73246 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

guidance to USDA agencies, employees, 

recipients, and beneficiaries on Age Act 

requirements. In the final rule section of 

this issue of the Federal Register, USDA 

is publishing this action as a direct final 

rule without prior proposal because 

USDA views this as a non-controversial 

action and expects no adverse 

comments. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to the direct final 

rule, no further action will be taken on 

this proposed rule, and the action will 

become effective at the time specified in 

the direct final rule. If USDA receives 

adverse comments, a timely document 

will be published withdrawing the 

direct final rule, and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

action. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received by USDA or 

carry a postmark or equivalent no later 

than January 9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit adverse comments 

on the proposed rule to Anna G. 

Stroman, Chief, Policy Division, by mail 

at Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. 

You may also submit adverse comments 

on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anna Stroman at anna.stroman@

ascr.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION in the 

direct final rule located in the Rules and 

Regulations section of this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: November 17, 2014. 

Thomas J. Vilsack, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28453 Filed 12–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006] 

RIN 1904–AC55 

Energy Conservation Standards for 

Commercial and Industrial Fans and 

Blowers: Availability of Provisional 

Analysis Tools 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of data availability. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) has completed a 

provisional analysis that estimates the 

potential economic impacts and energy 

savings that could result from 

promulgating a regulatory energy 

conservation standard for commercial 

and industrial fans and blowers. At this 

time, DOE is not proposing an energy 

conservation standard for commercial 

and industrial fans and blowers. DOE is 

publishing this analysis and the 

underlining assumptions and 

calculations, which may be used to 

ultimately support a proposed energy 

conservation standard, for stakeholder 

review. DOE encourages stakeholders to 

provide any additional data or 

information that may improve the 

analysis. 

DATES: Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this notice of data availability 

(NODA) no later than January 26, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The analysis is now 

publically available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/

ruleid/25. Any comments submitted 

must identify the NODA for Energy 

Conservation Standards for commercial 

and industrial fans and blowers, and 

provide docket number EERE–2013– 

BT–STD–0006 and/or regulatory 

information number (RIN) number 

1904–AC55. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: CIFB2013STD0006@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

and/or RIN in the subject line of the 

message. 

3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section IV, ‘‘Public Participation.’’ 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, comments, 

and other supporting documents/

materials, is available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. A link to the docket Web 

page can be found at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD0006. The www.regulations.gov Web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents in the docket, 

including public comments. See section 

IV, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for further 

information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ron Majette, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7935. Email: 

CIFansBlowers@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email: 

peter.cochran@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment and review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 

586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. History of Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking for Commercial and 

Industrial Fans and Blowers 

II. Current Status 

III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by 

DOE 

A. Energy Metric 

B. Engineering Analysis 

C. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

E. National Impact Analysis 

IV. Public Participation Submission of 

Comments 

V. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Public 

Comment 

I. History of Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking for Commercial 

and Industrial Fans and Blowers 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 

6291, et seq; ‘‘EPCA’’), Pub. L. 94–163, 

sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency.1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73247 

Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 3Supporting documents from this public meeting, 

including presentation slides and meeting 

transcript, are available at: http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013- 

BT-STD-0006 4 76 FR 37678, 37679 (June 28, 2011). 

5The efficiency of a fan is defined as the ratio of 

air output power to mechanical input power. Fan 

efficiency varies depending on the output flow and 

pressure. The best efficiency point or BEP 

represents the flow and pressure values at which 

the fan efficiency is maximized when operating at 

a given speed. 

6 Initially, DOE considered calculating the FEI at 

the maximum recommended speed of the fan. 

However, because the calculation of the FER 

requires fan performance to be combined with 

default motor performance data, which depend on 

the motor’s synchronous speed (or pole 

configuration), DOE calculated the FER of a given 

fan at the speed corresponding to the highest 

electric motor synchronous speed configuration that 

exists within the fan’s operational speed range. DOE 

subtracted 50 RPM from the synchronous speeds in 

order to reflect the motor’s slip. 

7These default losses assumptions are presented 

in the LCC spreadsheet, in the ‘‘Default Losses’’ 

worksheet. 

Part C of title III establishes the ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment.’’ 2

EPCA specifies a list of equipment 

that constitutes covered commercial and 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(1)(A)–(L)) The list includes 11 

types of equipment and a catch-all 

provision for certain other types of 

industrial equipment classified as 

covered the Secretary of Energy 

(Secretary). EPCA also specifies the 

types of equipment that can be 

classified as covered in addition to the 

equipment enumerated in 42 U.S.C. 

6311(1). This equipment includes fans 

and blowers. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)) 

DOE initiated the current rulemaking 

by publishing a proposed coverage 

determination for commercial and 

industrial fans and blowers. 76 FR 

37678 (June 28, 2011). This was 

followed by the publication of a Notice 

of Public Meeting and Availability of 

the Framework Document for 

commercial and industrial fans and 

blowers in the Federal Register on 

February 1, 2013. 78 FR 7306. DOE held 

a public meeting on February 21, 2013 

at which it described the various 

analyses DOE would conduct as part of 

the rulemaking, such as the engineering 

analysis, the manufacturer impact 

analysis (MIA), the life-cycle cost (LCC) 

and payback period (PBP) analyses, and 

the national impact analysis (NIA). DOE 

also solicited feedback from 

stakeholders. Representatives for 

manufacturers, trade associations, 

environmental and energy efficiency 

advocates, and other interested parties 

attended the meeting.3 Comments 

received since publication of the 

Framework Document have helped DOE 

in the development of the initial 

analyses presented in this NODA. 

II. Current Status 

The analyses described in this NODA 

were developed to support a potential 

energy conservation standard for 

commercial and industrial fans and 

blowers. Using these analyses, DOE 

intends to move forward with its 

traditional regulatory rulemaking 

activities and develop a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for an 

energy conservation standard for 

commercial and industrial fans and 

blowers. The NOPR will include a 

Technical Support Document (TSD), 

which will contain a detailed written 

account of the analyses performed in 

support of the NOPR, which will 

include updates to the analyses made 

available in this NODA. 

In this NODA, DOE is not proposing 

any energy conservation standards for 

commercial and industrial fans and 

blowers. DOE may revise the analysis 

presented in this NODA based on any 

new or updated information or data it 

obtains between now and the 

publication of any future NOPR 

proposing energy conservation 

standards for commercial and industrial 

fans and blowers. DOE encourages 

stakeholders to provide any additional 

data or information that may improve 

the analysis. 

III. Summary of the Analyses 

Performed by DOE 

As DOE has proposed to define 

blowers as a type of centrifugal fan,4 the 

ensuing discussion uses fans to refer to 

both fans and blowers. DOE developed 

a fan energy performance metric and 

conducted provisional analyses of 

commercial and industrial fans in the 

following areas: (1) Engineering; (2) 

manufacturer impacts; (3) LCC and PBP; 

and (4) national impacts. The fan energy 

perfomrance metric and the tools used 

in preparing these analyses and their 

respective results are available at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD0006. Each individual spreadsheet 

includes an introduction that provides 

an overview of the contents of the 

spreadsheet. These spreadsheets present 

the various inputs and outputs to the 

analysis and, where necessary, 

instructions. Brief descriptions of the 

fan energy performance metric, of the 

provisional analyses, and of the 

supporting spreadsheet tools are 

provided below. If DOE proposes an 

energy conservation standard for 

commercial and industrial fans in a 

future NOPR, then DOE will publish a 

TSD, which will contain a detailed 

written account of the analyses 

performed in support of the NOPR, 

which will include updates to the 

analyses made available in this NODA. 

A. Energy Metric 

Commercial and industrial fan energy 

performance is a critical input in the 

provisional analyses discussed in 

today’s notice. For the purpose of this 

NODA, DOE developed a fan energy 

metric, the fan energy index (FEI), to 

represent fan performance and 

characterize the different efficiency 

levels analyzed. FEI is defined as the fan 

energy rating (FERSTD) of a fan that 

exactly meets the efficiency level being 

analyzed, divided by the fan energy 

rating (FER) of a given fan model. FER 

is defined as the weighted average 

electric input power of a fan over a 

specified load profile, in horsepower, 

and measured at a given speed. An FEI 

value less than 1.0 would indicate that 

the fan does not meet the efficiency 

level being analyzed, while a value 

greater than 1.0 would indicate that the 

fan is more efficient than the efficiency 

level being analyzed. The FEI is 

calculated as: 

For this analysis, DOE used the 

following load profile: 100 percent of 

the flow at best efficiency point (BEP), 

110 percent of the flow at BEP, and 115 

percent of the flow at BEP.5 DOE 

calculated the FER of a given fan model, 

using the maximum of the following 

speeds included in the operating range 

of a given fan model: 850 RPM, 1150 

RPM, 1750 RPM, and 3550 RPM.6 In 

order to calculate the FER of a fan, DOE 

assumed default motor full load and 

part load efficiency values, as well as 

default belt losses 7 (where appropriate): 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP10DE14.000</GPH>
73248 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8Fan efficiency is defined as the ratio of air 

output power to mechanical input power. Fan 

efficiency varies depending on the output flow and 

pressure. The best efficiency point or BEP 

represents the flow and pressure values at which 

the fan efficiency is maximized when operating a 

given speed. 

9A C-Value is the translational component of a 

two-variable, second degree polynomial equation 

that describes fan efficiency as a function of flow 

and total pressure at BEP. Defining the proper CValue for the two-variable polynomial of second 

degree order allows the FEI to be set at a level that 

removes a percentage of the lowest performing 

models from the market, and does so equivalently 

across the full range of operating flow and pressures 

of fan considered in this analysis. 

10 In order to simplify the calculation process, 

and still account for the different speeds at which 

the FER of a fan can be calculated (850, 1550, 1750 

and 3550 RPM), DOE proposes to use a single 

equation for calculating the fan total efficiency of 

a minimally compliant fan at BEP as a function of 

flow and total pressure and to allow manufacturers 

to use the fan laws to adjust the total pressure and 

flow at BEP to a speed equal to 85 percent of the 

fan’s maximum recommended speed. 

11A detailed explanation of how the two-variable, 

second degree polynomial equation was obtained is 

available in the ‘‘Database Methodology’’ 

worksheet. The C-values associated with different 

market cut offs are presented in the ‘‘FEI Calculator 

Assumptions’’ worksheet. 

12The Air Movement and Control Association 

(AMCA), New York Blower Company, Natural 

Resources Defence Council (NRDC), the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), and the 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA). 

13Supporting documents from this meeting, 

including presentation slides are available at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=

EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0029. 

Where: 

wi = weighting at each load point (equal 

weighting); 

Pout,i = the output air power of the fan at load 

point i; 

hfan,i = the total fan efficiency at each load 

point i; 

hT,i = the default transmission losses at each 

load point i; 

LM,i = the default motor losses at each load 

point i; and 

i = the flow points of the load profile (100, 

110, and 115 percent of the flow at BEP 

at the considered speed: 850 RPM, 1150 

RPM, 1750 RPM, or 3550 RPM) 

For the FERSTD calculation of a fan 

that exactly meets the efficiency level 

being analyzed, DOE used the same FER 

equation, except it used a default fan 

total efficiency unique to each fan 

model, expressed as a function of each 

fan model’s flow and total pressure at 

BEP,8 as well as a specified C-Value: 9

hfans,STD = [C + 10.2205 * ln(Q) + 2.8085 

* ln(P) ¥ 0.3932 * ln(Q)2 + 0.8530 

* ln(Q) * ln(P) ¥ 2.1379 * ln(P)2]/ 

100 

Where: 

Q = flow at BEP adjusted to 85 percent 

maximum recommended speed 10 in 

cubic feet per minute at 60Hz, 

P = total pressure at BEP adjusted to 85 

percent maximum recommended speed 

in inches of water gauge at 60 Hz, and 

C = an intercept that is set for the surface, 

which is set based on the fan group of 

the applicable fan model. 

DOE considered different C-Values to 

establish efficiency levels that target the 

removal of 5 to 70 percent of existing 

fan models for different equipment 

groups. For reference, the two-variable 

polynomial of second degree equation, 

the percent of models removed from the 

market and the associated C-Values are 

presented in the engineering 

spreadsheet.11 A detailed explanation of 

how the FEI is calculated is also 

available in the ‘‘FEI Calculator’’ 

worksheet of the engineering 

spreadsheet. 

In October 2014 several 

representatives of fan manufacturers 

and energy efficiency advocates 12

presented an energy metric approach 

called ‘‘Performance Based Efficiency 

Requirement’’ (PBER) to DOE.13 The 

PBER approach sets efficiency targets 

expressed as a function of pressure and 

flow. The combination of the PBER and 

default values for motors and 

transmissions allows the calculation of 

the electric input power of a fan that 

exactly meets the efficient target set by 

the PBER, similar to the calculation of 

the FERSTD. The PBER equation is as 

follows: 

Where: 

Q = flow; 

P = pressure; and 

a, b, g = constants 

AMCA presented two possible 

approaches: (1) Use of the PBER 

equation to establish a minimum 

efficiency requirement at the BEP 

pressure and flow; (2) use of the PBER 

equation to establish minimum 

efficiency requirements across all 

operating points (pressure and flow 

points) specified by the manufacturer. 

Both the FEI approach presented by 

DOE and the PBER approaches provide 

an equation to determine the fan 

efficiency as a function of flow and 

pressure, with lower efficiency 

requirements at lower flows and 

pressures. 

There are two main differences 

between the PBER and FEI approaches. 

First, the two approaches use different 

forms for the fan efficiency equation. 

Second, unlike the FEI approach, the 

PBER approach does not prescribe 

particular operating conditions at which 

the PBER is to be evaluated in order to 

calculate the energy metric. In the FEI 

approach, DOE calculates the FEI at the 

maximum of the following speeds 

included in the operating range of a 

given fan model: 850 RPM, 1150 RPM, 

1750 RPM, and 3550 RPM. For example, 

if a given fan model can operate 

between 1000 and 2500 RPM, its FEI 

would be calculated at 1750 RPM. The 

input power is then calculated for three 

specific load points: at BEP flow, 110% 

of BEP flow, and 115% of BEP flow. The 

PBER approach, on the other hand, does 

not prescribe particular operating 

conditions. In the case where the PBER 

is used at BEP, the maximum operating 

speed of the fan (initially established by 

the fan’s structural rigidity) would be 

reduced (if necessary) to a speed for 

which the BEP efficiency, flow, and 

pressure meet the PBER equation. And, 

in the case where the PBER is required 

to be met at all operating points, the 

operating range of a given fan 

(characterized by pressure and flow 

points) would be reduced (if necessary) 

to ensure that all operating points meet 

the PBER equation. 

In contrast with DOE’s FEI approach, 

DOE understands that neither of the two 

PBER approaches are likely to require 

redesign of a fan model that does not 

meet the PBER. Instead, the operating 

range of the fan model would be 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP10DE14.001</GPH> EP10DE14.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73249 

restricted to meet the PBER 

requirements. 

To compare the form of the equation 

used to express fan efficiency as a 

function of flow and pressure, DOE 

conducted a comparative investigation 

of the impacts of setting a fan efficiency 

standard using either the PBER equation 

or the two variable polynomial equation 

to express fan efficiency. DOE found 

that using the two variable polynomial 

equation to eliminate a given percentage 

of models leads to a distribution of 

eliminated models that is uniform 

across all ranges of air flow and pressure 

while using the PBER equation did not. 

B. Engineering Analysis 

The engineering analysis establishes 

the relationship between the 

manufacturer production cost (MPC) 

and efficiency levels of commercial and 

industrial fans. This relationship serves 

as the basis for cost-benefit calculations 

performed in the other analysis tools for 

individual consumers, manufacturers, 

and the Nation. 

As a first step in the engineering 

analysis, DOE established 7 provisional 

fan groups based on characteristics such 

as the direction of airflow through the 

fan andthe presence of a housing. For 

each of these groupings, DOE identified 

existing technology options that could 

affect the efficiency of commercial 

industrial fans and conducted a 

screening analysis to review each 

technology option and decide whether 

it: (1) Was technologically feasible; (2) 

was practicable to manufacture, install, 

and service; (3) would adversely affect 

product utility or product availability; 

or (4) would have adverse impacts on 

health and safety. The technology 

options remaining after the screening 

analysis consisted of a variety of 

impeller types and guide vanes. DOE 

used these technology options to divide 

the fan groups into subgroups and 

conducted a market-based assessment of 

the prevalence of each subgroup at the 

different efficiency levels analyzed. Six 

efficiency levels were analyzed, 

targeting the removal of 0–70% of fan 

models. The baseline level, removing no 

fan models, is referred to as FEI 0, and 

the higher efficiency levels are FEI 5, 10, 

15, 20, 50, and 70. These levels were set 

independently for each fan group. 

DOE estimated the MPCs for each 

technology option for each fan group as 

a function of blade or impeller diameter, 

independent of efficiency level. The 

MPCs were derived from product 

teardowns and publically-available 

product literature and informed by 

interviews with manufacturers. DOE 

then calculated MPCs for each fan group 

at each efficiency level analyzed by 

weighting the MPCs of each technology 

option within a group by its prevalence 

at the efficiency level being analyzed. 

DOE’s preliminary MPC estimates 

indicate that the changes in MPC as 

efficiency level increases are small or, in 

some fan groups, zero. However, DOE is 

aware that aerodynamic redesigns are a 

primary method by which 

manufacturers improve fan 

performance. These redesigns require 

manufacturers to make large upfront 

investments for R&D, testing and 

prototyping, and purchasing new 

production equipment. DOE’s 

preliminary findings indicate that the 

magnitude of these upfront costs are 

more significant than the difference in 

MPC of a fan redesigned for efficiency 

compared to its precursor. For this 

NODA, DOE included a conversion cost 

markup in its calculation of the 

manufacturer selling price (MSP) to 

account for these conversion costs. 

These markups and associated MSPs 

were developed and applied in 

downstream analyses. They are 

discussed in section C and presented in 

the conversion cost spreadsheet. 

The main outputs of the commercial 

and industrial fans engineering analysis 

are the MPCs of each fan group 

(including material, labor, and 

overhead) and technology option 

distributions at each efficiency level 

analyzed. 

C. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

For the MIA, DOE used the 

Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(GRIM) to assess the economic impact of 

potential standards on commercial and 

industrial fan manufacturers. DOE 

developed key industry average 

financial parameters for the GRIM using 

publicly available data from corporate 

annual reports along with information 

received through confidential 

interviews with manufacturers. These 

values include average industry tax rate; 

working capital rate; net property, plant, 

and equipment rate; selling, general, 

and administrative expense rate; 

research and development expense rate; 

depreciation rate; capital expenditure 

rate; and manufacturer discount rate. 

Additionally, DOE calculated total 

industry capital and product conversion 

costs associated with meeting all 

analyzed efficiency levels. DOE first 

estimated the average industry capital 

and product conversion costs associated 

with redesigning a single fan model to 

meet a specific efficiency level using a 

proprietary cost model and feedback 

from manufacturers during interviews. 

DOE estimated these costs for all fan 

subgroups. DOE then multiplied the per 

model conversion costs by the number 

of models that would be required to be 

redesigned at each potential standard 

level to arrive at the total industry 

conversion costs. 

The GRIM uses these estimated values 

in conjunction with inputs from other 

analyses including the MPCs from the 

engineering analysis and LCC analysis, 

the annual shipments by fan group from 

the NIA, and the manufacturer markups 

for the cost recovery markup scenario 

from the LCC analysis to model industry 

annual cash flows from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period. 

The primary quantitative output of this 

model is the industry net present value 

(INPV), which DOE calculates as the 

sum of industry annual cash flows, 

discounted to the present day using the 

industry specific weighted average cost 

of capital, or manufacturer discount 

rate. 

Standards can affect INPV in several 

ways including requiring upfront 

investments in manufacturing capital as 

well as research and development 

expenses, which increase the cost of 

production and potentially alter 

manufacturer markups. Under potential 

standards for commercial and industrial 

fans, DOE expects that manufacturers 

may lose a portion of INPV due to 

standards. The potential loss in INPV 

due to standards is calculated as the 

difference between INPV in the basecase (absent new energy conservation 

standards) and the INPV in the 

standards case (with new energy 

conservation standards in effect). DOE 

examines a range of possible impacts on 

industry by modeling various pricing 

strategies commercial and industrial fan 

manufacturers may adopt following the 

adoption of new energy conservations 

standards for commercial and industrial 

fans. 

In addition to INPV, the MIA also 

calculates the manufacturer markups, 

which are applied to the MPCs, derived 

in the engineering analysis and the LCC 

analysis, to arrive at the manufacturer 

selling price. For efficiency levels that 

require manufacturers to redesign 

models that do not meet the potential 

standards, DOE calibrated the 

manufacturer markups to allow 

manufacturers to recover their upfront 

conversion costs by amortizing those 

investment over the units shipped that 

were redesigned to meet the efficiency 

level being analyzed throughout the 

analysis period. 

D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

The LCC and PBP analyses determine 

the economic impact of potential 

standards on individual consumers, in 

the compliance year. The LCC is the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

73250 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

14The efficiency of a fan is defined as the ratio 

of air output power to mechanical input power. Fan 

efficiency varies depending on the output flow and 

pressure. The BEP represents the flow and pressure 

values at which the fan efficiency is maximized 

when operating a given speed. 

15The ‘‘shipments’’ worksheet of the NIA 

spreadsheet presents the scope of the analysis and 

the total shipments value in units for the fans in 

scope. 

total cost of purchasing, installing and 

operating a commercial or industrial fan 

over the course of its lifetime. 

DOE determines LCCs by considering: 

(1) Total installed cost to the consumer 

(which consists of manufacturer selling 

price, distribution channel markups, 

and sales taxes); (2) the range of annual 

energy consumption of commercial and 

industrial fans as they are used in the 

field; (3) the operating cost of 

commercial and industrial fans (e.g., 

energy cost); (4) equipment lifetime; and 

(5) a discount rate that reflects the real 

consumer cost of capital and puts the 

LCC in present-value terms. The PBP 

represents the number of years needed 

to recover the increase in purchase price 

of higher-efficiency commercial and 

industrial fans through savings in the 

operating cost. PBP is calculated by 

dividing the incremental increase in 

installed cost of the higher efficiency 

product, compared to the baseline 

product, by the annual savings in 

operating costs. 

For each standards case 

corresponding to each efficiency level, 

DOE measures the change in LCC 

relative to the base case. The base case 

is characterized by the distribution of 

equipment efficiencies in the absence of 

new standards (i.e., what consumers 

would have purchased in the 

compliance year in the absence of new 

standards. In the standards cases, 

equipment with efficiency below the 

standard levels ‘‘roll-up’’ to the standard 

level in the compliance year. 

For commercial and industrial fans, 

DOE established statistical distributions 

of consumers of each fan group across 

sectors (industry or commercial) and 

applications (clean air ventilation, 

exhaust, combustion, drying, process 

air, process heating/cooling, and others), 

which in turn determined the fan’s 

operating conditions (flow and pressure 

points and operating speed), annual 

operating hours, and fan load. The load 

is defined as the fan’s air flow divided 

by the flow at BEP when operating at a 

given speed.14 Recognizing that several 

inputs to the determination of consumer 

LCC and PBP are either variable or 

uncertain (e.g., annual energy 

consumption, lifetime, discount rate), 

DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis 

by modeling both the uncertainty and 

variability in the inputs using Monte 

Carlo simulations and probability 

distributions. 

The primary outputs of the LCC and 

PBP analyses are: (1) Average LCC in 

each standards case; (2) average PBPs; 

(3) average LCC savings at each 

standards case relative to the base case; 

and (4) the percentage of consumers that 

experience a net benefit, have no 

impact, or have a net cost for each fan 

group and efficiency level. The average 

annual energy consumption derived in 

the LCC analysis is used as an input in 

the NIA. 

E. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA estimates the national energy 

savings (NES) and the net present value 

(NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings expected to result from potential 

new standards at each EL. DOE 

calculated NES and NPV for each EL as 

the difference between a base case 

forecast (without new standards) and 

the standards case forecast (with 

standards). Cumulative energy savings 

are the sum of the annual NES 

determined for the lifetime of a 

commercial or industrial fan shipped 

during a 30 year analysis period 

assumed to start in 2018. Energy savings 

include the full-fuel cycle energy 

savings (i.e., the energy needed to 

extract, process, and deliver primary 

fuel sources such as coal and natural 

gas, and the conversion and distribution 

losses of generating electricity from 

those fuel sources). The NPV is the sum 

over time of the discounted net savings 

each year, which consists of the 

difference between total energy cost 

savings and increases in total equipment 

costs. NPV results are reported for 

discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. 

To calculate the NES and NPV, DOE 

projected future shipments 15 and 

efficiency distributions (for each EL) for 

each potential commercial and 

industrial fan group. DOE recognizes the 

uncertainty in projecting shipments and 

electricity prices; as a result the NIA 

includes several different scenarios for 

each. Other inputs to the NIA include 

the estimated commercial and industrial 

fan lifetime used in the LCC analysis, 

manufacturer selling prices from the 

MIA, average annual energy 

consumption, and efficiency 

distributions from the LCC. 

The purpose of this NODA is to notify 

industry, manufacturers, consumer 

groups, efficiency advocates, 

government agencies, and other 

stakeholders of the publication of the 

initial analysis of potential energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

and industrial fans. Stakeholders should 

contact DOE for any additional 

information pertaining to the analyses 

performed for this NODA. 

IV. Public Participation 

Submission of Comments 

DOE welcomes comments on all 

aspects of this NODA and on other 

issues relevant to potential test 

procedures and energy conservation 

standards for commercial and industrial 

fans and blowers, but no later than the 

date provided in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this NODA. Interested 

parties may submit comments, data, and 

other information using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this NODA. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73251 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery/

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible, in which case it is not 

necessary to submit printed copies. No 

facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email, postal mail, or hand 

delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known or available from other 

sources; (4) whether the information has 

previously been made available to 

others without obligation concerning its 

confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 

competitive injury to the submitting 

person which would result from public 

disclosure; (6) when such information 

might lose its confidential character due 

to the passage of time; and (7) why 

disclosure of the information would be 

contrary to the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

V. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Public 

Comment 

DOE is interested in receiving 

comment on all aspects of this analysis. 

DOE is particularly interested in 

receiving comments and views of 

interested parties concerning the 

following issues: 

1. DOE generated formulae for 

manufacturer production cost (MPC) as 

a function of subgroup and diameter 

(which DOE believes can be used as a 

general proxy for airflow). DOE requests 

comments on whether there are any 

other parameters, such as pressure, 

construction class, rating RPM, etc., 

which DOE should use as inputs in 

calculating the MPC, in addition to or 

instead of diameter. If so, DOE 

encourages stakeholders to submit data 

illustrating the relationship of MPC with 

these parameters. 

2. DOE assumed that the cost to 

redesign multiple fan models was equal 

to the number of models times an 

estimated cost to redesign one fan 

model. DOE recognizes that 

manufacturers may be able to share 

resources between redesigns in the same 

company, or in the same product line 

(i.e., different diameters). If this is 

current practice or possible, DOE 

requests comments on the scenarios in 

which resource sharing can occur and to 

what extent. 

3. DOE estimated the cost to redesign 

a fan as a function of the subgroup of 

fan resulting from the redesign. There 

may be other parameters, such as the 

fan’s diameter, RPM properties, FEI or 

efficiency, construction class, or the 

properties of the fan before it was 

redesigned, that DOE should take into 

consideration. If so, DOE requests 

information on which parameters 

should be taken into consideration and 

how each affects the cost to redesign a 

fan. 

4. DOE used a redesign time of 6 

months per fan model in its calculation 

of redesign costs. DOE requests 

comment on this assumption and 

whether this time period is sufficient for 

prototyping and revising marketing 

materials. 

5. DOE did not explicitly consider fan 

noise performance in its analyses. DOE 

requests comment on whether noise 

considerations provide barriers to 

increased fan efficiency. 

6. DOE requests information on the 

number of models and number of 

shipments of forward curved fans. 

7. DOE requests comment on its use 

of a database of over 2500 fan models 

as approximately representing all fan 

models in the scope of this rulemaking 

currently available in the United States 

today. 

8. DOE used current subgroup 

distributions of fan models within each 

fan group at each efficiency level 

analyzed to weight the total conversion 

cost per model regardless of the 

efficiency level or the subclass of the fan 

model before redesign. In other words, 

DOE assumed that fan model impeller 

distributions at a given efficiency level 

would not change as a result of 

standards. DOE requests comment on 

this assumption. 

9. DOE requests comment on the 

inclusion of tubeaxial and vaneaxial 

fans into a single fan group separate 

from centrifugal inline and mixed flow 

fans. DOE requests information 

regarding whether these two groups of 

fans provide distinct utility that justifies 

the separation and resulting different 

FEIs for the same rated flow and 

pressure. 

10. DOE requests comment on the cost 

drivers included in the engineering 

analysis (e.g., aerodynamic redesign, 

impeller type, and presence of 

guidevanes). 

11. DOE requests information on the 

design and manufacturing differences 

between commercial and industrial 

fans. 

12. DOE requests information on how 

forward curved impeller manufacturing 

differs from the manufacturing of other 

impeller types. DOE also requests 

comment on how other fan components 

differ between forward curved models 

and non-forward curved models, such 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

73252 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

as component materials and material 

gauges. 

13. DOE requests comment on its 

MPC calculation as a function of 

diameter equation and multipliers. 

14. DOE did not consider variable 

pitch blades in its analysis. DOE 

requests information on the effect 

variable-pitch blades have on efficiency 

in the field, the mechanism of that 

effect, and how testing can be 

conducted to capture any benefit from 

variable-pitch blades. 

15. DOE requests comment on any of 

the industry financials (working capital 

rate; net property, plant, and equipment 

rate; selling, general, and administrative 

expense rate; research and development 

rate; depreciation rate; capital 

expenditure rate, and tax rate) used in 

the GRIM (located in the ‘‘Financials’’ 

tab of the GRIM spreadsheet). 

16. DOE requests comment on the use 

of 11.4 percent as the real industry 

manufacturer discount rate (also 

referred to as the weighted average cost 

of capital) for commercial and industrial 

fan manufacturers (located in the 

‘‘Financials’’ tab of the GRIM 

spreadsheet). 

17. DOE requests comment on the use 

of 1.45 as a manufacturer markup (this 

corresponds to a 31 percent gross 

margin) for all fan groups and efficiency 

levels in the base case (located in the 

‘‘Markups’’ tab of the GRIM 

spreadsheet). DOE requests information 

regarding manufacturer markups and 

whether they vary by fan efficiency, fan 

group, fan subgroup, or any other 

attribute. 

18. DOE requests comment on both its 

methodology of calculating total 

industry capital and product conversion 

costs and the specific industry average 

per model capital and product 

conversion cost estimates for each fan 

subgroup (located in the Conversion 

Cost spreadsheet). 

19. DOE assumed that every fan 

model that did not meet a candidate 

standard level being analyzed would be 

redesigned to meet that level. DOE 

requests comment on this assumption 

and on what portion of fan models that 

do not meet a standard level would be 

redesigned to meet the level as opposed 

to being eliminated from the American 

market. 

20. DOE seeks inputs on its 

characterization of market channels for 

the considered fan groups, particularly 

whether the channels include all 

intermediate steps, and estimated 

market shares of each channel. 

21. DOE seeks inputs and comments 

on the estimates of flow operating 

points used in the energy use analysis 

(expressed as a function of the flow at 

best efficiency point). 

22. DOE seeks inputs and comments 

on the estimates of annual operating 

hours by sector and application and on 

the estimated distributions of fans 

across sectors and applications. 

23. DOE seeks comments on its 

proposal to use a constant price trend 

for projecting future commercial and 

industrial fan prices. 

24. DOE requests comment on 

whether any of the efficiency levels 

considered in this analysis might lead to 

an increase in installation, repair, and 

25. maintenance costs, and if so, data 

regarding the magnitude of the 

increased cost for each relevant 

efficiency level. 

26. DOE seeks comments on a 

potential compliance date of three years 

after the publication of a final rule 

establishing energy conservation 

standards for commercial and industrial 

fans and blowers. 

27. DOE seeks comments on the use 

of constant efficiency trends in the base 

case and in the standards cases. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 3, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28918 Filed 12–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0920; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–192–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

The Boeing Company Model 777–200, 

–200LR, –300ER, and 777F series 

airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by a report of a jettison fuel 

pump that was shut off by the automatic 

shutoff system during the center tank 

fuel scavenge process on a short-range 

flight. This proposed AD would require 

making wiring changes, modifying 

certain power panels, installing 

electrical load management system 

software, and accomplishing a 

functional test. We are proposing this 

AD to prevent extended dry running of 

the jettison fuel pumps, which can be a 

potential ignition source inside the 

main fuel tanks, and consequent fuel 

tank fire or explosion in the event that 

the jettison pump overheats or has an 

electrical fault. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by January 26, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view 

this referenced service information at 

the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0920; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Takahisa Kobayashi, Aerospace 

Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM– 

140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6499; 

fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

takahisa.kobayashi@faa.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS