categories 

described previously, DOE could 

consider such information under ‘‘other 

factors.’’ 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

EPCA creates a rebuttable 

presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

equipment that meets the standard is 

less than three times the value of the 

first year’s energy savings resulting from 

the standard, as calculated under the 

applicable DOE test procedure. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effects that proposed 

energy conservation standards would 

have on the payback period for 

consumers. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to consumers, manufacturers, 

the Nation, and the environment, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of 

this analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3750 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

46For the purposes of DOE’s test procedure, 

ducting refers to the immediate discharge of a fan 

and not the fan’s application. For example, a 

centrifugal unhoused fan which exhausts air in all 

directions into a plenum or open space would be 

considered not ducted, and tested via the 

corresponding test configuration, even if that fan is 

ultimately installed in ducted ventilation system. 

47Static pressure is defined as the pressure 

exerted by a fluid that is not in motion. Total 

pressure is defined as the sum of the static pressure 

and the pressure that arises from the movement of 

a fluid, or the velocity pressure. A fan’s static 

pressure is the static pressure at the outlet of the 

fan minus the total pressure at the inlet of the fan. 

The total pressure of a fan is the total pressure at 

the outlet of the fan minus the total pressure at the 

inlet of the fan. 

economic justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

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

proposed rule. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE has performed for this rulemaking 

with regard to fans and blowers. 

Separate subsections address each 

component of DOE’s analyses. 

DOE used several analytical tools to 

estimate the impact of the standards 

proposed in this document. The first 

tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the 

LCC savings and PBP of potential new 

energy conservation standards. The 

national impacts analysis uses a second 

spreadsheet set that provides shipments 

projections and calculates national 

energy savings and net present value of 

total consumer costs and savings 

expected to result from potential energy 

conservation standards. DOE uses the 

third spreadsheet tool, the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), to 

assess manufacturer impacts of potential 

standards. These three spreadsheet tools 

are available on the DOE website for this 

proposed rulemaking: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/ 

standards.aspx?productid=

51&action=viewlive. Additionally, DOE 

used output from the latest version of 

the Energy Information Administration’s 

(‘‘EIA’s’’) Annual Energy Outlook 

(‘‘AEO’’), a widely known energy 

projection for the United States, for the 

emissions and utility impact analyses. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the equipment concerned, 

including the purpose of the equipment, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the equipment. This activity 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, based primarily 

on publicly available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this 

rulemaking include (1) determination of 

equipment classes, (2) scope of the 

analysis and data availability, and (3) 

technology and design options that 

could improve the energy efficiency of 

fans and blowers. The key findings of 

DOE’s market assessment are 

summarized in the following sections. 

See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for 

further discussion of the market and 

technology assessment. 

1. Equipment Classes 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE is 

required to establish separate standards 

for a group of covered equipment (i.e., 

establish a separate equipment class) 

based on the type of energy used. DOE 

may also establish separate standards if 

DOE determines that an equipment’s 

capacity or other performance-related 

feature that other equipment lacks 

justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a 

determination whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different 

standard, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility of the feature to the 

consumer and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. (Id.) 

a. General Fans and Blowers 

As discussed, DOE develops 

equipment classes based on specific 

performance-related features that impact 

utility and may necessarily impact 

efficiency in serving that utility. For 

GFBs, DOE identified the direction of 

airflow through the fan, the outlet 

configuration of the fan, housing 

features, and impeller features as 

characteristics that may justify 

establishing separate equipment classes. 

DOE also considered the presence of 

motor controllers as an additional factor 

for developing equipment classes. 

Based on the direction of airflow 

through a fan impeller, the classification 

of a fan may be either axial or 

centrifugal. Axial fans move air parallel 

to their axis of rotation and are suitable 

for applications requiring high airflow 

at relatively low pressures. 

Alternatively, centrifugal fans move air 

radially outward from the axis of 

rotation, resulting in a change in 

direction of the air from the inlet of the 

fan to the impeller edge occurring at or 

close to 90 degrees. This air is often 

redirected by a housing, which may 

concentrate the airflow into a 

perpendicular outlet, as in the case of a 

scroll housing, or again redirect the air 

to move parallel to the inlet flow, as in 

the case of an inline fan. Centrifugal 

fans can overcome much higher 

pressures than axial fans, but operate at 

lower airflow, resulting in a difference 

in utility where different airflows and 

pressures are required. DOE has 

tentatively determined that the 

differences between axial- and 

centrifugal-flow fans result in a 

difference in utility based on the 

pressure and airflow ranges under 

which they are able to operate. For 

example, an axial fan may be better 

suited for a general-purpose ventilation 

application, in which large volumes of 

air are required at low pressure, whereas 

a centrifugal fan may be more 

appropriate for an air conditioning 

application, which may require a greater 

operating pressure than could be 

achieved by an axial fan. Mixed-flow 

fans utilize a combination of axial and 

centrifugal flows to provide similar 

pressures at higher airflows compared to 

centrifugal fans where the outlet flow is 

parallel to the inlet flow. Based on a 

review of the market, DOE has 

tentatively determined that mixed-flow 

fans do not provide a unique utility 

from centrifugal fans in similar 

arrangements, due to their similar 

operating pressure and airflow ranges. 

Therefore, DOE separated GFBs into 

equipment classes based on whether 

they utilize an axial or centrifugal 

airflow in this NOPR. 

The outlet configuration of a fan can 

also affect its efficiency. In the DOE test 

procedure, DOE established test 

configuration and measurement 

requirements based on whether the 

immediate outlet of a fan is ducted or 

not ducted.46 See appendix A to subpart 

J of 10 CFR part 431. For GFBs, ducted 

fans may be utilized to move air directly 

from the outlet of the fan through HVAC 

ducting internal to a building, while not 

ducted fans discharge air into a plenum 

or open space. For example, not ducted 

fans may be utilized to exhaust large 

quantities of air from a building. Not 

ducted fans are also better suited for 

applications in which the fan discharge 

needs to split into multiple directions, 

such as ventilation systems which 

recirculate air from one room to other 

parts of a building via multiple 

branching outlets. When a fan outlet is 

ducted, the outlet air moves through the 

duct system, and the velocity pressure 

associated with that air can be regained 

as static pressure as it travels through 

the ducting. In this case, FEI is 

calculated based on a total pressure 

basis accounting for both the static 

pressure and the pressure associated 

with the speed of the outlet air of the 

fan.47 When a fan outlet is not ducted, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3751 

48AMCA 214–21 defines a radial impeller as a 

form of centrifugal impeller with several blades 

extending radially from a central hub. Airflow 

enters axially through a single inlet and exits 

radially at the impeller periphery into a housing 

with impeller blades; the blades are positioned so 

their outward direction is perpendicular within 25 

degrees to the axis of rotation. 

the outlet air is immediately released 

into the surroundings, and the velocity 

pressure of this air is lost to its 

surroundings. In this case, FEI is 

calculated only on a static pressure 

basis since the pressure associated with 

the outlet speed of the air is not aiding 

the system. Because these outlet 

configurations have different utilities, 

and in providing this utility the 

efficiency is calculated differently 

according to the DOE test procedure, 

DOE is proposing to separate GFBs into 

equipment classes based on their outlet 

configuration. 

DOE has determined that a fan’s 

housing may also impact utility. A fan 

housing is the structure that encloses 

and guides the airflow of a fan. Fans 

require certain housing features for 

specific utilities. For example, PRVs 

require a special housing to prevent 

precipitation from entering buildings. 

Further, different fan housings result in 

different outlet directions for airflow. 

For example, centrifugal fans with a 

scroll-shaped housing redirect airflow 

perpendicular to the fan inlet, while 

centrifugal fans with a cylindrical or 

inline housing have parallel inlet and 

outlet airflow. In applications that 

require continuous airflow in a single 

direction, such as in a long ventilation 

duct, a centrifugal fan with inline 

housing could be directly placed in the 

duct to push air along the single 

direction. Inserting a centrifugal fan 

with a scroll housing in the same 

application, however, would create 

unnecessary complexity because it 

would create multiple changes of 

direction of airflow, may require 

changes to the ducting work, and could 

lead to reduced performance in a spaceconstrained environment. Because the 

described housings have specific 

utilities and DOE has observed different 

FEI ranges for fans with the described 

housings, DOE is proposing to separate 

GFBs into separate equipment classes by 

whether they are housed or unhoused, 

and to further separate GFBs by the 

types of housings described. 

DOE also considered impeller features 

for separating fans into equipment 

classes. DOE identified that radial 

impellers as defined in AMCA 214–21 

offer unique self-cleaning characteristics 

that allow them to be utilized with 

significantly less maintenance in 

airstreams with a high density of 

particulate matter, such as fume exhaust 

from a mine.48 However, these impellers 

are also less efficient than other 

centrifugal impellers. Therefore, DOE is 

proposing a separate equipment class 

for fans that use a radial impeller. 

The last feature that DOE evaluated 

for separating GFBs into equipment 

classes was the use of motor controllers, 

which allow a fan to adapt to changing 

load requirements. This enables a fan to 

run at lower speed when the system 

requirements allow, thus saving energy. 

While this may result in energy savings 

during operation, the DOE test 

procedure for fans does not account for 

these possible changes in operation and 

energy savings. Furthermore, FEI is a 

wire-to-air metric, as discussed in 

section III.C.1 of this document, which 

means that the use of a motor controller 

would act to reduce the FEI of a fan at 

each of its individual operating points. 

Any efficiency standard set without 

consideration of the motor controller 

would be more stringent. DOE 

recognizes the energy savings benefits of 

using a motor controller with a fan to 

allow the energy consumption of fan to 

be adjusted based on the changing load 

requirements of the system; therefore, to 

avoid penalizing the use of such 

technology, DOE proposes to create 

equipment classes for GFBs sold with 

and without motor controllers. 

In the DOE Test Procedure, DOE 

adopted definitions consistent with 

AMCA 214–21 for several categories of 

fans and blowers that are within the 

scope of this NOPR. See 10 CFR 

431.172. DOE also established a 

modified definition for axial-panel fans 

to distinguish these fans from ACFs. Id. 

Table IV–1 presents the fan categories 

and corresponding definitions adopted 

by DOE. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3752 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

49AMCA 214–21 defines fan flow angle as the 

angle of the centerline of the air-conducting surface 

of a fan blade measured at the midpoint of its 

trailing edge with the centerline of the rotation axis 

in a plane through the rotation axis and the 

midpoint of the trialing edge. 

During its analysis, DOE tentatively 

determined that additional definitions 

would help to clarify certain fan 

equipment classes. DOE is proposing in 

this NOPR to adopt the definitions for 

‘‘radial impeller’’, ‘‘mixed-flow 

impeller’’ and ‘‘housing’’ presented in 

Table IV–2. DOE notes that these 

proposed definitions are consistent with 

those in AMCA 214–21, with some 

minor modifications for clarity. 

DOE found some fans are sold as 

radial fans but have impellers that 

incorporate both radial and non-radial 

features, such as blades with a slight 

backward-inclined design or blades 

with both straight and backward-curved 

portions. To ensure that these fans are 

properly and consistently classified as 

either radial or centrifugal housed, DOE 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.019</GPH> EP19JA24.020</GPH>

Table IV-1 Fan Cate2ory Definitions 

Fan Category Definition from test procedure 

Axial Inline A fan with an axial impeller and a cylindrical housing with or without turning 

Fan vanes. 

An axial fan, without cylindrical housing, that includes a panel, orifice plate, 

Panel Fan or ring with brackets for mounting through a wall, ceiling, or other structure 

that separates the fan's inlet from its outlet. 

Centrifugal A fan with a centrifugal or mixed flow impeller in which airflow exits into a 

housing that is generally scroll-shaped to direct the air through a single fan Housed Fan outlet. A centrifugal housed fan does not include a radial impeller. • 

A fan with a centrifugal or mixed flow impeller in which airflow enters 

Centrifugal through a panel and discharges into free space. Inlets and outlets are not 

Unhoused Fan ducted. This fan type also includes fans designed for use in fan arrays that 

have partition walls separating the fan from other fans in the array. •• 

Centrifugal A fan with a centrifugal or mixed flow impeller in which airflow enters 

Inline Fan axially at the fan inlet and the housing redirects radial airflow from the 

impeller to exit the fan in an axial direction. 

Radial Housed A fan with a radial impeller in which airflow exits into a housing that is 

Fan generally scroll-shaped to direct the air through a single fan outlet. Inlets and 

outlets can optionally be ducted. 

Power Roof A fan with an internal driver and a housing to prevent precipitation from 

Ventilators entering the building. It has a base designed to fit over a roof or wall 

("PRVs") opening, usually by means of a roof curb. 

* The inclusion of "scroll-shaped" in this definition excludes inline fans. 

**Radial fans are housed and therefore not included in this definition. 

Table IV-2 Proposed Definitions for Fan Features 

Characteristic Proposed Definition 

A form of centrifugal impeller with several blades extending radially from a 

Radial central hub. Airflow enters axially through a single inlet and exits radially at 

Impeller the impeller periphery into a housing; the blades are positioned so their 

outward direction is perpendicular within 25 degrees to the axis of rotation. 

Impellers can have a back plate and/or shroud. 

An impeller featuring construction characteristics between those of an axial 

Mixed Flow and centrifugal impeller. A mixed-flow impeller has a fan flow angle49 

Impeller greater than 20 degrees and less than 70 degrees. Airflow enters axially 

through a single inlet and exits with combined axial and radial directions at a 

mean diameter greater than the inlet diameter. 

Any fan component(s) that direct airflow into or away from the impeller 

Fan Housing and/or provide(s) protection for the internal components of a fan or blower 

that is not an air circulating fan. A housing mav serve as a fan's structure. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3753 

is proposing a definition for ‘‘radial 

impeller’’. 

Additionally, DOE is proposing to 

define ‘‘mixed flow impeller’’ to 

distinguish mixed flow impellers from 

axial and centrifugal impellers and to 

ensure that fans sold with a mixed flow 

impeller are correctly classified. DOE 

notes that, as defined in Table IV–1, 

inline fans with mixed flow impellers 

are considered in the centrifugal inline 

equipment class. 

Lastly, DOE is proposing to define 

‘‘fan housing’’ since housing is a 

criterion used to separate equipment 

classes. In its evaluation of the market, 

DOE found some fans that may not be 

easily classified without a clear and 

consistent definition for housing. For 

example, cabinet fans are sold with an 

enclosure surrounding their internal 

moving components and an additional 

enclosure further directing airflow. DOE 

has observed that cabinet fans are 

commonly marketed as inline fans since 

the outermost enclosure directs the 

airflow to be inline; however, the 

internal enclosure, which directs 

airflow into and out of the impeller, 

directs airflow at a 90-degree angle, 

which would be consistent with a 

centrifugal housed fan. Based on DOE’s 

proposed definitions, cabinet fans 

would be part of the centrifugal housed 

equipment class. 

DOE evaluated each of the fan 

categories defined in the DOE test 

procedure using the identified GFB 

performance features and proposes that 

each fan category defined in the test 

procedure will be evaluated as a 

separate equipment class. For PRVs, 

DOE has found that they can be either 

axial or centrifugal, and their outlets can 

either be ducted or not ducted. PRVs 

used for supply will have a ducted 

outlet, while PRVs used for exhaust will 

not have a ducted outlet. DOE notes that 

while centrifugal PRVs serve both 

supply and exhaust functions, DOE did 

not find a significant number of axial 

PRVs being used for supply in the 

market. Therefore, DOE is proposing to 

further divide PRVs into three distinct 

equipment classes: axial PRVs, 

centrifugal PRV exhaust fans, and 

centrifugal PRV supply fans. Table IV– 

3 presents the proposed definitions for 

each of the three PRV fan equipment 

classes, which align with the definitions 

in AMCA 214–21. 

Additionally, DOE is proposing that 

each GFB equipment class be split into 

a class of fans that are sold with motor 

controllers and a class of fans that are 

sold without motor controllers. For 

example, there would be two equipment 

classes for axial PRVs—one for axial 

PRVs sold with motor controllers and 

one for axial PRVs sold without motor 

controllers. This would be the same for 

all remaining proposed GFB equipment 

classes. 

In summary, DOE is proposing to 

separate GFBs into 18 equipment classes 

in this NOPR. These equipment classes 

are shown in Table IV–4. As just 

discussed, DOE notes that each 

equipment class shown in the table has 

a variable-speed and a constant-speed 

variant. As mentioned previously, these 

equipment classes directly correspond 

to the GFB fan categories defined in the 

DOE test procedure, with the exception 

of PRVs. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.021</GPH>

Table IV-3 Proposed PRV Fan Cateeories and Definitions 

Fan 

Equipment Proposed Definition 

Class 

Axial PRV A PRV with an axial impeller that either supplies or exhausts air to a building 

where the inlet and outlet are not tvoicallv ducted. 

Centrifugal A PRV with a centrifugal or mixed-flow impeller that exhausts air from a PRV Exhaust 

Fan building and which is typically mounted on a roof or a wall. 

Centrifugal A PRV with a centrifugal or mixed-flow impeller that supplies air to a PRV Supply building and which is typically mounted on a roof or a wall. Fan 
3754 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Although GFBs were not discussed in 

the October 2022 NODA, DOE received 

comment on GFB equipment classes. 

Specifically, AHRI commented that 

forward-curved fans, which are 

typically used in low-pressure 

applications, could be removed from the 

market by energy conservation 

standards. (AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 12–13) 

AHRI stated that forward-curved fans 

should have a separate equipment class 

because they provide code-required 

sound quality in low-pressure and lowspeed ranges. Id. Morrison and AHRI 

also commented that return or relief 

fans, which are commonly used for 

energy-saving economizer functions in 

systems, could be removed from the 

market if they are regulated by a DOE 

energy conservation standard. 

(Morrison, No. 128 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 

130 at p. 2, 13) 

DOE notes that the FEI metric is a 

function of the operating pressure. As 

mentioned in section III.C.1 of this 

document, FEI is the ratio of the 

reference FEP to the actual FEP. The 

reference fan is used to normalize the 

FEI calculation by evaluating fan 

performance compared to a consistent 

reference fan at each duty point and 

configuration. Evaluating FEI in this 

manner allows for comparison of 

different fans independent of the wide 

variety of fan types and duty points. 

Consequently, a return or relief fan 

operating at a lower pressure than a 

supply fan at a given airflow would be 

compared to a reference FEP specific to 

that duty point, which accounts for the 

lower operating pressure and mitigates 

disproportionate impacts; therefore, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

return and relief fans do not need a 

separate equipment class. 

To address AHRI’s comment that 

forward-curved fans provide coderequired sound quality in low-pressure 

and low-speed ranges, DOE evaluated 

data on inlet and outlet noise obtained 

from manufacturer fan selection 

software for centrifugal-housed fans at 

low-pressure duty points. Based on this 

analysis, DOE observed centrifugalhoused fans with both backwardinclined and airfoil impellers that 

provided equivalent or nearly 

equivalent noise levels, in A-weighted 

decibels, to forward-curved fans 

operating at the same duty point. 

Furthermore, DOE observed that noise 

levels significantly decreased as the FEI 

of the fan increased, indicating that 

energy conservation standards would 

not inhibit fans from complying with 

sound quality requirements. Therefore, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

forward-curved fans do not require a 

separate equipment class. However, to 

ensure that forward-curved fans were 

adequately evaluated, DOE evaluated a 

parallel design path in which it 

assumed that all forward-curved fans 

would be redesigned to meet any 

proposed energy conservation 

standards, rather than replacing the 

forward-curved impeller with another 

impeller topology such as airfoil or 

backward-inclined. DOE evaluated this 

parallel design path to consider the 

costs required to preserve forwardcurved fans in the market. Additional 

details on the parallel design path for 

forward-curved fans are provided in 

section IV.C.1.b of this document and 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE received no further comments on 

GFB equipment classes and is therefore 

proposing the equipment classes in 

Table IV–4. 

b. Air Circulating Fans 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, AMCA recommended that DOE 

use the same ACF definitions as those 

used in AMCA 230–23. (AMCA, No. 132 

at pp. 2, 18) As discussed in the May 

2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, the 

definitions that DOE adopted for ACF, 

unhoused air circulating fan head 

(‘‘ACFH’’), housed ACFH, air circulating 

axial panel fan, box fan, cylindrical 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.022</GPH>

Table IV-4 Proposed Equipment Classes for General Fans and Blowers 

Equipment Class* Airflow Outlet Housing Confi2uration 

Axial Inline Axial Ducted Inline 

Panel Axial Not Ducted none 

Axial Power Roof Ventilator Axial Not Ducted Precipitation 

protection 

Centrifugal Inline* * Centrifugal Ducted Inline 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator - Centrifugal Ducted Precipitation 

Supply protection 

Centrifugal Housed Centrifugal Ducted Scroll 

Radial Housed Centrifugal Ducted Scroll 

Centrifugal Unhoused Centrifugal Not Ducted none 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator - Centrifugal Not Ducted Precipitation 

Exhaust protection 

* Each eqmpment class 1s further separated by whether the fan 1s sold with motor controllers as discussed below 

** Includes mixed-flow fans 

Impeller 

Feature 

Standard 

Standard 

Standard 

Standard 

Standard 

Standard 

Self-Cleaning 

Standard 

Standard 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3755 

50See Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–STD–0002, No. 

11 for the supplementary spreadsheet associated 

with the October 2022 NODA. 

ACF, and housed centrifugal ACF align 

with the definitions published in AMCA 

230–23. 88 FR 27312, 27339. DOE 

additionally adopted definitions for air 

circulating axial panel fan, box fan, 

cylindrical ACF, and housed centrifugal 

ACF in the DOE test procedure, as 

defined in Annex B of AMCA 230–23. 

See 10 CFR 431.172. These definitions 

are reproduced Table IV–5. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE did 

not evaluate separate equipment classes 

for housed and unhoused ACFs and 

requested comment and supporting data 

on whether housed and unhoused ACFs 

have significant differences in utility 

and/or efficiency. 87 FR 62038, 62045. 

NEEA stated that DOE should analyze 

unhoused and housed ACFs separately 

in its analysis because the efficiencies of 

housed and unhoused fans differ 

enough that an analysis of both together 

could result in non-representative EL 

values. To support this point, NEEA 

referenced a plot that was included in 

the supplementary spreadsheet for the 

October 2022 NODA that showed ACF 

efficiency distribution overlayed on the 

efficiency levels analyzed in the 

NODA 50 and stated that the efficiency 

distributions in the plot were wide for 

all diameters. (NEEA, No. 129 at p. 1– 

2) NEEA commented that, given the 

many performance-related features with 

unquantifiable impacts on the fan 

efficiency data DOE used for its 

analysis, DOE should separate housed 

and unhoused ACFs into separate 

equipment classes to ensure that housed 

and unhoused ACFs are fairly analyzed. 

NEEA added that the separation of 

housed and unhoused fans aligns with 

the approach taken for GFBs in NODA 

3. (NEEA, No. 129 at p. 2–3) 

The Efficiency Advocates commented 

that DOE should group ACFHs, box 

fans, panel fans, and personnel coolers 

together into a single axial ACF class 

since they are all axial fans that provide 

directional airflow and do not differ 

significantly in FEI. (Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 126 at p. 3) They noted 

that the ACF subcategories in AMCA 

230 are delineated in AMCA 230 

primarily for descriptive purposes and 

not for regulatory purposes. Id. DOE 

interprets ACFHs and personnel coolers, 

as referenced by the Efficiency 

Advocates, to align with the definitions 

given for unhoused ACFHs and 

cylindrical ACFs, respectively, in Table 

IV–5. DOE therefore interprets the 

Efficiency Advocates’ comment as a 

recommendation to combine all axial 

ACFs into a single equipment class. 

DOE’s review of the ACF market 

generally indicated that air circulating 

axial panel fans, box fans, cylindrical 

ACFs, and unhoused ACFHs could all 

be used interchangeably for air 

circulation applications. DOE did 

observe that cylindrical ACFs are 

sometimes marketed toward highvelocity applications. To verify whether 

design in high-velocity applications 

would warrant separating cylindrical 

ACFs into their own equipment class, 

DOE reviewed available air velocity and 

thrust data for air circulating axial panel 

fans, box fans, cylindrical ACFs, and 

unhoused ACFHs. Based on this 

analysis, DOE did not find a consistent 

trend of one or more of these 

subcategories of ACFs producing more 

air velocity or thrust than another, 

further indicating that they may be used 

interchangeably. DOE therefore 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.023</GPH>

Table IV-5 ACF Definitions in DOE Fans Test Procedure (10 CFR 431.172) 

ACF Term Definitions 

Air Circulating Fan A fan that has no provision for connection to ducting or 

separation of the fan inlet from its outlet using a pressure 

boundary, operates against zero external static pressure loss, and 

is not a iet fan. 

Unhoused Air Circulating An ACF without a housing, having an axial impeller with a ratio 

Fan Head of fan-blade span (in inches) to maximum rate of rotation (in 

revolutions per minute) less than or equal to 0.06. This impeller 

may or may not be guarded. 

Housed Air Circulating An ACF with an axial or centrifugal impeller and a housing. 

Fan Head 

Air circulating axial panel An axial housed ACFH without a cylindrical housing or box 

fan housing that is mounted on a panel, orifice plate, or ring. 

Box fan An axial housed ACFH without a cylindrical housing that is 

mounted on a panel, orifice plate, or ring and is mounted in a box 

housing. 

Cylindrical Air Circulating An axial housed ACFH with a cylindrical housing that is not a 

Fan* Positive Pressure Ventilator as defined in ANSI/ AMCA Standard 

240-15, Laboratory Methods of Testing Positive Pressure 

Ventilators for Aerodynamic Performance Rating. 

Housed centrifugal Air A housed ACFH with a centrifugal or radial impeller in which 

Circulating Fan airflow exits into a housing that is generally scroll shaped to 

direct the air through a single. narrow fan outlet. 

* AMCA 230-23, which is referenced in the DOE test procedure, lists personnel coolers, barrel fans, drum fans, high 

velocity fans, portable coolers, thermal mixing fans, destratification fans, and down-blast fans as examples of 

cylindrical ACFs in Annex B.3.2.3. 
3756 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

51See cecnet.net/agriculture; www.ecirec.coop/ 

rebate-forms-and-specifications; and 

www.tiprec.com/rebates. 

evaluated air circulating axial panel 

fans, box fans, cylindrical ACFs, and 

unhoused ACFHs as a single ‘‘axial 

ACF’’ equipment class in this NOPR. 

DOE is therefore proposing that an axial 

ACF be defined as ‘‘an ACF with an 

axial impeller that is either housed or 

unhoused.’’ DOE considers all fans that 

meet the axial ACF definition to be 

subject to the DOE test procedure, and 

these fans, unless specifically excluded, 

would be subject to any future energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

there are specific fans that meet the 

axial ACF definition that provide utility 

substantially different from the utility 

provided from other axial ACFs and that 

would impact energy use. If so, DOE 

requests information on how the utility 

of these fans differs from other axial 

ACFs and requests data showing the 

differences in energy use due to 

differences in utility between these fans 

and other axial ACFs. 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE also 

requested comment on whether each of 

the following design characteristics may 

impact the utility of air circulating fans: 

presence or absence of a safety guard, 

presence or absence of housing, housing 

design, blade type, power requirements, 

and air velocity or throw. 87 FR 62038, 

62045. Additionally, DOE requested 

information on any additional design 

characteristics that may impact ACF 

utility. Id. In response, AMCA 

commented that all the design variables 

on which DOE requested comment are 

combined to influence an ACF’s 

performance characteristics. (AMCA, 

No. 132 at p. 6–7). DOE reviewed the 

market and found that adjusting these 

design variables while keeping other 

design parameters constant did not 

produce a significant difference in 

efficiency, impact the operation, or 

impact the fan’s application. Therefore, 

DOE has tentatively decided not to 

delineate separate equipment classes for 

axial ACFs based on safety guards, 

housing, blade type, power 

requirements, or air velocity and throw. 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

additionally requested comment and 

supporting data on whether belt-driven 

and direct-driven ACFs have significant 

differences in utility or efficiency. 87 FR 

62038, 62045. The Efficiency Advocates 

commented that DOE should not 

consider belt-driven fans as a separate 

equipment class because those fans are 

merely a low-cost alternative to the 

more efficient direct-drive fans rather 

than a different performance or utility 

consideration, and that a separate 

equipment class for belt-driven ACFs 

could undermine the potential energy 

savings for larger diameter ACFs. 

(Efficiency Advocates, No. 126 at p. 3) 

DOE’s review of belt-driven ACFs on the 

market indicated that, while belt drives 

do provide a utility for adjusting the 

rotational speed of the ACF, VFDs also 

allow users to adjust the rotational 

speed of the ACF. Therefore, DOE has 

tentatively determined that belt drives 

do not provide a unique utility and DOE 

did not treat belt-driven ACFs as an 

equipment class in its NOPR analysis. 

The shift from belt drive to direct drive 

is instead discussed as a design option 

in section IV.C.2.b of this document. 

DOE further reviewed the ACF market 

to determine if additional equipment 

classes were appropriate for axial ACFs. 

DOE observed that axial ACFs with 

larger impeller diameters tended to be 

more efficient than axial ACFs with 

smaller impeller diameters. DOE also 

received feedback during manufacturer 

interviews that fans with larger 

diameters are generally more efficient. 

Therefore, DOE considered diameter as 

a class-setting variable for axial ACFs in 

this NOPR. DOE found multiple 

efficiency incentive programs that 

provide rebates to agricultural fan 

manufacturers if they meet certain 

efficiency targets.51 For axial ACFs, 

these agricultural rebate programs 

typically define four diameter ranges to 

which the rebate efficiency levels 

applied: ‘‘12-inch to less than 24-inch 

diameter range,’’ ‘‘24-inch to less than 

36-inch diameter range,’’ ‘‘36-inch to 

less than 48-inch diameter range,’’ and 

‘‘48-inch diameter or greater range.’’ To 

align with these programs, DOE initially 

considered four different equipment 

classes for axial ACFs, one for each 

diameter range. However, after 

reviewing efficacy data for axial ACFs, 

DOE did not find a significant difference 

in efficacy between axial ACFs in the 

12-inch to less than 24-inch diameter 

range and the 24-inch to less than 36- 

inch diameter range. Therefore, DOE 

combined these two diameter ranges 

into a single equipment class: the ‘‘12- 

inch to less than 36-inch diameter axial 

ACF’’ class. DOE assigned the 36-inch to 

less than 48-inch diameter range to a 

‘‘36-inch to less than 48-inch diameter 

axial ACF’’ class and the 48-inch 

diameter or greater range to a ‘‘48-inch 

diameter or greater axial ACF’’ class. 

The term ‘‘diameter’’ in the context of 

fans and blowers refers to the impeller 

diameter of a fan. Impeller diameter is 

typically determined by measuring the 

radial distance from the tip of one of the 

impeller blades to the center of the 

impeller hub and doubling that value. 

DOE is therefore proposing to define 

diameter for fans and blowers as ‘‘the 

impeller diameter of a fan, which is 

twice the measured radial distance 

between the tip of one of the impeller 

blades of a fan to the center axis of its 

impeller hub.’’ DOE notes that impeller 

diameter may often be different than 

nominal diameter. 

Additionally, in the October 2022 

NODA, DOE summarized a comment 

from the Efficiency Advocates stating 

that portable blowers may require an 

equipment class separate from other 

ACFs because they provide a unique 

application (i.e., drying floors), have 

centrifugal rather than axial 

construction, and are relatively low in 

efficiency. 87 FR 62038, 62045. DOE 

understands the term ‘‘portable blower’’ 

to be a housed centrifugal ACF. As 

discussed in section IV.A.1.a of this 

document, DOE tentatively determined 

that axial and centrifugal fans generally 

have different utilities. DOE also 

reviewed the housed centrifugal ACF 

market and found that housedcentrifugal ACFs are used primarily as 

carpet dryers. Additionally, DOE 

observed that housed-centrifugal ACFs 

with input powers greater than or equal 

to 125 W typically have impeller 

diameters of 4 in. to 20 in., while axial 

ACFs with input powers greater than 

125 W often have impeller diameters 

exceeding 20 in. DOE also reviewed 

housed centrifugal ACF efficiency data 

and found that the most efficient housed 

centrifugal ACFs can be 3 to 4 times less 

efficient than the most efficient axial 

ACFs with a comparable diameter. 

Since housed centrifugal ACFs have a 

different construction, are only used as 

carpet dryers, are smaller, and are less 

efficient than axial ACFs, DOE has 

created a separate equipment class for 

housed centrifugal ACFs. DOE did not 

consider different diameter ranges for 

the housed centrifugal ACF equipment 

class because it did not observe a 

significant variation in efficiency for 

housed centrifugal ACFs with diameter. 

The proposed equipment classes for 

ACFs are summarized in Table IV–6. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3757 

52 Detail on AMCA’s Certified Ratings Program 

can be found at www.amca.org/certify/#about-crp 

(last accessed September 2022). 

2. Scope of Analysis and Data 

Availability 

a. General Fans and Blowers 

DOE conducted the GFB engineering 

analysis for this NOPR using a database 

of confidential sales information 

provided by AMCA (‘‘AMCA sales 

database’’), performance data from 

manufacturer online fan selection 

software, and performance data 

provided from confidential 

manufacturer interviews. 

In response to the July 2022 TP 

NOPR, DOE received comments about 

the data used in its historical analyses. 

Specifically, AHRI expressed concern 

with DOE’s use of the AMCA sales 

database in the December 2014 NODA, 

the May 2015 NODA, and the November 

2016 NODA, which contains efficiencies 

established at a variety of different 

speeds. (Docket No. EERE–2021–BT– 

TP–0021, AHRI, No. 40 at p. 13). AHRI 

stated that this approach was 

inconsistent with the ASRAC Working 

Group agreement for establishing 

product performance and, as disclosed 

during ASRAC negotiations, much of 

the data in the database was not 

certified performance and may not be 

reliable for evaluating the impact of 

efficiency standards. (Id.) 

With respect to the AMCA sales 

database providing efficiency data at a 

variety of speeds, DOE notes that, in 

accordance with the DOE test 

procedure, fans must be tested at a range 

of duty points over which they may 

operate. Duty points are characterized 

by a given airflow and pressure at a 

corresponding operating speed. In other 

words, fans could be tested at a variety 

of different speeds depending on the 

duty point at which the fan is being 

operated. As discussed in section IV.B 

of this document, DOE evaluated the 

entire range of duty points when 

developing the proposed efficiency 

levels for each class; therefore, DOE has 

used the performance data provided in 

the AMCA sales database as a basis for 

its engineering analysis. Furthermore, in 

response to the data in the database not 

being certified performance data, DOE 

compared the fan models in the AMCA 

sales database with the fan models in 

the AMCA Certified Rating Program.52

DOE found that the fan models in the 

AMCA sales database are certified as 

part of AMCA’s Certified Rating 

Program. 

The AMCA sales database that DOE 

used in this analysis is the same 

database that was used in the May 2015 

NODA and the November 2016 NODA. 

To validate that the AMCA sales 

database remains representative of the 

current market, DOE verified the data 

with current manufacture product 

literature. DOE selected several fans 

from the AMCA sales database from 

each manufacturer and equipment class 

and verified that those fans are currently 

available with the same performance 

data. DOE specifically checked that the 

model, diameter, operating pressure, 

airflow, and brake horsepower (‘‘bhp’’) 

aligned between the AMCA sales 

database and current product literature. 

DOE was able to verify a majority of the 

fans selected from each manufacturer 

and equipment class. Additionally, DOE 

obtained recent performance and sales 

data from confidential manufacturer 

interviews and determined that the data 

were consistent with the data in the 

AMCA sales database; therefore, DOE 

has tentatively concluded that the 

AMCA sales database that it uses in its 

engineering analysis for this NOPR is 

representative of the current market. 

DOE notes that it made some updates 

to the AMCA sales database to ensure 

consistency with the proposed scope 

and equipment classes for PRVs. The 

AMCA sales database grouped all 

centrifugal PRVs together; however, as 

discussed in section IV.A.1.a, DOE has 

separated centrifugal PRVs by whether 

they are supply or exhaust (ducted or 

non-ducted). To separately analyze the 

two classes, DOE manually 

recategorized the centrifugal PRVs as 

either supply or exhaust fans using the 

manufacturer and model provided in 

the AMCA sales database for most fans 

to identify from manufacturer literature 

which centrifugal PRVs were supply 

and which were exhaust. Centrifugal 

PRVs that could not be identified by 

their model name were left categorized 

as exhaust for the analysis since, based 

on data collected during confidential 

manufacturer interviews, DOE believes 

that there are more centrifugal PRV 

exhaust fan product lines and models 

than centrifugal PRV supply fans. 

Additionally, DOE determined that 

the AMCA sales database included 

many radial fans that are considered out 

of scope in the DOE test procedure. 10 

CFR 431.174((a)2)(i). As discussed in 

section III.B.1, radial fans that are 

unshrouded and have an impeller 

diameter less than 30 in. or a blade 

width of less than 3 in. are excluded 

from the scope of the DOE test 

procedure. DOE identified these radial 

fans by looking up each model in 

manufacturer product literature to 

determine whether it contained a 

shrouded impeller. Some fans in the 

database could not be identified by 

model, or the impeller characteristics 

could not be determined from their 

catalogs. DOE opted to include these 

fans in the database for analysis because 

including them likely results in a more 

conservative estimate of FEI since DOE 

has found that unshrouded impellers 

typically have lower FEI. 

DOE acknowledges that there are 

limitations to the data provided in the 

AMCA sales database. For example, 

factors such as drive type, motor 

horsepower, and the presence of motor 

controllers were not specified in the 

AMCA sales database, unless indicated 

by the model number. Additionally, 

DOE estimates that AMCA members 

make up 60 percent of fan 

manufacturers. DOE understands that 

the AMCA sales database includes only 

a portion of the sales data from AMCA 

members; however, given the range in 

equipment classes, FEIs, and costs in 

the AMCA sales database, DOE believes 

that the data are representative of the 

U.S. GFB market. Furthermore, to 

supplement the data from the AMCA 

sales database, DOE also pulled 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.024</GPH>

Table IV-6 Proposed Equipment Classes for ACFs 

Equipment Class Equipment Categories Grouped into Equipment 

Class, as defined in TP Final Rule 

12-in. to less than 36-in. diameter axial Axial Air Circulating Axial Panel Fans 

ACFs Box Fans 

36-in. to less than 48-in. diameter axial Cylindrical ACFs 

ACFs Unhoused ACFHs 

48-in. diameter or greater axial ACFs 

Housed Centrifugal ACFs Housed Centrifugal ACFs 
3758 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

53BESS Labs is a research, product testing, and 

educational laboratory. BESS Labs provides 

engineering data to aid in the selection and design 

of agricultural buildings and assists equipment 

manufacturers in developing better products. Test 

reports for ACFs are publicly available at 

bess.illinois.edu/searchc.asp. 

performance data from online fan 

manufacturer selection software. DOE 

notes that it did not select 

representative units, such as a particular 

fan model, to conduct its analysis since 

fan performance relies on fan diameter 

and operating point. Instead, DOE 

identified between three and ten 

representative diameters and operating 

points for each equipment class in the 

AMCA sales database and pulled 

additional performance data for these 

operating points from manufacturer fan 

selection software. Each representative 

operating point was defined by 

equipment class, diameter, operating 

pressure, and airflow. DOE analyzed 

data points from multiple fan models 

and manufacturers for each 

representative diameter and operating 

point representing a variety of fan 

designs and efficiencies. Using the data 

from manufacturer fan selection 

software, DOE was able to identify the 

drive type, motor horsepower, and 

whether or not motor controllers were 

present for each evaluated fan. 

More detail on the databases DOE 

used in its analyses can be found in 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

b. Air Circulating Fans 

During manufacturer interviews 

conducted prior to the October 2022 

NODA, manufacturers recommended 

that DOE use ACF data from a publicly 

available database provided by the 

Bioenvironmental and Structural 

Systems Laboratory associated with the 

University of Illinois-Champaign 

(‘‘BESS Labs database’’).53 Based on this 

feedback, DOE conducted its October 

2022 NODA analyses using data from 

the BESS Labs database and data 

collected from ACF testing performed 

by DOE at BESS Labs. DOE referred to 

this collective database as the ‘‘BESS 

Labs combined database’’ in the October 

2022 NODA. DOE notes that, although 

BESS Labs uses the test setups defined 

in the 2012 edition of AMCA 230 for its 

testing, BESS Labs does not apply 

standard air density conversions to its 

measurements, which are required by 

the DOE test procedure. See section 

2.2.2 of appendix B to subpart J to 10 

CFR part 431. Therefore, in the October 

2022 NODA, DOE applied conversion 

formulas to the BESS Labs combined 

database performance data to align the 

airflow and input power calculations 

with the DOE test procedure. Details on 

these conversions can be found in 

chapter 5 of the TSD. 

As discussed in section III.B.2, all 

ACFs with input power less than 125 W 

are outside the proposed scope of this 

rulemaking. Therefore, DOE removed all 

ACFs with input powers less than 125 

W from the BESS Labs combined 

database prior to its analysis for this 

NOPR. 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

requested comment on whether the 

BESS Labs combined database was 

representative of the performance of the 

entire ACF market. 87 FR 62038, 62045. 

In response, AMCA commented that it 

expects the fan efficiencies reported in 

the BESS Labs database to be higher 

than the typical efficiencies seen on the 

market for ACFs. AMCA stated that this 

is because the fans in the BESS Labs 

database are typically agricultural fans, 

and these fans are the subject of utility 

rebates to encourage the production of 

higher-efficiency fans. AMCA further 

stated that it is unlikely performance 

data for a fan was voluntarily added to 

the public BESS Labs database unless 

the fan was eligible for these utility 

rebates. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 4–5) 

Greenheck also commented that the 

ACF efficiencies in the BESS Labs 

database would generally be higher than 

typical ACFs on the market because of 

their participation in rebate efficiency 

incentive programs, and Greenheck 

suggested that DOE utilize more data 

sources than just the BESS Labs 

combined database. (Greenheck, No. 122 

at p. 2) 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE also 

requested information on ACF 

performance data. 87 FR 62038, 62045. 

In response, AMCA commented that 

ACF catalog data is publicly available. 

However, AMCA also stated that it 

believes that public performance data 

for fans not listed in the BESS Labs 

database was likely either not collected 

using the most recent version of AMCA 

230 or not collected using any version 

of AMCA 230 at all. AMCA further 

commented that testing of ACFs at an 

AMCA-accredited facility yielded 

performance data that was inconsistent 

with the performance data published in 

catalogs for certain tested fans, and 

because of this, AMCA cautioned DOE 

on the use of catalog data that has not 

been certified by a third party. (AMCA, 

No. 132 at p. 5–6) Similarly, Greenheck 

recommended that DOE only use ACF 

data that has been certified by an 

independent performance certification 

program to ensure that the data are 

accurate. (Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 2) In 

the October 2022 NODA, DOE discussed 

a comment from AMCA stating that ACF 

product literature may advertise 

performance calculated using outdated 

versions of AMCA 230 and that all 

versions aside from AMCA 230–15 had 

at least one error pertaining to the 

calculations of thrust, airflow, or input 

power. 87 FR 62038, 62043–62044. A 

table summarizing these errors can be 

found in the October 2022 NODA. Id. 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE also 

requested comment on whether the fan 

affinity laws could be used to 

extrapolate ACF performance data to 

smaller and larger diameters to increase 

the size of its ACF dataset. 87 FR 62038, 

62045. In response, NEEA stated that 

since the fan affinity laws assume that 

efficiency remains constant, utilizing 

them for determining efficiency gains 

would be incorrect. Instead, NEEA 

recommended that DOE obtain data on 

smaller- and larger-diameter ACFs by 

either testing additional smaller- and 

larger-diameter ACFs or by using 

empirical relationships to extrapolate 

data to smaller and larger diameters. 

(NEEA, No. 129 at p. 3–4) AMCA stated 

that the fan affinity laws require 

knowledge of the impeller shaft power, 

which is often not measured for ACFs. 

AMCA added that electrical input 

power, which is often measured for 

ACFs, cannot be scaled to obtain 

reasonable estimates. (AMCA, No. 132 

at p. 6) In response to this feedback, 

DOE did not utilize the fan affinity laws 

to extrapolate fan performance data to 

different diameters and instead 

included catalog data in its dataset for 

this NOPR. 

DOE acknowledges that the BESS 

Labs combined database likely contains 

higher efficiency fans than the overall 

ACF market, since many agricultural 

incentive programs require that fans be 

tested at BESS Labs and meet certain 

performance requirements. 

Additionally, DOE notes that the BESS 

Labs combined database contains data 

on axial ACFs only. Therefore, to 

supplement the BESS Labs combined 

database and gain additional 

information representative of the ACF 

market, DOE collected ACF catalog data 

from manufacturer and distributor 

websites. DOE did not consider catalog 

data in the October 2022 NODA because 

catalog data did not include information 

on the air density measured during 

testing, which is required to calculate 

FEI. Since DOE updated the ACF metric 

to be efficacy instead of FEI, DOE was 

able to use catalog data for this NOPR. 

In response to AMCA and Greenheck’s 

concerns about the accuracy of catalog 

data that have not been certified by a 

third party, DOE notes that, while the 

catalog data it collected is not certified 

by a third party, there were no ACFs 

listed in AMCA’s certified product 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3759 

54AMCA’s certified product database for ACFs 

can be found at www.amca.org/certify/certifiedproduct-search/product-type/air-circulatingfan.html (last accessed 4/10/23). 

55A volute is a spiral or scroll-shaped housing 

used with centrifugal fans. 

database at the time of DOE’s market 

review,54 and DOE is not aware of any 

other certification programs for ACFs. 

In response to AMCA’s concerns 

about manufacturers’ use of outdated 

and inaccurate versions of AMCA 230 to 

generate catalog data, DOE applied a 

correction factor to some catalog data. 

DOE is aware that many ACF 

manufacturers may use an outdated 

version of AMCA 230 and that the 

calculation methods used in these older 

versions do not align with AMCA 230– 

15 or with AMCA 230–23, which is 

referenced by the DOE test procedure. 

See section 2.2.2 of appendix B to 

subpart J of 10 CFR part 431. In DOE’s 

review of the ACF market and product 

literature, it observed that the 1999 

edition of AMCA 230 (‘‘AMCA 230–99’’) 

was the most common test method 

manufacturers cited in their product 

literature for measurement of ACF 

performance data, while a small number 

of manufacturers cited AMCA 230–15. 

DOE did not find any other methods 

that manufacturers cited for measuring 

ACF performance. Therefore, for all 

manufacturers that did not explicitly 

state in their product literature that they 

collected their ACF performance data 

using AMCA 230–15, DOE applied a 

correction factor to the catalog data to 

account for differences in the 

calculation methods between AMCA 

230–99 and the DOE test procedure. 

DOE acknowledges that this approach 

may result in lower efficacy values for 

ACFs where a correction factor was 

already applied; however, DOE notes 

that it lacks other sources of ACF 

performance data aside from the BESS 

Labs combined database and this catalog 

data. DOE combined the corrected 

catalog data and the BESS Labs data, 

herein referred to as the ‘‘updated ACF 

database,’’ and used this database for its 

analysis of ACFs in this NOPR. 

DOE also removed outliers from the 

dataset using a box plot approach. For 

axial ACF catalog data, DOE removed 

extremely high-efficacy outliers and did 

not identify any extremely low-efficacy 

outliers. For axial ACFs from the BESS 

Labs combined database, DOE only 

removed extremely high-efficacy 

outliers because ACFs in the BESS Labs 

combined database are generally 

expected to have higher efficacies than 

the overall ACF market. DOE did not 

remove outliers for housed centrifugal 

ACFs. 

3. Technology Options

In the February 2022 RFI, DOE

identified five technology options that 

would be expected to improve the 

efficiency of ACFs, as expected to be 

measured by a future DOE test 

procedure. These technology options 

were improved aerodynamic design, 

blade shape, more efficient motors, 

material selection, and variable-speed 

drives (‘‘VSDs’’). 87 FR 7048, 7052. In 

the October 2022 NODA, DOE focused 

its analyses on aerodynamic redesign 

and more efficient motors. 87 FR 62038, 

62042. In response to the October 2022 

NODA, the CA IOUs suggested that DOE 

investigate individual components of 

improved aerodynamic design so that 

incremental efficiency levels could be 

evaluated in the engineering analysis. 

(CA IOUs, No. 127 at p. 2) DOE has 

since identified several additional 

technology options that would be 

expected to improve the efficiency of 

GFBs and ACFs, including options that 

are components of aerodynamic design. 

The technology options that DOE 

considered for this NOPR are: 

• Improved housing design;

• Reduced manufacturing tolerances;

• Addition of guide vanes;

• Addition of appurtenances;

• Improved impeller design;

• Impeller topology;

• Increased impeller diameter;

• Impeller material;

• More efficient transmissions;

• More efficient motors; and

• Motor controllers.

DOE notes that not every technology

option listed above will be analyzed for 

each equipment class in this NOPR. For 

example, DOE did not analyze increased 

impeller diameter for ACFs because 

impeller diameter is used to separate 

ACF equipment classes (see section 

IV.A.1.b). The following discussion

provides a brief overview of the

technology options under consideration

and addresses stakeholder comments

that DOE has received on the October

2022 NODA.

Improved housing design includes 

any changes to the enclosure of a fan, 

such as modifying the volute 55 for 

centrifugal fans or reducing the bladeto-housing clearance for axial fans. In 

response to the October 2022 NODA, the 

CA IOUs stated that a fan’s blade-tohousing clearance determines its static 

pressure capabilities and efficiency, and 

fans with larger clearances generally 

have lower efficiency. They also stated 

that the use of a wall ring can improve 

the efficiency of an ACF. (CA IOUs, No. 

127 at pp. 2–3) DOE has considered the 

addition of a wall ring under the 

‘‘improved housing design’’ technology 

option. Additionally, DOE considered 

the effects of reduced running 

clearances as a component of the 

‘‘reduced manufacturing tolerances’’ 

technology option. During manufacturer 

interviews, manufacturers stated that 

reducing the manufacturing tolerances 

for fan components can increase 

efficiency. Therefore, DOE considered 

reduced manufacturing tolerances as a 

technology option for this NOPR. 

The addition of guide vanes reduces 

pressure loss by directing and 

smoothing airflow as it exits a fan. DOE 

observed in its market research that the 

integration of guide vanes into the outlet 

of a fan can improve efficiency by over 

10 percent. For example, DOE observed 

that vane axial fans can achieve up to 

20-percent higher FEIs than similarly

sized tube axial fans. Appurtenances are

similar to guide vanes but are not

integral to the fan—rather,

appurtenances can be added to change

the performance of a fan and fans may

be sold with different appurtenances to

provide the end user with the desired

effect. In the October 2022 NODA, DOE

summarized a comment from ebm-papst

stating that the use of outlet guide vanes

or appurtenances, such as inlet cones on

housings or winglets on impellers,

could improve the fan efficiency. 87 FR

62038, 62042. DOE recognizes that the

addition of appurtenances described by

ebm-papst has the potential to increase

fan efficiency. Therefore, DOE

considered the addition of guide vanes

and appurtenances as technology

options in this NOPR.

Regarding impeller design, DOE 

considered any aerodynamic 

improvement of an impeller that does 

not include a change to its topology 

under the impeller design technology 

option. This includes modifications, 

such as incorporating beneficial ridges 

into the blade surface as well as 

improving impeller blade surface 

quality. DOE observed the presence of 

these modifications to blade design 

during teardowns of GFBs and ACFs. 

Therefore, DOE considered improved 

impeller design as a technology option 

in this NOPR. 

Regarding fan impeller topology, DOE 

considered changes in the orientation or 

basic shape of the blades, such as 

switching from a backward-curved 

blade to an airfoil blade. In the October 

2022 NODA, DOE summarized a 

comment from the Joint Commenters 

encouraging DOE to evaluate more 

efficient blade designs as a technology 

option because of their energy savings 

potential. The Joint Commenters added 

that the use of advanced blade designs, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3760 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

such as airfoil blades, can improve the 

efficiency of a fan relative to traditional 

single-thickness blades. 87 FR 62038, 

62042. In addition, DOE received 

comment from the CA IOUs in response 

to the October 2022 NODA stating that 

impeller blades may have either a 

‘‘true’’ or ‘‘progressive’’ pitch, and that 

the pitch of the blades will affect 

efficiency. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at p. 2) 

DOE’s research and feedback received 

during manufacturer interviews also 

indicated that certain impeller 

topologies can be more efficient than 

others. Therefore, DOE considered 

impeller topology as a technology 

option. 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, AHAM commented that DOE’s 

use of general blade design as a 

technology option for ACFs did not 

factor in specific differences in 

application of different blade shapes 

between unique fan configurations, 

including ACFs with horizontal axes, 

ACFs with vertical axes, or bladeless 

ACFs. AHAM added that DOE has not 

tested these different fan configurations. 

(AHAM, No. 123 at p. 8) DOE notes that 

the DOE test procedure specifies testing 

ACFs only in a horizontal configuration. 

DOE also notes that bladeless fans are 

excluded from the proposed scope for 

ACFs, as discussed in section III.B.2 of 

this document. Therefore, DOE did not 

consider differences in axis orientation 

or bladeless fans in its evaluation of 

ACF impeller topology or improved 

impeller design. 

DOE received feedback during 

confidential GFB manufacturer 

interviews that increasing the diameter 

of a fan impeller can improve the 

efficiency of a fan. Additionally, when 

comparing fans on the market with 

different diameters and otherwise 

similar characteristics, DOE observed 

that fans with larger diameters were 

typically more efficient for certain 

equipment classes; therefore, DOE 

considered increased impeller diameter 

as a technology option in this NOPR. 

When reviewing available data from 

the market, its databases, and 

information received during 

confidential manufacturer interviews, 

DOE could not distinguish between the 

effects of improved housing design, 

reduced manufacturing tolerances, 

addition of appurtenances, and 

improved impeller design on the 

performance of GFBs; therefore, DOE 

has grouped these technology options 

together and collectively refers to them 

as ‘‘aerodynamic redesign’’ for GFBs in 

the remainder of this document. For 

ACFs, DOE additionally lacked 

quantitative efficiency data regarding 

specific impeller topologies and the 

addition of guide vanes, and therefore 

grouped the addition of guide vanes as 

well as any blade adjustments that 

improve the efficiency of ACFs, such as 

the curvature or pitch, along with 

improved housing design, reduced 

manufacturing tolerances, addition of 

appurtenances, and improved impeller 

design under the umbrella of 

aerodynamic redesign for ACFs in the 

remainder of this document. The 

technology options considered under 

aerodynamic redesign for both GFBs 

and ACFs are summarized in Table IV– 

7. 

DOE previously considered ‘‘material 

selection’’ in general as a technology 

option in the February 2022 RFI. 87 FR 

7048, 7052. For this NOPR, DOE is 

clarifying that material selection is 

specific to impeller materials. DOE did 

not receive comments from stakeholders 

pertaining to material selection for 

either the February 2022 RFI or the 

October 2022 NODA; however, during 

confidential interviews, manufacturers 

stated that minimal efficiency gains 

would be achieved by changing the 

blade material. When reviewing 

manufacturer fan selection software 

data, DOE identified similar fans with 

different blade materials and 

investigated the impact of different 

materials on FEI. Consistent with 

manufacturer feedback, DOE found that 

material selection of the impeller had 

minimal or no impact on efficiency for 

either GFBs or ACFs. Therefore, DOE 

did not consider material selection as a 

technology option in this NOPR. 

With regard to transmissions, DOE 

notes that the DOE test procedure 

includes a loss factor associated with 

belt-drive transmissions, while directdrive transmissions are treated as 

having no loss when calculating 

efficiency. This indicates that replacing 

a belt-drive with a direct-drive 

transmission can improve efficiency. 

For ACFs, DOE considered the change 

from belt-drive to direct-drive as a 

technology option. For GFBs, as 

discussed in section IV.A.1.a, DOE is 

proposing to establish separate 

equipment classes for GFBs sold with or 

without motor controllers to account for 

the added utility provided by GFBs with 

motor controllers (i.e., variable-speed 

operation to allow a fan to adapt to 

changing load requirements). Belt-drive 

transmissions can be manually adjusted 

during installation to achieve all airflow 

and pressure operating requirements in 

a fan’s operating range for different field 

applications, whereas direct-drive fans 

would only be able to achieve all 

operating points within the fan’s 

operating range if paired with a motor 

controller. As a result, DOE did not 

consider the shift from belt-drive to 

direct-drive transmission as a 

technology option for GFBs to maintain 

the added utility provided by belt-drive 

transmission. 

Regarding motors, motor efficiency 

can depend on motor topology as well 

as the individual design features of a 

single motor topology. For example, 

most motors used in ACFs are 

permanent split capacitor (‘‘PSC’’) 

motors, and these motors have a wide 

range of operating efficiencies. In 

addition, some ACFs use electronically 

commutated motors (‘‘ECMs’’). ECMs 

operate in a higher efficiency range than 

PSC motors, so using an ECM may 

improve the overall efficiency of an 

ACF. In this NOPR, DOE considers both 

switching to a more efficient motor 

topology and improved efficiency of a 

single motor topology in the more 

efficient motors technology option. 

For GFBs, DOE learned from 

confidential manufacturer interviews 

that motors are not always sold as 

integral parts of a fan. Many sales of 

GFBs do not include a motor and 

require the customer to provide this 

part. Furthermore, the motors used for 

GFBs are nearly all 3-phase induction 

motors currently regulated by DOE, 

including motors between 100 and 150 

hp. See 10 CFR 431.25. On June 1, 2023, 

DOE published an energy efficiency 

standards direct final rule for these 

electric motors. 88 FR 36066. In this 

rule, DOE increased the minimum 

required efficiency of induction motors 

between 100 and 250 hp from IE 3 to IE 

4. 88 FR 36066, 36144. IE 3 and IE 4 

motor efficiencies are defined in IEC 

60034–30–1:2014: ‘‘Rotating Electrical 

Machines—Part 30–1: Efficiency classes 

of line operated AC motors (IE code),’’ 

(‘‘IEC 60034–30–1:2014’’) published by 

the International Electrotechnical 

Commission. The compliance date of 

this rule is June 1, 2027 and any 

standards promulgated as a result of this 

fans rulemaking would take effect after 

that date. 

Because of the new 2027 electric 

motor standards, there will be impacts 

on the motor market from a product 

availability, size, and technology 

standpoint as the efficiency moves from 

IE 3 to IE 4. These changes would need 

to be considered in this rulemaking, but 

electric motor manufacturers are still in 

the design and planning process to 

migrate their product offerings to be in 

compliance with the 2027 electric 

motors standards recently adopted. If 

DOE were closer to the 2027 compliance 

date or this was a first-time regulation 

for these induction motors, DOE would 

be able to better understand how 

manufacturers were going to fully 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3761 

respond and the innovations that may 

be introduced into the market to be able 

to carefully consider how the motors 

offerings could be considered as part of 

the CIFB designs affecting the fan 

efficiencies. At this time, DOE does not 

have sufficient data to fully evaluate the 

impact of those efficiency and 

technology changes on the proposed 

efficiency levels (‘‘ELs’’). DOE has 

therefore not evaluated more efficient 

motors as a technology option for GFBs 

in this NOPR; however, DOE may 

consider more efficient motors as a 

viable technology option for improving 

GFB efficiency in a future rulemaking. 

DOE evaluated more efficient motors 

for ACFs in the October 2022 NODA. 87 

FR 62038, 62042. DOE also assumed 

that all ACFs are sold with a motor. Id. 

Furthermore, DOE requested comment 

on its estimated base manufacturer 

production cost for ACFs excluding 

motors. 87 FR 62038, 62053. In 

response, AMCA commented that, to the 

best of its knowledge, ACFs are always 

sold with motors. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 

12) In this NOPR, DOE therefore 

continued with its assumption that all 

ACFs are sold with motors. 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

assumed that most motors paired with 

ACFs are lower efficiency induction 

motors that were not regulated by DOE 

and requested comment on that 

assumption. 87 FR 62038, 62042. DOE 

also requested data on the percentage of 

ACFs sold with split-phase, PSC, 

shaded-pole and ECMs. 87 FR 62038, 

62049. In response, AMCA commented 

that some of its members sell ACFs with 

shaded-pole motors, PSC motors, 

polyphase motors, or ECMs. (AMCA, 

No. 132 at p. 3) NEMA commented that, 

depending on the horsepower 

requirements, a split-phase, shadedpole, capacitor start/capacitor run, or 

three-phase motor could be used for 

ACFs. NEMA added that shaded-pole 

motors are often used at 0.1 hp and 

under for ACFs, while PSC motors are 

very common for 1 hp and under. 

(NEMA, No. 125 at p. 3) In response to 

this feedback, DOE conducted a review 

of its updated ACF database (discussed 

further in section IV.A.2.b) and 

identified ACFs sold with multiple 

different motor topologies, including 

PSC, polyphase, and EC motors. 

Additionally, DOE identified many 

ACFs using PSC motors at high and low 

motor efficiencies. Because DOE has 

identified that ACF motor efficiency 

may be improved through changing 

motor topology as well as improving 

efficiency within a single motor 

topology, it considered both switching 

to a more efficient motor topology and 

improving efficiency within a single 

motor topology as components of the 

more efficient motors technology option 

for ACFs. 

Regarding motor controllers, motor 

controllers are used to change the 

operating point of fans by altering their 

motor speed. This allows a fan to 

operate at a lower speed when possible, 

which can result in a reduction of 

power consumption. In response to the 

October 2022 NODA, the Efficiency 

Advocates encouraged DOE to evaluate 

fans that operate at multiple speeds, 

rather than just the highest speed, 

because lowering the fan speed can 

significantly reduce the amount of 

power used by a fan. (Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 126 at p. 2–3) 

Conversely, AMCA stated that the 

utility of ACFs to provide the necessary 

air-throw distance and air velocity may 

be diminished or removed entirely by 

reducing the fan speed with motor 

controllers, which is a negative impact 

on product utility. (AMCA, No. 132 at 

p. 3) While DOE acknowledges that fan 

power consumption can be reduced by 

lowering the speed of a fan, it notes that 

the DOE test procedure for ACFs 

specifies testing and reporting efficacy 

for ACFs at the maximum speed of the 

fan. See appendix B to subpart J of 10 

CFR part 431, section 2.2.1. DOE’s 

analysis in this NOPR remains 

consistent with the DOE test procedure 

for ACFs, so DOE did not evaluate 

efficiencies at less than maximum 

speed. Therefore, DOE did not consider 

motor controllers as a technology option 

for ACFs in this NOPR. 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, the CA IOUs commented that 

choosing a low-speed range for a 

particular impeller improves its 

efficiency. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at p. 2) 

DOE notes the speed and operating 

point of a fan are strongly related and 

that any change to the speed of a fan 

will likely change the utility of that fan. 

Therefore, DOE did not consider 

reduced speed as a technology option 

for this NOPR. 

As discussed in section IV.A.1.a, 

GFBs with motor controllers allow a fan 

to adapt to changing load requirements. 

While this may result in energy savings 

during application, the DOE test 

procedure for fans does not account for 

these possible changes in operation and 

energy savings. As a result, DOE is 

proposing to establish separate 

equipment classes for GFBs sold with 

and without motor controllers and is not 

considering motor controllers as a 

technology option. 

Table IV–7 lists the technology 

options for GFBs and ACFs that DOE 

evaluated in its screening analysis. Both 

GFBs and ACFs include an aerodynamic 

redesign technology option, which 

contains technology options that DOE 

determined to be viable, but for which 

DOE lacked sufficient data to fully 

analyze individually. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.025</GPH>

Table IV-7 Technolo!!:v Options Evaluated in this NOPR 

GFBs ACFs 

• Aerodynamic redesign • Aerodynamic redesign 

0 improved housing design 0 improved housing design 

0 reduced manufacturing tolerances 0 reduced manufacturing tolerances 

0 addition of appurtenances 0 addition of appurtenances 

0 improved impeller design 0 improved impeller design 

• Addition of guide vanes 0 addition of guide vanes 

• Impeller topology 0 impeller topology 

• Increased impeller diameter • Increased impeller diameter 

• More efficient transmissions 

• More efficient motors 
3762 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Further details on technology options 

that DOE considered for this NOPR can 

be found in chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD. 

B. 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 industrial equipment 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 

industrial equipment 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 equipment to subgroups of 

consumers, or results in the 

unavailability of any covered equipment 

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 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(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. 

Through a review of each technology, 

DOE tentatively concludes that the 

technologies listed in Table IV–7 of this 

document met all five screening criteria 

to be examined further as design options 

in DOE’s NOPR analysis. Comments 

DOE received regarding screening for 

these technologies are discussed below. 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, DOE received several comments 

pertaining to how the screening criteria 

apply to aerodynamic redesign, blade 

shape, and motors. AMCA stated that 

aerodynamic efficiency improvements 

can often lead to an increase in the cost 

and complexity of manufacturing, 

which can have an adverse impact on 

the practicability of manufacturing. 

AMCA added that some ACF 

components that can be adjusted to 

improve efficiency are patentable, 

including impellers, impeller blades, 

impeller rings, housings, outlet 

appurtenances, and motors, which 

relates to the screening criteria for 

unique-pathway proprietary 

technologies. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 3). 

AMCA also commented that the 

removal of a safety guard on an ACF to 

increase its efficiency would decrease 

the safety of an ACF, which is an 

adverse impact on health or safety. Id. 

Regarding AMCA’s comment on the 

potential for increased cost or 

complexity of manufacturing associated 

with an aerodynamic redesign, DOE 

notes that it accounted for this increased 

cost and complexity through conversion 

costs, which are discussed in section 

IV.J. Regarding patentable technologies, 

DOE notes that in manufacturer 

interviews, it specifically asked about 

whether patentable technologies could 

pose a problem in meeting energy 

conservation standards. In response, no 

GFB or ACF manufacturers expressed 

concerns regarding patents. Therefore, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

none of the proposed design options 

meet the unique pathway-proprietary 

technologies screening criteria. 

In terms of safety guards, DOE agrees 

that the removal of a safety guard would 

compromise the safety of a fan. 

DOE notes that the motor efficiency 

technology options are based on general 

industry standards rather than specific 

motor designs that could be patented; 

therefore, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies screening 

criterion does not apply to the moreefficient motor technology option. 

DOE did not receive comment related 

to screening for any other technology 

options. The remaining technology 

options that DOE did not screen from its 

analysis are listed in Table IV–8. 

DOE has initially determined that 

these technology options are 

technologically feasible because they are 

being used or have previously been used 

in commercially available equipment 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, uniquepathway proprietary technologies). For 

additional details, see chapter 4 of the 

NOPR TSD. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.026</GPH>

Table IV-8 Remainine Technoloe:v Options for GFBs and ACFs 

GFBs ACFs 

• Aerodynamic redesign • Aerodynamic redesign 

0 improved housing design 0 improved housing design 

0 reduced manufacturing 0 reduced manufacturing tolerances 

tolerances 0 addition of appurtenances 

0 addition of appurtenances 0 improved impeller design 

0 improved impeller design 0 addition of guide vanes 

• Addition of guide vanes 0 impeller topology 

• Impeller topology • Increased impeller diameter 

• Increased impeller diameter • More efficient motors 

• More efficient transmissions 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3763 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency and cost of fans 

and blowers. There are two elements to 

consider in the engineering analysis; the 

selection of efficiency levels to analyze 

(i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the 

determination of equipment cost at each 

efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 

analysis’’). In determining the 

performance of higher-efficiency 

equipment, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each equipment class, DOE 

estimates the baseline cost, as well as 

the incremental cost for the equipment 

at efficiency levels above the baseline. 

The output of the engineering analysis 

is a set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that 

are used in downstream analyses (i.e., 

the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA). 

1. General Fans and Blowers 

a. Baseline Efficiency 

For each equipment 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 equipment class represents the 

typical characteristics 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. 

As discussed in section II.B.1, there 

are currently no energy conservation 

standards for GFBs. In this analysis, 

DOE set the baseline efficiency as the 

lowest reasonable efficiency on the 

market after removing potential outliers 

for each analyzed equipment class. 

DOE established baseline ELs using 

performance data in the AMCA sales 

database. DOE filtered the database by 

equipment class and evaluated the fan 

performance range for each equipment 

class. Additionally, as described in 

section IV.A.3, DOE based its GFB 

analysis on design options that 

specifically improve fan performance. 

DOE did not consider improvements to 

the motor, transmission, or motor 

controllers. Therefore, for this analysis, 

DOE calculated FEI according to the 

bare shaft method described in the DOE 

Test Procedure. See sections 2.2 and 2.6 

of appendix A to subpart J of 10 CFR 

part 431. For both the AMCA sales 

database and any manufacturer fan 

selection software data, DOE 

recalculated FEI on a bare shaft basis. 

Accordingly, the standards proposed in 

this notice are based only on fan design 

and exclude any impact that the motor, 

transmission, or motor controllers may 

have on fan efficiency. 

Based on a review of the market, DOE 

tentatively determined that the FEI 

values corresponding to the 5th 

percentile in the AMCA sales database 

were generally representative of 

baseline efficiency across all diameters 

and duty points within a given 

equipment class. Defining baseline 

efficiency at the 5th percentile enabled 

DOE to remove potential outlier fans 

and fans that may no longer exist on the 

market. DOE compared the 5th 

percentile for each equipment class to 

data retrieved from manufacturer fan 

selection software to ensure that 

baseline efficiencies were representative 

of the current market. In instances 

where the 5th percentile removed a 

substantial number of models that had 

FEI values consistent with what was 

seen on the market, DOE adjusted the 

baseline efficiency to align with the 

distribution of FEIs observed in the 

manufacturer fan selection software. 

Additional details on the development 

of baseline efficiency levels for each 

equipment class are included in chapter 

5 of the NOPR TSD. 

b. Selection of Efficiency Levels 

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 equipment (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 equipment on the market) may be 

extended using the design option 

approach to ‘‘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). 

In this NOPR, DOE relied on a 

combination of the efficiency level and 

design-option approaches. DOE used the 

efficiency level approach to determine 

the baseline, max-tech, and 

aerodynamic redesign efficiency levels 

and used the design-option approach to 

gap fill intermediate efficiency levels. 

General Approach 

DOE applied design options to the 

initial efficiency levels evaluated above 

baseline for each equipment class. As 

discussed in section IV.A.3, DOE has 

identified the following design options 

for GFBs: 

• Impeller topology; 

• Addition of guide vanes; 

• Increased impeller diameter; and 

• Aerodynamic redesign (improved 

housing design, reduced manufacturing 

tolerances, addition of appurtenances, 

improved impeller design). 

For each equipment class, DOE 

evaluated both the AMCA sales database 

as a whole and data from manufacturer 

fan selection software for specific 

representative diameters and operating 

points to set the efficiency levels and 

associated design options for its 

analysis. DOE used data pulled from 

manufacturer fan selection software to 

understand the incremental impact of 

design options on fan performance and 

cost. DOE then applied these 

incremental FEI increases to the 

baseline fan for each equipment class to 

set intermediate efficiency levels. 

To estimate the incremental increases 

in FEI, DOE first selected between three 

and six representative operating points 

based on the fan diameters, operating 

pressures, and airflows that were most 

common for each equipment class in the 

AMCA sales database, as discussed in 

section IV.A.2.a. DOE then used 

manufacturer fan selection software to 

obtain data for each representative 

operating point at a specific diameter, 

airflow, and pressure. From the 

manufacturer fan selection software, 

DOE evaluated how FEI changed as 

various design options were applied 

while holding constant the diameter (for 

all equipment classes except PRVs) and 

duty point. DOE calculated bare shaft 

FEI for fans evaluated using 

manufacturer fan selection software to 

eliminate the effects of transmission on 

the efficiency. Additional details on 

how manufacturer fan selection 

software was evaluated and used in the 

development of intermediate efficiency 

levels are included in chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3764 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

56 In reviewing both the AMCA sales database and 

manufacturer fan selection software, DOE was 

unable to distinguish between backward-inclined 

and backward-curved impellers for many fan 

models. It is also DOE’s understanding that both 

backward-inclined and backward-curved impellers 

perform similarly regarding fan efficiency. 

Therefore, DOE considered both backward-inclined 

and backward-curved impellers together as a single 

design option. 

DOE recognizes that relying on data 

from fans at representative diameters 

and operating points to characterize 

efficiency improvements may not 

sufficiently account for the entire range 

of duty points and diameters typical for 

each equipment class. Therefore, after 

determining the impact of potential 

design options on fan efficiency using 

the manufacturer fan selection software, 

DOE used the AMCA sales database to 

validate the estimated incremental FEI 

increases for each design option. In its 

review of the market, DOE found that 

most manufacturer model numbers 

correspond to a specific impeller type 

and design. To make comparisons 

between fan models in the AMCA sales 

database, DOE used the model numbers 

included in the AMCA sales database to 

characterize each fan’s impeller. DOE 

then evaluated the potential efficiency 

gain of each design option across the 

entire range of operating points in the 

AMCA sales database. For example, for 

centrifugal housed fans, DOE calculated 

the average increase in FEI that would 

be observed for a fan with a backwardinclined impeller at a given diameter 

compared to a fan with a forwardcurved impeller at the same diameter. 

DOE evaluated the AMCA sales 

database in this way to confirm that its 

estimated increases in FEI seemed 

feasible across the range of operating 

duty points, since the AMCA sales 

database contains data points at a 

variety of duty points for each 

equipment class. 

In response to the July 2022 TP 

NOPR, AHRI commented that fan 

performance in the AMCA sales 

database was never confirmed to be 

reflective of embedded fans, including 

system effect, and that finalizing the 

determination using the analysis 

conducted to date, especially if 

embedded fans are within the scope, 

would be inappropriate. (Docket No. 

EERE–2021–BT–TP–0021, AHRI, No. 40 

at p. 13) DOE notes that, as discussed in 

III.B.1, embedded fans listed in Table 

III–1 are outside the scope of this 

analysis. All other fans within the scope 

of this rulemaking would be tested in 

accordance with the DOE test 

procedure, which reflects performance 

of fans outside of equipment into which 

they may be installed and does not 

evaluate system effects. 

Additionally, in response to the 

October 2022 NODA, Morrison 

suggested that the data evaluation and 

analysis conducted in the 2016 NODA 

should be restarted to address current 

stakeholder concerns and account for 

changes in the market environment, 

including widespread adoption of 

building codes and use of the FEI 

metric. (Morrison, No. 128 at p. 3) In 

response to the July 2022 TP NOPR, 

AHRI commented that it is not 

reasonable to assume that substitutions 

can be made for any fan within 20 

percent of static pressure or airflow 

requirements and within two inches of 

the original diameter tolerances. AHRI 

stated that selecting a fan that two 

inches larger in diameter would 

translate to a four-inch increase in 

housing size. Additionally, AHRI 

commented that commercial heating, 

ventilation, and air conditioning 

(‘‘HVAC’’) equipment fan selection 

requires design to a specific airflow and 

static pressure and that in virtually all 

cases, a two-percent selection window 

is required so the 20 percent selection 

window would not satisfy the heating, 

cooling or ventilation needs for the 

application. (Docket No. EERE–2021– 

BT–TP–0021, AHRI, No. 40 at p. 12–13) 

Furthermore, AHRI commented that 

variable air volume systems and systems 

with economizers need to operate over 

a range of airflow. Low static, high 

airflow fans (forward-curved fans) are 

used in these applications; therefore, the 

number of fans that would require 

redesign is closer to 100 percent than 

the 30 percent included in the NODA 3 

(2016 NODA) analysis. (Id.) 

DOE notes that all analyses from the 

2016 NODA have been reevaluated in 

this NOPR to reflect current market 

trends and industry standards. While 

DOE maintained some structural 

elements from the 2016 NODA, such as 

some equipment classes and use of the 

AMCA sales database, DOE updated its 

efficiency levels and cost analyses based 

on manufacturer feedback from recent 

interviews, publicly available sales data, 

and a thorough review of the current 

market. Additionally, in this analysis, 

DOE did not assume that static pressure 

or airflow could vary by 20 percent or 

that the diameter of embedded fans 

could increase by any amount. In its 

analysis for this NOPR, DOE evaluated 

efficiency increases with operating 

point and diameter remaining constant 

for fan equipment classes that could be 

embedded in equipment, which is 

discussed in more detail in section 

IV.C.1.b (subsection Determination of 

Efficiency Levels). Additionally, DOE’s 

analysis reflects that forward-curved 

fans should be preserved in the market 

and would likely be redesigned to do so. 

In section IV.C.1.b (see subsection 

Parallel Design Path for Forward-curved 

Fans), DOE describes how it analyzed 

forward-curved fans. DOE also 

evaluated the potential impact of duty 

point on whether a fan could be 

redesigned to higher FEI levels. Using 

the AMCA sales database, DOE 

developed FEI distributions for each 

equipment class to evaluate how FEI 

varied with specified design pressure, 

airflow, and diameter. Based on these 

FEI distributions, DOE was not able to 

identify any duty point ranges with 

disproportionately lower fan availability 

at higher FEI values for any equipment 

class. DOE has tentatively determined 

that the efficiency relationships it 

developed based on the selected 

representative operating points could be 

applied to fans at other diameters and 

duty points; therefore, there is only one 

set of efficiency levels for each 

equipment class. 

Determination of Efficiency Levels 

The first design option that DOE 

evaluated for most equipment classes 

was changing the fan impeller. Based on 

its review of the market, DOE 

determined that manufacturers often 

have a variety of impeller topologies 

available for each fan class. For 

example, some manufacturers have 

economy impellers, which are less 

efficient and less expensive than other 

available impellers. DOE also found that 

manufacturers may have impellers that 

are designed to operate at different duty 

points, such as high-pressure impellers. 

These impellers achieve different levels 

of performance based on blade shape, 

blade pitch, number of blades, etc. 

Therefore, rather than attempt to 

characterize each of these individual 

impellers and how they may impact FEI, 

DOE evaluated manufacturer fan 

selection software to estimate the 

average increase in FEI for a typical 

impeller change for each equipment 

class and then used the AMCA sales 

database to validate that these increases 

are applicable to the broader fans 

market. DOE notes that the centrifugal 

housed equipment class is the only 

equipment class for which specific 

impeller changes were characterized. 

This is because DOE was able to identify 

distinct differences in efficiency 

between forward-curved, backwardinclined or backward-curved,56 and 

airfoil impellers for centrifugal housed 

fans. The impeller change design 

options were either applied to the 

baseline fan or applied successively to 

a previous impeller change. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3765 

DOE followed a similar method of 

analyzing both the manufacturer fan 

selection software and the AMCA sales 

database to estimate the increase in FEI 

that could be achieved for design 

options other than impeller changes, 

including substituting a tube axial fan 

for a vane axial fan, substituting a mixed 

flow fan for a centrifugal inline fan, and 

increasing the PRV fans diameter. 

Additional details on how DOE 

estimated the incremental increases in 

FEI for each design option and for each 

equipment class are included in chapter 

5 of the NOPR TSD. 

For many categories of fans, 

increasing the diameter of a fan could 

increase efficiency when a fan operates 

at the same duty point; however, during 

manufacturer interviews, DOE received 

feedback that increasing the diameter of 

a fan is only applicable to certain fan 

classes. Specifically, DOE learned that 

increasing the diameter of a fan that 

would be embedded in OEM equipment 

could impact the overall performance of 

the equipment, could impact its utility 

for use in space-constrained OEM 

equipment, and would substantially 

increase OEM redesign costs. 

Alternatively, for fan types that do not 

have space-constraints, a fan could 

typically be increased by one or two 

sizes without impacting the utility of 

the fan. 

For fan equipment classes that could 

be embedded, either into other 

equipment or into spaced constrained 

applications, such as ducted ventilation 

systems, DOE did not consider 

increased impeller diameter as a design 

option. These types of fans include axial 

inline, panel, centrifugal housed, 

centrifugal unhoused, and centrifugal 

inline fans. 

For radial fans, DOE analyzed the 

diameter increase design option since 

this fan class is typically not used in 

space-constrained applications; 

However, DOE did not observe 

consistent efficiency changes with 

increased diameter for radial fans; 

therefore, DOE did not consider larger 

fan diameter as a design option for 

radial fans. 

In general, PRVs (axial PRV, 

centrifugal PRV exhaust, and centrifugal 

PRV supply) are not subject to the same 

size and weight constraints experienced 

by other embedded fan classes. These 

units are placed in open air 

environments to supply or exhaust air 

from the top of a building, which 

enables them to increase in size. DOE 

found that increasing PRV diameter 

consistently increases the efficiency; 

therefore, DOE considered diameter 

increase as a design option for axial and 

centrifugal PRVs. 

DOE requests comment on its 

understanding that the diameter 

increase design option could be applied 

to non-embedded, non-spaceconstrained equipment classes. 

In its analysis for axial and centrifugal 

PRVs, DOE used an 18-percent increase 

in diameter to represent a diameter 

increase and rounded the impeller 

diameter to the nearest whole number, 

since DOE found that the 18-percent 

increase was representative of the fan 

sizes available on the market. For 

example, the increased diameter design 

option for a 15-in. diameter fan would 

increase the fan diameter to 18-in. and 

a 36-in. diameter fan would increase to 

a 42-in. diameter fan. When analyzing 

its data sources, DOE found that this 18 

percent diameter increase when 

maintaining the operating point could 

result in a range of FEI increases, from 

as low as 4-percent to as high as 30- 

percent, corresponding to a FEI increase 

of approximately 0.03 to 0.30. For this 

NOPR analysis, DOE assumed that a 

diameter increase for centrifugal PRV 

exhaust and supply fans would result in 

a 0.03 increase in FEI and a diameter 

increase for axial PRV fans would result 

in a 0.09–0.10 increase in FEI. DOE 

recognizes that initial diameter size, 

operating airflow, and operating 

pressure may impact how effective an 

impeller diameter increase is for 

increasing FEI. Specifically, the duty 

points that DOE chose to evaluate may 

be duty points where a diameter 

increase is very effective at increasing 

fan efficiency or may be duty points 

where a diameter increase has minimal 

impact on fan efficiency. DOE could 

adjust the efficiency gains from an 

impeller diameter increase in its 

analysis so that there is a larger FEI gain 

for all PRVs, and where PRVs could 

reach higher FEI values for a lower cost. 

Alternately, DOE could decrease the FEI 

gain for axial PRVs from an impeller 

diameter increase, allowing axial PRVs 

to reach higher FEI values for a higher 

cost since the impeller diameter 

increase would no longer provide such 

a large increase in FEI. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

the FEI increases associated with an 

impeller diameter increase for 

centrifugal PRVs and for axial PRVs are 

realistic. Specifically, DOE requests 

comment on whether it is realistic for 

axial PRVs to have a FEI increase that 

is 3 times greater than that for 

centrifugal PRVs when starting at the 

same initial diameter. Additionally, 

DOE requests comment on the factors 

that may impact how much an impeller 

diameter increase impacts a FEI 

increase. 

In its analysis, DOE applied the 

impeller changes and aerodynamic 

redesigns for PRVs to the baseline fan 

such that PRVs could reach higher 

efficiency levels while maintaining the 

baseline impeller diameter. While 

manufacturers would have the option of 

achieving higher efficiencies by 

increasing fan diameter, DOE assumed 

that if manufacturers were to change the 

impeller or redesign a PRV, 

manufacturers would apply these design 

changes to their entire diameter range, 

enabling the baseline diameter fan to 

reach the higher efficiency levels. 

The design path for all PRVs is shown 

in Table IV–11. For the PRV equipment 

classes, the impeller change(s) and 

diameter increase(s) are ordered by FEI 

increase, where the design option with 

the smallest FEI increase is ordered first. 

DOE could consider an analysis with a 

different ordering of design option 

based on MSP increase or costeffectiveness. Alternately, DOE could 

consider an analysis that does not 

include increased fan diameter as a 

design option. In this alternative 

analysis, DOE could consider an 

additional impeller change as a design 

option to increase FEI. However, based 

on its analysis, DOE expects that 

removing increased fan diameter as a 

design option in its analysis would 

increase the cost to achieve a higher 

efficiency of a PRV. 

DOE requests comment on the 

ordering and implementation of design 

options for centrifugal PRV exhaust and 

supply fans and axial PRV fans. 

DOE additionally determined that 

manufacturers may improve efficiency 

through aerodynamic redesign, as 

described in section IV.A.3 of this 

document. It is DOE’s understanding 

that aerodynamic redesign may require 

significant product and capital 

investment. Accordingly, DOE only 

applied aerodynamic redesign after 

applying the design options DOE 

expected would be less cost-intensive 

for manufacturers. Additionally, the 

impact of aerodynamic redesign on 

efficiency is expected to vary 

significantly depending on the design 

choices made by the manufacturer. 

Therefore, DOE determined that the 

design option approach would not be 

appropriate for evaluating efficiency 

improvements for aerodynamic 

redesign. Instead, DOE evaluated 

aerodynamic redesign using the 

efficiency level approach. Generally, 

DOE set the FEIs for aerodynamic 

redesigns by assigning evenly spaced 

FEIs between the highest non-redesign 

EL (i.e., the EL immediately before the 

first aerodynamic redesign) and the 

max-tech EL. A numerical example 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3766 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

57 International Code Council. ‘‘2021 

International Energy Conservation Code Chapter 4: 

Commercial Energy Efficiency’’. September 2021. 

Available at codes.iccsafe.org/content/IECC2021P2/ 

chapter-4-ce-commercial-energy-efficiency. 

58ASHRAE. ‘‘Standard 90.1–2022—Energy 

Standard for Sites and Buildings Except Low-Rise 

Residential Buildings.’’ September 2022. Available 

at www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/ 

standard-90-1. 

59California Energy Commission. Commercial 

and Industrial Fans and Blowers. Docket No. 22– 

AAER–01. Available at efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/ 

DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=22-AAER-01. 

demonstrating how FEIs were assigned 

to the aerodynamic redesign ELs for the 

centrifugal PRV exhaust equipment 

class is provided in the following 

section. 

Existing Efficiency Standards 

DOE also evaluated other efficiency 

programs to inform the development of 

its efficiency levels. Energy efficiency 

provisions for commercial fans are 

prescribed in U.S. building codes, 

primarily developed by the 

International Code Council and 

specified in the International Energy 

Conservation Code (‘‘IECC’’). The IECC 

was most recently updated in 2021 

(‘‘IECC–2021’’) and specifies that 

commercial buildings shall comply with 

the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1.57

The most recent edition of ASHRAE 

90.1 was published in September 2022, 

and sets an FEI target of 1.00 for all fans 

within the scope of ASHRAE 90.1.58

While the standards established under 

IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 are not 

federally mandated, they are used by 

individual States and municipalities to 

support the development of local 

building codes. DOE is also aware that 

the CEC has finalized a rulemaking, 

which requires manufacturers to report 

fan operating boundaries that result in 

operation at an FEI of greater than or 

equal to 1.00 for all fans within the 

scope of that rulemaking.59

Furthermore, during confidential 

manufacturer interviews, DOE received 

feedback that an FEI of 1.00 is a realistic 

efficiency target and DOE does not have 

any indication that an FEI of 1.00 would 

not be achievable for all fan equipment 

classes. 

Based on this feedback and to align 

with the aforementioned standards, 

DOE elected to evaluate an efficiency 

level at an FEI of 1.00 for all fan classes. 

The efficiency level and design option 

that corresponds to an FEI of 1.00 differs 

for each equipment class depending on 

the FEI difference between the baseline 

and max-tech efficiency levels for each 

equipment class and the efficiency gain 

identified for each design option. For 

the axial inline, centrifugal inline, and 

centrifugal unhoused equipment 

classes, DOE determined that an FEI of 

1.00 could be achieved using the 

identified design options. Therefore, 

each of these equipment classes has 

specific design options associated with 

the EL set at an FEI of 1.00. For 

example, for the centrifugal inline 

equipment class, DOE tentatively 

determined through the design option 

approach that an FEI of 1.00 could be 

achieved by using a mixed flow 

impeller (EL 3). For all other equipment 

classes, DOE assumed that 

manufacturers could achieve an FEI of 

1.00 through an aerodynamic redesign. 

For equipment classes that had an 

aerodynamic redesign assigned at an EL 

with an FEI of 1.00, DOE evenly spaced 

all other aerodynamic redesign ELs at 

FEIs above and below a value of 1.00, 

where applicable. For example, the 

centrifugal PRV exhaust equipment 

class has a total of four aerodynamic 

redesign ELs, with the second 

aerodynamic redesign (EL 4) 

corresponding to an FEI of 1.00. The 

highest non-redesign EL occurs at EL 2, 

corresponding to an FEI of 0.76, and 

max- tech occurs at EL 6, corresponding 

to an FEI of 1.37. Therefore, the first 

aerodynamic redesign was set at the 

midpoint between EL 2 and EL 4, 

corresponding to an FEI of 0.88, and the 

third aerodynamic redesign was set as 

the midpoint between an FEI of 1.00 

and the max-tech EL, corresponding to 

an FEI of 1.19. 

Parallel Design Path for Forward-Curved 

Fans 

DOE received feedback during 

interviews that forward-curved 

impellers should be preserved in the 

market because they offer distinct utility 

over backward-inclined or airfoil 

impellers and typically operate at lower 

pressures where efficiency is inherently 

lower. However, as discussed in section 

IV.A.1.a, DOE has tentatively

determined that forward-curved fans do

not require a separate equipment class

since the FEI metric is a function of

operating pressure and accounts for the

inherently lower efficiency at lower

pressures.

Instead, to assess any costs associated 

with preserving forward-curved fans, 

DOE evaluated two parallel design paths 

for centrifugal housed fans. DOE used 

the first design path (hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘primary design path’’) to 

evaluate all fans with impellers other 

than forward-curved impellers. For the 

primary design path, DOE observed a 

significant number of fans with 

backward-inclined impellers that 

exhibited FEIs similar to those with 

forward-curved impellers, despite 

backward-inclined impellers generally 

being more efficient. Therefore, DOE 

assigned the same baseline FEI to both 

design paths and assumed baseline 

efficiency on the primary design path to 

be represented by an inefficient 

backward-inclined fan which would 

meet EL 1 via aerodynamic redesign of 

the backward-inclined impeller. EL 2 on 

the primary design path represents 

substituting a more typical backwardinclined impeller with an airfoil 

impeller to achieve an FEI of 1.00. 

For the second design path (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘forward-curved 

design path’’), DOE assumed that the 

baseline efficiency was represented by a 

forward-curved fan that would meet all 

subsequent ELs via aerodynamic 

redesign while maintaining a forwardcurved impeller. The design options for 

both design paths are summarized in 

Table IV–9 and additional details on 

how DOE defined the efficiency levels 

for the separate centrifugal housed 

design paths are provided in chapter 5 

of the NOPR TSD. 

Additionally, for the forward-curved 

design path, EL 4 approaches max-tech 

for forward-curved fans. Although DOE 

identified fans with forward-curved 

impellers above this EL, DOE could not 

confirm that forward-curved fans could 

be designed above this EL at all duty 

points. Therefore, DOE defined the third 

aerodynamic redesign on the forwardcurved design path (EL 4) as the maxtech for forward-curved impellers and 

assumed that any fans above this FEI 

would need to transition to a backwardinclined or airfoil impeller. As such, all 

fans above EL 4 were analyzed using the 

primary design path. 

DOE notes that, in practice, 

manufacturers may substitute forwardcurved impellers with a backwardinclined or airfoil impeller to improve 

efficiency. However, based on DOE’s 

review of the market and stakeholder 

feedback on the importance of 

maintaining fans with forward-curved 

impellers, DOE could not determine a 

representative percentage of forwardcurved fans that would be redesigned 

versus substituted with a different 

impeller. Therefore, to avoid 

underestimating the costs required to 

preserve forward-curved impellers, DOE 

assumed that all forward-curved fans 

currently on the market would maintain 

their impellers and follow the forwardcurve design path. 

DOE utilized a dual-design path 

approach for centrifugal housed fans to 

consider the fact that manufacturers 

may be required to incur higher 

conversion costs to maintain use of 

forward-curved impellers. DOE 

estimated the costs associated with 

redesigning forward-curved fans using 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3767 

the same method used to estimate 

aerodynamic redesign conversion costs 

for all other equipment classes and 

product types, as discussed in section 

IV.J.2.c. However, DOE may revise its 

analysis to consider additional 

conversion costs for forward-curved 

fans if sufficient data is provided to 

demonstrate that these fans may 

experience unique challenges in 

meeting higher FEI values. 

DOE requests comment on its 

approach for estimating the industrywide conversion costs that may be 

necessary to redesign fans with forwardcurved impellers to meet higher FEI 

values. Specifically, DOE is interested 

in the costs associated with any capital 

equipment, research and development, 

or additional labor that would be 

required to design more efficient fans 

with forward-curved impellers. DOE 

additionally requests comment and data 

on the percentage of forward-curved 

impellers that manufacturers would 

expect to maintain as a forward-curved 

impeller relative to those expected to 

transition to a backward-inclined or 

airfoil impeller. 

Efficiency Levels for General Fans and 

Blowers Sold With a Motor 

As discussed in the May 2023 TP 

Final Rule, DOE adopted the FEP and 

FEI calculations specified in AMCA 

214–21, which provides a method for 

calculating the FEI of fans sold with 

motors based on a table of polyphase 

regulated motors (See Annex A of 

AMCA 214–21). 88 FR 27312, 27348. 

However, as discussed in the May 2023 

TP Final Rule, the DOE test procedure 

replaces Annex A of AMCA 214–21 

with a reference to the current energy 

conservation standards for polyphase 

regulated motors in 10 CFR 431.25, with 

the intention that the values of regulated 

polyphase motor efficiencies would 

remain up to date with any potential 

future updates established by DOE. 88 

FR 27312, 27349. 

In a final rule published on June 1, 

2023, DOE finalized amended energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors. These standards adopted 

amended efficiency requirements for 

motors rated at or between 100 hp and 

250 hp. Therefore, for GFBs sold with a 

motor rated at or between 100 hp and 

250 hp, FEI would be evaluated using 

the amended efficiencies specified in 

table 8 of 10 CFR 431.25, in accordance 

with the DOE test procedure. However, 

the motor efficiencies used to calculate 

the reference fan FEP have not been 

similarly updated based on the 

amended standards for electric motors. 

Therefore, the reference fan FEP for 

GFBs with a motor rated at or between 

100 hp and 250 hp would be calculated 

using a motor efficiency that would not 

be compliant with the adopted energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors and would no longer be 

available on the market. In other words, 

the reference fan used in the FEI 

calculation would have a lower 

efficiency than that required for electric 

motors, resulting in an inappropriately 

greater FEI for the tested fan. 

To avoid providing an unintended 

advantage to these GFBs, DOE proposes 

that the FEI level for GFBs sold with a 

motor rated at or between 100 hp and 

250 hp would be calculated by applying 

a correction factor to the FEI standard 

for GFBs sold with any other sized 

motor. This correction factor would be 

designed to offset the difference in 

motor efficiencies specified for the 

reference fan versus the amended motor 

efficiency standards. DOE found that, at 

a given duty point, the correction factor, 

A, can be expressed as a function of the 

motor efficiency as follows: 

Where hmtr,2023 is the motor efficiency 

in accordance with table 8 at 10 CFR 

431.25, and hmtr,2014 is the motor 

efficiency in accordance with table 5 at 

10 CFR 431.25 and Annex A of AMCA 

214–21, and FEPact is determined 

according to the DOE test procedure in 

appendix A to subpart J of part 431. The 

FEI in accordance with the proposed 

TSL would be multiplied by this 

correction factor to result in the FEI 

standard. For fans with motors rated 

below 100 hp, the correction factor, A, 

would be equal to 1.00. DOE is also 

proposing to add the motor efficiency 

requirements specified in Table 5 at 10 

CFR 431.25 for motors rated at or 

between 100 hp and 250 hp in 10 CFR 

431.175 and reference these values for 

the correction factor calculation to 

ensure that these motor efficiency 

values are not inadvertently removed in 

any separate motors rulemakings. 

Efficiency Levels for General Fans and 

Blowers With a Motor Controller 

As discussed in the May 2023 TP 

Final Rule, DOE adopted the FEP and 

FEI calculation as specified in AMCA 

214–21 but did not develop a control 

credit for fans with a controller to offset 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.027</GPH> EP19JA24.028</GPH>

Table IV-9 Centrif ue:al Housed Fan Desie:n Paths 

EL Design Options - Primary Design Design Options- Forward-curved 

Path Desie:n Path 

ELO Inefficient Backward-inclined Impeller Baseline Forward-curved Impeller 

ELI Typical Backward-inclined Impeller Aerodynamic Redesign 1 * 

EL2 Airfoil Impeller Aerodynamic Redesign 1 * 

EL3 Aerodynamic Redesign 1 Aerodynamic Redesign 2 

EL4 Aerodynamic Redesign 2 Aerodynamic Redesign 3 

EL5** Aerodynamic Redesign 3 -

*The first aerodynamic redesign for the forward-curved design path was split into two ELs to maintain 

alignment with the main design path. Equivalent conversion costs were assumed for EL 1 and EL 2. 

**EL 4 is assumed to approach max-tech for forward-curved fans. Therefore, all forward-curved fans are 

assumed to transition to a backward-inclined or airfoil impeller above EL 4 and both the primary and 

forward-curved design paths converge for EL 5. 

A = T/mtr,2023 

T/mtr,2014 
3768 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

60For this calculation, DOE used the AMCA 214– 

21 equations for the motor and motor controller 

which are representative of the losses of typical 

variable frequency drives instead of equations 

discussed in section III.C.1 which were developed 

as representative of less efficient, baseline, motor 

and motor controller combinations (i.e., 

representative of lowest market efficiency). 

the losses inherent to the motor 

controller when calculating the FEI of 

these fans at a given duty point. In the 

May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE stated 

that, to the extent use of a controller 

impacts the energy use characteristics of 

a fan or blower, the test procedure 

should account for such impact and that 

appropriate consideration of any such 

impact would be part of the evaluation 

of potential energy conservation 

standards. 88 FR 27312, 27371. DOE 

further stated that the FEP [and FEI] 

metric penalizes the use of VFDs 

(variable speed drives which are a 

category of motor controller), since 

these metrics incorporate the losses 

from the VFD and that appropriate 

consideration of any such impact would 

be part of the evaluation of potential 

energy conservation standards. 88 FR 

27312, 27372. 

To avoid penalizing GFBs sold with a 

motor controller, DOE proposes that the 

FEI standard for GFBs sold with a motor 

controller be calculated by applying a 

credit to the FEI standard for GFBs sold 

without a motor controller, where the 

credit is designed to offset the losses 

inherent to the motor controller. To 

determine the credit, DOE compared the 

FEP values of fans with a motor 

controller (FEPact,mc) to the FEP values of 

the same fans without a motor 

controller, as calculated in accordance 

with section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214–21 

which represents typical motor and 

motor controller performance, and using 

the fan selection duty points provided 

in the sample of consumers.60 (See 

section IV.E.1). DOE found that, at a 

given duty point, the credit can be 

expressed as a function of the FEP, in 

kW, as follows: 

Where FEPact is the actual fan 

electrical input power of the fan with a 

motor controller at the given duty point. 

To convert the credit into a multiplier 

to the FEI and to calculate the FEI 

values at each efficiency level 

considered for GFBs with a motor 

controller, DOE relied on the following 

equation: 

Where FEIEL_no_mc is the FEI value at 

a given EL for a fan without a motor 

controller. 

When applying this equation, DOE 

observed that for GFBs with a motor 

controller and with FEP values above 20 

kW, the value of the multiplier to the 

FEI is approximately constant and equal 

to 0.966. Therefore, DOE proposes to 

simplify the calculation of FEI standards 

for fans with motor controllers as 

follows: 

Further, considering the proposed 

addition of default calculation methods 

to represent the combined motor and 

motor controller efficiency (see section 

III.C.1.b), in the final rule, DOE may also 

consider an alternative credit 

calculation based on the proposed 

equations in section III.C.1.b which 

represent baseline (and not typical) 

motor and motor controller 

performance, and would potentially 

result in a higher credit. 

DOE requests comment on the 

equations developed to calculate the 

credit for determining the FEI standard 

for GFBs sold with a motor controller 

and with an FEPact less than 20 kW and 

on potentially using an alternative 

credit calculation based on the proposed 

equations in section III.C.1.b of this 

document. Additionally, DOE requests 

comment on its use of a constant value, 

and its proposed value, of the credit 

applied for determining the FEI 

standard for GFBs with a motor 

controller and an FEPact of greater than 

or equal for 20 kW. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.029</GPH> EP19JA24.030</GPH> EP19JA24.031</GPH>

Credit= 0.03 x FEPact + 0.08 

FEPact - Credit 

FE/EL_mc = FE/EL_no_mc X FEPact 

Table IV-10: FEI levels for GFBs with Motor Controller 

Fans with motor FEI level for Fans with motor controller* controller with: 

B= FEPact-Credit h 

·were· FEPact ' • 

FEPact < 20 kW (26.8 Credit= 0.03 x FEPact + 0.08 [SI] 

hp) Credit= 0.03 X FEPact + 0.08 X 1.341 [IP] 

FE Pact 2'. 20 kW (26.8 FE/EL_no_mc X 0.966 hp) 

*Rounded to the hundredth 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3769 

c. Higher 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. Similar to 

the baseline efficiency levels, DOE 

established max-tech efficiency levels 

by reviewing the performance data in 

the AMCA sales database. DOE initially 

evaluated max-tech for each class using 

the FEI corresponding to the 95th 

percentile (i.e., the FEI resulting in a 5- 

percent pass rate). DOE used the 95th 

percentile instead of the absolute 

maximum FEI observed in the AMCA 

sales database to avoid setting a maxtech FEI that may not be achievable 

across most of a fan’s operating range. 

DOE further refined these levels based 

on manufacturer fan selection software 

performance data collected at the 

representative diameters and operating 

points for each class. Additional details 

on the selection of max-tech efficiency 

levels can be found in chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

As previously described, DOE 

assigned design options and 

corresponding FEIs to each equipment 

class based on the analysis described in 

sections IV.C.1.a–b. DOE conducted this 

analysis up to a max-tech EL for each 

equipment class. Final results are 

shown in Table IV–11. These results 

were used in all downstream analyses 

for this NOPR. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.032</GPH>

Axial 

Inline 

Panel 

Axial PRV 

Centrifuga 

lPRV 

Exhaust 

Centrifuga 

lPRV 

Supply 

Centrifuga 

l Housed 

Main Path 

Centrifuga 

l Housed 

FC Path** 

Centrifuga 

l 

Unhoused 

Centrifuga 

l Inline 

Radial 

Table IV-11 Summary of Efficiency Levels for All GFB Equipment Classes 

ELO ELl EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5t EL6t 

Design Baseline: Impeller Switch to 1st Aero 2nd Aero 3rd Aero - Option tube axial change vane axial redesign redesign redesign 

FEI 0.84 0.87 1.00 1.18 1.36 1.55 - Design Baseline Impeller 1st Aero 2nd Aero 3rd Aero 4th Aero 

Option change redesign redesign redesign redesign -

FEI 0.80 0.86 1.00 1.24 1.48 1.73 - Design Baseline Impeller Impeller Diameter Diameter 1st Aero 2nd Aero 

Option change 1 change 2 Increase* Increase* redesign redesign 

FEI 0.66 0.69 0.72 0.75 0.85 1.00 1.25 

Design Baseline Diameter Impeller 1st Aero 2nd Aero 3rd Aero 4th Aero 

Ootion Increase change* redesign redesign redesign redesign 

FEI 0.67 0.7 0.72 0.86 1.00 1.20 1.39 

Design Baseline Diameter Impeller pt Aero 2nd Aero 3rd Aero 4th Aero 

Option Increase change* redesign redesign redesign redesign 

FEI 0.69 0.72 0.76 0.88 1.00 1.19 1.37 

Design Baseline Impeller Airfoil 1st Aero 2nd Aero 3rd Aero - Option change Impeller redesign redesign redesign 

FEI 0.63 0.93 1.00 1.15 1.31 1.46 -

Design Baseline Impeller 1st Aero 2nd Aero 3rd Aero - - Option change redesign redesign redesign 

FEI 0.63 0.93 1.00 1.15 1.31 - -

Design Baseline Impeller Impeller pt Aero 2nd Aero 3rd Aero - Option change 1 change 2 redesign redesign redesign 

FEI 0.94 1.00 1.10 1.23 1.35 1.49 -

Design Impeller Guide Mixed MF with 1st Aero 2nd Aero 

Option Baseline Change Vanes flow* guide redesign redesign vanes 

FEI 0.65 0.70 0.77 1.00 1.07 1.28 1.46 

Design Baseline Impeller Impeller pt Aero 2nd Aero 3rd Aero - Option change 1 change 2 redesign redesign redesign 

FEI 0.82 0.87 0.93 1.00 1.17 1.34 - *Design option applied relative to baseline fan instead of previous EL. 

** The centrifugal housed forward-curved path was applied to uniquely consider the costs associated with 

redesigning forward-curved fans. See section IV.C. 1.b for additional details. 

t Dash marks are used to indicate that the specified EL does not apply to the corresponding equipment 

class. 

EL7t 

-

-

-

- 3rd Aero 

redesign 

1.49 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-
3770 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

61For example, a manufacturer may report a 

value of 92.5 instead of 100 to incorporate a 7.5 

percent tolerance. 

Potential Adjustments to Efficiency 

Levels Based on AMCA 211 Tolerances 

GFBs can be certified by AMCA to 

bear the AMCA certified ratings seal. 

AMCA publishes a manual prescribing 

the technical procedures to be used in 

connection with the AMCA Certified 

Ratings Program for fan air performance: 

‘‘AMCA 211–22 (Rev. 01–23)—Certified 

Ratings Program—Product Rating 

Manual for Fan Air Performance’’ 

(‘‘AMCA 211–22’’) 

Certified AMCA GFBs are subject to 

precertification and periodic check tests 

as defined in section 10 of AMCA 211– 

22. When products are check tested, the 

check test performance must be within 

the tolerance for airflow, pressure, and 

power when compared with the 

manufacturer’s catalog data. 

Specifically, section 10 of AMCA 211– 

22 allows for a 5 percent tolerance on 

the fan shaft power when conducting a 

precertification check test and a 7.5 

percent tolerance when conducting a 

periodic check test. 

As discussed in section IV.A.2.a, DOE 

conducted the GFB engineering analysis 

for this NOPR primarily using a 

database of confidential sales 

information provided by AMCA, which 

includes AMCA certified data related to 

fan shaft power at a given duty point. 

DOE also relied on manufacturer fan 

selection software from manufacturers 

that are AMCA members, which 

frequently provided data that was 

AMCA certified. 

DOE understands that it may be 

common practice for manufacturers to 

include the AMCA 211–22 tolerance 

when submitting performance data to 

AMCA. As a result, the fan shaft power 

data included in the AMCA sales 

database and manufacturer fan selection 

software may include a 5 to 7.5-percent 

tolerance and may be underestimated.61

For the final rule, DOE is considering 

adjusting the fan shaft power values 

included in the performance data used 

in its analysis to account for this 

tolerance. In the final rule, DOE is also 

considering adjusting the values of FEI 

associated to each efficiency level 

analyzed to account for this tolerance. 

DOE may consider revising the brake 

horsepower values in the AMCA sales 

database and from manufacturer fan 

selection software by increasing each 

value by 5 percent. DOE used the 5- 

percent precertification check test 

tolerance for the adjustments, as DOE 

expects this would be the tolerance 

applied to any ratings certified to 

AMCA. This would result in lower FEI 

values for each data point and could 

result in lower FEI values associated 

with each EL. 

To determine how this may impact 

the analysis, DOE increased the brake 

horsepower values in the AMCA sales 

database by 5 percent and recalculated 

the bare shaft FEIs of all fans in the 

database. As discussed in section IV.C.1, 

the baseline and max-tech FEIs of all 

equipment classes were determined 

based on percentiles in the AMCA sales 

database. DOE used the same 

percentiles to determine the baseline 

and max-tech for each equipment class 

using the recalculated bare shaft FEIs. 

For efficiency levels that were based on 

the design option approach (e.g., 

impeller changes), DOE maintained the 

percent increases in FEI associated with 

each design option to determine the 

adjusted FEI. For ELs that were based on 

the efficiency level approach (i.e., 

aerodynamic redesigns), DOE adjusted 

the FEI levels to maintain the same 

percentage of models that meet each 

aerodynamic redesign efficiency level 

(i.e., pass rate). The FEI values in Table 

IV–12 show what the results of the 

engineering analysis may look like if the 

tolerance that is allowed in AMCA 211– 

22 is considered in the databases. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3771 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

DOE requests comments on whether it 

should apply a correction factor to the 

analyzed efficiency levels to account for 

the tolerance allowed in AMCA 211–22 

and if so, DOE requests comment on the 

appropriate correction factor. DOE 

requests comment on the potential 

revised levels as presented in Table IV– 

12. Additionally, DOE requests 

comments on whether it should 

continue to evaluate an FEI of 1.00 for 

all fan classes if it updates the databases 

used in its analysis to consider the 

tolerance allowed in AMCA 211–22. 

Additionally, DOE does not anticipate 

that the efficiency levels captured in 

Table IV–12 would impact the cost, 

energy, and economic analyses 

presented in this document. As such, 

DOE considers the results of these 

analyses presented throughout this 

document applicable to the efficiency 

levels with a 5% tolerance allowance. 

DOE seeks comment on the analyses as 

applied to the efficiency levels in Table 

IV–12. 

d. 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 equipment, and the 

availability and timeliness of 

purchasing the equipment on the 

market. The cost approaches are 

summarized as follows: 

• Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles 

commercially available equipment, 

component-by-component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials for the 

equipment. 

• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing equipment, 

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 equipment. 

• 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 analysis for GFBs using a 

combination of price surveys from 

manufacturer fan selection software, the 

AMCA sales database, and physical 

teardowns. DOE notes that due to time 

constraints and the variety of fans 

available in the market (e.g., commercial 

or industrial application, construction 

class, equipment class), DOE was unable 

to conduct sufficient teardowns to rely 

solely on a manufacturer production 

cost (‘‘MPC’’) approach informed by 

physical teardowns. Therefore, DOE 

used manufacturer sales prices (‘‘MSP’’) 

for its cost analysis since DOE had 

substantially more MSP data than MPC 

data available for GFBs. When DOE 

pulled data from manufacturer fan 

selection software, the fan MSP was 

typically included; if the MSP was not 

included, DOE requested quotes to 

obtain a sales price. The AMCA sales 

database includes confidential total 

sales value and total sales volume for 

each fan model. DOE divided the total 

sales value by the sales volume to 

calculate the MSP for a single fan. MSPs 

from the AMCA sales database were 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.033</GPH>

Table IV-12 Summary of Efficiency Levels for All GFB Equipment Classes 

Considerin2 a 5-percent AMCA 211-22 Tolerance Allowance 

ELO ELl EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 EL7 

Axial Inline 0.80 0.83 0.96 1.12 1.30 1.48 - -

Panel 0.76 0.82 0.95 1.18 1.41 1.65 - -

AxialPRV 0.63 0.67 0.69 0.72 0.82 0.95 1.19 1.42 

Centrifugal 

PRV 0.64 0.67 0.68 0.82 0.95 1.14 1.33 - Exhaust 

Centrifugal 0.65 0.68 0.72 0.83 0.95 1.13 1.29 - PRVSupply 

Centrifugal 

Housed 0.60 0.90 0.96 1.09 1.24 1.39 - - Main Path 

Centrifugal 

Housed 0.60 0.90 0.96 1.09 1.24 1.39 - - FC Path* 

Centrifugal 0.89 0.94 1.04 1.17 1.28 1.42 - - Unhoused 

Centrifugal 0.62 0.66 0.73 0.95 1.02 1.22 1.39 - Inline 

Radial 0.78 0.83 0.89 0.95 1.11 1.27 - -

*Design option applied relative to baseline fan instead of previous EL. 
3772 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

62 DOE used the Federal Reserve Economic Data’s 

‘‘Producer Price Index by Industry: Fan, Blower, Air 

Purification Equipment Manufacturing’’ to account 

for inflation to 2022 dollars. DOE used a 

multiplication factor of 1.4 to convert from 2012 

dollars to 2022 dollars. (fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ 

PCU333413333413) 

63Fans can be grouped into three AMCA 

construction classes (Class I–III) based on operation 

static pressure and outlet velocity. A Class I fan 

would have a lower operating static pressure and 

outlet velocity than a Class III fan. As a result, Class 

I fans tend to have a less-rugged construction than 

Class II–III fans. 

adjusted to 2022 dollars to account for 

inflation.62

DOE recognizes that fan costs would 

not follow a simple scaling model as 

there are several factors that could 

impact the sales price of a fan, including 

construction class,63 drive assembly, 

production volume, manufacturer 

purchasing power, mark-up, commercial 

or industrial application, etc. To 

account for these factors, DOE averaged 

MSPs from the AMCA sales database at 

each diameter for each fan equipment 

class to conduct its cost analysis. 

Average MSPs were obtained at a range 

of duty points that DOE determined to 

be reflective of the entire market, rather 

than only at the specific representative 

operating points that DOE selected. 

Additionally, based on its analysis of 

manufacturer fan selection software, 

DOE determined that fans may be sold 

with a variety of motors, each with a 

distinct cost that contributes to the 

overall selling price. Therefore, DOE 

decided to use average MSPs to account 

for the variety of motors on the market, 

rather than attempt to evaluate fan costs 

without a motor by subtracting an 

assumed unique motor cost from each 

fan in the AMCA sales database. This 

process was completed to ensure that all 

fan design options were evaluated with 

constant motor and motor controller 

cost estimates and DOE notes that the 

MSP change from EL to EL ultimately 

drives the downstream analyses. While 

DOE recognizes that an average is not 

representative of all fan designs, DOE 

had limited data and therefore 

determined that an average would 

provide the most representative estimate 

based on the data available. 

DOE used data from both the AMCA 

sales database and sales data pulled 

from manufacturer fan selection 

software to create an MSP versus 

diameter curve for each equipment 

class. First, DOE averaged the MSPs in 

the AMCA sales database, as discussed 

earlier, to generate an MSP-versusdiameter curve. DOE then calibrated 

this curve with MSPs from 

manufacturer fan selection software. 

DOE used the MSP-versus-diameter 

curves to determine the baseline MSP 

for each equipment class at a given 

diameter. 

As discussed in section IV.C.1.b, DOE 

used individual design options for the 

lower ELs in each class and 

aerodynamic redesign for the higher 

ELs. To determine the incremental costs 

associated with the design option ELs 

above baseline, DOE compared the 

MSPs of similarly constructed fans 

operating at the same duty point. For 

example, DOE evaluated the increase in 

MSP for impeller changes by calculating 

the percentage change in MSP for two 

fans operating at the same duty point 

and with similar housings, but different 

impeller designs. DOE averaged changes 

in MSP for each analyzed fan within 

each equipment class to obtain typical 

incremental costs for each design 

option, which were applied above 

baseline to obtain MSPs for each 

efficiency level. For fans where 

diameter increases were evaluated as a 

design option, DOE used the diameterversus-MSP curves to estimate the 

increase in MSP relative to the baseline 

fan. As discussed in section IV.C.1.b, 

DOE used an 18-percent increase as the 

standard value for each impeller 

diameter increase. MSPs corresponding 

to each EL assume no change in motor 

or drive costs since DOE kept the motor 

and drive costs constant over all ELs; 

therefore, the change in MSP at each 

design option EL is reflective of the cost 

of incorporating the corresponding 

design option. 

DOE additionally conducted 

teardowns to validate the MSPs applied 

to each EL. For axial inline fans, DOE 

initially estimated a high MSP from 

manufacturer fan selection software for 

replacing a tube axial fan with a vane 

axial fan; however, teardown data 

suggested that a lower MSP would be 

more realistic. DOE believes this 

discrepancy is due to differences in 

production volume between tube axial 

and vane axial fans, with vane axial fans 

having lower production volumes in the 

current market. In the presence of 

energy conservation standards, 

however, DOE expects that production 

volumes for vane axial fans would 

increase, reducing this price difference. 

Therefore, DOE adjusted the MSP for 

substituting a tube axial fan with a vane 

axial fan assuming equivalent 

production volumes in the presence of 

energy conservation standards. 

Similarly, for centrifugal inline fans, 

DOE found that the average MSP when 

substituting a centrifugal inline impeller 

with a mixed-flow impeller was higher 

than would have been expected based 

on the teardown data. DOE believes this 

may be due to a mix of lower 

production volumes in the current 

market, underlying conversion costs, 

and increased markups for mixed-flow 

fans in the current market. Therefore, 

DOE reduced the MSP when 

substituting a centrifugal inline impeller 

with a mixed-flow impeller. To account 

for any costs associated with 

redesigning a centrifugal inline fan, 

DOE modelled most costs for applying 

a mixed-flow impeller as conversion 

costs, similar to those applied for 

aerodynamic redesigns. 

As discussed, DOE evaluated 

aerodynamic redesigns as the final ELs 

for all equipment classes. DOE assumed 

a constant MSP for each aerodynamic 

redesign EL, with no change in MSP 

from the last design option EL to the 

first aerodynamic redesign EL. DOE 

assumed that the redesign, 

reengineering, and new production 

equipment required for aerodynamic 

redesign efficiency levels would result 

in significant one-time capital and 

product conversion costs. To account 

for expected manufacturer markups at 

these ELs, DOE applied a conversion 

cost markup that increases as capital 

costs increase. Aerodynamic redesign 

conversion costs are further discussed 

in section IV.J.2.c of this NOPR. 

DOE assumed that shipping costs 

remained constant over all analyzed ELs 

for all equipment classes except for 

PRVs, where the increased diameter 

design options are expected to have a 

substantial impact on equipment 

dimensions and weight. To estimate 

shipping costs for PRVs, DOE used data 

from product teardowns and product 

literature for the representative 

operating points. DOE compared 

measured shipping dimensions from 

physical teardowns with listed unit 

dimensions in manufacturers’ product 

literature and extrapolated the 

difference between them to estimate 

representative shipping dimensions for 

the units that DOE did not tear down. 

These dimensions were then used to 

estimate the number of PRVs that could 

be shipped per truck load. Based on this 

analysis, an additional shipping cost for 

each individual PRV was then applied 

to DOE’s estimated MSPs. 

DOE requests comment on its method 

to use both the AMCA sales database 

and sales data pulled from manufacturer 

fan selection data to estimate MSP. DOE 

also requests comment on the use of the 

MSP approach for its cost analysis for 

GFBs or whether an MPC-based 

approach would be appropriate. If 

interested parties believe an MPC-based 

approach would be more appropriate, 

DOE requests MPC data for the 

equipment classes and efficiency levels 

analyzed, which may be confidentially 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3773 

submitted to DOE using the confidential 

business information label. 

2. Air Circulating Fans 

In the following sections, DOE 

discusses the engineering analysis 

performed to establish a relationship 

between ACF efficacy and MPC. 

a. Representative Units 

When performing engineering 

analyses for energy conservation 

standards rulemakings, rather than 

model every possible set of 

characteristics an equipment could 

have, DOE often evaluates the efficiency 

and cost of specific units that are most 

representative of the equipment. These 

representative units are typically chosen 

based on size or performance-related 

features. In the October 2022 NODA, 

DOE modeled five ACF representative 

units: a 12-in. ACF with a 0.01 hp 

motor; a 20-in. ACF with a 0.33 hp 

motor; a 24-in. ACF with a 0.5 hp motor, 

a 36-in. ACF with a 0.5 hp motor; and 

a 50-in. ACF with a 1 hp motor. 87 FR 

62038, 62046. In the October 2022 

NODA, DOE requested comment on 

whether the motor hp it has associated 

with each representative diameter (i.e., 

0.1 hp for 12 in., 0.33 hp for 20 in., 0.5 

hp for 24 in. and 36 in., and 1 hp for 

50 in.) appropriately represented the 

motor hp for fans sold with those 

corresponding diameters. Id. 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, AMCA commented that DOE 

should consider decoupling fan size and 

motor nameplate hp for its 

representative units because the motor 

nameplate hp is not always 

representative of how much loading is 

placed on the motors and may therefore 

mislead any estimates of efficiency. 

(AMCA, No. 132 at p. 7) 

In response to stakeholder concerns 

about establishing representative motor 

powers for the engineering analysis, 

DOE reevaluated its approach. After 

reviewing the updated ACF database, 

which contains catalog data not 

included in the October 2022 NODA 

analysis, DOE found that motor 

nameplate power may vary too much 

from fan to fan to establish a single 

representative motor power for a given 

fan diameter. Instead, for this NOPR 

analysis, DOE used the distribution of 

motor nameplate powers for each 

representative diameter to determine 

weighted averages for motor efficiency 

and motor costs. Further details on 

these distributions and their use can be 

found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

For this NOPR, DOE evaluated 

slightly different representative units 

than it evaluated in the October 2022 

NODA analysis. DOE did not consider a 

12-in. representative unit for the NOPR 

because ACFs with input powers less 

than 125 W were excluded from the 

scope, which significantly reduced the 

number of in-scope 12-in. ACFs in 

DOE’s updated ACF database. As 

discussed in section IV.A.1.b, DOE 

identified three equipment classes for 

axial ACFs, a 12-in. to less than 36-in. 

diameter axial ACF class, a 36-in. to less 

than 48-in. diameter axial ACF class, 

and a 48-in. diameter or greater axial 

ACF class. DOE defined a single 

representative unit for each axial ACF 

equipment class. DOE reviewed ACF 

diameters in its updated ACF database 

and determined that the most common 

diameters for the 12-in. to less than 36- 

in. diameter range, the 36-in. to less 

than 48-in. diameter range, and the 48- 

in. diameter or greater range were 24 in., 

36 in., and 52 in., respectively. 

Therefore, DOE used these three 

diameters as its representative units for 

the ACF analysis. DOE did not consider 

the 20-in. or 50-in. representative units 

included in the October 2022 NODA 

because neither of these sizes were the 

most common diameter for axial ACFs 

in the corresponding diameter range. 

For housed centrifugal ACFs, DOE 

chose 11 in. as the representative unit, 

since it is the most common diameter 

for housed centrifugal ACFs in the 

updated ACF database, Further details 

regarding the selection of representative 

units can be found in chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

b. Baseline Efficiency and Efficiency 

Level 1 

Motors 

As discussed in section IV.C.1.a, 

baseline models are typically either the 

most common or the least efficient units 

on the market. In the October 2022 

NODA, DOE assigned split-phase 

motors to be the baseline technology 

option for ACFs because split-phase 

motors are the least efficient type of 

motor used for ACFs. 87 FR 62038, 

62048. As discussed in the October 2022 

NODA, the BESS Labs combined 

database contained ACFs sold with PSC 

motors, polyphase motors, and ECMs, 

but no split-phase motors. Id. Therefore, 

DOE used the lowest efficiencies 

observed in the BESS Labs combined 

database, associated with low-efficiency 

PSC motors, to establish EL 1. To 

estimate baseline efficiencies from EL 1, 

DOE applied an efficiency loss 

associated with switching from a lowefficiency PSC motor to a split-phase 

motor. 87 FR 62038, 62049. 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

requested feedback on the methodology 

used to determine the baseline 

efficiency values for the representative 

units and on the expected average 

improvement in ACF efficiency when a 

split-phase motor is replaced by a lowefficiency PSC motor. 87 FR 62038, 

62049. In response, the Efficiency 

Advocates stated that, since DOE 

utilized the BESS Labs combined 

database to determine efficiency in the 

October 2022 NODA, that baseline 

efficiency could be higher than the 

actual least efficient ACFs on the 

market. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 126 

at p. 1) In response to stakeholder 

feedback and after reviewing its updated 

ACF database, DOE utilized a different 

methodology for determining baseline 

efficiency in this NOPR. Rather than 

determining EL 1 and back-calculating 

baseline from EL 1, DOE defined the 

baseline efficiencies for each 

representative unit using the minimum 

efficiency values in its updated ACF 

database. Additionally, as discussed in 

section IV.A.3 of this NOPR, additional 

review of the ACF market indicated that 

very few ACFs use split-phase motors 

compared to the number of ACFs that 

use PSC motors. Therefore, DOE 

decided to consider low-efficiency PSC 

motors as a baseline design option for 

ACFs in this NOPR. 

As discussed in section IV.A.2.b, DOE 

included catalog data in its updated 

ACF database to supplement the BESS 

Labs combined database. DOE did not 

consider catalog data in the October 

2022 NODA because catalog data did 

not include information on the air 

density measured during testing, which 

is required when calculating FEI. Since 

DOE updated the ACF efficiency metric 

to be efficacy instead of FEI, DOE was 

able to use catalog data for efficiency 

information for this NOPR. Therefore, 

DOE expects the minimum efficacy 

values used in this NOPR analysis to be 

more representative of the baseline fans 

on the market than those used in the 

October 2022 NODA. 

Transmission 

In the October 2022 NODA, since 

DOE did not consider more efficient 

transmissions as a design option, the 

baseline fan was not defined by a 

transmission type. However, in this 

NOPR analysis, DOE is considering 

more-efficient transmissions as a design 

option for ACFs. As discussed in section 

IV.A.3, using a direct-drive transmission 

instead of a belt-drive transmission can 

increase the efficiency of a fan. 

Manufacturers also indicated in 

interviews that the fan industry is 

transitioning away from using belt-drive 

transmissions in favor of direct-drive 

transmissions. Therefore, DOE decided 

to assign a belt-drive transmission as a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3774 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

baseline design option and tentatively 

determined that a change from beltdrive to direct-drive would be the first 

design change ACF manufacturers 

would make to improve efficiency. 

Therefore, DOE chose a direct-drive 

transmission as the EL 1 design option. 

DOE notes, however, that not all the 

equipment classes it analyzed typically 

use belt drives. DOE reviewed the 

housed centrifugal ACF market and 

concluded that belt drives are not used 

for housed centrifugal ACFs. 

Additionally, DOE’s review of the axial 

ACF market indicated that belt drives 

are not commonly used for axial ACFs 

less than 36 in. in diameter. DOE found 

that only 2 percent of ACF models in its 

updated ACF database with a diameter 

less than 36 in. had belt drives, while 

66 percent of ACF models in its updated 

ACF database with a diameter of 36 in. 

or larger had belt drives. Therefore, DOE 

has determined that a direct-driven fan 

is representative of both the baseline 

and EL 1 for the 24-in. axial ACF and 

centrifugal housed ACF representative 

units. 

For the 36-in. and 52-in. axial ACF 

representative units, DOE determined 

EL 1 by applying an efficacy delta to the 

baseline efficacy representing a 

transition from a belt-drive transmission 

to a direct-drive transmission. To 

estimate this incremental impact on 

efficacy when transitioning from a beltdrive transmission to a direct-drive 

transmission, DOE used the equations 

defined in sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of 

AMCA 214–21. The equations in section 

6.3.1 of AMCA 214–21 define the 

efficiency of direct-drive transmissions 

as 100 percent and define the efficiency 

of belt-drive transmissions based on the 

shaft power of the fan. Since shaft 

powers are generally unknown for 

ACFs, DOE used the equation defined in 

section 6.3.2 of AMCA 214–21 to 

determine theoretical motor output 

powers associated with given shaft 

powers and transmission efficiencies. 

DOE then plotted a curve to estimate 

belt-drive transmission efficiency as a 

function of motor output power, which 

was used to estimate the belt-drive 

efficiencies for all motor hp values in its 

updated ACF database. To account for 

the range of motor hp values that could 

be used in ACFs for each representative 

unit, DOE determined the percentage of 

fans in its updated ACF database that 

corresponded to each motor hp in the 

database. DOE then used these 

percentages as weights to calculate a 

weighted-average belt-drive efficiency 

for each motor hp. 

DOE evaluated the relationship 

between transmission efficiency and fan 

efficacy and determined that 

transmission efficiency and fan efficacy 

are directly proportional. Therefore, the 

percent increase in fan efficacy 

associated with using a more efficient 

transmission is equal to the percent 

increase in transmission efficiency. 

Further details of this analysis can be 

found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE applied the percent increase in 

efficiency when transitioning from a 

belt-drive transmission to a direct-drive 

transmission to the baseline efficacies 

for the 36-in. axial ACF and 52-in. axial 

ACF representative units to determine 

EL 1. DOE used the resulting weightedaverage belt-drive efficiency to 

determine the percent difference in 

efficiency between a belt-drive 

transmission and a direct-drive 

transmission. Based on this approach, 

DOE estimated 13.5-percent and 10.4- 

percent improvements in efficacy when 

changing from a belt-drive transmission 

to a direct-drive transmission for the 36- 

in. axial ACF and 52-in. axial ACF 

representative units, respectively. 

As mentioned previously, DOE 

defined both the baseline fan and EL 1 

as direct driven for the 24-in. axial ACF 

and the housed centrifugal ACF 

representative units. Therefore, for these 

two representative units, DOE set EL 1 

equal to the baseline efficacy to account 

for the fact that there would be no 

efficacy gain associated with the moreefficient transmission design option. 

This was done to maintain consistent 

design options for each EL for all ACF 

equipment classes. 

Further discussion of DOE’s 

methodology for determining baseline 

efficiency and EL 1 can be found in 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

c. Selection of Efficiency Levels 

In this section, DOE discusses 

comments it received on its ACF 

efficiency analysis in the October 2022 

NODA and describes the efficiency 

analysis methodology it used for this 

NOPR. As discussed in section IV.C.1.b, 

DOE typically uses either an efficiencylevel approach, a design-option 

approach, or a combination of the two 

for its efficiency analysis. In this NOPR, 

DOE used a combination efficiencylevel and design-option approach for its 

analysis of ACFs. DOE used the 

efficiency-level approach to determine 

the baseline and aerodynamic redesign 

ELs and used the design-option 

approach to gap fill intermediate ELs. 

For the design-option approach, DOE 

used the efficiencies determined for the 

baseline design options and moreefficient design options to assign 

incremental efficiency gains for each EL. 

General Approach and Related 

Comments 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

evaluated more-efficient motors and 

aerodynamic redesign as options for 

increasing ACF efficiency. 87 FR 62038, 

62048. DOE did not conduct a formal 

screening analysis in the October 2022 

NODA; however, as discussed in section 

IV.B, DOE conducted a formal screening 

analysis for this NOPR, and screened in 

the following design options for ACFs: 

• Aerodynamic redesign (improved 

housing design, reduced manufacturing 

tolerances, addition of appurtenances, 

improved impeller design, addition of 

guide vanes, impeller topology); 

• Increased impeller diameter; 

• More-efficient transmissions (belt 

drive and direct drive); and 

• More-efficient motors. 

DOE did not evaluate the efficiency 

impacts of all these design options in 

the engineering analysis for ACFs. 

Specifically, DOE did not consider the 

efficiency impacts of increased impeller 

diameter since DOE defined equipment 

classes based on diameter in section 

IV.A.1.b. Therefore, when developing 

the proposed ELs, DOE only considered 

more-efficient transmissions, moreefficient motors, and aerodynamic 

redesign as design options for its 

analysis of ACFs in this NOPR. Moreefficient transmissions were associated 

with EL 0 and EL 1, which were 

discussed in section IV.C.2.b. 

Regarding motors, DOE evaluated 

multiple motor options for ACFs in the 

October 2022 NODA, specifically splitphase motors at baseline, PSC 1 motors 

at EL 1, PSC 2 motors at EL 2, and ECMs 

at EL 3. 87 FR 62038, 62048. PSC 1 

motors were defined as basic PSC 

motors, while PSC 2 motors were 

defined as ‘‘more efficient PSC motors’’. 

Id. In this NOPR, DOE refers to basic 

PSC motors as ‘‘low-efficiency PSC 

motors’’ and refers to more-efficient PSC 

motors as ‘‘high-efficiency PSC motors.’’ 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE also 

assumed that airflow, pressure, motor 

speed, and motor inrush current 

remained constant when replacing a 

less-efficient motor with a moreefficient motor and requested feedback 

on these assumptions. 87 FR 62038, 

62049. 

In response, AMCA commented that, 

provided the shaft speed does not 

change much, the fan affinity laws can 

be used to predict airflow and total 

pressure. However, AMCA added that 

there can be discrepancies between the 

torque required by the load and the 

torque produced by the motor for lowpower motors. AMCA further stated 

that, given the very low starting torque 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3775 

64The ESEMs NOPR TSD can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BTSTD-0007-0056. 

65 DOE’s review of the ACF market indicated that 

low-torque, 6-pole, air-over ESEMs are the most 

commonly used motor types for ACFs. Table 5.4.2 

of the December 2023 ESEM NOPR TSD shows the 

full-load speeds for these motors at different 

efficiency levels. 

of ACFs, inrush current is likely 

insignificant for ACF motors. (AMCA, 

No. 132 at p. 9) NEMA stated that while 

motor performance can be optimized, 

changing the motor may impact other 

aspects of fan performance. NEMA 

specifically stated that more-efficient 

motors will typically have higher 

speeds, which may require a redesign of 

the fan. (NEMA, No. 125 at p. 5) AMCA 

also stated that motors with higher 

rotational speeds will generally be more 

efficient. (AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 16–17) 

NEMA commented that changing the 

efficiencies of motors used for ACFs 

could require the use of a larger, heavier 

motor and could therefore require other 

design changes to the fan. (NEMA, No. 

125 at p. 2) AMCA also stated that 

replacing a motor with a more-efficient 

motor may result in the need for 

aerodynamic redesign or redesign of the 

mounting and supports of an ACF 

because of differences in motor size, 

shape, or weight. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 

12) 

DOE investigated the issue of higherefficiency motors having higher speeds 

in the December 2023 ESEMs NOPR 

TSD.64 For the typical motor types and 

sizes used in ACF applications,65 DOE 

found only a 0.5-percent to 0.7-percent 

increase from the minimum full-load 

speed to the maximum full-load speed. 

Given the relatively small speed 

changes between ESEMs with different 

efficiencies, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that increases in motor speed 

associated with transitioning to moreefficient motors would be insignificant 

and would not require additional 

changes to fan design. 

DOE requests feedback on whether 

using a more efficient motor would 

require an ACF redesign. Additionally, 

DOE requests feedback on what 

percentage of motor speed change 

would require an ACF redesign. 

Regarding stakeholder feedback that 

ACFs may need to be redesigned to 

accommodate differences in motor size 

or shape when changing to moreefficient motors, DOE expects this type 

of redesign could be done with minimal 

efficiency impact because it expects that 

only motor supports would be 

redesigned. As discussed in section 

IV.C.2.d, DOE found that there is 

sufficient space for an increase in motor 

volume without needing to redesign 

other fan components, such as housing 

or safety guards. Consequently, DOE 

assumed that the only redesign required 

for an ACF when switching to a larger 

motor would be to increase the weight 

of the motor supports to accommodate 

an increase motor weight. Therefore, 

DOE assumed that when changing to a 

more-efficient motor, the only 

significant impact to the efficiency of an 

ACF was the efficiency gained from the 

motor. 

Additionally, AMCA commented in 

response to the October 2022 NODA 

that motor nameplate information is 

generally not very relevant for ACFs 

because ACF manufacturers often use 

motors in power ranges outside those 

listed on motor nameplates. AMCA 

stated that operating motors above their 

nameplate load may provide the best 

material efficiency and that this is 

possible for ACFs because motors are 

very well ventilated when used for 

ACFs. AMCA also stated that the use of 

a flatter pitch blade may not load a fan 

to its listed motor horsepower, while a 

steeper pitch blade may load the motor 

past its listed horsepower. (AMCA, No. 

132 at pp. 6–8) Further, AMCA stated 

that motor nameplate efficiencies 

depend on the number of phases and 

the synchronous speed of the motors 

and that the actual motor efficiency 

would be different since motors are 

used at higher power ratings than their 

nameplate power ratings for ACFs. 

(AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 16–17) 

In consideration of AMCA’s 

comments, DOE analyzed confidential 

ESEM testing data to examine how 

motor efficiency is impacted when 

motors are operated at loads above their 

nameplate rating. DOE compared the 

efficiencies of motors tested at 

nameplate load, 115 percent of 

nameplate load, and 125 percent of 

nameplate load. Through its analysis, 

DOE found that, on average, motor 

efficiency increased by a percent change 

of 1.01 percent for motors tested at 115 

percent of nameplate load and motor 

efficiency increased by a percent change 

of 1.23 percent for motors tested at 125 

percent of nameplate load. DOE notes 

that these percentages represent 

percentage changes, rather than nominal 

changes in motor efficiency. For 

example, a 0.25 hp motor might have an 

efficiency of 72.84 percent when tested 

at 100 percent load compared to an 

efficiency of 73.54 percent when tested 

at 115 percent load, representing a 

percentage increase in efficiency of 0.96 

percent (i.e., [73.54¥72.84]/72.84 = 

0.96%). The positive percentage change 

found for motors tested at both 115 

percent and 125 percent of rated load 

indicates that, up to 125 percent rated 

load, efficiency generally increases for 

motors operated at loads above their 

nameplate rating. Hence, 

representations of motor efficiency 

calculated at nameplate load may 

provide a more conservative estimate of 

motor efficiency. For the motors that 

exhibited a decrease in efficiency at 125 

percent of rated load, DOE further 

investigated the percentage change in 

motor efficiency. For these motors, the 

average percentage change in motor 

efficiency remained under 1.5 percent 

for motors tested at both 115 percent 

and 125 percent of their rated load, with 

a maximum percentage change in 

efficiency of 2.3 percent. Since the 

average percentage change in motor 

efficiency from the rated efficiency is 

small when motors are operated at 

above their rated loads, DOE has 

tentatively determined that motor 

efficiencies calculated at rated load 

represent adequate estimates of true 

motor efficiency, even if those motors 

are operated above their rated loads. 

As discussed in section IV.A.3, DOE 

considered split-phase motors, lowefficiency PSC motors, high-efficiency 

PSC motors, and ECMs in its October 

2022 NODA analysis. 87 FR 62038, 

62048. DOE has since reviewed its 

updated ACF database in response to 

comments from AMCA and NEMA 

about motors used in ACFs. Based on 

the distribution of motor types in the 

database, DOE tentatively concluded 

that very few ACFs use shaded-pole, 

split-phase, or capacitor start/capacitor 

run motors. Rather, DOE found that the 

most common motors used in ACFs are 

PSC motors, and that some ACFs utilize 

polyphase motors and ECMs. Specific 

percentages of ACFs in the updated ACF 

database with each motor type can be 

found in Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

Furthermore, in the October 2022 

NODA, DOE requested comment on 

whether ACFs with single-phase motors 

and polyphase motors would be used 

for different utilities or have different 

efficiencies because of their end-use 

applications. 87 FR 62038, 62045. In 

response, NEMA stated that three-phase 

motors typically have slightly higher 

efficiencies than single-phase motors 

but added that if only a single-phase 

power supply is available, a three-phase 

motor could not be used in place of a 

single-phase motor. NEMA added that at 

higher motor powers (1.5 hp and above), 

three-phase motors tend to be equally as 

or slightly less expensive than singlephase motors. (NEMA, No. 125 at p. 4). 

DOE’s review of motor literature and 

testing data for motors used in ACFs 

indicated that polyphase motors are 

generally more efficient than PSC 

motors, as stated by NEMA. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3776 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Additionally, DOE acknowledges that, 

as NEMA stated, in situations where 

only single-phase power is available, a 

polyphase motor could not be used in 

place of a single-phase motor without 

the use of additional electronics, such as 

a phase converter. As such, DOE did not 

consider a change from PSC motor to 

polyphase motor as a design option for 

improving efficiency. Additionally, as 

discussed above, the majority of the 

ACFs in DOE’s updated ACF database 

utilize PSC motors; therefore, DOE used 

PSC motors to generally model the 

efficiencies of induction motors used in 

ACFs. DOE notes that this approach 

provides conservative estimates of 

induction motor efficiency relative to an 

approach that includes polyphase motor 

efficiencies since polyphase motors are 

generally more efficient than PSC 

motors. DOE considered low-efficiency 

PSC motors and high-efficiency PSC 

motors as induction motor design 

options. Additionally, DOE considered 

ECMs as a motor design option since 

they are the most efficient type of motor 

used in ACFs. 

Determination of Efficiency Levels 

As discussed in section IV.C.2.b, DOE 

considered low-efficiency PSC motors 

and belt-drive transmissions as baseline 

design options and considered directdrive transmissions as the design option 

for EL 1. 

DOE received feedback during 

confidential manufacturer interviews 

that ACF manufacturers were more 

likely to improve the efficiency of a 

motor before performing an 

aerodynamic redesign. Therefore, DOE 

considered a high-efficiency PSC motor 

as the design option for EL 2, prior to 

considering aerodynamic redesign. DOE 

modeled the efficiency gain associated 

with changing from a low-efficiency 

PSC motor to a high-efficiency PSC 

motor. DOE determined the efficacy for 

EL 2 for all equipment classes by 

estimating efficiencies for low-efficiency 

PSC motors and high-efficiency PSC 

motors, determining the efficiency delta 

between them, and applying that 

efficiency delta to EL 1. In the October 

2022 NODA, DOE estimated the 

efficiencies of low-efficiency PSC 

motors and high-efficiency PSC motors 

using DOE’s database of catalog motor 

data (‘‘motors database’’). 87 FR 62038, 

62049. DOE associated low-efficiency 

PSC motors with EL 1 and highefficiency PSC motors with EL 2 in the 

October 2022 NODA analysis. DOE 

estimated the increase in FEI from EL 1 

to EL 2 by applying the percent increase 

in efficiency from a low-efficiency PSC 

motor to a high-efficiency PSC motor 

directly to the EL 1 FEI value. DOE 

requested comment on its determined 

efficiency gains when replacing a lowefficiency PSC motor with a highefficiency PSC motor and whether 

catalog performance data for PSC motors 

were representative of the performance 

of motors used in ACFs. Id. 

In response, NEEA commented that it 

agreed with DOE’s approach to model 

the efficiency improvements for the 

overall fan as equal to the motor 

efficiency improvements when only the 

motor is changed and nothing else, such 

as the duty point, motor speed, drive 

type, etc. (NEEA, No. 129 at p. 3) 

Greenheck expressed concern that the 

motor efficiencies used by DOE in its 

analysis may not have been accurate 

and stated that Greenheck could not 

confirm the accuracy of the efficiencies 

used since the motor database was not 

included with the supplementary 

information. Greenheck also requested 

clarity on which motors were included 

in DOE’s analyses of low-efficiency PSC 

and high-efficiency PSC motors. 

Specifically, Greenheck stated motors 

that DOE deemed low-efficiency PSC 

motors should be analyzed as a separate 

dataset from high-efficiency PSC 

motors, rather than determining lowefficiency PSC motor performance from 

the average efficiency of all PSC motors. 

(Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 2) AMCA 

commented that determining general 

values for the change in efficiency 

between one motor type and another is 

difficult to do with confidence because 

motors with the same topology and 

power rating can have different 

efficiencies. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 8–9) 

NEMA commented that the efficiencies 

of fan motors are often not quantified 

and that it is incorrect to assume that all 

ACFs use low-efficiency motors. 

(NEMA, No. 125 at p. 3) NEMA added 

that the source of DOE’s ESEM catalog 

data is unclear, given that most motor 

manufacturers do not publish 

performance information for the 

fractional horsepower, single-phase 

motors that DOE assumed were used for 

ACFs in its October 2022 NODA 

analysis. NEMA further stated that 

catalog motors typically meet or exceed 

the ratings listed for them in catalogs. 

(NEMA, No. 125 at p. 3) 

In response to stakeholder feedback, 

DOE adjusted its methodology for 

determining efficiencies associated with 

low-efficiency PSC motors and highefficiency PSC motors in this NOPR. In 

the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

determined low-efficiency PSC motor 

efficiency from the average of all airover PSC motors in the motors database. 

87 FR 62038, 62049. For this NOPR, 

DOE instead determined low-efficiency 

PSC motor efficiency from the minimum 

efficiency of all 6-pole, fan-specific 

motors in the motors database. The use 

of the minimum efficiency, rather than 

the average efficiency, produced a more 

conservative estimate for low-efficiency 

PSC motor efficiency. DOE analyzed 6- 

pole motors specifically because DOE’s 

review of the ACF market indicated that 

6-pole motors are most common for 

ACFs. DOE determined low-efficiency 

PSC motor efficiencies at all motor 

powers in its updated ACF database and 

calculated a weighted average efficiency 

using the distribution of motor powers 

for each representative unit. Regarding 

Greenheck and NEMA’s concerns about 

the accuracy of the motor data in the 

motors database, DOE acknowledges 

that the motors in the database are 

unregulated and therefore the data may 

be inaccurate. However, DOE notes that 

it received no additional information on 

ACF motor efficiencies from 

stakeholders that it could use instead of 

the information in the motors database. 

Regarding NEMA’s concerns about the 

source of the PSC motor data in the 

motors database, DOE notes that the 

information it compiled from the 

database for fan-specific, 6-pole PSC 

motors consisted of published catalog 

data from four different motor brands. In 

response to AMCA’s concerns about 

variations in motor efficiency with the 

same topology and power rating, DOE 

acknowledges that motors with the same 

topology and power rating can have 

different efficiencies. Therefore, DOE 

used weighted-average motor 

efficiencies in this NOPR analysis, 

which allowed DOE to consider the 

effects of a wide range of motor 

efficiencies across many power ratings 

for a particular motor topology. 

Unlike low-efficiency PSC motors, 

DOE did not use the motors database to 

determine efficiencies for highefficiency PSC motors in this NOPR. As 

part of the electric motors rulemaking, 

stakeholders made a joint 

recommendation for the efficiencies at 

which they believe the standards for 

ESEMs should be set. (Docket No. 

EERE–2020–BT–STD–0007, Joint 

Stakeholders, No. 38 at p. 6, Table 2) 

The joint recommendation represented 

the motors industry, energy efficiency 

organizations and utilities (collectively, 

‘‘the Electric Motors Working Group’’) 

and addressed energy conservation 

standards for high-torque, mediumtorque, low-torque, and polyphase 

ESEMs that are 0.25–3 hp and 

polyphase, and air-over ESEMs. In 

reference to this ongoing rulemaking, 

DOE has tentatively defined its highefficiency PSC motor efficiencies using 

the efficiencies recommended by the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3777 

ESEM Joint Stakeholders. DOE used the 

average of the recommended efficiencies 

for enclosed and open 6-pole PSC 

motors since DOE’s review of the ACF 

market indicated that both enclosed and 

open motors are used for ACFs. DOE 

then calculated weighted-average highefficiency PSC motor efficiencies using 

the average recommended efficiencies at 

different motor powers for each 

representative unit. DOE then 

determined the percent difference in 

efficiency between high-efficiency PSC 

motors and low-efficiency PSC motors. 

DOE evaluated the relationship 

between motor efficiency and fan 

efficacy and determined that motor 

efficiency and fan efficacy are directly 

proportional. Therefore, the percent 

increase in efficacy associated with 

changing to a more efficient motor is 

equal to the percent increase in motor 

efficiency. Further details of this 

analysis can be found in chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD. DOE applied the percent 

increase in motor efficiency when 

transitioning from a low-efficiency PSC 

motor to a high-efficiency PSC motor to 

EL 1 to determine EL 2 for each 

representative unit. 

DOE recognizes that if it sets a 

standard at the recommended ESEM 

efficiencies, high-efficiency PSC motors 

would effectively become the baseline 

motor for ACFs. DOE performed a 

sensitivity analysis to evaluate the 

impact of setting ESEM standards at the 

recommended efficiencies on its ACF 

analysis. DOE found that, given the 

small number of shipments at EL 0 and 

EL 1 for ACFs, if EL 2 were set as the 

baseline EL, there would be a minimal 

impact on proposed ACF standards due 

to the low shipments below EL2 (see 

IV.F.8). DOE notes that if it sets a 

standard in the ESEM rulemaking at the 

recommended ESEM levels, DOE may 

consider using EL2 proposed in this 

NOPR as baseline for ACFs in a future 

final rule. 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, NEEA commented that DOE’s 

assumption that the least-efficient fans 

in the BESS Labs combined database 

used the least-efficient motors may be 

incorrect, since these fans could instead 

have non-motor-related performance 

features that caused them to have low 

efficiencies. NEEA added that this could 

cause non-representative ELs in DOE’s 

analysis since some of DOE’s ELs are 

based on motor efficiency increases. 

(NEEA, No. 129 at p. 2) DOE notes that 

information on the specific motor 

models integrated into ACFs, including 

motor efficiency, is not often publicly 

available. DOE also notes that it 

requested quantitative efficiency data on 

ACF motors in the October 2022 NODA, 

and it has not received any quantitative 

information on motor efficiency from 

stakeholders. 87 FR 62038, 62063. As 

discussed in section IV.A.2.b, DOE’s 

dataset now includes catalog data in 

addition to the BESS Labs combined 

database. Therefore, as discussed in 

section IV.C.2.b, DOE expects the 

baseline efficacies that it used in this 

analysis to be more representative of the 

least efficient ACFs on the market than 

the baseline used in the October 2022 

NODA. Additionally, as previously 

discussed, DOE updated its 

methodology for determining motor 

efficiencies for low-efficiency and highefficiency PSC motors. Given these 

adjustments, DOE expects that the EL 2 

efficacies are representative of ACFs 

with high-efficiency PSC motors. 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

considered ECMs as the design option 

for EL 3 and considered aerodynamic 

redesign as the design option for EL 4. 

In response, the CA IOUs commented 

that DOE should consider aerodynamic 

efficiency improvements at ELs lower 

than max-tech because they expect that 

manufacturers would consider 

aerodynamic redesigns before switching 

to ECMs. The CA IOUs also 

recommended that DOE consider 

intermediate aerodynamic redesign 

levels rather than a single ‘‘maximum’’ 

option. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at p. 2) The 

Efficiency Advocates recommended that 

DOE consider more ELs in its efficiency 

analysis to better represent the range of 

ACF efficiencies presented in its 

analysis, and that DOE specifically 

consider aerodynamic redesign. The 

Efficiency Advocates stated that 

additional ELs could be used to bridge 

the large gap between EL 3 and EL 4 in 

the October 2022 NODA. (Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 126 at p. 2) 

In response to this feedback, DOE did 

not consider ECMs as a design option 

immediately after considering highefficiency PSC motors in this NOPR; 

rather, DOE evaluated three 

aerodynamic redesign ELs—EL 3, EL 4, 

and EL 5—and considered ECMs as the 

max-tech design option at EL 6. DOE 

assumed that more complex 

aerodynamic redesign would be needed 

for EL 4 compared to EL 3 and for EL 

5 compared to EL 4. 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, NEEA stated that the wide 

distribution of efficiencies in the BESS 

Labs combined database was likely due 

to factors other than variation in motor 

efficiency since the database consists of 

fans that use the same kind of motor 

(PSC). DOE infers from this comment 

that variations in ACF efficiency in the 

updated ACF database, which, like the 

BESS Labs combined database, 

contained many ACFs with PSC motors, 

can largely be attributed to differences 

in aerodynamic efficiency between fans. 

Therefore, although DOE could not 

relate specific design options to a given 

efficacy for its three aerodynamic 

redesign levels, DOE defined 

aerodynamic redesign levels using an 

efficiency-level approach from its 

updated ACF database. Since DOE 

anticipated that more complex redesigns 

would be required at EL 4 than EL 3, 

DOE defined EL 3 as 33 percent of the 

way between EL 2 and EL 4 for all 

equipment classes. 

DOE took different approaches for 

establishing EL 4 for axial ACFs and 

housed centrifugal ACFs. For axial 

ACFs, DOE referenced agricultural fan 

efficiency incentive programs to set the 

efficacies at EL 4. All agricultural fan 

efficiency incentive programs that DOE 

found use units of thrust per kilowatt 

(‘‘thrust/kW’’) to define minimum 

performance targets to qualify for the 

incentives. DOE converted these targets 

into units of CFM/W. Details of this 

conversion can be found in chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD. As discussed in section 

IV.C.2.a of this NOPR, ACF performance 

targets are defined by diameter. To be 

consistent with its lowest-diameter 

equipment class, DOE averaged the 

incentive program performance targets 

for the 12-in. to less than 24-in. 

diameter range and the 24-in. to less 

than 36-in. diameter range to estimate 

EL 4 for the 24-in. axial ACF 

representative unit. DOE used the 

performance targets for the 36-in. to 48- 

in. diameter range and 48-in. or greater 

diameter range to estimate EL 4 for the 

36-in. axial ACF and 52-in. axial ACF 

representative units, respectively. 

For housed centrifugal ACFs, DOE 

could not use the agricultural fan 

efficiency incentive programs to define 

EL 4 because housed centrifugal ACFs 

are not used in agricultural applications. 

Since DOE assumed that more complex 

redesigns would be required at EL 5 

than EL 4, DOE also assumed that the 

efficiency gain between EL 5 and EL 4 

would be greater than the efficiency 

gain between EL 4 and EL 3. To reflect 

this assumption, DOE defined EL 4 as 

halfway between EL 2 and EL 5 for 

housed centrifugal ACFs. 

DOE defined EL 5 for each equipment 

class based on the maximum efficacies 

in the updated ACF database. DOE used 

the maximum efficacies in the updated 

ACF database to define EL 5 since DOE 

found that the maximum efficacy ACFs 

in the updated ACF database did not 

have ECMs. Therefore, these ACFs did 

not correspond to the max-tech level, 

and DOE instead assumed that these 

ACFs utilized highly efficient 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3778 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

aerodynamic designs to achieve high 

efficacies. As discussed in section 

IV.A.2.b, DOE removed some highefficacy outliers from the ACF database 

prior to determining the maximum 

efficacies for EL5. 

As discussed previously, DOE 

considered an ACF with an ECM and a 

highly efficient aerodynamic design to 

be the max-tech design option. DOE’s 

research indicated that ECMs are the 

most efficient type of motor used in 

ACFs, and, as indicated in the CA IOUs’ 

comment on aerodynamic redesign, 

ACF manufacturers may consider 

implementing aerodynamic redesign 

prior to switching to an ECM. To 

determine the max-tech efficiency, DOE 

applied an incremental efficiency gain 

associated with changing from a highefficiency PSC motor to an ECM to EL 

5 for each equipment class. 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE used 

a database of dedicated-purpose pool 

pump (‘‘DPPP’’) motors to determine 

efficiencies for ECMs and highefficiency PSC motors and the efficiency 

gain expected when switching from a 

high-efficiency PSC motor to an ECM. 

87 FR 62038, 62050. DOE requested 

comment on its use of DPPP motors for 

comparing efficiencies of PSC motors 

and ECMs. Id. In response, NEMA 

commented that DPPP motor efficiency 

levels should not be used to compare 

PSC to ECM motor efficiency. NEMA 

stated that the DPPP efficiency 

regulations define system (motor and 

pump) efficiency levels and not 

standalone motor efficiencies. NEMA 

also stated that it had concerns with 

applying a market like DPPP, which has 

a dedicated purpose and experiences 

less variety of designs and 

manufacturers, to the much more 

diverse market of fans and blowers. 

(NEMA, No. 125 at p. 5) 

In response to NEMA’s concerns 

about its use of DPPP motors to model 

the efficiencies of ECMs, DOE adjusted 

its methodology for determining ECM 

efficiencies. To determine the 

efficiencies of ECMs, DOE first 

considered the motor efficiencies 

specified in IEC 60034–30–1:2014. The 

motor efficiencies defined in the IE code 

are intended to serve as reference points 

for governments to use when defining 

efficiency standards. DOE understands 

that the current IE 1 through IE 4 

efficiencies defined in IEC 60034–30– 

1:2014 are intended to represent 

induction motor efficiencies. DOE also 

understands that, should a higher IE 

motor efficiency, IE 5, be defined in a 

future standard, the IE 5 efficiencies 

would likely align with ECM 

efficiencies. DOE used theoretical IE 5 

efficiencies to estimate the efficiencies 

of ECMs and assumed that the 

efficiencies included the effects of ECM 

controllers. The IE 1 through IE 4 levels 

defined in IEC 60034–30–1:2014 are 

based on a 20-percent reduction in 

power losses going from one IE level to 

the next. For example, IE 4-level 

efficiency is determined from IE 3-level 

efficiency by assuming a 20-percent 

reduction in power losses. Therefore, 

DOE estimated IE 5 efficiency by 

assuming a 20-percent reduction in 

power losses from the IE 4 efficiency. 

DOE determined the percent difference 

between the estimated IE 5 efficiency 

and the estimated high-efficiency PSC 

motor efficiency. As discussed 

previously, DOE determined that a 

percent increase in motor efficiency 

corresponds to an equal percent 

increase in efficacy. Therefore, DOE 

applied the percent increase in motor 

efficiency when transitioning from a 

high-efficiency PSC motor to an ECM to 

EL 5 to determine EL 6. Further details 

on the methodology DOE used to 

determine the efficacies for each EL can 

be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

The efficacies determined for each EL 

and representative unit and design 

options associated with each EL are 

shown in Table IV–13. 

As discussed in section V.C.1.b, DOE 

notes that the standards it is proposing 

for axial ACFs are discrete efficacy 

values in CFM/W. This approach aligns 

with the method used by agricultural 

fan efficiency incentive programs, 

where performance targets are specified 

for certain diameter ranges. However, 

DOE notes that setting a standard for 

efficacy in this way may not fully 

incorporate the effect of diameter on the 

ACF efficacy. Setting a standard using 

this approach could also make it easier 

for larger diameter fans to meet the 

standard and more difficult for smaller 

diameter fans to meet the standard. DOE 

recognizes that there is generally a 

linear relationship between efficacy in 

CFM/W and fan diameter. DOE notes 

that it is additionally considering setting 

efficacy standards for axial ACFs as a 

linear function of diameter, similar to 

the approach used for ceiling fans (see 

10 CFR 430.32(s)(1)). To establish a 

linear equation for efficacy as a function 

of diameter, DOE may consider in the 

final rule, for example, plotting 

efficacies for each representative unit 

versus the representative unit diameters 

and determining a best-fit line through 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.034</GPH>

Table IV-13 Summary of Efficiency Levels for all ACF Representative Units 

(CFM/W) 

EL Design Option Representative Units 

24-in. axial 36-in. axial 52-in. axial 11-in. housed 

ACF ACF ACF centrifu2al ACF 

0 Baseline 2.98 5.21 8.39 1.33 

1 Direct-drive 2.98 5.91 9.26 1.33 

2 High-efficiency 3.18 6.48 10.6 1.44 

PSC motor 

3 Aerodynamic 6.14 10.1 14.2 2.17 

redesign 1 

4 Aerodynamic 12.2 17.3 21.5 3.65 

redesign 2 

5 Aerodynamic 20.0 25.2 27.2 5.87 

redesign 3 

6 ECM 24.3 29.8 30.8 7.02 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3779 

these points. The efficacy standard 

would then change continuously as a 

function of diameter. While this 

approach would not align with the 

approach used by agricultural fan 

efficiency incentive programs, it might 

better incorporate the effect of diameter 

when setting standards for ACFs, 

specifically for ACFs with diameters at 

the periphery of the diameter range. 

DOE requests feedback on whether 

setting an ACF standard using discrete 

efficacy values over a defined diameter 

range appropriately represents the 

differences in efficacy between axial 

ACFs with different diameters, and if 

not, would a linear equation for efficacy 

as a function of diameter be appropriate. 

Input Power Estimation 

In addition to determining efficacy 

values associated with each EL, DOE 

also developed estimates of input power 

associated with each EL. These input 

power estimates were used in the LCC 

and PBP analyses, discussed in section 

IV.F. For each representative unit, DOE 

developed input power versus efficacy 

curves based on the data in the updated 

ACF database and then estimated the 

input powers associated with each 

efficiency level. Further details on 

DOE’s methodology for estimating input 

powers are discussed in chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

d. Cost Analysis 

In this section, DOE discusses its 

approach to estimating MPCs for ACFs 

in this NOPR and discusses comments 

relating to its cost analysis in the 

October 2022 NODA. As discussed in 

section IV.C.1.d, the cost analysis 

portion of the engineering analysis is 

conducted using physical teardowns, 

catalog teardowns, price surveys, or a 

combination of these approaches. In the 

case of ACFs, DOE conducted its 

analysis using physical teardowns, 

which involve deconstructing 

equipment and recording every part and 

material used to make them. The 

resulting bill of materials (‘‘BOM’’) 

provided the basis for DOE’s MPC 

estimates. DOE builds these MPCs based 

on the cumulative estimated cost of 

materials, labor, depreciation, and 

overhead for each equipment. Further 

details on these cost inputs can be 

found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

To support the October 2022 NODA, 

DOE estimated the MPCs of unhoused 

and housed ACFs across all efficiency 

levels and representative diameters 

using data gathered from teardowns of 

nine ACFs. 87 FR 62038, 62052. In the 

October 2022 NODA, DOE assumed that 

all ACFs were manufactured in China 

and that all materials and parts were 

sourced from China. DOE used the 

BOMs developed for each ACF and 

catalog teardowns to estimate MPCs for 

baseline ACFs. DOE then used 

incremental MPCs estimated for each 

design option to estimate MPCs for 

higher efficiency levels. Id. 

DOE made several updates to its MPC 

estimation approach pertaining to axial 

ACFs in this NOPR. First, DOE adjusted 

how it considered ACF housings 

compared to the October 2022 NODA. 

As discussed in section IV.A.1.b, DOE 

considered air circulating axial panel 

fans, box fans, cylindrical ACFs, and 

unhoused ACFHs under the axial ACFs 

class. To account for the different 

housing configurations used in these 

four subcategories, DOE developed 

separate MPC estimates for housed 

ACFs with panel housing, housed ACFs 

with cylindrical housing, and unhoused 

ACFHs. DOE assumed that the costs of 

box housing and panel housing were 

comparable; therefore, DOE did not 

generate separate MPC estimates for 

ACFs with box housing. DOE averaged 

the MPCs of air circulating axial panel 

fans (and box fans), cylindrical ACFs, 

and unhoused ACFHs to estimate an 

overall MPC for axial ACFs. DOE did 

not include the cost of mounting gear, 

casters, or wheels in its MPC estimates 

for any equipment class because these 

features do not affect the efficacy of an 

ACF. Second, based on information 

received during confidential 

manufacturer interviews and further 

review of the ACF market, DOE updated 

its assumptions about manufacturing 

location and the source of purchased 

parts for this NOPR. Specifically, DOE 

concluded that most ACFs are made in 

the United States and that most ACF 

manufacturers source parts from 

suppliers in the United States and 

abroad. DOE understands that there are 

variations between OEMs in the ACF 

industry and chose production factors 

and modeling methods to reflect the 

range of OEMs. Further details on the 

development of the MPC estimates for 

axial ACFs can be found in chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

DOE did not evaluate housed 

centrifugal ACFs in the October 2022 

NODA. To develop the MPC estimates 

for housed centrifugal ACFs, DOE 

performed teardowns on three housed 

centrifugal ACFs and created BOMs for 

each. DOE assumed that all housed 

centrifugal ACFs are manufactured in 

China and that all parts were purchased 

in China based on its review of the 

housed centrifugal market. DOE used 

these BOMs and catalog teardowns to 

estimate MPCs for housed centrifugal 

ACFs. Further details of the 

development of the MPC estimates for 

housed centrifugal ACFs can be found 

in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

assumed that motors included in ACFs 

are purchased parts and determined the 

incremental MPCs associated with 

changing from a split-phase motor to a 

low-efficiency PSC motor, highefficiency PSC motor, or ECM using data 

in its internal parts database. 87 FR 

62038, 62053. DOE did not have 

sufficient pricing information for splitphase motors, so DOE approximated the 

split-phase motor MPC using prices for 

shaded-pole motors for the October 

2022 NODA. Id. DOE estimated lowefficiency PSC motor MPCs by 

developing a best-fit line for motor price 

as a function of motor power and used 

this line to estimate low-efficiency PSC 

motor MPCs at the representative motor 

powers. DOE estimated high-efficiency 

PSC motor MPCs by determining the 

95th percentile PSC motor MPC of the 

data it had available for each 

representative motor power and 

establishing a best-fit line for the 95th 

percentile MPCs as a function of motor 

power. DOE estimated ECM MPCs by 

establishing a best-fit line for the MPCs 

of ECMs as a function of motor power. 

87 FR 62038, 62053. Id. 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, NEMA commented that DOE’s 

estimated motor costs were lower than 

actual motor costs. NEMA further stated 

that the cost of motors for commercial 

applications would generally be lower 

than those for industrial applications. 

(NEMA, No. 125 at p. 6) In response to 

this feedback, DOE reevaluated its 

motor costs for this NOPR. DOE’s 

research indicates that most ACFs are 

sold in higher volumes, which suggests 

a commercial market, rather than an 

industrial market. In general, DOE finds 

that industrial equipment is sold in 

lower volumes and is manufactured for 

specific applications, and DOE has not 

observed that ACFs are typically sold or 

manufactured in this way. Therefore, 

DOE did not consider a separate MPC 

for industrial ACFs in this NOPR. DOE 

reviewed market information for fan 

motors and determined current fan 

motor sales prices. As such, DOE 

believes that its updated motor costs are 

more representative of the current fan 

motor market than those estimated in 

the October 2022 NODA. 

In this NOPR, DOE also reevaluated 

how it estimated motor costs. For both 

low-efficiency PSC motors and highefficiency PSC motors, DOE identified 

specific PSC fan motors and used the 

costs of these motors to estimate MPCs. 

Rather than using a single motor cost, 

DOE determined a weighted-average 

motor cost at each hp in its updated 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3780 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

ACF database. As discussed in section 

IV.C.2.c, DOE determined the 

percentage of motor hp values in the 

updated ACF database for each 

representative unit. DOE used these 

percentages and the MPCs determined 

for each motor type to calculate the 

weighted-average motor MPCs for each 

representative unit. Further details of 

DOE’s modeling of ACF motor costs can 

be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

Additionally, as discussed in section 

IV.C.2.c of this NOPR, DOE received 

feedback from NEMA and AMCA that 

changing to a more-efficient motor 

could also require changes to fan design. 

Specifically, NEMA commented that 

changing ACF motor efficiencies could 

require the use of a larger, heavier motor 

and could therefore require other design 

changes to the fan. (NEMA, No. 125 at 

p. 2) AMCA stated that replacing a 

motor with a more-efficient motor may 

result in the need for aerodynamic 

redesign or redesign of a fan’s mounting 

and supports because of differences in 

motor size, shape, or weight. (AMCA, 

No. 132 at p. 12) 

To evaluate these concerns, DOE 

estimated costs to redesign an ACF if a 

larger motor replaced a smaller motor. 

DOE evaluated the effects of motor 

volume and motor weight when 

considering a change from a smaller 

motor to a larger motor. DOE found 

during ACF teardowns that there is 

sufficient space for an increase in motor 

volume without needing to redesign 

other fan components, such as housing 

or safety guards. Therefore, DOE 

assumed that the only redesign required 

for an ACF when switching to a larger 

motor would be to increase the weight 

of the motor supports to accommodate 

an increased motor weight, which is 

consistent with what DOE has observed 

in teardowns. DOE used data gathered 

during ACF teardowns to approximate a 

relationship between motor weight and 

the cost of motor support materials. 

DOE used this relationship to estimate 

the increase in cost that would be 

expected for a given increase in motor 

weight. DOE found that even for a 100- 

percent increase in motor weight, which 

DOE believes is highly conservative, 

motor support costs increased fan MPC 

by 1.5 percent or less. Therefore, DOE 

has tentatively concluded that 

additional material costs would be 

minimal if a manufacturer incorporated 

a heavier motor into an ACF. 

For this NOPR, DOE evaluated belt 

drives and low-efficiency PSC motors as 

the baseline design options, as 

discussed in section IV.C.2.c. To 

determine the baseline costs, DOE first 

determined the cost of a baseline ACF 

without a motor or transmission (‘‘bareshaft ACF’’) for each representative unit. 

Then, DOE added the costs determined 

for a belt drive and a low-efficiency PSC 

motor to the base-shaft ACF to calculate 

the MPC of the baseline ACF for each 

representative unit. DOE did not find a 

significant difference in MPC between 

belt drives associated with different 

motor hp, so DOE chose a single belt 

drive cost for each representative unit. 

Further details on belt drive costs and 

baseline MPCs can be found in chapter 

5 of the NOPR TSD. 

For this NOPR, DOE assigned a directdrive transmission as the design option 

for EL 1. DOE assumed that a change 

from a belt-drive transmission to a 

direct-drive transmission would involve 

the removal of the belt drive with no 

other adjustments to the ACF. 

Therefore, for the 36-in. and 52-in. axial 

ACF representative units, DOE 

estimated the cost associated with this 

design option by subtracting the belt 

drive MPC from the baseline MPC. For 

the 24-in. axial ACF and housed 

centrifugal ACF representative units, 

DOE set the EL 1 MPC equal to the 

baseline MPC. 

DOE assigned a high-efficiency PSC 

motor as the ACF design option for EL 

2 in this NOPR. For all equipment 

classes, DOE determined the EL 2 MPC 

by adding the estimated cost difference 

between a high-efficiency PSC motor 

and a low-efficiency PSC motor to the 

EL 1 MPC. The MPCs DOE estimated for 

low-efficiency PSC motors and highefficiency PSC motors are included in 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE associated EL 3, EL 4, and EL 5 

in this NOPR with three different levels 

of aerodynamic redesign. In the October 

2022 NODA, DOE defined a single 

aerodynamic redesign level at max-tech. 

DOE assumed that the redesign, 

reengineering, and new equipment that 

could be required for the aerodynamic 

redesign would result in a significant 

one-time conversion cost, such that 

aerodynamic redesigns would have a 

significantly greater impact on 

conversion costs than they would on 

MPCs. Therefore, DOE assumed that the 

change in MPC associated with the 

aerodynamic redesign was negligible 

compared to the conversion costs 

incurred by the manufacturer to 

implement this redesign. In this NOPR, 

DOE assumed that MPCs for EL 3, EL 4, 

and EL 5 were equal to the MPC for EL 

2 for all equipment classes. DOE 

assumed that the complexity of ACF 

redesign would increase as ELs increase; 

therefore, DOE estimated that 

manufacturer investment in engineer 

time and equipment would increase 

with each EL. Information on DOE’s 

estimated conversion costs can be found 

in section IV.J.2.c of this NOPR and in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE defined an ECM as the design 

option for EL 6. For all equipment 

classes, DOE determined the EL 6 MPC 

by adding the estimated cost delta 

between an ECM and a high-efficiency 

PSC motor to the EL 5 MPC. The MPCs 

DOE estimated for high-efficiency PSC 

motors and ECMs can be found in 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

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 publicly 

traded manufacturers primarily engaged 

in air circulating fan manufacturing. 

DOE then adjusted these manufacturer 

markups based on feedback 

manufacturers during interviews. DOE 

used a manufacturer markup of 1.5 in 

this NOPR analysis. The manufacturer 

markups used in this NOPR are 

discussed in more detail in section 

IV.J.2.a of this document and in chapter 

12 of the NOPR TSD. The MSPs 

determined for ACFs are shown in Table 

IV–14. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3781 

3. Cost-Efficiency Results 

The results of the engineering analysis 

are reported as cost-efficiency data (or 

‘‘curves’’) in the form of FEI versus MSP 

(in dollars) for GFBs or efficacy versus 

MSP for ACFs. 

For GFBs, as discussed in section 

IV.C.1.d, DOE developed baseline MSP 

versus diameter curves and incremental 

costs for each design option for each 

equipment class. DOE used these 

correlations to estimate the MSP at each 

EL for each equipment class at all 

nominal impeller diameters. As such, 

each equipment class has multiple MSP 

versus FEI curves representing the range 

of impeller diameters that exist on the 

market. As discussed in section 

IV.C.1.b, the FEIs at each EL remain 

constant for each equipment class, 

regardless of impeller diameter. These 

FEIs were developed by determining the 

FEIs for the baseline equipment and 

implementing design options above 

baseline until all available design 

options were employed (i.e., at the maxtech level). In contrast to the ACF 

analysis which used MPCs, DOE 

directly estimated MSPs for GFBs using 

the AMCA sales database and 

manufacturer fan selection software. 

For ACFs, DOE developed curves for 

each representative unit. The 

methodology for developing the curves 

started with determining the efficacy for 

baseline equipment and the MPCs for 

this equipment. Above the baseline, 

DOE implemented design options until 

all available design options were 

employed (i.e., at the max-tech level). 

To convert from MPCs to MSPs, DOE 

applied manufacturer markups as 

described in section 0. 

Table IV–15 provides example costefficiency results from the GFB 

engineering analysis for the axial inline 

equipment class. Results are provided at 

an impeller diameter of 15 in. and an 

impeller diameter of 48 in.; however, as 

noted previously, DOE applied the same 

relative increases in MSP to obtain 

results at all impeller diameters for 

GFBs. 

Table IV–16 contains example costefficiency results from the ACF 

engineering analysis for the 24-in. 

representative unit. As noted 

previously, ACF results were not scaled 

to all impeller diameters. Rather, the 

cost-efficiency results in Table IV–16 

are relevant to all ACFs with an 

impeller diameter greater than or equal 

to 12 in. and less than 36 in. 

See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional detail on the engineering 

analysis and appendix 5A of the NOPR 

TSD for complete cost-efficiency results. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.035</GPH> EP19JA24.036</GPH>

Table IV-14 Estimated MSPs for ACF Equipment Classes and ELs 

Representative EL0 EL 1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 

Unit 

24-inch axial $166.67 $166.67 $193.94 $193.94 $193.94 $193.94 $239.99 

ACF 

36-inch axial $412.43 $319.29 $346.68 $346.68 $346.68 $346.68 $396.86 

ACF 

52-inch axial $644.45 $549.53 $589.74 $589.74 $589.74 $589.74 $650.82 

ACF 

11-inch housed $119.70 $119.70 $169.49 $169.49 $169.49 $169.49 $216.09 

centrifugal 

ACF 

Table IV-15 Axial PRV Example En2ineerin2 Results 

EL Design Option FEI MSP at 24 inches MSP at 48 inches 

($2022) ($2022) 

0 Baseline 0.66 $2 522 $4 180 

1 Blade change 1 0.69 $3 751 $6 144 

2 Blade change 2 0.72 $3,800 $6,222 

3 + 1 Diameter increase 0.75 $2 733 $5 106 

4 +2 Diameter increase 0.85 $3,028 $6,491 

5 Aerodynamic 1.00 $3,800 $6,222 

redesign 1 

6 Aerodynamic 1.25 $3,800 $6,222 

redesign 2 

7 Aerodynamic 1.49 $3,800 $6,222 

redesign 3 
3782 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

66Because 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 

reasonably competitive markets, it is unlikely that 

standards would lead to a sustainable increase in 

profitability in the long run. 

67RS Means Electrical Cost Data 2023. Available 

at: www.rsmeans.com. 

D. 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 and in the manufacturer impact 

analysis. At each step in the distribution 

channel, companies mark up the price 

of the product to cover business costs 

and profit margin. 

For GFBs, the main parties in the 

distribution chain are OEMs, 

distributors (including manufacturer inhouse distributors), and contractors. 

DOE distinguished fan manufacturers 

in-house by OEMs from other fans and 

blowers and identified the distribution 

channels and associated fraction of 

shipments (i.e., percentage of sales 

going through each channel) by 

equipment class. 

For ACFs, the main parties in the 

distribution chain distributors 

(including ACF manufacturer in-house 

distributors) and contractors. In the 

October 2022 NODA, DOE identified the 

distribution channels and fraction of 

shipments associated with each channel 

based on feedback from manufacturer 

interviews. 87 FR 62038, 62054. DOE 

did not receive any comments on these 

channels and relied on the same 

distribution channels for this NOPR. In 

addition, as discussed in section IV.F.5 

of this document, DOE included a motor 

or belt replacement as potential repairs 

for ACFs. Therefore, DOE additionally 

identified distribution channels 

associated with the purchase of a 

replacement motor or belt. 

DOE developed baseline and 

incremental markups for each actor in 

the distribution chain. Baseline 

markups are applied to the price of 

equipment 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.66

DOE relied on economic data from the 

U.S. Census Bureau as well as data from 

RS Means 67 to estimate average baseline 

and incremental markups. 

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides 

details on DOE’s development of 

markups for fans and blowers. 

DOE seeks comment on the 

distribution channels identified for 

GFBs and ACFs and fraction of sales 

that go through each of these channels. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of fans and blowers 

at different efficiencies in representative 

applications, and to assess the energy 

savings potential of increased fan and 

blower efficiency. The energy use 

analysis estimates the range of energy 

use of fans and blowers 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 characterize variability and 

uncertainty, the energy use is calculated 

for a representative sample of fan and 

blower consumers. This method of 

analysis, referred to as a Monte Carlo 

method, is explained in more detail in 

section IV.F of this document. Results of 

the energy use analysis for each 

equipment class group or representative 

unit were derived from a sample of 

10,000 consumers. This section presents 

DOE’s approach to develop consumer 

samples and energy use inputs that DOE 

applied in the energy use analysis. 

1. General Fans and Blowers 

For GFBs, annual energy use depends 

on the annual hours of operation, 

operating pressure and airflow, and load 

profile. It includes the electricity 

consumed by the motor driving the fan, 

as well as losses related to any belts and 

motor controller (e.g., variable speed 

drive or ‘‘VFD’’) included in the fan. 

Sample of Consumers 

DOE developed a consumer sample to 

represent consumers of GFBs in the 

commercial and industrial sectors. DOE 

used the sample to determine fan and 

blower annual energy consumption as 

well as to conduct the LCC and PBP 

analyses. 

To develop this sample, DOE used 

2012 sales data from AMCA 

corresponding to 92,287 units sold 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.037</GPH>

Table IV-16 Air Circulating Fan Engineering Results - Impeller Diameter~ 12 in. 

and< 36 in. 

EL Design Options Efficacy MSP ($2022) 

(CFM/W) 

0 Baseline - Baseline Motor with Direct Drive* 2.98 $111.11 

1 Baseline Motor with Direct Drive 2.98 $111.11 

2 More Efficient Induction Motor, Direct Drive 3.18 $129.29 

3 More Efficient Induction Motor, Direct Drive, 6.14 $129.29 

Aerodynamic Redesign 1 

4 More Efficient Induction Motor, Direct Drive, 12.2 $129.29 

Aerodynamic Redesign 2 

5 More Efficient Induction Motor, Direct Drive, 20.0 $129.29 

Aerodynamic Redesign 3 

6 ECM, Direct-Drive, Aerodynamic Redesign 3 24.3 $159.99 

* EL0 is equivalent to ELI because DOE found that belt drives are uncommon for ACFs with an impeller 

diameter< 36 inches. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3783 

68Air Movement and Control Association 

(AMCA). 2012 Detailed Confidential Fan Sales Data 

from 17 Manufacturers. November 2014. 69Prakash Rao et al., ‘‘U.S. Industrial and 

Commercial Motor System Market Assessment 

Report Volume 1: Characteristics of the Installed 

Base,’’ January 12, 2021. Available at: doi.org/ 

10.2172/1760267. 

70 DOE also reviewed information from the 

MSMA report. However, the information provided 

in the MSMA report did not differentiate fans by 

equipment class, and DOE therefore relied on the 

information collected during manufacturer 

interviews instead. 71See: motors.lbl.gov/analyze/kb-0q19q1M. 72Based on typical motor sizing practices, which 

suggest a motor horsepower equal to 1.2 (i.e., the 

design fan shaft input power), DOE believes that the 

design point represents 1/1.2 = 83 percent of the 

motor full load. The 1.2 sizing factor is based on 

input from the Working Group (Docket No. EERE– 

2013–BT–STD–0006; No. 179, Recommendation 

#10 at p. 6). 

73The load profile is represented by four load 

points defined as 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the 

design flow as well as the percentage annual 

operating hours spent at each of these points (i.e., 

weights). 

(‘‘2012 AMCA sales data’’).68 The data 

included information on the design 

operating flow, operating pressure, and 

shaft input power for which each fan 

was purchased and representative of 

fans sold as standalone equipment (i.e., 

not incorporated in another equipment). 

In addition, to represent fans sold 

incorporated in other equipment (i.e., 

embedded fans manufactured in-house 

by OEMs or ‘‘OEM fans’’), DOE used 

data specific to HVAC equipment in 

which these fans are used to 

characterize the fan impeller topology 

(i.e., category code) typically used in 

HVAC equipment and in the scope of 

this analysis to identify the range of 

operating flow, pressure, and shaft input 

power specific to these fans. Based on 

this information, DOE identified fan 

models from the 2012 AMCA sales data 

with the same equipment class, category 

code and shaft input power. DOE used 

these models to develop a sample 

representative of OEM fans. DOE then 

used sales data for the whole U.S. 

market to develop weights for each fan 

model and develop the fan consumer 

sample (where each consumer is 

assigned with a fan model and 

associated fan equipment class, category 

code, power bin, design operating flow, 

operating pressure, and shaft input 

power). Specifically, DOE developed the 

weights such that for each equipment 

class, the sample included the same 

proportions of GFBs by market segment 

(i.e., fans sold as standalone equipment 

and OEM fans), category code, and 

power bin as in the total U.S. market. 

In addition, each consumer in the 

sample was assigned a sector and a 

configuration (i.e., direct or belt driven 

and with or without VFD). The sector 

determines the field use characteristics, 

such as annual operating hours, load 

profile, and equipment lifetimes as well 

as the economic parameters (i.e., 

electricity prices and discount rates). To 

estimate the percentage of consumers in 

the industrial and commercial sectors, 

DOE primarily relied on data from the 

DOE–AMO report ‘‘U.S. Industrial and 

Commercial Motor System Market 

Assessment Report Volume 1: 

Characteristics of the Installed Base’’ 

(‘‘MSMA report’’).69 To estimate the 

percentage of consumers that operate a 

fan with or without belts, and with or 

without VFDs, DOE relied on 

information from manufacturer 

interviews. 

Annual Operating Hours 

To develop distributions of annual 

operating hours, DOE relied on 

information from the MSMA report, 

which provides distributions of annual 

operating hours for fans used in the 

commercial and industrial sector. 

Load Profiles 

DOE relied on the design flow and 

pressure, associated shaft input power, 

and fan configuration information of 

each fan in the sample to characterize 

the operating flow and pressure and 

associated shaft input power. DOE 

further relied on information from 

manufacturer interviews to estimate the 

share of fans that operate at constant 

load or at variable load by equipment 

class.70 Based on this information, DOE 

estimated the percentage of fans 

operating at variable load as shown in 

Table IV–17. 

For fans operating at constant load, 

DOE reviewed information from the 

MSMA report which indicates that the 

majority of constant load fans operate at 

or above 75 percent of the motor full 

load.71 This indicates that constant load 

fans primarily operate near the design 

point. Therefore, in this NOPR, for both 

the commercial and industrial sectors, 

DOE assumed that all constant load fans 

operate at the design point.72

For fans used at variable load, in the 

commercial sector, DOE relied on 

information previously provided by 

AHRI to develop a variable load profile 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006, 

AHRI, No. 129, at p. 2). In the industrial 

sector, DOE did not find any data to 

characterize the typical load profile and 

given the wide range of possible 

applications, DOE assumed equal 

weights at each of the considered load 

points.73 DOE has tentatively 

determined that while DOE has not 

found data to characterize the field 

operating loads of GFBs used in the 

industrial sector, using a weightedaverage across multiple load points and 

weighting all those points equally is a 

more representative load profile when 

compared to calculating the efficiency at 

a single point. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.038</GPH>

Table IV-17: Load characterization by Equipment Class 

Equipment Class Variable Load Constant Load 

Axial Inline Fans 49.1% 50.9% 

Axial Panel Fans 22.6% 77.4% 

Centrifugal Housed Fans 40.1% 59.9% 

Centrifugal Inline Fans 15.0% 85.0% 

Centrifugal Unhoused Fans 65.2% 34.8% 

Axial Power Roof Ventilator - Exhaust 23.0% 77.0% 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator - Exhaust 23.0% 77.0% 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator - Supply 34.0% 66.0% 

Radial Housed Fans 0.3% 99.7% 
3784 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

74NEEA cited: 2016 NODA Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) 

and Payback Period (PBP) Analyses Spreadsheet, 

Tab ‘‘Sectors and Applications,’’ Notes cell B49. 

Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2013-BT-STD-0006-0190. 

75See for example: motors.lbl.gov/analyze/3- 

0819. 

76 DOE notes that although the February 2022 RFI 

did not specifically request feedback on such load 

profiles, DOE stated that it received written 

comments from the public on any subject within 

the scope of this document (including those topics 

not specifically raised in the RFI), as well as the 

submission of data and other relevant information. 

87 FR 7048. 

77NEEA cited the November 2016 NODA LifeCycle Cost (LCC) and Payback Period (PBP) 

Analyses Spreadsheet. Available at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BTSTD-0006-0190. 

78 Improving Fan System Performance: A 

Sourcebook for Industry, Figure 2–20, Page 43. May 

2014. Available at: www.energy.gov/sites/default/ 

files/2014/05/f16/fan_sourcebook.pdf; and The 

Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining 

Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures. 

Chapter 18: Variable Frequency Drive Evaluation 

Protocol, Table 1, Page 12. Available at: 

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68574.pdf. 

79NEEA cited: U.S. Industrial and Commercial 

Motor System Market Assessment Report Volume 3: 

Energy Saving Opportunity, 7/2022, Figure 17 and 

Figure 18. Available at: eta-publications.lbl.gov/ 

sites/default/files/u.s._industrial_and_commercial_

motor_system_market_assessment_report_volume_

3_energy_saving_opportunity_p_rao.pdf. 

80NEEA referenced: 2015–12–30 Final Rule 

Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency 

Program for Consumer Products and Commercial 

and Industrial Equipment: Pumps. NEEA 

commented that section 7.2.1.3 outlined the process 

to develop representative performance curves. 

Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2011-BT-STD-0031-0056. 

81NEEA cited: 2014–12–03 NODA Life-Cycle 

Cost (LCC) Spreadsheet. Available at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BTSTD-0006-0034. 

82See: 2015–04–21 NODA Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) 

Spreadsheet. Available at: www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0060. 

83NEEA referenced this study: The Uniform 

Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy 

Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures. Chapter 

18: Variable Frequency Drive Evaluation Protocol, 

Table 1, Page 12. Available at: www.nrel.gov/docs/ 

fy17osti/68574.pdf. 

84See: motors.lbl.gov/analyze/4b-0j0Bd0. 

85As noted by NEAA, DOE updated its 

methodology between its first NODA and second 

NODA in order to enable the utilization of the 

AMCA 2012 data which represented thousands of 

fan selection data. While the first NODA relied on 

NEEA commented that the 

assumptions made for the load profiles 

presented in the 2016 NODA LCC are 

outdated and that DOE should collect 

additional information on load profiles 

for fans and blowers.74 NEEA 

recommended that DOE collect end-user 

data, use information on fan loading 

information from the MSMA report, or 

reach out to fan operation professionals 

in order to update DOE’s load profile 

assumptions. (NEEA, No. 129 at p. 7) 

DOE reviewed the energy use data 

provided in the MSMA report. However, 

DOE notes that the load fraction 

provided in the MSMA report are in 

terms of average fraction of motor full 

load output power and are not 

expressed in terms of percentage time 

spent at a given percentage of design 

flow.75 Therefore, DOE could not use 

this information to develop the load 

profiles for variable load fans. In 

addition, DOE did not receive any data 

on load profile in response to the 

February 2022 RFI.76 Instead, as 

previously stated, in this NOPR, for fans 

used in the commercial sector with 

VFDs, DOE relied on information 

previously provided by AHRI to develop 

a variable load profile in the commercial 

sector (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

STD–0006, AHRI, No. 129, at p. 2). In 

the industrial sector, as stated 

previously, DOE did not find any 

information to help characterize the 

load profile and assumed equal weights 

at each of the considered load points. 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, NEEA commented that DOE 

should account for different power load 

relationships associated with different 

fan control methods. NEEA stated that 

fans can operate below 100 percent of 

the design flow. NEEA noted that DOE 

captured this operation in its 2016 

NODA analysis through the use of load 

profiles.77 NEEA noted that in its 

previous annual energy use calculation, 

DOE relied on the affinity laws as 

representative of the power load 

relationship for all fans, regardless of 

the control method. NEEA added that 

while the installation of variable speed 

control can dramatically reduce a fan’s 

energy consumption, in DOE’s analysis 

its power load relationship (and 

therefore energy use) is assumed to be 

equal to that of the same fan operating 

with a more consumptive control 

strategy. NEEA commented that using 

the fan laws is an unreasonable proxy 

for other power load relationships. 

Instead, NEEA commented that various 

equipment and appurtenances allow 

fans to meet reduced flow rates, and the 

relationship between the required flow 

and a fan’s power draw is unique to 

each equipment or ‘‘control method’’ 

(e.g., the use of outlet vanes, disc 

throttle, inlet vanes, and controllable 

pitch blades). NEEA provided further 

examples of such relationships and 

associated references.78 NEEA added 

that the installation of a drive is often 

considered an energy efficiency 

opportunity for fan systems. NEEA 

stated that the installation of VFDs has 

been identified as the measure with the 

largest savings opportunity for 

industrial fans and the second largest 

savings for commercial fans.79 NEEA 

commented that the savings associated 

with installing a VFD are directly 

related to a more efficient power-load 

relationship, and that assuming all load 

control methods follow the fan laws 

would understate the energy use of fans 

without VFDs. Therefore, NEEA 

commented that DOE should account 

for the different power-load 

relationships associated with different 

load control methods and applying 

different power-load relationships based 

on the distribution of flow control 

methods seen in the market. In addition, 

NEEA recommended that DOE consider 

the power-load relationship for fans 

operating without a load control method 

by developing ‘‘representative’’ fan 

performance curves to model the energy 

consumption of fans that do not have 

load control. NEEA recommended that 

DOE develop representative fan curves, 

similar to those developed for the 

energy use analysis in the December 

2015 Pumps Final Rule,80 which would 

enable DOE to account for fan-specific 

performance. NEEA noted that this 

performance curve method was used in 

DOE’s first NODA 81 but was removed in 

the second NODA.82 Lastly, NEEA 

recommended that DOE utilize 

published power load equations to 

determine energy uses for fans with 

non-VFD controls.83 (NEEA, No. 129 at 

pp. 4–7) 

As noted by NEEA, different 

categories of controls result in different 

energy savings, which do not always 

follow the fan affinity laws. However, 

based on the MSMA report, DOE 

estimates that the majority of fans do 

not have load control (88 percent), and 

that the majority of fans with load 

control utilize VFDs (9 percent), while 

1 percent of fans with load control rely 

on other categories of controls and 

another 1 percent of fans had an 

unknown configuration.84 Therefore, in 

this NOPR, for fans with load control 

(and operating at variable load) DOE 

only considered VFDs as the primary 

load control equipment and applied the 

affinity laws when calculating the 

resulting savings. For fans without load 

control and operating at constant load, 

as stated earlier, DOE believes the 

majority of these fans operate near the 

design point. In addition, although DOE 

developed information on typical fan 

curves as part of previous analysis as 

noted by NEEA, the AMCA data did not 

provide sufficient information to relate 

the design point to a location on the fan 

curve. Therefore, for constant load fans, 

DOE was unable to utilize this 

information in combination with the 

2012 AMCA data to estimate the energy 

use at a reduced flow and thus assumed 

operation at the design point.85


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3785 

representative units and representative fans curves, 

as well as confidential data from a single 

manufacturer to develop distributions of operating 

points, the second NODA relies on fan selection 

data and sales data from 17 manufacturers to inform 

the LCC sample and location of the operating 

points. 

86ANSI/AMCA Standard 214–21 ‘‘Test Procedure 

for Calculating Fan Energy Index (FEI) for 

Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers.’’ 

87See section 7.4.2 of Chapter 7 of the Ceiling Fan 

Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document. 

Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2021-BT-STD-0011-0015. 

88This include fans that are also used for cooling 

and may be left on during cooler months as they 

are also used for non-cooling applications (e.g., 

ACFs used for reducing foul odors/manure gases/ 

moisture/dust, drying, cooling machinery). 

Drive Components 

The fan energy use calculation 

includes motor, VFD (if present) and 

transmission (i.e., belt) losses. To 

represent the performance of the motor 

and belts, DOE used the mathematical 

models from the DOE test procedure 

(See 87 FR 27312) which assumes the 

motor is compliant with the upcoming 

DOE standard for electric motors at 10 

CFR 431.25 and characterizes belt 

efficiency based on a model published 

in AMCA 214–21 as referenced in the 

DOE test procedure.86 To represent the 

performance of the motor combined 

with a VFD, DOE used the mathematical 

models from section 6.4 of AMCA 214– 

21 which is representative of typical 

motor and VFD combinations, as 

referenced in the DOE test procedure. 

DOE further relied on information from 

manufacturer interviews to estimate the 

share of belt-driven fans. 

2. Air-Circulating Fans 

DOE calculated the energy use of 

ACFs by combining ACF input power 

consumption from the engineering 

analysis with annual operating hours. 

For each consumer in the sample, DOE 

associates a value of ACF annual 

operating hours drawn from statistical 

distributions as described in the 

remainder of this section. 

Sample of Consumers 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

included commercial, industrial, and 

agricultural applications in the energy 

use analysis of ACFs with input power 

greater than or equal to 125 W. 87 FR 

62038, 62056. DOE did not receive any 

comments on this approach. 

Accordingly, in the NOPR, DOE created 

a sample of 10,000 consumers for each 

representative unit to represent the 

range of air-circulating fan energy use in 

the commercial, industrial, and 

agricultural sectors. 

Annual Operating Hours 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

estimated that air circulating fans with 

input power greater than or equal to 125 

W operate, on average, 12 hours per day, 

consistent with the hours of use 

estimated for large-diameter ceiling fans 

in the Ceiling Fan Preliminary 

Analysis.87 To represent a range of 

possible operating hours around this 

representative value, DOE relied on a 

uniform distribution between 6 hours 

per day and 18 hours per day (assuming 

a uniform distribution of operating 

hours due to the limited availability of 

information). 87 FR 62038, 62056– 

62057 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, ebm-papst stated that the usages 

of agricultural fans, residential fans, 

commercial fans, and basket fans used 

for distribution transformers are all very 

different. (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 4) 

AMCA commented that ACFs and 

ceiling fans in commercial and 

industrial buildings serve similar 

functions during warmer months, which 

is to provide a low-energy method for 

cooling. AMCA added however that 

ACFs are often not used during cooler 

months, while ceiling fans are either 

used in a reversed direction mode or 

run at a lower speed. Therefore, only 

ceiling fan usage during warmer months 

can be used as a proxy for ACF usage, 

and the annual operating hours of 

ceiling fans will be greater than those of 

ACFs. AMCA added that ACFs used for 

horticulture applications may have 

different usage hours than that of other 

ACFs or ceiling fans. (AMCA, No. 132 

at p. 13) 

DOE established the annual operating 

hours as the product of the daily 

operating hours and the number of 

operating days per year. In line with the 

information presented in the October 

2022 NODA, for all ACFs except 

centrifugal housed ACFs, DOE assumed 

average daily operating hours of 12 

hours per day. To reflect the variability 

in usage by application as noted by 

ebm-papst, DOE relied on a uniform 

distribution between 6 and 18 hours per 

day. For centrifugal housed ACFs, DOE 

relied on lower operating hours as these 

fans are primarily used for carpet drying 

applications and are less likely to 

operate 12 hours per day on average. 

DOE did not receive any feedback on 

daily operating hours and assumed 

average daily operating hours of 6 hours 

per day. To represent a range of possible 

operating hours around this 

representative value, DOE relied on a 

uniform distribution between 0 hours 

per day and 12 hours per day. 

With the exception of centrifugal 

housed ACFs, ACFs are primarily used 

for cooling purposes in the commercial 

sector (e.g., to cool people in loading 

docks, warehouses, gyms, etc.), in the 

industrial sector, (e.g., to cool people in 

factory workstations, etc.), and in the 

agricultural sector (e.g., to reduce 

livestock heat stress). To establish the 

number of annual operating days for 

ACFs other than centrifugal housed 

ACFS, and to reflect AMCA’s note that 

these ACFs are not used in cooler 

months, DOE relied on weather data to 

estimate a distribution of annual 

operating days for ACFs. While some 

ACFs may also be used for non-cooling 

purposes,88 DOE did not find any data 

to establish the market share of such 

applications and assumed all ACFs are 

used for cooling purposes, as this is the 

primary application of ACFs. Based on 

input from manufacturer interviews, 

DOE further estimated that 20 percent of 

ACFs are used in the commercial sector, 

20 percent in the industrial sector, and 

60 percent in the agricultural sector. In 

the case of centrifugal housed ACFs, 

which are primarily used for carpet 

drying, DOE assumed these are 

exclusively used in the commercial 

sector and throughout the year. 

Input Power 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

described that DOE may consider 

calculating the energy use by combining 

air circulating fan input power 

consumption in each mode (e.g., high 

speed, medium speed, low speed) from 

the engineering analysis with operating 

hours spent in each mode and assuming 

an equal amount of time spent at each 

tested speed. 87 FR 62038, 62055– 

62057. Consistent with the May 2023 TP 

Final Rule, DOE estimates that these 

fans are primarily used at high speed 

and assumed operation at high speed 

only. 

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides 

details on DOE’s energy use analysis for 

fans and blowers. 

DOE seeks comment on the overall 

methodology and inputs used to 

estimate GFBs and ACFs energy use. 

Specifically, for GFBs, DOE seeks 

feedback on the methodology and 

assumptions used to determine the 

operating point(s) both for constant and 

variable load fans. For ACFs, DOE 

requests feedback on the average daily 

operating hours, annual days of 

operation by sector and application, and 

input power assumptions. In addition, 

DOE requests feedback on the market 

share of GFBs and ACFs by sector (i.e., 

commercial, industrial, and 

agricultural). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3786 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for fans and blowers. The effect of new 

or amended energy conservation 

standards on individual consumers 

usually involves a reduction in 

operating costs and an increase in 

purchase cost. DOE used the following 

two metrics to measure consumer 

impacts: 

• The LCC is the total consumer 

expense of the equipment over the life 

of that equipment, 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 equipment. 

• The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of more efficient 

equipment through lower operating 

costs. DOE calculates the PBP by 

dividing the change in purchase cost 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 fans and blowers in the 

absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. The PBP for a 

given efficiency level is also measured 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

efficiency distribution. 

For each considered TSL in each 

equipment class, DOE calculated the 

LCC and PBP for a nationally 

representative set of consumers. As 

stated previously, DOE developed 

consumer samples from a variety of data 

sources as described in section IV.F of 

this document. For each sample 

consumer, DOE determined the energy 

consumption for the fans and blowers 

and the appropriate energy price. By 

developing a representative sample of 

consumers, the analysis captured the 

variability in energy consumption and 

energy prices associated with the use of 

fans and blowers. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

equipment—which includes MPCs, 

manufacturer markups (including the 

additional manufacturer conversion cost 

markups where appropriate), 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, 

equipment lifetimes, and discount rates. 

DOE created distributions of values for 

equipment 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 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 fan and 

blower user samples. The model 

calculates the LCC for equipment at 

each efficiency level for 10,000 

consumers per simulation run and 

equipment class. The analytical results 

include a distribution of 10,000 data 

points showing the range of LCC savings 

for a given efficiency level relative to 

the no-new-standards case efficiency 

distribution. In performing an iteration 

of the Monte Carlo simulation for a 

given consumer, equipment efficiency is 

chosen based on its probability. If the 

chosen equipment efficiency is greater 

than or equal to the efficiency of the 

standard level under consideration, the 

LCC calculation reveals that a consumer 

is not impacted by the standard level. 

By accounting for consumers who 

already purchase more efficient 

equipment, DOE avoids overstating the 

potential benefits from increasing 

equipment efficiency. 

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for 

consumers of fans and blowers as if 

each were to purchase new equipment 

in the expected year of required 

compliance with new or amended 

standards. New standards would apply 

to fans and blowers manufactured 5 

years after the date on which any new 

standard is published. (42 U.S.C 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(2)) At this 

time, DOE estimates publication of a 

final rule in the second half of 2024. 

Therefore, for the purposes of its 

analysis, DOE used 2030 as the first full 

year of compliance with any new 

standards for fans and blowers. 

Table IV–18 Summary of Inputs and 

Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis* 

summarizes the approach and data DOE 

used to derive inputs to the LCC and 

PBP calculations. The subsections that 

follow provide further discussion. 

Details of the spreadsheet model, and of 

all the inputs to the LCC and PBP 

analyses, are contained in chapter 8 of 

the NOPR TSD and its appendices. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3787 

89Series ID PCU3334133334132. Available at: 

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

90Series ID PCU3353123353123 and 

PCU3353123353121. Available at: www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, AMCA commented that DOE 

should refer to interviews with 

individual manufacturers for feedback 

on the inputs and considered methods 

used for the LCC and PBP analyses. 

(AMCA, No. 132 at p. 14) As noted 

throughout this section, DOE relied on 

input from manufacturer interviews 

where available. 

1. Equipment Cost 

To calculate equipment costs, DOE 

multiplied the MSPs developed in the 

engineering analysis by the distribution 

channel markups described previously 

(along with sales taxes). DOE used 

different markups for baseline 

equipment and higher-efficiency 

equipment because DOE applies an 

incremental markup to the increase in 

MSP associated with higher-efficiency 

equipment. Further, as described in 

section IV.C of this document, at ELs 

with associated manufacturer 

conversion costs, DOE applied a 

manufacturer conversion markup when 

calculating the equipment price of redesigned units. 

Economic literature and historical 

data suggest that the real costs of many 

products may trend downward over 

time according to ‘‘learning’’ or 

‘‘experience’’ curves. Experience curve 

analysis implicitly includes factors such 

as efficiencies in labor, capital 

investment, automation, materials 

prices, distribution, and economies of 

scale at an industry-wide level. 

For GFBs, to develop an equipment 

price trend for the NOPR, DOE derived 

an inflation-adjusted index of the 

Producer Price Index (PPI) for industrial 

and commercial fans and blowers 

equipment over the period 2003–2022.89

These data show a general price index 

increase from 2003 through 2009, a 

slower growth trend over the period 

2009–2020, and a high increase since 

2020. However, the outbreak of COVID– 

19 pandemic caused immense 

uncertainties in global supply chain and 

international trade resulting in price 

surges across all sectors since 2020. 

DOE believes that the extent to which 

these macroeconomic trends will 

continue in the future is very uncertain. 

Therefore, DOE used a constant price 

assumption as the default trend to 

project future fan prices. Thus, for 

GFBs, prices projected for the LCC and 

PBP analysis are equal to the 2022 

values for each efficiency level in each 

equipment class. 

For ACFs, DOE did not find PPI data 

specific to ACFs, and instead, DOE 

adopted a component-based approach to 

develop a price trend by identifying 

ACF components most likely to undergo 

a price variation over the forecast 

period. Using this approach, the price 

trend only applies to the cost of the 

component and not to the total cost of 

the ACF. For EL0 through EL5, which 

are efficiency levels that assume AC 

induction motors, DOE determined that 

ACF motors are the most likely 

component to undergo price variation 

over time and analyzed long-term trends 

in the integral and fractional 

horsepower motors PPI series.90 The 

deflated price index for integral and 

fractional horsepower motors was found 

to align with the copper, steel, and 

aluminum deflated price indices. DOE 

believes that the extent to which these 

commodity price trends will continue in 

the future is very uncertain and 

therefore does not project commodity 

prices. In addition, the deflated price 

index for fractional horsepower motors 

was mostly flat during the entire period 

from 1967 to 2020. Therefore, DOE 

relied on a constant price assumption as 

the default price factor index to project 

future ACF prices at EL 0 through EL 5. 

At EL 6, which assumes an ECM motor, 

DOE did not find any historical data 

specifically regarding ECM motors. For 

its analysis, DOE assumed that the 

circuitry and electronic controls 

associated with ECM motors would 

potentially be the most affected by price 

trends driven by the larger electronics 

industry as a whole. DOE obtained PPI 

data on ‘‘Semiconductors and related 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.039</GPH>

Table IV-18 Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis* 

Inputs Source/Method 

Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer (including a 

Equipment Cost manufacturer conversion markup where appropriate) and distribution 

channel markups and sales tax. Used historical data to derive a price 

index to project product costs. 

Installation Costs Assumed no change with efficiency level, except for PRV s where there . . . . 1s an mcrease m size. 

Fan electrical input power multiplied by the annual operating hours at 

Annual Energy Use the considered operating point(s); 

Variability: By sector and application. 

Energy Prices Electricity: Based on EEi data for 2022. 

Variability: By sector. 

Energy Price Trends Based onAEO2023 price projections. 

Repair and GFBs: Assumed no change with efficiency level. 

Maintenance Costs ACFs: Relied on different belt and motor repair costs by EL. 

Equipment Lifetime Average for GFBs: 16.0 years. 

Average for ACFs: 6.3 years. 

Discount Rates Calculated as the weighted average cost of capital for entities 

purchasing fans. Primary data source was Damodaran Online. 

Compliance Date 2030 (first full year) 

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

of the NOPR TSD. 
3788 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

91Series ID: PCU334413334413. Available at 

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

92Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Nonresidential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data 

Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence 

Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. 

LBNL–2001203. Available at: ees.lbl.gov/ 

publications/non-residential-electricity-prices. 

93EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2023 with 

Projections to 2050. Washington, DC. Available at: 

www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ (last accessed June 6, 

2023). 

device manufacturing’’ 91 between 1967 

and 2022 to estimate the historic price 

trend in electronic components. These 

data show a price decline over the entire 

period. Therefore, DOE applied a 

decreasing price trend for the controls 

portion of the ECM price. See chapter 8 

for more details on the price trends. 

DOE requests feedback on the price 

trends developed for GFBs and ACFs. 

2. Installation Cost

Installation cost includes labor,

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

equipment. 

For GFBs, DOE found no evidence 

that installation costs would be 

impacted with increased efficiency 

levels and did not include installation 

costs in its analysis, except at efficiency 

levels where an increase in size is 

assumed (i.e., for PRVs). In this case, 

DOE incorporated higher installation 

(i.e., shipping) costs due to the change 

in size. 

For ACFs, DOE stated in the October 

2022 NODA that it found no evidence 

that installation costs would be 

impacted with increased efficiency 

levels and, as a result, DOE was not 

planning on including installation costs 

in the LCC. 87 FR 62038, 62058. DOE 

did not receive any comments to the 

October 2022 NODA related to 

installation costs and continued with 

this approach for ACFs. 

DOE requests feedback on the 

installation costs developed for GFBs 

and on whether installation costs of 

ACFs may increase at higher ELs. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption

For each sampled consumer, DOE

determined the energy consumption for 

a fan at different efficiency levels using 

the approach described previously in 

section IV.E of this document. 

4. Energy Prices

Because marginal electricity prices

more accurately capture the incremental 

savings associated with a change in 

energy use from higher efficiency, they 

provide a better representation of 

incremental change in consumer costs 

than average electricity prices. 

Therefore, DOE applied average 

electricity prices for the energy use of 

the equipment purchased in the nonew-standards case, and marginal 

electricity prices for the incremental 

change in energy use associated with 

the other efficiency levels considered. 

DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 

using data from EEI Typical Bills and 

Average Rates reports. Based upon 

comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, 

this semi-annual report presents typical 

monthly electric bills and average 

kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as 

charged by investor-owned utilities. For 

the commercial and industrial sector, 

DOE calculated electricity prices using 

the methodology described in Coughlin 

and Beraki (2019).92

DOE’s methodology allows electricity 

prices to vary by sector, region, and 

season. In the analysis, variability in 

electricity prices is chosen to be 

consistent with the way the consumer 

economic and energy use characteristics 

are defined in the LCC analysis. For fans 

and blowers, DOE considered sectorspecific electricity prices. See chapter 8 

of the NOPR TSD for details. 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the 2022 energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

average price changes from the 

Reference case in AEO2023, which has 

an end year of 2050.93 To estimate price 

trends after 2050, the 2050 prices were 

held constant. 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs

Repair costs are associated with

repairing or replacing equipment 

components that have failed in an 

appliance; maintenance costs are 

associated with maintaining the 

operation of the equipment. Typically, 

small incremental increases in 

equipment efficiency entail no, or only 

minor, changes in repair and 

maintenance costs compared to baseline 

efficiency equipment. 

For GFBs, DOE found no evidence 

that maintenance and repair costs 

would be impacted with increased 

efficiency levels. Therefore, because 

DOE expresses results in terms of LCC 

savings, DOE did not account for 

maintenance and repair costs in the 

LCC. 

For ACFs, in the October 2022 NODA, 

DOE stated that it did not find any 

information supporting changes in 

maintenance costs as a function of 

efficiency. 87 FR 62038, 62058. DOE did 

not receive any comments in response 

to the October 2022 NODA related to 

maintenance costs; DOE continues to 

believe these do not vary by efficiency 

and did not include maintenance costs 

in its analysis. 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

identified the motor replacement as a 

potential repair for ACFs. DOE 

requested feedback on its assumptions 

about repair practices of ACFs. 87 FR 

62038, 62058. 

In response, AMCA commented that 

belt replacement could be the only 

significant maintenance or repair 

necessary for ACFs. AMCA added that 

DOE should reference manufacturer 

interviews for further information. 

AMCA added that ACFs are often used 

in environments with harsher 

conditions than other fans and 

experience higher temperatures, higher 

moisture content, higher particulate 

concentrations, and more power source 

fluctuations than do other fans. Because 

of this, AMCA stated that ACF repairs 

and replacements are more frequent 

than for other fans. (AMCA, No. 132 at 

pp. 14–15) 

For ACFs, DOE found no evidence 

that maintenance costs would be 

impacted with increased efficiency 

levels and did not include maintenance 

costs in its analysis. However, DOE did 

include repair costs associated with belt 

repair at EL 0, which represents belt 

driven ACFs as appropriate. In addition, 

although stakeholder feedback did not 

indicate the possibility of a motor repair 

for ACFs, DOE identified several ACF 

manufacturers offering replacement 

motors. DOE assumed such repair is not 

frequent as it was not identified as a 

potential repair by stakeholders. 

Therefore, DOE assumed that only 5 

percent of ACFs include a motor repair 

and estimated the repair costs 

associated with motor replacement. In 

order to calculate these repair costs, 

DOE relied on inputs from the 

engineering analysis. 

DOE requests feedback on whether 

the maintenance and repair costs of 

GFBs may increase at higher ELs. 

Specifically, DOE requests comments on 

the frequency of motor replacements for 

ACFs. DOE also requests comments on 

whether the maintenance and repair 

costs of ACFs may increase at higher 

ELs and on the repair costs developed 

for ACFs. 

6. Equipment Lifetime

For GFBs, in the NODA DOE used

average lifetimes of 30 years in the 

industrial sector based on input from a 

subject matter expert, and 15 years in 

the commercial sector based on the 

expected lifetimes of HVAC equipment. 

Across all sectors and equipment 

classes, the average lifetime for GFBs is 

16 years. To characterize the range of 

possible lifetimes, DOE developed 

Weibull distributions of equipment 

lifetimes. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3789 

94AMCA referenced the following study: 1980. 

‘‘Classification and evaluation of electric motors 

and pumps.’’ United States. Available at: doi.org/ 

10.2172/6719781. 95The 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. 

96 Damodaran Online, Data Page: Costs of Capital 

by Industry Sector (2021). Available at: 

pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar/(last accessed 

April 22, 2022). 

97See 2020 Florida Building Code, Energy 

Conservation, 7th edition—Section C403.2.12.3 Fan 

Efficiency, effective December 31, 2020; 2021 

Oregon Efficiency Specialty Code (OEESC): The 

2021 OEESC, based on ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2019, effective April 1, 2021. 

98These requirements take effect in November 

2023. See www.energy.ca.gov/rules-andregulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-11. 

For ACFs, in the October 2022 NODA, 

DOE stated that it did not find lifetime 

data specific to ACFs and was 

considering using 30 years, similar to 

GFBs lifetimes in a previous DOE 

analysis. (November 2016 NODA) 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, AMCA commented that DOE 

should assume a lifetime of 10 years 

instead of 30, because ACFs often are 

used in non-conditioned spaces or 

agricultural environments that expose 

them to dust, debris, moisture, and 

other debilitating factors. In addition, 

AMCA stated that in a previous report,94

DOE estimated average lifetimes of 

fractional (i.e., less than 1 horsepower) 

electric motors to 10 to 15 years. AMCA 

added that ACFs are typically used in 

areas without air conditioning and 

experience higher air temperatures, 

higher humidity, higher concentrations 

of particulate matter in the air, and 

greater fluctuations in power quality, 

compared to fans in buildings with full 

HVAC systems and tight envelopes. For 

these reasons, AMCA stated that it is 

unlikely for an ACF to have a lifetime 

of 30 years. Instead, AMCA 

recommended using a value of 10 years, 

which is the lower end of the motor life 

expectancy in the DOE report. (AMCA, 

No. 132 at pp. 2, 18–19) 

In this analysis, as suggested by 

AMCA, DOE relied on separate lifetimes 

for ACFs and GFBs. DOE considered 

two separate lifetimes for ACFs 

depending on whether the lifetime 

included a motor replacement or not. 

For ACFs that do not include a motor 

replacement, DOE assumed the average 

lifetime was equal to the estimated 

average motor lifetime of 6 years based 

on input from manufacturer interviews. 

DOE believes this value is more 

representative of ACF motor lifetimes as 

it is more recent and specific to the 

ACFs compared to the estimate 

provided by AMCA, which relied on a 

general motor and pump study 

published in 1980. For ACFs that 

include a motor replacement, DOE 

assumed an average lifetime of 12 years 

(i.e., twice the motor lifetime). DOE 

further assumed 5 percent of ACFs have 

a motor repair (see section IV.F.5 of this 

document), while 95 percent of ACFs do 

not, resulting in an overall average 

lifetime of 6.3 years. To characterize the 

range of possible lifetimes, DOE 

developed Weibull distributions of 

equipment lifetimes. 

DOE requests comments on the 

average lifetime estimates used for GFBs 

and ACFs. 

7. Discount Rates

In the calculation of LCC, DOE

applies discount rates appropriate for 

consumers to estimate the present value 

of future operating cost savings. DOE 

estimated a distribution of discount 

rates for fans and blowers 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.95 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 commercial, industrial, 

and agricultural discount rates for fans 

and blowers, DOE estimated the 

weighted-average cost of capital using 

data from Damodaran Online.96 The 

weighted-average cost of capital is 

commonly used to estimate the present 

value of cash flows to be derived from 

a typical company project or 

investment. Most companies use both 

debt and equity capital to fund 

investments, so their cost of capital is 

the weighted average of the cost to the 

firm of equity and debt financing. DOE 

estimated the cost of equity using the 

capital asset pricing model, which 

assumes that the cost of equity for a 

particular company is proportional to 

the systematic risk faced by that 

company. The average discount rates in 

the commercial, industrial, and 

agricultural sectors are 6.77, 7.25, and 

7.15 percent, respectively. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

related to discount rates. 

See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for 

further details on the development of 

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 

equipment efficiencies under the nonew-standards case (i.e., the case 

without new energy conservation 

standards). 

To estimate the energy efficiency 

distribution of GFBs for 2030, DOE 

relied on the 2012 AMCA sales data 

from the sample (see section IV.E.1 of 

this document). DOE notes that since 

2012, the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

Energy Standard for Buildings Except 

Low-Rise Residential Building 

(‘‘ASHRAE Standard 90.1’’) includes 

limits on the FEI of certain fans and has 

been adopted in some States.97 In 

addition, the California Energy 

Commission recently finalized reporting 

requirements to promote fan selections 

at duty points with FEI ratings greater 

than or equal to 1.00.98 However, DOE 

reviewed recent manufacturer catalogs 

and found that the market has not 

changed significantly since 2012 (see 

detailed discussion in section IV.A.2.a 

of this document). Therefore, in this 

NOPR, DOE relied on the 2012 

efficiency distributions to characterize 

the no-new-standards case in 2030. The 

estimated market shares for the no-newstandards case for GFBs are shown in 

Table IV–19. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3790 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

99Specifically, to reflect that the BESS data is not 

representative of the majority of the ACF market, 

DOE assumed that a quarter of ACFs are 

represented by the BESS labs data and applied a 

weight of 0.25 to the BESS Labs database and a 

weight of 0.75 to the catalog data collected from 

manufacturer and distributor websites. 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

stated that it would rely on information 

from the BESS Labs dataset to develop 

efficiency distribution and that it would 

randomly assign an equipment 

efficiency to each consumer drawn from 

the consumer samples. 87 FR 62038, 

62060. DOE did not receive any 

comments on this topic. 

For ACFs, DOE collected model 

performance data from the BESS Labs 

database as well as information from 

manufacturer catalogs. As noted in 

section IV.A.1.a, the BESS Labs database 

contains fans with higher efficiencies 

than the overall ACF market and is not 

representative of the ACF market as a 

whole. DOE collected catalog data from 

manufacturer and distributor websites 

to supplement the BESS Labs database. 

DOE relied on the performance data 

from both datasets establish the no-newstandards case efficiency distribution of 

ACFs in 2030 and used a weighted 

average when calculating the overall 

efficiency distributions to reflect that 

fact that the models in the BESS Labs 

database are representative of the top of 

the market in terms of efficiency.99 DOE 

did not find historical performance data 

for ACFs and assumed the efficiency 

distribution would remain the same 

over time. The resulting market shares 

for the no-new-standards case for ACFs 

are shown in Table IV–20. 

See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for 

further information on the derivation of 

the efficiency distributions. 

The LCC Monte Carlo simulations 

draw from the efficiency distributions 

and randomly assign an efficiency to the 

fans and blowers purchased by each 

sample consumer in the no-newstandards case. The resulting percentage 

shares within the sample match the 

market shares in the efficiency 

distributions. 

DOE requests feedback and 

information on the no-new-standards 

case efficiency distributions used to 

characterize the market of GFBs and 

ACFs. DOE requests information to 

support any efficiency trends over time 

for GFBs and ACFs. 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time (expressed in years) it takes the 

consumer to recover the additional 

installed cost of more-efficient 

equipment, compared to the no-newstandards case equipment, through 

energy cost savings. Payback periods 

that exceed the life of the equipment 

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 equipment and 

the change in the first-year annual 

operating expenditures relative to the 

baseline. DOE refers to this as a ‘‘simple 

PBP’’ because it does not consider 

changes over time in operating cost 

savings. The PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis when 

deriving first-year operating costs. 

As noted previously, EPCA 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing 

equipment complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the first 

year’s energy savings resulting from the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.040</GPH> EP19JA24.041</GPH>

Table IV-19: No New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution in 2030 - GFBs 

Equipment Class EL0 ELl EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 EL7 

Axial Inline 5.2% 7.4% 20.8% 37.4% 24.5% 4.8% NIA NIA 

Axial Panel 8.1% 11.7% 31.6% 32.0% 13.2% 3.4% NIA NIA 

Centrifugal Housed 20.8% 5.6% 22.8% 31.9% 16.6% 2.5% NIA NIA 

Centrifugal Inline 8.4% 5.9% 32.7% 13.7% 26.9% 10.2% 2.3% NIA 

Centrifugal Unhoused 4.2% 6.0% 21.8% 50.1% 15.4% 2.5% NIA NIA 

Axial Power Roof Ventilator 6.1% 4.4% 2.5% 13.0% 24.5% 30.9% 13.4% 5.3% 

Centrifugal Power Roof 7.9% 1.3% 9.7% 16.6% 33.8% 24.8% 6.0% NIA 

Ventilator - Exhaust 

Centrifugal Power Roof 6.3% 3.8% 16.2% 25.6% 35.6% 9.1% 3.3% NIA 

Ventilator - Supply 

Radial Housed 7.3% 3.5% 7.0% 32.7% 27.2% 22.2% NIA NIA 

The entry "NI A" indicates the EL is not available for the considered equipment class. 

Table IV-20: No New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution in 2030 - ACFs 

Equipment Class* EL0 ELl EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 

Axial ACFs; 12" :'.S D < 36" 0% 1% 6% 41% 45% 6% 2% 

Axial ACFs; 36" :'.S D < 48" 5% 3% 9% 52% 31% 0% 0% 

Axial ACFs· 48" < D 6% 0% 19% 57% 17% 1% 0% 

Housed Centrifugal ACFs 5% 0% 24% 48% 21% 2% 0% 

* D: diameter in inches 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3791 

100 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. 

101 IHS Technology (March 2014), Fans and 

Blowers, World. 

102See: AHRI data, CEC Docket 17–AAER–06, 

TN#221201–1, p.10 https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Get

Document.aspx?tn=221201-1&DocumentContent

Id=26700. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For 

each considered efficiency level, DOE 

determined the value of the first year’s 

energy savings by calculating the energy 

savings in accordance with the 

applicable DOE test procedure, and 

multiplying those savings by the average 

energy price projection for the year in 

which compliance with the standards 

would be required. 

G. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of annual 

equipment shipments to calculate the 

national impacts of potential amended 

or new energy conservation standards 

on energy use, NPV, and future 

manufacturer cash flows.100 The 

shipments model takes an accounting 

approach, tracking market shares of 

each equipment class and the vintage of 

units in the stock. Stock accounting uses 

equipment shipments as inputs to 

estimate the age distribution of inservice equipment stocks for all years. 

The age distribution of in-service 

equipment 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. 

1. General Fans and Blowers 

DOE first estimated total shipments in 

the base year. For fans sold as a 

standalone equipment by equipment 

class, DOE relied on the estimate in the 

November 2016 NODA, which relied on 

a market research report,101 and AMCA 

confidential sales data from 2012. To 

estimate the shipments of fans sold 

incorporated in other equipment (‘‘OEM 

fans’’), DOE first identified HVAC 

equipment that incorporate the 

embedded fans in the scope of analysis 

(i.e., HVAC equipment not listed in 

Table III–1). DOE then determined the 

average quantity of fans used in each of 

the identified HVAC equipment and 

estimated the total number of HVAC 

fans as the product of HVAC equipment 

sales and average number of fans per 

equipment. The OEM fan shipments in 

scope were then calculated by 

subtracting the estimated number of 

standalone fans purchased by OEMs 

from the total number of fans in HVAC 

equipment, to avoid double counting. 

See chapter 9 for more details. 

AHRI provided feedback on 

shipments values published in the 

November 2016 NODA. Specifically, 

AHRI disagreed with DOE’s estimate of 

air handling units and estimated the 

shipments to be 65,000 units per year. 

AHRI further commented that 75 

percent of these units have variable air 

volume (‘‘VAV’’) capability, and that 

60–70% of those are equipped with 

variable speed drives; AHRI questioned 

whether DOE accounted for this in its 

energy use analysis. Finally, AHRI 

commented that they identified 

approximately 40 percent of air 

handling units with either a return or an 

exhaust fan, as opposed to 50 percent 

assumed in the November 2016 NODA. 

(AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 7–8) 

DOE reviewed the information 

provided by AHRI and agrees with the 

more recent shipments estimate of 

65,000 units per year. In addition, DOE 

accounted for variable load operation in 

its energy use analysis as described in 

section IV.E.1 of this document. 

However, DOE did not estimate the 

percentage of VAV units by HVAC 

equipment but by GFBs equipment class 

(up to 65 percent depending on the 

equipment class). Finally, for this 

NOPR, DOE estimated the percentage of 

air handling units with either a return 

or an exhaust fan as 30 percent based on 

more recent input from manufacturer 

interviews. 

AHRI disagreed with DOE’s estimate 

of panel fans per air-cooled water chiller 

and the number of air-cooled water 

chillers shipped. AHRI stated that the 

average number of panel fans per unit 

is seven instead of the DOE estimate of 

14 in the November 2016 NODA. AHRI 

also stated that the number of air-cooled 

chillers shipped is 26,000 per year. 

(AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 9–10) 

DOE reviewed the information 

provided by AHRI as well as additional 

information from previous comments 

estimating average annual shipments of 

air-cooled chillers to 27,000 units per 

year based on the U.S. Census MA35M/ 

MA333M series.102 DOE agrees with the 

more recent shipments estimate of 

26,000–27,000 units per year and 7 fans 

per unit for air-cooled water chillers. As 

such, DOE relied on this estimate 

(27,000) rather than on the values 

published in the November 2016 NODA. 

AHRI disagreed with DOE’s estimate 

of commercial unitary air conditioners 

and heat pumps with and without 

return/exhaust fans. AHRI stated that 

less than 10 percent of units under 

240,000 Btu/h have return/exhaust fans 

and about 70 percent of units over 

240,000 Btu/h have return/exhaust fans. 

AHRI also commented that 80 percent of 

units over 240,000 Btu/h have variable 

speed drives and VAVs. AHRI 

commented that these estimates were 

based on a survey of its members. 

(AHRI, No. 130 at p. 9) 

DOE reviewed the information 

provided by AHRI and agrees with the 

more recent percentage values to 

estimate the fraction of units with a 

return or exhaust fan. As such DOE 

relied on these estimates rather than on 

the values published in the November 

2016 NODA to estimate the number of 

fans per unit in commercial unitary air 

conditioners and heat pumps. 

To project shipments of fans in the 

industrial sector, DOE assumed in the 

no-new-standards case that the longterm growth of fan shipments will be 

driven by long-term growth of fixed 

investments in equipment including 

fans, which follow the same trend as the 

gross domestic product (‘‘GDP’’). DOE 

relied on fixed investment data from the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis and 

AEO2023 forecast of GDP through 2050 

to inform its shipments projection. For 

the commercial sector, DOE projected 

shipments using AEO2023 projections 

of commercial floor space. In 2030, DOE 

estimates the total shipments of GFBs to 

1.38 million units. 

DOE also derived high and low 

shipments projections based on 

AEO2023 economic growth scenarios. 

DOE further assumed that standards 

would have a negligible impact on fan 

shipments and applied a zero priceelasticity under standards cases. It is 

likely that following a standard, rather 

than foregoing a fan purchase under a 

standards case, a consumer might 

simply switch brands or fans to 

purchase a fan that is best suited for 

their application. As a result, DOE used 

the same shipments projections in the 

standards case as in the no-newstandards case. 

DOE requests feedback on the 

methodology and inputs used to project 

shipments of GFBs in the no-newstandards case. DOE requests comments 

and feedback on the potential impact of 

standards on GFB shipments and 

information to help quantify these 

impacts. 

2. Air Circulating Fans 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

estimated total shipments of ACFs to 

over 2 million using information from 

manufacturer interviews indicating 

shipments estimates of 494,950 units of 

unhoused air circulating fan heads and 

255,100 units of cylindrical air 

circulating fans and applying expansion 

factors to determine the shipments of 

other categories of ACFs included in the 

scope. 87 FR 62038, 62061. DOE did not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3792 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

103See docket No. EERE–2021–BT–STD–0011– 

0015. 

104The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 States 

and U.S. territories. 

105Because the anticipated compliance date is 

late in the year, for analytical purposes, DOE 

conducted the analysis for shipments from 2030 

through 2059. 

receive any feedback or information on 

shipments in response to the October 

2022 NODA. 

For this NOPR, DOE reviewed the 

information from manufacturer 

interviews and has determined that the 

shipments estimates provided were for 

the total market of axial ACFs (rather 

than specific to unhoused air circulating 

fan heads and cylindrical air circulating 

fans only, as previously determined). In 

addition, DOE estimated that housed 

centrifugal ACFs represent one percent 

of the total ACF market based on the 

small number of manufacturers 

identified in the catalog data collected 

by DOE from manufacturer and 

distributor websites. 

In the October 2022 NODA, DOE 

estimated that shipments of ACFs 

follow similar trends as shipments of 

large-diameter ceiling fans. Therefore, 

DOE stated that it was considering 

projecting shipments of air circulating 

fans with input power greater than or 

equal to 125 W based on the growth 

rates projected for shipments of largediameter ceiling fans.103 87 FR 62038, 

62061. In response to the October 2022 

NODA, ebm-papst suggested that the 

growth of indoor horticulture, a need for 

farm animal cooling due to climate 

change, and a need for auxiliary cooling 

on distribution transformers due to 

electrification, as well as climate change 

could all be reasons for possible growth 

in the ACFs market. (ebm-papst, No. 8 

at p. 4) 

DOE agrees with the qualitative 

comment from ebm-papst regarding the 

potential causes for future ACF market 

growth. However, DOE notes that this 

information does not allow for a 

quantitative estimation of projected 

shipments. DOE did not receive any 

additional feedback on this approach 

and applied this methodology in the 

NOPR. In 2030, DOE estimates the total 

shipments of fans to be 1.30 million 

units. 

DOE requests feedback on the 

methodology and inputs used to 

estimate and project shipments of ACFs 

in the no-new-standards case. DOE 

requests comments and feedback on the 

potential impact of standards on ACF 

shipments and information to help 

quantify these impacts. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the national energy 

savings (‘‘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.104

(‘‘Consumer’’ in this context refers to 

consumers of the equipment being 

regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and 

NPV for the potential standard levels 

considered based on projections of 

annual equipment shipments, along 

with the annual energy consumption 

and total installed cost data from the 

energy use and LCC analyses. For the 

present analysis, DOE projected the 

energy savings, operating cost savings, 

equipment costs, and NPV of consumer 

benefits over the lifetime of fans and 

blowers sold from 2030 through 

2059.105

DOE evaluates the impacts 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 equipment 

class in the absence of new or amended 

energy conservation standards. For this 

projection, DOE considers historical 

trends in efficiency and various forces 

that are likely to affect the mix of 

efficiencies over time. DOE compares 

the no-new-standards case with 

projections characterizing the market for 

each equipment class if DOE adopted 

new or amended standards at specific 

energy efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or 

standards cases) for that class. For the 

standards cases, DOE considers how a 

given standard would likely affect the 

market shares of equipment 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 TSL. 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–21 summarizes the inputs 

and methods DOE used for the NIA 

analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of 

these inputs and methods follows the 

table. See chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD 

for further details. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3793 

106For more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

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

Continued 

1. Equipment Efficiency Trends 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency projected for 

the no-new-standards case and each of 

the standards cases. Section IV.F.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 equipment classes for the 

first full year of anticipated compliance 

with an amended or new standard. To 

project the trend in efficiency absent 

amended standards for GFBs and ACFS 

over the entire shipments projection 

period, DOE assumed a constant 

efficiency trend. The approach is further 

described in chapter 10 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

For the standards cases, DOE used a 

‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the 

shipment-weighted efficiency for the 

first full year that standards are assumed 

to become effective (2030). In this 

scenario, the market shares of 

equipment 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 equipment above the standard 

would remain unchanged. 

To develop standards case efficiency 

trends after 2030, DOE assumed a 

constant efficiency trend, similar to the 

no-new standards case. 

2. National Energy Savings 

The national energy savings analysis 

involves a comparison of national 

energy consumption of the considered 

equipment between each potential 

standards case (‘‘TSL’’) 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 equipment (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 equipment is 

sometimes associated with a direct 

rebound effect, which refers to an 

increase in utilization of the equipment 

due to the increase in efficiency. For 

example, when a consumer realizes that 

a more efficient fan used for cooling will 

lower the electricity bill, that person 

may opt for increased comfort in the 

building by using the equipment more, 

thereby negating a portion of the energy 

savings. In commercial buildings, 

however, the person owning the 

equipment (i.e., the building owner) is 

usually not the person operating the 

equipment (i.e., the renter). Because the 

operator usually does not own the 

equipment, that person will not have 

the operating cost information necessary 

to influence how they operate the 

equipment. Therefore, DOE believes that 

a rebound effect is unlikely to occur in 

commercial buildings. In the industrial 

and agricultural sectors, DOE believes 

that fans are likely to be operated 

whenever needed for the required 

application, so a rebound effect is also 

unlikely to occur in the industrial and 

agricultural sectors. Therefore, DOE did 

not apply a rebound effect for fans and 

blowers. 

DOE requests comment and data 

regarding the potential increase in 

utilization of GFBs and ACFs due to any 

increase in efficiency. 

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 national 

impact analyses 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, multi-sector, partial 

equilibrium model of the U.S. energy 

sector 106 that EIA uses to prepare its 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.042</GPH>

Table IV-21 Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact Analysis 

Inputs Method 

Shipments Annual shipments from shipments model. 

Compliance Date of Standard 2030 (first full year) 

Efficiency Trends No-new-standards case: constant trend 

Standards cases: constant trend 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy use at 

each TSL. 

Annual weighted-average values are a function of cost at each 

Total Installed Cost per Unit TSL. 

Incorporates projection of future product prices based on 

historical data. 

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 do not change with efficiency level. 

Energy Price Trends AEO2023 projections (to 2050) and held constant thereafter. 

Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC A time-series conversion factor based onAEO2023. Conversion 

Discount Rate 3 percent and 7 percent 

Present Year 2024 
3794 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Available at: www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm 

(last accessed April 4, 2023). 

107Office of Management and Budget. Circular A– 

4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section 

E. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/ 

A4/a-4.pdf. 

Annual Energy Outlook. 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 NOPR 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 

equipment shipped during the 

projection period. 

As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this 

document, DOE developed price trends 

for GFBs and ACFs based on historical 

PPI data. DOE applied the same trends 

to project prices for each equipment 

class at each considered efficiency level. 

For GFBs, DOE applied constant 

equipment price trends. For ACFs, DOE 

also applied a constant price trend 

except for ACFs at EL6 where a 

declining price trend was used. By 

2059, which is the end date of the 

projection period, the average ACF price 

at EL6 is projected to drop 14 percent 

relative to 2022. DOE’s projection of 

product prices is described in appendix 

10C of the NOPR TSD. 

To evaluate the effect of uncertainty 

regarding the price trend estimates, DOE 

investigated the impact of different 

product price projections on the 

consumer NPV for the considered TSLs 

for GFBs and ACFs. In addition to the 

default price trend, DOE considered two 

product price sensitivity cases: (1) a 

high price decline case based on 

historical PPI data and (2) a low price 

decline case based on the AEO2023 

‘‘deflator—industrial equipment’’ 

forecast for GFBs and historical PPI data 

for ACFs. The derivation of these price 

trends and the results of these 

sensitivity cases are described in 

appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. 

The energy cost savings are calculated 

using the estimated energy savings in 

each year and the projected price of the 

appropriate form of energy. To estimate 

energy prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied the average regional energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

national-average commercial and 

industrial energy price changes in the 

Reference case from AEO2023, which 

has an end year of 2050. To estimate 

price trends after 2050, the 2050 price 

was used for all years. As part of the 

NIA, DOE also analyzed scenarios that 

used inputs from variants of the 

AEO2023 Reference case that have 

lower and higher economic growth. 

Those cases have lower and higher 

energy price trends compared to the 

Reference case. NIA results based on 

these cases are presented in appendix 

10C of the NOPR TSD. 

In addition, for ACFs, the NPV 

calculation also includes the total repair 

costs which are calculated based on the 

outputs from the life-cycle analysis. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. For this NOPR, 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.107 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. 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards on consumers, DOE evaluates 

the impact on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a new or 

amended national standard. The 

purpose of a subgroup analysis is to 

determine the extent of any such 

disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates 

impacts on particular subgroups of 

consumers by analyzing the LCC 

impacts and PBP for those particular 

consumers from alternative standard 

levels. For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the 

impacts of the considered standard 

levels on small businesses. DOE used 

the LCC and PBP spreadsheet model to 

estimate the impacts of the considered 

efficiency levels on these subgroups, 

and used inputs specific to that 

subgroup. Chapter 11 in the NOPR TSD 

describes the consumer subgroup 

analysis. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the financial impacts of new energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of fans and blowers and 

to estimate the potential impacts of such 

standards on employment and 

manufacturing capacity. The MIA has 

both quantitative and qualitative aspects 

and includes analyses of projected 

industry cash flows, the INPV, 

investments in research and 

development (‘‘R&D’’) and 

manufacturing capital, and domestic 

manufacturing employment. 

Additionally, the MIA seeks to 

determine how new energy conservation 

standards might affect manufacturing 

employment, capacity, and competition, 

as well as how standards contribute to 

overall regulatory burden. Finally, the 

MIA serves to identify any 

disproportionate impacts on 

manufacturer subgroups, including 

small business manufacturers. 

The quantitative part of the MIA 

primarily relies on the GRIM, an 

industry cash flow model with inputs 

specific to this rulemaking. The key 

GRIM inputs include data on the 

industry cost structure, unit production 

costs, equipment shipments, 

manufacturer markups, and investments 

in R&D and manufacturing capital 

required to produce compliant 

equipment. The key GRIM outputs are 

the INPV, which is the sum of industry 

annual cash flows over the analysis 

period, discounted using the industryweighted average cost of capital, and the 

impact on domestic manufacturing 

employment. The model uses standard 

accounting principles to estimate the 

impacts of new energy conservation 

standards on a given industry by 

comparing changes in INPV and 

domestic manufacturing employment 

between a no-new-standards case and 

the various standards cases (i.e., TSLs). 

To capture the uncertainty relating to 

manufacturer pricing strategies 

following new standards, the GRIM 

estimates a range of possible impacts 

under different markup scenarios. 

The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses manufacturer characteristics 

and market trends. Specifically, the MIA 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3795 

108See www.sec.gov/edgar. 

109See www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/ 

data/tables.html. 

110See app.avention.com. 

considers such factors as a potential 

standard’s impact on manufacturing 

capacity, competition within the 

industry, the cumulative impact of other 

DOE and non-DOE regulations, and 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups. 

The complete MIA is outlined in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE conducted the MIA for this 

rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 

of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of 

the fan and blower manufacturing 

industry based on the market and 

technology assessment, preliminary 

manufacturer interviews, and publicly 

available information. This included a 

top-down analysis of fan and blower 

manufacturers that DOE used to derive 

preliminary financial inputs for the 

GRIM (e.g., revenues; materials, labor, 

overhead, and depreciation expenses; 

selling, general, and administrative 

expenses (‘‘SG&A’’); and R&D expenses). 

DOE also used public sources of 

information to further calibrate its 

initial characterization of the fan and 

blower manufacturing industry, 

including company filings of form 10– 

K from the SEC,108 corporate annual 

reports, the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

Economic Census,109 and reports from 

D&B Hoovers.110

In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a framework industry cash flow analysis 

to quantify the potential impacts of new 

energy conservation standards. The 

GRIM uses several factors to determine 

a series of annual cash flows starting 

with the announcement of the standard 

and extending over a 30-year period 

following the compliance date of the 

standard. These factors include annual 

expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A 

and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital 

expenditures. In general, energy 

conservation standards can affect 

manufacturer cash flow in three distinct 

ways: (1) creating a need for increased 

investment, (2) raising production costs 

per unit, and (3) altering revenue due to 

higher per-unit prices and changes in 

sales volumes. 

In addition, during Phase 2, DOE 

developed interview guides to distribute 

to manufacturers of fans and blowers in 

order to develop other key GRIM inputs, 

including capital and product 

conversion costs, and to gather 

additional information on the 

anticipated effects of energy 

conservation standards on revenues, 

direct employment, capital assets, 

industry competitiveness, and subgroup 

impacts. 

In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE 

conducted structured, detailed 

interviews with representative 

manufacturers. During these interviews, 

DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics to validate assumptions 

used in the GRIM and to identify key 

issues or concerns. See section IV.J.3 of 

this document for a description of the 

key issues raised by manufacturers 

during the interviews. As part of Phase 

3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of 

manufacturers that may be 

disproportionately impacted by new 

energy conservation standards or that 

may not be accurately represented by 

the average cost assumptions used to 

develop the industry cash flow analysis. 

Such manufacturer subgroups may 

include small business manufacturers, 

low-volume manufacturers (‘‘LVMs’’), 

niche players, and/or manufacturers 

exhibiting a cost structure that largely 

differs from the industry average. DOE 

identified one subgroup for a separate 

impact analysis: small business 

manufacturers. The small business 

subgroup is discussed in section VI.B, 

‘‘Review under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ and in chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model

and Key Inputs

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flow due to new energy 

conservation standards that result in a 

higher or lower industry value. The 

GRIM uses a standard, annual 

discounted cash flow analysis that 

incorporates manufacturer costs, 

markups, shipments, and industry 

financial information as inputs. The 

GRIM models changes in costs, 

distribution of shipments, investments, 

and manufacturer margins that could 

result from new energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM spreadsheet uses 

the inputs to arrive at a series of annual 

cash flows, beginning in 2024 (the base 

year of the analysis) and continuing to 

2059. DOE calculated INPVs by 

summing the stream of annual 

discounted cash flows during this 

period. For manufacturers of fans and 

blowers, DOE used a real discount rate 

of 11.4 percent, which was derived from 

industry financials and then modified 

according to feedback received during 

manufacturer interviews. 

The GRIM calculates cash flows using 

standard accounting principles and 

compares changes in INPV between the 

no-new-standards case and each 

standards case. The difference in INPV 

between the no-new-standards case and 

a standards case represents the financial 

impact of the new energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers. As 

discussed previously, DOE developed 

critical GRIM inputs using a number of 

sources, including publicly available 

data, results of the engineering analysis, 

and information gathered from industry 

stakeholders during the course of 

manufacturer interviews and 

subsequent Working Group meetings. 

The GRIM results are presented in 

section V.B.2. Additional details about 

the GRIM, the discount rate, and other 

financial parameters can be found in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

Manufacturing more efficient

equipment is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing baseline equipment 

due to the use of more complex 

components, which are typically more 

costly than baseline components. The 

changes in the MPCs of covered 

equipment can affect the revenues, gross 

margins, and cash flow of the industry. 

For GFBs, DOE developed baseline 

MSP versus diameter curves and 

incremental costs for each design option 

for each equipment class. DOE used 

these correlations to estimate the MSP at 

each EL for each equipment class at all 

nominal impeller diameters. As such, 

each equipment class has multiple MSP 

versus FEI curves representing the range 

of impeller diameters that exist on the 

market. For ACFs, DOE developed 

curves for each representative unit. The 

methodology for developing the curves 

started with determining the efficiency 

for baseline equipment and the MPCs 

for this equipment. Above the baseline, 

DOE implemented design options until 

all available design options were 

employed (i.e., at the max-tech level). 

For a complete description of the 

MPCs, see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

b. Shipments Projections

The GRIM estimates manufacturer

revenues based on total unit shipment 

projections and the distribution of those 

shipments by efficiency level. Changes 

in sales volumes and efficiency mix 

over time can significantly affect 

manufacturer finances. For this analysis, 

the GRIM uses the NIA’s annual 

shipment projections derived from the 

shipments analysis from 2024 (the base 

year) to 2059 (the end year of the 

analysis period). See chapter 9 of the 

NOPR TSD for additional details. 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

New energy conservation standards

could cause manufacturers to incur 

conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and equipment 

designs into compliance. DOE evaluated 

the level of conversion-related 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3796 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

111See www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm and 

www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/ecec.htm#current. 

expenditures that would be needed to 

comply with each considered efficiency 

level in each equipment class. For the 

MIA, DOE classified these conversion 

costs into two major groups: (1) product 

conversion costs; and (2) capital 

conversion costs. Product conversion 

costs are investments in research, 

development, testing, marketing, and 

other non-capitalized costs necessary to 

make equipment designs comply with 

new energy conservation standards. 

Capital conversion costs are investments 

in property, plant, and equipment 

necessary to adapt or change existing 

production facilities such that new 

compliant equipment designs can be 

fabricated and assembled. 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, AMCA commented that DOE 

should conduct interviews with 

individual manufacturers to gather 

information regarding potential 

conversion costs for fan and blower 

manufacturers. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 

12) DOE conducted manufacturer 

interviews with several interested 

parties, including several fan and 

blower manufacturers, after the 

publication of the October 2022 NODA 

and prior to conducting this NOPR 

analysis. The results and methodology 

for estimating conversion costs are 

described in this section. 

DOE used a bottom-up cost estimate 

to arrive at a total product conversion 

cost at each EL for all equipment 

classes. DOE first estimated the number 

of unique basic models for each 

equipment class and at each EL using 

the AMCA sales database for GFBs and 

the updated ACF database for ACFs. 

Next, DOE estimated the percentage of 

models that would not meet each 

analyzed EL based on information from 

the appropriate database. DOE also 

estimated the percentage of failing 

models that are assumed to be 

redesigned at each analyzed EL. DOE 

then estimated the amount of 

engineering time needed to redesign and 

test a single non-compliant basic model 

into a compliant model and the time 

necessary to conduct additional air, 

sound, and certification testing once the 

model is redesigned. DOE used data 

from the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 111 (‘‘BLS’’) to estimate the 

total hourly employer compensation to 

conduct the redesign and to conduct 

testing. DOE based the number of hours 

associated with a per model redesign 

and per model testing estimates on 

information received during 

manufacturer interviews. DOE estimated 

that longer per model redesign 

engineering hours would be required to 

achieve higher ELs, since more 

engineering resources would be 

required to achieve higher ELs. 

However, DOE assumed the same per 

model testing cost for all ELs, since DOE 

did not assume the testing cost will 

increase at higher ELs. Lastly, DOE 

multiplied the per model redesign (for 

each EL) and per model testing costs by 

the number models that are estimated to 

be redesigned at each EL. 

DOE estimated the capital conversion 

costs based on information received 

during manufacturer interviews. During 

manufacturer interviews, manufacturers 

provided estimates on the percentage of 

total conversion costs that would be 

associated with the purchasing on 

equipment and machinery (capital 

conversion costs) and the percentage of 

total conversion costs that would be 

associated with engineering resources to 

conduct redesigns and testing (product 

conversion costs). In addition to 

assuming increased product costs at 

higher ELs, DOE also assumed that the 

ratio of product conversion costs to 

capital conversion costs would decrease 

at higher ELs (i.e., higher ELs are 

expected to have higher capital 

conversion costs since manufacturers 

would be expected to increase 

investments in new tooling and 

potentially different production 

processes). In sum, DOE used these 

percentage estimates provided during 

manufacturer interviews and the 

product conversion cost estimates 

previously described to estimate the 

total capital conversion costs for each 

equipment class at each analyzed EL. 

CA IOUs stated that some ACF 

manufacturers purchase the impellors 

that they use rather than design and 

manufacture them in-house. Therefore, 

CA IOUs stated purchasing more 

efficient impeller designs may be 

possible without significant design and 

capital costs. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at p.3) 

DOE conducted manufacturer 

interviews with a variety of ACF 

manufacturers. The cost estimates 

included in this analysis assume that 

ACF manufacturers produce their 

impellors in-house. While some ACF 

manufacturers might purchase impellors 

from another company, whatever 

company that is manufacturing the more 

efficient impellors is will incur 

additional product and capital 

conversion costs and those costs will 

likely be passed on to their customers. 

Section IV.J.2.d discusses how an 

increase in product and capital 

conversion costs (regardless of if an 

impellor manufacturer or an ACF 

manufacturer incurs them) could result 

in an increased ACF MSP that is 

incorporated into all down-stream and 

consumer analyses. 

In general, DOE assumes all 

conversion-related investments occur 

between the year of publication of the 

final rule and the year by which 

manufacturers must comply with the 

new standard. The conversion cost 

figures used in the GRIM can be found 

in section V.B.2 of this document. For 

additional information on the estimated 

capital and product conversion costs, 

see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

d. Markup Scenarios 

MSPs include direct manufacturing 

production costs (i.e., labor, materials, 

and overhead estimated in DOE’s MPCs) 

and all non-production costs (i.e., 

SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with 

profit. To calculate the MSPs in the 

GRIM, DOE applied non-production 

cost markups to the MPCs estimated in 

the engineering analysis for ACFs at 

each equipment class and efficiency 

level. For GFBs, the engineering 

analysis estimated the MSPs. Therefore, 

the MIA did not calculate the MSPs for 

GFBs using the MPCs. Instead, the MIA 

estimated the MPC by dividing the 

MSPs, which were estimated in the 

engineering analysis, by a manufacturer 

markup. For GFBs, DOE estimated a 

manufacturer markup of 1.35 for all 

equipment classes in the no-newstandards case. This corresponds to a 

manufacturer gross margin percentage of 

approximately 25.9 percent. For ACFs, 

DOE estimated a manufacturer markup 

of 1.50 for all equipment classes in the 

no-new-standards case. This 

corresponds to a manufacturer gross 

margin percentage of approximately 

33.3 percent. DOE estimated these 

manufacturers markups based on 

information obtained during 

manufacturer interviews. Modifying 

these manufacturer markups in the 

standards case yields different sets of 

impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, 

DOE modeled two standards-case 

markup scenarios to represent 

uncertainty regarding the potential 

impacts on prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the 

implementation of new energy 

conservation standards: (1) a conversion 

cost recovery markup scenario; and (2) 

a preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario. These scenarios lead 

to different manufacturer markup values 

that, when applied to the MPCs, result 

in varying revenue and cash flow 

impacts. 

Under the conversion cost recovery 

markup scenario, DOE modeled a 

scenario in which manufacturers 

increase their markups in response to 

new energy conservation standards. For 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3797 

ELs that DOE’s engineering analysis 

assumed would require an aerodynamic 

redesign, the engineering analysis 

assumed there is no increase in the 

MPCs (for the ELs that are assumed 

would require an aerodynamic 

redesign). However, DOE did assume 

that fan and blower manufacturers will 

incur conversion costs to redesign noncompliant models. Therefore, DOE 

modeled a manufacturer markup 

scenario in which fan and blower 

manufacturers attempt to recover the 

investments they must make to conduct 

these aerodynamic redesigns through an 

increase in their manufacturer markup. 

Therefore, in the standards cases, the 

manufacturer markup of models that 

would need to be re-designed is larger 

than the manufacturer markup used in 

the no-new-standards case. DOE 

calibrated these manufacturer markups, 

in the standards case conversion cost 

recovery scenario, for each equipment 

class at each EL to cause the 

manufacturer INPV in the standards 

cases to be approximately equal to the 

manufacturer INPV in the no-newstandards case. In this markup scenario, 

manufacturers earn additional revenue 

in the standards cases after the 

compliance date that offsets the 

conversion costs that were incurred 

prior to the compliance date. This 

represents the upper-bound of 

manufacturer profitability, as in this 

manufacturer markup scenario as 

measured by INPV, fan and blower 

manufacturers are able to fully recover 

their conversion costs by the end of the 

30-year analysis period. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, DOE modeled a 

markup scenario where manufacturers 

are not able to increase their per-unit 

operating profit in proportion to 

increases in MPCs. Under this scenario, 

as the MPCs increase, manufacturers 

reduce their markups (on a percentage 

basis) to a level that maintains the nonew-standards operating profit (in 

absolute dollars). The implicit 

assumption behind this manufacturer 

markup scenario is that the industry can 

only maintain its operating profit in 

absolute dollars after compliance with 

new standards. Therefore, the 

percentage of the operating margin is 

reduced between the no-new-standards 

case and the analyzed standards cases. 

DOE adjusted the manufacturer 

markups in the GRIM at each TSL to 

yield approximately the same earnings 

before interest and taxes in the 

standards case as in the no-newstandards case. This manufacturer 

markup scenario represents the lower 

bound to industry profitability under 

new energy conservation standards. 

A comparison of industry financial 

impacts under the two manufacturer 

markup scenarios is presented in 

section V.B.2.a of this document. 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE interviewed a variety of fan and 

blower manufacturers prior to 

conducting this NOPR analysis. During 

these interviews, DOE asked 

manufacturers to describe their major 

concerns regarding this rulemaking. The 

following section highlights 

manufacturer concerns that helped 

inform the projected potential impacts 

of a new standard on the industry. 

Manufacturer interviews are conducted 

under non-disclosure agreements 

(‘‘NDAs’’), so DOE does not document 

these discussions in the same way that 

it does public comments in the 

comment summaries and DOE’s 

responses throughout the rest of this 

document. 

Embedded Fans 

Several fan and blower manufacturers 

stated that they are concerned that 

including fans and blowers that are 

embedded in other products or 

equipment already regulated by DOE 

creates redundant regulations. 

Additionally, manufacturers stated that 

the electricity used by the fan or blower 

in these systems is a relatively 

insignificant portion of the energy 

consumed by the entire system. Lastly, 

manufacturers stated that increasing the 

efficiency of a fan or blower used in a 

product or equipment already regulated 

by DOE could limit the effectiveness of 

a future energy conservation standard 

on the performance of those products or 

equipment covered by DOE. 

DOE is proposing to exclude fans and 

blowers that are embedded in specific 

types of equipment. Table III–1 lists the 

embedded fans and blowers that are 

excluded from the scope of this energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

Testing Costs and Burden 

Several fan and blower manufacturers 

stated that a concern that compliance 

with energy conservation standards 

would require fan and blower 

manufacturers to test all covered fans 

and blowers. Manufacturers specifically 

are concerned that the legacy testing 

data that they have already conducted 

for the AMCA certification testing 

program would need to be re-tested to 

demonstrate compliance with a DOE 

energy conservation standard. As stated 

in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE 

understands that manufacturers of fans 

and blowers likely have historical test 

data which were developed with 

methods consistent with the DOE test 

procedure adopted in the May 2023 

Final Rule, and does not expect 

manufacturers to regenerate all of the 

historical test data unless the rating 

resulting from the historical methods 

would no longer be valid. 88 FR 27312, 

27378. 

Additionally, manufacturers were 

concerned that requiring a test sample 

of two fans or blowers would be overly 

burdensome for manufacturers to 

comply with an energy conservation 

standard. As stated in the May 2023 TP 

Final Rule ‘‘DOE believe it is 

appropriate to allow a minimum of one 

unit for fans and blowers other than air 

circulating fans’’ to be tested to comply 

with any DOE energy conservation 

standard. 88 FR 27312, 27378. 

Lastly, some manufacturers were 

concerned that if DOE did not allow the 

use of an alternative energy 

determination method (‘‘AEDM’’) to 

determine fan performance, 

manufacturers would have to physically 

test all covered fans and blowers. 

Manufacturers stated that physically 

testing every fan and blower would 

place a larger and costly testing burden 

on manufacturers. As stated in the May 

2023 TP Final Rule, ‘‘DOE allows the 

use of an AEDM in lieu of testing to 

determine fan performance, which 

would mitigate the potential cost 

associated with having to physically test 

units.’’ 88 FR 27312, 27372. 

4. Discussion of MIA Comments 

AHRI stated that for end-use products 

(i.e., a product or equipment that has a 

fan or blower embedded in it) testing 

must take place following internal 

component swaps or cabinet redesigns. 

This testing could include seismic and 

wind load testing for HVAC equipment 

installed exterior to the building; 

electric heat, safety, refrigerant, and 

sound testing for heating equipment; 

and transportation, vibration, and sound 

testing for most end-use products. AHRI 

stated that testing lab availability is 

limited at this time, given the wideranging changes in refrigerant and safety 

standards requirements, and standards 

that result in a redesign to accommodate 

a new fan will impact virtually every 

model of HVACR product on the 

market. (AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 5–6) DOE 

acknowledges that end-use products 

may have to be re-test if the current fan 

that they use does not meet the adopted 

energy conservation standards. 

However, DOE’s engineering analysis 

primarily examined replacement fans 

and blowers with the same diameter and 

would not require a cabinet redesign for 

an end-use product. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3798 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

112Available at: www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_

apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12, 2021). 

113For further information, see the Assumptions 

to AEO2023 report that sets forth the major 

assumptions used to generate the projections in the 

Annual Energy Outlook. Available at: www.eia.gov/ 

outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed February 

6, 2023). 

AHRI stated that there is a significant 

monetary impact for OEMs for a fan 

swap, as a significant amount of retesting and potential re-certification 

would need to be conducted for a fan 

swap, even if the size of the cabinet 

does not change. AHRI stated that based 

on a review of their AHRI Certification 

Program they identified approximately 

6,000 basic models that have a covered 

fan embedded in these end-use 

products. AHRI continued by stating 

they estimate it would cost 

approximately $300,000 for each enduse product basic model that would be 

required to incorporate a new fan if the 

existing fan used in their end-use 

product does not comply with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards for that 

fan. (AHRI, No. 130 at p. 6–7) DOE 

acknowledges that OEMs may incur retesting and re-certification costs if the 

fan used in their equipment does not 

meet the adopted energy conservation 

standard for fans. The MIA for this 

rulemaking specifically examines the 

conversion costs that fan and blower 

manufacturers would incur due to the 

analyzed energy conservation standards 

for fans and blowers in comparison to 

the revenue and free cash fan and 

blower manufacturers receive. The OEM 

testing and certification costs were not 

included in the MIA, and neither were 

the OEM revenues and free cash flows, 

as these costs and revenue are not 

specific to fan and blower 

manufacturers. 

MIAQ also stated that redesign of the 

end-use product to accommodate a new 

fan will result in retesting and possible 

recertification and model number 

changes for end-use products, which 

will be a massive, costly, and timeconsuming undertaking (and could even 

cause a disruption in the market) as 

there would be changes to electrical, 

physical, or functional characteristics of 

the end-use product that affect energy 

consumption/efficiency. (MIAQ, No. 

124 at pp. 2–3) DOE is proposing to 

exclude fans that are embedded in 

commercial HVAC equipment that is 

already covered by DOE energy 

conservation standards as well as a 

variety of other products. The full list of 

embedded fans proposed for exclusion 

from the scope of this energy 

conservation standards rulemaking can 

be found in Table III–1. 

DOE requests comment on the 

number of end-use product (i.e., a 

product or equipment that has a fan or 

blower embedded in it) basic models 

that would not be excluded by the list 

of products or equipment listed in Table 

III–1. 

MIAQ and AHRI stated that it was not 

realistic to expect manufacturers to 

comply with any energy conservation 

standards within 180 days. (MIAQ, No. 

124 at p. 2–3; AHRI, No. 130 at p. 5) 

DOE notes that the May 2023 TP Final 

Rule stated that beginning 180 days after 

the publication of the May 2023 TP 

Final Rule, any representations made 

with respect to energy use or efficiency 

of fans or blowers must be made based 

on testing in accordance with the May 

2023 TP Final Rule. Neither the May 

2023 TP Final Rule nor this NOPR 

requires that fan and blower 

manufacturers meet a minimum energy 

conservation standard 180 days after the 

publication of the May 2023 TP Final 

Rule. Compliance with any energy 

conservation standards would not be 

required until 5 years after publication 

of the energy conservation standard 

final rule. 

AHRI expressed concern about unfair 

advantage given to imported HVAC 

products that may not need to comply 

with components regulations. AHRI 

stated that imported HVAC products 

with embedded fans are excluded from 

the fan and blower energy conservation 

standard, but fans assembled into 

similar equipment manufactured 

domestically would be subject to DOE 

energy conservation standards (AHRI, 

No. 130, at p. 4) DOE is proposing to 

require fans and blowers that are 

imported in HVAC products to comply 

with the energy conservation standards 

established in this rulemaking as long as 

those products or equipment are not 

listed in Table III–1. This is the same 

requirement that applies to fans and 

blowers that are assembled into the 

same equipment manufactured 

domestically. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

The emissions analysis consists of 

two components. The first component 

estimates the effect of potential energy 

conservation standards on power sector 

and site (where applicable) combustion 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 

The second component estimates the 

impacts of potential standards on 

emissions of two additional greenhouse 

gases, CH4 and N2O, as well as the 

reductions to emissions of other gases 

due to ‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel 

production chain. These upstream 

activities comprise extracting, 

processing, and transporting fuels to the 

site of combustion. 

The analysis of electric power sector 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg 

uses emissions factors intended to 

represent the marginal impacts of the 

change in electricity consumption 

associated with amended or new 

standards. The methodology is based on 

results published for the AEO, including 

a set of side cases that implement a 

variety of efficiency-related policies. 

The methodology is described in 

appendix 13A of the NOPR TSD. The 

analysis presented in this notice uses 

projections from AEO2023. Power sector 

emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel 

combustion are estimated using 

Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories published by the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA).112

FFC upstream emissions, which 

include emissions from fuel combustion 

during extraction, processing, and 

transportation of fuels, and ‘‘fugitive’’ 

emissions (direct leakage to the 

atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2, are 

estimated based on the methodology 

described in chapter 15 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

The emissions intensity factors are 

expressed in terms of physical units per 

MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. 

For power sector emissions, specific 

emissions intensity factors are 

calculated by sector and end use. Total 

emissions reductions are estimated 

using the energy savings calculated in 

the national impact analysis. 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated 

in DOE’s Analysis 

DOE’s no-new-standards case for the 

electric power sector reflects the AEO, 

which incorporates the projected 

impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO2023 

generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations, 

including recent government actions, 

that were in place at the time of 

preparation of AEO2023, including the 

emissions control programs discussed in 

the following paragraphs.113

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (‘‘EGUs’’) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States and the District of 

Columbia (DC). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) 

SO2 emissions from numerous States in 

the eastern half of the United States are 

also limited under the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (‘‘CSAPR’’). 76 FR 48208 

(Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these 

States to reduce certain emissions, 

including annual SO2 emissions, and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3799 

114CSAPR requires States to address annual 

emissions of SO2 and NOX, precursors to the 

formation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(‘‘NAAQS’’). CSAPR also requires certain States to 

address the ozone season (May–September) 

emissions of NOX, a precursor to the formation of 

ozone pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

EPA subsequently issued a supplemental rule that 

included an additional five States in the CSAPR 

ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 

(Supplemental Rule). 

went into effect as of January 1, 

2015.114 AEO2023 incorporates 

implementation of CSAPR, including 

the update to the CSAPR ozone season 

program emission budgets and target 

dates issued in 2016. 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 

26, 2016). Compliance with CSAPR is 

flexible among EGUs and is enforced 

through the use of tradable emissions 

allowances. Under existing EPA 

regulations, any excess SO2 emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand caused by the 

adoption of an efficiency standard could 

be used to permit offsetting increases in 

SO2 emissions by another regulated 

EGU. 

However, beginning in 2016, SO2

emissions began to fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(‘‘MATS’’) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 

(Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final rule, 

EPA established a standard for hydrogen 

chloride as a surrogate for acid gas 

hazardous air pollutants (‘‘HAP’’), and 

also established a standard for SO2 (a 

non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative 

equivalent surrogate standard for acid 

gas HAP. The same controls are used to 

reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; 

thus, SO2 emissions are being reduced 

as a result of the control technologies 

installed on coal-fired power plants to 

comply with the MATS requirements 

for acid gas. In order to continue 

operating, coal power plants must have 

either flue gas desulfurization or dry 

sorbent injection systems installed. Both 

technologies, which are used to reduce 

acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2

emissions. Because of the emissions 

reductions under the MATS, it is 

unlikely that excess SO2 emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand would be needed or 

used to permit offsetting increases in 

SO2 emissions by another regulated 

EGU. Therefore, energy conservation 

standards that decrease electricity 

generation would generally reduce SO2

emissions. DOE estimated SO2

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO2023. 

CSAPR also established limits on NOX

emissions for numerous States in the 

eastern half of the United States. Energy 

conservation standards would have 

little effect on NOX emissions in those 

States covered by CSAPR emissions 

limits if excess NOX emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in NOX

emissions from other EGUs. In such 

case, NOX emissions would remain near 

the limit even if electricity generation 

goes down. A different case could 

possibly result, depending on the 

configuration of the power sector in the 

different regions and the need for 

allowances, such that NOX emissions 

might not remain at the limit in the case 

of lower electricity demand. In this case, 

energy conservation standards might 

reduce NOX emissions in covered 

States. Despite this possibility, DOE has 

chosen to be conservative in its analysis 

and has maintained the assumption that 

standards will not reduce NOX

emissions in States covered by CSAPR. 

Energy conservation standards would be 

expected to reduce NOX emissions in 

the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE 

used AEO2023 data to derive NOX

emissions factors for the group of States 

not covered by CSAPR. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would be expected to slightly reduce Hg 

emissions. DOE estimated mercury 

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO2023, which 

incorporates the MATS. 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

proposed rule, for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866, DOE considered 

the estimated monetary benefits from 

the reduced emissions of CO2, CH4, 

N2O, NOX, and SO2 that are expected to 

result from each of the TSLs considered. 

In order to make this calculation 

analogous to the calculation of the NPV 

of consumer benefit, DOE considered 

the reduced emissions expected to 

result over the lifetime of products 

shipped in the projection period for 

each TSL. This section summarizes the 

basis for the values used for monetizing 

the emissions benefits and presents the 

values considered in this NOPR. 

To monetize the benefits of reducing 

GHG emissions, this analysis uses the 

interim estimates presented in the 

Technical Support Document: Social 

Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous 

Oxide Interim Estimates Under 

Executive Order 13990 published in 

February 2021 by the IWG. 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

DOE estimates the monetized benefits 

of the reductions in emissions of CO2, 

CH4, and N2O by using a measure of the 

SC of each pollutant (e.g., SC–CO2). 

These estimates represent the monetary 

value of the net harm to society 

associated with a marginal increase in 

emissions of these pollutants in a given 

year, or the benefit of avoiding that 

increase. These estimates are intended 

to include (but are not limited to) 

climate-change-related changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health, 

property damages from increased flood 

risk, disruption of energy systems, risk 

of conflict, environmental migration, 

and the value of ecosystem services. 

DOE exercises its own judgment in 

presenting monetized climate benefits 

as recommended by applicable 

Executive orders, and DOE would reach 

the same conclusion presented in this 

proposed rulemaking in the absence of 

the social cost of greenhouse gases. That 

is, the social costs of greenhouse gases, 

whether measured using the February 

2021 interim estimates presented by the 

Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases or by 

another means, did not affect the rule 

ultimately proposed by DOE. 

DOE estimated the global social 

benefits of CO2, CH4, and N2O 

reductions using SC–GHG values that 

were based on the interim values 

presented in the Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, 

Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim 

Estimates under Executive Order 13990, 

published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

The SC–GHGs is the monetary value of 

the net harm to society associated with 

a marginal increase in emissions in a 

given year, or the benefit of avoiding 

that increase. In principle, SC–GHGs 

includes the value of all climate change 

impacts, including (but not limited to) 

changes in net agricultural productivity, 

human health effects, property damage 

from increased flood risk and natural 

disasters, disruption of energy systems, 

risk of conflict, environmental 

migration, and the value of ecosystem 

services. The SC–GHGs therefore 

reflects the societal value of reducing 

emissions of the gas in question by one 

metric ton. The SC–GHGs is the 

theoretically appropriate value to use in 

conducting benefit-cost analyses of 

policies that affect CO2, N2O and CH4

emissions. As a member of the IWG 

involved in the development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, DOE 

agrees that the interim SC–GHG 

estimates represent the most appropriate 

estimate of the SC–GHG until revised 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3800 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

115Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. 

Newbold, and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and 

N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the US 

Government’s SC-CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 

2015. 15(2): pp. 272–298. 

116National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating 

Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. 

2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, 

DC. 

estimates have been developed 

reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed 

science. 

The SC–GHGs estimates presented 

here were developed over many years, 

using transparent process, peerreviewed methodologies, the best 

science available at the time of that 

process, and with input from the public. 

Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, which 

included the DOE and other executive 

branch agencies and offices, was 

established to ensure that agencies were 

using the best available science and to 

promote consistency in the social cost of 

carbon (SC-CO2) values used across 

agencies. The IWG published SC-CO2

estimates in 2010 that were developed 

from an ensemble of three widely cited 

integrated assessment models (IAMs) 

that estimate global climate damages 

using highly aggregated representations 

of climate processes and the global 

economy combined into a single 

modeling framework. The three IAMs 

were run using a common set of input 

assumptions in each model for future 

population, economic, and CO2

emissions growth, as well as 

equilibrium climate sensitivity—a 

measure of the globally averaged 

temperature response to increased 

atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These 

estimates were updated in 2013 based 

on new versions of each IAM. In August 

2016, the IWG published estimates of 

the social cost of methane (SC-CH4) and 

nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) using 

methodologies that are consistent with 

the methodology underlying the SC-CO2

estimates. The modeling approach that 

extends the IWG SC-CO2 methodology 

to non-CO2 GHGs has undergone 

multiple stages of peer review. The SCCH4 and SC-N2O estimates were 

developed by Marten et al.115 and 

underwent a standard double-blind peer 

review process prior to journal 

publication. In 2015, as part of the 

response to public comments received 

to a 2013 solicitation for comments on 

the SC-CO2 estimates, the IWG 

announced a National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

review of the SC-CO2 estimates to offer 

advice on how to approach future 

updates to ensure that the estimates 

continue to reflect the best available 

science and methodologies. In January 

2017, the National Academies released 

their final report, Valuing Climate 

Damages: Updating Estimation of the 

Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and 

recommended specific criteria for future 

updates to the SC-CO2 estimates, a 

modeling framework to satisfy the 

specified criteria, and both near-term 

updates and longer-term research needs 

pertaining to various components of the 

estimation process (National 

Academies, 2017).116 Shortly thereafter, 

in March 2017, President Trump issued 

Executive Order 13783, which 

disbanded the IWG, withdrew the 

previous TSDs, and directed agencies to 

ensure SC-CO2 estimates used in 

regulatory analyses are consistent with 

the guidance contained in OMB’s 

Circular A–4, ‘‘including with respect to 

the consideration of domestic versus 

international impacts and the 

consideration of appropriate discount 

rates’’ (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). 

Benefit-cost analyses following E.O. 

13783 used SC–GHG estimates that 

attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific 

share of climate change damages as 

estimated by the models and were 

calculated using two discount rates 

recommended by Circular A–4, 3 

percent and 7 percent. All other 

methodological decisions and model 

versions used in SC–GHG calculations 

remained the same as those used by the 

IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively. 

On January 20, 2021, President Biden 

issued Executive Order 13990, which reestablished the IWG and directed it to 

ensure that the U.S. Government’s 

estimates of the social cost of carbon 

and other greenhouse gases reflect the 

best available science and the 

recommendations of the National 

Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked 

with first reviewing the SC–GHG 

estimates currently used in Federal 

analyses and publishing interim 

estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that 

reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions, including by taking global 

damages into account. The interim SC– 

GHG estimates published in February 

2021 are used here to estimate the 

climate benefits for this proposed 

rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG 

to update the interim SC–GHG estimates 

by January 2022 taking into 

consideration the advice of the National 

Academies of Science, Engineering, and 

Medicine as reported in Valuing Climate 

Damages: Updating Estimation of the 

Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide (2017) 

and other recent scientific literature. 

The February 2021 SC–GHG TSD 

provides a complete discussion of the 

IWG’s initial review conducted under 

E.O. 13990. In particular, the IWG found 

that the SC–GHG estimates used under 

E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact 

of GHG emissions in multiple ways. 

First, the IWG found that the SC–GHG 

estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to 

fully capture many climate impacts that 

affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and 

residents, and those impacts are better 

reflected by global measures of the SC– 

GHG. Examples of omitted effects from 

the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct 

effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and 

investments located abroad; supply 

chains, U.S. military assets and interests 

abroad, and tourism; and spillover 

pathways such as economic and 

political destabilization and global 

migration that can lead to adverse 

impacts on U.S. national security, 

public health, and humanitarian 

concerns. In addition, assessing the 

benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation 

activities requires consideration of how 

those actions may affect mitigation 

activities by other countries, as those 

international mitigation actions will 

provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 

residents by mitigating climate impacts 

that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A 

wide range of scientific and economic 

experts have emphasized the issue of 

reciprocity as support for considering 

global damages of GHG emissions. If the 

United States does not consider impacts 

on other countries, it is difficult to 

convince other countries to consider the 

impacts of their emissions on the United 

States. The only way to achieve an 

efficient allocation of resources for 

emissions reduction on a global basis— 

and so benefit the United States and its 

citizens—is for all countries to base 

their policies on global estimates of 

damages. As a member of the IWG 

involved in the development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, DOE 

agrees with this assessment and, 

therefore, in this proposed rule DOE 

centers attention on a global measure of 

SC–GHG. This approach is the same as 

that taken in DOE regulatory analyses 

from 2012 through 2016. A robust 

estimate of climate damages that accrue 

only to U.S. citizens and residents does 

not currently exist in the literature. As 

explained in the February 2021 TSD, 

existing estimates are both incomplete 

and an underestimate of total damages 

that accrue to the citizens and residents 

of the U.S. because they do not fully 

capture the regional interactions and 

spillovers discussed above, nor do they 

include all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of 

climate change recognized in the 

climate change literature. As noted in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3801 

117 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Carbon. Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis under Executive Order 12866. 2010. 

United States Government. Available at: 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/ 

documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf (last accessed April 

15, 2022); Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon. Technical Update of the Social Cost 

of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866. 2013. Available at: 

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/ 

2013-28242/technical-support-document-technicalupdate-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatoryimpact (last accessed April 15, 2022); Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, 

United States Government. Technical Support 

Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under 

Executive Order 12866. August 2016. Available at: 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/ 

documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf (last 

accessed January 18, 2022); Interagency Working 

Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United 

States Government. Addendum to Technical 

Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for 

Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 

12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate 

the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of 

Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. Available at: 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/ 

documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_

2016.pdf (last accessed January 18, 2022). 

118 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and 

Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 

Order 13990. February. United States Government. 

Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ 

blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidencebased-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climatepollution/. 

IWG will continue to review 

developments in the literature, 

including more robust methodologies 

for estimating a U.S.-specific SC–GHG 

value, and explore ways to better inform 

the public of the full range of carbon 

impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE 

will continue to follow developments in 

the literature pertaining to this issue. 

Second, the IWG found that the use of 

the social rate of return on capital (7 

percent under current OMB Circular A– 

4 guidance) to discount the future 

benefits of reducing GHG emissions 

inappropriately underestimates the 

impacts of climate change for the 

purposes of estimating the SC–GHG. 

Consistent with the findings of the 

National Academies (2017) and the 

economic literature, the IWG continued 

to conclude that the consumption rate of 

interest is the theoretically appropriate 

discount rate in an intergenerational 

context 117 and recommended that 

discount rate uncertainty and relevant 

aspects of intergenerational ethical 

considerations be accounted for in 

selecting future discount rates. 

Furthermore, the damage estimates 

developed for use in the SC–GHG are 

estimated in consumption-equivalent 

terms, and so an application of OMB 

Circular A–4’s guidance for regulatory 

analysis would then use the 

consumption discount rate to calculate 

the SC–GHG. DOE agrees with this 

assessment and will continue to follow 

developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes 

that while OMB Circular A–4, as 

published in 2003, recommends using 3 

percent and 7 percent discount rates as 

‘‘default’’ values, Circular A–4 also 

reminds agencies that ‘‘different 

regulations may call for different 

emphases in the analysis, depending on 

the nature and complexity of the 

regulatory issues and the sensitivity of 

the benefit and cost estimates to the key 

assumptions.’’ On discounting, Circular 

A–4 recognizes that ‘‘special ethical 

considerations arise when comparing 

benefits and costs across generations,’’ 

and Circular A–4 acknowledges that 

analyses may appropriately ‘‘discount 

future costs and consumption benefits 

. . . at a lower rate than for 

intragenerational analysis.’’ In the 2015 

Response to Comments on the Social 

Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG 

members recognized that ‘‘Circular A–4 

is a living document’’ and ‘‘the use of 

7 percent is not considered appropriate 

for intergenerational discounting. There 

is wide support for this view in the 

academic literature, and it is recognized 

in Circular A–4 itself.’’ Thus, DOE 

concludes that a 7% discount rate is not 

appropriate to apply to value the social 

cost of greenhouse gases in the analysis 

presented in this analysis. 

To calculate the present and 

annualized values of climate benefits, 

DOE uses the same discount rate as the 

rate used to discount the value of 

damages from future GHG emissions, for 

internal consistency. That approach to 

discounting follows the same approach 

that the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD 

recommends ‘‘to ensure internal 

consistency—i.e., future damages from 

climate change using the SC–GHG at 2.5 

percent should be discounted to the 

base year of the analysis using the same 

2.5 percent rate.’’ DOE has also 

consulted the National Academies’ 2017 

recommendations on how SC–GHG 

estimates can ‘‘be combined in RIAs 

with other cost and benefits estimates 

that may use different discount rates.’’ 

The National Academies reviewed 

several options, including ‘‘presenting 

all discount rate combinations of other 

costs and benefits with [SC–GHG] 

estimates.’’ As a member of the IWG 

involved in the development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, DOE 

agrees with the above assessment and 

will continue to follow developments in 

the literature pertaining to this issue. 

While the IWG works to assess how best 

to incorporate the latest, peer-reviewed 

science to develop an updated set of 

SC–GHG estimates, it set the interim 

estimates to be the most recent estimates 

developed by the IWG prior to the group 

being disbanded in 2017. The estimates 

rely on the same models and 

harmonized inputs and are calculated 

using a range of discount rates. As 

explained in the February 2021 SC– 

GHG TSD, the IWG has recommended 

that agencies revert to the same set of 

four values drawn from the SC–GHG 

distributions based on three discount 

rates as were used in regulatory analyses 

between 2010 and 2016 and were 

subject to public comment. For each 

discount rate, the IWG combined the 

distributions across models and 

socioeconomic emissions scenarios 

(applying equal weight to each) and 

then selected a set of four values 

recommended for use in benefit-cost 

analyses: an average value resulting 

from the model runs for each of three 

discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 percent, 

and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, 

selected as the 95th percentile of 

estimates based on a 3 percent discount 

rate. The fourth value was included to 

provide information on potentially 

higher-than-expected economic impacts 

from climate change. As explained in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, and 

DOE agrees, this update reflects the 

immediate need to have an operational 

SC–GHG for use in regulatory benefitcost analyses and other applications that 

is developed using a transparent 

process, peer-reviewed methodologies, 

and the science available at the time of 

that process. Those estimates were 

subject to public comment in the 

context of dozens of proposed 

rulemakings as well as in a dedicated 

public comment period in 2013. 

There are a number of limitations and 

uncertainties associated with the SC– 

GHG estimates. First, the current 

scientific and economic understanding 

of discounting approaches suggests 

discount rates appropriate for 

intergenerational analysis in the context 

of climate change are likely to be less 

than 3 percent, near 2 percent or 

lower.118 Second, the IAMs used to 

produce these interim estimates do not 

include all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of 

climate change recognized in the 

climate change literature and the 

science underlying their ‘‘damage 

functions’’ (i.e., the core parts of the 

IAMs that map global mean temperature 

changes and other physical impacts of 

climate change into economic (both 

market and nonmarket) damages) lags 

behind the most recent research. For 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3802 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

119For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses 

how the understanding of discounting approaches 

suggests that discount rates appropriate for 

intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 

change may be lower than 3 percent. 120See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, Washington, DC, 

December 2021. Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/ 

Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013ORN.pdf (last 

accessed January 13, 2023). 

example, limitations include the 

incomplete treatment of catastrophic 

and non-catastrophic impacts in the 

integrated assessment models, their 

incomplete treatment of adaptation and 

technological change, the incomplete 

way in which inter-regional and 

intersectoral linkages are modeled, 

uncertainty in the extrapolation of 

damages to high temperatures, and 

inadequate representation of the 

relationship between the discount rate 

and uncertainty in economic growth 

over long-time horizons. Likewise, the 

socioeconomic and emissions scenarios 

used as inputs to the models do not 

reflect new information from the last 

decade of scenario generation or the full 

range of projections. The modeling 

limitations do not all work in the same 

direction in terms of their influence on 

the SC–CO2 estimates. However, as 

discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the 

IWG has recommended that, taken 

together, the limitations suggest that the 

interim SC–GHG estimates used in this 

proposed rule likely underestimate the 

damages from GHG emissions. DOE 

concurs with this assessment. 

DOE’s derivations of the SC–CO2, SC– 

N2O, and SC–CH4 values used for this 

NOPR are discussed in the following 

sections, and the results of DOE’s 

analyses estimating the benefits of the 

reductions in emissions of these GHGs 

are presented in section IV.L.1.a of this 

document. 

a. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SC–CO2 values used for this 

NOPR were based on the values 

presented for the IWG’s February 2021 

TSD. Table IV shows the updated sets 

of SC–CO2 estimates from the IWG’s 

TSD in 5-year increments from 2020 to 

2050. The full set of annual values that 

DOE used is presented in appendix 14– 

A of the NOPR TSD. For purposes of 

capturing the uncertainties involved in 

regulatory impact analysis, DOE has 

determined it is appropriate include all 

four sets of SC–CO2 values, as 

recommended by the IWG.119

For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC–CO2

estimates published by EPA, adjusted to 

2020$.120 These estimates are based on 

methods, assumptions, and parameters 

identical to the 2020–2050 estimates 

published by the IWG (which were 

based on EPA modeling). DOE expects 

additional climate benefits to accrue for 

any longer-life fans and blowers after 

2070, but a lack of available SC–CO2

estimates for emissions years beyond 

2070 prevents DOE from monetizing 

these potential benefits in this analysis. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SC–CO2 value for that year in each of 

the four cases. DOE adjusted the values 

to 2022 dollars using the implicit price 

deflator for gross domestic product 

(‘‘GDP’’) from the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. To calculate a present value of 

the stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

four cases using the specific discount 

rate that had been used to obtain the 

SC–CO2 values in each case. 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values used 

for this NOPR were based on the values 

developed for the February 2021 TSD. 

Table IV–23 shows the updated sets of 

SC–CH4 and SC–N2O estimates from the 

latest interagency update in 5-year 

increments from 2020 to 2050. The full 

set of annual values used is presented 

in appendix 14–A of the NOPR TSD. To 

capture the uncertainties involved in 

regulatory impact analysis, DOE has 

determined it is appropriate to include 

all four sets of SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

values, as recommended by the IWG. 

DOE derived values after 2050 using the 

approach described above for the SC– 

CO2. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.043</GPH>

Table IV-22 Annual SC-CO2 Values from 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050 

(2020$ per Metric Ton CO2) 

Discount Rate and Statistic 

Year 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Avera2e Avera2e Avera2e 95th percentile 

2020 14 51 76 152 

2025 17 56 83 169 

2030 19 62 89 187 

2035 22 67 96 206 

2040 25 73 103 225 

2045 28 79 ll0 242 

2050 32 85 ll6 260 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3803 

121See Estimating the Benefit per Ton of 

Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from 21 Sectors. 

Available at: www.epa.gov/benmap/estimatingbenefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors. 

122See U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User 

Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling 

System (RIMS II). 1997. U.S. Government Printing 

Office: Washington, DC. Available at: https://

apps.bea.gov/scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/ 

rims2.pdf (last accessed March 27, 2023). 

DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O 

emissions reduction estimated for each 

year by the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates for that year in each of the 

cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2022 

dollars using the implicit price deflator 

for gross domestic product (‘‘GDP’’) 

from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

To calculate a present value of the 

stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

cases using the specific discount rate 

that had been used to obtain the SC–CH4

and SC–N2O estimates in each case. 

2. Monetization of Other Emissions 

Impacts 

For the NOPR, DOE estimated the 

monetized value of NOX and SO2

emissions reductions from electricity 

generation using the latest benefit per 

ton estimates for that sector from the 

EPA’s Benefits Mapping and Analysis 

Program.121 DOE used EPA’s values for 

PM2.5-related benefits associated with 

NOX and SO2 and for ozone-related 

benefits associated with NOX for 2025, 

2030, and 2040, calculated with 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent. DOE used linear interpolation 

to define values for the years not given 

in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years 

beyond 2040 the values are held 

constant. DOE combined the EPA 

benefit per ton estimates with regional 

information on electricity consumption 

and emissions to define weightedaverage national values for NOX and 

SO2 as a function of sector (see 

appendix 14B of the NOPR TSD). DOE 

multiplied the site emissions reduction 

(in tons) in each year by the associated 

$/ton values, and then discounted each 

series using discount rates of 3 percent 

and 7 percent as appropriate. 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

the changes in installed electrical 

capacity and generation projected to 

result for each considered TSL. The 

analysis is based on published output 

from the NEMS associated with 

AEO2023. NEMS produces the AEO 

Reference case, as well as a number of 

side cases that estimate the economywide impacts of changes to energy 

supply and demand. For the current 

analysis, impacts are quantified by 

comparing the levels of electricity sector 

generation, installed capacity, fuel 

consumption and emissions in the 

AEO2023 Reference case and various 

side cases. Details of the methodology 

are provided in the appendices to 

chapters 13 and 15 of the NOPR TSD. 

The output of this analysis is a set of 

time-dependent coefficients that capture 

the change in electricity generation, 

primary fuel consumption, installed 

capacity and power sector emissions 

due to a unit reduction in demand for 

a given end use. These coefficients are 

multiplied by the stream of electricity 

savings calculated in the NIA to provide 

estimates of selected utility impacts of 

potential new or amended energy 

conservation standards. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a proposed standard. 

Employment impacts from new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

include both direct and indirect 

impacts. Direct employment impacts are 

any changes in the number of 

employees of manufacturers of the 

equipment subject to standards, their 

suppliers, and related service firms. The 

MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect 

employment impacts are changes in 

national employment that occur due to 

the shift in expenditures and capital 

investment caused by the purchase and 

operation of more efficient appliances. 

Indirect employment impacts from 

standards consist of the net jobs created 

or eliminated in the national economy, 

other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, caused by (1) reduced 

spending by consumers on energy, (2) 

reduced spending on new energy supply 

by the utility industry, (3) increased 

consumer spending on the equipment to 

which the new standards apply and 

other goods and services, and (4) the 

effects of those three factors throughout 

the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (‘‘BLS’’). BLS regularly 

publishes its estimates of the number of 

jobs per million dollars of economic 

activity in different sectors of the 

economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy.122 There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital-intensive and less 

labor-intensive than other sectors. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing consumer utility bills. 

Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.044</GPH>

Table IV-23 Annual SC-CH4 and SC-N2O Values from 2021 Interagency Update, 

2020-2050 (2020$ per Metric Ton) 

SC-CH4 SC-N20 

Discount Rate and Statistic Discount Rate and Statistic 

Year 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 

95th 

Average Average Average 

95th 

percentile percentile 

2020 670 1500 2000 3900 5800 18000 27000 48000 

2025 800 1700 2200 4500 6800 21000 30000 54000 

2030 940 2000 2500 5200 7800 23000 33000 60000 

2035 llOO 2200 2800 6000 9000 25000 36000 67000 

2040 1300 2500 3100 6700 10000 28000 39000 74000 

2045 1500 2800 3500 7500 12000 30000 42000 81000 

2050 1700 3100 3800 8200 13000 33000 45000 88000 
3804 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

123Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and 

R.W. Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies Model Description and User Guide. 

2015. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: 

Richland, WA. PNNL–24563. 124Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this 

NOPR are discussed in section IV.C of this 

document. Results by efficiency level are presented 

in NOPR TSD chapter 8. 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and service sectors). Thus, the BLS data 

suggest that net national employment 

may increase due to shifts in economic 

activity resulting from energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE estimated indirect national 

employment impacts for the standard 

levels considered in this NOPR using an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies version 4 (‘‘ImSET’’).123

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (‘‘I–O’’) model, which was 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model containing structural coefficients 

that characterize economic flows among 

187 sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use. 

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 

equilibrium forecasting model, and that 

the uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts especially changes 

in the later years of the analysis. 

Because ImSET does not incorporate 

price changes, the employment effects 

predicted by ImSET may overestimate 

actual job impacts over the long run for 

this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET 

only to generate results for near-term 

timeframes (2034), where these 

uncertainties are reduced. For more 

details on the employment impact 

analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to the considered energy 

conservation standards for GFBs and 

ACFs. It addresses the TSLs examined 

by DOE, the projected impacts of each 

of these levels if adopted as energy 

conservation standards for GFBs and 

ACFs, and the standards levels that DOE 

is proposing to adopt in this NOPR. 

Additional details regarding DOE’s 

analyses are contained in the NOPR 

TSD supporting this document. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

In general, DOE typically evaluates 

potential standards for products and 

equipment by grouping individual 

efficiency levels for each class into 

TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to 

identify and consider manufacturer cost 

interactions between the equipment 

classes, to the extent that there are such 

interactions, and market cross elasticity 

from consumer purchasing decisions 

that may change when different 

standard levels are set. 

For GFBs, in the analysis conducted 

for this NOPR, DOE analyzed the 

benefits and burdens of 6 TSLs. DOE 

developed TSLs that combine efficiency 

levels for each analyzed equipment 

class. 

Table V–1 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding efficiency levels that 

DOE has identified for potential new 

energy conservation standards for GFBs. 

TSL 6 represents the max-tech energy 

efficiency for all product classes. TSL 5 

represents the highest efficiency level 

with positive LCC savings. TSL 4 is an 

intermediate level consisting of the next 

level below TSL 5 with positive LCC 

savings. TSL 3 is an intermediate level 

consisting of the same level as TSL 4 or 

in the next level below TSL 4 with 

positive LCC savings and above TSL 2, 

where available. TSL 2 represents a 

combination of efficiency levels that 

correspond to a FEI of 1 across all 

equipment classes as required in 

ASHRAE 90.1, except for Axial Power 

Roof Ventilator—Exhaust, where it is set 

one efficiency level lower due to 

negative LCC savings at the EL 

corresponding to a FEI value of 1 (EL 5). 

TSL 1 represents combination of 

efficiency levels that corresponds to one 

efficiency level below the efficiency 

level corresponding to a FEI value of 1. 

DOE constructed the TSLs for this 

NOPR to include ELs representative of 

ELs with similar characteristics (i.e., 

using similar technologies and/or 

efficiencies, and having roughly 

comparable equipment availability). The 

use of representative ELs provided for 

greater distinction between the TSLs. 

DOE did not consider ELs for which the 

average LCC savings were negative other 

than for TSL 6 (max-tech). While 

representative ELs were included in the 

TSLs, DOE considered all efficiency 

levels as part of its analysis.124


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.045</GPH>

Table V-1 Trial Standard Levels for GFBs 

Equipment Class TSLl TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 TSL6 

Axial Inline Fans ELI EL2 EL3 EL3 EL4 EL5 

Axial Panel Fans ELI EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL5 

Centrifugal Housed Fans ELI EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL5 

Centrifugal Inline Fans EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 EL6 

Centrifugal Unhoused Fans ELI ELI EL3 EL4 EL5 EL5 

Axial Power Roof-Ventilator - EL4 EL4 EL4 EL4 EL4 EL7 

Exhaust 

Centrifugal Power Roof-Ventilator - EL3 EL4 EL4 EL4 EL4 EL6 

Exhaust 

Centrifugal Power Roof-Ventilator - EL3 EL4 EL5 EL5 EL6 EL6 

Supply 

Radial Housed Fans EL2 EL3 EL4 EL4 EL5 EL5 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3805 

125Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this 

NOPR are discussed in section IV.C.1.b of this 

document. Results by efficiency level are presented 

in NOPR TSD chapters 8. 

For ACFs, in the analysis conducted 

for this NOPR, DOE analyzed the 

benefits and burdens of six TSLs. DOE 

developed TSLs that combine efficiency 

levels for each analyzed equipment 

class. 

Table V–2 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding efficiency levels that 

DOE has identified for potential new 

energy conservation standards for ACFs. 

TSL 6 represents the max-tech energy 

efficiency for all equipment classes. TSL 

5 represents a level corresponding to EL 

5 for all axial ACFs and EL 3 for housed 

centrifugal ACFs. It represents the 

highest EL below max-tech with 

positive LCC savings. TSL 4 is 

constructed with the same efficiency 

level EL 4 for all axial ACFs and 

represents EL 0 for housed centrifugal 

ACFs. Similarly, TSL 3 through TSL 1 

represent levels corresponding to EL 3 

through EL 1 for all axial ACFs and EL 

0 for housed centrifugal ACFs. 

DOE constructed the TSLs for this 

NOPR to include ELs representative of 

ELs with similar characteristics (i.e., 

using similar technologies within 

similar equipment classes). DOE did not 

consider EL 1 through EL 2 for housed 

centrifugal ACFs as the average LCC 

savings are negative at these levels for 

this equipment class. While 

representative ELs were included in the 

TSLs, DOE considered all efficiency 

levels as part of its analysis.125

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on fan and blower consumers by looking 

at the effects that potential new 

standards at each TSL would have on 

the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined 

the impacts of potential standards on 

selected consumer subgroups. These 

analyses are discussed in the following 

sections. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

In general, higher-efficiency 

equipment affects 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 

equipment lifetime and a discount rate. 

Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD provides 

detailed information on the LCC and 

PBP analyses. 

Table V–3 through Table V–20 show 

the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs 

considered for each equipment class for 

GFBs. Table V–21 through Table V–28 

show the LCC and PBP results for the 

TSLs considered for each equipment 

class for ACFs. The simple payback and 

other impacts are measured relative to 

the efficiency distribution in the nonew-standards case in the compliance 

year (see section IV.F.8 of this 

document). Because the average LCC 

savings refer only to consumers who are 

affected by a standard at a given TSL, 

the average savings are greater than the 

difference between the average LCC in 

the no-new-standards case and the 

average LCC at each TSL. The savings 

refer only to consumers who are affected 

by a standard at a given TSL. Those who 

already purchase equipment with 

efficiency at or above a given TSL are 

not affected. Consumers for whom the 

LCC increases at a given TSL experience 

a net cost. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.046</GPH> EP19JA24.047</GPH>

Table V-2 Trial Standard Levels for ACFs 

Eauiument Class TSLl TSL2 TSL3 TSIA TSL5 TSL6 

Axial ACFs; 12" s D < 36" (ACFl) ELI EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 

Axial ACFs; 36" s D < 48" (ACF2) ELI EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 

Axial ACFs; 48" s D (ACF3) ELI EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 

Housed Centrifugal ACFs (ACF4) ELO ELO ELO ELO EL3 EL6 

Table V-3 Avera2e LCC and PBP Results for Axial Inline Fans 

A vera2e Costs (2022$) Simple First Average 

TSL Efficiency Installed Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime Level Cost Operating Operating LCC Period (years) 

Cost Cost (years) 

- 0 11,748 1,690 20,464 32,212 - 27.6 

1 1 11,756 1,682 20,364 32,120 1.0 27.6 

2 2 11,873 1,669 20,209 32,082 5.8 27.6 

3-4 3 12,465 1,616 19,563 32,028 9.6 27.6 

5 4 13,704 1,490 18,034 31,738 9.8 27.6 

6 5 18,129 1,334 16,148 34,276 17.9 27.6 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the no-new-standards case. 
3806 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.048</GPH> EP19JA24.049</GPH> EP19JA24.050</GPH>

Table V-4 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Axial 

Inline Fans 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings 

TSL Efficiency Level Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that 

(2022$) Experience Net Cost 

- 0 - - 1 1 1,766 0.9% 

2 2 1,029 7.5% 

3-4 3 550 23.6% 

5 4 670 51.3% 

6 5 -2,169 79.3% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

Table V-5 Average LCC and PBP Results for Axial Panel Fans 

Average Costs (2022$) Simple First Average 

TSL Efficiency Installed Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime Level Cost Operating Operating LCC Period (years) 

Cost Cost (years) 

- 0 6,304 782 7,575 13,879 - 15.2 

1 1 6,434 770 7,461 13,895 10.9 15.2 

2 2 6,452 750 7,268 13,720 4.7 15.2 

3 3 6,499 688 6,654 13,153 2.1 15.2 

4 4 6,597 607 5,864 12,460 1.7 15.2 

5-6 5 6,922 530 5,120 12,042 2.5 15.2 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the no-new standards case. 

Table V-6 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Axial 

Panel Fans 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings 

TSL Efficiency Level Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that 

(2022$) Experience Net Cost 

- 0 - - 1 1 -194 6.3% 

2 2 802 7.3% 

3 3 1,413 11.0% 

4 4 1,702 19.5% 

5-6 5 1,902 29.9% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3807 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.051</GPH> EP19JA24.052</GPH> EP19JA24.053</GPH>

Table V-7 Avera2e LCC and PBP Results for Centrifu2al Housed Fans 

A vera2e Costs (2022$) Simple First Average 

TSL Efficiency Installed Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime Level Cost Operating Operating LCC Period (years) 

Cost Cost (years) 

- 0 9,734 1,750 17,492 27,227 - 15.0 

1 1 9,742 1,710 17,128 26,871 0.2 15.0 

2 2 9,755 1,692 16,951 26,706 0.4 15.0 

3 3 9,779 1,636 16,421 26,200 0.4 15.0 

4 4 9,868 1,531 15,397 25,266 0.6 15.0 

5-6 5 10,825 1,397 14,065 24,890 3.1 15.0 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the no-new standards case. 

Table V-8 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for 

Centrifu2al Housed Fans 

Life-Cycle Cost Savin2s 

TSL Efficiency Level Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that 

(2022$) Experience Net Cost 

- 0 - - 1 1 1,714 1.5% 

2 2 1,977 2.4% 

3 3 2,092 6.0% 

4 4 2,423 12.9% 

5-6 5 2,398 41.5% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

T a e bl V -9A vera2e LCC an d PBP R esu It s t or C t en r1 'f u1ia I I nme I' F ans 

A vera2e Costs (2022$) Simple First Average 

TSL Efficiency Installed Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime Level Cost Operating Operating LCC Period (years) 

Cost Cost (years) 

- 0 10,598 1,180 11,996 22,593 - 16.7 

- 1 10,623 1,168 11,880 22,503 2.2 16.7 

1 2 10,751 1,159 11,791 22,542 7.6 16.7 

2 3 10,674 1,107 11,267 21,941 1.1 16.7 

3 4 11,325 1,080 10,993 22,318 7.3 16.7 

4 5 11,858 972 9,899 21,757 6.1 16.7 

5-6 6 13,457 865 8,809 22,265 9.1 16.7 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the no-new standards case. 
3808 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.054</GPH> EP19JA24.055</GPH> EP19JA24.056</GPH>

Table V-10 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for 

Centrifu2al Inline Fans 

Life-Cycle Cost Sa vines 

TSL Efficiency Level Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that 

(2022$) Experience Net Cost 

- 0 - - - 1 L073 3.4% 

1 2 355 9.9% 

2 3 L389 4.6% 

3 4 454 36.6% 

4 5 955 49.2% 

5-6 6 335 66.7% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

Table V-11 Avera2e LCC and PBP Results for Centrifu2al Unhoused Fans 

A vera2e Costs (2022$) Simple First Average 

TSL Efficiency Installed Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime Level Cost Operating Operating LCC Period (years) 

Cost Cost (years) 

- 0 8,983 1,482 14,318 23,301 - 14.9 

1-2 1 9,006 1,475 14,252 23,258 3.5 14.9 

- 2 9,085 1,466 14,172 23,256 6.7 14.9 

3 3 9,086 1,441 13,932 23,018 2.6 14.9 

4 4 9,118 1,368 13,223 22,341 1.2 14.9 

5-6 5 9,199 L257 12,148 21.346 1.0 14.9 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the no-new standards case. 

Table V-12 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for 

Centrifu2al U nhoused Fans 

Life-Cycle Cost Sa vines 

TSL Efficiency Level Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that 

(2022$) Experience Net Cost 

- 0 - - 1-2 1 1,009 2.2% 

- 2 433 7.0% 

3 3 884 4.8% 

4 4 1,170 10.5% 

5-6 5 2,004 13.7% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3809 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.057</GPH> EP19JA24.058</GPH>

Table V-13 Average LCC and PBP Results for Axial Power Roof-Ventilator -

APRV 

A veraee Costs (2022$) Simple First Average 

TSL Efficiency Installed Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime Level Cost Operating Operating LCC Period (years) 

Cost Cost (years) 

- 0 9,488 1,085 11,173 20,661 - 17.5 

- 1 9,652 1,063 10,940 20,592 7.5 17.5 

- 2 9,665 1,058 10,884 20,549 6.5 17.5 

- 3 9,470 1,050 10,803 20,273 NIA 17.5 

1-5 4 9,958 1,017 10,458 20,416 7.0 17.5 

- 5 11,695 945 9,704 21,399 15.8 17.5 

- 6 14,382 802 8,232 22,614 17.3 17.5 

6 7 22,584 687 7,046 29,630 32.9 17.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to the 

no-new standards case. The entry "NI A" means not applicable because there is a decrease in average installed 

costs at higher TSLs compared to the no-new-standards case. 

Table V-14 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Axial 

Power Roof-Ventilator - APRV 

Life-Cycle Cost Savin es 

TSL Efficiency Level Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that 

(2022$) Experience Net Cost 

- 0 - - - 1 1,132 4.0% 

- 2 1,076 5.9% 

- 3 2,988 1.8% 

1-5 4 945 14.3% 

- 5 -1,463 41.7% 

- 6 -2,402 68.3% 

6 7 -9 470 89.0% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 
3810 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.059</GPH> EP19JA24.060</GPH> EP19JA24.061</GPH>

Table V-15 Average LCC and PBP Results for Centrifugal Power Roof VentilatorExhaust CPRV 

A vera2e Costs (2022$) Simple First Average 

TSL Efficiency Installed Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime Level Cost Operating Operating LCC Period (years) 

Cost Cost (years) 

- 0 7,213 582 5,809 13,023 - 16.0 

- 1 7,303 575 5,746 13,049 14.0 16.0 

- 2 7,248 574 5,732 12,980 4.4 16.0 

1 3 7,409 560 5,591 13,000 9.0 16.0 

2-5 4 7,608 537 5J60 12,968 8.9 16.0 

- 5 8,267 490 4,879 13J46 11.5 16.0 

6 6 10,570 434 4,326 14,896 22.8 16.0 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the no-new standards case. 

Table V-16 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for 

C t en ri "f u !a I P R f V ower 00 en fl I a t E h t or- x aus CPRV 

Life-Cycle Cost Savin2s 

TSL Efficiency Level Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that 

(2022$) Experience Net Cost 

- 0 - - - 1 -339 5.8% 

- 2 468 4.9% 

1 3 122 13.1% 

2-5 4 154 25.8% 

- 5 -178 53.7% 

6 6 -1,992 84.7% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

Table V-17 Average LCC and PBP Results for Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator -

Supply CPRV 

A vera2e Costs (2022$) Simple First Average 

TSL Efficiency Installed Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime Level Cost Operating Operating LCC Period (years) 

Cost Cost (years) 

- 0 6,538 529 5,239 11,777 - 15.9 

- 1 6,680 522 5,175 11,855 22.9 15.9 

- 2 6,541 519 5,141 11,682 0.3 15.9 

1 3 6,577 503 4,981 11,558 1.5 15.9 

2 4 6,613 478 4,734 11,347 1.5 15.9 

3-4 5 6,714 426 4,211 10,925 1.7 15.9 

5-6 6 6,961 377 3,727 10,688 2.8 15.9 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the no-new standards case. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3811 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.062</GPH> EP19JA24.063</GPH> EP19JA24.064</GPH>

Table V-18 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for 

Centrifu~al Power Roof Ventilator - Supply CPRV 

Lif e-Cvcle Cost Savine:s 

TSL Efficiency Level Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that 

(2022$) Experience Net Cost 

- 0 - - - 1 -1,228 5.5% 

- 2 932 3.1% 

1 3 831 8.8% 

2 4 827 16.5% 

3-4 5 973 24.9% 

5-6 6 1,126 32.3% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

Table V-19 Averae:e LCC and PBP Results for Radial Housed Fans 

A verae:e Costs (2022$) Simple First Lifetime Average 

TSL Efficiency Installed Year's Operating Payback Lifetime Level LCC Period Cost Operating Cost (years) (years) 

Cost 

- 0 11,072 2,498 31,987 43,059 - 28.7 

- 1 11,111 2,487 31,851 42,962 3.6 28.7 

1 2 11,131 2,478 31,743 42,874 3.0 28.7 

2 3 11,177 2,459 31,499 42,676 2.7 28.7 

3-4 4 11,349 2,330 29,831 41,180 1.7 28.7 

5-6 5 11,944 2,104 26,923 38,867 2.2 28.7 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the no-new standards case. 

Table V-20 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for 

Radial Housed Fans 

Lif e-Cvcle Cost Savine:s 

TSL Efficiency Level Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that 

(2022$) Experience Net Cost 

- 0 - - - 1 1,337 2.8% 

1 2 1,708 3.3% 

2 3 2,145 5.1% 

3-4 4 3,714 13.3% 

5-6 5 5,391 24.4% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 
3812 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.065</GPH> EP19JA24.066</GPH>

Table V-21 Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: Axial ACF, 12" < 

D <36" (ACFl) 

A vera2e Costs (2022$) Simple First Average Efficiency Lifetime Payback Installed Year's Lifetime TSL Level Cost Operating Operating LCC Period (years) Cost (years) Cost 

- 0 297 95 498 795 - 6.3 

1 1* 297 95 498 795 - 6.3 

2 2 297 95 497 794 2.7 6.3 

3 3 298 88 461 759 0.2 6.3 

4 4 313 62 327 640 0.5 6.3 

5 5 445 41 219 664 2.8 6.3 

6 6 484 35 188 672 3.1 6.3 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the no-new standards case. 

*ELO =ELI 

Table V-22 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for 

Axial ACF, 12" < D <36" (ACFl) 

Life-Cycle Cost Savine:s 

TSL Efficiency Level Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that 

(2022$) Experience Net Cost 

- 0 - - 1 I** - - 2 2 35 0.1% 

3 3 495 0.0% 

4 4 327 0.2% 

5 5 141 40.4% 

6 6 126 45.1% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

**ELO=ELl 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3813 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.067</GPH> EP19JA24.068</GPH> EP19JA24.069</GPH>

Table V-23 Avera2e LCC and PBP Results for Axial ACF, 36" < D <48" (ACF2) 

A vera2e Costs (2022$) Simple First Average 

TSL Efficiency Installed Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime Level Cost Operating Operating LCC Period (years) 

Cost Cost (years) 

- 0 561 166 870 1,431 - 6.3 

I I 556 164 859 1,415 NIA 6.3 

2 2 558 162 849 1,407 NIA 6.3 

3 3 560 147 770 1,329 NIA 6.3 

4 4 575 100 527 1,103 0.2 6.3 

5 5 717 71 374 1,091 1.6 6.3 

6 6 762 61 323 I 085 1.9 6.3 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the no-new standards case. The entry "NI A" means not applicable because there is a decrease in average 

installed costs at higher TSLs compared to the no-new standards case. 

Table V-24 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Axial 

ACF, 36" < D <48" (ACF2) 

Life-Cycle Cost Savin2s 

TSL Efficiency Level Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that 

(2022$) Experience Net Cost 

- 0 - - 1 1 297 0.0% 

2 2 291 0.2% 

3 3 606 0.0% 

4 4 478 0.0% 

5 5 341 22.7% 

6 6 346 23.6% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

Table V-25 Avera2e LCC and PBP Results for Axial ACF, 48" < D (ACF3) 

A vera2e Costs (2022$) Simple First Average 

TSL Efficiency Installed Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime Level Cost Operating Operating LCC Period (years) 

Cost Cost (years) 

- 0 939 305 I 595 2 533 - 6.3 

I I 932 303 I 579 2,511 NIA 6.3 

2 2 935 299 1,560 2,495 NIA 6.3 

3 3 936 274 1,432 2,368 NIA 6.3 

4 4 954 197 1,029 1,983 0.1 6.3 

5 5 1,093 158 829 I 923 I.I 6.3 

6 6 1,161 141 742 1,903 1.4 6.3 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the no-new standards case. The entry "NI A" means not applicable because there is a decrease in average 

installed costs at higher TSLs compared to the no-new standards case. 
3814 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In the consumer subgroup analysis, 

DOE estimated the impact of the 

considered TSLs on small businesses. 

Table V–29 and Table V–30 compare the 

average LCC savings and PBP at each 

efficiency level for the consumer 

subgroup with similar metrics for the 

entire consumer sample for GFBs and 

ACFs, respectively. In most cases, the 

average LCC savings and PBP for small 

businesses at the considered TSLs are 

not substantially different from the 

average for all consumers. Chapter 11 of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.070</GPH> EP19JA24.071</GPH> EP19JA24.072</GPH>

Table V-26 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Axial 

ACF, 48" ~ D (ACF3) 

Lif e-Cvcle Cost Savine:s 

TSL Efficiency Level Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that 

(2022$) Experience Net Cost 

- 0 - - 1 1 343 0.0% 

2 2 587 0.0% 

3 3 628 0.0% 

4 4 668 0.0% 

5 5 613 9.3% 

6 6 630 11.3% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

Table V-27 Averae:e LCC and PBP Results for Housed Centrifue:al ACFs (ACF4) 

A verae:e Costs (2022$) Simple First Average 

TSL Efficiency Installed Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime Level Cost Operating Operating LCC Period (years) 

Cost Cost (years) 

1-4 0 250 93 490 740 - 6.3 

- 1* 250 93 490 740 - 6.3 

- 2 253 93 488 741 7.8 6.3 

5 3 307 81 428 735 4.8 6.3 

- 4 535 56 295 830 7.7 6.3 

- 5 1,675 37 198 1,873 25.5 6.3 

6 6 1,779 32 171 1,950 25.0 6.3 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the no-new standards case. 

*ELO = ELI 

Table V-28 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for 

Housed Centrifue:al ACFs (ACF4) 

Life-Cycle Cost Savin~s 

TSL Efficiency Level Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that 

(2022$) Experience Net Cost 

1-4 0 - -

- 1 ** - -

- 2 -25 3.2% 

5 3 18 14.1% 

- 4 -118 60.0% 

- 5 -1.164 97.2% 

6 6 -1.210 99.7% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

**ELO =ELI 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3815 

the NOPR TSD presents the complete 

LCC and PBP results for the subgroup. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.073</GPH>

Table V-29 Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Small Businesses and All 

Consumers; GFBs 

Average LCC Savings* Simple Payback Consumers with Net 

2022$ years Cost(%) 

TSL EL 

Small All Small All Small All 

Businesses Businesses Businesses Businesses Businesses Businesses 

Axial Inline Fans 

- 0 - - - - - - 1 1 1,533 1,766 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 

2 2 771 1,029 5.4 5.8 8.2 7.5 

3-4 3 164 550 9.0 9.6 25.1 23.6 

5 4 162 670 9.1 9.8 53.4 51.3 

6 5 -2,841 -2,169 16.8 17.9 82.1 79.4 

Axial Panel 
3816 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.074</GPH>

- 0 - - - - - -

1 1 -49 -194 8.4 10.9 6.1 6.3 

2 2 967 802 3.6 4.7 6.7 7.3 

3 3 1,613 1,413 1.6 2.1 9.8 11.0 

4 4 1,942 1,702 1.3 1.7 17.4 19.5 

5-6 5 2,212 1,902 1.9 2.5 26.6 29.9 

Centrifugal Housed 

- 0 - - - - - -

l 1 2,026 1,714 0.2 0.2 1.2 1.5 

2 2 2,346 1,977 0.3 0.4 2.0 2.4 

3 3 2,463 2,092 0.3 0.4 5.1 6.0 

4 4 2,813 2,423 0.5 0.6 11.4 12.9 

5-6 5 2,852 2,398 2.3 3.1 37.7 41.5 

Centrifugal Inline 

- 0 - - - - - - - l 1,192 1,073 1.7 2.2 3.2 3.4 

1 2 482 355 5.9 7.6 9.5 9.9 

2 3 1,516 1,389 0.8 1.1 4.2 4.6 

3 4 588 454 5.7 7.3 34.5 36.6 

4 5 1,134 955 4.8 6.1 45.9 49.2 

5-6 6 562 335 7.2 9.1 63.6 66.7 

Centrifugal Unhoused 

- 0 - - - - - - 1-2 1 1235 1,009 2.6 3.5 2.1 2.2 

- 2 658 433 5.0 6.7 6.6 7.0 

3 3 1,075 884 1.9 2.6 4.2 4.8 

4 4 1,366 1,170 0.9 1.2 9.1 10.5 

5-6 5 2 326 2,004 0.7 1.0 11.7 13.7 

Axial Power Roof Ventilator 

- 0 - - - - - - - 1 1,220 1,132 6.1 7.5 4.1 4.0 

- 2 1147 1,076 5.3 6.5 5.8 5.9 

- 3 3 069 2,988 NIA NIA 1.6 1.8 

1-5 4 1,037 945 5.6 7.0 14.1 14.3 

- 5 -1,336 -1,463 12.6 15.8 41.3 41.7 

- 6 -2.218 -2.402 13.8 17.3 67.6 68.3 

6 7 -9.236 -9.470 26.1 32.9 88.6 89.0 

Centrifugal Power Roof-Ventilator - Exhaust 

- 0 - - - - - - - 1 -282 -339 11.0 14.0 5.6 5.8 

- 2 529 468 3.5 4.4 4.8 4.9 

1 3 210 122 7.1 9.0 12.6 13.1 

2-5 4 251 154 7.0 8.9 24.7 25.8 

- 5 -69 -178 9.0 11.5 51.6 53.7 

6 6 -1853 -1992 17.7 22.8 83.1 84.7 

Centrifugal Power Roof-Ventilator - Supply 

- 0 - - - - - - - 1 -1,159 -1,228 18.1 22.9 5.4 5.5 

- 2 996 933 0.2 0.3 2.9 3.2 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3817 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.075</GPH>

1 3 904 831 1.2 1.5 8.1 8.8 

2 4 913 827 1.2 1.5 14.9 16.5 

3-4 5 1.088 973 1.3 1.7 22.1 24.9 

5-6 6 1.283 1,126 2.2 2.8 29.2 32.3 

Radial Housed 

- 0 - - - - - - - 1 979 1338 3.6 3.6 3.2 2.8 

1 2 1270 1708 3.1 3.0 4.0 3.3 

2 3 1601 2145 2.7 2.7 6.0 5.1 

3-4 4 2847 3714 1.7 1.7 15.6 13.3 

5-6 5 4067 5391 2.2 2.2 28.3 24.4 

The entry "NI A" means not applicable because there is a decrease in average installed costs at higher TSLs 

compared to the no-new-standards case. 
3818 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section III.F.2, EPCA 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that an energy conservation standard is 

economically justified if the increased 

purchase cost for equipment that meets 

the standard is less than three times the 

value of the first-year energy savings 

resulting from the standard. In 

calculating a rebuttable presumption 

payback period for each of the 

considered TSLs, DOE used discrete 

values and, as required by EPCA, based 

the energy use calculation on the DOE 

test procedure for fans and blowers. In 

contrast, the PBPs presented in section 

V.B.1.a were calculated using 

distributions that reflect the range of 

energy use in the field. 

Table V–31 and Table V–32 present 

the rebuttable-presumption payback 

periods for the considered TSLs for 

GFBs and ACFs. While DOE examined 

the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it 

considered whether the standard levels 

considered for the NOPR are 

economically justified through a more 

detailed analysis of the economic 

impacts of those levels, pursuant to 42 

U.S.C 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), 

that considers the full range of impacts 

to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, 

and environment. The results of that 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

definitively evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level, thereby supporting or rebutting 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.076</GPH>

Table V-30 Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Small Businesses and All 

Consumers; ACFs 

Average LCC Savings* Simple Payback Consumers with Net 

2022$ years Cost(%) 

TSL EL 

Small All Small All Small All 

Businesses Businesses Businesses Businesses Businesses Businesses 

Axial ACF, 12" < D <36" 

- 0 - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 2 2 33 35 2.6 2.7 0.1 0.1 

3 3 504 495 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 

4 4 335 327 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 

5 5 148 141 2.6 2.8 40.1 40.4 

6 6 133 126 2.9 3.1 45.0 45.1 

Axial ACF, 36" ~ D <48" 

- 0 - - - - - - 1 1 300 297 NIA NIA 0.0 0.0 

2 2 296 291 NIA NIA 0.2 0.2 

3 3 618 606 NIA NIA 0.0 0.0 

4 4 489 478 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 

5 5 351 341 1.5 1.6 22.9 22.7 

6 6 358 346 1.8 1.9 23.8 23.6 

Axial ACF, 48" < D 

- 0 - - - - - - 1 1 347 343 NIA NIA 0.0 0.0 

2 2 597 587 NIA NIA 0.0 0.0 

3 3 643 628 NIA NIA 0.0 0.0 

4 4 684 668 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 

5 5 632 613 1.0 1.1 9.5 9.3 

6 6 651 630 1.2 1.4 11.5 11.3 

Housed Centrifugal ACFS 

1-4 0 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - -

- 2 -11 -25 5.7 7.8 2.6 3.2 

5 3 80 18 3.5 4.8 11.1 14.1 

- 4 -47 -118 5.6 7.7 51.7 60.0 

- 5 -1,080 -1,164 18.7 25.5 96.2 97.2 

6 6 -1,121 -1,210 18.3 25.0 98.8 99.7 

The entry "NI A" means not applicable because there is a decrease in average installed costs at higher TSLs 

compared to the no-new-standards case. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3819 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic justification. 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of new energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers of fans and 

blowers. The following section 

describes the expected impacts on 

manufacturers at each considered TSL. 

Chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD explains 

the analysis in further detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

In this section, DOE provides GRIM 

results from the analysis, which 

examines changes in the industry that 

would result from new standards. The 

following tables summarize the 

estimated financial impacts (represented 

by changes in INPV) of potential new 

energy conservation standards on 

manufacturers of fans and blowers, as 

well as the conversion costs that DOE 

estimates manufacturers of fans and 

blowers would incur at each TSL. DOE 

analyzes the potential impacts on INPV 

separately for ACFs and GFBs. To 

evaluate the range of cash flow impacts 

on the fan and blower industry, DOE 

modeled two manufacturer markup 

scenarios using different assumptions 

that correspond to the range of 

anticipated market responses to new 

energy conservation standards: (1) the 

conversion cost recovery markup 

scenario and (2) the preservation of 

operating profit markup scenario. 

To assess the less severe end of the 

range of potential impacts, DOE 

modeled a conversion cost recovery 

markup scenario in which 

manufacturers are able to increase their 

manufacturer markups in response to 

new energy conservation standards. To 

assess the more severe end of the range 

of potential impacts, DOE modeled a 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario in which manufacturers are not 

able to maintain their original 

manufacturer markup, used in the nonew-standards case, in the standards 

cases. Instead, manufacturers maintain 

the same operating profit (in absolute 

dollars) in the standards cases as in the 

no-new-standards case, despite higher 

MPCs. 

Each of the modeled manufacturer 

markup scenarios results in a unique set 

of cash flows and corresponding 

industry values at the given TSLs for 

each group of fan and blower 

manufacturers. In the following 

discussion, the INPV results refer to the 

difference in industry value between the 

no-new-standards case and each 

standards case resulting from the sum of 

discounted cash flows from 2024 

through 2059. To provide perspective 

on the short-run cash flow impact, DOE 

includes in the discussion of results a 

comparison of free cash flow between 

the no-new-standards case and the 

standards case at each TSL in the year 

before new standards take effect. 

DOE presents the range in INPV for 

GFB manufacturers in Table V–33 and 

Table V–34 and the range in INPV for 

ACF manufacturers in Table V–36 and 

Table V–37. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.077</GPH> EP19JA24.078</GPH>

Table V-31 Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods for GFBs 

Rebuttable Payback Period 

Equipment Class years 

TSL 1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL 5 TSL6 

Axial lnline Fans 1.0 5.9 9.7 9.7 9.8 17.9 

Axial Panel Fans 10.8 4.6 2.1 1.7 2.5 2.5 

Centrifugal Housed Fans 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 3.1 3.1 

Centrifugal lnline Fans 7.6 1.1 7.3 6.1 9.1 9.1 

Centrifugal Unhoused Fans 3.5 3.5 2.6 1.2 1.0 1.0 

Axial Power Roof Ventilator 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 32.9 

Centrifugal Power Roof-Ventilator - 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 22.8 Exhaust 

Centrifugal Power Roof-Ventilator - 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 2.8 2.8 Supply 

Radial Housed Fans 3.0 2.7 1.7 1.7 2.2 2.2 

Table V-32 Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods for ACFs 

Rebuttable Payback Period 

Equipment Class years 

TSL 1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSLS TSL6 

Axial ACFs; 12" :!. D < 36" - 2.6 0.2 0.5 2.8 3.1 

Axial ACFs; 36" :!. D < 48" N/A N/A N/A 0.2 1.6 1.9 

Axial ACFs; 48" :!. D N/A N/A N/A 0.1 1.1 1.4 

Housed Centrifugal ACFs - - - - 25.5 25.0 

The entry "NI A" means not applicable because there is a decrease in average installed costs at higher TSLs 

compared to the no-new standards case. 
3820 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

General Fans and Blowers 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

At TSL 6, for GFB manufacturers, 

DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will 

range from ¥$2,287 million to $40 

million, which represents a change of 

¥46.4 percent to 0.8 percent, 

respectively. At TSL 6, industry free 

cash flow decreases to ¥$1,132 million, 

which represents a decrease of 

approximately 336 percent, compared to 

the no-new-standards case value of $480 

million in 2029, the year before the 

modeled compliance year. The negative 

cash flow in the years leading up to the 

modeled compliance date implies that 

most, if not all, GFB manufacturers will 

need to borrow funds in order to make 

the investments necessary to comply 

with standards. This has the potential to 

significantly alter the market dynamics 

as some smaller manufacturers may not 

be able to secure this funding and could 

exit the market as a result of standards 

set at TSL 6. 

TSL 6 would set energy conservation 

standards at max-tech for all GFBs. DOE 

estimates that approximately 4 percent 

of the GFB shipments would already 

meet the efficiency levels required at 

TSL 6 in 2030, in the no-new-standards 

case. Therefore, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers would have to redesign 

models representing approximately 96 

percent of GFB shipments by the 

estimated compliance date. It is unclear 

if most GFB manufacturers would have 

the engineering capacity to complete the 

necessary redesigns within the 5-year 

compliance period. If manufacturers 

require more than 5 years to redesign 

their non-compliant GFB models, they 

will likely prioritize redesigns based on 

sales volume, which could result in 

customers not being able to obtain 

compliant GFBs covering the duty 

points that they require. 

At TSL 6, DOE expects GFB 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$698 million in product conversion 

costs to conduct aerodynamic redesigns 

for non-compliant GFB models. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.079</GPH> EP19JA24.080</GPH> EP19JA24.081</GPH>

Table V-33 Industry Net Present Value for General Fans and Blowers-Conversion 

Cost Recovery Markup Scenario 

No-New Trial Standard Levels 

Units Standards 1 2 3 4 5 Case 

INPV 2022$ millions 4,935 4,948 4,940 4,936 4,936 4,946 

Change 2022$ millions - 13 5 1 1 11 

inINPV % - 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Table V-34 Industry Net Present Value for General Fans and BlowersPreservation of Operatin2 Profit Scenario 

No-New Trial Standard Levels 

Units Standards 1 2 3 4 5 Case 

INPV 2022$ 4,935 4,907 4,847 4,697 4,479 3,671 millions 

Change 2022$ (28) (87) (238) (455) (1,263) millions - inINPV % - (0.6) (1.8) (4.8) (9.2) (25.6) 

Table V-35 Cash Flow Analysis for General Fans and Blowers 

No-New Trial Standard Levels 

Units Standards 1 2 3 4 5 Case 

Free Cash 2022$ 480 463 420 316 161 (407) Flow (2029) millions 

Change in 2022$ (17.3) (59.7) (164.4) (318.5) (886.7) Free Cash millions -

Flow (2029) % - (3.6) (12.4) (34.3) (66.4) (184.8) 

Product 2022$ Conversion millions - 20 62 154 260 435 

Costs 

Capital 2022$ Conversion millions - 23 86 248 510 1,640 

Costs 

Total 2022$ Conversion millions - 43 147 402 770 2,075 

Costs 

6 

4,975 

40 

0.8 

6 

2,647 

(2,287) 

(46.4) 

6 

(1,132) 

(1,612.2) 

(335.9) 

698 

3,052 

3,750 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3821 

Additionally, GFB manufacturers would 

incur approximately $3,052 million in 

capital conversion costs to purchase 

new tooling and equipment necessary to 

produce compliant GFB models to meet 

these energy conservation standards. 

In the conversion cost recovery 

markup scenario, manufacturers 

increase their manufacturer markups to 

fully recover the conversion costs they 

incur to redesign non-compliant 

equipment. At TSL 6, the $3,750 million 

in conversion costs are fully recovered, 

over the 30-year analysis period, 

causing INPV at TSL 6 to remain 

approximately equal to the no-newstandards case INPV in this conversion 

cost recovery scenario. Given the large 

size of the conversion costs, 

approximately 1.3 times the sum of the 

annual free cash flows over the years 

between the estimated final rule 

announcement date and the estimated 

standards year (i.e., the time period that 

these conversion costs would be 

incurred), it is highly unlikely that the 

GFB market will accept the large 

increases in the MSPs that would be 

needed for GFB manufacturers to fully 

recover these conversion costs, making 

the MSPs that result from this 

manufacturer markup scenario less 

likely to be obtained by manufacturers. 

This represents the upper-bound, or 

least-severe impact, on manufacturer 

profitability and is the manufacturer 

markup scenario used in all downstream consumer analyses. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments 

or potentially higher MPCs. In this 

scenario, the shipment weighted average 

MPC increases by approximately 2.2 

percent, causing a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $3,750 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a significantly 

negative change in INPV at TSL 6 in this 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario. This represents the lowerbound, or most severe impact, on 

manufacturer profitability. 

At TSL 5, for GFB manufacturers, 

DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will 

range from ¥$1,263 million to $11 

million, which represents a change of 

¥25.6 percent to 0.2 percent, 

respectively. At TSL 5, industry free 

cash flow decreases to ¥$407 million, 

which represents a decrease of 

approximately 185 percent, compared to 

the no-new-standards case value of $480 

million in 2029, the year before the 

modeled compliance year. The negative 

cash flow in the years leading up to the 

modeled compliance date implies that 

most, if not all, GFB manufacturers will 

need to borrow funds in order to make 

the investments necessary to comply 

with standards. This has the potential to 

significantly alter the market dynamics 

as some smaller manufacturers may not 

be able to secure this funding and could 

exit the market as a result of standards 

set at TSL 5. 

TSL 5 would set energy conservation 

standards for axial inline fans at EL 4; 

axial panel fans at EL 5; centrifugal 

housed fans at EL 5; centrifugal inline 

fans at EL 6; centrifugal unhoused fans 

at EL 5; axial PRVs at EL 4; centrifugal 

PRV exhaust fans at EL 4; centrifugal 

PRV supply fans at EL 6; and radial 

housed fans at EL 5. DOE estimates that 

approximately 7 percent of the GFB 

shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels required at 

TSL 5 in 2030, in the no-new-standards 

case. Therefore, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers would have to redesign 

models representing approximately 93 

percent of GFB shipments by the 

estimated compliance date. It is unclear 

if most GFB manufacturers would have 

the engineering capacity to complete the 

necessary redesigns within the 5-year 

compliance period. If manufacturers 

require more than 5 years to redesign 

their non-compliant GFB models, they 

will likely prioritize redesigns based on 

sales volume, which could result in 

customers not being able to obtain 

compliant GFBs covering the duty 

points that they require. 

At TSL 5, DOE expects GFB 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$435 million in product conversion 

costs to conduct aerodynamic redesigns 

for non-compliant GFB models. 

Additionally, GFB manufacturers would 

incur approximately $1,640 million in 

capital conversion costs to purchase 

new tooling and equipment necessary to 

produce compliant GFB models to meet 

these energy conservation standards. 

In the conversion cost recovery 

markup scenario, manufacturers 

increase their manufacturer markups to 

fully recover the conversion costs they 

incur to redesign non-compliant 

equipment. At TSL 5, the $2,075 million 

in conversion costs are fully recovered 

causing INPV to remain approximately 

equal to the no-new-standards case 

INPV in this conversion cost recovery 

scenario. Given the large size of the 

conversion costs, approximately 90 

percent of the sum of the annual free 

cash flows over the years between the 

estimated final rule announcement date 

and the estimated standards year (i.e., 

the time period that these conversion 

costs would be incurred), it is unlikely 

that the GFB market will accept the 

large increases in the MSPs that would 

be needed for GFB manufacturers to 

fully recover these conversion costs, 

making the MSPs that result from this 

manufacturer markup scenario less 

likely to be obtained by manufacturers. 

This represents the upper-bound, or 

least-severe impact, on manufacturer 

profitability and is the manufacturer 

markup scenario used in all downstream consumer analyses. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments 

or potentially higher MPCs. In this 

scenario, the shipment weighted average 

MPC increases by approximately 2.2 

percent, causing a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $2,075 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a significantly 

negative change in INPV at TSL 5 in this 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario. This represents the lowerbound, or most severe impact, on 

manufacturer profitability. 

At TSL 4, for GFB manufacturers, 

DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will 

range from ¥$455 million to $1 million, 

which represents a change of ¥9.2 

percent to less than 0.1 percent, 

respectively. At TSL 4, industry free 

cash flow decreases to $161 million, 

which represents a decrease of 

approximately 66.4 percent, compared 

to the no-new-standards case value of 

$480 million in 2029, the year before the 

modeled compliance year. 

TSL 4 would set energy conservation 

standards for axial inline fans at EL 3; 

axial panel fans at EL 4; centrifugal 

housed fans at EL 4; centrifugal inline 

fans at EL 5; centrifugal unhoused fans 

at EL 4; axial PRVs at EL 4; centrifugal 

PRV exhaust fans at EL 4; centrifugal 

PRV supply fans at EL 5; and radial 

housed fans at EL 4. DOE estimates that 

approximately 25 percent of the GFB 

shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels required at 

TSL 4 in 2030, in the no-new-standards 

case. Therefore, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers would have to redesign 

models representing approximately 75 

percent of GFB shipments by the 

estimated compliance date. 

At TSL 4, DOE expects GFB 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$260 million in product conversion 

costs to conduct aerodynamic redesigns 

for non-compliant GFB models. 

Additionally, GFB manufacturers would 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3822 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

incur approximately $510 million in 

capital conversion costs to purchase 

new tooling and equipment necessary to 

produce compliant GFB models to meet 

these energy conservation standards. 

In the conversion cost recovery 

markup scenario, manufacturers 

increase their manufacturer markups to 

fully recover the conversion costs they 

incur to redesign non-compliant 

equipment. At TSL 4, the $770 million 

in conversion costs are fully recovered 

causing INPV to remain approximately 

equal to the no-new-standards case 

INPV in this conversion cost recovery 

scenario. At TSL 4, conversion costs 

represent approximately 33 percent of 

the sum of the annual free cash flows 

over the years between the estimated 

final rule announcement date and the 

estimated standards year (i.e., the time 

period that these conversion costs 

would be incurred). It is possible that 

the GFB market will not accept the full 

increase in the MSPs that would be 

needed for GFB manufacturers to fully 

recover these conversion costs. This 

represents the upper-bound, or leastsevere impact, on manufacturer 

profitability and is the manufacturer 

markup scenario used in all downstream consumer analyses. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments 

or potentially higher MPCs. In this 

scenario, the shipment weighted average 

MPC increases by approximately 1.1 

percent, causing a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $770 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a moderately 

negative change in INPV at TSL 4 in this 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario. This represents the lowerbound, or most severe impact, on 

manufacturer profitability. 

At TSL 3, for GFB manufacturers, 

DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will 

range from ¥$238 million to $1 million, 

which represents a change of ¥4.8 

percent to less than 0.1 percent, 

respectively. At TSL 3, industry free 

cash flow decreases to $316 million, 

which represents a decrease of 

approximately 34.3 percent, compared 

to the no-new-standards case value of 

$480 million in 2029, the year before the 

modeled compliance year. 

TSL 3 would set energy conservation 

standards for axial inline fans at EL 3; 

axial panel fans at EL 3; centrifugal 

housed fans at EL 3; centrifugal inline 

fans at EL 4; centrifugal unhoused fans 

at EL 3; axial PRVs at EL 4; centrifugal 

PRV exhaust fans at EL 4; centrifugal 

PRV supply fans at EL 5; and radial 

housed fans at EL 4. DOE estimates that 

approximately 60 percent of the GFB 

shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels required at 

TSL 3 in 2030, in the no-new-standards 

case. Therefore, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers would have to redesign 

models representing approximately 40 

percent of GFB shipments by the 

estimated compliance date. 

At TSL 3, DOE expects GFB 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$154 million in product conversion 

costs to redesign all non-compliant GFB 

models. Additionally, GFB 

manufacturers would incur 

approximately $248 million in capital 

conversion costs to purchase new 

tooling and equipment necessary to 

produce compliant GFB models to meet 

these energy conservation standards. 

In the conversion cost recovery 

markup scenario, manufacturers 

increase their manufacturer markups to 

fully recover the conversion costs they 

incur to redesign non-compliant 

equipment. At TSL 3, the $402 million 

in conversion costs are fully recovered, 

causing INPV to remain approximately 

equal to the no-new-standards case 

INPV in this conversion cost recovery 

scenario. This represents the upperbound, or least-severe impact, on 

manufacturer profitability and is the 

manufacturer markup scenario used in 

all down-stream consumer analyses. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments 

or potentially higher MPCs. In this 

scenario, the shipment weighted average 

MPC increases by approximately 1.1 

percent, causing a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $402 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a negative change 

in INPV at TSL 3 in this preservation of 

operating profit scenario. This 

represents the lower-bound, or most 

severe impact, on manufacturer 

profitability. 

At TSL 2, for GFB manufacturers, 

DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will 

range from ¥$87 million to $5 million, 

which represents a change of ¥1.8 

percent to 0.1 percent, respectively. At 

TSL 2, industry free cash flow decreases 

to $420 million, which represents a 

decrease of approximately 12.4 percent, 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $480 million in 2029, the year 

before the modeled compliance year. 

TSL 2 would set energy conservation 

standards for axial inline fans at EL 2; 

axial panel fans at EL 2; centrifugal 

housed fans at EL 2; centrifugal inline 

fans at EL 3; centrifugal unhoused fans 

at EL 1; axial PRVs at EL 4; centrifugal 

PRV exhaust fans at EL 4; centrifugal 

PRV supply fans at EL 4; and radial 

housed fans at EL 3. DOE estimates that 

approximately 85 percent of the GFB 

shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels required at 

TSL 2 in 2030, in the no-new-standards 

case. Therefore, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers would have to redesign 

models representing approximately 15 

percent of GFB shipments by the 

estimated compliance date. 

At TSL 2, DOE expects GFB 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$62 million in product conversion costs 

to redesign all non-compliant GFB 

models. Additionally, GFB 

manufacturers would incur 

approximately $86 million in capital 

conversion costs to purchase new 

tooling and equipment necessary to 

produce compliant GFB models to meet 

these energy conservation standards. 

In the conversion cost recovery 

markup scenario, manufacturers 

increase their manufacturer markups to 

fully recover the conversion costs they 

incur to redesign non-compliant 

equipment. At TSL 2, the $147 million 

in conversion costs are fully recovered 

causing INPV to remain approximately 

equal to the no-new-standards case 

INPV in this conversion cost recovery 

scenario. This represents the upperbound, or least-severe impact, on 

manufacturer profitability and is the 

manufacturer markup scenario used in 

all down-stream consumer analyses. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments 

or potentially higher MPCs. In this 

scenario, the shipment weighted average 

MPC increases by approximately 0.6 

percent, causing a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $147 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a slight negative 

change in INPV at TSL 2 in this 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario. This represents the lowerbound, or most severe impact, on 

manufacturer profitability. 

At TSL 1, for GFB manufacturers, 

DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will 

range from ¥$28 million to $13 million, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3823 

which represents a change of ¥0.6 

percent to 0.3 percent, respectively. At 

TSL 1, industry free cash flow decreases 

to $463 million, which represents a 

decrease of approximately 3.6 percent, 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $480 million in 2029, the year 

before the modeled compliance year. 

TSL 1 would set energy conservation 

standards for axial inline fans at EL 1; 

axial panel fans at EL 1; centrifugal 

housed fans at EL 1; centrifugal inline 

fans at EL 2; centrifugal unhoused fans 

at EL 1; axial PRVs at EL 4; centrifugal 

PRV exhaust fans at EL 3; centrifugal 

PRV supply fans at EL 3; and radial 

housed fans at EL 2. DOE estimates that 

approximately 91 percent of the GFB 

shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels required at 

TSL 1 in 2030, in the no-new-standards 

case. Therefore, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers would have to redesign 

models representing approximately 9 

percent of GFB shipments by the 

estimated compliance date. 

At TSL 1, DOE expects GFB 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$20 million in product conversion costs 

to redesign all non-compliant GFB 

models. Additionally, GFB 

manufacturers would incur 

approximately $23 million in capital 

conversion costs to purchase new 

tooling and equipment necessary to 

produce compliant GFB models to meet 

these energy conservation standards. 

In the conversion cost recovery 

markup scenario, manufacturers 

increase their manufacturer markups to 

fully recover the conversion costs they 

incur to redesign non-compliant 

equipment. At TSL 1, the $43 million in 

conversion costs are fully recovered 

causing INPV to remain approximately 

equal to the no-new-standards case 

INPV in this conversion cost recovery 

scenario. This represents the upperbound, or least-severe impact, on 

manufacturer profitability and is the 

manufacturer markup scenario used in 

all down-stream consumer analyses. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments 

or potentially higher MPCs. In this 

scenario, the shipment weighted average 

MPC increases by approximately 0.6 

percent, causing a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $43 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a very slight 

negative change in INPV at TSL 1 in this 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario. This represents the lowerbound, or most severe impact, on 

manufacturer profitability. 

Air Circulating Fans 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.082</GPH> EP19JA24.083</GPH>

Table V-36 Industry Net Present Value for Air Circulating Fans - Conversion Cost 

Recovery Markup Scenario 

No-New Trial Standard Levels 

Units Standards 1 2 3 4 5 6 Case 

INPV 2022$ 649 649 649 649 649 652 653 millions 

2022$ 0 0 0 0 3 3 Change in INPV millions -

% - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 

Table V-37 Industry Net Present Value for Air Circulating Fans - Preservation of 

Operating Profit Scenario 

No-New Trial Standard Levels 

Units Standards 1 2 3 4 5 6 Case 

INPV 2022$ 649 650 649 645 579 16 (85) millions 

2022$ 1 0 (4) (71) (633) (734) Change in INPV millions -

% - 0.1 0.0 (0.6) 00.9) (97.5) 013.1) 
3824 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

At TSL 6, for ACF manufacturers, 

DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will 

range from ¥$734 million to $3 million, 

which represents a change of ¥113.1 

percent to 0.5 percent, respectively. At 

TSL 6, industry free cash flow decreases 

to ¥$456 million, which represents a 

decrease of approximately 999 percent, 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $51 million in 2029, the year 

before the modeled compliance year. 

The negative cash flow in the years 

leading up to the modeled compliance 

date implies that most, if not all, ACF 

manufacturers will need to borrow 

funds in order to make the investments 

necessary to comply with standards. 

This has the potential to significantly 

alter the market dynamics as some 

smaller manufacturers may not be able 

to secure this funding and could exit the 

market as a result of standards set at 

TSL 6. 

TSL 6 would set energy conservation 

standards at max-tech for all ACFs. DOE 

estimates that approximately 1 percent 

of the ACF shipments would already 

meet the efficiency levels required at 

TSL 6 in 2030, in the no-new-standards 

case. Therefore, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers would have to redesign 

models representing approximately 99 

percent of ACF shipments by the 

estimated compliance date. It is unclear 

if most ACF manufacturers would have 

the engineering capacity to complete the 

necessary redesigns within the 5-year 

compliance period. If manufacturers 

require more than 5 years to redesign 

their non-compliant ACF models, they 

will likely prioritize redesigns based on 

sales volume, which could result in 

customers not being able to obtain 

compliant ACFs covering the duty 

points that they require. 

At TSL 6, DOE expects ACF 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$239 million in product conversion 

costs to conduct aerodynamic redesigns 

for non-compliant ACF models. 

Additionally, ACF manufacturers would 

incur approximately $928 million in 

capital conversion costs to purchase 

new tooling and equipment necessary to 

produce compliant ACF models to meet 

these energy conservation standards. 

In the conversion cost recovery 

markup scenario, manufacturers 

increase their manufacturer markups to 

fully recover the conversion costs they 

incur to redesign non-compliant 

equipment. At TSL 6, the $1,167 million 

in conversion costs are fully recovered 

causing INPV to remain approximately 

equal to the no-new-standards case 

INPV in this conversion cost recovery 

scenario. Given the large size of the 

conversion costs, over 5 times the sum 

of the annual free cash flows over the 

years between the estimated final rule 

announcement date and the estimated 

standards year (i.e., the time period that 

these conversion costs would be 

incurred), it is unlikely that the ACF 

market will accept the large increases in 

the MSPs that would be needed for ACF 

manufacturers to fully recover these 

conversion costs, making the MSPs that 

result from this manufacturer markup 

scenario less likely to be obtained by 

manufacturers. This represents the 

upper-bound, or least-severe impact, on 

manufacturer profitability and is the 

manufacturer markup scenario used in 

all down-stream consumer analyses. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments 

or potentially higher MPCs. In this 

scenario, the shipment weighted average 

MPC increase by approximately 4.7 

percent, causing a reduction in the 

manufacturer margin after the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer margin and the $1,167 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause an extremely 

negative change in INPV at TSL 6 in this 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario. This represents the lowerbound, or most severe impact, on 

manufacturer profitability. 

At TSL 5, for ACF manufacturers, 

DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will 

range from ¥$633 million to $3 million, 

which represents a change of ¥97.5 

percent to 0.5 percent, respectively. At 

TSL 5, industry free cash flow decreases 

to ¥$400 million, which represents a 

decrease of approximately 889 percent, 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $51 million in 2029, the year 

before the modeled compliance year. 

The negative cash flow in the years 

leading up to the modeled compliance 

date implies that most, if not all, ACF 

manufacturers will need to borrow 

funds in order to make the investments 

necessary to comply with standards. 

This has the potential to significantly 

alter the market dynamics as some 

smaller manufacturers may not be able 

to secure this funding and could exit the 

market as a result of standards set at 

TSL 5. 

TSL 5 would set energy conservation 

standards at EL 5 for all ACFs, except 

housed centrifugal ACFs which are set 

at EL 3. DOE estimates that 

approximately 4 percent of the ACF 

shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels required at 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.084</GPH>

Table V-38 Cash Flow Analysis for Air Circulatin~ Fans 

No-New Trial Standard Levels 

Units Standards 1 2 3 4 5 6 Case 

Free Cash 2022$ 51 51 51 48 1 (400) (456) Flow (2029) millions 

Change in 2022$ (0.0) (0.1) (3.1) (50.2) ( 451.0) (507.1) Free Cash millions -

Flow (2029) % - (0.1) (0.1) (6.2) (99.0) (888.8) (999.3) 

Product 2022$ Conversion millions - 0.1 0.2 1.9 27.0 213.6 239.1 

Costs 

Capital 2022$ Conversion millions - 0.0 0.0 5.5 91.1 829.0 928.1 

Costs 

Total 2022$ Conversion millions - 0.1 0.2 7.4 118.1 1,042.6 1,167.2 

Costs 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3825 

TSL 5 in 2030, in the no-new-standards 

case. Therefore, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers would have to redesign 

models representing approximately 96 

percent of ACF shipments by the 

estimated compliance date. It is unclear 

if most ACF manufacturers would have 

the engineering capacity to complete the 

necessary redesigns within the 5-year 

compliance period. If manufacturers 

require more than 5 years to redesign 

their non-compliant ACF models, they 

will likely prioritize redesigns based on 

sales volume, which could result in 

customers not being able to obtain 

compliant ACFs covering the duty 

points that they require. 

At TSL 5, DOE expects ACF 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$214 million in product conversion 

costs to conduct aerodynamic redesigns 

for non-compliant ACF models. 

Additionally, ACF manufacturers would 

incur approximately $829 million in 

capital conversion costs to purchase 

new tooling and equipment necessary to 

produce compliant ACF models to meet 

these energy conservation standards. 

In the conversion cost recovery 

markup scenario, manufacturers 

increase their manufacturer markups to 

fully recover the conversion costs they 

incur to redesign non-compliant 

equipment. At TSL 5, the $1,043 million 

in conversion costs are fully recovered 

causing INPV to remain approximately 

equal to the no-new-standards case 

INPV in this conversion cost recovery 

scenario. Given the large size of the 

conversion costs, over 4.5 times the sum 

of the annual free cash flows over the 

years between the estimated final rule 

announcement date and the estimated 

standards year (i.e., the time period that 

these conversion costs would be 

incurred), it is unlikely that the ACF 

market will accept the large increases in 

the MSPs that would be needed for ACF 

manufacturers to fully recover these 

conversion costs, making the MSPs that 

result from this manufacturer markup 

scenario less likely to be obtained by 

manufacturers. This represents the 

upper-bound, or least-severe impact, on 

manufacturer profitability and is the 

manufacturer markup scenario used in 

all down-stream consumer analyses. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments 

or potentially higher MPCs. The $1,043 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a significantly 

negative change in INPV at TSL 5 in this 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario. This represents the lowerbound, or most severe impact, on 

manufacturer profitability. 

At TSL 4, for ACF manufacturers, 

DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will 

range from ¥$71 million to no change, 

which represents a maximum possible 

change of ¥10.9 percent. At TSL 4, 

industry free cash flow decreases to $1 

million, which represents a decrease of 

approximately 99.0 percent, compared 

to the no-new-standards case value of 

$51 million in 2029, the year before the 

modeled compliance year. 

TSL 4 would set energy conservation 

standards at EL 4 for all ACFs, except 

housed centrifugal ACFs which would 

not have any energy conservation 

standard. DOE estimates that 

approximately 36 percent of the ACF 

shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels required at 

TSL 4 in 2030, in the no-new-standards 

case. Therefore, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers would have to redesign 

models representing approximately 64 

percent of ACF shipments by the 

estimated compliance date. 

At TSL 4, DOE expects ACF 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$27 million in product conversion costs 

to conduct aerodynamic redesigns for 

non-compliant ACF models. 

Additionally, ACF manufacturers would 

incur approximately $91 million in 

capital conversion costs to purchase 

new tooling and equipment necessary to 

produce compliant ACF models to meet 

these energy conservation standards. 

In the conversion cost recovery 

markup scenario, manufacturers 

increase their manufacturer markups to 

fully recover the conversion costs they 

incur to redesign non-compliant 

equipment. At TSL 4, the $118 million 

in conversion costs are fully recovered 

causing INPV to remain approximately 

equal to the no-new-standards case 

INPV in this conversion cost recovery 

scenario. At TSL 4, conversion costs 

represent approximately 50 percent of 

the sum of the annual free cash flows 

over the years between the estimated 

final rule announcement date and the 

estimated standards year (i.e., the time 

period that these conversion costs 

would be incurred). It is possible that 

the ACF market will not accept the full 

increase in the MSPs that would be 

needed for ACF manufacturers to fully 

recover these conversion costs. This 

represents the upper-bound, or leastsevere impact, on manufacturer 

profitability and is the manufacturer 

markup scenario used in all downstream consumer analyses. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments 

or potentially higher MPCs. The $118 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a moderately 

negative change in INPV at TSL 4 in this 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario. This represents the lowerbound, or most severe impact, on 

manufacturer profitability. 

At TSL 3, for ACF manufacturers, 

DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will 

range from ¥$4 million to no change, 

which represents a maximum change of 

¥0.6 percent. At TSL 3, industry free 

cash flow decreases to $48 million, 

which represents a decrease of 

approximately 6.2 percent, compared to 

the no-new-standards case value of $51 

million in 2029, the year before the 

modeled compliance year. 

TSL 3 would set energy conservation 

standards at EL 3 for all ACFs, except 

housed centrifugal ACFs which would 

not have any energy conservation 

standard. DOE estimates that 

approximately 84 percent of the ACF 

shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels required at 

TSL 3 in 2030, in the no-new-standards 

case. Therefore, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers would have to redesign 

models representing approximately 16 

percent of ACF shipments by the 

estimated compliance date. 

At TSL 3, DOE expects ACF 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$1.9 million in product conversion costs 

to conduct aerodynamic redesigns for 

non-compliant ACF models. 

Additionally, ACF manufacturers would 

incur approximately $5.5 million in 

capital conversion costs to purchase 

new tooling and equipment necessary to 

produce compliant ACF models to meet 

these energy conservation standards. 

In the conversion cost recovery 

markup scenario, manufacturers 

increase their manufacturer markups to 

fully recover the conversion costs they 

incur to redesign non-compliant 

equipment. At TSL 3, the $7.4 million 

in conversion costs are fully recovered 

causing INPV to remain equal to the nonew-standards case INPV in this 

conversion cost recovery scenario. This 

represents the upper-bound, or leastsevere impact, on manufacturer 

profitability and is the manufacturer 

markup scenario used in all downstream consumer analyses. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments 

or potentially higher MPCs. The $7.4 

million in conversion costs incurred by 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3826 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

126See www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/ 

data/tables.html. 

manufacturers cause a slight negative 

change in INPV at TSL 3 in this 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario. This represents the lowerbound, or most severe impact, on 

manufacturer profitability. 

At TSL 2, for ACF manufacturers, 

DOE estimates there will be no 

substantive change to INPV. At TSL 2, 

industry free cash flow sightly decreases 

by approximately 0.1 percent in 2029, 

the year before the modeled compliance 

year. 

TSL 2 would set energy conservation 

standards at EL 2 for all ACFs, except 

housed centrifugal ACFs which would 

not have any energy conservation 

standard. DOE estimates that 

approximately 96 percent of the ACF 

shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels required at 

TSL 2 in 2030, in the no-new-standards 

case. Therefore, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers would have to redesign 

models representing approximately 4 

percent of ACF shipments by the 

estimated compliance date. 

At TSL 2, DOE expects ACF 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$0.2 million in product conversion costs 

to redesign the few non-compliant ACF 

models. DOE estimates that ACF 

manufacturers would not incur any 

capital conversion costs, as 

manufacturers already have the tooling 

and production equipment necessary to 

produce ACF models that meet these 

energy conservation standards. 

The conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers, which are relatively 

minor due to the majority of shipments 

already meeting the energy conservation 

standards, and changes in MPCs at TSL 

2 are not severe enough to have a 

significant impact on ACF 

manufacturers in either of the 

manufacturer markup scenarios. 

At TSL 1, for ACF manufacturers, 

DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will 

range from no change to an increase of 

$0.5 million, which represents a 

maximum change of 0.1 percent. At TSL 

1, industry free cash flow sightly 

decreases by less than 0.1 percent in 

2029, the year before the modeled 

compliance year. 

TSL 1 would set energy conservation 

standards at EL 1 for all ACFs, except 

housed centrifugal ACFs which would 

not have any energy conservation 

standard. DOE estimates that 

approximately 96 percent of the ACF 

shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels required at 

TSL 1 in 2030, in the no-new-standards 

case. Therefore, DOE estimates that 

manufacturers would have to redesign 

models representing approximately 4 

percent of ACF shipments by the 

estimated compliance date. 

At TSL 1, DOE expects ACF 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$0.1 million in product conversion costs 

to redesign the few non-compliant ACF 

models. DOE estimates that ACF 

manufacturers would not incur any 

capital conversion costs, as 

manufacturers already have the tooling 

and production equipment necessary to 

produce ACF models that meet these 

energy conservation standards. 

The conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers, which are relatively 

minor due to the majority of shipments 

already meeting the energy conservation 

standards, and the change in MPCs at 

TSL 1 are not severe enough to have a 

significant impact on ACF 

manufacturers in either of the 

manufacturer markup scenarios. 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

To quantitatively assess the potential 

impacts of new energy conservation 

standards on direct employment in the 

fan and blower industry, DOE used the 

GRIM to estimate the domestic labor 

expenditures and number of direct 

employees in the no-new-standards case 

and in each of the standards cases 

during the analysis period. 

Production employees are those who 

are directly involved in fabricating and 

assembling equipment within 

manufacturer facility. Workers 

performing services that are closely 

associated with production operations, 

such as materials handling tasks using 

forklifts, are included as production 

labor, as well as line supervisors. 

DOE used the GRIM to calculate the 

number of production employees from 

labor expenditures. DOE used statistical 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 

Annual Survey of Manufacturers 126

(‘‘ASM’’) and the results of the 

engineering analysis to calculate 

industry-wide labor expenditures. Labor 

expenditures related to product 

manufacturing depend on the labor 

intensity of the product, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages 

remain fixed in real terms over time. 

The total labor expenditures in the 

GRIM were then converted to domestic 

production employment levels by 

dividing production labor expenditures 

by the annual payment per production 

worker. 

Non-production employees account 

for those workers that are not directly 

engaged in the manufacturing of the 

covered equipment. This could include 

sales, human resources, engineering, 

and management. DOE estimated nonproduction employment levels by 

multiplying the number of fan and 

blower production workers by a scaling 

factor. The scaling factor is calculated 

by taking the ratio of the total number 

of employees, and the total production 

workers associated with the industry 

North American Industry Classification 

System (‘‘NAICS’’) code 333413, which 

covers fan and blower manufacturing. 

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that 

there would be approximately 13,819 

domestic production workers, and 6,091 

non-production workers for GFBs in 

2030 in the absence of new energy 

conservation standards. DOE estimates 

that there would be approximately 648 

domestic production workers and 286 

non-production workers for ACFs in 

2030 in the absence of new energy 

conservation standards. Table V–39 

shows the range of the impacts of energy 

conservation standards on U.S. 

production of GFBs and Table V–40 

shows the range of the impacts of energy 

conservation standards on U.S. 

production of ACFs. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3827 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

The direct employment impacts 

shown in Table V–39 and Table V–40 

represent the potential changes in direct 

employment that could result following 

the compliance date for GFBs and ACFs. 

Employment could increase or decrease 

due to the labor content of the various 

equipment being manufactured 

domestically that meet the analyzed 

standards or if manufacturers decided to 

move production facilities abroad 

because of new standards. At one end of 

the range, DOE assumes that all 

manufacturers continue to manufacture 

the same scope of equipment 

domestically after new standards are 

required. However, since the labor 

content of GFBs and ACFs vary by 

efficiency level, this can either result in 

an increase or decrease in domestic 

employment, even if all domestic 

production remains in the U.S. 

The lower end of the range assumes 

that some domestic manufacturing 

either is eliminated or moves abroad 

due to the analyzed new standards. DOE 

assumes that for TSL 1 and TSL 2 ACF 

and GFB manufacturers already have 

the tooling and production equipment 

necessary to produce ACF and GFB 

models that meet these energy 

conservation standards, making it 

unlikely that manufacturers would 

move any domestic product abroad at 

these analyzed TSLs. At TSL 3 through 

TSL 6, DOE conservatively estimates 

that some domestic manufacturing 

could move abroad as these TSLs 

require manufacturers to make larger 

investments in production equipment 

that could cause some manufacturers to 

consider moving production facilities to 

a lower-labor cost country. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

During manufacturer interviews most 

manufacturers stated that any standards 

set at max-tech would severely disrupt 

manufacturing capacity. Many fan and 

blower manufacturers do not offer any 

GFB or ACF models that would meet 

these max-tech efficiency levels. Based 

on the shipments analysis used in the 

NIA, DOE estimates that approximately 

4 percent of all GFB shipments and 

approximately 1 percent of ACF 

shipments will meet max-tech efficiency 

levels, in the no-new-standards case in 

2030, the modeled compliance year of 

new energy conservation standards. 

Manufacturers stated that they do not 

have the necessary engineers that would 

be required to convert models that 

represent approximately 96 percent of 

GFB shipments and approximately 99 

percent of ACF shipments into 

compliant models. 

Additionally, most manufacturers 

stated they would not be able to provide 

a full portfolio of fans and blower, 

covering their current offering of 

operating pressure and airflow ranges, 

for any equipment class that required 

max-tech efficiency levels. Most 

manufacturers stated that they do not 

currently have the machinery, 

technology, or engineering resources to 

manufacture these fans and blowers. 

Additionally, the few manufacturers 

that do have the capability of producing 

max-tech fans and blowers are not able 

to produce these fans and blowers for all 

necessary operating pressures and 

airflows that the market requires and in 

the volumes that would fulfill the entire 

fan and blower markets. Lastly, most 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.085</GPH> EP19JA24.086</GPH>

T a e bl V -39D omes t" 1c E m r> I oymen tfi or G enera IF ans an dBi owers m • 2030 

No-New- Trial Standard Levels 

Standards 1 2 3 4 5 6 Case 

Domestic Production 13,819 13,901 13,898 13,969 13,970 14,460 14,464 Workers in 2030 

Domestic NonProduction Workers 6,091 6,127 6,126 6,157 6,157 6,373 6,375 

in2030 

Total Direct 19,910 20,028 20,024 20,126 20,127 20,833 20,839 Employment in 2030* 

Potential Changes in (1,991)- (2,986)- (4,977)- (5,973)- Total Direct - 0-118 0-114 

Employment in 2030* 216 217 923 929 

* Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. Number in parentheses indicate a negative number. 

Table V-40 Domestic Employment for Air Circulatin2 Fans in 2030 

No-New- Trial Standard Levels 

Standards 1 2 3 4 5 6 Case 

Domestic Production 648 644 644 644 644 644 591 Workers in 2030 

Domestic NonProduction Workers 286 284 284 284 284 284 261 

in2030 

Total Direct 934 928 928 928 928 928 852 Employment in 2030* 

Potential Changes in (140)- (234)- (280) - Total Direct - (6)-0 -6)-0 (93)-(6) (6) (6) (82) Employment in 2030* 

* Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. Number in parentheses indicate a negative number. 
3828 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

manufacturers stated that they would 

not be able to ramp up those production 

volumes over the five-year compliance 

period. 

For fan and blower manufacturers to 

either completely redesign their fan and 

blower production lines to be capable of 

producing max-tech fans and blowers or 

to significantly expand their limited 

max-tech fan and blower production 

lines to meet larger production volumes 

would require a massive retooling and 

engineering effort, which would take 

more than the five-year compliance 

period. 

DOE estimates there is a strong 

likelihood of manufacturer capacity 

constraints for any equipment classes 

that require max-tech efficiency levels. 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

As discussed in section IV.J.1 of this 

document, using average cost 

assumptions to develop an industry 

cash flow estimate may not be adequate 

for assessing differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche manufacturers, 

and manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure substantially different from the 

industry average could be affected 

disproportionately. DOE used the 

results of the industry characterization 

to group manufacturers exhibiting 

similar characteristics. Consequently, 

DOE considered three manufacturer 

subgroups in the MIA: GFB 

manufacturers, ACF manufacturers, and 

small manufacturers as a subgroup for a 

separate impact analysis. DOE discussed 

the potential impacts on GFB 

manufacturers and ACF manufacturers 

separately in sections V.B.2.a and 

V.B.2.b. 

For the small business subgroup 

analysis, DOE applied the small 

business size standards published by 

the Small Business Administration 

(‘‘SBA’’) to determine whether a 

company is considered a small business. 

The size standards are codified at 13 

CFR part 121. To be categorized as a 

small business under NAICS code 

333413, ‘‘industrial and commercial fan 

and blower and air purification 

equipment manufacturing,’’ a fan and 

blower manufacturer and its affiliates 

may employ a maximum of 500 

employees. The 500-employee threshold 

includes all employees in a business’s 

parent company and any other 

subsidiaries. For a discussion of the 

impacts on the small manufacturer 

subgroup, see the Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis in section VI.B. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden involves looking at the 

cumulative impact of multiple DOE 

standards and the equipment-specific 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies that affect the manufacturers of 

a covered product or equipment. While 

any one regulation may not impose a 

significant burden on manufacturers, 

the combined effects of several existing 

or impending regulations may have 

serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing products. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis 

of cumulative regulatory burden as part 

of its rulemakings pertaining to 

appliance efficiency. 

DOE requests information regarding 

the impact of cumulative regulatory 

burden on manufacturers of fans and 

blowers associated with multiple DOE 

standards or product-specific regulatory 

actions of other Federal agencies. 

DOE evaluates product-specific 

regulations that will take effect 

approximately 3 years before or after the 

estimated 2030 compliance date of any 

new energy conservation standards for 

fans and blowers. This information is 

presented in Table V–41. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.087</GPH>

Table V-41 Compliance Dates and Expected Conversion Expenses of Federal 

E C neri!V onserva f 10n St an d d ar s Aff ec f m• F d anan Bl ower M anu f ac t urers 

Federal Energy Number of Approx. Industry Industry 

Number Manufacturers Conversion Conversion Conservation of Mfrs* Affected from Standards Costs Costs / Product Standard this Rule** Year (millions) Revenue*** 

Ceiling Fans, 107.2 88FR40932 91 5 2028 (2022$) 1.9% 

(Jun. 22. 2023)t 

Electric Motors 468.5 88FR36066 74 1 2027 (2021$) 2.6% 

(Jun. 1 2023) 

* This column presents the total number of manufacturers identified in the energy conservation standard 

rule contributing to cumulative regulatory burden. 

** This column presents the number of manufacturers producing fans and blowers that are also listed as 

manufacturers in the listed energy conservation standard contributing to cumulative regulatory burden. 

*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of product revenue during the 

conversion period. Industry conversion costs are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell 

compliant products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue from just the covered 

product/equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which 

conversion costs are made and lasts from the publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the 

energy conservation standard. The conversion period typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on the 

rulemaking. 

t Indicated a NOPR publication. The values listed could change upon the publication of a final rule. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3829 

127Office of Management and Budget. Circular A– 

4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. 

Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/ 

A4/a-4.pdf. 

128EPCA 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. 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. 

MIAQ and AHRI expressed concerns 

about the HVAC industry burden of 

multiple DOE energy conservation 

standards and safety standards being 

passed in close succession, requiring 

significant retesting to be performed on 

equipment. (MIAQ, No. 124 at p. 3–4) 

and (AHRI, No. 130 at p.13–14) DOE 

conducts a cumulative regulatory 

burden on the manufactures of the 

products or equipment that is being 

regulated, so for this rulemaking that is 

a cumulative regulatory burden on fan 

and blower manufacturers. Table V–41 

lists other products or equipment that 

fan and blower manufacturers make that 

also have a potential DOE energy 

conservation standard required within 3 

years of the compliance date for this 

rulemaking, modeled to be 2030. 

Additionally, Table III–1 listed products 

and equipment, including several HVAC 

equipment that if they have a fan 

embedded in the equipment, the fans 

would be excluded for this energy 

conservation standard, if finalized as 

proposed. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

This section presents DOE’s estimates 

of the national energy savings and the 

NPV of consumer benefits that would 

result from each of the TSLs considered 

as potential amended standards. 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential standards for 

fans and blowers, DOE compared their 

energy consumption under the no-newstandards case to their anticipated 

energy consumption under each TSL. 

The savings are measured over the 

entire lifetime of products purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

first full year of anticipated compliance 

with new standards (2030–2059). Table 

V–42 and Table V–43 present DOE’s 

projections of the national energy 

savings for each TSL considered for 

GFBs and ACFs. The savings were 

calculated using the approach described 

in section IV.H of this document. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

OMB Circular A–4 127 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 rulemaking, 

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.128 The review 

timeframe established in EPCA is 

generally not synchronized with the 

equipment lifetime, equipment 

manufacturing cycles, or other factors 

specific to fans and blowers. Thus, such 

results are presented for informational 

purposes only and are not indicative of 

any change in DOE’s analytical 

methodologies. NES sensitivity analysis 

results based on a 9-year analytical 

period are presented in Table V–44 and 

Table V–45 for GFBs and ACFs. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

equipment purchased in 2030–2038. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.088</GPH> EP19JA24.089</GPH>

Table V-42 Cumulative National Energy Savings for GFBs; 30 Years of Shipments 

(2030-2059) 

Trial Standard Level 

1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 

quads 

Primarv energy 1.7 I 2.9 I 7.5 I 13.4 I 23.1 I 24.6 

PFC energy 1.7 I 3.0 I 7.7 I 13.8 I 23.7 I 25.3 

Table V-43 Cumulative National Energy Savings for ACFs; 30 Years of Shipments 

2030-2059 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

uads 

0.1 0.2 1.2 4.4 6.3 7.0 

0.1 0.2 1.2 4.5 6.5 7.2 
3830 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

129Office of Management and Budget. Circular A– 

4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. 

Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp- content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/ 

A4/a-4.pdf. 

b. 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 

TSLs considered for fans and blowers. 

In accordance with OMB’s guidelines on 

regulatory analysis,129 DOE calculated 

NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent real discount rate. Table V–46 

and Table V–47 show the consumer 

NPV results with impacts counted over 

the lifetime of equipment purchased in 

2030–2059 for GFBs and ACFs. 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in Table V–48 and Table 

V–49 for GFBs and ACFs. 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.090</GPH> EP19JA24.091</GPH> EP19JA24.092</GPH> EP19JA24.093</GPH>

Table V-44 Cumulative National Energy Savings for GFBs; 9 Years of Shipments 

(2030-2038) 

Trial Standard Level 

1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 16 

quads 

Primary energy 0.4 I 0.8 I 2.0 I 3.6 I 6.1 I 6.5 

FFC enernv 0.5 I 0.8 I 2.0 I 3.7 I 6.3 I 6.7 

Table V-45 Cumulative National Energy Savings for ACFs; 9 Years of Shipments 

(2030-2038) 

Trial Standard Level 

1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 16 

quads 

Primarv enernv 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.8 I 1.1 I 3.5 

FFC energy 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.2 I 1.2 I 1.3 I 3.6 

Table V-46 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for GFBs; 30 Years 

of Shipments (2030-2059) 

Trial Standard Level 

Discount Rate 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 

billion 2022$ 

3 percent 3.8 I 7.2 I 19.0 I 36.9 I 54.8 I 49.3 

7 percent 1.3 I 2.6 I 6.8 I 13.7 I 19.2 I 15.8 

Table V-47 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for ACFs; 30 Years 

of Shipments (2030-2059) 

Trial Standard Level 

Discount Rate 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 

billion 2022$ 

3 percent 0.4 I 0.7 I 3.6 I 12.6 I 13.1 I 14.5 

7 percent 0.2 I 0.3 I 1.5 I 5.3 I 5.2 I 5.7 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3831 

The previous results reflect the use of 

a default trend to estimate the change in 

price for fans and blowers over the 

analysis period (see section IV.F.1 of 

this document). DOE also conducted a 

sensitivity analysis that considered one 

scenario with a lower rate of price 

decline than the reference case and one 

scenario with a higher rate of price 

decline than the reference case. The 

results of these alternative cases are 

presented in appendix 10C of the NOPR 

TSD. In the high-price-decline case, the 

NPV of consumer benefits is higher than 

in the default case. In the low-pricedecline case, the NPV of consumer 

benefits is lower than in the default 

case. 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

It is estimated that new energy

conservation standards for fans and 

blowers would reduce energy 

expenditures for consumers of those 

products, with the resulting net savings 

being redirected to other forms of 

economic activity. These expected shifts 

in spending and economic activity 

could affect the demand for labor. As 

described in section IV.N of this 

document, DOE used an input/output 

model of the U.S. economy to estimate 

indirect employment impacts of the 

TSLs that DOE considered. There are 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Therefore, DOE generated 

results for near-term timeframes (2030– 

2035), where these uncertainties are 

reduced. 

The results suggest that the proposed 

standards would be likely to have a 

negligible impact on the net demand for 

labor in the economy. The net change in 

jobs is so small that it would be 

imperceptible in national labor statistics 

and might be offset by other, 

unanticipated effects on employment. 

Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents 

detailed results regarding anticipated 

indirect employment impacts. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of

Products

As discussed in section III.F.1.d of 

this document, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the standards proposed 

in this NOPR would not lessen the 

utility or performance of the fans and 

blowers under consideration in this 

rulemaking. Manufacturers of these 

equipment currently offer units that 

meet or exceed the proposed standards. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of

Competition

DOE considered any lessening of 

competition that would be likely to 

result from new or amended standards. 

As discussed in section III.F.1.e, the 

Attorney General determines the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard, and transmits such 

determination in writing to the 

Secretary, together with an analysis of 

the nature and extent of such impact. To 

assist the Attorney General in making 

this determination, DOE has provided 

DOJ with copies of this NOPR and the 

accompanying NOPR TSD for review. 

DOE will consider DOJ’s comments on 

the proposed rule in determining 

whether to proceed to a final rule. DOE 

will publish and respond to DOJ’s 

comments in that document. DOE 

invites comment from the public 

regarding the competitive impacts that 

are likely to result from this proposed 

rule. In addition, stakeholders may also 

provide comments separately to DOJ 

regarding these potential impacts. See 

the ADDRESSES section for information 

to send comments to DOJ. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve

Energy

Enhanced energy efficiency, where 

economically justified, improves the 

Nation’s energy security, strengthens the 

economy, and reduces the 

environmental impacts (costs) of energy 

production. Reduced electricity demand 

due to energy conservation standards is 

also likely to reduce the cost of 

maintaining the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the 

NOPR TSD presents the estimated 

impacts on electricity generating 

capacity, relative to the no-newstandards case, for the TSLs that DOE 

considered in this rulemaking. 

Energy conservation resulting from 

potential energy conservation standards 

for fans and blowers is expected to yield 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of certain air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table 

V–50 and Table V–51 provide DOE’s 

estimate of cumulative emissions 

reductions expected to result from the 

TSLs considered in this rulemaking for 

GFBs and ACFs, respectively. The 

emissions were calculated using the 

multipliers discussed in section IV.K of 

this document. DOE reports annual 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.094</GPH> EP19JA24.095</GPH>

Table V-48 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for GFBs; 9 Years 

of Shipments (2030-2038) 

Trial Standard Level 

Discount Rate 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 

billion 2022$ 

3 percent 1.4 I 2.6 I 6.9 I 13.4 I 20.0 I 18.0 

7 percent 0.6 I 1.3 I 3.4 I 6.7 I 9.4 I 7.8 

Table V-49 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for ACFs; 9 Years 

of Shipments (2030-2038) 

Trial Standard Level 

Discount Rate 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 

billion 2022$ 

3 percent 0.1 I 0.2 I 0.9 I 3.3 I 3.4 I 3.4 

7 percent 0.1 I 0.1 I 0.6 I 2.0 I 2.0 I 2.0 
3832 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.096</GPH>

Table V-50 Cumulative Emissions Reduction for GFBs Shipped in 2030-2059 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Power Sector Emissions 

CO2 (million metric 26.82 46.75 120.73 216.82 372.65 397.92 tons) 

CRi (thousand tons) 1.95 3.40 8.77 15.78 27.09 28.92 

N2O (thousand tons) 0.27 0.47 1.22 2.19 3.76 4.01 

NOx (thousand tons) 12.13 21.11 54.39 98.08 168.27 179.43 

SO2 (thousand tons) 8.87 15.47 39.95 71.74 123.30 131.66 

Hg (tons) 0.06 0.11 0.28 0.50 0.86 0.92 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric 2.80 4.88 12.60 22.60 38.86 41.52 tons) 

CH4 (thousand tons) 254.61 444.08 1,148.00 2 058.08 3,539.94 3 782.34 

N2O (thousand tons) 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.18 

NOx (thousand tons) 43.65 76.13 196.81 352.83 606.87 648.43 

SO2 (thousand tons) 0.16 0.28 0.73 1.31 2.25 2.41 

Hg (tons) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total FFC Emissions 

CO2 (million metric 29.61 51.62 133.33 239.41 411.51 439.45 tons) 

CRi (thousand tons) 256.56 447.48 1,156.77 2 073.86 3,567.04 3 811.26 

N2O (thousand tons) 0.28 0.49 1.27 2.29 3.93 4.19 

NOx (thousand tons) 55.78 97.24 251.20 450.91 775.15 827.86 

SO2 (thousand tons) 9.04 15.75 40.68 73.06 125.56 134.07 

Hg (tons) 0.06 0.11 0.28 0.50 0.86 0.92 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3833 

As part of the analysis for this 

rulemaking, DOE estimated monetary 

benefits likely to result from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 that DOE 

estimated for each of the considered 

TSLs for GFBs and AFCs. Section IV.L 

of this document discusses the SC–CO2

values that DOE used. Table V–52 and 

Table V–53 present the value of CO2

emissions reduction at each TSL for 

each of the SC–CO2 cases for GFBs and 

ACFs, respectively. The time-series of 

annual values is presented for the 

proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the 

NOPR TSD. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.097</GPH> EP19JA24.098</GPH>

Table V-51 Cumulative Emissions Reduction for ACFs Shipped in 2030-2059 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Power Sector Emissions 

CO2 (million metric 1.58 3.46 19.45 71.01 101.82 113.80 tons) 

CRi (thousand tons) 0.10 0.22 1.23 4.50 6.46 7.22 

N2O (thousand tons) 0.01 0.03 0.17 0.61 0.88 0.99 

NOx (thousand tons) 0.69 1.51 8.50 31.04 44.51 49.75 

SO2 (thousand tons) 0.43 0.94 5.27 19.24 27.59 30.84 

Hg (tons) 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.19 0.21 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric 0.17 0.36 2.05 7.50 10.75 12.02 tons) 

CH4 (thousand tons) 15.15 33.21 186.82 682.18 978.13 1 093.20 

N2O (thousand tons) 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05 

NOx (thousand tons) 2.60 5.69 32.03 116.98 167.72 187.45 

SO2 (thousand tons) 0.01 0.02 0.12 0.44 0.63 0.71 

Hg (tons) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total FFC Emissions 

CO2 (million metric 1.74 3.82 21.50 78.51 112.57 125.81 tons) 

CRi (thousand tons) 15.25 33.43 188.05 686.69 984.59 1 100.41 

N2O (thousand tons) 0.01 0.03 0.18 0.65 0.93 1.04 

NOx (thousand tons) 3.29 7.21 40.54 148.02 212.23 237.20 

SO2 (thousand tons) 0.44 0.96 5.39 19.69 28.23 31.55 

Hg (tons) 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.19 0.21 

Table V-52 Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for GFBs Shipped in 2030-

2059 

SC-CO2 Case 

Discount Rate and Statistics 

TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

Billion 2022$ 

1 0.26 1.14 1.79 3.45 

2 0.45 1.97 3.11 5.98 

3 1.15 5.03 7.92 15.22 

4 2.11 9.23 14.53 27.97 

5 3.59 15.71 24.73 47.58 

6 3.80 16.65 26.21 50.42 
3834 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

As discussed in section IV.L.2, DOE 

estimated the climate benefits likely to 

result from the reduced emissions of 

methane and N2O that DOE estimated 

for each of the considered TSLs for 

GFBs and ACFs. Table V–54 and Table 

V–55 present the value of the CH4

emissions reduction at each TSL for 

GFBs and ACFs, respectively, and Table 

V–56 and Table V–57 present the value 

of the N2O emissions reduction at each 

TSL for GFBs and ACFs, respectively. 

The time-series of annual values is 

presented for the proposed TSL in 

chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.099</GPH> EP19JA24.100</GPH> EP19JA24.101</GPH>

Table V-53 Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for ACFs Shipped in 2030-

2059 

SC-CO2 Case 

Discount Rate and Statistics 

TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

Billion 2022$ 

1 0.02 0.08 0.12 0.23 

2 0.04 0.17 0.26 0.51 

3 0.22 0.94 1.47 2.85 

4 0.80 3.43 5.37 10.40 

5 1.14 4.92 7.70 14.91 

6 1.28 5.50 8.61 16.66 

Table V-54 Present Value of Methane Emissions Reduction for GFBs Shipped in 

2030-2059 

SC-CH4 Case 

Discount Rate and Statistics 

TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

Billion 2022$ 

1 0.10 0.32 0.45 0.85 

2 0.18 0.56 0.79 1.48 

3 0.46 1.43 2.01 3.77 

4 0.85 2.61 3.67 6.91 

5 1.44 4.45 6.25 11.77 

6 1.53 4.72 6.64 12.48 

Table V-55 Present Value of Methane Emissions Reduction for ACFs Shipped in 

2030-2059 

SC-CH4 Case 

Discount Rate and Statistics 

TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

Billion 2022$ 

1 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 

2 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.12 

3 0.09 0.26 0.37 0.70 

4 0.32 0.97 1.35 2.54 

5 0.46 1.38 1.93 3.64 

6 0.51 1.55 2.16 4.07 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3835 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge continues to 

evolve rapidly about the contribution of 

CO2 and other GHG emissions to 

changes in the future global climate and 

the potential resulting damages to the 

global and U.S. economy. DOE, together 

with other Federal agencies, will 

continue to review methodologies for 

estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other GHG 

emissions. This ongoing review will 

consider the comments on this subject 

that are part of the public record for this 

and other rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues. 

DOE notes that the proposed standards 

would be economically justified even 

without inclusion of monetized benefits 

of reduced GHG emissions. 

DOE also estimated the monetary 

value of the health benefits associated 

with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions 

anticipated to result from the 

considered TSLs for GFBs and ACFs. 

The dollar-per-ton values that DOE used 

are discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. Table V–58 and Table V–59 

present the present value for NOX

emissions reduction for each TSL 

calculated using 7-percent and 3- 

percent discount rates, for GFBs and 

ACFs, respectively; and Table V–60 and 

Table V–61 present similar results for 

SO2 emissions reductions for GFBs and 

ACFs, respectively. The results in these 

tables reflect application of EPA’s low 

dollar-per-ton values, which DOE used 

to be conservative. The time-series of 

annual values is presented for the 

proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the 

NOPR TSD. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.102</GPH> EP19JA24.103</GPH> EP19JA24.104</GPH>

Table V-56 Present Value of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reduction for GFBs Shipped 

in 2030-2059 

SC-N20 Case 

Discount Rate and Statistics 

TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

Billion 2022$ 

1 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 

2 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 

3 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.05 

4 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.09 

5 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.15 

6 0.01 0.06 0.09 0.15 

Table V-57 Present Value of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reduction for ACFs Shipped 

in 2030-2059 

SC-N20 Case 

Discount Rate and Statistics 

TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

Billion 2022$ 

1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 

2 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 

3 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.007 

4 0.003 0.010 0.016 0.027 

5 0.004 0.015 0.023 0.039 

6 0.004 0.016 0.025 0.043 

Table V-58 Present Value ofNOx Emissions Reduction for GFBs Shipped in 2030-

2059 

TSL 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

million 2022$ 

1 827 2 353 

2 1,428 4,082 

3 3,626 10,443 

4 6,702 19,053 

5 11.376 32 519 

6 12.026 34 536 
3836 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Not all the public health and 

environmental benefits from the 

reduction of greenhouse gases, NOX, 

and SO2 are captured in the values 

above, and additional unquantified 

benefits from the reductions of those 

pollutants as well as from the reduction 

of direct PM and other co-pollutants 

may be significant. DOE has not 

included monetary benefits of the 

reduction of Hg emissions because the 

amount of reduction is very small. 

7. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, may consider 

any other factors that the Secretary 

deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C 6216(a); 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other 

factors were considered in this analysis. 

8. Summary of Economic Impacts 

Table V–62 and Table V–63 presents 

the NPV values that result from adding 

the estimates of the potential economic 

benefits resulting from reduced GHG 

and NOX and SO2 emissions to the NPV 

of consumer benefits calculated for each 

TSL considered in this rulemaking, for 

GFBs and ACFs, respectively. The 

consumer benefits are domestic U.S. 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered GFBs and 

ACFs, and are measured for the lifetime 

of equipment shipped in 2030–2059. 

The climate benefits associated with 

reduced GHG emissions resulting from 

the adopted standards are global 

benefits, and are also calculated based 

on the lifetime of GFBs and ACFs 

shipped in 2030–2059. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.105</GPH> EP19JA24.106</GPH> EP19JA24.107</GPH>

Table V-59 Present Value ofNOx Emissions Reduction for ACFs Shipped in 2030--

2059 

TSL 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

million 2022$ 

1 58 153 

2 128 336 

3 718 1 890 

4 2,622 6,902 

5 3,760 9,897 

6 4,202 ll,061 

Table V-60 Present Value of SO2 Emissions Reduction for GFBs Shipped in 2030--

2059 

TSL 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

million 2022$ 

1 191 537 

2 329 931 

3 836 2,382 

4 L546 4.346 

5 2,624 7-417 

6 2,774 7,877 

Table V-61 Present Value of SO2 Emissions Reduction for ACFs Shipped in 2030--

2059 

TSL 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

million 2022$ 

1 ll 29 

2 24 63 

3 137 354 

4 498 1,292 

5 715 1,852 

6 799 2,070 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3837 

C. Conclusion 

When considering new or amended 

energy conservation standards, the 

standards that DOE adopts for any type 

(or class) of covered equipment must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, the Secretary 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens by, to 

the greatest extent practicable, 

considering the seven statutory factors 

discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The 

new or amended standard must also 

result in significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

For this NOPR, DOE considered the 

impacts of new standards for GFBs and 

ACFs at each TSL, beginning with the 

max-tech feasible level, to determine 

whether that level was economically 

justified. Where the max-tech level was 

not justified, DOE then considered the 

next most efficient level and undertook 

the same evaluation until it reached the 

highest efficiency level that is both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

tables in this section present a summary 

of the results of DOE’s quantitative 

analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 

quantitative results presented in the 

tables, DOE also considers other 

burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification. These include 

the impacts on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers who may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard and impacts on employment. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Fans and Blowers 

Standards 

a. General Fans and Blowers 

Table V–64 and Table V–65 

summarize the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for GFBs. The 

national impacts are measured over the 

lifetime of GFBs purchased in the 30- 

year period that begins in the 

anticipated first full year of compliance 

with new standards (2030–2059). The 

energy savings, emissions reductions, 

and value of emissions reductions refer 

to full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency 

levels contained in each TSL are 

described in section V.A of this 

document. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.108</GPH> EP19JA24.109</GPH>

Table V-62 Consumer NPV Combined with Present Value of Climate Benefits and 

Health Benefits for GFBs 

Catei:wrv TSL 1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 TSL6 

Using 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$) 

5% Average SC-GHG case 7.1 12.8 33.5 63.3 99.8 97.1 

3% Average SC-GHG case 8.2 14.8 38.3 72.2 115.0 113.2 

2.5% Average SC-GHG case 8.9 16.1 41.8 78.6 125.9 124.7 

3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case 11.0 19.7 50.9 95.3 154.3 154.8 

Usin}! 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$) 

5% Average SC-GHG case 2.7 5.0 12.9 24.9 38.2 36.0 

3% Average SC-GHG case 3.8 6.9 17.8 33.8 53.4 52.0 

2.5% Average SC-GHG case 4.6 8.2 21.3 40.2 64.3 63.6 

3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case 6.6 11.8 30.3 56.9 92.7 93.7 

Table V-63 Consumer NPV Combined with Present Value of Climate Benefits and 

Health Benefits for ACFs 

Cate2orv TSL 1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 TSL6 

Using 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$) 

5% Average SC-GHG case 0.6 1.2 6.2 21.9 26.4 29.4 

3% Average SC-GHG case 0.7 1.3 7.1 25.2 31.1 34.7 

2.5% Average SC-GHG case 0.8 1.4 7.7 27.5 34.5 384 

3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case 0.9 1.7 9.4 33.7 43.4 48.4 

Usin}! 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$) 

5% Average SC-GHG case 0.3 0.5 2.7 9.5 11.3 12.5 

3% Average SC-GHG case 0.4 0.7 3.6 12.8 16.0 17.7 

2.5% Average SC-GHG case 0.4 0.8 4.2 15.1 19.4 21 5 

3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case 0.5 1.1 5.9 21.3 28.3 31.5 
3838 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.110</GPH>

Table V-64 Summary of Analytical Results for GFBs TSLs: National Impacts 

Cate2orv TSL 1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 TSL6 

Cumulative FFC National Ener2V Savin2s 

Quads 1.7 3.0 7.7 13.8 23.7 25.3 

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (million metric tons) 29.6 51.6 133.3 239.4 411.5 439.4 

CRi (thousand tons) 256.6 447.5 1156.8 2073.9 3567.0 3811.3 

N2O (thousand tons) 0.3 0.5 1.3 2.3 3.9 4.2 

NOx (thousand tons) 55.8 97.2 251.2 450.9 775.1 827.9 

SO2 (thousand tons) 9.0 15.8 40.7 73.1 125.6 134.1 

Hg (tons) 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.9 

Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 5.3 9.1 23.0 42.7 72.3 76.4 

Climate Benefits* 1.5 2.5 6.5 11.9 20.2 21.4 

Health Benefits** 2.9 5.0 12.8 23.4 39.9 42.4 

Total Benefitst 9.6 16.7 42.3 78.0 132.4 140.2 

Consumer Incremental Product 1.5 1.9 4.0 5.7 17.4 27.0 Costs:t 

Consumer Net Benefits 3.8 7.2 19.0 36.9 54.8 49.3 

Total Net Benefits 8.2 14.8 38.3 72.2 115.0 113.2 

Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs ( 7% discount rate, billion 2022$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 2.1 3.5 8.9 16.6 28.0 29.5 

Climate Benefits* 1.5 2.5 6.5 11.9 20.2 21.4 

Health Benefits** 1.0 1.8 4.5 8.2 14.0 14.8 

Total Benefitst 4.5 7.8 19.8 36.8 62.3 65.7 

Consumer Incremental Product 0.7 1.0 2.0 2.9 8.9 13.7 

Costs:t 

Consumer Net Benefits 1.3 2.6 6.8 13.7 19.2 15.8 

Total Net Benefits 3.8 6.9 17.8 33.8 53.4 52.0 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GFBs shipped in 2030-2059. These results 

include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2059 from the products shipped in 20230-2059. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. 

Together, these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits 

associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the 

importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the 

benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 

published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for NOx and SO2) PM2.s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health 

benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2.s emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 

percent. See section IV.M of this document for more details. 

t Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation puiposes, total and 

net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GH G with 3-

percent discount rate. 

:j: Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3839 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.111</GPH>

Table V-65 Summary of Analytical Results for GFBs TSLs: Manufacturer and 

Consumer Impacts 

Category TSLl TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 TSL6 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV 

(million 2022$) 4,907- 4,847- 4,697- 4,479- 3,671- 2,647- (No-new-standards 4,948 4,940 4,936 4,936 4,946 4,975 

case 

INPV = 4,935) 

Industry NPV (% (0.6)- (1.8)- (4.8) - 0.0 (9.2)- (25.6)- (46.4)-

change) 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.8 

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$) 

Axial Inline 1,766 1,029 550 550 670 (2,169) 

Axial Panel (194) 802 1,413 1,702 1,902 1,902 

Centrifugal Housed 1,714 1,977 2,092 2,423 2,398 2,398 

Centrifugal Inline 355 1,389 454 955 335 335 

Centrifugal 1,009 1,009 884 1,170 2,004 2,004 Unhoused 

Axial Power Roof 945 945 945 945 945 (9,470) Ventilator 

Centrifugal Power 

Roo- Ventilator - 122 154 154 154 154 (1,992) 

Exhaust 

Centrifugal Power 

Roo- Ventilator - 831 827 973 973 1,126 1,126 

Supply 

Radial Housed 1,708 2,145 3,714 3,714 5,391 5,391 

Shipment- 907 1,256 1,425 1,694 2,030 1,751 Weighted Average • 

Consumer Simple PBP (years) 

Axial Inline 1.0 5.8 9.6 9.6 9.8 17.9 

Axial Panel 10.9 4.7 2.1 1.7 2.5 2.5 

Centrifugal Housed 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 3.1 3.1 

Centrifugal Inline 7.6 1.1 7.3 6.1 9.1 9.1 

Centrifugal 3.5 3.5 2.6 1.2 1.0 1.0 Unhoused 

Axial Power Roof 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 32.9 Ventilator 

Centrifugal Power 

Roo- Ventilator - 9.0 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 22.8 

Exhaust 

Centrifugal Power 

Roo- Ventilator - 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 2.8 2.8 

Supply 

Radial Housed 3.0 2.7 1.7 1.7 2.2 2.2 

Shipment- 4.6 3.0 2.3 1.8 2.9 3.8 
3840 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

DOE first considered TSL 6, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. At TSL 6, DOE expects all 

equipment classes would require the 

highest tier aerodynamic redesign. 

TSL 6 would save an estimated 25.3 

quads of full-fuel cycle energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $15.8 billion using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $49.3 

billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 6 are 439.4 Mt of CO2, 134.1 

thousand tons of SO2, 827.9 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.9 tons of Hg, 3,811.3 

thousand tons of CH4, and 4.2 thousand 

tons of N2O. The estimated monetary 

value of the climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions (associated 

with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent 

discount rate) at TSL 6 is $21.4 billion. 

The estimated monetary value of the 

health benefits from reduced SO2 and 

NOX emissions at TSL 6 is $14.8 billion 

using a 7-percent discount rate and 

$42.4 billion using a 3-percent discount 

rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 6 is $52.0 billion. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated total 

NPV at TSL 6 is $113.2 billion. The 

estimated total NPV is provided for 

additional information, however DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a proposed standard level is 

economically justified. 

At TSL 6, for the largest equipment 

classes, which are represented by axial 

panel fans, centrifugal housed fans, and 

centrifugal unhoused fans—which 

together represent approximately 85 

percent of annual shipments—there is a 

life-cycle cost savings of $1,902, $2,398, 

and $2,004 and a payback period of 2.5 

years, 3.1 years, and 1.0 years, 

respectively. For these equipment 

classes, the fraction of customers 

experiencing a net LCC cost is 29.9 

percent, 41.5 percent, and 13.7 percent 

due to increases in total installed cost of 

$618, $1,090 and $215, respectively. 

The life-cycle costs savings are negative 

for axial inline fans, axial PRV, and 

centrifugal PRV exhaust, and equal to 

¥$2,169, ¥$9,470, and ¥$1,992. For 

these equipment classes the payback is 

17.9, 32.9 and 22.8 years and the 

fraction of customers experiencing a net 

LCC cost is 79.4 percent, 89.0 percent, 

and 84.7 percent. The life-cycle costs 

savings for centrifugal inline, centrifugal 

PRV supply, and radial housed fans are 

positive and equal to $335, $1,126, and 

$5,391, respectively. For these 

equipment classes the payback is 9.1, 

2.8, and 2.2 years and the fraction of 

customers experiencing a net LCC cost 

is 66.7 percent, 32.3 percent, and 24.4 

percent. At TSL 6, the shipmentsweighted average LCC is equal to 

$1,751, the payback period is equal to 

3.8 and the fraction of customers 

experiencing a net LCC cost is 32.8 

percent. 

At TSL 6, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $2,287 

million to an increase of $40 million, 

which corresponds to a decrease of 46.4 

percent and an increase of 0.8 percent, 

respectively. DOE estimates that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.112</GPH>

Category TSL 1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 TSL6 

Weighted Average • 

Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost 

Axial Inline 0.9% 7.5% 23.6% 23.6% 51.3% 79.4% 

Axial Panel 6.3% 7.3% 11.0% 19.5% 29.9% 29.9% 

Centrifugal Housed 1.5% 2.4% 6.0% 12.9% 41.5% 41.5% 

Centrifugal Inline 9.9% 4.6% 36.6% 49.2% 66.7% 66.7% 

Centrifugal 2.2% 2.2% 4.8% 10.5% 13.7% 13.7% Unhoused 

Axial Power Roof 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 89.0% Ventilator 

Centrifugal Power 

Roo- Ventilator - 13.1% 25.8% 25.8% 25.8% 25.8% 84.7% 

Exhaust 

Centrifugal Power 

Roo- Ventilator - 8.8% 16.5% 24.9% 24.9% 32.3% 32.3% 

Supply 

Radial Housed 3.3% 5.1% 13.3% 13.3% 24.4% 24.4% 

Shipment- 3.8% 5.0% 9.5% 15.7% 30.2% 32.8% Weighted Average • 

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. The entry "-" means no impact because the TSL 

considered is equivalent to the no-new standards case. The entry "NIA." means not applicable 

because there is a decrease in average installed costs at the considered TSLs compared to the 

no-new standards case. 

* Weighted by shares of each equipment class in total projected shipments in 2030. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3841 

130The sum of annual free cash flows is estimated 

to be $2,348 million for 2025–2029 in the no-newstandards case and the no-new-standards case INPV 

is estimated to be $4,935 million. 

industry must invest $3,750 million to 

conduct aerodynamic redesigns on all 

equipment classes to comply with 

standards set at TSL 6. An investment 

of $3,750 million in conversion costs 

represents approximately 1.3 times the 

sum of the annual free cash flows over 

the years between the estimated final 

rule announcement date and the 

estimated standards year (i.e., the time 

period that these conversion costs 

would be incurred) and represents over 

75 percent of the entire no-newstandards case INPV over the 30-year 

analysis period.130

In the no-new-standards case, free 

cash flow is estimated to be $480 

million in 2029, the year before the 

modeled compliance date. At TSL 6, the 

estimated free cash flow is ¥$1,132 

million in 2029. This represents a 

decrease in free cash flow of 336 

percent, or a decrease of $1,612 million, 

in 2029. A negative free cash flow 

implies that most, if not all, 

manufacturers will need to borrow 

substantial funds to be able to make 

investments necessary to comply with 

energy conservation standards at TSL 6. 

The extremely large drop in free cash 

flows could cause some GFB 

manufacturers to discontinue certain 

products offerings and shift their 

resources to other business units not 

impacted by this rule, even though 

recovery may be possible over the 30- 

year analysis period. DOE is concerned 

about the uncertainty of the market that 

may exists at TSL 6 if manufacturers 

choose not to maintain their full 

product offerings in response to the 

investments needed to support TSL 6. 

Additionally, most small businesses 

will struggle to secure this funding, due 

to their size and the uncertainty of 

recovering their investments. At TSL 6, 

models representing 4 percent of all 

GFB shipments are estimated to meet 

the efficiency requirements at this TSL 

in the no-new-standards case by 2030, 

the modeled compliance year. 

Therefore, models representing 96 

percent of all GFB shipments will need 

be remodeled in the 5-year compliance 

period. 

Manufacturers are unlikely to have 

the engineering capacity to conduct this 

massive redesign effort in 5 years. 

Instead, they will likely prioritize 

redesigns based on sales volume, which 

could leave market gaps in equipment 

offered by manufacturers and even the 

entire industry. The resulting market 

gaps in equipment offerings could result 

in sub-optimal selection of fan duty 

points (airflow, pressure, speed 

combination) for some applications, 

potentially leading to a reduction in the 

estimated energy savings, and estimated 

consumer benefits, at this TSL. Most 

small businesses will be at a 

competitive disadvantage at this TSL 

because they have less technical and 

financial resources and the capital 

investments required will be spread 

over fewer units. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes 

that at TSL 6 for GFBs, the benefits of 

energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, emission reductions, 

and the estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the economic burden on 

many consumers, and the impacts on 

manufacturers, including the extremely 

large conversion costs (representing 

approximately 1.3 times the sum of the 

annual free cash flows during the time 

period that these conversion costs will 

be incurred and are approximately equal 

to 75 percent of the entire no-newstandards case INPV), profitability 

impacts that could result in a large 

reduction in INPV (up to a decrease of 

46.4 percent), the large negative free 

cash flows in the years leading up to the 

compliance date (annual free cash flow 

is estimated to be ¥$1,132 million in 

the year before the compliance date), the 

lack of manufacturers currently offering 

equipment meeting the efficiency levels 

required at this TSL (models 

representing 96 percent of shipments 

will need to be redesigned to meet this 

TSL), including most small businesses, 

and the likelihood of the significant 

disruption in the GFB market. Due to 

the limited amount of engineering 

resources each manufacturer has, it is 

unclear if most manufacturers will be 

able to redesign models representing on 

average 96 percent of their GFB 

shipments covered by this rulemaking 

in the 5-year compliance period. 

Consequently, the Secretary has 

tentatively concluded that TSL 6 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 5, which 

represents a combination of the highest 

efficiency levels resulting in positive 

life-cycle costs savings. At TSL 5, DOE 

expects all equipment classes, except for 

axial PRVs, would require an 

aerodynamic redesign. Axial panel, 

centrifugal housed, centrifugal inline, 

centrifugal unhoused, centrifugal PRV 

supply, and radial housed fans would 

all require the highest tier aerodynamic 

redesign. Axial inline and centrifugal 

PRV exhaust fans would require the 

second to highest tier aerodynamic 

redesign. Axial PRV fans would require 

two size increases in diameter. 

TSL 5 would save an estimated 23.7 

quads of energy, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 5, the 

NPV of consumer benefit would be 

$19.2 billion using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $54.8 billion using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 411.5 Mt of CO2, 125.6 

thousand tons of SO2, 775.1 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.9 tons of Hg, 3,567.0 

thousand tons of CH4, and 3.9 thousand 

tons of N2O. The estimated monetary 

value of the climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions (associated 

with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent 

discount rate) at TSL 5 is $20.2 billion. 

The estimated monetary value of the 

health benefits from reduced SO2 and 

NOX emissions at TSL 5 is $14.0 billion 

using a 7-percent discount rate and 

$39.9 billion using a 3-percent discount 

rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 5 is $53.4 billion. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated total 

NPV at TSL 5 is $115.0 billion. The 

estimated total NPV is provided for 

additional information, however DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a proposed standard level is 

economically justified. 

At TSL 5, for the largest equipment 

classes (which are represented by axial 

panel fans, centrifugal housed fans, and 

centrifugal unhoused fans) the 

standards are set at the max-tech EL as 

with TSL 6. There is a life-cycle cost 

savings of $1,902, $2,398, and $2,004 

and a payback period of 2.5 years, 3.1 

years, and 1.0 years, respectively. For 

these equipment classes, the fraction of 

customers experiencing a net LCC cost 

is 29.9 percent, 41.5 percent, and 13.7 

percent due to increases in total 

installed cost of $618, $1,090 and $215, 

respectively. The life-cycle costs savings 

for axial inline, centrifugal inline, and 

radial housed fans are positive and 

equal to $670, $335, and $5,391, 

respectively. For these equipment 

classes the payback is 9.8, 9.1, and 2.2 

years and the fraction of customers 

experiencing a net LCC cost is 51.3 

percent, 66.7 percent, and 24.4 percent. 

The life-cycle costs savings for axial 

PRVs, centrifugal PRV exhaust, and 

centrifugal PRV supply fans are positive 

and equal to $945, $154, and $1,126, 

respectively. For these equipment 

classes the payback is 7.0, 8.9, and 2.8 

years and the fraction of customers 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3842 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

131The sum of annual free cash flows is estimated 

to be $2,348 million for 2025–2029 in the no-newstandards case and the no-new-standards case INPV 

is estimated to be $4,935 million. 

experiencing a net LCC cost is 14.3 

percent, 25.8 percent, and 32.3 percent. 

At TSL5, the shipments-weighted 

average LCC is equal to $2,030, the 

payback period is equal to 2.9 and the 

fraction of customers experiencing a net 

LCC cost is 30.2 percent. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $1,263 

million to an increase of $11 million, 

which corresponds to a decrease of 25.6 

percent and an increase of 0.2 percent, 

respectively. DOE estimates that 

industry must invest $2,075 million to 

conduct aerodynamic redesigns on all 

equipment classes except axial PRVs 

and to increase the diameter by two 

sizes for axial PRVs to comply with 

standards set at TSL 5. An investment 

of $2,075 million in conversion costs 

represents approximately 90 percent of 

the sum of the annual free cash flows 

over the years between the estimated 

final rule announcement date and the 

estimated standards year (i.e., the time 

period that these conversion costs 

would be incurred) and represents over 

42 percent of the entire no-newstandards case INPV over the 30-year 

analysis period.131

In the no-new-standards case, free 

cash flow is estimated to be $480 

million in 2029, the year before the 

modeled compliance date. At TSL 5, the 

estimated free cash flow is -$407 million 

in 2029. This represents a decrease in 

free cash flow of 185 percent, or a 

decrease of $887 million, in 2029. A 

negative free cash flow implies that 

most, if not all, manufacturers will need 

to borrow substantial funds to be able to 

make investments necessary to comply 

with energy conservation standards at 

TSL 5. The large drop in free cash flows 

could cause some GFB manufacturers to 

exit the GFB market entirely, even 

though recovery may be possible over 

the 30-year analysis period. 

Additionally, most small businesses 

will struggle to secure this funding due 

to their size and the uncertainty of 

recovering their investments. At TSL 5, 

models representing 7 percent of all 

GFB shipments are estimated to meet or 

exceed the efficiency requirements at 

this TSL in the no-new-standards case 

by 2030, the modeled compliance year. 

Therefore, models representing 93 

percent of all GFB shipments will need 

to be remodeled in the 5-year 

compliance period. 

Manufacturers are unlikely to have 

the engineering capacity to conduct this 

massive redesign effort in 5 years. 

Instead, they will likely prioritize 

redesigns based on sales volume, which 

could leave market gaps in equipment 

offered by manufacturers and even the 

entire industry. The resulting market 

gaps in equipment offerings could result 

in sub-optimal selection of fan duty 

points (airflow, pressure, speed 

combination) for some applications, 

potentially leading to a reduction in the 

estimated energy savings, and estimated 

consumer benefits, at this TSL. Most 

small businesses will be at a 

competitive disadvantage at this TSL 

because they have less technical and 

financial resources and the capital 

investments required will be spread 

over fewer units. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes 

that at TSL 5 for GFBs, the benefits of 

energy savings, the economic benefits 

on many consumers, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, emission reductions, 

and the estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the impacts on 

manufacturers, including the extremely 

large conversion costs (representing 

approximately 90 percent of the sum of 

the annual free cash flows during the 

time period these conversion costs will 

be incurred and are approximately equal 

to 42 percent of the entire no-newstandards case INPV), profitability 

margin impacts that could result in a 

large reduction in INPV (up to a 

decrease of 25.6 percent), the large 

negative free cash flows in the years 

leading up to the compliance date 

(annual free cash flow is estimated to be 

¥$407 million in the year before the 

compliance date), the lack of 

manufacturers currently offering 

equipment meeting the efficiency levels 

required at this TSL (models 

representing 93 percent of all GFB 

shipments will need to be redesigned to 

meet this TSL), including most small 

businesses, and the likelihood of the 

significant disruption in the GFB 

market. Due to the limited amount of 

engineering resources each 

manufacturer has, it is unclear if most 

manufacturers will be able to redesign 

models representing on average 93 

percent of their GFB shipments covered 

by this rulemaking in the 5-year 

compliance period. Consequently, the 

Secretary has tentatively concluded that 

TSL 5 is not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 4, which 

represents an intermediate level that is 

one efficiency level below TSL 5 for 

each equipment class. At TSL 4, DOE 

expects all equipment classes, except for 

axial PRVs, would require an 

aerodynamic redesign. Axial panel, 

centrifugal housed, centrifugal inline, 

centrifugal unhoused, centrifugal PRV 

supply, and radial housed fans would 

all require the second highest tier 

aerodynamic redesign. Axial inline fans 

would require the lowest tier 

aerodynamic redesign. Centrifugal PRV 

exhaust fans would require the second 

to lowest tier aerodynamic redesign. 

Axial PRV fans would require one size 

increase in diameter. 

TSL 4 would save an estimated 13.8 

quads of energy, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 4, the 

NPV of consumer benefit would be 

$13.7 billion using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $36.9 billion using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 239.4 Mt of CO2, 73.1 

thousand tons of SO2, 450.9 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.5 tons of Hg, 2,073.9 

thousand tons of CH4, and 2.3 thousand 

tons of N2O. The estimated monetary 

value of the climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions (associated 

with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent 

discount rate) at TSL 4 is $11.9 billion. 

The estimated monetary value of the 

health benefits from reduced SO2 and 

NOX emissions at TSL 5 is $8.2 billion 

using a 7-percent discount rate and 

$23.4 billion using a 3-percent discount 

rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 4 is $33.8 billion. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated total 

NPV at TSL 4 is $72.2 billion. The 

estimated total NPV is provided for 

additional information, however DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a proposed standard level is 

economically justified. 

At TSL 4, for the largest equipment 

classes which are represented by axial 

panel fans, centrifugal housed fans, and 

centrifugal unhoused fans; there is a 

life-cycle cost savings of $1,702, $2,423, 

and $1,170; and a payback period of 1.7 

years, 0.6 years, and 1.2 years, 

respectively. For these equipment 

classes, the fraction of customers 

experiencing a net LCC cost is 19.5 

percent, 12.9 percent, and 10.5 percent 

due to increases in total installed cost of 

$293, $134 and $135, respectively. The 

life-cycle costs savings for axial inline, 

centrifugal inline, and radial housed 

fans are positive and equal to $550, 

$955, and $3,714, respectively. For 

these equipment classes the payback is 

9.6, 6.1, and 1.7 years and the fraction 

of customers experiencing a net LCC 

cost is 23.6 percent, 49.2 percent, and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3843 

132The sum of annual free cash flows is estimated 

to be $2,348 million for 2025–2029 in the no-newstandards case and the no-new-standards case INPV is estimated to be $4,935 million. 

13.3 percent. The life-cycle costs 

savings for axial PRVs, centrifugal PRV 

exhaust, and centrifugal PRV supply 

fans are positive and equal to $945, 

$154, and $973, respectively. For these 

equipment classes the payback is 7.0, 

8.9, and 1.7 years and the fraction of 

customers experiencing a net LCC cost 

is 14.3 percent, 25.8 percent, and 24.9 

percent At TSL 4, the shipmentweighted average LCC is equal to 

$1,694, the payback period is equal to 

1.8 and the fraction of customers 

experiencing a net LCC cost is 15.7 

percent. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $455 

million to an increase of $1 million, 

which corresponds to a decrease of 9.2 

percent and an increase of less than 0.1 

percent, respectively. DOE estimates 

that industry must invest $770 million 

to comply with standards set at TSL 4. 

An investment of $770 million in 

conversion costs represents 

approximately 33 percent of the sum of 

the annual free cash flows over the years 

between the estimated final rule 

announcement date and the estimated 

standards year (i.e., the time period that 

these conversion costs would be 

incurred) and represents over 15 percent 

of the entire no-new-standards case 

INPV over the 30-year analysis 

period.132

In the no-new-standards case, free 

cash flow is estimated to be $480 

million in 2029, the year before the 

modeled compliance date. At TSL 4, the 

estimated free cash flow is $161 million 

in 2029. This represents a decrease in 

free cash flow of 66.4 percent, or a 

decrease of $319 million, in 2029. 

Annual cash flows remain positive for 

all years leading up to the modeled 

compliance date. At TSL 4, models 

representing 25 percent of all GFB 

shipments are estimated to meet or 

exceed the efficiency requirements at 

this TSL in the no-new-standards case 

by 2030, the modeled compliance year. 

Therefore, models representing 75 

percent of all GFB shipments will need 

to be remodeled in the 5-year 

compliance period. DOE estimates that 

while this represents a significant 

redesign effort, most GFB manufacturers 

will have the engineering capacity to 

complete these redesigns in a 5-year 

compliance period. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and burdens, the 

Secretary has tentatively concluded that 

a standard set at TSL 4 for GFBs would 

be economically justified. At this TSL, 

the average LCC savings for all GFB 

equipment class consumers is positive. 

An estimated 15.7 percent of consumers 

experience a net cost. The FFC national 

energy savings are significant and the 

NPV of consumer benefits is positive 

using both a 3-percent and 7-percent 

discount rate. Notably, the benefits to 

consumers vastly outweigh the cost to 

manufacturers. At TSL 4, the NPV of 

consumer benefits, even measured at the 

more conservative discount rate of 7 

percent is over 30 times higher than the 

maximum estimated manufacturers’ loss 

in INPV. The standard levels at TSL 4 

are economically justified even without 

weighing the estimated monetary value 

of emissions reductions. When those 

emissions reductions are included— 

representing $11.9 billion in climate 

benefits (associated with the average 

SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), 

and $23.4 billion (using a 3-percent 

discount rate) or $8.2 billion (using a 7- 

percent discount rate) in health 

benefits—the rationale for setting 

standards at TSL 4 for GFBs is further 

strengthened. Additionally, the impact 

to manufacturers is significantly 

reduced at TSL 4. While manufacturers 

have to invest $770 million to comply 

with standards at TSL 4, annual free 

cash flows remain positive for all years 

leading up to the compliance date. 

Lastly, DOE estimates that most GFB 

manufacturers will have the engineering 

capacity to complete these redesigns in 

a 5-year compliance period. 

As stated, DOE conducts the walkdown analysis to determine the TSL that 

represents the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified as required under 

EPCA. The walk-down is not a 

comparative analysis, as a comparative 

analysis would result in the 

maximization of net benefits instead of 

energy savings that are technologically 

feasible and economically justified, 

which would be contrary to the statute. 

86 FR 70892, 70908. While DOE 

recognizes that TSL 4 is not the TSL that 

maximizes net monetized benefits, DOE 

has weighed other non-quantified and 

non-monetized factors in accordance 

with EPCA in reaching this 

determination. DOE notes that as 

compared to TSL 5 and TSL 6, TSL 4 

has significantly smaller percentages of 

GFBs consumers experiencing a net 

cost, a lower simple payback period, a 

lower maximum decrease in INPV, 

lower manufacturer conversion costs, 

and significantly less likelihood of a 

major disruption to the GFB market, as 

DOE does not anticipate gaps in GFB 

equipment offerings at TSL 4. 

Although DOE considered proposed 

new standard levels for GFBs by 

grouping the efficiency levels for each 

equipment class into TSLs, DOE 

evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels 

in its analysis. For all equipment 

classes, TSL 4 represents the maximum 

energy savings that does not result in 

significant negative economic impacts 

to GFB manufacturers. At TSL 4 

conversion costs are estimated to be 

$770 million, significantly less than at 

TSL 5 ($2,075 million) and at TSL 6 

($3,750 million). At TSL 4 conversion 

costs represent a significantly smaller 

size of the sum of GFB manufacturers’ 

annual free cash flows for 2025 to 2029 

(33 percent), than at TSL 5 (90 percent) 

and at TSL 6 (130 percent) and a 

significantly smaller portion of GFB 

manufacturers’ no-new-standards case 

INPV (15 percent), than at TSL 5 (42 

percent) and at TSL 6 (75 percent). At 

TSL 4, GFB manufacturers will have to 

redesign a significantly smaller portion 

of their GFB models to meet the ELs set 

at TSL 4 (models representing 75 

percent of all GFB shipments), than at 

TSL 5 (93 percent) and at TSL 6 (96 

percent). Lastly, GFB manufacturers’ 

free cash flow remains positive at TSL 

4 for all years leading up to the 

compliance date. Whereas at TSL 5 

annual free cash flow is estimated to be 

¥$407 million and at TSL 6 annual free 

cash flow is estimated to be ¥$1,132 

million in 2029, the year before the 

modeled compliance year. The ELs at 

the proposed TSL result in average 

positive LCC savings for all equipment 

classes, significantly reduce the number 

of consumers experiencing a net cost, 

and reduce the decrease in INPV and 

conversion costs to the point where 

DOE has concluded they are 

economically justified, as discussed for 

TSL 4 in the preceding paragraphs. 

Therefore, based on the previous 

considerations, DOE proposes to adopt 

the energy conservation standards for 

GFBs at TSL 4. The proposed energy 

conservation standards for GFBs, which 

are expressed as FEI values, are shown 

in Table V–66. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3844 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.113</GPH> EP19JA24.114</GPH>

Table V-66 Proposed Enere:v Conservation Standards for GFBs 

Equipment Class With or Without Fan Energy Index 

Motor Controller (FEI)* 

Axial Inline Without 1.18 * A 

Axial Panel Without 1.48 * A 

Axial Power Roof Ventilator Without 0.85 * A 

Centrifugal Housed Without 1.31 * A 

Centrifugal Unhoused Without 1.35 * A 

Centrifugal Inline Without 1.28 * A 

Radial Housed Without 1.17*A 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator Without 1.00 * A 

-Exhaust 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator Without 1.19 * A 

- Supply 

Axial Inline With 1.18*A*B 

Axial Panel With 1.48 * A* B 

Axial Power Roof Ventilator With 0.85 * A* B 

Centrifugal Housed With 1.31*A*B 

Centrifugal Unhoused With 1.35 *A* B 

Centrifugal Inline With 1.28 * A* B 

Radial Housed With 1.17*A*B 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator With 1.00 * A* B 

-Exhaust 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator With 1.19*A*B 

- Supply 

* A is a constant representing an adjustment in FEI for motor hp, which can be found in Table V-67. B is a 

constant representing an adjustment in FEI for motor controllers, which can be found in Table V-67. 

Table V-67 Constants for GFB Proposed Enere:v Conservation Standards 

Constant Condition Value 

A Motor hp < 100 hp A= 1.00 

Motor hp ~ 100 hp and :S 250 hp A= 17mtr,2023 

17mtr 2014 

B With Motor FEPact of< B= FEPact-Credit h 

; were: 

Controller 20 kW (26.8 FEPact 

hp) Credit= 0.03 x FEPact + 0.08 

[SI] 

Credit= 0.03 X FEPact + 0.08 X 

1.341 rIPl 

FEPact of~ B = 0.966 

20 kW (26.8 

hp) 

TJm1r,2023 is the motor efficiency in accordance with Table 8 at 10 CFR 431.25, TJm1r,2014 is the motor 

efficiency in accordance with Table 5 at 10 CFR 431.25, which DOE is proposing to adopt into 10 CFR 

431.17 5, and FEP act is determined according to the DOE test procedure in Appendix A to Subpart J of Part 

431. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3845 

DOE is proposing an FEI level of 0.85 

(EL4) for axial PRVs. In section IV.C.1.b, 

DOE developed the MSP-efficiency 

relationship based on data from the 

AMCA sales database as well as 

performance data from manufacturer fan 

selection software and performance data 

provided from confidential 

manufacturer interviews. From its 

analysis, DOE estimated that EL4 for 

axial PRVs would be achieved by 

implementing two impeller diameter 

increases. Based on the MSP-efficiency 

results, EL4 for axial PRVs is the highest 

level with positive life-cycle costs 

savings. Furthermore, as discussed in 

section IV.C.1.b, ASHRAE 90.1–2022 set 

an FEI target of 1.00 for all fans within 

the scope of that standard, which 

includes axial PRVs. CEC requires 

manufacturers to report fan operating 

boundaries that result in operation at a 

FEI of greater than or equal to 1.00 for 

all fans within the scope of that 

rulemaking, which includes axial PRVs. 

DOE also notes that, based on its 

shipments analysis, 50-percent of axial 

PRVs have an FEI of at least 1.00. 

Additionally, based on its review of the 

market, DOE has found that most 

manufacturers offer models of APRVs 

that have an FEI of at least 1.00 at a 

range of diameters. Based on this, DOE 

expects that the market is already 

shifting towards an FEI of 1.00 for axial 

PRVs and that this level may not be 

unduly burdensome for manufacturers 

to achieve. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed standard level for axial PRVs, 

including the design options and costs, 

as well as the burdens and benefits 

associated with this level and the 

industry standards/California 

regulations FEI level of 1.00. 

b. Air Circulating Fans 

Table V–68 and Table V–69 

summarize the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for ACFs. The 

national impacts are measured over the 

lifetime of ACFs purchased in the 30- 

year period that begins in the 

anticipated first full year of compliance 

with new standards (2030–2059). The 

energy savings, emissions reductions, 

and value of emissions reductions refer 

to full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency 

levels contained in each TSL are 

described in section V.A of this 

document. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3846 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.115</GPH>

Table V-68 Summary of Analytical Results for ACFs TSLs: National Impacts 

Cate2orv TSL 1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 TSL6 

Cumulative FFC National Ener2V Savin2s 

Quads 0.1 0.2 1.2 4.5 6.5 7.2 

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (million metric tons) 1.7 3.8 21.5 78.5 112.6 125.8 

CRi (thousand tons) 15.3 33.4 188.0 686.7 984.6 1100.4 

N2O (thousand tons) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.9 1.0 

NOx (thousand tons) 3.3 7.2 40.5 148.0 212.2 237.2 

SO2 (thousand tons) 0.4 1.0 5.4 19.7 28.2 31.5 

Hg (tons) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 

Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 0.3 0.6 3.6 13.2 18.9 20.6 

Climate Benefits* 0.1 0.2 1.2 4.4 6.3 7.1 

Health Benefits** 0.2 0.4 2.2 8.2 11.7 13.1 

Total Benefitst 0.6 1.2 7.0 25.8 36.9 40.8 

Consumer Incremental Product -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.6 5.8 6.1 Costs:t 

Consumer Net Benefits 0.4 0.7 3.6 12.6 13.1 14.5 

Total Net Benefits 0.7 1.3 7.1 25.2 31.1 34.7 

Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs ( 7% discount rate, billion 2022$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 0.1 0.3 1.5 5.5 7.9 8.7 

Climate Benefits* 0.1 0.2 1.2 4.4 6.3 7.1 

Health Benefits** 0.1 0.2 0.9 3.1 4.5 5.0 

Total Benefitst 0.3 0.6 3.6 13.1 18.7 20.7 

Consumer Incremental Equipment -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.7 3.0 

Costs 

Consumer Net Benefits 0.2 0.3 1.5 5.3 5.2 5.7 

Total Net Benefits 0.4 0.7 3.6 12.8 16.0 17.7 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with ACFs shipped in 2030-2059. These results 

include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2059 from the products shipped in 2030-2059. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. 

Together, these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits 

associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the 

importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the 

benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 

published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for NOx and SO2) PM2.s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health 

benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2.s emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 

percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

t Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation puiposes, total and 

net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GH G with 3-

percent discount rate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated 

using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3847 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C DOE first considered TSL 6, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. At TSL 6, DOE expects all 

equipment classes would require an 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.116</GPH>

Table V-69 Summary of Analytical Results for ACFs TSLs: Manufacturer and 

Consumer Impacts 

Category TSL 1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 TSL6 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV (million 649- 645- 579- 16- (85)- 2022$) (No-new-standards 649- 650 

case INPV = 649) 649 649 649 652 653 

Industry NPV (% change) 0.0- 0.1 0.0- (0.6)- (10.9)- (97.5)- (113.1)-

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$) 

Axial ACFs; 12" :S D < - 35 495 327 141 126 36" (ACFl) 

Axial ACFs; 36" :S D < 297 291 606 478 341 346 48" (ACF2) 

Axial ACFs; 48" :S D 343 587 628 668 613 630 (ACF3) 

Housed Centrifugal ACFs - - - - 18 -1,210 (ACF4) 

Shipment-Weighted 192 289 564 479 353 342 Average * 

Consumer Simple PBP (years) 

Axial ACFs; 12" :S D < - 2.7 0.2 0.5 2.8 3.1 36" (ACFl) 

Axial ACFs; 36" :S D < NIA NIA NIA 0.2 1.6 1.9 48" (ACF2) 

Axial ACFs; 48" :S D NIA NIA NIA 0.1 1.1 1.4 (ACF3) 

Housed Centrifugal ACFs - - - - 4.8 25.0 (ACF4) 

Shipment-Weighted NIA 1.1 0.1 0.3 1.9 2.4 Average * 

Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost 

Axial ACFs; 12" :S D < - 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 40.4% 45.1% 36" (ACFl) 

Axial ACFs; 36" :S D < 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 22.7% 23.6% 48" (ACF2) 

Axial ACFs; 48" :S D 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.3% 11.3% (ACF3) 

Housed Centrifugal ACFs - - - - 14.1% 99.7% (ACF4) 

Shipment-Weighted 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 24.8% 28.6% Average * 

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. The entry "-" means no impact because the TSL 

considered is equivalent to the no-new standards case. The entry ''NIA." means not applicable 

because there is a decrease in average installed costs at the considered TSLs compared to the nonew standards case. 

* Weighted by shares of each equipment class in total projected shipments in 2030. 
3848 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

133The sum of annual free cash flows is estimated 

to be $227 million for 2025–2029 in the no-newstandards case and the no-new-standards case INPV 

is estimated to be $649 million. 

ECM. TSL 6 would save an estimated 

7.2 quads of energy, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 6, the 

NPV of consumer benefit would be $5.7 

billion using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $14.5 billion using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 6 are 125.8 Mt of CO2, 31.5 

thousand tons of SO2, 237.2 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.2 tons of Hg, 1,100.4 

thousand tons of CH4, and 1.0 thousand 

tons of N2O. The estimated monetary 

value of the climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions (associated 

with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent 

discount rate) at TSL 6 is $7.1 billion. 

The estimated monetary value of the 

health benefits from reduced SO2 and 

NOX emissions at TSL 6 is $5.0 billion 

using a 7-percent discount rate and 

$13.1 billion using a 3-percent discount 

rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 6 is $17.7 billion. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated total 

NPV at TSL 6 is $34.7 billion. The 

estimated total NPV is provided for 

additional information, however DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a proposed standard level is 

economically justified. 

At TSL 6, for the largest equipment 

classes, which are represented by ACF1, 

ACF2, and ACF3—which together 

represent approximately 99 percent of 

annual shipments—there is a life-cycle 

cost savings of $126, $346, and $630 

and a payback period of 3.1 years, 1.9 

years, and 1.4 years, respectively. For 

these equipment classes, the fraction of 

customers experiencing a net LCC cost 

is 45.1 percent, 23.6 percent, and 11.3 

percent due to increases in total 

installed cost of $187, $201 and $222, 

respectively. For the remaining 

equipment class (ACF4), the average 

LCC savings are ¥$1,210, a majority of 

consumers (99.7 percent) would 

experience a net cost and the payback 

period is 25.0 years. 

At TSL 6, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $734 

million to an increase of $3 million, 

which corresponds to decreases of 113.1 

percent and an increase of 0.5 percent, 

respectively. DOE estimates that 

industry must invest $1,167 million to 

conduct aerodynamic redesigns on all 

equipment classes and to implement 

ECMs for all equipment classes to 

comply with standards set at TSL 6. An 

investment of $1,167 million in 

conversion costs represents over 5 times 

the sum of the annual free cash flows 

over the years between the estimated 

final rule announcement date and the 

estimated standards year (i.e., the time 

period that these conversion costs 

would be incurred) and represents 

approximately 1.8 times the entire nonew-standards case INPV over the 30- 

year analysis period.133

In the no-new-standards case, free 

cash flow is estimated to be $51 million 

in 2029, the year before the modeled 

compliance date. At TSL 6, the 

estimated free cash flow is ¥$456 

million in 2029. This represents a 

decrease in free cash flow of 999 

percent, or a decrease of $507 million, 

in 2029. A negative free cash flow 

implies that most, if not all, 

manufacturers will need to borrow 

substantial funds to be able to make 

investments necessary to comply with 

energy conservation standards at TSL 6. 

The extremely large drop in free cash 

flows could cause some ACF 

manufacturers to exit the ACF market 

entirely, even though recovery may be 

possible over the 30-year analysis 

period. Additionally, most small 

businesses will struggle to secure this 

funding, due to their size and the 

uncertainty of recovering their 

investments. At TSL 6, models 

representing 1 percent of all ACF 

shipments are estimated to meet the 

efficiency requirements at this TSL in 

the no-new-standards case by 2030, the 

modeled compliance year. Therefore, 

models representing 99 percent of all 

ACF shipments will need to be 

remodeled in the 5-year compliance 

period. 

Manufacturers are unlikely to have 

the engineering capacity to conduct this 

massive redesign effort in 5 years. 

Instead, they will likely prioritize 

redesigns based on sales volume, which 

could leave market gaps in equipment 

offered by manufacturers and even the 

entire industry. The resulting market 

gaps in equipment offerings could result 

in sub-optimal selection of fan duty 

points (airflow, pressure, speed 

combination) for some applications, 

potentially leading to a reduction in the 

estimated energy savings, and estimated 

consumer benefits, at this TSL. Most 

small businesses will be at a 

competitive disadvantage at this TSL 

because they have less technical and 

financial resources and the capital 

investments required will be spread 

over fewer units. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes 

that at TSL 6 for ACFs, the benefits of 

energy savings, the economic benefits 

on many consumers, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, emission reductions, 

and the estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the impacts on 

manufacturers, including the extremely 

large conversion costs (representing 

approximately 5 times the sum of the 

annual free cash flows during the time 

period that these conversion costs will 

be incurred and are approximately equal 

to 1.8 times the entire no-new-standards 

case INPV), profitability impacts that 

could result in a large reduction in INPV 

(up to a decrease of 113.1 percent), the 

large negative free cash flows in the 

years leading up to the compliance date 

(annual free cash flow is estimated to be 

¥$456 million in the year before the 

compliance date), the lack of 

manufacturers currently offering 

equipment meeting the efficiency levels 

required at TSL 6 (models representing 

99 percent of all ACF shipments will 

need to be redesigned to meet this TSL), 

including most small businesses, and 

the likelihood of the significant 

disruption in the ACF market. Due to 

the limited amount of engineering 

resources each manufacturer has, it is 

unclear if most manufacturers will be 

able to redesign models representing on 

average 99 percent of their ACF 

shipments covered by this rulemaking 

in the 5-year compliance period. 

Consequently, the Secretary has 

tentatively concluded that TSL 6 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 5, which 

represents the highest EL below maxtech with positive LCC savings and is a 

combination of efficiency level 5 for 

axial ACFs and efficiency level 3 for 

housed centrifugal ACFs. At TSL 5, DOE 

expects that axial ACFs would require 

the highest tier of aerodynamic redesign 

and housed centrifugal ACFs would 

require the lowest tier of aerodynamic 

redesign. TSL 5 would save an 

estimated 6.5 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $5.2 billion using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $13.1 

billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 112.6 Mt of CO2, 28.2 

thousand tons of SO2, 212.2 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.2 tons of Hg, 984.6 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.9 thousand 

tons of N2O. The estimated monetary 

value of the climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions (associated 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3849 

134The sum of annual free cash flows is estimated 

to be $227 million for 2025–2029 in the no-newstandards case and the no-new-standards case INPV is estimated to be $649 million. 

with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent 

discount rate) at TSL 5 is $6.3 billion. 

The estimated monetary value of the 

health benefits from reduced SO2 and 

NOX emissions at TSL 5 is $4.5 billion 

using a 7-percent discount rate and 

$11.7 billion using a 3-percent discount 

rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 5 is $16.0 billion. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated total 

NPV at TSL 5 is $31.1 billion. The 

estimated total NPV is provided for 

additional information, however DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a proposed standard level is 

economically justified. 

At TSL 5, for the largest equipment 

classes, which are represented by ACF1, 

ACF2, and ACF3—which together 

represent approximately 99 percent of 

annual shipments—there is a life-cycle 

cost savings of $141, $341, and $613 

and a payback period of 2.8 years, 1.6 

years, and 1.1 years, respectively. For 

these equipment classes, the fraction of 

customers experiencing a net LCC cost 

is 40.4 percent, 22.7 percent, and 9.3 

percent due to increases in total 

installed cost of $148, $156 and $155, 

respectively. For the remaining 

equipment class (ACF4), the average 

LCC savings are $18 and 14.1 percent of 

consumers would experience a net cost 

and the payback period is 4.8 years. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $633 

million to an increase of $3 million, 

which corresponds to a decrease of 97.5 

percent and an increase of 0.5 percent, 

respectively. DOE estimates that 

industry must invest $1,043 million to 

conduct significant aerodynamic 

redesigns for non-compliant axial ACFs 

and minor aerodynamic redesign for 

non-compliant housed centrifugal ACFs 

to comply with standards set at TSL 5. 

An investment of $1,043 million in 

conversion costs represents over 4.5 

times the sum of the annual free cash 

flows over the years between the 

estimated final rule announcement date 

and the estimated standards year (i.e., 

the time period that these conversion 

costs would be incurred) and represents 

approximately 1.6 times the entire nonew-standards case INPV over the 30- 

year analysis period.134

In the no-new-standards case, free 

cash flow is estimated to be $51 million 

in 2029, the year before the modeled 

compliance date. At TSL 5, the 

estimated free cash flow is ¥$400 

million in 2029. This represents a 

decrease in free cash flow of 889 

percent, or a decrease of $451 million, 

in 2029. A negative free cash flow 

implies that most, if not all, 

manufacturers will need to borrow 

substantial funds to be able to make 

investments necessary to comply with 

energy conservation standards at TSL 5. 

The large drop in free cash flows could 

cause some ACF manufacturers to exit 

the ACF market entirely, even though 

recovery may be possible over the 30- 

year analysis period. Additionally, most 

small businesses will struggle to secure 

this funding, due to their size and the 

uncertainty of recovering their 

investments. At TSL 5, models 

representing 4 percent of all ACF 

shipments are estimated to meet or 

exceed the efficiency requirements at 

this TSL in the no-new-standards case 

by 2030, the modeled compliance year. 

Therefore, models representing 96 

percent of all ACF shipments will need 

to be remodeled in the 5-year 

compliance period. 

Manufacturers are unlikely to have 

the engineering capacity to conduct this 

massive redesign effort in 5 years. 

Instead, they will likely prioritize 

redesigns based on sales volume, which 

could leave market gaps in equipment 

offered by manufacturers and even the 

entire industry. The resulting market 

gaps in equipment offerings could result 

in sub-optimal selection of fan duty 

points (airflow, pressure, speed 

combination) for some applications, 

potentially leading to a reduction in the 

estimated energy savings, and estimated 

consumer benefits, at this TSL. Most 

small businesses will be at a 

competitive disadvantage at this TSL 

because they have less technical and 

financial resources and the capital 

investments required will be spread 

over fewer units. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes 

that at TSL 5 for ACFs, the benefits of 

energy savings, the economic benefits 

on many consumers, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, emission reductions, 

and the estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the impacts on 

manufacturers, including the extremely 

large conversion costs (representing 

approximately 4.5 times the sum of the 

annual free cash flows during the time 

period that these conversion costs will 

be incurred and are approximately equal 

to 1.6 times the entire no-new-standards 

case INPV), profitability impacts that 

could result in a large reduction in INPV 

(up to a decrease of 97.5 percent), the 

large negative free cash flows in the 

years leading up to the compliance date 

(annual free cash flow is estimated to be 

¥$400 million in the year before the 

compliance date), the lack of 

manufacturers currently offering 

equipment meeting the efficiency levels 

required at TSL 5 (models representing 

96 percent of all ACF shipments will 

need to be redesigned to meet this TSL), 

including most small businesses, and 

the likelihood of the significant 

disruption in the ACF market. Due to 

the limited amount of engineering 

resources each manufacturer has, it is 

unclear if most manufacturers will be 

able to redesign models representing on 

average 96 percent of their ACF 

shipments covered by this rulemaking 

in the 5-year compliance period. 

Consequently, the Secretary has 

tentatively concluded that TSL 5 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 4, which 

represents efficiency level 4 for axial 

ACFs and efficiency level 0 for housed 

centrifugal ACFs (no new standards for 

housed centrifugal ACFs). DOE expects 

that the second highest tier of 

aerodynamic redesign would be 

required for axial ACFs at TSL 4 would 

save an estimated 4.5 quads of energy, 

an amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $5.3 billion using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $12.6 

billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 78.5 Mt of CO2, 19.7 

thousand tons of SO2, 148.0 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.1 tons of Hg, 686.7 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.6 thousand 

tons of N2O. The estimated monetary 

value of the climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions (associated 

with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent 

discount rate) at TSL 4 is $4.4 billion. 

The estimated monetary value of the 

health benefits from reduced SO2 and 

NOX emissions at TSL 4 is $3.1 billion 

using a 7-percent discount rate and $8.2 

billion using a 3-percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 4 is $12.8 billion. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated total 

NPV at TSL 4 is $25.2 billion. The 

estimated total NPV is provided for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3850 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

135The sum of annual free cash flows is estimated 

to be $227 million for 2025–2029 in the no-newstandards case and the no-new-standards case INPV is estimated to be $649 million. 

additional information, however DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a proposed standard level is 

economically justified. 

At TSL 4, for the largest equipment 

classes, which are represented by ACF1, 

ACF2, and ACF3—which together 

represent approximately 99 percent of 

annual shipments—there is a life-cycle 

cost savings of $327, $478, and $668 

and a payback period of 0.5 years, 0.2 

years, and 0.1 years, respectively. For 

these equipment classes, the fraction of 

customers experiencing a net LCC cost 

is 0.2 percent, 0 percent, and 0 percent 

due to increases in total installed cost of 

$16, $14, and $15, respectively. For the 

remaining equipment class (ACF4), the 

considered TSL would not set any 

energy conservation standards. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $71 

million to an increase of less than $0.1 

million, which correspond to a decrease 

of 10.9 percent and an increase of less 

than 0.1 percent, respectively. DOE 

estimates that industry must invest 

$118.1 million to implement the second 

highest tier of aerodynamic redesign for 

axial ACFs to comply with standards set 

at TSL 4. An investment of $118.1 

million in conversion costs represents 

approximately 50 percent of the sum of 

the annual free cash flows over the years 

between the estimated final rule 

announcement date and the estimated 

standards year (i.e., the time period that 

these conversion costs would be 

incurred) and represents over 18 percent 

of the entire no-new-standards case 

INPV over the 30-year analysis 

period.135

In the no-new-standards case, free 

cash flow is estimated to be $51 million 

in 2029, the year before the modeled 

compliance date. At TSL 4, the 

estimated free cash flow is $1 million in 

2029. This represents a decrease in free 

cash flow of 99.0 percent, or a decrease 

of $50.2 million, in 2029. Annual cash 

flows remain positive for all years 

leading up to the modeled compliance 

date. At TSL 4, models representing 36 

percent of all ACF shipments are 

estimated to meet or exceed the 

efficiency requirements at this TSL in 

the no-new-standards case by 2030, the 

modeled compliance year. Therefore, 

models representing 64 percent of all 

ACF shipments will need to be 

remodeled in the 5-year compliance 

period. DOE estimates that while this 

represents a significant redesign effort, 

most ACF manufacturers will have the 

engineering capacity to complete these 

redesigns in a 5-year compliance period. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and burdens, the 

Secretary has tentatively concluded that 

at a standard set at TSL 4 for ACFs 

would be economically justified. While 

DOE recognizes that TSL 4 is not the 

TSL that maximizes net monetized 

benefits, DOE has weighed other nonquantified and non-monetized factors in 

accordance with EPCA in reaching this 

determination. At this TSL, the average 

LCC savings for all ACF consumers are 

positive. An estimated 0.1 percent of 

consumers experience a net cost. The 

FFC national energy savings are 

significant and the NPV of consumer 

benefits is positive using both a 3- 

percent and 7-percent discount rate. 

Notably, the benefits to consumers 

vastly outweigh the cost to 

manufacturers. At TSL 4, the NPV of 

consumer benefits, even measured at the 

more conservative discount rate of 7 

percent is over 74 times higher than the 

maximum estimated manufacturers’ loss 

in INPV. The standard levels at TSL 4 

are economically justified even without 

weighing the estimated monetary value 

of emissions reductions. When those 

emissions reductions are included— 

representing $4.4 billion in climate 

benefits (associated with the average 

SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), 

and $8.2 billion (using a 3-percent 

discount rate) or $3.1 billion (using a 7- 

percent discount rate) in health 

benefits—the rationale for setting 

standards at TSL 4 for ACFs is further 

strengthened. Additionally, the impact 

to manufacturers is significantly 

reduced at TSL 4. While manufacturers 

have to invest $118.1 million to comply 

with standards at TSL 4, annual free 

cash flows remain positive for all years 

leading up to the compliance date. 

Lastly, DOE estimates that most ACF 

manufacturers will have the engineering 

capacity to complete these redesigns in 

a 5-year compliance period. 

As stated, DOE conducts the walkdown analysis to determine the TSL that 

represents the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified as required under 

EPCA. The walk-down is not a 

comparative analysis, as a comparative 

analysis would result in the 

maximization of net benefits instead of 

energy savings that are technologically 

feasible and economically justified, 

which would be contrary to the statute. 

86 FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has 

not conducted a comparative analysis to 

select the proposed energy conservation 

standards, DOE notes that as compared 

to TSL 5 and TSL 6, TSL 4 has higher 

average LCC savings, significantly 

smaller percentages of GFBs consumers 

experiencing a net cost, a lower simple 

payback period, a lower maximum 

decrease in INPV, lower manufacturer 

conversion costs, and significantly less 

likelihood of a major disruption to the 

ACF market, as DOE does not anticipate 

gaps in ACF equipment offerings at TSL 

4. 

Although DOE considered proposed 

new standard levels for ACFs by 

grouping the efficiency levels for each 

equipment class into TSLs, DOE 

evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels 

in its analysis. For all equipment 

classes, TSL 4 represents the maximum 

energy savings that does not result in 

significant negative economic impacts 

to ACF manufacturers. At TSL 4 

conversion costs are estimated to be 

$118.1 million, significantly less than at 

TSL 5 ($1,043 million) and at TSL 6 

($1,167 million). At TSL 4 conversion 

costs represent a significantly smaller 

size of the sum of ACF manufacturers’ 

annual free cash flows for 2025 to 2029 

(50 percent), than at TSL 5 (450 percent) 

and at TSL 6 (500 percent) and a 

significantly smaller portion of ACF 

manufacturers’ no-new-standards case 

INPV (18 percent), than at TSL 5 (161 

percent) and at TSL 6 (180 percent). At 

TSL 4, ACF manufacturers will have to 

redesign a significantly smaller portion 

of their ACF models to meet the ELs set 

at TSL 4 (models representing 64 

percent of all ACF shipments), than at 

TSL 5 (96 percent) and at TSL 6 (99 

percent). Lastly, ACF manufacturers’ 

free cash flow remains positive at TSL 

4 for all years leading up to the 

compliance date. Whereas at TSL 5 

annual free cash flow is estimated to be 

¥$400 million and at TSL 6 annual free 

cash flow is estimated to be ¥$456 

million in 2029, the year before the 

modeled compliance year. The ELs at 

the proposed TSL result in average 

positive LCC savings for all equipment 

classes, significantly reduce the number 

of consumers experiencing a net cost, 

and reduce the decrease in INPV and 

conversion costs to the point where 

DOE has concluded they are 

economically justified, as discussed for 

TSL 4 in the preceding paragraphs. 

Therefore, based on the previous 

considerations, DOE proposes to adopt 

the energy conservation standards for 

ACFs at TSL 4. The proposed new 

energy conservation standards for ACFs, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3851 

which are expressed as efficacy in CFM/ 

W, are shown in Table V–70. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

Table V–71 summarizes the 

quantitative impacts estimated at the 

proposed TSLs for GFBs and ACFs. The 

quantitative impacts estimated for each 

TSL for GFBs and ACFs are discussed 

in sections V.C.1.a and V.C.1.b and of 

this document. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.117</GPH>

Table V-70 Proposed New Enen?:v Conservation Standards for ACFs 

Equipment Class * Efficacy 

(CFM/W) 

Axial ACFs; 12" ~ D < 36" 12.2 

Axial ACFs; 36" ~ D < 48" 17.3 

Axial ACFs; 48" ~ D 21.5 

Housed Centrifugal ACFs NIA 

*D: diameter m mches 

NIA means not applicable as DOE is not proposing to set a standard for this equipment class. 
3852 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.118</GPH>

Table V-71 Summary of Cumulative Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed 

Ener2V Conservation Standards for GFBs and ACFs (TSL 4) 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary Low-Net- High-NetBenefits Benefits Estimate Estimate Estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 55.8 52.0 59.5 

Climate Benefits* 16.3 15.7 16.9 

Health Benefits** 31.6 30.4 32.9 

Total Benefitsi" 103.7 98.0 109.4 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 6.3 8.1 4.7 Costs:t 

Net Benefits 97.4 89.9 104.7 

Change in Producer Cashflow (0.5) - 0 (0.5) - 0 (0.5) - 0 ONPV:t:t) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 22.2 20.8 23.5 

Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate) 16.3 15.7 16.9 

Health Benefits** 11.4 11.0 11.8 

Total Benefitsi" 49.8 47.4 52.2 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 3.2 3.9 2.5 Costs:t 

Net Benefits 46.6 43.5 49.8 

Change in Producer Cashflow (0.5) - 0 (0.5) - 0 (0.5) - 0 ONPV:1::1:) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GFBs and ACFs shipped in 2030-2059. 

These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2059 from the products 

shipped in 2030-2059. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize 

projections of energy prices from the A F:02023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High 

Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a constant rate in the 

Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a declining rate in the High Net 

Benefits Estimate for GFBs, and a low declining rate in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low 

Nel Benefits Estimale, and a high declining rale in U1e High Nel Benefils Eslimale for ACFs. The meU10ds 

used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F .1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note 

that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of 

this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average 

SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point 

estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four 

sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the 

interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Afethane, and 

Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, published in Februaiy 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for SO2 and NOx) PM2s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health 

benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to moneti7.e other effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3853 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Proposed Standards 

This section presents the combined 

results for GFBs and ACFs. Specific 

results for GFBs and ACFs are also 

discussed in section V.C.2.a and 

V.C.2.b, respectively. 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

net benefit is (1) the annualized national 

economic value (expressed in 2022 

dollars) of the benefits from operating 

products that meet the proposed 

standards (consisting primarily of 

operating cost savings from using less 

energy, minus increases in product 

purchase costs, and (2) the annualized 

monetary value of the climate and 

health benefits from emission 

reductions. 

Table V–72 shows the annualized 

values for GFBs and ACFs under TSL 4, 

expressed in 2022 dollars. The results 

under the primary estimate are as 

follows. 

Using a 7 percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced NOX and SO2

emissions, and the 3 percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

cost of the standards proposed in this 

rule is $360 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual benefits are $2,506 

million in reduced equipment operating 

costs, $963 million in monetized 

climate benefits, and $1,285 million in 

monetized health benefits. In this case, 

the monetized net benefit would 

amount to $4,394 million per year. 

Using a 3 percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards is $374 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the estimated annual benefits are 

$3,302 million in reduced operating 

costs, $963 million in monetized 

climate benefits, and $1,869 million in 

monetized health benefits. In this case, 

the monetized net benefit would 

amount to $5,760 million per year. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.119</GPH>

t Total benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with a 

3 percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. 

l Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

U Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis 

as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H. DOE's NIA includes all impacts (both costs and 

benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture 

the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately 

conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J. In the detailed 

MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, 

conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's 

expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash 

flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Change 

in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 11.4 percent that is 

estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted 

average cost of capital). For GFB & ACF, those values are -$526 million and $1 million. DOE accounts 

for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C. 

DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Conversion Cost 

Recovery scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario where manufacturers increase their markups 

in response to changes in energy conservation standards, and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, 

where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to 

increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated INPV in the above table, 

drawing on the MIA explained further in Section IV.J, to provide additional context for assessing the 

estimated impacts of this rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which 

is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. IfDOE were to include the INPV into the net 

benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the net benefits would range from $96.9 billion to $97.4 billion at 

3-percent discount rate and would range from $46.1 billion to $46.6 billion at 7-percent discount rate. 

Parentheses indicate negative values. 
3854 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.120</GPH>

Table V-72 Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy 

Conservation Standards for GFBs and ACFs (TSL 4) 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary Low-Net- High-NetBenefits Benefits Estimate Estimate Estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 3,302 3,074 3,521 

Climate Benefits* 963 926 1,002 

Health Benefits** 1,869 1,796 1,945 

Total Benefitsi" 6,134 5,796 6,469 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 374 478 276 Costs:t 

Net Benefits 5,760 5,317 6,192 

Change in Producer Cashflow (62) - 0 (62) - 0 (62) - 0 ONPV:t:t) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 2,506 2,346 2,658 

Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate) 963 926 1,002 

Health Benefits** 1,285 1,240 1,330 

Total Benefitsi" 4,754 4,513 4,991 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 360 441 280 Costs:t 

Net Benefits 4,394 4,072 4,710 

Change in Producer Cashflow (62) - 0 (62) - 0 (62) - 0 ONPV:1::1:) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GFBs and ACFs shipped in 2030-2059. 

These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2059 from the products 

shipped in 2030-2059. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize 

projections of energy prices from the A F:02023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High 

Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a constant rate in the 

Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a declining rate in the High Net 

Benefits Estimate for GFBs, and a low declining rate in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low 

Nel Benefits Estimale, and a high declining rale in U1e High Nel Benefils Eslimale for ACFs. The melhods 

used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F .1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note 

that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of 

this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average 

SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point 

estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four 

sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the 

interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Afethane, and 

Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, published in Februaiy 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for SO2 and NOx) PM2s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health 

benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to moneti7.e other effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2_5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3855 

a. General Fans and Blowers 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

net benefit is (1) the annualized national 

economic value (expressed in 2022 

dollars) of the benefits from operating 

products that meet the proposed 

standards (consisting primarily of 

operating cost savings from using less 

energy, minus increases in product 

purchase costs, and (2) the annualized 

monetary value of the climate and 

health benefits from emission 

reductions. 

Table V–73 shows the annualized 

values for GFBs under TSL 4, expressed 

in 2022 dollars. The results under the 

primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3- 

percent discount rate case for GHG 

social costs, the estimated cost of the 

proposed standards for GFBs is $329 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $1,880 million from 

reduced equipment operating costs, 

$703 million in climate benefits, and 

$932 million in health benefits. In this 

case, the net benefit amounts to $3,185 

million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards for GFBs is $340 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $2,524 million in reduced 

operating costs, $703 million in 

monetized climate benefits, and $1,384 

million from in monetized health 

benefits. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $4,271 million per year. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.121</GPH>

t Total benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with a 

3 percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. 

l Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

U Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis 

as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H. DOE's NIA includes all impacts (both costs and 

benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture 

the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately 

conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J. In the detailed 

MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, 

conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's 

expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash 

flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The 

annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 11.4 

percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the 

industry weighted average cost of capital). For GFB & ACF, those values are -$62 million and less than 

$0.1 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically 

justified. See section V. C. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup 

scenarios: the Conversion Cost Recovery scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario where 

manufacturers increase their markups in response to changes in energy conservation standards, and the 

Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to 

increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE 

includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA 

explained further in section IV.J, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this 

rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with 

OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. IfDOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit 

calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $5,698 million to $5,760 

million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $4,332 million to $4,394 million at 7-percent 

discount rate. Parentheses indicate negative values. 
3856 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.122</GPH>

Table V-73 Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy 

Conservation Standards for GFBs (TSL 4) 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary Low-Net- High-Net-Benefits 

Benefits Estimate Estimate Estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 2,524 2,321 2,724 

Climate Benefits* 703 666 742 

Health Benefits** 1,384 1,311 1,461 

Total Monetized Benefitst 4,611 4,297 4,927 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 340 442 243 Costst 

Net Monetized Benefits 4,271 3,855 4,684 

Change in Producer Cashflow (- (53) - 0 (53) - 0 (53) - 0 NPV:t:1:) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 1,880 1,739 2,017 

Climate Benefits* (3% discount 703 666 742 rate) 

Health Benefits** 932 888 978 

Total Monetized Benefitst 3,515 3,293 3,736 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 329 409 251 Costst 

Net Monetized Benefits 3,185 2,884 3,486 

Change in Producer Cashflow (- (53) - 0 (53) - 0 (53) - 0 NPV:t:I:) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with products shipped in 2030-2059. These 

results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2059 from the products shipped in 

2030-2059. The Primruy, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy 

prices from theAEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, 

respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect. a constant price in the Primaty Estimate, an 

increasing rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a declining rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. 

The methods used lo derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.l and IV.H.3 oftlris 

document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.M of 

this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average 

SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point 

estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four 

sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim 

estimates presented in the Technical Supp011Document: Social Cost of Carbon, lvfethane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim 

Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social 

Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for SO2 and NOx) PM2s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health 

benefits, but will continue to assess tl1e ability lo monetize otl1er effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2.5 enrissions. See section IV.M of this document for more details. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3857 

b. Air Circulating Fans 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

net benefit is (1) the annualized national 

economic value (expressed in 2022 

dollars) of the benefits from operating 

products that meet the proposed 

standards (consisting primarily of 

operating cost savings from using less 

energy, minus increases in product 

purchase costs, and (2) the annualized 

monetary value of the climate and 

health benefits from emission 

reductions. 

Table V–74 shows the annualized 

values for ACFs under TSL 4, expressed 

in 2022 dollars. The results under the 

primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3- 

percent discount rate case for GHG 

social costs, the estimated cost of the 

proposed standards for ACFs is $31 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $626 million from reduced 

equipment operating costs, $261 million 

from GHG reductions, and $353 million 

from reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. 

In this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$1,209 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards for ACFs is $34 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $778 million in reduced 

operating costs, $261 million in 

monetized climate benefits, and $485 

million in monetized health benefits. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$1,489 million per year. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.123</GPH>

t Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with a 

3-percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. 

t Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

U Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis 

as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.Hof this document. DOE's NIA includes all 

impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the 

manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the 

consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). 

See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions 

based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces 

a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present 

value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and 

manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted 

average cost of capital value of 11.4 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD 

for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For GFB, those values are -

$53 million and less than $0.1 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether 

a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts 

to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Conversion Cost Recovery scenario, which is the 

manufacturer markup scenario where manufacturer increase markups to account for changes in energy 

conservation standards, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed 

manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in 

manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the 

above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional 

context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to society, including potential changes in production 

and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. IfDOE were to include 

the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits 

would range from $4,218 million to $4,271 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $3,132 

million to $3,185 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses indicate negative values. 
3858 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.124</GPH>

Table V-74 Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy 

Conservation Standards for ACFs (TSL 4) 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary Low-Net- High-NetBenefits Benefits Estimate Estimate Estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 778 753 796 

Climate Benefits* 261 261 261 

Health Benefits** 485 485 485 

Total Monetized Benefitst 1,523 1,498 1,542 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 34 36 33 Costs:!: 

Net Monetized Benefits 1,489 1,462 1,509 

Change in Producer Cashflow (8)-0 (8)- 0 (8) - 0 (INPV:t:t) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 626 607 641 

Climate Benefits* (3% discount 261 261 261 rate) 

Health Benefits** 353 353 353 

Total Monetized Benefitst 1,239 1,221 1,254 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 31 32 30 Costst 

Net Monetized Benefits 1,209 1,188 1,225 

Change in Producer Cashflow (8)- 0 (8)- 0 (8) - 0 (INPV:t:t) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with products shipped in 2030-2059. These 

results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2059 from the products shipped in 

2030-2059. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy 

prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, 

respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a low declining rate in the Primary Estimate, 

an increasing rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high declining rate in the High Net Benefits 

Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.HJ of 

this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.M of 

this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average 

SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point 

estimate. and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four 

sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the 

interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Afethane, and 

Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in Febmary 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for SO2 and NOx) PM2s precursor healtl1 benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health 

benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.M of this document for more details. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3859 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

D. Reporting, Certification, and 

Sampling Plan 

Manufacturers, including importers, 

must use equipment-specific 

certification templates to certify 

compliance to DOE. For fans and 

blowers, the certification template 

reflects the general certification 

requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.12 

and the product-specific requirements 

specified at 10 CFR 429.69. DOE is not 

proposing to amend the product-specific 

certification requirements for this 

equipment. DOE may consider 

certification reporting requirements for 

GFBs in a separate rulemaking. 

E. Representations and Enforcement 

Provisions 

1. Representations for General Fans and 

Blowers 

In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE 

summarized stakeholder comments 

related to FEI representations at 

compliant and non-compliant duty 

points. DOE stated that it was not 

establishing energy conservation 

standards for fans and blowers and 

therefore, the May 2023 TP final rule 

would not result in any compliant or 

non-compliant operating points. DOE 

further stated that it would consider 

representations and any issues related to 

compliance with any potential energy 

conservation standard in a separate 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. 88 FR 27312, 27369. 

In response to the October 2022 

NODA, the CA IOUs recommended that 

DOE consider allowing representations 

at all duty points for fans designed for 

low-pressure, space-constrained 

applications. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at pp. 

6–7) The CA IOUs stated that for a lowpressure application fan to meet an 

energy conservation standard, a 

consumer would have to either increase 

the diameter of the fan, which would 

result in a costly redesign of the system, 

or the consumer would have to replace 

the non-compliant fan with a compliant 

fan of the same diameter running at a 

higher pressure, which could result in 

greater power consumption of the 

system. Id. Furthermore, the CA IOUs 

encouraged DOE to discuss the issue of 

whether to allow the publication of noncompliant, low-pressure duty points 

with manufacturers. Id. 

Damas and Boldt commented that 

they disagree with DOE’s proposal to 

restrict the publication of fan and 

blower performance data at duty points 

that do not comply with a proposed 

energy conservation standard and 

recommended that DOE instead require 

that any non-compliant duty points be 

highlighted. (Damas and Boldt, No. 131 

at pp. 1, 5) They provided several 

example scenarios where a fan may be 

selected for use that is outside its 

compliant range: space-constrained lowflow high-pressure applications, spaceconstrained low-pressure applications, 

retrofitted systems, VAV systems that 

require operation over a wide range of 

duty points, systems with pressure 

consuming elements that may vary in 

their pressure consumption such that a 

fan must be selected for a worst case 

scenario instead of an average use 

scenario, and situations where the 

system that a fan is operating in 

changes. (Damas and Boldt, No. 131 at 

pp. 2–4) Furthermore, Damas and Boldt 

commented that they are concerned that 

designers may artificially increase the 

pressure consumption of a system by 

closing dampers to allow the fan to 

operate at a compliant duty point, 

which could ultimately increase energy 

consumption. (Damas and Boldt, No. 

131 at pp. 3–4) Additionally, Damas and 

Boldt stated that there may be safety 

issues when a fan operates near its 

highest efficiency duty point, which is 

often near the unstable region of a fan. 

(Damas and Boldt, No. 131 at p. 4) 

Damas and Boldt commented that 

system engineers need full fan 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.125</GPH>

t Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with a 

3-percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. 

t Costs include incremental equipment costs. 

U Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis 

as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.Hof this document. DOE's NIA includes all 

impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the 

manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the 

consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). 

See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions 

based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces 

a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present 

value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and 

manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted 

average cost of capital value of 11.4 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD 

for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For ACF, those values are -$8 

million and no annualized change in INPV. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing 

whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the 

INPV under two markup scenarios: the Conversion Cost Recovery scenario, which is the manufacturer 

markup scenario where manufacturers increase their markups in response to changes in energy 

conservation standards, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed 

manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in 

manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the 

above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional 

context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to society, including potential changes in production 

and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. IfDOE were to include 

the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits 

would range from $1,481 million to $1,489 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $1,201 

million to $1,209 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses indicate negative values. 
3860 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

performance data to ensure that a 

system design does not push the fan 

into its unstable operating region. Id. 

As discussed in detail in section 

IV.C.1, DOE evaluated improved 

efficiency options while maintaining 

constant diameter and duty point (i.e., 

air flow and operating pressures 

remained constant as efficiency 

increased); therefore, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that a compliant 

fan of the same equipment class, 

diameter, and duty point would be 

available. 

As discussed in section III.C.1 of this 

document, the FEI metric is evaluated at 

each duty point as specified by the 

manufacturer as required by the DOE 

test procedure. If adopted, the proposed 

energy conservation standards would 

have to be met at each duty point at 

which the fan is sold. 

Consistent with stakeholder feedback 

from the CA IOUs and Damas and Boldt, 

DOE recognizes that not allowing 

representations of a fan’s entire 

performance map could result in 

increased energy consumption or 

potential unintended consequences. 

Therefore, DOE proposes that a 

manufacturer could make 

representations at non-compliant duty 

points provided representations include 

a disclaimer; however, the manufacturer 

would be responsible for ensuring that 

the fan is not sold and selected at the 

non-compliant duty points. To ensure 

this, a manufacturer could, for example: 

(1) choose to make representations of 

non-compliant duty points and identify 

those duty points as non-compliant, but 

would need to know the duty point(s) 

for which the fan was selected and sold; 

or (2) choose to only make 

representations at compliant duty points 

in the case where the manufacturer does 

not know the duty point(s) for which 

the fan is selected and sold. 

In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(r), 

energy conservation standards may 

include any requirement which the 

Secretary determines is necessary to 

assure that each covered product to 

which such standard applies meets the 

required minimum level of energy 

efficiency. As such, to assure that each 

GFB to which the proposed standard 

would apply meets the required FEI 

specified in such standard, and in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(r), DOE 

proposes to additionally require that all 

representations at non-compliant duty 

points would be (1) identified by the 

following disclaimer: ‘‘Sale at these 

duty points violates Department of 

Energy Regulations under EPCA’’ in all 

capital letters, red, and bold font; and 

(2) grayed out in any graphs or tables in 

which they are included. 

2. Enforcement Provisions for General 

Fans and Blowers 

Subpart C of 10 CFR part 429 

establishes enforcement provisions 

applicable to covered products and 

covered equipment, including fans and 

blowers. General enforcement 

provisions are established in 10 CFR 

429.110. Various provisions in 10 CFR 

429.110 specify when DOE may test for 

enforcement, how DOE will obtain units 

for enforcement testing, where selected 

units will be tested, and how DOE will 

determine basic model compliance, both 

in general and for specific products and 

equipment. DOE is proposing to add 

specific enforcement testing provisions 

for GFBs at 10 CFR 429.110(e). 

As previously stated, the FEI metric 

would be evaluated at each duty point 

as specified by the manufacturer and, if 

adopted, the proposed energy 

conservation standards would have to 

be met at each duty point at which the 

fan is sold. Therefore, while DOE 

requires GFBs to follow the basic model 

structure outlined in the May 2023 TP 

Final Rule, DOE proposes that GFB 

compliance will be determined by duty 

point offered for sale. In other words, if 

DOE finds that one or more duty 

point(s) certified as compliant by a 

manufacturer is not compliant with 

proposed energy conservation 

standards, if adopted, the basic model 

would be considered non-compliant. 

Pursuant to 10.CFR 429.104, DOE 

may, at any time, test a basic model to 

assess whether the basic model is in 

compliance with the applicable energy 

conservation standard(s). If DOE has 

reason to believe that a basic model is 

not in compliance it may test for 

enforcement pursuant to 10 CFR 

429.110. To verify compliance of GFBs, 

DOE proposes to add the following 

enforcement testing approach at 10 CFR 

429.110(e). 

When conducting assessment and 

enforcement testing, DOE proposes to 

test each basic model according to the 

DOE test procedure, using the test 

method specified by the manufacturer 

submitted in their certification report 

(i.e., based on section 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 or 6.4 

of AMCA 214–21) pursuant to 10 CFR 

429.69. When conducting enforcement 

testing, DOE proposes that it may 

choose to test either one fan at multiple 

duty points or multiple fans at one or 

more duty points to evaluate 

compliance of a certified basic model at 

each certified duty point. 

a. Testing a Single Fan at Multiple Duty 

Points 

When testing a single fan at multiple 

duty points, DOE proposes to first 

determine either bhp or FEP, dependent 

on the test method specified by the 

manufacturer, for the range of certified 

airflow, pressure, and speed (duty 

points) according to appendix A of 

subpart J to 10 CFR part 431. DOE 

acknowledges that it may not be feasible 

to exactly replicate the measurements at 

the certified duty points, or within the 

certified range of duty points; therefore, 

DOE will verify that, at a given speed, 

the airflow at which the test is being 

conducted is within 5-percent of the 

certified airflow and the pressure is 

within between P × (1¥0.05)2 and 

where P is the certified static or total 

pressure. If DOE is unable to verify 

some or all certified duty points (i.e., the 

fan is unable to perform at airflows and 

pressures at a given speed that are 

within the prescribed margin of the 

certified airflows and pressures), the 

certified rating cannot be used to 

determine compliance. DOE will 

consider the certified rating to be 

invalid and DOE will rely on the 

measured duty point (i.e., measured 

flow and pressure at the given speed) to 

determine compliance. If DOE is able to 

verify the certified duty points (i.e., DOE 

is able to test the fan at airflows and 

pressures at a given speed that are 

within the prescribed margin of the 

certified airflows and pressures), DOE 

will convert the tested bhp or FEP at the 

tested airflow to the certified airflow 

and use the converted bhp or FEP 

calculate the corresponding FEI at each 

certified duty point, in accordance with 

the DOE test procedure. To convert the 

tested bhp or FEP at the tested airflow 

to the certified airflow DOE will use the 

following equations: 

For fan shaft power: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.126</GPH>

Converted bhp = tested bhp x (certified duty point airflow) 3 

tested duty point air[ low 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3861 

For fan electrical power: 

DOE proposes that if the FEI 

calculated at the certified or measured 

duty point is greater than or equal to the 

minimum required FEI, then testing 

would be complete and DOE would 

consider the certified duty point to be 

compliant. If the FEI calculated at a 

certified or measured duty point is less 

than the minimum required FEI, DOE 

may make a determination of 

noncompliance based on that single test 

or may select no more than three 

additional identical model numbers and 

evaluate (a) specific duty point(s) 

according to the procedure just 

described to further determine whether 

(a) specific duty point(s) is/are 

compliant based on the average FEI of 

all units tested when multiple units are 

tested. 

DOE also proposes to add the 

provisions related to the verification of 

duty points at 10 CFR 429.134. 

b. Testing Multiple Fans at One or 

Several Duty Points 

If the FEI calculated at a certified or 

measured duty point is less than the 

minimum required FEI, DOE may make 

a determination of noncompliance 

based on that single test or may select 

no more than three additional units of 

a certified basic model for testing. For 

each of the units tested, if the duty point 

can be verified, DOE proposes to then 

follow the approach described in the 

preceding paragraph, to determine the 

converted FEP or bhp and the associated 

FEI at certified duty point(s). Similarly, 

DOE proposes to determine compliance 

at each duty point using the average FEI 

for each certified duty point. If the duty 

point(s) cannot be verified, DOE 

proposes to use the same approach as in 

the sampling provisions (see 10 CFR 

429.69) to determine the average FEP or 

bhp and the associated average FEI at 

measured duty point(s). 

3. Enforcement Provisions for Air 

Circulating Fans 

For air circulating fans, DOE proposes 

to follow the general enforcement 

testing provisions at 10 CFR 429.110. 

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 

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 constitutes a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within 

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

12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 

6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has 

provided to OIRA an assessment, 

including the underlying analysis, of 

benefits and costs anticipated from the 

proposed regulatory action, together 

with, to the extent feasible, a 

quantification of those costs; and an 

assessment, including the underlying 

analysis, of costs and benefits of 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives to the planned 

regulation, and an explanation why the 

planned regulatory action is preferable 

to the identified potential alternatives. 

These assessments are summarized in 

this preamble and further detail can be 

found in the technical support 

document for this proposed rulemaking. 

Finally, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed 

rule may be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2020-BT-STD-0007. 

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 

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-general-counsel). DOE has 

prepared the following IRFA for the 

industrial equipment that is the subject 

of this rulemaking. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.127</GPH>

Converted FEP = tested FEP x (certified duty point airflow) 3 

tested duty point airflow 
3862 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

136 D&B Hoovers reports require a subscription to 

D&B Hoovers and can be accessed at: 

app.dnbhoovers.com. 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is

Being Considered

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. EPCA specifies 

the types of industrial equipment that 

can be classified as covered in addition 

to the equipment enumerated in 42 

U.S.C. 6311(1). This industrial 

equipment includes fans and blowers. 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(ii) and (iii)) DOE 

is undertaking this NOPR pursuant to its 

obligations under EPCA to propose 

standards for covered industrial 

equipment. 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for,

Rule

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered equipment, 

including fans and blowers. Any new or 

amended standard for a covered product 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 

determines is technologically feasible 

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

6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

3. Description on Estimated Number of

Small Entities Regulated

For manufacturers of fans and 

blowers, the SBA has set a size 

threshold, which defines those entities 

classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the 

purposes of the statute. DOE used the 

SBA’s small business size standards to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be subject to the requirements of 

the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size 

standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System 

(‘‘NAICS’’) code and industry 

description and are available at 

www.sba.gov/document/support-tablesize-standards. Manufacturing of fans 

and blowers is classified under NAICS 

335220, ‘‘Industrial and Commercial 

Fan and Blower and Air Purification 

Equipment Manufacturing.’’ The SBA 

sets a threshold of 500 employees or 

fewer for an entity to be considered as 

a small business for this category. 

DOE conducted a focused inquiry of 

the companies that could be small 

businesses that manufacture fans and 

blowers covered by this rulemaking. 

DOE used data from the AMCA sales 

database; from the BESS Labs database; 

and from ENERGY STAR’s certified 

product database to create a list of 

companies that potentially sell fans and 

blowers covered by this rulemaking. 

Additionally, DOE received feedback 

from interested parties in response to 

previous stages of this rulemaking. DOE 

contacted select companies on its list, as 

necessary, to determine whether they 

met the SBA’s definition of a fan and 

blower small business. DOE screened 

out companies that did not offer 

equipment covered by this rulemaking, 

did not meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign owned and 

operated. 

Using these data sources, DOE 

identified 91 manufacturers of fans and 

blowers. DOE then referenced D&B 

Hoovers reports,136 as well as the online 

presence of identified businesses in 

order to determine whether they might 

the criteria of a small business. DOE 

screened out companies that do not 

offer products covered by this 

rulemaking, do not meet the definition 

of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are foreign 

owned and operated. Additionally, DOE 

filters out businesses that do not 

directly produce fans and blowers, but 

instead relabel fans and blowers or 

integrate them into a different product. 

From these sources, DOE identified 46 

unique businesses manufacturing at 

least one covered fan or blower product 

family and that also fall under SBA’s 

employee threshold for this rulemaking. 

Of the 46 small businesses, 41 

manufacture at least one model of a 

covered GFB and 15 of these small 

businesses additionally manufacture at 

least one model of a covered ACF. 

Lastly, there are five small businesses 

that only manufacture ACF models (and 

do not manufacture any GFB models). 

DOE requests comment on the 

number of small business OEMs 

identified that manufacture fans and 

blowers covered by this rulemaking. 

4. Description and Estimate of

Compliance Requirements Including

Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different

Groups of Small Entities

In section IV.J.2.c of this NOPR, DOE 

reviews the methodology used to 

calculate conversion costs, this is 

further elaborated in chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD. DOE used the same 

methodology to estimate per small 

business conversion costs as with the 

broader industry—developing estimates 

of the number of product families for 

each small business using their websites 

and product catalogs. DOE was also able 

to find revenue estimates for each small 

business identified. 

Across the identified small 

businesses, DOE identified 457 covered 

GFB product families and 97 ACF 

product families. DOE evaluated how 

many of each type for each small 

business would be compliant with TSL 

4 based on the shipments analysis 

efficiency level estimates. Then, DOE 

assumed that all non-compliant product 

families would be redesigned and 

calculated the appropriate conversion 

costs. DOE estimates that the total cost 

to all small businesses to redesign GFB 

product families would be 

approximately $233.0 million and to 

redesign ACF would be an additional 

$29.1 million. DOE provides estimates 

of conversion costs for each small 

business in the following tables for 

small businesses that manufacture both 

GFBs and ACFs, GFBs only, and ACFs 

only. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3863 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.128</GPH>

Table VI-1 Small Business Impacts for Manufacturers of both General Fans and 

Blowers and Air Circulatin2 Fans 

Estimated GFB GFBNon- ACF ACF Non- Conversion 

Small Annual Product Compliant Product Compliant Conversion Costs(% of 

Business Revenue Family Product Family Product Costs Compliance 

(2022$) -Period (2022$) Count Families Count Families Revenue) 

Small $416,790 6 5 5 2 $8,978,604 430.8% Business 1 

Small $4,490,000 53 22 2 0 $27,717,925 123.5% Business 2 

Small $6,150,000 22 11 1 0 $12,855,803 41.8% Business 3 

Small $12,460,000 27 12 5 2 $18,618,710 29.9% Business 4 

Small $29,020,000 23 11 21 11 $24,414,048 16.8% Business 5 

Small $3,180,000 7 3 4 0 $2,411,773 15.2% Business 6 

Small $5,210,000 7 2 1 0 $2,945,394 11.3% Business 7 

Small $11,390,000 13 6 1 0 $6,161,091 10.8% Business 8 

Small $4,190,000 7 2 1 0 $1,607,849 7.7% Business 9 

Small $33,470,000 13 7 13 5 $11,002,812 6.6% Business 10 

Small $43,389,999 3 1 20 10 $9,548,291 4.4% Business 11 

Small $103,000,00 32 20 2 0 $20,091,122 3.9% Business 12 0 

Small $15,380,000 7 2 1 0 $1,607,849 2.1% Business 13 

Small $63,950,000 6 2 4 2 $4,560,513 1.4% Business 14 

Small $14,190,000 1 0 3 0 $0 0.0% Business 15 
3864 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

Costs as a percentage of revenue vary 

significantly across the small 

businesses. For small manufacturers 

that make both GFBs and ACFs, median 

costs as a percentage of revenue are 10.8 

percent. For small manufacturers that 

only make GFBs, median costs as a 

percentage of revenue are 5.3 percent. 

For small businesses that only make 

ACFs, most small businesses are 

expected to incur zero redesign costs, 

the highest cost estimated represents 6.9 

percent of the affected small business’ 

compliance period revenue. Small 

businesses that experience high 

conversion costs as a percentage of 

revenue will likely need to seek outside 

capital to finance redesign efforts and or 

prioritize redesigning product families 

based on sales volume. 

DOE requests comment on the 

estimated small business costs and how 

those may differ from the costs incurred 

by larger manufacturers. 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any other rules 

or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being considered 

today. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The discussion in the previous 

section analyzes impacts on small 

businesses that would result from DOE’s 

proposed rule, represented by TSL 4. In 

reviewing alternatives to the proposed 

rule, DOE examined energy 

conservation standards set at lower 

efficiency levels. While selecting TSLs 

1, 2, or 3 would reduce the possible 

impacts on small businesses, it would 

come at the expense of a significant 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.129</GPH> EP19JA24.130</GPH>

Table VI-2 Small Business Impacts - General Fans and Blowers Only 

Estimated Product Non- Conversion Conversion Costs 

Small Business Annual Family Compliant Costs (% of Compliance- Revenue Product 

(2022$) Count Families (2022$) Period Revenue) 

Small Business 1 $990,000 15 10 $9,376,788 189.4% 

Small Business 2 $1200,000 19 11 $8 843 167 147.4% 

Small Business 3 $1 030 000 8 4 $3 884 470 75.4% 

Small Business 4 $1 530 000 5 3 $4 418 091 57.8% 

Small Business 5 $2 590 000 14 9 $7 235 318 55.9% 

Small Business 6 $590,000 6 2 $1 607 849 54.5% 

Small Business 7 $810,000 3 1 $803 924 19.8% 

Small Business 8 $18 860 000 36 18 $18,483,273 19.6% 

Small Business 9 $870,000 4 1 $803 924 18.5% 

Small Business 10 $12 400 000 18 10 $8 039 243 13.0% 

Small Business 11 $21010 000 17 9 $9 241 637 8.8% 

Small Business 12 $4 690 000 4 1 $1472 697 6.3% 

Small Business 13 $16 630 000 11 6 $4 823 546 5.8% 

Small Business 14 $21880000 9 4 $5 222 015 4.8% 

Small Business 15 $10 560 000 6 3 $2 411 773 4.6% 

Small Business 16 $25 500 000 14 6 $5492318 4.3% 

Small Business 17 $9 360 000 4 2 $1 607 849 3.4% 

Small Business 18 $23 900 000 9 5 $4 019 621 3.4% 

Small Business 19 $6 660 000 2 1 $803 924 2.4% 

Small Business 20 $29 740 000 6 2 $2 945 394 2.0% 

Small Business 21 $25 620 000 5 2 $1 607 849 1.3% 

Small Business 22 $33 599 999 3 2 $1 607 849 1.0% 

Small Business 23 $17 870 000 5 1 $803 924 0.9% 

Small Business 24 $21 170 000 2 1 $803 924 0.8% 

Small Business 25 $7 910 000 3 0 - 0.0% 

Small Business 26 $7 760 000 2 0 - 0.0% 

T a e bl VI -3 S ma IIB usmess I m 1ac t s- A" Ir c· 1rcu If a m2 F ans 01 DIV 

Estimated Product Non- Conversion Conversion Costs 

Small Business Annual Family Compliant Costs (% of Compliance- Revenue Product 

(2022$) Count Families (2022$) Period Revenue) 

Small Business 1 $9.300.000 6 4 $3 230 237 6.9% 

Small Business 2 $2,290,000 3 0 - 0.0% 

Small Business 3 $5.420.000 2 0 - 0.0% 

Small Business 4 $5,050,000 1 0 - 0.0% 

Small Business 5 $1.440.000 1 0 - 0.0% 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3865 

reduction in energy savings and 

consumer NPV. 

For GFBs, TSL 1 achieves 88 percent 

lower energy savings and 90 percent 

lower consumer net benefits compared 

to the energy savings and consumer net 

benefits at TSL 4. TSL 2 achieves 78 

percent lower energy savings and 80 

percent lower consumer net benefits 

compared to the energy savings and 

consumer net benefits at TSL 4. TSL 3 

achieves 44 percent lower energy 

savings and 49 percent lower consumer 

net benefits compared to the energy 

savings and consumer net benefits at 

TSL 4. 

For ACFs, TSL 1 achieves 98 percent 

lower energy savings and 96 percent 

lower consumer net benefits compared 

to the energy savings and consumer net 

benefits at TSL 4. TSL 2 achieves 96 

percent lower energy savings and 94 

percent lower consumer net benefits 

compared to the energy savings and 

consumer net benefits at TSL 4. TSL 3 

achieves 73 percent lower energy 

savings and 71 percent lower consumer 

net benefits compared to the energy 

savings and consumer net benefits at 

TSL 4. 

Based on the presented discussion, 

establishing standards at TSL 4 for GFBs 

and for ACFs balances the benefits of 

the energy savings and consumer 

benefits with the potential burdens 

placed on manufacturers and small 

businesses better than alternate standard 

levels. Accordingly, DOE does not 

propose one of the other TSLs 

considered in the analysis, or the other 

policy alternatives examined as part of 

the regulatory impact analysis and 

included in chapter 17 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Under the procedures established by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(‘‘PRA’’), a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

OMB Control Number 1910–1400, 

Compliance Statement Energy/Water 

Conservation Standards for Appliances, 

is currently valid and assigned to the 

certification reporting requirements 

applicable to covered equipment, 

including fans and blowers. 

DOE’s certification and compliance 

activities ensure accurate and 

comprehensive information about the 

energy and water use characteristics of 

covered products and covered 

equipment sold in the United States. 

Manufacturers of all covered products 

and covered equipment must submit a 

certification report before a basic model 

is distributed in commerce, annually 

thereafter, and if the basic model is 

redesigned in such a manner to increase 

the consumption or decrease the 

efficiency of the basic model such that 

the certified rating is no longer 

supported by the test data. Additionally, 

manufacturers must report when 

production of a basic model has ceased 

and is no longer offered for sale as part 

of the next annual certification report 

following such cessation. DOE requires 

the manufacturer of any covered 

product or covered equipment to 

establish, maintain, and retain the 

records of certification reports, of the 

underlying test data for all certification 

testing, and of any other testing 

conducted to satisfy the requirements of 

part 429, part 430, and/or part 431. 

Certification reports provide DOE and 

consumers with comprehensive, up-todate efficiency information and support 

effective enforcement. 

Certification data would be required 

for fans and blowers were this NOPR to 

be finalized as proposed; however, DOE 

is not proposing certification or 

reporting requirements for fans and 

blowers in this NOPR. Instead, DOE 

may consider proposals to establish 

certification requirements and reporting 

for fans and blowers under a separate 

rulemaking regarding appliance and 

equipment certification. DOE will 

address changes to OMB Control 

Number 1910–1400 at that time, as 

necessary. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed 

regulation 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 rulemakings 

that establish energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE 

anticipates that this rulemaking 

qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 

because it is a rulemaking that 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment, none of the 

exceptions identified in categorical 

exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

require further environmental analysis, 

and it 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 rule. 

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 

rule 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 equipment 

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. 6316(a) and (b); 42 

U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further 

action is required by Executive Order 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3866 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

rule 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, 

section 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 www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. 

Although this proposed rule does not 

contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may require expenditures of 

$100 million or more in any one year by 

the private sector. Such expenditures 

may include: (1) investment in research 

and development and in capital 

expenditures by fans and blowers 

manufacturers in the years between the 

final rule and the compliance date for 

the new standards and (2) incremental 

additional expenditures by consumers 

to purchase higher-efficiency fans and 

blowers, starting at the compliance date 

for the applicable standard. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) 

The content requirements of section 

202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private 

sector mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. This 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this NOPR and the TSD for this 

proposed rule respond to those 

requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

(2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the proposed rule unless DOE 

publishes an explanation for doing 

otherwise, or the selection of such an 

alternative is inconsistent with law. As 

required by 42 U.S.C 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m), this proposed rule would 

establish energy conservation standards 

for fans and blowers that are designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that DOE has 

determined to be both technologically 

feasible and economically justified, as 

required by 42 U.S.C 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A) and (o)(3)(B). A full 

discussion of the alternatives 

considered by DOE is presented in 

chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD for this 

proposed rule. 

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 

rule 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 

rule 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%20Updated%20

IQA%20Guidelines%20

Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed 

this NOPR 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 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 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3867 

137The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the 

following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed 

December 5, 2023). 

138The report is available at 

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

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

this regulatory action, which proposes 

energy conservation standards for fans 

and blowers, is not a significant energy 

action because the proposed standards 

are not likely to 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 on this proposed rule. 

L. Information Quality

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.’’ 70 FR 2664, 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 report describing that peer review.137

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 whether 

modifications are needed to improve 

DOE’s analyses. DOE is in the process 

of evaluating the resulting report.138

M. Description of Materials

Incorporated by Reference

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference the following 

test standards published by the IEC. 

IEC 61800–9–2:2023 specifies test 

methods to determine the efficiency of 

motor controllers as well as the 

efficiency of motor and motor controller 

combinations. It also establishes 

efficiency classifications for this 

equipment. 

IEC TS 60034–30–2:2016 establishes 

efficiency classifications for motors 

driven by motor controllers. 

IEC TS 60034–31:2021 provides a 

guideline of technical and economical 

aspects for the application of energyefficient electric AC motors and 

example calculations. 

IEC 61800–9–2:2023, IEC TS 60034– 

30–2:2016, and IEC TS 60034–31:2021 

are available for purchase from the 

International Electrotechnical 

Committee (IEC), Central Office, 3, rue 

de Varembe ́, P.O. Box 131, CH–1211 

GENEVA 20, Switzerland; + 41 22 919 

02 11; webstore.iec.ch. 

The following standards appear in the 

amendatory text of this document and 

have already been approved for the 

locations in which they appear: AMCA 

210–16, AMCA 214–21, and ISO 

5801:2017. 

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

The time, date, and location of the

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this document. If you plan to attend 

the public meeting, please notify the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

staff at (202) 287–1445 or Appliance_

Standards_Public_Meetings@ee.doe.gov. 

Please note that foreign nationals 

visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to 

advance security screening procedures 

which require advance notice prior to 

attendance at the public meeting. If a 

foreign national wishes to participate in 

the public meeting, please inform DOE 

of this fact as soon as possible by 

contacting Ms. Regina Washington at 

(202) 586–1214 or by email

(Regina.Washington@ee.doe.gov) so that

the necessary procedures can be

completed.

DOE requires visitors to have laptops 

and other devices, such as tablets, 

checked upon entry into the Forrestal 

Building. Any person wishing to bring 

these devices into the building will be 

required to obtain a property pass. 

Visitors should avoid bringing these 

devices, or allow an extra 45 minutes to 

check in. Please report to the visitor’s 

desk to have devices checked before 

proceeding through security. 

Due to the REAL ID Act implemented 

by the Department of Homeland 

Security (‘‘DHS’’), there have been 

recent changes regarding ID 

requirements for individuals wishing to 

enter Federal buildings from specific 

States and U.S. territories. DHS 

maintains an updated website 

identifying the State and territory 

driver’s licenses that currently are 

acceptable for entry into DOE facilities 

at www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcementbrief. A driver’s license from a State or 

territory identified as not compliant by 

DHS will not be accepted for building 

entry and one of the alternate forms of 

ID listed below will be required. 

Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID 

include U.S. Passport or Passport Card; 

an Enhanced Driver’s License or 

Enhanced ID-Card issued by States and 

territories as identified on the DHS 

website (Enhanced licenses issued by 

these States and territories are clearly 

marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver’s 

License); a military ID or other Federal 

government-issued Photo-ID card. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

website at www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

standards.aspx?productid=51. 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared

General Statements for Distribution

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this document. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least one week before the 

public meeting and are to be emailed. 

Please include a telephone number to 

enable DOE staff to make follow-up 

contact, if needed. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3868 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6306) A court reporter will be 

present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. There shall not be 

discussion of proprietary information, 

costs or prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the public meeting, 

interested parties may submit further 

comments on the proceedings, as well 

as on any aspect of the proposed 

rulemaking, until the end of the 

comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present a general overview of the 

topics addressed in this proposed 

rulemaking, allow time for prepared 

general statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

proposed rulemaking. Each participant 

will be allowed to make a general 

statement (within time limits 

determined by DOE), before the 

discussion of specific topics. DOE will 

allow, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the previous procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this 

document and will be accessible on the 

DOE website. In addition, any person 

may buy a copy of the transcript from 

the transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but 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, hand 

delivery/courier, or postal mail. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email, hand delivery/courier, or 

postal mail also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ 

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible, in which case it is not 

necessary to submit printed copies. No 

telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3869 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE requests comment on its 

proposed clarification for fans that 

create a vacuum. Specifically, DOE 

requests comment on whether fans that 

are manufactured and marketed 

exclusively to create a vacuum of 30 

inches water gauge or greater could also 

be used in positive pressure 

applications. Additionally, DOE 

requests information on the applications 

in which a fan not manufactured or 

marketed exclusively for creating a 

vacuum would be used to create a 

vacuum of 30 inches water gauge or 

greater. 

(2) DOE requests comments and 

feedback on the proposed methodology 

and calculation of motor and motor 

controller losses as well as potentially 

using an alternative calculation based 

on adjusted AMCA 214–21 equations. 

(3) DOE requests comment on 

whether there are specific fans that meet 

the axial ACF definition that provide 

utility substantially different from the 

utility provided from other axial ACFs 

and that would impact energy use. If so, 

DOE requests information on how the 

utility of these fans differs from other 

axial ACFs and requests data showing 

the differences in energy use due to 

differences in utility between these fans 

and other axial ACFs. 

(4) DOE requests comment on its 

understanding that the diameter 

increase design option could be applied 

to non-embedded, non-spaceconstrained equipment classes. 

(5) DOE requests comment on 

whether the FEI increases associated 

with an impeller diameter increase for 

centrifugal PRVs and for axial PRVs are 

realistic. Specifically, DOE requests 

comment on whether it is realistic for 

axial PRVs to have a FEI increase that 

is 3 times greater than that for 

centrifugal PRVs when starting at the 

same initial diameter. Additionally, 

DOE requests comment on the factors 

that may impact how much an impeller 

diameter increase impacts a FEI 

increase. 

(6) DOE requests comment on the 

ordering and implementation of design 

options for centrifugal PRV exhaust and 

supply fans and axial PRV fans. 

(7) DOE requests comment on its 

approach for estimating the industrywide conversion costs that may be 

necessary to redesign fans with forwardcurved impellers to meet higher FEI 

values. Specifically, DOE is interested 

in the costs associated with any capital 

equipment, research and development, 

or additional labor that would be 

required to design more efficient fans 

with forward-curved impellers. DOE 

additionally requests comment and data 

on the percentage of forward-curved 

impellers that manufacturers would 

expect to maintain as a forward-curved 

impeller relative to those expected to 

transition to a backward-inclined or 

airfoil impeller. 

(8) DOE requests comment on the 

equations developed to calculate the 

credit for determining the FEI standard 

for GFBs sold with a motor controller 

and with an FEPact less than 20 kW and 

on potentially using an alternative 

credit calculation based on the proposed 

equations in section III.C.1.b of this 

document. Additionally, DOE requests 

comment on its use of a constant value, 

and its proposed value, of the credit 

applied for determining the FEI 

standard for GFBs with a motor 

controller and an FEPact of greater than 

or equal for 20 kW. 

(9) DOE requests comments on 

whether it should apply a correction 

factor to the analyzed efficiency levels 

to account for the tolerance allowed in 

AMCA 211–22 and if so, DOE requests 

comment on the appropriate correction 

factor. DOE requests comment on the 

potential revised levels as presented in 

Table IV–12. Additionally, DOE 

requests comments on whether it should 

continue to evaluate an FEI of 1.00 for 

all fan classes if it updates the databases 

used in its analysis to consider the 

tolerance allowed in AMCA 211–22. 

(10) Additionally, DOE does not 

anticipate that the efficiency levels 

captured in Table IV–12 would impact 

the cost, energy, and economic analyses 

presented in this document. As such, 

DOE considers the results of these 

analyses presented throughout this 

document applicable to the efficiency 

levels with a 5% tolerance allowance. 

DOE seeks comment on the analyses as 

applied to the efficiency levels in Table 

IV–12. 

(11) DOE requests comment on its 

method to use both the AMCA sales 

database and sales data pulled from 

manufacturer fan selection data to 

estimate MSP. DOE also requests 

comment on the use of the MSP 

approach for its cost analysis for GFBs 

or whether an MPC-based approach 

would be appropriate. If interested 

parties believe an MPC-based approach 

would be more appropriate, DOE 

requests MPC data for the equipment 

classes and efficiency levels analyzed, 

which may be confidentially submitted 

to DOE using the confidential business 

information label. 

(12) DOE requests feedback on 

whether using a more efficient motor 

would require an ACF redesign. 

Additionally, DOE requests feedback on 

what percentage of motor speed change 

would require an ACF redesign. 

(13) DOE requests feedback on 

whether setting an ACF standard using 

discrete efficacy values over a defined 

diameter range appropriately represents 

the differences in efficacy between axial 

ACFs with different diameters, and if 

not, would a linear equation for efficacy 

as a function of diameter be appropriate. 

(14) DOE seeks comment on the 

distribution channels identified for 

GFBs and ACFs and fraction of sales 

that go through each of these channels. 

(15) DOE seeks comment on the 

overall methodology and inputs used to 

estimate GFBs and ACFs energy use. 

Specifically, for GFBs, DOE seeks 

feedback on the methodology and 

assumptions used to determine the 

operating point(s) both for constant and 

variable load fans. For ACFs, DOE 

requests feedback on the average daily 

operating hours, annual days of 

operation by sector and application, and 

input power assumptions. In addition, 

DOE requests feedback on the market 

share of GFBs and ACFs by sector (i.e., 

commercial, industrial, and 

agricultural). 

(16) DOE requests feedback on the 

price trends developed for GFBs and 

ACFs. 

(17) DOE requests feedback on the 

installation costs developed for GFBs 

and on whether installation costs of 

ACFs may increase at higher ELs. 

(18) DOE requests feedback on 

whether the maintenance and repair 

costs of GFBs may increase at higher 

ELs. Specifically, DOE requests 

comments on the frequency of motor 

replacements for ACFs. DOE also 

requests comments on whether the 

maintenance and repair costs of ACFs 

may increase at higher ELs and on the 

repair costs developed for ACFs. 

(19) DOE requests comments on the 

average lifetime estimates used for GFBs 

and ACFs. 

(20) DOE requests feedback and 

information on the no-new-standards 

case efficiency distributions used to 

characterize the market of GFBs and 

ACFs. DOE requests information to 

support any efficiency trends over time 

for GFBs and ACFs. 

(21) DOE requests feedback on the 

methodology and inputs used to project 

shipments of GFBs in the no-newstandards case. DOE requests comments 

and feedback on the potential impact of 

standards on GFB shipments and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3870 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

information to help quantify these 

impacts. 

(22) DOE requests feedback on the 

methodology and inputs used to 

estimate and project shipments of ACFs 

in the no-new-standards case. DOE 

requests comments and feedback on the 

potential impact of standards on ACF 

shipments and information to help 

quantify these impacts. 

(23) DOE requests comment and data 

regarding the potential increase in 

utilization of GFBs and ACFs due to any 

increase in efficiency. 

(24) DOE requests comment on the 

number of end-use product (i.e., a 

product or equipment that has a fan or 

blower embedded in it) basic models 

that would not be excluded by the list 

of products or equipment listed in Table 

III–1. 

(25) DOE requests information 

regarding the impact of cumulative 

regulatory burden on manufacturers of 

fans and blowers associated with 

multiple DOE standards or productspecific regulatory actions of other 

Federal agencies. 

(26) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed standard level for axial PRVs, 

including the design options and costs, 

as well as the burdens and benefits 

associated with this level and the 

industry standards/California 

regulations FEI level of 1.00. 

(27) DOE requests comment on the 

number of small business OEMs 

identified that manufacture fans and 

blowers covered by this proposed 

rulemaking. 

(28) DOE requests comment on the 

estimated small business costs and how 

those may differ from the costs incurred 

by larger manufacturers. 

Additionally, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this rulemaking that may 

not specifically be identified in this 

document. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking and announcement of 

public meeting. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on December 28, 

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 

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 December 

29, 2023. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 

429 and 431 of chapter II, subchapter D, 

of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Amend § 429.69 by adding 

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 429.69 Fans and blowers. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Required Disclaimer at NonCompliant Duty Points. Representation 

of fan performance at duty points with 

FEI that are not compliant with the 

energy conservation standards at 

§ 431.175 of this chapter is allowed and 

must be identified by the following 

disclaimer: ‘‘Sale at these duty points 

violates Department of Energy 

Regulations under EPCA’’ in red and 

bold font; and (2) duty points must be 

grayed out in any graphs or tables in 

which they are included. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 429.110 by redesignating 

paragraphs (e)(7), (8), and (9) as 

paragraphs (e)(8), (9), and (10), 

respectively, and adding a new 

paragraph (e)(7) to read as follows: 

§ 429.110 Enforcement testing. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(7) For fans and blowers other than air 

circulating fans, DOE will use an initial 

sample of one unit to determine 

compliance at each duty point for which 

the fan basic model is distributed in 

commerce. If one or more duty points is 

determined to be non-compliant, the fan 

basic model is determined to be noncompliant. 

(i) When testing a single unit, DOE 

will first determine either fan shaft 

input power or FEP, dependent on the 

test method specified by the 

manufacturer, for the range of certified 

duty points according to appendix A to 

subpart J of part 431 of this chapter. For 

each point in the certified operating 

range (i.e., each certified duty point), 

DOE will conduct a verification of the 

duty points as described in 

§ 429.134(bb)(2) and determine the FEI 

at the certified duty point or at the 

measured duty point. If the FEI 

calculated at the certified or measured 

duty point is greater than or equal to the 

minimum required FEI, then testing is 

complete and the certified or measured 

duty point is compliant. If the FEI 

calculated at a certified or measured 

duty point is less than the minimum 

required FEI, DOE may select additional 

units to test in accordance with this 

paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of this section. 

(ii) When testing more than one unit, 

DOE will select no more than three 

additional units of a certified basic 

model for testing and test each one at 

one or several duty points within the 

range of certified duty points. For each 

unit and at each certified duty point, 

DOE will conduct a verification of the 

duty points as described in 

§ 429.134(bb)(2) and determine the FEI 

at the certified duty point or at the 

measured duty point. In the case where 

the certified duty point can be verified, 

DOE will calculate the average FEI of all 

units tested for each certified duty 

point. If the duty point cannot be 

verified, DOE will follow the sampling 

procedures at § 429.69 to determine the 

average FEI of all units tested at the 

measured duty point. If the average FEI 

calculated at the certified or measured 

duty point is greater than or equal to the 

minimum required FEI, then testing is 

complete and the certified or measured 

duty point is compliant. If the average 

FEI calculated at a certified or measured 

duty point is less than the minimum 

required FEI, then testing is complete 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3871 

and the certified or measured duty point 

is not compliant. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 429.134 by adding 

paragraph (gg) to read as follows: 

§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

(gg) Fans and blowers. (1) Testing. For 

fans and blowers other than air 

circulating fans, DOE will test each fan 

or blower basic model according to the 

test method specified by the 

manufacturer (i.e., based on the method 

listed in table 1 to appendix A to 

subpart J of part 431 of this chapter). 

(2) Verification of duty points. For 

fans and blowers other than air 

circulating fans, at a given speed within 

the certified operating range, the 

pressure and flow of a duty point in the 

certified range of operation (i.e., 

certified duty point) will be determined 

in accordance with appendix A to 

subpart J of part 431 of this chapter. At 

a given speed, the certified duty point 

will be considered valid only if the 

measured airflow is within five percent 

of the certified airflow and the 

measured static or total pressure is 

between P × (1¥0.05)2 and P × (1 + 

0.05)2 where P is the certified static or 

total pressure. 

(i)(A) If the certified duty point is 

found to be valid, the certified duty 

point will be used as the basis for 

determining compliance. DOE will 

convert the measured fan shaft power or 

FEP at the measured airflow to the 

certified airflow using the following 

equations: 

For fan shaft power: 

For fan electrical power: 

(B) DOE will use the converted fan 

shaft power or FEP to calculate the 

corresponding FEI at the certified duty 

point, in accordance with the DOE test 

procedure. 

(ii) If the certified duty point is found 

to be invalid, the measured flow and 

pressure will be used as the basis for 

determining compliance. DOE will use 

the measured fan shaft power or FEP to 

calculate the corresponding FEI at the 

measured duty point, in accordance 

with the DOE test procedure. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 6. Amend § 431.172 by adding in 

alphabetical order definitions for ‘‘Axial 

air circulating fan’’, ‘‘Axial power roof 

ventilator’’, ‘‘Centrifugal power roof 

ventilator—exhaust’’, ‘‘Centrifugal 

power roof ventilator—supply’’, 

‘‘Diameter’’, ‘‘Fan housing’’, ‘‘Mixed 

flow impeller’’, and ‘‘Radial impeller’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 431.172 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Axial air circulating fan means an air 

circulating fan with an axial impeller 

that is either housed or unhoused. 

* * * * * 

Axial power roof ventilator means a 

PRV with an axial impeller that either 

supplies or exhausts air to a building 

where the inlet and outlet are not 

typically ducted. 

* * * * * 

Centrifugal power roof ventilator— 

exhaust means a PRV with a centrifugal 

or mixed-flow impeller that exhausts air 

from a building and which is typically 

mounted on a roof or a wall. 

Centrifugal power roof ventilator— 

supply means a PRV with a centrifugal 

or mixed-flow impeller that supplies air 

to a building and which is typically 

mounted on a roof or a wall. 

* * * * * 

Diameter means the impeller diameter 

of a fan, which is twice the measured 

radial distance between the tip of one of 

the impeller blades of a fan to the center 

axis of its impeller hub. 

* * * * * 

Fan housing means any fan 

component(s) that direct(s) airflow into 

or away from the impeller and/or 

provide protection for the internal 

components of a fan or blower that is 

not an air circulating fan. A housing 

may serve as a fan’s structure. 

* * * * * 

Mixed flow impeller means an 

impeller featuring construction 

characteristics between those of an axial 

and centrifugal impeller. A mixed-flow 

impeller has a fan flow angle greater 

than 20 degrees and less than 70 

degrees. Airflow enters axially through 

a single inlet and exits with combined 

axial and radial directions at a mean 

diameter greater than the inlet. 

* * * * * 

Radial impeller means a form of 

centrifugal impeller with several blades 

extending radially from a central hub. 

Airflow enters axially through a single 

inlet and exits radially at the impeller 

periphery into a housing with impeller 

blades; the blades are positioned so 

their outward direction is perpendicular 

within 25 degrees to the axis of rotation. 

Impellers can have a back plate and/or 

shroud. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 431.173 by redesignating 

paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) 

and (e), respectively, and adding a new 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 431.173 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(c) IEC. International Electrotechnical 

Committee, Central Office, 3, rue de 

Varembe ́, P.O. Box 131, CH–1211 

GENEVA 20, Switzerland; + 41 22 919 

02 11; webstore.iec.ch. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.131</GPH> EP19JA24.132</GPH>

Converted fan shaft power 

( certified airflow) 

= Measured fan shaft power Measured airflow 

( certified airflow ) 3 

Converted FEP = Measured FEP x Measured airflow 

3 
3872 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(1) IEC 61800–9–2:2023, Adjustable 

speed electrical power drive systems 

(PDS)—Part 9–2: Ecodesign for motor 

systems—Energy efficiency 

determination and classification, 

Edition 2.0, 2023–10; IBR approved for 

appendix A to this subpart. 

(2) IEC TS 60034–30–2:2016, Rotating 

electrical machines—Part 30–2: 

Efficiency classes of variable speed AC 

motors (IE-code), Edition 1.0, 2016–12; 

IBR approved for appendix A to this 

subpart. 

(3) IEC TS 60034–31:2021, Rotating 

electrical machines—Part 31: Selection 

of energy-efficient motors including 

variable speed applications— 

Application guidelines, Edition 2.0, 

2021–03; IBR approved for appendix A 

to this subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 431.175 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.175 Energy conservation standards 

and compliance dates. 

(a) Each fan and blower, other than an 

air circulating fan manufactured starting 

on [DATE FIVE YEARS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] 

that is subject to the test procedure in 

§ 431.174(a), must have a FEI value at 

each duty point for which the fan is 

distributed in commerce, that is equal or 

greater than the value in table 1 of this 

section. The manufacturer is responsible 

for ensuring that each fan and blower, 

other than an air circulating fan 

manufactured starting on [DATE FIVE 

YEARS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] that is 

subject to the test procedure in 

§ 431.174(a), is sold and selected at 

compliant duty points. 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FANS AND BLOWERS OTHER THAN AIR

CIRCULATING FANS

Equipment class With or without 

motor controller 

Fan energy index 

(FEI) * 

Axial Inline ............................................................................................................................................... Without ................... 1.18 * A. 

Axial Panel .............................................................................................................................................. Without ................... 1.48 * A. 

Axial Power Roof Ventilator .................................................................................................................... Without ................... 0.85 * A. 

Centrifugal Housed ................................................................................................................................. Without ................... 1.31 * A. 

Centrifugal Unhoused ............................................................................................................................. Without ................... 1.35 * A. 

Centrifugal Inline ..................................................................................................................................... Without ................... 1.28 * A 

Radial Housed ........................................................................................................................................ Without ................... 1.17 * A. 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator—Exhaust .......................................................................................... Without ................... 1.00 * A. 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator—Supply ............................................................................................ Without ................... 1.19 * A. 

Axial Inline ............................................................................................................................................... With ........................ 1.18 * A * B. 

Axial Panel .............................................................................................................................................. With ........................ 1.48 * A * B. 

Axial Power Roof Ventilator .................................................................................................................... With ........................ 0.85 * A * B. 

Centrifugal Housed ................................................................................................................................. With ........................ 1.31 * A * B. 

Centrifugal Unhoused ............................................................................................................................. With ........................ 1.35 * A * B. 

Centrifugal Inline ..................................................................................................................................... With ........................ 1.28 * A * B. 

Radial Housed ........................................................................................................................................ With ........................ 1.17 * A * B. 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator—Exhaust .......................................................................................... With ........................ 1.00 * A * B. 

Centrifugal Power Roof Ventilator—Supply ............................................................................................ With ........................ 1.19 * A * B. 

* A is a constant representing an adjustment in FEI for motor hp, which can be found in table 2 of this section. B is a constant representing an 

adjustment in FEI for motor controllers, which can be found in table 2 of this section. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.133</GPH>

Table 2 to Para2raph (a) - FEI Calculation Constants 

Constant Condition Value 

A With Motor hp < 100 hp A= 1.00 

With Motor hp ~ 100 hp and :S 250 A= 17mtr,2023 

hp 17mtr 2014 

B With Motor FEPact of< B= FEPact-Credit h 

; were: 

Controller 20 kW (26.8 FEPact 

hp) Credit= 0.03 x FEPact + 0.08 

[SI] 

Credit= 0.03 X FEPact + 0.08 X 

1.341 rIPl 

FEPact of~ 20 B = 0.966 

kW (26.8 hp) 

TJm1r,2023 is the motor efficiency in accordance with table 8 at§ 431.25, TJm1r,2014 is the motor efficiency in 

accordance with table 5 at§ 431.25, which DOE is proposing to adopt into this section, and FEPact is 

determined according to the DOE test procedure in appendix A to subpart J of this part. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3873 

TABLE 3 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—2014 MOTOR EFFICIENCY VALUES, hmtr,2014

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency (%) 

2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole 

Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open 

100/75 .............................................................. 94.1 93.6 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1 

125/95 .............................................................. 95.0 94.1 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1 

150/110 ............................................................ 95.0 94.1 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1 

200/150 ............................................................ 95.4 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1 

250/186 ............................................................ 95.8 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0 

(b) Each air circulating fan 

manufactured starting on [DATE FIVE 

YEARS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] that is 

subject to the test procedure in 

§ 431.174(b), must have an efficacy 

value in CFM/W at maximum speed that 

is equal or greater than the value in 

table 4 to this paragraph (b). 

TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR AIR CIRCULATING FANS

Equipment class * Efficacy at maximum speed 

(CFM/W) 

Axial Air Circulating Fans; 12′′ ≤ D < 36′′ .................................................................................................................... 12.2 

Axial Air Circulating Fans; 36′′ ≤ D < 48′′ .................................................................................................................... 17.3 

Axial Air Circulating Fans; 48′′ ≤ D .............................................................................................................................. 21.5 

Housed Centrifugal ACFs ............................................................................................................................................ N/A 

* D: diameter in inches. 

N/A means not applicable as DOE is not proposing to set a standard for this equipment class. 

■ 9. Amend appendix A to subpart J of 

part 431 by: 

■ a. Revising the section 0 introductory 

text and paragraph 0.2.(h); 

■ b. Redesignating section 0.3 as 0.6; 

■ c. Adding new section 0.3, and 

sections 0.4 and 0.5; 

■ d. Revising section 2.2.1; 

■ e. Redesignating section 2.6 as 2.7; 

and 

■ f. Adding new section 2.6. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart J of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

Fans and Blowers Other Than Air 

Circulating Fans 

* * * * * 

0. Incorporation by reference. 

In § 431.173, DOE incorporated by 

reference the entire standard for AMCA 210– 

16, AMCA 214–21, IEC 61800–9–2:2023, IEC 

TS 60034–30–2:2016, IEC TS 60034–31:2021, 

and ISO 5801:2017; however, only 

enumerated provisions of those documents 

are applicable as follows. In cases where 

there is a conflict, the language of this 

appendix takes precedence over those 

documents. 

* * * * * 

0.2 * * * 

(h) Section 6.4, ‘‘Fans with Polyphase 

Regulated Motor’’ as referenced in sections 

2.2 and 2.6 of this appendix; 

* * * * * 

0.3 IEC 61800–9–2:2023: 

(a) Section 6.2 as referenced in section 

2.6.2.2 of this appendix; 

(b) Table A.1 as referenced in section 

2.6.2.2 of this appendix; and 

(c) Table E.4 as referenced in 2.6.1.2.1. of 

this appendix; and 

(d) Section F.2.1 as referenced in section 

2.6.2.2 of this appendix. 

0.4 IEC TS 60034–30–2:2016: 

(a) Section 4.7 as referenced in section 

2.6.1.2.2 of this appendix; and 

(b) Table 4 as referenced in section 

2.6.1.2.2 of this appendix. 

0.5 IEC TS 60034–31:2021: 

(a) Section A.3 as referenced in section 

2.6.1.2.1 of this appendix; and 

* * * * * 

2. * * * 

2.2 * * * 

2.2.1. General. The fan electrical power 

(FEPact) in kilowatts must be determined at 

every duty point specified by the 

manufacturer in accordance with one of the 

test methods listed in table 1, and the 

following sections of AMCA 214–21: Section 

2, ‘‘References (Normative)’’; Section 7, 

‘‘Testing,’’ including the provisions of AMCA 

210–16 and ISO 5801:2017 as referenced by 

Section 7 and implicated by sections 2.2.2 

and 2.2.3 of this appendix; Section 8.1, 

‘‘Laboratory Measurement Only’’ (as 

applicable); and Annex J, ‘‘Other data and 

calculations to be retained.’’ In addition, the 

provisions in this appendix apply. 

TABLE 1 TO APPENDIX A TO SUBPART J OF PART 431 

Driver 

Motor 

controller 

present? 

Transmission 

configuration? Test method Applicable section(s) of AMCA 214–21 

Electric motor ................ Yes or No .... Any ............................... Wire-to-air ..................... 6.1 ‘‘Wire-to-Air Testing at the Required Duty 

Point’’. 

Electric motor ................ Yes or No .... Any ............................... Calculation based on 

Wire-to-air testing.

6.2 ‘‘Calculated Ratings Based on Wire to Air 

Testing’’ (references Section 8.2.3, ‘‘Calculation to other speeds and densities for wire-toair testing,’’ and Annex G, ’’Wire-to-Air Measurement—Calculation to Other Speeds and 

Densities (Normative)’’). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3874 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO APPENDIX A TO SUBPART J OF PART 431—Continued 

Driver 

Motor 

controller 

present? 

Transmission 

configuration? Test method Applicable section(s) of AMCA 214–21 

Regulated polyphase 

motor.

Yes or No .... Direct drive, V-belt 

drive, flexible coupling or synchronous 

belt drive.

Shaft-to-air .................... 6.4 ‘‘Fans with Polyphase Regulated Motors,’’ * 

(references Annex D, ‘‘Motor Performance 

Constants (Normative)’’). 

None or non-electric ..... No ................ None ............................. Shaft-to-air .................... Section 6.3, ‘‘Bare Shaft Fans’’. 

Regulated polyphase 

motor.

No ................ Direct drive, V-belt 

drive, flexible coupling or synchronous 

belt drive.

Calculation based on 

Shaft-to-air testing.

Section 8.2.1, ‘‘Fan laws and other calculation 

methods for shaft-to-air testing’’ (references 

Annex D, ‘‘Motor Performance Constants 

(Normative),’’ Annex E, ‘‘Calculation Methods 

for Fans Tested Shaft-to-Air,’’ and Annex K, 

‘‘Proportionality and Dimensional Requirements (Normative)’’). 

None or non-electric ..... No ................ None ............................. Calculation based on 

Shaft-to-air testing.

Section 8.2.1, ‘‘Fan laws and other calculation 

methods for shaft-to-air testing’’ (references 

Annex E, ‘‘Calculation Methods for Fans Tested Shaft-to-Air,’’ and Annex K, ‘‘Proportionality and Dimensional Requirements (Normative)’’). 

* With the modifications in section 2.6 of this appendix. 

Testing must be performed in accordance 

with the required test configuration listed in 

table 7.1 of AMCA 214–21. The following 

values must be determined in accordance 

with this appendix at each duty point 

specified by the manufacturer: fan airflow in 

cubic feet per minute; fan air density; fan 

total pressure in inches of water gauge for 

fans using a total pressure basis FEI in 

accordance with table 7.1 of AMCA 214–21; 

fan static pressure in inches of water gauge 

for fans using a static pressure basis FEI in 

accordance with table 7.1 of AMCA 214–21; 

fan speed in revolutions per minute; and fan 

shaft input power in horsepower for fans 

tested in accordance with sections 6.3 or 6.4 

of AMCA 214–21. 

In addition, if applying the equations in 

section E.2 of annex E of AMCA 214–21 for 

compressible flows, the compressibility 

coefficients must be included in the 

equations as applicable. 

All measurements must be recorded at the 

resolution of the test instrumentation and 

calculations must be rounded to the number 

of significant digits present at the resolution 

of the test instrumentation. 

In cases where there is a conflict, the 

provisions in AMCA 214–21 take precedence 

over AMCA 210–16 and ISO 5801:2017. In 

addition, the provisions in this appendix 

apply. 

* * * * * 

2.6. Calculation based on Shaft-to-air 

testing for Fans with Motors and Motor 

Controllers. The provisions of section 6.4 of 

AMCA 214–21 apply except that the 

instructions in section 6.4.2.4.1 of AMCA 

214–21 are replaced by section 2.6.1 of this 

appendix, and the instructions in section 

6.4.2.4.2. of AMCA 214–21 are replaced by 

section 2.6.2 of this appendix. 

2.6.1 Motor efficiency if used in 

combination with a VFD. This section 

replaces section 6.4.2.4.1 of AMCA 214–21 

and provides methods to calculate the 

efficiency of the motor if it is combined with 

a VFD. 

2.6.1.1 Motor efficiency Calculation, if 

used in combination with a VFD. The 

efficiency of the motor if it is combined with 

a VFD is calculated as follows: 

Where: 

ηmtr′,act is the actual motor efficiency if used 

in combination with a VFD. 

Lm is the is motor load ratio calculated per 

section 6.4.2.4.1.3 of AMCA 214–21 

p′L are the relative losses of a motor of if used 

in combination with a VFD that that 

exactly meets the applicable standards at 

§ 431.25 per section 2.6.1.2. of this 

appendix. 

2.6.1.2. Relative losses of the actual motor 

if used in combination with a VFD. This 

section provides the methods to calculate the 

relative losses P′L of a motor that exactly 

meets the applicable standards at § 431.25, if 

used in combination with a VFD: 

Where: 

pL(n,T) are the relative losses of an IE3 motor 

if used in combination with a VFD 

calculated per section 2.6.1.2.1 of this 

appendix. 

ηr nominal full load efficiency per section 

6.4.2.4.1.1 of AMCA 214–21 

ηIE3 is nominal full load efficiency of an IE3 

motor per section 2.6.1.2.2. of this 

appendix. 

2.6.1.2.1. Relative losses of an IE3 motor if 

used in combination with a VFD. The relative 

losses of an IE3 motor if used in combination 

with a VFD, pL(n,T) are based on the actual 

motor nameplate rated speed and the motor 

nameplate output power and must be 

calculated per section A.3 of IEC TS 60034– 

31:2021, using the coefficients in table E.4 of 

IEC 61800–9–2:2023. If the motor nameplate 

output power value is not shown in table E.4 

of IEC 61800–9–2:2023, the instructions in 

section 6.4.2.4.1.1 of AMCA 214–21 must be 

used. 

The calculation of pL(n,T) relies on the 

relative speed (n) and relative torque (T) 

values which are determined for each duty 

point as follows: 

And: 

Where: 

ηact is the fan speed in revolutions per 

minute at the given duty point; 

ηr is the nameplate nominal rated speed of 

the actual motor revolutions per minute; 

and 

Lm is the motor load ratio calculated per 

section 6.4.2.4.1.3 of AMCA 214–21. 

2.6.1.2.2. Nominal full load efficiency of an 

IE3 motor. The nominal full load efficiency 

of an IE3 motor must be determined per 

section 4.7 of IEC TS 60034–30–2:2016 and 

is based on the actual motor nameplate rated 

speed and the motor nameplate output 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.134</GPH> EP19JA24.135</GPH> EP19JA24.136</GPH> EP19JA24.137</GPH>

Lm 

T/mtr',act = (Lm+ PL 1) 

100 - T/r T/IE3 

PL = PL(n, T) X T/r X 100 - T/IE3 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3875 

power. If the motor nameplate output power 

value is not shown in table 4 of IEC TS 

60034–30–2:2016, the instructions in section 

6.4.2.4.1.1 of AMCA 214–21 must be used. 

2.6.2 VFD efficiency at the required motor 

electrical power input. This section replaces 

section 6.4.2.4.2 of AMCA 214–21 and 

provides methods to calculate the efficiency 

of the VFD at the required motor electrical 

power input. A single VFD may operate one 

or many motors. 

2.6.2.1 VFD efficiency calculation. The 

efficiency of the VFD at the required motor 

electrical power input is calculated as 

follows: 

Where: 

ηVFD is the VFD efficiency at the required 

motor electrical power input; 

Lc is the is VFD load ratio calculated per 

section 6.4.2.4.2.2 of AMCA 214–21; and 

pVFD,L(f, iq) are the relative losses of a VFD at 

IE2 levels per section 2.6.2.2 of this 

appendix. 

2.6.2.2. Relative losses of a VFD at IE2 

levels. The relative losses of an IE2 VFD, 

ηVFD,L(f, iq) are inter- or extrapolated from the 

relative losses in table A.1 of IEC 61800–9– 

2:2023, adapted for IE2 in accordance with 

section 6.2 of IEC 61800–9–2:2023. The 

calculations must follow the twodimensional linear inter- or extrapolation 

from neighboring loss points in accordance 

with section F.2.1 of IEC 61800–9–2:2023. In 

addition, the relative losses of an IE2 VFD, 

pVFD,L(f, iq), are based on the actual VFD 

nameplate rated output power. If the motor 

nameplate output power value is not shown 

in table A.1 of IEC 61800–9–2:2023, the 

instructions in section 6.4.2.4.1.1 of AMCA 

214–21 must be used. 

The calculation of pVFD,L(f, iq) relies on the 

relative motor frequency (f) and relative 

torque current (iq) values which are 

determined for each duty point as follows: 

f = n 

And: 

Where: 

n is the relative speed per section 2.6.1.2.1. 

of this appendix; 

T is the relative torque per section 2.6.1.2.1. 

of this appendix; 

Hmo is motor nameplate output power; and 

Hco is rated power output of the VFD. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–28976 Filed 1–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19JA24.138</GPH> EP19JA24.139</GPH>

Le 

1JVFD = (Le+ PVFD,L(f,iq)) 

TXHmo i = 

q Hco