Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

24544

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
codified LDCFs are subject to two separate standards: One at operation of the fan at high speed and the other at operation of the fan at 40 percent speed or the nearest speed that is not less than 40 percent speed 40 percent speed.
Id. CFEI is calculated according to ANSI/AMCA 20818, which in turn references ANSI/AMCA 23015, the industry test standard for circulating fans which is already incorporated by reference as the test standard for testing LDCFs in Appendix U. 42 U.S.C.
6295ff6Cii, as codified The previously applicable CFM/W
metric incorporates active mode at multiple speeds, standby mode, and off mode into a single metric. Since CFEI
does not capture standby mode or off mode, DOE may need to develop a separate standby mode metric for LDCFs. The test procedure for measuring standby power consumption is specified in Appendix U.
Issue 18: As discussed in section B.1
of this RFI, the 2017 CF ECS Final Rule assumed 7 watts for standby operation of LDCFs. DOE requests data on standby power consumption for LDCFs. DOE
further requests comment on any technology options that increase or decrease standby energy consumption.
Finally, DOE requests comment on any impacts a standby energy consumption standard might have on operation and function of a LDCF.
D. Economic Justification In determining whether a proposed energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE analyzes, among other things, the potential economic impact on consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. As discussed in more detail below, DOE is interested in whether there are economic barriers to the adoption of more-stringent energy conservation standards and if there are any other aspects of its economic justification analysis from the January 2017 Final Rule that may indicate whether a more-

stringent energy conservation standard would be economically justified or cost effective.
1. Cost Analysis For the January 2017 Final Rule, DOE
used a combination of physical and catalog teardowns for the cost assessment to build bottom up manufacturing cost assessments of different models of ceiling fans. 82 FR
6826, 68416842; see chapter 5 of the 2017 CF ECS TSD. DOE initially identified a representative sample of baseline efficiency models and more efficient models that incorporate design options DOE was considering. DOE then utilized physical and catalog teardowns to generate a bill of materials for the baseline efficiency models. DOE relied on technology pairs, where a similarly constructed ceiling fan incorporates a new technology option that allows it to achieve greater efficiency, to evaluate the cost increase associated with technology options that increase efficiency. See section 5.2 of the 2017
CF ECS TSD.
DOE is aware that features are available for ceiling fans that may not have been as widely available at the time of the last energy conservation standards analysis. One such example could be the increased prevalence of smart ceiling fans that have wireless connectivity. These fans may have new components that impact the overall cost of the fan.
Issue 19: DOE requests comment on whether there have been substantial changes in the ceiling fan market that would impact the results of the cost analysis. Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how the costs estimated for design options in the January 2017
Final Rule have changed since the time of that analysis due to the increased use of components such as remotes and sensors for smart phone connection.
2. Markups Analysis DOE derives consumer prices by applying markups to the MSP. In
deriving markups, DOE determines the major distribution channels for product sales, the markup associated with each party in each distribution channel, and the existence and magnitude of differences between markups for baseline products baseline markups and higher-efficiency products incremental markups. The identified distribution channels i.e., how the products are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer, and estimated relative sales volumes through each channel are used in generating end-user price inputs for the life-cycle cost LCC and payback period PBP analyses and the national impact analysis.
In the January 2017 Final Rule, DOE
considered two major categories of ceiling fans to derive their distribution channels. The first category, corresponding mainly to the residential sector, was comprised of standard, hugger and VSD ceiling fans. The other category included LDCFs and HSSD
ceilings fans, which are typically installed in commercial and industrial applications. For standard, hugger and VSD ceiling fans, DOE identified four distribution channels and estimated their market shares for 2019 based on manufacturer interviews, as shown in Table II.6. For the commercial and industrial sectors, DOE considered a distribution channel in which the consumer receives the product from the manufacturer through an external dealer/conventional dealer or an inhouse manufacturer dealer.7 82 FR
6826, 6845. Furthermore, a review of the market indicates that consumers are increasingly purchasing ceiling fans through online channels, which DOE
did not explicitly consider in the January 2017 Final Rule. DOE is therefore interested in the magnitude and impact of online sales to the ceiling fans markups analysis.

TABLE II.6DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS FOR STANDARD, HUGGER AND VSD CEILING FANS
Market share in 2019
%

Distribution channel Manufacturer Home Improvement Center Consumer
Manufacturer/Home Improvement Center in-store label Consumer
Manufacturer Wholesaler Contractor Consumer
Manufacturer Showroom Consumer

7 For both cases, DOE assumed the same markup for in-house dealers and external dealers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:32 May 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:FRFM07MYP1.SGM

07MYP1

12.9
61.6
18.0
7.5