Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-03987

Rule2023-03987

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Air Cleaners

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

March 6, 2023

Effective

April 5, 2023

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

This final rule establishes definitions, a test procedure, and sampling and representation requirements for air cleaners. Currently, air cleaners are not subject to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedures or energy conservation standards. DOE is establishing a test procedure for measuring the integrated energy factor of air cleaners. The test method references the relevant industry standard, with certain modifications.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 43 (Monday, March 6, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14014-14045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03987]

[[Page 14013]]

Vol. 88

Monday,

No. 43

March 6, 2023

Part IV

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Air Cleaners; Final
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 14014]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[EERE-2021-BT-TP-0036]
RIN 1904-AF26

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Air Cleaners

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes definitions, a test procedure, and
sampling and representation requirements for air cleaners. Currently,
air cleaners are not subject to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test
procedures or energy conservation standards. DOE is establishing a test
procedure for measuring the integrated energy factor of air cleaners.
The test method references the relevant industry standard, with certain
modifications.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is April 5, 2023.
The incorporation by reference of certain materials listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on April 5,
2023.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting webinar attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is available for review at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the docket are listed in the
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, not all documents listed in the
index may be publicly available, such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure.
A link to the docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0036">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0036</a>. The docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the
docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d4c7d7d61646c636e685e796c63696c7f697e316c2d657f686b30" mailto:Questions@ee.doe.gov">[email&#160;protected]</a>">ApplianceStandards<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#39684c5c4a4d5056574a795c5c175d565c175e564f">[email&#160;protected]</a></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Troy Watson, 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:
(240) 449-9387. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c485b4b4a8ada5aaa7a197b0a5aaa0a5b6a0b7f8a5e4acb6a1a2f9" mailto:Questions@ee.doe.gov">[email&#160;protected]</a>">ApplianceStandards<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1544607066617c7a7b665570703b717a703b727a63">[email&#160;protected]</a></a>.
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:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8acbe7efe6e3eba4dde2e3fee3e4edcae2fba4eee5efa4ede5fc">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE incorporates by reference the following
industry standards into part 430:

ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020, ``Method for Measuring Performance of
Portable Household Electric Room Air Cleaners,'' ANSI-approved
December 2020, including AHAM Standard Interpretation on September
19, 2022 (AHAM AC-1-2020).
AHAM AC-7-2022, ``Energy Test Method for Consumer Room Air
Cleaners,'' copyright 2022.
Copies of AHAM AC-7-2022 and AHAM AC-1-2020 can be obtained from
the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), 1111 19th
Street NW, Suite 402, Washington, DC 20036; or <a href="http://www.aham.org/AHAM/AuxStore">www.aham.org/AHAM/AuxStore</a>.
ASTM E741-11(2017), ``Standard Test Method for Determining Air
Change in a Single Zone Means of a Tracer Gas Dilution,'' Approved
September 1, 2017.
Copies of ASTM E741-11(2017) can be obtained from ASTM
International (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or <a href="http://www.astm.org">www.astm.org</a>.
IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0, ``Household electrical appliances--
Measurement of standby power,'' Edition 2.0, 2011-01.

Copies of IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0 can be obtained from the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 3 Rue de Varembe, Case Postale 131,
1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland; or webstore.iec.ch.
See section IV.N of this document for a further discussion of these
standards.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Applicability
C. Industry Standards Incorporated by Reference
1. AHAM AC-1-2020 and AHAM AC-7-2022
2. Other Industry Standards
D. Definitions
E. Test Conditions
1. Electrical Supply
2. Ambient Conditions
3. Test Chamber Air Exchange Rate
4. Test Chamber Particulate Matter Concentrations
5. Test Chamber Construction and Equipment
6. Test Unit Preparation
7. Test Unit Placement for Testing
8. Network Functionality
F. Instrumentation
G. Active Mode Testing
1. Particulate Used for Testing and CADR Measurements
2. Performance Mode for Testing
3. Secondary Functions
4. Power Measurement Procedure
5. Pollen CADR
6. Consumer Use Hours
H. Standby Mode Testing
I. Integrated Energy Factor Metric
J. Effective Room Size
K. Sampling Plan
L. Test Procedure Costs
M. Effective and Compliance Dates
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
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 Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

On July 15, 2022, DOE published a final determination (July 2022
Final Determination) in which it determined that air cleaners qualify
as a ``covered product'' under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,
as amended (EPCA).\1\ 87 FR 42297. DOE determined in the July 2022
Final Determination that coverage of air cleaners is necessary or
appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA, and that the average
U.S. household energy use for air cleaners is likely to exceed 100
kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. Id. Currently, no energy conservation
standards or test procedures are prescribed by DOE for air cleaners.
The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test
procedures for air cleaners and relevant background information
regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All 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 reflects the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\

[[Page 14015]]

established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency, referred to as ``covered products.'' \3\ In
addition to specifying a list of consumer products that are covered
products, EPCA contains provisions that enable the Secretary of Energy
to classify additional types of consumer products as covered products.
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)) To classify a consumer product as a covered
product, the Secretary must determine that classifying the product as a
covered product is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes
of EPCA and the average annual per household \4\ energy use by products
of such type is likely to exceed 100 kWh (or British thermal unit (Btu)
equivalent) per year. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\3\ The enumerated list of covered products is at 42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(1)-(19).
\4\ DOE has defined ``household'' to mean an entity consisting
of either an individual, a family, or a group of unrelated
individuals, who reside in a particular housing unit. For the
purpose of this definition: Group quarters means living quarters
that are occupied by an institutional group of 10 or more unrelated
persons, such as a nursing home, military barracks, halfway house,
college dormitory, fraternity or sorority house, convent, shelter,
jail, or correctional institution. Housing unit means a house, an
apartment, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied as separate
living quarters, but does not include group quarters. Separate
living quarters means living quarters: to which the occupants have
access either: directly from outside of the building, or through a
common hall that is accessible to other living quarters and that
does not go through someone else's living quarters, and occupied by
one or more persons who live and eat separately from occupant(s) of
other living quarters, if any, in the same building. 10 CFR 430.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated, DOE has determined that air cleaners are covered
products. 87 FR 42297.
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291),
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1)
certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)); and (2)
making other representations about the efficiency of those products (42
U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to
determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards
promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures
and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle (as determined by the Secretary) or period of use and shall not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a
petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be
prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the
Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested persons
an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments
with respect to such procedures. The comment period on a proposed rule
to amend a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and may not exceed
270 days. In prescribing or amending a test procedure, the Secretary
shall take into account such information as the Secretary determines
relevant to such procedure, including technological developments
relating to energy use or energy efficiency of the type (or class) of
covered products involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) If DOE determines
that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its
determination not to amend the test procedures.
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy
consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test
procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, or if such integration is technically infeasible. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) If an integrated test procedure is technically
infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode
energy use test procedures for the covered product, if a separate test
is technically feasible. (Id.) Any such amendment must consider the
most current versions of the IEC Standard 62301 \5\ and IEC Standard
62087 \6\ as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\6\ IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015,
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE is publishing this final rule consistent with its authority and
these obligations.

B. Background

DOE has not previously conducted a test procedure rulemaking for
air cleaners. As stated, DOE determined in the July 2022 Final
Determination that: coverage of air cleaners is necessary or
appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA; the average U.S.
household energy use for air cleaners is likely to exceed 100 kWh per
year; and thus, air cleaners qualify as a ``covered product'' under
EPCA. 87 FR 42297.
On January 25, 2022, DOE published a request for information
(January 2022 RFI) seeking comments on potential test procedure and
energy conservation standards for air cleaners. 87 FR 3702.
On August 23, 2022, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), AHAM,
Consumer Federation of America (CFA), Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA), and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), collectively,
the ``Joint Stakeholders,'' submitted a ``Joint Statement of Joint
Stakeholder Proposal On Recommended Energy Conservation Standards And
Test Procedure For Consumer Room Air Cleaners'' (Joint Proposal), which
includes negotiated energy conservation standards for air cleaners and
the related test procedures.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Available as document number 16 in the docket for this
rulemaking.

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

[[Page 14016]]

DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the test
procedure on October 18, 2022 (October 2022 NOPR), presenting DOE's
proposals to establish a test procedure for air cleaners. 87 FR 63324.
DOE held a public meeting related to this NOPR on November 9, 2022
(hereafter, the NOPR public meeting).
DOE received comments in response to the October 2022 NOPR from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1. This list excludes non-
substantive comments submitted to the docket.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ EERE-2021-BT-TP-0036-0021.

Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the October 2022 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment number
Commenter(s) Reference in this final rule in the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous............................ Anonymous....................... 19 Individual.
Robert Frey.......................... Frey............................ 22 Individual.
Madison Indoor Air Quality........... MIAQ............................ 26 Manufacturer.
Dyson, Inc........................... Dyson........................... 27 Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. NEEA............................ 28 Efficiency
Organization.
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of AAFA............................ 29 Health Organization.
America.
PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric, and CA IOUs......................... 30 Utilities.
Southern California Edison;
collectively, the California
Investor-Owned Utilities.
Carrier Global Corporation........... Carrier......................... 31 Manufacturer.
Home Ventilating Institute........... HVI............................. 32 Trade Association.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, & AHRI............................ 33 Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
ACEEE, ASAP, AHAM, CFA, NRDC, NYSERDA Joint Commenters................ 34 Efficiency
Organizations,
Consumer Organization,
and Trade Association.
Daikin U.S. Corporation.............. Daikin.......................... 35 Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\9\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the NOPR public meeting, DOE cites the written comments
throughout this final rule. Any oral comments provided during the
webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are
summarized and cited separately throughout this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for air cleaners. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-TP-0036,
which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The references are
arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page
of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

In this final rule, DOE establishes a new test procedure at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix FF (appendix FF) for air cleaners that
would include methods to (1) measure the performance of the covered
product and (2) use the measured results to calculate an integrated
energy factor (IEF) to represent the energy efficiency of an air
cleaner.
The test procedure established by this final rule includes
measurements of smoke clean air delivery rate (CADR) and dust CADR,
which are used to calculate PM<INF>2.5</INF> \10\ CADR, and active mode
and standby mode power consumption, which are used to calculate annual
energy consumption (AEC). PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR and AEC are required to
calculate IEF. Newly established appendix FF also includes measurements
of pollen CADR and calculation of effective room size for
representation purposes. For consistent and uniform measurement of
these values, DOE is incorporating by reference the industry standards
AHAM AC-7-2022, AHAM AC-1-2020, and IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0. Specifically,
DOE is specifying the following provisions from within the referenced
industry standards:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ ``PM<INF>2.5</INF>'' refers to particulate matter that are
nominally 2.5 micrometers ([mu]m) in width or smaller. ``Smoke''
refers to cigarette smoke as defined in section 3.3.1 of AHAM AC-1-
2020, which means smoke produced by burning cigarette tobacco with
air forced through the cigarette's filter having particle sizes
detected from 0.01 [mu]m to 1.0 [mu]m diameter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) From AHAM AC-7-2022, the following items:
(a) Definition of ``conventional room air cleaners'' in 10 CFR
430.2, which is used to specify the scope of the air cleaners test
procedure in the new appendix FF;
(b) Definitions of terms that are relevant to the test procedure;
(c) Test setup requirements for electrical supply and test chamber,
which additionally include a reference to AHAM AC-1-2020;
(d) Instrumentation requirements for power measuring instruments
and temperature and relative humidity measuring devices;
(e) Active mode and standby mode power measurements; the standby
mode power measurement method additionally includes a reference to IEC
62301 Ed. 2.0 for the test conduct; and
(f) Calculations for PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, AEC, and IEF.
(2) From AHAM AC-1-2020, test methods for determining the pollen
CADR, smoke CADR, and dust CADR; calculation of effective room size;
and test chamber construction and equipment.
This final rule also specifies the sampling plan and
representations for air cleaners at 10 CFR 429.67. DOE also specifies
rounding requirements for the measured and calculated values of the air
cleaners test procedure.
DOE has determined that the new test procedure described in section
III of this document and adopted in this final rule will produce
measurements of energy use that are representative of an average use
cycle and are not unduly burdensome to conduct. Discussion of DOE's
actions are addressed in detail in section III of this document.
Additionally, DOE provides estimates of the cost of testing in section
III.L of this document. DOE notes that there are currently no energy
conservation standards prescribed for air cleaners.
The effective date for the new test procedure adopted in this final
rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register. Beginning on the compliance date of any energy conservation
standards for air cleaners, any representations with respect to the
energy use or efficiency of

[[Page 14017]]

these products, including those made for certification purposes, must
be made in accordance with the test procedure established in this final
rule.

III. Discussion

A. General Comments

In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE presented its proposed test procedure
for air cleaners and requested stakeholder feedback on several topics
including test procedure scope, industry standards, definitions, test
conditions, instrumentation, active and standby mode tests,
representations, and sampling plan. 87 FR 63324. While DOE addresses
topic-specific comments in the following sections, general comments are
summarized in the following paragraphs.
An anonymous commenter stated that the government should not impose
regulations on air cleaners because of its private use, commerce, and
own power costs. Individuals use such devices for many different
purposes, including medical needs, stress inducing factors, or
maintaining overall health. The anonymous commenter stated that
regulation would force consumers to shut down machines that they need
in order to function efficiently on a daily basis. Additionally, the
anonymous commenter suggested rules could stop the manufacturing and
commerce of certain products and create difference between different
manufacturers within the market by forcing a net loss to some companies
and not others. According to the anonymous commenter, a large pivotal
governmental role in regulating areas of commerce goes against the free
market put in place. Lastly, the anonymous commenter stated that the
operation of the device depends on the user including power and
electricity cost, and it is up to the individual, not the government,
of what funds should be allocated in certain areas of the individual's
choosing. (Anonymous, No. 19 at p. 1)
DOE determined in the July 2022 Final Determination that coverage
of air cleaners is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes
of EPCA, and that the average U.S. household energy use for air
cleaners is likely to exceed 100 kWh per year, thereby establishing air
cleaners as a type of consumer product that is a covered product under
EPCA. 87 FR 42297. EPCA specifies that the Secretary may, in accordance
with its provisions for amended and new test procedures, prescribe test
procedures for any consumer product classified as a covered product
under 42 U.S.C. 6292(b). (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(B)) As discussed in
section I.A of this document, 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2) provides that if the
Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a petition by
any interested person, that a test procedure should be prescribed or
amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal Register
proposed test procedures and afford interested persons an opportunity
to present oral and written data, views, and arguments with respect to
such procedures. DOE has fulfilled this requirement by publishing the
October 2022 NOPR after receiving the Joint Proposal submitted by the
Joint Stakeholders. Furthermore, the range of interested parties that
submitted the Joint Proposal indicates widespread support for
establishing a test procedure and standards for air cleaners. DOE is
finalizing a test procedure for air cleaners in this document.
Additionally, this test procedure will not impact the use,
availability, manufacturing, or manufacturers of air cleaners because
this rulemaking is not establishing any energy conservation standards.
If DOE develops energy conservation standards for air cleaners, it
would not require consumers to shut down the products they already own.
Additionally, DOE will evaluate the impact of any potential standards
on the use, availability, manufacturing, or manufacturers of air
cleaners. DOE has analyzed the impact of this rulemaking on small
businesses, as discussed in section IV.B of this document. Furthermore,
while DOE is not specifying any regulation regarding individual use of
funds, certain performance metrics in the air cleaners test procedure
established by this final rule may assist consumers in their purchasing
decisions.
The Joint Commenters stated that they are largely supportive of
DOE's proposed test procedure and urged DOE to finalize the test
procedure quickly. (Joint Commenters, No. 34 at p. 2) During the
October 2022 webinar, ASAP stated that it appreciates that DOE has
worked swiftly to publish this proposal, which is based on the
recommendations presented by the Joint Stakeholders earlier this year.
(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 5)
The Joint Commenters also commented that the Joint Proposal was
reviewed and supported by small and large manufacturers and achieved
consensus by both types of manufacturers. (Joint Commenters, No. 34 at
p. 7)
The Joint Commenters requested that DOE publish final rules
adopting the air cleaner test procedure and standards before December
31, 2022, otherwise each of the Joint Stakeholders reserved the right
to rescind support for the standards and compliance dates in the Joint
Proposal. The Joint Commenters commented that the Joint Proposal urged
DOE to rely upon the exception in section 8(d)(2)(ii) of the Process
Rule to finalize the test procedure quickly and eliminate the time
between finalizing the test procedure and the end of the comment period
on a direct final rule on energy conservation standards for room air
cleaners. (Joint Commenters No. 34, at pp. 1-2; AHAM, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 25 at p. 48)
The CA IOUs commended DOE for moving quickly on the rulemaking and
aligning with the Joint Stakeholder recommendations submitted in August
2022, which included broad support for adopting AHAM AC-7-2022 as the
test procedure for air cleaners and the IEF metric, expressed in terms
of PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR per watt (CADR/W), as the preferred
performance metric. The CA IOUs expressed appreciation for the fact
that DOE aligned with the Joint Stakeholder recommendation, and the CA
IOUs requested that DOE show the same consideration by publishing an
expeditious direct final rule based on these recommendations. (CA IOUs,
No. 30 at pp. 1-2)
Daikin supported DOE's test procedure for conventional air cleaners
due to a growing demand for these products. Daikin also supported DOE's
efforts to quickly finalize this regulation to prevent additional U.S.
states from implementing policies that may be different than the
Federal policy. (Daikin, No. 35 at p. 1)
As discussed throughout this document, DOE has addressed feedback
from the Joint Commenters and other stakeholders in finalizing the test
procedure for air cleaners. Additionally, DOE has worked as
expeditiously as feasible, within its obligations under EPCA, to
finalize the test procedure for air cleaners. DOE is considering energy
conservation standards in a rulemaking proceeding separate from this
test procedure rulemaking.

B. Scope of Applicability

DOE defines air cleaner as a product for improving indoor air
quality, other than a central air conditioner, room air conditioner,
portable air conditioner, dehumidifier, or furnace, that is an
electrically-powered, self-contained, mechanically encased assembly
that contains means to remove, destroy, or deactivate particulates,
VOCs, and/or microorganisms from the air. It excludes products that
operate solely by means of ultraviolet light without a fan for air
circulation. 10 CFR 430.2.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to establish test procedures
for

[[Page 14018]]

a subset of products that meet the definition of ``air cleaner'' as
established by the July 2022 Final Determination. Specifically, DOE
proposed to define the scope of the proposed new test procedure as
covering products defined as ``conventional room air cleaners'' in the
AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft \11\ standard. The proposed scope of the test
procedure aligned with the available industry standard and encompasses
a majority of the air cleaner market. 87 FR 63324, 63328. Further, this
scope is consistent with the scope in the Joint Proposal. (Joint
Proposal, No. 16 at p. 5) In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE additionally
noted that DOE may consider test procedures for other types of air
cleaners in a future rulemaking. 87 FR 63324, 63328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ At the time of publication of the October 2022 NOPR, AHAM
AC-7-2022 was available as a Final Draft standard. As discussed in
section III.C.1 of this document, the published AHAM AC-7-2022 is
substantively the same as AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft referenced in the
October 2022 NOPR, other than two minor edits to the instrumentation
requirements. This document refers to AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft when
referring to the October 2022 NOPR discussion and AHAM AC-7-2022
otherwise. AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft that was referenced in the October
2022 NOPR is available at: <a href="http://www.aham.org/ItemDetail?iProductCode=30014&Category=PADSTD&websiteKey=69a0a5fb-295a-4894-acd0-5785f146b899">www.aham.org/ItemDetail?iProductCode=30014&Category=PADSTD&websiteKey=69a0a5fb-295a-4894-acd0-5785f146b899</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2.1.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 defines a ``conventional room air
cleaner'' as a consumer room air cleaner that is a portable or wall
mounted (fixed) unit that plugs in to an electrical outlet; operates
with a fan for air circulation; and contains means to remove, destroy,
and/or deactivate particulates.
Sections 2.1.3.1 and 2.1.3.2 of AHAM AC-7-2022 further define
``portable'' and ``fixed,'' respectively, as follows:
Portable: can be easily moved from one place to another for use;
and has no provision for permanent mounting. Tools are not required for
the product installation or removal.
Fixed: permanently connected to the electrical supply source;
permanently mounted, such that tools are required for the product
installation or removal; or, sized so that it is not easily moved from
one place to another.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify in section 1 of
the proposed new appendix FF that the test procedure applies to
``conventional room air cleaners'' and to define that term in 10 CFR
430.2 through reference to section 2.1.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft. DOE
further proposed to add references to sections 2.1.3.1 and 2.1.3.2 of
AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft to the proposed definition of conventional room
air cleaners to reference the definitions of portable and fixed
conventional room air cleaners. 87 FR 63324, 63328.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal to
define the scope of the proposed new air cleaner test procedure as
those air cleaners that meet the definition of a conventional room air
cleaner as defined in section 2.1.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft. DOE also
requested comment on its proposal to reference sections 2.1.1, 2.1.3.1,
and 2.1.3.2 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft in 10 CFR 430.2 for the definitions
of conventional room air cleaner, portable conventional room air
cleaner, and fixed conventional room air cleaner, respectively. Id.
AHRI commented that it supports DOE's proposed definitions in AHAM
AC-7-2022 for ``conventional room air cleaner,'' ``portable,'' and
``fixed'' with a CADR limit of 600 cubic feet per minute (cfm). (AHRI,
No. 33 at p. 1) Daikin commented that it generally agreed with the
scope and definitions used to describe the specific air cleaners in the
scope of the proposed test procedure with a CADR limit of 600 cfm.
(Daikin, No. 35 at p. 1)
Carrier stated its agreement with DOE's proposal to define the
scope of the test procedure to conventional room air cleaners, but
commented there could be confusion if DOE were to adopt section 2.1.1
of AHAM AC-7-2022 verbatim because it does not explicitly state whether
ceiling mounted air cleaners are included. Carrier requested that
``ceiling mounted'' air cleaners be added to the section 2.1.1
definition of a ``conventional room air cleaner.'' (Carrier, No. 31 at
p. 2)
During the NOPR public meeting, Acuity Brands asked whether a wall
mounted product that is permanently connected to the electrical supply
source and a ceiling mounted product would be included in the scope of
the test procedure. (Acuity Brands, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25
at p. 12)
During the NOPR public meeting, LifeAire asked if an in-duct system
would be within the scope of the test procedure. (LifeAire, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 13)
DOE notes that wall mounted air cleaners are included, but ceiling
mounted air cleaners are not included in the definition of conventional
room air cleaner as defined in section 2.1.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022. DOE is
not aware of any test method to test ceiling mounted air cleaners. DOE
notes that section 3.1.5 of AHAM AC-1-2020 indicates that uniform
testing practices and statistical examinations of air cleaners designed
to be mounted on the ceiling have not been conducted. Given the
potential confusion regarding whether ceiling mounted units are
considered conventional room air cleaners and the lack of a test method
for ceiling mounted units, DOE is excluding these air cleaners from the
definition of conventional room air cleaners in this final rule.
Additionally, in-duct air cleaners do not meet the definition of
conventional room air cleaners and are not in the scope of the test
procedure.
MIAQ stated its support for the proposed definition of a
conventional air cleaner as it appears in section 2.1.1 of AHAM AC-7-
2022. (MIAQ, No. 26 at p. 1) MIAQ and HVI both requested that
``incidental air cleaning products,'' be excluded from the proposed air
cleaner test procedure and defined the term as a consumer product that
would meet the definition of an air cleaner, but which provides an
additional function, not related to air purification, within the same
housing, such as a vacuum cleaner, fresh air ventilator, range hood
(ducted or non-ducted), refrigerator, or desiccant dehumidifier, and
whose air purification function is incidental to its other functions.
(MIAQ, No. 26 at pp. 1-2; HVI, No. 32 at p. 1)
DOE notes that ``incidental air cleaning products'' do not meet the
definition of an air cleaner as defined in 10 CFR 430.2. Specifically,
as discussed in the July 2022 Final Determination, the definition of an
air cleaner states, in part, that it is a product for improving indoor
air quality, which excludes products that may provide some air cleaning
as an ancillary function. 87 FR 42297, 42302. Given that the types of
products described by MIAQ and HVI do not meet the definition of an air
cleaner as specified in 10 CFR 430.2, DOE has determined that it is
unnecessary to specify any additional exclusions in the air cleaners
test procedure in the newly established appendix FF.
MIAQ requested clarification about whether DOE is referencing the
definition of consumer room air cleaner in section 2.1 of AHAM AC-7-
2022 Draft, thereby excluding ``duct type'' devices, ``lamps,'' and
other devices as defined in 10 CFR 430.2. MIAQ stated that based on
section 2.1.3.3 of AHAM-AC-7-2022 Draft, heat recovery ventilators
(HRV), energy recovery ventilators (ERV), and supply fans would be
excluded and that to avoid ambiguity, MIAQ proposed adding the words
``system in the room'' to the definition provided in section 2.1 of
AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft to read as follows: ``Consumer room air cleaner
means a consumer product for improving indoor air quality that: (1) Is
an electrically-powered, self-contained system in the room, that has a

[[Page 14019]]

mechanically encased assembly.'' (MIAQ, No. 26 at p. 2) MIAQ also
recommended adding reference to section 2.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft for
the definition of consumer room air cleaner because it lists exclusions
(e.g., ``duct type,'' ``lamps,'' and the devices defined in 10 CFR
430.2) that are not explicitly listed in the sections referenced in
this rulemaking. MIAQ further recommended referencing sections 2.1.3.4
and 2.1.3.5 of AHAM AC-7-2022 for definitions of combined product and
lamps, respectively. (MIAQ, No. 26 at p. 4)
DOE clarifies that it is not referencing the definition of consumer
room air cleaner as defined in section 2.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022. DOE
already specifies a definition for air cleaner in 10 CFR 430.2, which
is similar to the definition of consumer room air cleaner specified in
AHAM AC-7-2022, but includes a broader scope. As such, for the scope of
this test procedure rulemaking, the definition of conventional room air
cleaner is adequate to define the products subject to this test
procedure. Accordingly, in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to
reference only section 2.1.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 for the definition of
conventional room air cleaner. However, because the definition of
conventional room air cleaner in section 2.1.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022
includes the term ``consumer room air cleaner,'' which is defined in
section 2.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022, DOE understands that this could cause
confusion. Therefore, to avoid any such confusion, DOE is including the
wording of the definition for conventional room air cleaner at 10 CFR
430.2 and removing the phrase ``consumer room air cleaner'' and
replacing it with the term ``air cleaner,'' rather than referencing
section 2.1.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 within the definition. This definition
at 10 CFR 430.2 is substantively the same as what DOE proposed in the
October 2022 NOPR, along with the exclusion of ceiling mounted air
cleaners as discussed previously. DOE is including the references to
sections 2.1.3.1 and 2.1.3.2 of AHAM AC-7-2022 that were proposed in
the October 2022 NOPR for the definitions of ``portable'' and ``fixed''
in the newly established appendix FF.
During the NOPR public meeting, Electrolux noted that the
definition of conventional room air cleaner specifies the removal,
destruction, or deactivation of particulates and it was not clear if an
air cleaner that is removing smoke or gases would be included as part
of this definition. (Electrolux, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at
p. 14) DOE notes that an air cleaner that can remove, destroy, or
deactivate particulates, including smoke, would meet the definition of
a conventional room air cleaner, if it meets the remaining criteria
specified in the definition.
For the reasons discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is
finalizing its definitions of conventional room air cleaner, portable
conventional room air cleaner, and fixed conventional room air cleaner.
Section 2 of AHAM AC-1-2020 indicates that due to the defined
limits of measurability based on statistical accuracy, for a 95 percent
confidence limit, the standard is applicable only to air cleaners with
minimum CADR ratings as follows: 25 cfm for pollen CADR; 10 cfm for
dust CADR; and 10 cfm for cigarette smoke CADR. Additionally, section 2
of AHAM AC-1-2020 indicates that the theoretical maximum limits for
CADR are determined by the maximum number of initial available
particles, the acceptable minimum number of available particles, an
average background natural decay rate (from statistical study), the
size of the test chamber, and the available minimum experiment time.
Based on these parameters, section 2 of AHAM AC-1-2020 specifies the
test procedure being applicable only to air cleaners with maximum CADR
ratings of 600 cfm for dust and cigarette smoke and 450 cfm for pollen.
The recommended standards presented in the Joint Proposal are
applicable to conventional room air cleaners with a minimum
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR of 10 cfm. (Joint Proposal, No. 16 at p. 9)
As discussed, DOE's established scope for the test procedure
pertains to conventional room air cleaners that are portable or wall
mounted and plug into an electrical outlet. This is consistent with the
scope of the AHAM AC-7-2022 and AHAM AC-1-2020 industry standards,
which DOE is referencing for the CADR and power measurement tests, as
discussed in later sections of this document. Given that DOE proposed
to reference the AHAM industry standards for the DOE air cleaner test
procedure, in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment on whether
it should also specify the acceptable CADR range from AHAM AC-1-2020 as
part of its test procedure scope. Specifically, DOE stated that it
would consider specifying that the test procedure is applicable for
conventional room air cleaners with smoke CADR or dust CADR between 10
to 600 cfm, inclusive. 87 FR 63324, 63328.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment on whether it
should reference section 2 of AHAM AC-1-2020, which specifies that the
standard is applicable for air cleaners only within rated CADR ranges
of 10 to 600 cfm for dust and cigarette smoke. Additionally, DOE
requested comment on whether this CADR range should be specified for
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR instead of for dust CADR and smoke CADR. Id.
Carrier commented that DOE should specify that the test procedure
scope include only CADR ranges of 10 to 600 cfm, and that larger air
purifiers with a CADR greater than 600 cfm should be included only if
and when AHAM AC-1-2020 is updated to be able to test such air
cleaners. Carrier recommended that the CADR range should be specified
for PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, since it is used for calculating the IEF in
AHAM AC-7-2022. (Carrier, No. 31 at p. 2)
MIAQ supported DOE's proposal to reference section 2 of AHAM AC-1-
2020 specifying that the standard applies to air cleaners only within
rated CADR ranges of 10 to 600 cfm for dust and cigarette smoke. MIAQ
additionally recommended keeping the dust CADR and smoke CADR range
separate from PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR since the dust CADR and smoke CADR
are used in a geometric average, and in some cases, a product could
have a PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR rating within limits, while either smoke
CADR or dust CADR could fall outside the limit. MIAQ commented that
based on the hard limit for a theoretical maximum CADR rating based on
the number of particles, background decay, size of the test chamber,
and experiment run time, the CADR range of 10 to 600 cfm for dust and
cigarette smoke should be enforced. (MIAQ, No. 26 at pp. 2-3)
MIAQ also commented that the pollen CADR limit should be listed,
and that limits should be set similar to the theoretical maximum CADR
values for smoke and dust. (MIAQ, No. 26 at p. 9)
AHRI commented that it recommends that DOE add a 600 cfm limit to
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR in the regulatory language for the test procedure
and consider covering larger air cleaners with future language. (AHRI,
No. 33 at p. 1)
AHRI commented that it supports DOE's proposal to reference section
2 of AHAM AC-1-2020, specifying that the standard is applicable for air
cleaners only within rated CADR ranges of 10 to 600 cfm for dust and
cigarette smoke. AHRI stated that it agrees with DOE that this CADR
range should be specified for PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, instead of for
dust CADR and smoke CADR. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 2)
Daikin commented that DOE must specify a CADR range that is
verifiable and subject to regulation. Daikin commented that a minimum
CADR limit

[[Page 14020]]

is not required in identifying DOE's coverage because every air cleaner
below a CADR of 600 cfm should be included in the scope of regulation.
Daikin additionally commented that based on the limitation of the AHAM
standards, DOE should include a maximum CADR limit of 600 cfm. (Daikin,
No. 35 at p. 2) Daikin also recommended that DOE develop a standard for
large air cleaners (i.e., with capacities greater than 600 cfm) prior
to the next cycle of this regulation. (Daikin, No. 35 at p. 1)
During the NOPR public meeting, Daikin recommended that the test
procedure scope should be clarified to include the CADR thresholds,
which is prescribed based on the allowable limits of the test procedure
and test room. (Daikin, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 10-11
18) Daikin also asked if there was a way to accommodate air cleaners
that have a CADR greater than 600 and suggested the CADR thresholds
should be based on the PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR metric. (Daikin, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 16-17)
Carrier agreed with Daikin that there should be some way to
accommodate larger-capacity air cleaners in the test procedure.
(Carrier, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 17)
The CA IOUs commented that the CADR limitation of 10 to 600 cfm for
both cigarette smoke and dust is due to limitations of the test
chamber, particulate density, and other aspects of the test standard.
While it is appropriate to reference this limitation in applicability
to this test procedure, the CA IOUs disagree that a cfm limitation
should apply to air cleaners as a whole. The CA IOUs stated they
understood that AHAM and IEC discussed the challenges associated with
testing units outside this scope and were working to resolve these
concerns; therefore, the CA IOUs requested that DOE not delay the
advancement of this proposed test procedure while test methods were
developed and refined for very large-capacity units. (CA IOUs, No. 30
at p. 3)
The Joint Commenters stated that products that perform beyond the
maximum CADR values need to be tested in a larger chamber for accurate
assessment of their CADR. The Joint Commenters commented that the
technical aspects for defining a repeatable and reproducible test
method for a larger chamber are currently under evaluation in an AHAM
task force and an IEC ad hoc working group, noting that once the issues
are resolved there may be updates to AHAM AC-1. The Joint Commenters
stated that they continue to support the 600 cfm limit for smoke CADR
and dust CADR and do not currently recommend extending the test method
to units with performance greater than 600 cfm for smoke CADR and dust
CADR. The Joint Commenters clarified that their recommendations are
restricted to consumer room air cleaners and noted that their comments
specifically reference the current scope of AHAM AC-1-2020. (Joint
Commenters, No. 34 at p. 7)
DOE appreciates the comments regarding the testing of air cleaners
with a CADR greater than 600 cfm. However, given the theoretical limits
of the test chamber specified for testing air cleaners, DOE has
determined that it is appropriate to specify the minimum (10 cfm) and
maximum (600 cfm) allowable CADR limits as part of the air cleaners
test procedure scope in newly established appendix FF. The test chamber
currently specified for testing cannot accommodate units with smoke
CADR or dust CADR greater than 600 cfm; accordingly, units with either
CADR greater than 600 cfm are not in the scope of this test procedure.
Additionally, because PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR is a calculated value,
determined as the geometric mean of smoke CADR and dust CADR, it would
not be the appropriate metric for which to define scope limits within
newly established appendix FF. A maximum CADR limit for a given
particulate is dependent on the maximum number of initial available
particles, the acceptable minimum number of available particles, an
average background natural decay rate (from statistical study), the
size of the test chamber, and the available minimum experiment time.
Each of these factors is based on the particles that are used for a
given test, which are either smoke or dust. Therefore, DOE concludes
that the scope limits must be defined using smoke CADR and dust CADR,
rather than PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR. Specifically, DOE is specifying in
section 1 of newly established appendix FF that the test procedure is
applicable for conventional room air cleaners with smoke CADR and dust
CADR between 10 to 600 cfm. DOE is also finalizing its determination
that it is unnecessary to specify an allowable pollen CADR range in
addition to the smoke or dust CADR range because pollen CADR is within
the allowable range for dust and smoke.

C. Industry Standards Incorporated by Reference

1. AHAM AC-1-2020 and AHAM AC-7-2022
As discussed, AHAM published AHAM AC-1-2020 for measuring the
performance of portable household electric room air cleaners. AHAM AC-
1-2020 is a voluntary industry-developed test procedure that provides
test methods to measure the relative reduction of smoke, dust, and
pollen suspended in the air in a specified test chamber when an air
cleaner is in operation. The test method is conducted by introducing a
known initial concentration of a given particulate in the chamber,
without the air cleaner in operation, to measure its natural decay.
Next, the particulate is reintroduced in the chamber with the air
cleaner in operation to measure the particulate decay with the air
cleaner operating. The difference in the logarithmic rate of decay with
the air cleaner in operation and without the air cleaner in operation,
multiplied by the volume of the chamber, provides the CADR value of the
test unit. AHAM AC-1-2020 additionally specifies methods to measure an
air cleaner's active mode power consumption when conducting the pollen,
smoke, or dust performance test in the test chamber, as well as methods
to measure standby mode power consumption.
AHAM AC-1-2020 is currently referenced by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in the ENERGY STAR Product Specification for
Room Air Cleaners, Version 2.0, Rev. May 2022 (ENERGY STAR V. 2.0
Specification).\12\ Further, the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 Specification is
referenced by air cleaner standards in Washington, DC and the States of
New Jersey, Nevada, and Maryland.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Further information on the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 Specification
is available online at <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%2020%20Room%20Air%20Cleaners%20Specification%20%28Rev.%20May%202022%29.pdf">www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%2020%20Room%20Air%20Cleaners%20Specification%20%28Rev.%20May%202022%29.pdf</a>.
\13\ Further information on State air cleaner standards and
timelines is available online from ASAP at <a href="http://appliance-standards.org/product/air-purifiers">appliance-standards.org/product/air-purifiers</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed, since development of the October 2022 NOPR, AHAM's
air cleaner task force has finalized a new test method, AHAM AC-7-2022,
that specifies the test methods for measuring air cleaner efficiency.
The power measurement test methods specified in AHAM AC-7-2022 use the
existing power measurement test methods specified in AHAM AC-1-2020,
updated to reflect current air cleaner technologies and
functionalities. Additionally, AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies the methods to
determine PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, which is calculated based on the
geometric average of smoke CADR and dust CADR values; AEC; and IEF
(expressed in CADR/W), which defines the efficacy (i.e., energy

[[Page 14021]]

efficiency) of an air cleaner. DOE has participated in the meetings of
the AHAM task force group responsible for developing AHAM AC-7-2022 and
has provided input on several topics during its development. DOE also
conducted testing according to AHAM AC-7-2022 and provided input to the
AHAM task force based on its observations and experience during
testing.
AHAM AC-7-2022 additionally references AHAM AC-1-2020 in several
sections to specify requirements for the test chamber equipment and
setup, as well as to conduct the in-chamber active mode power
consumption test. All but one section refer to ``ANSI \14\/AHAM AC-1,''
``AHAM AC-1,'' ``AC-1,'' or ``ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020.'' DOE understands
each of these references to be denoting the AHAM AC-1-2020 version of
the standard, since it is included as a normative reference in AHAM AC-
7-2022. In contrast, section 5.7.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 references ``ANSI/
AHAM AC-1-2022,'' specifically by stating that potassium chloride (KCl)
is allowed as an alternate to cigarette smoke in ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2022.
(See section III.G.1 of this final rule for DOE's consideration of the
use of KCl as an alternative to cigarette smoke). DOE notes, however,
that ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2022 is not published--DOE understands AHAM will be
revising the standard in 2023--and the text of the AHAM AC-1-2022
standard was not available publicly for DOE to review at the time of
the analysis for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference
the then-latest draft of AHAM AC-7-2022 into 10 CFR 430.3 and to
reference the relevant sections of this industry standard in the DOE
test procedure at proposed new appendix FF. 87 FR 63324, 63329. DOE
also proposed modifications to certain aspects of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft,
as discussed in the relevant sections of the October 2022 NOPR. (Id.)
Specifically, DOE proposed to reference AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft to
specify the test methods for determining PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, AEC,
and IEF. AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft specifies definitions, test conditions,
and test methods for determining active mode power, standby mode power,
out of chamber active mode power, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR. DOE
initially determined that the measurement of PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR and
power consumption as specified in AHAM-AC-7-2022 Draft would produce
test results that measure the energy efficiency of an air cleaner
during a representative average use cycle or period of use and would
not be unduly burdensome to conduct. Id.
DOE additionally proposed to incorporate by reference AHAM AC-1-
2020 to reference the test methods for determining pollen CADR, smoke
CADR, and dust CADR and for each instance where AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft
references AHAM AC-1-2020. Id. at 87 FR 63329-63330.
DOE additionally proposed to incorporate by reference IEC 62301 Ed.
2.0, which is referenced in AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft, for the
instrumentation requirements and standby mode power measurement. Id. at
87 FR 63330.
DOE additionally proposed to incorporate by reference ASTM E741-
11(2017), which is the current version of the standard referenced in
section 3.3 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft, with regard to determining the
test chamber air exchange rate. Id.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE stated its intention to update the
reference to the final published version of AHAM AC-7-2022 in the test
procedure final rule, should it publish prior to the final rule, unless
there are substantive changes between the draft and published versions,
in which case DOE may adopt the substance of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft or
provide additional opportunity for comment on the changes to the
industry consensus test procedure. Id.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE stated that if AHAM AC-7-2022
referenced an updated version of AHAM AC-1-2020 and if the update
version is both published and substantively the same as AHAM AC-1-2020,
DOE would consider adopting the published version of AHAM AC-7-2022,
including the reference to AHAM AC-1-2022. Additionally, DOE considered
whether it should include reference to the use of KCl as an alternate
to cigarette smoke, as currently specified in AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to adopt the substantive
provisions of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft with certain modifications. DOE
requested comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference AHAM AC-
1-2020, which is referenced in AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft, as well as to
specify provisions related to the measurement of pollen CADR, smoke
CADR, and dust CADR. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to reference IEC 62301 Ed.
2.0, which is referenced in AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft for the
instrumentation and testing provisions for measuring standby mode power
consumption. DOE requested comment on its proposal to reference ASTM
E741-11(2017), which is referenced in AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft for
determining the test chamber air exchange rate. Id.
MIAQ commented in support of DOE's proposal to adopt the
substantive provisions of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft with certain
modifications. MIAQ also commented in support of DOE's proposal to
incorporate by reference AHAM AC-1-2020, which is referenced in AHAM
AC-7-2022 Draft, as well as to specify provisions related to the
measurement of pollen CADR, smoke CADR, and dust CADR. (MIAQ, No. 26 at
p. 3)
Daikin supported DOE's decision to rely on ANSI standards developed
by an accredited standards development organization and noted that the
standards referenced by DOE in the October 2022 NOPR are developed by
industry experts and stakeholders. Furthermore, Daikin stated that the
AHAM AC-1-2020 standard is widely used by air cleaner manufacturers and
adopted by EPA for its ENERGY STAR program. (Daikin, No. 35 at p. 2)
Carrier commented that it supports DOE's proposal in the October
2022 NOPR to align the air cleaners test procedure with industry
standards. Carrier supported referencing AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft, IEC
62301 Ed. 2.0, and AHAM AC-1-2020, with some deviation. (Carrier, No.
31 at p. 1)
The Joint Commenters noted that their Joint Proposal urged DOE to
adopt AHAM AC-7-2022 as the test procedure or to use it as the basis
for the Federal test procedure. (Joint Commenters No. 34, at p. 2) The
Joint Commenters stated that they believe AHAM AC-7-2022 satisfies
EPCA's criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2) of being reasonably designed to
produce test results that measure energy efficiency of air cleaners
during a representative average use cycle and are not unduly burdensome
to conduct. Therefore, the Joint Commenters stated their support for
DOE's proposed test procedure, which is largely consistent with,
although not identical to, AHAM AC-7-2022. (Joint Commenters, No. 34 at
p. 2)
The Joint Commenters noted that DOE proposed to adopt the
substantive provisions of AHAM AC-7-2022 in its final draft form with
some modifications. The Joint Commenters commented that they support
adoption of AHAM AC-7-2022, which had been published at the time of
their comments, as the DOE test procedure, though they stated that
minor differences exist in the instrumentation provisions compared to
the version that DOE referenced in the October 2022 NOPR. The Joint
Commenters commented that these

[[Page 14022]]

minor differences are known to other stakeholders and should not
prevent DOE from adopting the final, published version of AHAM AC-7-
2022. (Joint Commenters, No. 34 at p. 2)
The Joint Commenters stated that they support incorporating by
reference AHAM AC-1-2020 because, though an updated version of AC-1 is
in process, it will not be completed in time for DOE to meet the
timelines in the Joint Proposal. (Joint Commenters, No. 34 at p. 2)
AHRI recommended that DOE implement AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft without
modifications beyond the consideration of break-in conditions, as
discussed in the relevant section. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 2)
NEEA stated its support of DOE's proposed test procedure for air
cleaners, which would adopt AHAM AC-7-2022. NEEA commented that AHAM
AC-7-2022 includes significant improvements over the test method in
ENERGY STAR V. 2.0, including introduction of a PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR
metric, which would allow testing of a wider range of product classes.
NEEA commented that AHAM AC-7-2022 also specifies a method for
calculating AEC, which includes assumptions regarding active operation
and low power mode, detailing how to use AEC to calculate IEF. NEEA
added that including low power mode represented an improvement over
AHAM's previous test procedure. NEEA commented that improvements could
be made as some elements of the AHAM test procedure were still in
development, but stated such ongoing work should not delay adoption of
DOE's proposed test procedure; NEEA cited the example of AHAM
developing details for determining smoke CADR, such as the use of KCl
to represent cigarette smoke, as one such issue that should not delay
adoption. (NEEA, No. 28 at pp. 1-2)
AAFA commented that DOE should consider aspects of the AAFA/Allergy
Standards Limited asthma & allergy friendly[supreg] Certification
Program, designed to help people make better choices when buying
products to remove allergens and improve indoor air quality. (AAFA, No.
29 at pp. 2-3)
DOE recognizes, as stated by the Joint Commenters, that AHAM AC-7-
2022 specifies minor updates to the instrumentation provisions compared
to the AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft that DOE referenced in the October 2022
NOPR. DOE discussed these updates to the instrumentation provisions in
the NOPR public meeting and also discusses them in the relevant
sections of this document. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 26)
As discussed elsewhere, the updates to the instrumentation provisions
do not impact test results. Therefore, DOE is adopting AHAM AC-7-2022,
with some modifications, in this final rule.
AAFA's certification program, which is also based on a modified
version of the AHAM test standard, specifically focuses on particulates
related to asthma and allergens. DOE has determined that the test
procedure based on AC-7-2022, including the PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR,
measures the energy efficiency of air cleaners during a representative
average use cycle and is not unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE
recognizes the utility of air cleaners offering specific particulate
removal capabilities and will consider such capabilities when
determining appropriate energy conservation standards for air cleaners.
In conclusion, for the reasons discussed here and in the October
2022 NOPR, DOE is referencing AHAM AC-7-2022, AHAM AC-1-2020, IEC 62301
Ed. 2.0, and ASTM E741-11(2017) in this final rule, with certain
modifications, as proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.
2. Other Industry Standards
In this final rule establishing an initial test procedure for
measuring the energy efficiency of air cleaners, DOE is focusing on the
functionality most broadly implemented in air cleaners on the market in
the United States; i.e., the removal of particulate matter through
mechanical filtration means, which may include ionization particulate
capture as well. Certain microorganisms, depending on their size, also
may be removed from the air by such devices. In light of the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic and other health concerns, DOE recognizes the utility
to consumers of additional means for reducing concentrations of
microorganisms in the air, including destruction or deactivation of the
microorganisms.
An example of a test method for air cleaners that reduce
concentrations of airborne microorganisms is AHAM AC-5-2022, which AHAM
published in March 2022. Under this test method, air cleaners are
tested in a manner similar to AHAM AC-1-2020, except microorganisms,
rather than particulates are aerosolized and introduced into the
chamber. AHAM AC-5-2022 specifies different types of bacteria,
bacteriophages, and mold spores that could be used for testing.
Although DOE did not propose provisions in the October 2022 NOPR to
measure the efficacy of an air cleaner's removal of microorganisms, DOE
welcomed comment on the impact the type of microorganism selected for
testing has on the CADR for microbes (m-CADR) value (e.g., Phi-X 174
vs. MS2). 87 FR 63324, 63331. DOE also welcomed comment on whether
measurements taken every two minutes for a duration of 10 minutes, as
specified in section 7.3 of AHAM AC-5-2022, are sufficient to determine
m-CADR. Id. DOE additionally requested comment on the duration for
which a sample must be collected during each measurement point. Id. DOE
also observed from test results that the natural decay curve for
microorganisms could be increasing during the first 10-15 minutes and
welcomed feedback on whether this is reasonable. Id.
The CA IOUs commented that DOE should continue outreach on other
test standards (e.g., AHAM AC-4 and AC-5), but not at the expense of
completing this rulemaking within the timeframe recommended in the
Joint Proposal. The CA IOUs expressed appreciation that DOE asked
stakeholders for more information regarding microbiological (AHAM AC-5)
and gaseous (AHAM AC-4) test standards, but the Joint Proposal did not
propose a metric based on such testing and the CA IOUs believe it to be
unnecessary at this time. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at p. 3)
AHRI advised DOE against referencing AHAM AC-5-2022 and stated that
the appropriate test standards are already in use for determining m-
CADR. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 3)
The Joint Commenters stated that DOE should not at this time
prescribe a test for gases or microorganisms because the Joint
Commenters have not proposed standards based on them. The Joint
Commenters commented that if DOE has specific questions about AHAM AC-
5, it should request that the AHAM AC-5 task force reconvene to discuss
technical matters. The Joint Commenters noted that AHAM AC-5-2022 was
published in March 2022, meaning little test data is available. (Joint
Commenters, No. 34 at p. 4)
MIAQ recommended that DOE focus on mechanical filtration of
particulates as the basis of its energy regulations because including
microorganisms and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as part of CADR
results would add undue testing and expense to the manufacturer for
products that may not include any means for reducing these constituents
(i.e., carbon filter for VOCs). MIAQ commented that specific
constituents should be considered outside the scope of this testing and
that introducing any regulations or requirements for microorganism
reduction may add additional EPA regulation work and documentation and
could classify the

[[Page 14023]]

product as a pesticidal device. MIAQ added that AHAM AC-4 and AHAM AC-5
could be used as a basis for the evaluation of CADR ratings for these
specific use cases, but AHAM AC-4 and AHAM AC-5 should be considered
supplemental rather than required as part of this regulation. (MIAQ,
No. 26, at pp. 3-4)
AHRI commented that stakeholders have not been provided sufficient
information to provide substantive data on the need for testing with
more than one microorganism. AHRI requested that DOE provide additional
clarification on the purpose of this proposal and data to support their
investigation. AHRI commented that the addition of new microorganisms
is likely to affect CADR ratings and, as a proposed regulated metric,
this effect should be carefully considered. AHRI commented that if DOE
is unable to provide data to support this proposal, any further
recommendations should be reviewed by the consensus body developing
AHAM AC-5-2022. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 3)
Daikin commented in support of further investigation and clarity on
using the AHAM AC-5-2022 standard in relation to this regulation, as it
believes that different types of microorganisms are expected to affect
CADR ratings, and stated that it did not have any recommended action.
Daikin further commented that if DOE intended to stem the misuse of
incorrect efficacy claims related to certain infectious pathogens based
on different laboratory pathogens, then Daikin would support further
investigation and clarity. (Daikin, No. 35 at p. 2)
DOE is still evaluating the repeatability, reproducibility, and
representativeness of AHAM AC-4-2022 and AHAM AC-5-2022. Accordingly,
and consistent with stakeholder comments, DOE is not prescribing a test
method for testing gaseous contaminants or microorganisms at this time.

D. Definitions

As discussed, DOE specifies a definition for air cleaners at 10 CFR
430.2. Additionally, as discussed in section III.B of this document,
DOE is referencing, but not incorporating by reference, section 2.1.1
of AHAM AC-7-2022 in 10 CFR 430.2 to specify the definition for
``conventional room air cleaner'' and reference within this definition
sections 2.1.3.1 and 2.1.3.2 of AHAM AC-7-2022 to define ``portable air
cleaner'' and ``fixed air cleaner,'' respectively. These definitions
are relevant to establish the scope of the new appendix FF.
In addition to these definitions, in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed to specify certain additional definitions in the proposed new
appendix FF that would be required to test air cleaners according to
the new test procedure. 87 FR 63324, 63332.
DOE proposed to reference sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4.1 through 2.4.2.4,
and 2.6 through 2.8 \15\ of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft to specify definitions
for the following terms in section 2 of the proposed new appendix FF.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ DOE notes in the preamble of the October 2022 NOPR it
stated that it proposed to reference sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4.1
through 2.4.2.4, and 2.6 through 2.8 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft, but
the definitions it proposed to reference from the AHAM standard are
listed in sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4.1 through 2.4.2.4, and 2.6 through
2.9. 87 FR 63324, 63332. Additionally, the proposed CFR language
contained the reference to definitions from section 2.9 of AHAM AC-
7-2022 Draft. Id. at 63352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Function means a predetermined operation undertaken by the
air cleaner. Functions may be controlled by an interaction of the user,
of other technical systems, of the system itself, from measurable
inputs from the environment and/or time. In AHAM AC-7-2022, functions
are grouped into four main types: primary functions, secondary
functions, user oriented secondary functions, and network related
secondary functions.
<bullet> Primary function means an air cleaning function that
reduces the concentration of one or more types of indoor air
pollutants.
<bullet> Secondary function means a function that enables,
supplements, or enhances a primary function. For air cleaners,
secondary functions are other functions which are not directly related
to air cleaning. Examples may include a vacuum, heating,
humidification, or additional ambient room lights (e.g., night light).
<bullet> User oriented and network function (i.e., control
functions) may include network connection, Wi-Fi, clocks, radio, remote
controls, or other programmable functions that may continue to be
enabled when the primary function is inactive.
<bullet> Mode means a state that has no function, one function, or
a combination of functions present.
<bullet> Active mode means a product mode where the energy using
product is connected to a mains power source and at least one primary
function is activated.
<bullet> Low power mode as per IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0 means a product
mode that falls into one of the following broad mode categories: off
mode(s), standby mode(s), network mode(s), inactive mode.
<bullet> Standby mode means a mode offering one or more of the
following user-oriented or protective functions which may persist for
an indefinite time: (a) To facilitate the activation of other modes
(including activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch
(including remote control), internal sensor, or timer. Informative
Note: A timer is a continuous clock function (which may or may not be
associated with a display) that provides regular scheduled tasks (e.g.,
switching) and that operates on a continuous basis. (b) Continuous
functions, including information or status displays (including clocks)
or sensor-based functions.
<bullet> Inactive mode means a standby mode that facilitates the
activation of active mode by remote switch (including remote control)
or internal sensor, or which provides continuous status display.
<bullet> Off mode means a mode in which a consumer room air cleaner
is not providing any active or standby mode function and where the mode
may persist for an indefinite time, including an indicator that only
shows the user that the product is in the off position.
<bullet> Network mode means any product modes where at least one
network function is activated (such as reactivation via network command
or network integrity communication) but where the primary function is
not active.
<bullet> Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR) is the measure of the
delivery of contaminant free air, within a defined particle size range,
by an air cleaner, expressed in cubic feet per minute (cfm). CADR is
the rate of contaminant reduction in the test chamber when the air
cleaner is turned on, minus the rate of natural decay when the air
cleaner is not running, multiplied by the volume of the test chamber as
measured in cubic feet. Note: CADR values are always the measurement of
an air cleaner performance as a complete system and have no linear
relationship to the air movement per se or to the characteristics of
any particle removal methodology.
<bullet> Integrated energy factor (IEF) is the energy the air
cleaner uses when it is in standby mode, as well as its active mode
energy. This is fully defined as the measured PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR per
watt.
<bullet> PM<INF>2.5</INF> means particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers
([mu]m) as measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR part 50 Annex
I and designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or by an equivalent
method designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53.

[[Page 14024]]

<bullet> PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR is from ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020; Annex
I. The performance on PM<INF>2.5</INF> of an air cleaner is represented
by a clean air delivery rate (CADR) based on the dust and cigarette
smoke performance data. The diversity of particle natures and the sizes
of the dust and smoke pollutants gives a well-balanced representation
of the ultra-fine and fine particulate matters that define
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR is obtained by combining the
CADR of cigarette smoke particle sizes ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 [mu]m
with the CADR of dust particles that fall in the range of 0.5 to 2.5
[mu]m and performing a geometric average calculation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06MR23.001

AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft also includes definitions for other terms that
DOE did not propose to incorporate into the proposed new appendix FF.
Generally, these other terms are inconsistent with or not relevant to
the scope of the DOE test procedure. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to include definitions for
the aforementioned terms, via reference to AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft. Id. at
87 FR 63333.
Carrier expressed support for DOE's proposal to reference sections
2.2 and 2.3, sections 2.4.1 through 2.4.2.4, and sections 2.6 through
2.8 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft for the defined terms in the proposed new
appendix FF, with the only additional recommendation to include
``ceiling mounted'' in the definition for a ``conventional room air
cleaner.'' (Carrier, No. 31 at p. 3) For the reasons discussed in
section III.B of this document, DOE is not including ``ceiling
mounted'' in the definition of conventional room air cleaners.
AHRI commented that, if no substantive changes are made to the
definitions between the draft and final standard, AHRI supports DOE's
proposal to reference the definitions from AHAM AC-7-2022 in the new
appendix FF. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 4) DOE notes no changes were made to
the definitions in section 2 between the AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft and the
published AHAM AC-7-2022.
DOE notes in the preamble of the October 2022 NOPR it stated that
it proposed to reference sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4.1 through 2.4.2.4, and
2.6 through 2.8 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft, but the definitions it
proposed to reference from the AHAM standard are listed in sections
2.2, 2.3, 2.4.1 through 2.4.2.4, and 2.6 through 2.9, which is the
definition for PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR. 87 FR 63324, 63332. Additionally,
the proposed CFR language contained the reference to definitions from
section 2.9 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft. Id. at 63352. Given that the
preamble language included the definition and the proposed CFR language
contained the reference to section 2.9 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft, DOE is
finalizing its inclusion in newly established appendix FF of the
definitions for the aforementioned terms via reference to sections 2.2,
2.3, 2.4.1 through 2.4.2.4, and 2.6 through 2.9 of AHAM AC-7-2022.

E. Test Conditions

Section 3 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies test conditions for the
measurement of active mode and standby mode power consumption and
includes references to certain sections of AHAM AC-1-2020 as
appropriate. Specifically, sections 3.1 through 3.6 of AHAM AC-7-2022
specify requirements for active mode and standby mode electrical
supply, test chamber ambient temperature, test chamber air exchange
rate, test chamber particulate matter concentrations, chamber
equipment, and test unit preparation (including conditioning of the air
cleaner prior to testing, placement of the air cleaner for testing, and
network connection setup requirements), respectively.
DOE proposed in the October 2022 NOPR to reference the test
condition requirements specified in sections 3.1 through 3.6 of AHAM
AC-7-2022 in the proposed new appendix FF. 87 FR 63324, 63333. The
following sections summarize each of the requirements specified in AHAM
AC-7-2022 along with any stakeholder comments received in response to
this proposal.
1. Electrical Supply
Section 3.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies the electrical supply
requirements for active mode and standby mode testing. These
requirements specify that active mode power supply test voltage and
frequency must be set to the nameplate voltage <plus-minus>1 percent.
If a range of voltage is provided on the nameplate, then the voltage
for the country for which the measurement is being determined shall be
used per Table 1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 (<plus-minus>1 percent). Table 1
specifies 120 volts and 60 hertz for units in North America. For
standby mode testing, the power supply test voltage and frequency are
to be set as noted in Table 1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 (<plus-minus>1
percent), which specifies 115 volts and 60 hertz for units in North
America. DOE notes that these power supply requirements are generally
consistent with DOE test procedures for other consumer products for
which standby mode and active mode are tested. Accordingly, in the
October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to reference section 3.1 of AHAM AC-7-
2022 Draft for the electrical supply requirements in the proposed new
appendix FF. 87 FR 63324, 63333.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to reference section 3.1 of
AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft for the electrical supply requirements for active
mode and standby mode power measurement in proposed new appendix FF.
Id.
MIAQ recommended aligning the supply voltage for active mode and
standby mode, as lower supply voltage may cause lower efficiency of
switch-mode power supplies. MIAQ added that when measuring standby or
low power modes, such a minor efficiency change may be more significant
as the power limit thresholds continue to be lowered. (MIAQ, No. 26 at
p. 5)
AHRI commented that it supports DOE's proposal to reference section
3.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft for the electrical supply requirements for
active and standby mode power measurement. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 4)
Regarding the supply voltages specified for active mode and standby
mode testing, the proposed voltage specifications are consistent with
the respective industry standards that DOE proposed to incorporate by
reference (and that are being incorporated by reference in this final
rule). That is, section 3.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies that the active
mode power supply test voltage must be the nameplate voltage (<plus-
minus>1 percent) or, if a range of voltages are provided on the
nameplate, 120 volts (<plus-minus>1 percent). Section 3.1 of AHAM AC-7-
2022 additionally requires 115 volts (<plus-minus>1 percent) for the
standby mode power supply test voltage. DOE notes that this requirement
is also consistent with the test method specified in ENERGY STAR V.
2.0. DOE is adopting these voltage requirements in this final rule
given the potential near-term compliance timeline recommended in the
Joint Proposal and the consequent burden that would be

[[Page 14025]]

associated with re-testing all units that are currently certified to
ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 within a short period of time if DOE were to require
the same voltage requirements for both active and standby mode in
appendix FF. Additionally, as discussed, EPCA requires DOE to consider
the most current version of IEC 62301 in prescribing or amending test
procedures that integrate measures of standby mode and off mode energy
consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or
other energy descriptor. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Section 4.3.1 of
IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0 specifies a test voltage of 115 volts (<plus-minus>1
percent) for standby mode power consumption testing in North America in
the instance where the test voltage is not otherwise specified in an
external standard, with no consideration of the nameplate voltage
included. By incorporating by reference in the newly established
appendix FF the standby mode supply power test voltage requirements
from AHAM AC-7-2022, which are consistent with those in IEC 62301 Ed.
2.0, DOE is in part satisfying EPCA's requirement that the test
procedure account for standby mode and off mode energy consumption.
For the reasons discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is
finalizing the electrical supply specifications for the newly
established appendix FF, as proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.

2. Ambient Conditions

Section 3.2 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies the test chamber ambient
temperature requirements for active mode and standby mode tests. The
active mode ambient temperature requirement is 70 <plus-minus> 5
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (21 <plus-minus> 3 degrees Celsius
([deg]C)) with a relative humidity of 40 <plus-minus> 5 percent. The
standby mode ambient temperature requirement is 70 <plus-minus> 9
[deg]F (21 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C), with no relative humidity
requirement specified. DOE notes that the active mode test requirements
are similar to the ambient conditions specified for certain other
consumer products that affect room air besides heating or cooling
(e.g., DOE's ceiling fan test procedure specifies maintaining the room
temperature at 70 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F and the room relative humidity
at 50 <plus-minus> 5 percent during testing),\16\ and as such, DOE
expects that these conditions would also produce representative test
results for air cleaners. Additionally, section 5.7.2 of AHAM AC-7-
2022, which specifies the supplemental test to measure active mode
power consumption outside a test chamber, also references section 3.2
of AHAM AC-7-2022 to specify that the same ambient conditions must be
maintained when testing outside the chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ See section 3.3.1(1) of 10 CFR, part 430, subpart B,
appendix U, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy
Consumption of Ceiling Fans.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE recognizes that standby mode testing is likely to be much less
sensitive to ambient room temperature or humidity compared to active
mode testing, such that the wider tolerance on ambient temperature and
the lack of a humidity requirement for standby mode testing are
appropriate. DOE understands that test laboratories already have the
expertise and equipment necessary to maintain these specified ambient
temperature and relative humidity test conditions--within the specified
tolerances--when testing air cleaners within the test chamber, as well
as the expertise and equipment necessary for maintaining temperature
within the specified tolerance for standby mode. In the October 2022
NOPR, DOE proposed to reference these ambient temperature and relative
humidity requirements from AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft in the proposed new
appendix FF. 87 FR 63324, 63333.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to reference section 3.2 of
AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft for the ambient temperature and humidity
requirements for active mode and standby mode power measurement. Id.
MIAQ recommended aligning the ambient temperature for both active
mode and standby mode. (MIAQ, No. 26 at p. 5)
As discussed in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE recognizes standby mode
testing to be much less sensitive to ambient room temperature or
humidity compared to active mode testing of air cleaners. Additionally,
the wider tolerance for the ambient conditions for standby mode testing
would allow such testing to be conducted outside the specialized active
mode test chamber, which would significantly reduce test burden by
allowing greater testing throughput in the specialized active mode test
chamber.
For the reasons discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is
finalizing the ambient test condition specifications in new appendix
FF, as proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.
3. Test Chamber Air Exchange Rate
Section 3.3 of AHAM AC-7-2022 requires that, per section 4.3 of
AHAM AC-1-2020, the test chamber air exchange rate must be less than
0.03 air changes per hour as determined by ASTM E741 or an equivalent
method. DOE does not have information on typical air changes within a
representative room, but this condition is necessary to ensure
consistent test chamber conditions by minimizing the air exchange rate,
and DOE has tentatively determined that the industry-accepted
specification for the air exchange rate, as reviewed by the AHAM task
force, would be appropriate for air cleaner testing. Accordingly, in
the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to additionally reference section
4.3 of AHAM AC-1-2020 within the proposed provisions of section 3 of
the proposed new appendix FF. 87 FR 63324, 63333. As discussed, DOE
also proposed to incorporate by reference ASTM E741-11(2017), the most
recent version of that industry standard. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to reference section 3.3 of
AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft for the test chamber air exchange rate
requirements, including its reference to ASTM E741-11(2017), in the
proposed new appendix FF. Id.
AHRI stated its support for DOE's proposal to reference ASTM E741-
11(2017), referenced in AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft. AHRI commented that the
test chamber air exchange rate per AHAM AC-1-2020 should be less than
0.03 air changes per hour (ACH) as determined by ASTM E741-11(2017).
(AHRI, No. 33 at p. 3)
For the reasons discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is
finalizing the test chamber air exchange rate requirements, as proposed
in the October 2022 NOPR, in the new appendix FF.
4. Test Chamber Particulate Matter Concentrations
Section 3.4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies the acceptable range of
particle concentrations for the initial test condition for the smoke
and dust tests, via reference to AHAM AC-1-2020. The acceptable ranges
in section 3.4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 correspond with the ranges provided in
section 4.4 of AHAM AC-1-2020. DOE recognizes that initial particle
concentration is a necessary requirement for repeatability and
reproducibility by ensuring consistent test chamber conditions prior to
measuring decay rate, and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively
determined that the industry-accepted specification for the initial
particle concentrations, as reviewed by the AHAM task force, would be
appropriate for air cleaner testing. 87 FR 63324, 63333-63334.
Accordingly, DOE proposed to reference section 3.4 of AHAM AC-7-2022
Draft and additionally reference section 4.4 of

[[Page 14026]]

AHAM AC-1-2020 within the proposed provisions of section 3 of the new
appendix FF. Id. at 87 FR 63334.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to reference section 3.4 of
AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft for the initial particulate concentrations in the
test chamber. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments on this topic. For the reasons
discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is finalizing the
provisions specifying the initial particulate concentrations in the
test chamber, as proposed in the October 2022 NOPR, for the new
appendix FF.
5. Test Chamber Construction and Equipment
Section 3.5 of AHAM AC-7-2022 references Annex A of AHAM AC-1-2020
to specify the test chamber construction and equipment positioning
during testing. Annex A of AHAM AC-1-2020 provides requirements for
chamber size, framework, constructions and material for the walls and
flooring, as well as additional equipment that must be used in the
chamber for conducting tests. DOE believes these requirements are
relevant to ensure that testing is conducted in a representative
chamber and that it is repeatable and reproducible.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to reference in the proposed
new appendix FF section 3.5 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft, which references
Annex A of AHAM AC-1-2020 for the details of the test chamber
construction and equipment. 87 FR 63324, 63334. DOE requested comment
on its proposal to reference section 3.5 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft, which
references Annex A of AHAM AC-1-2020 to specify the test chamber
construction and equipment requirements. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments on this topic. For the reasons
discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is finalizing the test
chamber construction and equipment specifications in the new appendix
FF, as proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.
6. Test Unit Preparation
Section 3.6 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies three requirements
regarding test unit preparation: conditioning of the air cleaner prior
to measurement in section 3.6.1; test unit placement for testing in
section 3.6.2; and network connectivity requirements in section 3.6.3.
For the conditioning requirements, section 3.6.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022
specifies that air cleaners must be operated for 48 hours in maximum
performance mode to break in the motor prior to conducting any active
mode tests. It further specifies that this break-in must be conducted
with replacement filters and that after the break-in period is
completed, all original and as-received filters must be reinstalled,
and non-replaceable components should be cleaned according to
manufacturers' instructions prior to performing the active mode test.
Additionally, section 3.6.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies that
installation of a UV device that is energized during air cleaning
function and lamp assembly within the air cleaner shall be according to
manufacturer's instructions and the burn-in time for the UV lamp shall
also be 48 hours, run concurrently with the break-in period of the
motor.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal to
reference section 3.6.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft for the air cleaner
conditioning requirements in the proposed new appendix FF. 87 FR 63324,
63334.
DOE also requested comment on whether the 48-hour burn-in time for
air cleaners with UV lights is sufficient or if the burn-in time
duration should be increased. Id.
AHRI commented that it supports DOE's proposal to reference section
3.6.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft for the air cleaner conditioning
requirements. AHRI commented that it is imperative to specify and
standardize conditions for break-in because they may affect ratings.
AHRI recommended including in the testing conditions maintaining a
relative humidity below 60 percent in noncondensing conditions,
maintaining temperatures above 32 [deg]F and below 80 [deg]F, and
maintaining a testing environment that is free of contaminants,
particulate matter, and chemicals. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 4)
Daikin commented it agrees to include section 3.6.1 of AHAM AC-7-
2022, but that section 3.6.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 is lacking crucial
details about the break-in procedure. Daikin stated that the standard
specifies a break-in duration, but it does not specify where to run the
unit during the break-in period. Daikin commented that it does not
expect a laboratory to use the test chamber for the break-in procedure.
Consequently, if the laboratory places a test unit outside the chamber,
Daikin stated that the unit should be placed in a location with
acceptable air quality and absent particulate matter and chemicals
(e.g., isopropyl alcohol (IPA)) that may affect test repeatability.
Daikin commented that unless DOE can prove that the break-in location
has no impact on the measured performance ratings, it is good practice
to standardize break-in conditions and avoid unnecessary confounding
factors where feasible. Daikin recommended the following broad ambient
conditions during break-in to ensure repeatability: room temperature to
be between 32 [deg]F and 80 [deg]F and relative humidity to be less
than 60-percent, non-condensing conditions, and the break-in room to be
a clean, ventilated space, absent of chemicals and particulate matter
that may be found in a test laboratory conducting air quality tests.
Daikin recommended that DOE provide more detailed and repeatable break-
in room requirements for future versions of the standard. (Daikin, No.
35 at pp. 2-3)
DOE notes that the ambient conditions suggested by AHRI would
require the use of a test chamber for the duration of the break-in
period, which is 48 hours. This would significantly increase burden
compared to using the test chamber only for the active mode
measurement, as proposed. Regarding Daikin's recommended ambient
conditions for conditioning the air cleaner, DOE appreciates the
comment and will continue to investigate these issues as part of the
AHAM task force. At this time, the proposed use of a replacement filter
during the break-in period is intended to prevent changes in ratings
caused by using a pre-used filter during the active mode portion of the
test. DOE also does not have any information to suggest that it is
necessary to have the same ambient conditions during break-in as during
the active mode test, and therefore is not adopting condition
requirements for the break-in period.
MIAQ stated its support for a 48-hour burn-in time for air cleaners
with UV light-emitting diode (LED) lights. (MIAQ, No. 26 at p. 5)
The Joint Commenters commented that they believe a 48-hour burn-in
time for air cleaners with UV lights is sufficient because the lamps
are not being used for smoke or dust removal and the 48-hour burn-in
time does not add additional burden to the test setup. (Joint
Commenters, No. 34 at p. 5)
AHRI commented that because lamps are not used for smoke and dust
removal, the 48-hour burn-in time is equivalent to the other components
and does not create additional test burden. AHRI recommended following
manufacturers' instructions for burn-in time and commented that unless
otherwise stated by a manufacturer, the 48-hour burn-in time for air
cleaners is appropriate. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 4)
Consistent with the comments summarized in the preceding
paragraphs, DOE agrees that a 48-hour burn in time for units with UV
lamps,

[[Page 14027]]

as specified in section 3.6.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022, is suitable to ensure
a representative and repeatable test condition without being unduly
burdensome because UV lamps are not used for smoke and dust removal and
this burn in time is consistent with the break-in period required for
air cleaners generally.
Carrier commented that in terms of burn-in time for air cleaners
with UV lights, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 185.1 \17\ and the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) require a 100-hour burn-in requirement
for testing UV lights and that, as a result, Carrier suggested that DOE
adopt a 100-hour burn-in, instead of the 48 hours defined in section
3.6.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft. (Carrier, No. 31 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Standard 185.1-2020--Method of Testing UV-C Lights for Use
in Air-Handling Units or Air Ducts to Inactivate Airborne
Microorganisms (ANSI Approved). Available at: <a href="https://www.techstreet.com/standards/ashrae-185-1-2020?product_id=2185612">https://www.techstreet.com/standards/ashrae-185-1-2020?product_id=2185612</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE notes that the ASHRAE test standard listed by Carrier is
specifically intended to evaluate UV-C lamps to inactivate airborne
microorganisms; whereas, the DOE test procedure is not introducing
microorganisms in the test chamber, and UV-C lamps without a fan for
air circulation do not meet the definition of an air cleaner and
therefore are not within the established scope of this the procedure.
Additionally, a 100-hour UV burn-in period would significantly increase
burden, and Carrier did not provide any data or information to suggest
what additional benefit would be gained over the proposed 48-hour burn-
in period.
For the reasons discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is
finalizing the air cleaner conditioning requirements, as proposed in
the October 2022 NOPR, in the new appendix FF.
7. Test Unit Placement for Testing
Section 3.6.2 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies that the air cleaner must
be placed in the test chamber in accordance with section 4.6 of AHAM
AC-1-2020, which states that the air cleaner must be installed per
manufacturer's instructions in the center of the test chamber, facing
the test window, positioned with its air discharge as close as possible
to the test chamber center. Section 4.6 of AHAM AC-1-2020 further
requires that if the manufacturer's instructions ``do not specify''
\18\ and the air cleaner is not a floor model, the air cleaner must be
placed on the table for testing. AHAM AC-1-2020 does not provide
further specificity as to how to determine if an air cleaner is a floor
model, which may potentially cause ambiguity in determining whether a
particular air cleaner would need to be placed on the table. DOE notes
that section 5.7 of IEC 63086-1 \19\ requires that if placement of an
air cleaner is not specified by the manufacturer and the air cleaner's
height is less than 0.7 meters from the floor, the unit shall be placed
on a table of 0.7 meters in height. In all other instances, IEC 63086-1
specifies that the air cleaner shall be placed on the floor of the test
chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ DOE understands the language ``If manufacturer's
instructions do not specify'' to mean that the manufacturer's
instructions do not clearly indicate the placement of the air
cleaner on a floor, table, or another flat surface.
\19\ IEC 63086-1:2020, ``Household and similar electrical air
cleaning appliances--Methods for measuring the performance--Part 1:
General requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to reference section 3.6.2
of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft in the proposed new appendix FF. 87 FR 63324,
63334. DOE also considered including the additional test unit placement
requirement from IEC 63086-1. Id. at 87 FR 63334-63335. By referencing
a measurable metric (unit height) to determine the installation
configuration of the air cleaner in the absence of manufacturer's
instructions, DOE stated that IEC 63086-1 may provide greater certainty
regarding how to test certain air cleaner models, which could
contribute to a more reproducible and representative test measurement.
Id. In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE considered specifying the height
limit for placement on the table in the test chamber as 28 inches,
given that 0.7 meters is approximately 27.6 inches. Id. Additionally,
DOE considered whether it should include any requirement for air
cleaners shipped with casters; specifically, whether such air cleaners
should be tested on the floor regardless of the unit's height. Id.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal to
reference section 3.6.2 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft, which references
section 4.6 of AHAM AC-1-2020 for the test unit placement instructions,
in the proposed new appendix FF. Id.
DOE also requested comment on whether it should consider including
the requirement from IEC 63086-1 that specifies that if the placement
of the air cleaner is not specified by the manufacturer and the air
cleaner's height is less than 28 inches, then the unit must be tested
on the table. Specifically, DOE requested comment on whether the
language in AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft stating that ``if the air cleaner is
not a floor model'' is clear to follow, without any ambiguity, or
whether a quantitative metric such as unit height would be better to
ensure consistent test setup. Id.
DOE also requested comment on whether it should include any
placement instructions for air cleaners shipped with casters. Id.
Carrier commented that in cases where the manufacturer does not
specify placement and fails to designate the unit as a floor model, DOE
should include the requirement from IEC 63086-1 specifying that if the
placement of the air cleaner is not specified by the manufacturer and
the air cleaner's height is less than 28 inches, then the unit must be
tested on the table. (Carrier, No. 31 at p. 4)
MIAQ recommended following the manufacturer's instructions; for
example, if the air cleaner is called a ``floor model,'' it should be
tested on the floor, however if it lacks the specification as a ``floor
model,'' it should be tested on the table. MIAQ also commented that if
an air cleaner included casters for portability, then the unit should
be tested on the floor, unless otherwise specified in the
manufacturer's instructions. (MIAQ, No. 26 at p. 6)
AHRI commented that AHAM has published an interpretation of AC-1-
2020 (October 3, 2022) \20\ that specifies test unit placement
instructions and recommended that DOE reference this publication.
(AHRI, No. 33 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ See AHAM's comment during the public meeting. (AHAM, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Joint Commenters stated that AHAM addressed several of DOE's
requests for comments on unit placement and section 4.6 of AHAM AC-1-
2020 by adding an interpretation to AHAM AC-1-2022 on October 3, 2022.
The Joint Commenters commented that questions addressed include (1)
whether to include additional test unit placement requirements, (2)
whether to include a requirement for air cleaners shipped with casters,
and (3) whether to specify placement of the air cleaner if placement is
not specified by the manufacturer and the air cleaner's height is less
than 28 inches. The Joint Commenters stated that a published copy of
AHAM-AC-1-2020 with interpretation was provided to DOE on November 14,
2022. The Joint Commenters commented that they urge DOE to adopt the
interpretation as part

[[Page 14028]]

of its incorporation by reference. (Joint Commenters, No. 34 at p. 5)
As noted by the Joint Commenters, AHAM has added an interpretation
to the AHAM AC-1-2020 standard that includes the unit placement
specifications from IEC 63086-1, which provides greater clarity on the
air cleaner placement when no manufacturer instructions are specified.
The AHAM AC-1-2020 interpretation also notes that units with casters
should be interpreted as floor models even when manufacturer
instructions do not specify placement instructions.
DOE has determined that the updated AHAM-AC-1-2020 standard with
the included interpretation that specifies the unit placement
specifications from IEC 63086-1 is consistent with and adequately
addresses the unit placement concerns discussed in the October 2022
NOPR. Accordingly, DOE is maintaining its reference to section 3.6.2 of
AHAM AC-7-2022 for unit placement in the new appendix FF, but section
3.6.2 of AHAM AC-7-2022 references AHAM AC-1-2020, which includes the
additional AHAM Standard Interpretation that specifies the same
requirements as those specified in IEC 63086-1 and discussed in the
October 2022 NOPR. For the reasons discussed here and in the October
2022 NOPR, DOE is finalizing the test unit placement instructions by
referring to the AHAM Standard Interpretation in AHAM AC-1-2020.
8. Network Functionality
Section 3.6.3 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies requirements for setting
up air cleaners with network functionality, including requirements for
the network connection and for establishing the connection between the
air cleaner and the network. This section specifies that air cleaners
must be tested on a Wi-Fi network and that if the unit has additional
network capabilities (e.g., Bluetooth[supreg]), these capabilities
shall remain in their default, as-shipped configuration. Additionally,
section 3.6.3 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies that the network shall
support the highest and lowest data speeds of the air cleaner's network
function, and that the live connection must be maintained for the
duration of the active mode and standby mode tests. AHAM AC-7-2022 also
specifies that if the air cleaner needs to install any software
updates, testing must wait until these updates have occurred;
otherwise, if the unit can operate without updates, the updates may be
bypassed.
DOE is aware of at least one air cleaner on the market \21\ that
cannot be operated by the user, unless it is connected to an active
network connection. On such a model, control of the air cleaner is
provided exclusively through a mobile phone application. Accordingly,
in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to reference the AHAM AC-7-2022
Draft network connection requirements in the proposed new appendix FF.
87 FR 63324, 63335.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ See, for example: auraair.io/pages/aura-air-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requested comment on its proposal to reference section 3.6.3 of
AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft regarding network connection requirements during
active mode and standby mode tests. DOE also requested comment on the
impact on repeatability and reproducibility when testing air cleaners
with network functionality while connected to a network. Id.
Additionally, DOE requested comment on whether the software update
requirements are adequately specified or whether DOE should explicitly
state that software updates must always be executed prior to running
the tests. Id.
MIAQ commented that products with network connectivity should be
network-connected for active and standby tests. MIAQ added that not
including an available network connection would not represent actual
real-world usage, and that network connectivity on a device would be
the worst-case test scenario regarding power consumption and therefore
needed to be considered. (MIAQ, No. 26 at p. 6)
MIAQ commented that products should always be tested with the
latest software/firmware updates to ensure the latest bug fixes and
changes are applied. MIAQ commented that software bugs associated with
wireless connectivity may cause undue power consumption during the test
and that updating software to the latest publicly available revision
may avoid testing pre-loaded firmware that allows the device to consume
less power. MIAQ stated that, if available, the firmware/software
version should be recorded as part of the test for trackability. (MIAQ,
No. 26 at pp. 6-7)
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE should expressly state that the
tester must always execute software updates before running the tests.
The CA IOUs stated they understood that the conducting of these
software updates was the intent of AHAM AC-7 section 3.6.3.8. (CA IOUs,
No. 30 at p. 3)
The Joint Commenters commented that they support DOE's proposal to
reference section 3.6.3 of AHAM AC-7-2022 regarding network connection
requirements. The Joint Commenters stated that they believe the text of
section 3.6.3 of AHAM AC-7-2022 provides the most consistent,
representative, and repeatable method for energy measurements. The
Joint Commenters also stated that the intent of section 3.6.3.8 of AHAM
AC-7-2022 is for software updates to be conducted prior to running the
tests, as is industry practice. The Joint Commenters commented that if
DOE wishes to indicate that the updates are mandatory, the Joint
Commenters do not oppose that clarification. (Joint Commenters, No. 34
at p. 6)
In response to DOE's request for comment on whether the software
update requirements are adequately specified, AHRI stated it does not
have specific concerns. However, AHRI added that if there are different
opinions on the need for when to perform software updates, it
recommended addressing this issue during a certification rulemaking.
(AHRI, No. 33 at p. 5)
In consideration of these comments, DOE has determined that
installing the most recent software update prior to testing would
ensure the most consumer-representative test results because consumers
are most likely to update software if an update is available and, this
would also ensure repeatable test results. Because section 3.6.3.8 of
AHAM-AC-7-2022 does not adequately specify that the most up-to-date
software shall be used, DOE is incorporating in the new appendix FF
section 3.6.3.8 of AHAM AC-7-2022 with the additional requirement that
software updates shall be conducted prior to initiating any testing.
This added specificity will ensure reproducible and representative test
results for units that can accommodate software updates.
For the reasons discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is
finalizing the network connection requirements, as proposed in the
October 2022 NOPR, in the new appendix FF and additionally clarifying
that software updates shall be conducted prior to initiating any
testing.

F. Instrumentation

Section 4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies requirements for
instrumentation used for measuring voltage and power by referencing IEC
62301 Ed. 2.0 and specifies the accuracy required for power-measuring
equipment.
Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specify requirements
for power measurement uncertainty,

[[Page 14029]]

frequency response, and long-term averaging, by referencing
requirements in sections 4.4.1 through 4.4.3 of IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0.
Along with these requirements, section 4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies
the accuracy of instruments used for measuring voltage and power to be
accurate to within <plus-minus>0.5 percent of the quantity measured.
Section 4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 also specifies requirements for the
accuracy of the temperature-measuring device (error no greater than
<plus-minus> 0.6 [deg]C (<plus-minus> 1 [deg]F) over the range being
measured) and the relative humidity-measuring device (resolution of at
least 1 percent relative humidity, and an accuracy of at least <plus-
minus> 3 percent relative humidity over the temperature range of (21
<plus-minus> 3) [deg]C [(70 <plus-minus> 5) [deg]F]).
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE had referenced section 4.1.5 of AHAM
AC-7-2022 Draft, which specified that the accuracy of the temperature-
measuring device must have an error no greater than <plus-minus>1
[deg]F (0.6 [deg]C) over the range being measured (i.e., the allowable
error was specified primarily in [deg]F compared to the published AHAM
AC-7-2022, which specifies the allowable error primarily in [deg]C).
Section 4.1.6 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft, which DOE referenced in the
October 2022 NOPR, also specified that the relative humidity-measuring
device shall have resolution of at least 1 percent relative humidity
and shall have an accuracy of at least <plus-minus>6 percent relative
humidity over the temperature range of (24 <plus-minus> 3) [deg]C [(75
<plus-minus> 5) [deg]F]. 87 FR 63324, 63335.
DOE understands these instrumentation specifications to be
appropriate for producing repeatable, reproducible, and representative
test results for air cleaners, and that test laboratories currently
have instrumentation that meets these proposed specifications.
Therefore, in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to reference the
instrumentation requirements specified in section 4 of AHAM AC-7-2022
Draft, including the applicable provisions from sections 4.4.1, 4.4.2,
and 4.4.3 of IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0 in the proposed new appendix FF. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference
section 4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft regarding instrumentation
requirements, including the applicable provisions from relevant
sections of IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0. DOE requested comment on any changes to
these requirements between publication of the October 2022 NOPR and
publication of AHAM AC-7-2022, the reasons for these changes, and the
impact of these changes on the overall air cleaners test procedure. Id.
AAF Flanders (AAF) recommended tightening the accuracy of the
relative humidity measuring device from the <plus-minus>6 percent
specified in AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft because some of the media used in
filters could be affected by humidity. (AAF, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 25 at p. 23) AAF also commented that the updated humidity
instrumentation requirements in the published version of AHAM AC-7-2022
should be incorporated into the DOE test procedure. (Id. at p. 27)
The Joint Commenters stated that the published version of AHAM AC-
7-2022 includes two editorial changes compared to AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft
that was referenced in the October 2022 NOPR: (1) the [deg]C
temperature was added in section 4.1.5; and (2) the relative humidity
accuracy was improved in section 4.1.6. The Joint Commenters commented
that these editorial changes clarify the test and will improve
accuracy. (Joint Commenters, No. 34 at p. 6)
MIAQ stated support for DOE's proposal to reference IEC 62301 Ed.
2.0 as cited in AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft for the instrumentation and
testing provisions used to measure standby mode power consumption.
(MIAQ, No. 26 at p. 3)
As discussed, the proposed editorial change to the temperature-
measuring device accuracy requirements would not change the allowable
tolerance, and the tighter tolerance for the relative humidity-
measuring device is achievable. Accordingly, DOE is finalizing the
instrumentation requirements in this final rule by referencing section
4 of AHAM AC-7-2022.

G. Active Mode Testing

1. Particulate Used for Testing and CADR Measurements
AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies calculating IEF using PM<INF>2.5</INF>
CADR. Whereas, the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 Specification specifies its
metric based on smoke CADR, and the ENERGY STAR Product Specification
for Room Air Cleaners, Version 1.0 \22\ specified its metric based on
dust CADR (as did the subsequent Version 1.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Further information on the ENERGY STAR Product
Specification for Room Air Cleaners, Version 1.0 Specification is
available online at <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/specs//private/room_air_cleaners_prog_req.v1_0pdf.pdf">www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/specs//private/room_air_cleaners_prog_req.v1_0pdf.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the historic use of both smoke and dust particulates to
define a metric for air cleaners, DOE proposed in the October 2022 NOPR
to incorporate by reference section 2.9 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft to
specify testing with smoke and dust and calculating PM<INF>2.5</INF>
CADR. 87 FR 63324, 63337. Additionally, DOE proposed to reference
sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020 for conducting the smoke CADR and
dust CADR tests in the proposed new appendix FF. Id.
Section 2.9 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies the method used to
calculate PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, which is based on the measured smoke
CADR and dust CADR values. Section 2.9 of AHAM AC-7-2022 discusses that
the diversity of particle natures and the sizes of the dust and smoke
pollutants give a well-balanced representation of the ultra-fine and
fine particulate matters that define PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Specifically,
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR is obtained by combining the smoke CADR (which
includes particle sizes ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 [micro]m) with the dust
CADR (which includes particle sizes ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 [micro]m)
and performing a geometric average calculation as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06MR23.002

The tests to determine smoke CADR and dust CADR are specified in
sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020. These sections of AHAM AC-1-2020
specify the procedure for introducing the smoke and dust particulates,
conducting the natural decay test, and measuring the decay with the air
cleaner in operation. However, PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR specifies a
narrower range of allowable particle sizes for the smoke CADR and dust
CADR, than the smoke CADR and dust CADR tests in sections 5 and 6,
respectively, of AHAM AC-1-2020. That is, the allowable particle size
for smoke particles is 0.1 to 1 [micro]m for the smoke CADR test in
AHAM AC-1-2020, while it is 0.1 to 0.5 [micro]m for the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> calculation in AHAM AC-7-2022. Similarly, the
allowable particle size for dust particles is 0.5 to 3 [micro]m for the
dust CADR test in AHAM AC-1-2020, while it is 0.5 to 2.5 [micro]m for
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> calculation in AHAM AC-7-2022.

[[Page 14030]]

While the allowable smoke and dust particle size ranges for the
smoke CADR and dust CADR tests in sections 5 and 6, respectively, of
AHAM AC-1-2020 are larger (i.e., 0.1 to 1 [micro]m for smoke particles
and 0.5 to 3 [micro]m for dust particles) than the allowable smoke and
dust particle size ranges for the calculation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR
(i.e., 0.1 to 0.5 [micro]m for smoke particles and 0.5 to 2.5 [micro]m
for dust particles), the subset smoke CADR and dust CADR used to
calculate PM<INF>2.5</INF> are nearly identical to the smoke CADR and
dust CADR calculated according to sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020,
as shown in the figures included in the Joint Proposal.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ The figure appears on page 6 of the Joint Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, as discussed in section III.C.1 of this document, section
5.7.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022, states that KCl is allowed as an alternate to
cigarette smoke per ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2022, which is a standard that has
not yet published.
Accordingly, in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE also proposed that
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR may alternatively be calculated in the proposed
new appendix FF using the full range of particles used to calculate
smoke CADR and dust CADR according to sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-
2020, respectively. 87 FR 63324, 63337. DOE added that it may revisit
allowing the use of both approaches to calculate PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR
in a future standards rulemaking. Id.
DOE requested feedback on its proposal to incorporate by reference
section 2.9 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft to calculate PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR
based on measurements of smoke CADR and dust CADR.
DOE also requested comment on its proposal to reference sections 5
and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020 to specify the test methods for determining
smoke CADR and dust CADR, respectively. Id.
DOE also requested comment on whether it should consider specifying
that KCl is an allowable alternate to cigarette smoke in the
measurement of smoke CADR, even if AHAM AC-1-2022 is not published by
the time DOE publishes its final rule. DOE requested data and
information on the implications of using cigarette smoke and KCl
interchangeably when performing air cleaner performance tests. DOE
requested data and information on how a CADR value obtained using KCl
compares to the CADR value obtained using cigarette smoke. 87 FR 63324,
63330.
AHRI commented that PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR is the preferred
regulated metric. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 6)
Carrier stated its support for DOE's proposal to incorporate by
reference section 2.9 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft to calculate
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR based on measurements of smoke CADR and dust
CADR. (Carrier, No. 31 at p. 4)
AHRI commented that AHAM developed the PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR
calculation based on smoke and dust measurements using geometric
averaging. AHRI commented that PM<INF>2.5</INF> is more meaningful to
consumers than dust CADR and does not require additional testing. AHRI
stated that because particulate matter is the primary pollutant of
concern, PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR is the most appropriate metric. (AHRI,
No. 33 at p. 6) AHRI commented that PM<INF>2.5</INF> has been
successfully used for decades to represent particles in air filtration
and testing. AHRI additionally stated that ASHRAE 52.2 \24\ considers
PM<INF>2.5</INF> to be one of the 12 particles used for testing, and
commented that spectrometric measurements of PM<INF>2.5</INF> are
highly accurate and successful. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Standard 52.2--2017--Method of Testing General Ventilation
Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size (ANSI
Approved). Available at: <a href="https://www.techstreet.com/standards/ashrae-52-2-2017?product_id=1942059">https://www.techstreet.com/standards/ashrae-52-2-2017?product_id=1942059</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE agrees that the PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR metric is the most
appropriate metric to use for assessing CADR performance.
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR is an established industry metric that can
provide consumer-relevant and representative results as compared to a
CADR metric based on a single particulate because the range of particle
sizes included in PM<INF>2.5</INF>, also referred to as fine particles,
pose the greatest risk to health.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ ``Particulate Matter (PM) Pollution.'' EPA. Available at:
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics">https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frey commented that DOE was relying on outdated science on high
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration. Frey discussed that in
the early 1990s, research showed that 0.3 [micro]m particles were not
the most difficult particles to capture, and that HEPA-level filtration
was much less efficient with smaller particle sizes.\26\ Frey urged DOE
to take into account real-world filtration statistics that show
filtration 26 times better than HEPA at particles of 0.3 [micro]m in
size. Frey stated that when removing dangerous pathogens, the higher
the efficiency, the better, and that HEPA was not the best standard for
such a task. (Frey, No. 22 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Frey provided two attachments regarding particle
filtration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE notes that the air cleaners test procedure is intended to test
conventional room air cleaners regardless of the technology used. That
is, DOE is not establishing a test procedure only for air cleaners that
utilize HEPA filters. Additionally, the test does not measure
performance exclusively for 0.3 [micro]m particles or the removal
efficacy for 0.3 [micro]m particles. Instead, particles introduced into
the test chamber range in size from 0.1 [micro]m to 2.5 [micro]m, which
are much broader in range than 0.3 [micro]m particles.
The CA IOUs noted that the Joint Proposal proposed to use the dust
CADR results from AHAM AC-1-2020 for the dust particulate test for
already-tested products, which would help manufacturers meet the short-
compliance timeline that is specified in the Joint Proposal. The CA
IOUs stated that retesting products to AHAM AC-7-2022, which specifies
a narrower range of allowable particle size, for the Tier 1 energy
efficiency standard that is proposed in the Joint Proposal with a
compliance deadline of December 31, 2023 would be challenging, and
DOE's proposal to extend this same testing option to cigarette smoke in
addition to dust was understandable as the retesting burden is the
same. However, the CA IOUs commented that DOE should specify this
requirement only for the Tier 1 energy efficiency standards, which
would ensure that when the Tier 2 energy efficiency standards take
effect, all products would be certified using the same test procedure.
The CA IOUs added that if DOE found limiting the use of AHAM AC-1-2020
to only Tier 1 too challenging, the CA IOUs were amenable to allowing
the full range of particulate size for the Tier 2 standards as well.
(CA IOUs, No. 30 at pp. 3-4)
The Joint Commenters commented that they agree DOE should permit
sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020 for smoke CADR and dust CADR to be
applied in the calculation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR for the Tier 1
standard proposed in the Joint Proposal. The Joint Commenters stated
that the smoke CADR and dust CADR in sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2022
are nearly identical to the subset particulate size used to calculate
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR. The Joint Commenters further commented that
allowing this alternative for Tier 1 will ensure that manufacturers are
not required to re-test using AHAM AC-1-2020 Annex I \27\ to
demonstrate compliance with a new standard on such a short timeline and
can meet the expedited compliance date. Additionally, the Joint
Commenters stated that they do not object to also

[[Page 14031]]

applying this alternative to the Tier 2 standards in the Joint Proposal
given that the results are essentially identical. (Joint Commenters,
No. 34 at p. 6-7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Note that Annex I of AHAM AC-1-2020 specifies the
calculation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, which is the same as that
specified in section 2.9 of AHAM AC-7-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHAM stated during the NOPR public meeting that there is very high
correlation between PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR calculated using the narrower
and broader particle size range as the smoke and dust particle count
tapers off after 0.5 [micro]m. AHAM also stated that the purpose of
allowing both ranges to be used is to allow manufactures to use
previously certified data. AHAM noted that the particle size range was
adjusted in AHAM AC-7-2022 to ensure preciseness of the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR metric. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25
at p. 29)
MIAQ commented that in section 2.9 of AHAM AC-7-2022, the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR calculation shows the narrower particle size
range for smoke CADR and dust CADR ratings used to calculate the
combined PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR. MIAQ suggested updating the equation to
reflect the particle sizes referenced in sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-
2020 for smoke CADR and dust CADR. (MIAQ, No. 26 at p. 7)
Carrier commented that there is insufficient data to demonstrate
there is no impact from using the larger particle size range for the
smoke CADR and dust CADR as defined in sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-
2020 compared to the smaller particle size range for the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> calculation in AHAM AC-7-2022. Therefore, Carrier
stated it does not agree with DOE's proposal to allow the wider range
to be used as an alternate means, and requests that DOE only allow the
particle size range as defined in AHAM AC-7-2022. (Carrier, No. 31 at
p. 4)
As stated in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed that
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR may alternatively be calculated using the full
range of particles used to calculate smoke CADR and dust CADR according
to sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020, respectively. 87 FR 63324,
63337. Given the results of the two approaches are similar, DOE noted
explicitly that this was an alternate calculation that stakeholders may
(emphasis added) choose to use, but noted it may revisit allowing the
use of both approaches to calculate PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR in a future
standards rulemaking. Id. DOE maintains this position in this final
rule and is not specifying a mandatory requirement at this time to
calculate PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR using the full range of particulate
size as specified in sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020. That is, DOE
is referencing section 2.9 of AHAM AC-7-2022 for the calculation of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR and additionally specifying the alternate
calculation using the full range of particulate sizes that may
optionally be used to determine PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR. DOE will
consider the applicable required use of either PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR
approach in a future standards rulemaking.
Regarding DOE's request for comment on using KCl as an alternative
to cigarette smoke, MIAQ noted that AHAM expressed concerns with
current methodology that would specify KCl as an allowable alternate to
cigarette smoke in the measurement of smoke CADR and asked DOE to
reference AHAM's comments and ensure alignment. (MIAQ, No. 26 at p. 3)
Daikin recommended that DOE specify using KCl instead of cigarette
smoke to conduct the smoke CADR test. Daikin stated that using KCl
would increase repeatability of the test due to the uniformity of the
aerosolized matter and increase reproducibility because laboratories
are better equipped to control KCl test particles. According to Daikin,
unlike cigarette smoke, it is easier to clean test chambers after a
test using KCl, and KCl does not introduce harmful residues and
carcinogens. Daikin commented that test conditions for KCl testing
could be different than those for smoke tests. Daikin recommended that
DOE test, evaluate, and determine specific test conditions for KCl with
the help of test laboratories. (Daikin No. 35 at p. 2) During the NOPR
public meeting, Daikin requested more information about the test
conduct and room concentration for using KCl as an alternative to
cigarette smoke. (Daikin, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 19-
20)
The CA IOUs expressed support for adding a reference to KCl as an
alternative to cigarette smoke, noting that although AHAM AC-1-2020 did
not sufficiently define the full specification for KCl, it will be
included in the to-be-published AHAM AC-1-2022. The CA IOUs recommended
that for expediency, DOE should forgo specifying KCl as an alternative
to cigarette smoke until the final version of AHAM AC-1-2022 is
published with sufficient details regarding the use of KCl. (CA IOUs,
No. 30 at p. 3)
Carrier stated its support for DOE's proposal to specify that KCl
serve as an allowable alternate to cigarette smoke in the measurement
of smoke CADR, even if AHAM AC-1-2022 Draft is not published before the
final rule. Carrier offered the opinion that KCl will become the most
widely used method for determining the PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, but that
an understanding of the impact to CADR of cigarette smoke verses KCl
will be necessary to properly establish an energy conversation
standard. Carrier noted that it currently does not have data for the
purposes of correlation. (Carrier, No. 31 at pp. 3-4)
The Joint Commenters commented that they support the concept of
adding KCl as an alternate to smoke, as specified in a draft of AHAM
AC-7-2022. However, the Joint Commenters further stated that there is
not yet sufficient testing knowledge to specify KCl as an alternative.
The Joint Commenters stated that while AHAM plans to complete the
required testing, it will not be completed in time for DOE to include
KCl as an alternative in the final test procedure while adhering to the
timeline in the Joint Proposal. The Joint Commenters recommended that
DOE forgo including KCl as an alternative until AHAM AC-1 has been
updated to include the relevant specifications. The Joint Commenters
stated that they hope DOE will consider amending the test procedure
after AHAM AC-1 has been updated. (Joint Commenters, No. 34 at p. 5)
During the public meeting, AHAM noted that they are in the process of
updating AHAM AC-1-2020 and it will clearly specify what is need for
KCl to represent cigarette smoke, including how the aerosolizer should
be set up, the particle distribution and concertation requirements, and
any additional specifications that may be required. AHAM noted that the
standard will likely come out after DOE's test procedure final rule.
(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 21)
AHRI recommended that DOE implement AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft without
modifications to the standard beyond the consideration of break-in
conditions. AHRI commented that it prefers the PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR
metric utilizing KCl over the smoke and dust CADR as the regulated
metric because the necessary technology is already available and that
utilizing PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR would simplify the testing process.
AHRI stated that KCl is safer, easier to control, cleaner, and less
expensive due to the lack of cleaning fees incurred. AHRI recommended
that DOE consult with the appropriate standards committees and testing
laboratories to determine the appropriate testing conditions for air
cleaner performance tests. AHRI also commented that it prefers
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR using KCl as the regulated metric compared to
smoke or dust CADR. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 2)
DOE recognizes the benefits of using KCl over cigarette smoke such
as safer and cleaner test chamber conditions; however, given that the
specific parameters to use KCl as an alternate to cigarette smoke are
still under

[[Page 14032]]

development and DOE lacks data that correlates PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR
using KCl and cigarette smoke, DOE is not specifying the use of KCl as
an alternative for cigarette smoke at this time. For the reasons
discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is finalizing
referencing sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020 to specify the test
methods for determining smoke CADR and dust CADR respectively, as
proposed in the October 2022 NOPR. DOE is also finalizing referencing
section 2.9 of AHAM AC-7-2022 to calculate PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR and
including an exception for alternately calculating PM<INF>2.5</INF>
CADR using the smoke CADR and dust CADR as calculated according to
sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020.
2. Performance Mode for Testing
Section 5.3 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies that all products shall be
tested with the air cleaner set to the highest flow rate setting, also
known as maximum performance mode. Additionally, section 5.3 of AHAM
AC-7-2022 specifies that for products that have air cleaning
functionality beyond mechanical filtration (i.e., ionization, UV, etc.)
the test unit shall be configured such that these features are enabled
and set to the maximum level during active mode testing. Section 5.6 of
AHAM AC-7-2022 additionally specifies that even though a product may
have automatic mode, it shall be tested in its maximum performance mode
and settings.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to reference section 5.3 of
AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft regarding test unit setup requirements for testing
in maximum performance mode. 87 FR 63324, 63338.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to reference section 5.3 of
AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft to test units in maximum performance mode. Id.
Electrolux requested clarification regarding air cleaners with a
turbo mode and whether turbo mode would be used during testing, or if
testing would cover only the highest fan speed set manually. (Public
Webinar Transcript, Electrolux, No. 25 at pp. 33-34)
DOE notes that section 5.3 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies that the
maximum performance mode flow rate setting is the highest fan speed
setting as identified in the manufacturer's instructions that would
allow the product to operate indefinitely. Therefore, a turbo mode
setting that has the highest flow rate for a certain period of time
before transitioning to a lower flow rate without user input would not
be considered for the maximum performance mode setting.
MIAQ commented that testing units in maximum performance mode
represented the best solution for testing a worst-case power
consumption scenario. MIAQ additionally stated that AHAM was working on
a test plan for automatic mode. (MIAQ, No. 26 at p. 8)
The Joint Commenters commented that that there is no universally
accepted way to test the speeds of all air cleaners. The Joint
Commenters recommended that all air cleaners be tested at the maximum
performance setting, which includes the highest continuous speed for
the air cleaner, allowing consumers to make an informed selection based
on the air cleaner's highest performance level. The Joint Commenters
stated that the AHAM standards committee is working to develop a
procedure for assessing automatic mode. However, the Joint Commenters
stated that they believe it is worthwhile for DOE to proceed with the
currently available test methods for now in order to achieve national
standards and energy savings immediately. The Joint Commenters stated
that they would not support DOE waiting to implement standards until an
automatic-mode test is developed. (Joint Commenters, No. 34 at p. 8)
Daikin stated that it does not fully agree with the use of maximum
power mode as the only power consumption or performance and efficacy
test for air cleaners. Daikin commented that it is Daikin's
understanding that DOE and AHAM are working together on identifying a
test procedure for automatic mode operation. Daikin commented that it
supports such an investigation and requested DOE to consider a lower
operation mode (or a range of operation modes and contaminant loading)
to ascertain a more realistic in-field air cleaner performance. Daikin
commented that a maximum operation mode is not representative of field
operations and such a metric can mislead consumers in making important
decisions on buying air cleaners. (Daikin, No. 35 at p. 3)
Daikin commented that the October 2022 NOPR stated an intention to
adopt the maximum performance mode test because there is no current
consensus on the automatic mode test, but that the majority of air
cleaners operate at medium speed or in automatic mode. Daikin added
that if the intent of the regulation is to regulate the energy
consumption of these devices and provide certified ratings in DOE's
database leading to comparisons of CADR for different unit's maximum
performance mode might not be appropriate and DOE might benefit from
developing consensus around automatic mode testing. (Daikin, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 34-35) Daikin also commented that the
IEF metric is not representative of actual energy consumption because
the unit is not expected to run at the maximum performance level at all
times. (Daikin, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 41-42) Daikin
also asked if a sound rating will be measured during the maximum
performance mode test. (Daikin, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p.
31)
Carrier asked if DOE had considered testing air cleaners at minimum
or medium air flow to understand the operation in the system at these
settings. Carrier commented that, in practice, many air cleaners are
not operated at maximum air flow for noise or other reasons and they
are operated at lower flow rates, saving energy at the same time.
(Carrier, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 36)
AHRI commented that it would be ideal if the metric considered
multiple modes of operation or the identity of the tested mode so that
consumers have an accurate picture of product operation. (AHRI, No. 33
at p. 6)
NEEA recommended that DOE pursue future enhancements to the test
procedure to account for performance in automatic mode, but that
implementation of the test procedure should proceed to avoid delays in
implementation of the energy conservation standard and so that near-
term energy savings can be achieved. (NEEA, No. 28 at p. 2)
As discussed in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE determined that the
requirement to perform testing at the maximum performance level
provides the best balance among repeatability, reproducibility, and
representativeness of test results at this time. 87 FR, 63324, 63338.
DOE notes that industry-accepted test methods for other modes, such
as automatic mode or low speed mode, do not currently exist. DOE is
participating in the AHAM task force that is developing a test method
for testing air cleaners with automatic mode. Currently, DOE is not
aware of a test procedure for air cleaners in automatic mode that
measures energy efficiency during a representative average use cycle
and that is not unduly burdensome to conduct. In the absence of such a
test method for automatic mode, DOE maintains its determination that
testing at the maximum performance level provides the best balance
among repeatability, reproducibility, and representativeness of test
results at this time. DOE additionally notes that it is not

[[Page 14033]]

including testing provisions for a sound rating because sound is not a
direct performance measure of air cleaning (unlike smoke, dust, or
pollen).
DOE is finalizing the requirement to test units in maximum
performance mode, as proposed in the October 2022 NOPR. Accordingly,
DOE is referencing sections 5.3 through 5.7.4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 for
conducting the active mode test.
3. Secondary Functions
Section 5.4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies the configuration for
secondary functions, which are unrelated to air cleaning (i.e.,
humidifier, ambient light, etc.). As these functions do not contribute
to the air cleaning capabilities of the unit, they are switched off or
disconnected for the duration of the test. If it is not possible to
switch off or disconnect such functions, AHAM AC-7-2022 states that
these functions shall be set to their lowest power-consuming mode that
is selectable when running the air cleaner at its maximum performance
mode or highest fan speed. For customized control displays, AHAM AC-7-
2022 specifies that the test unit shall be configured to its default or
as-shipped control setting intensity level, unless the panel lights are
adjustable in intensity and are shipped in the off mode, in which case
the control panel is run in the least-intensity mode that would keep it
on for the test. In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to reference
this requirement for the configuration of secondary functions. 87 FR
63324, 63338.
Section 5.5 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies the configuration of
control functions during active mode testing. Control functions include
any programmable functions that may continue to be enabled when the
primary function is inactive (i.e., clocks, Wi-Fi, remote controls,
etc.). AHAM AC-7-2022 states that control functions are intended to be
on and connected to any communication network during active mode
testing.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to reference this
requirement to specify that control functions shall be in on mode and
connected to any communication network during active mode testing as
specified in section 5.5 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft. Id. DOE requested
comment on its proposal to reference sections 5.4 and 5.5 of AHAM AC-7-
2022 Draft to specify the configuration of secondary functions and
control functions during active mode testing. Id.
AHRI commented that it supports DOE's proposal to reference
sections 5.4 and 5.5 of AHAM AC-7-2022 and advised DOE that it is
acceptable to power off secondary functions if doing so has no impact
on particle removal. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 6)
As specified in section 5.4 of AHAM AC-7-2022, DOE agrees that it
is acceptable to power off secondary functions, if it is possible to
turn them off and doing so would not have an impact on air cleaning,
because it allows determining the power consumption associated with air
cleaning only, without the inclusion of any other functions (e.g., a
night light). Further, DOE does not have, nor did interested parties
provide, information on consumer usage of secondary functions in air
cleaners. Therefore, for the reasons discussed here and in the October
2022 NOPR, DOE is finalizing in the newly established appendix FF the
configuration of secondary functions and control functions during
active mode testing, as proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.
4. Power Measurement Procedure
Section 5.7 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies the methods for measuring
active mode power. These methods include measuring the power
consumption when operating the test unit within the test chamber at the
same time as the smoke CADR and dust CADR tests or by measuring the
power consumption during a supplemental power test outside a test
chamber.
More specifically, section 5.7.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies that
the power consumption measurement can be conducted simultaneously with
the smoke CADR or dust CADR test from section 5.2.5 or 6.2.5 of AHAM
AC-1-2020, respectively. Section 5.7.2 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies an
alternative method for measuring active mode power consumption,
referred to as the ``supplemental'' test. This test can be used to
determine the active mode power consumption outside the test chamber
used for smoke CADR and dust CADR testing. The supplemental power test
specifies the same unit configuration and records power over a period
of 15 minutes at no greater than one second intervals, averaging the
power consumption over 13 minutes starting after the initial two
minutes. AHAM AC-7-2022 additionally specifies that if the test unit
has pollutant indicators and they do not light up when no pollutant is
present in the air, but light up when detecting pollutants, then the
test unit cannot be tested outside the chamber to measure active mode
power consumption.
Finally, sections 5.7.3 and 5.7.4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specify the
equations to determine the average active mode power consumption and
the annual active mode energy use, respectively.
As presented in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE performed testing at a
third-party laboratory to investigate the similarity in power
measurement between a test conducted simultaneously with the CADR
measurement and a supplemental test performed outside a test chamber.
87 FR 63324, 63338-63339.

Table III.1--Difference in Power Consumption Between Smoke Test and Supplemental Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplemental test power
Unit No. Smoke test power (W) (W) Percent difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................... 44.2 43.9 -0.7
2.................................... 51.5 54.0 +4.9
3.................................... 55.0 55.6 +1.1
4.................................... 24.6 25.4 +3.3
5.................................... 18.8 18.9 +0.5
6.................................... 42.6 42.6 +0
7.................................... 5.9 5.8 -1.7
8.................................... 38.2 37.4 -2.1
9.................................... 37.9 38.3 +1.1
10................................... 58.1 57.8 -0.5
11................................... 84.8 81.7 -3.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Difference............... ....................... ....................... +0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 14034]]

As indicated in Table III.1, the percent difference between power
consumption measured during the smoke CADR test and the supplemental
out-of-chamber test ranged from -3.7 percent to +4.9 percent, with an
average of +0.2 percent. Based on these data, in the October 2022 NOPR,
DOE tentatively determined that the power consumption of the out-of-
chamber supplemental power test is closely comparable to the in-chamber
smoke, and likely dust, CADR tests because measured power using the
maximum performance mode is not significantly impacted by whether a
particle is present. 87 FR 63324, 63339. Accordingly, DOE proposed to
reference sections 5.7.1 through 5.7.4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft to
measure active mode power either in the test chamber (section 5.7.1) at
the same time as the smoke or dust CADR test or outside the chamber
(section 5.7.2) as a supplemental power test and to calculate average
power (section 5.7.3) and annual active mode energy use (section
5.7.4). Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to reference sections 5.7.1
through 5.7.4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft, which specify methods for
measuring active mode power at the same time as the smoke or dust CADR
test when the test unit is operating within the chamber and measuring
the power consumption during a supplemental power test outside a test
chamber, respectively. Id.
The CA IOUs stated their agreement with DOE's proposal to reference
sections 5.7.1 through 5.7.4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 because it would allow
power measurement at the same time as CADR in certain settings. (CA
IOUs, No. 30 at p. 4)
The Joint Commenters commented that they agree with DOE's proposal
to reference sections 5.7.1 through 5.7.4 of AHAM AC-7-2022. The Joint
Commenters stated that investigative testing by AHAM showed a -0.2
percent difference between the two methods, which they noted aligns
with DOE's testing. (Joint Commenters, No. 34 at p. 7)
Daikin commented on the continued system performance over a
system's lifetime. Daikin asked if there were any considerations around
sustained CADR performance over a system's lifetime. (Daikin, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 49) DOE's test procedure is intended
to measure the performance of a new product. DOE does not have any data
or information to suggest how CADR may change over the lifetime of an
air cleaner, if at all.
For the reasons discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is
finalizing the methods for measuring active power at the same time as
the smoke CADR or dust CADR test when the test unit is operating within
the chamber or measuring the power consumption during a supplemental
power test outside a test chamber, respectively, as proposed in the
October 2022 NOPR.
5. Pollen CADR
To enable consistent and meaningful energy representations of
metrics most desirable to consumers, DOE proposed in the October 2022
NOPR to include an additional test to determine pollen CADR. 87 FR
63324, 63339. Similar to dust CADR and smoke CADR, pollen CADR provides
a measurement of the air cleaner's performance to remove pollen from
indoor air. Pollen CADR typically increases with increasing air cleaner
energy use, and therefore DOE believes this is an appropriate metric to
measure. Further, according to the AAFA, more than 50 million people in
the United States experience various types of allergies each year, and
allergies are the sixth leading cause of chronic illness in the United
States.\28\ Further, pollen is one of the most common environmental
allergens to trigger an allergic reaction. Accordingly, many air
cleaners are marketed as providing pollen removal. DOE notes that the
ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 Specification requires reporting of pollen CADR. DOE
stated in the October 2022 NOPR that it is important that any
representation related to an air cleaner's pollen CADR performance be
made based on testing conducted in a repeatable and representative
manner. Accordingly, in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to include
the pollen CADR measurement test specified in section 7 of AHAM AC-1-
2020. 87 FR 63324, 63339.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. Allergy Facts and
Figures. <a href="http://www.aafa.org/allergy-facts/">www.aafa.org/allergy-facts/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 7 of AHAM AC-1-2020 specifies the test procedure for
determining paper mulberry pollen CADR. The method for measuring pollen
CADR is the same as dust CADR and smoke CADR; however, the test
duration is only 10 minutes compared to 20 minutes for the smoke test
and dust test. The reduced test duration is specified because pollen
decays faster than both dust and smoke and thus only 10 minutes is
necessary to determine pollen CADR. All other test conditions remain
the same including the test chamber, use of a recirculation and ceiling
fan, and test equipment.
DOE stated in the October 2022 NOPR that because this test is
currently specified in the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 Specification, DOE
expects it would minimally increase test burden compared to the tests
required for smoke CADR and dust CADR. Id. at 87 FR 63339.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal to
reference section 7 of AHAM AC-1-2020 for the pollen CADR measurement
test. Id. at 87 FR 63339-63340. DOE also requested comment and data on
the relationship between the pollen CADR measurement and the energy use
of the air cleaner. Id. at 87 FR 63340.
DOE further requested comment on whether it should specify
measurement of active mode power consumption when conducting the pollen
CADR measurement test. DOE also requested comment on whether it should
consider specifying a pollen CADR/W metric and whether such a metric
should be based on active mode power consumption or include energy
consumption in both active mode and standby mode. Id.
MIAQ commented that there would be little additional burden to
measure active power consumption when conducting the pollen CADR
measurement test and such a measurement may provide additional energy
consumption metrics for a higher power consumption rate as compared to
smoke, dust, or PM<INF>2.5</INF>. (MIAQ, No. 26 at p. 9)
MIAQ commented that the CADR/W metric for pollen was not necessary
but could be considered in a manner similar to the AHAM metrics for
smoke CADR, dust CADR, PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, and pollen CADR and the
corresponding energy consumption metrics in CADR/W for each of the
different pollutants, which would allow for a range of pollutants to be
included. On the issue of including energy consumption for active mode
or both active mode and standby mode, MIAQ commented that if this
metric were used, it should follow the same methodology as that used
for smoke, dust, or PM<INF>2.5</INF>. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters commented that they do not believe a pollen
CADR/W metric is necessary because they did not propose a standard
based on pollen. (Joint Commenters, No. 34 at p. 3)
AHAM asked if manufacturers must use the DOE test procedure if they
make a pollen CADR claim. AHAM also asked if there will be a reporting
requirement for pollen CADR or standards for pollen CADR in a future
rulemaking. AHAM further asked what DOE is basing its authority upon to
include a

[[Page 14035]]

measurement that is not related to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR metric.
(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 43-44)
The CA IOUs commented that a power measurement during a pollen CADR
test is unnecessary because the Joint Proposal did not propose a
pollen-based standard. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at p. 3)
Carrier commented that the inclusion of pollen CADR is unnecessary
and that manufacturers who would like to publish a value for pollen
CADR can do so using the industry standard. (Carrier, No. 31 at p. 2)
Carrier also commented that DOE should not specify a pollen CADR/W
metric because this could create confusion in the market, as consumers
may unknowingly attempt to compare an IEF based on pollen CADR to an
IEF based on PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR. Carrier commented that specifying a
pollen CADR/W metric could increase design burden if the minimum IEF
requirement for pollen CADR and PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR are not
correlated properly. (Carrier, No. 31 at p. 5)
AHRI stated that pollen CADR creates additional test burden and
should not be added to the DOE test procedure requirement. AHRI further
commented that DOE has the authority to regulate a single metric for a
function and the smoke CADR currently used in energy calculations
renders use of pollen CADR redundant. AHRI also commented that
employing the same metric with different conditions may be confusing to
end users and stated that testing must be representative of average use
cycles or periods of use and cannot add burden without value. (AHRI,
No. 33 at pp. 6-7)
First, in response to AHAM's comment on whether DOE may consider
standards for pollen CADR in a future rulemaking, DOE notes, based on a
review of products available on the market, that most manufacturers
provide pollen CADR information on marketing materials. And, as
discussed previously, similar to dust and smoke CADR, increasing pollen
CADR typically requires increasing air cleaner energy use. As a result,
DOE may consider pollen CADR in a future standards rulemaking. To that
end, DOE is establishing a test procedure for pollen CADR in this final
rule. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) (requiring that DOE prescribe a test
procedure prior to establishing an amended or new standard).)
DOE understands that if a pollen CADR/W metric is specified for a
unit that also has the IEF listed in terms of CADR/W, it could cause
some confusion in the marketplace. Accordingly, DOE is adopting the
test to determine pollen CADR as specified in section 7 of AHAM AC-1-
2020 but is not adopting a pollen CADR/W metric. DOE notes that
manufacturers would be required to use the DOE test procedure if they
make pollen CADR representations, including in marketing materials.
Regarding regulated metrics for air cleaners, DOE is not adopting
reporting requirements or standards for any measured metrics in this
test procedure final rule. DOE is establishing relevant capacity
metrics and energy efficiency metrics for air cleaners in this test
procedure and will consider the appropriate regulated metrics and
subsequent reporting requirements as part of separate energy
conservation standards or certification rulemakings.
For the reasons discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is
finalizing the pollen CADR measurement test, as proposed in the October
2022 NOPR.
6. Consumer Use Hours
Section 5.7.4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies the calculation for
E<INF>active</INF>, which is used to convert the power consumption
measurement to an energy consumption value. To calculate
E<INF>active</INF>, AHAM AC-7-2022 estimates that an air cleaner spends
5,840 annual hours in active mode, which is equivalent to 16 hours per
day.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to align with the estimated
active mode annual hours specified in AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft
(corresponding to 16 hours per day) and consistent with the ENERGY STAR
V. 2.0 specification. 87 FR 63340.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to reference section 5.7.4 of
AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft, which specifies the calculation of active mode
energy consumption using an estimated 5,840 hours per year in active
mode. Id.
MIAQ expressed support for DOE's proposal to reference section
5.7.4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft; however, MIAQ noted that as technology
progresses, the estimated 5,840 hours per year in active mode would no
longer be acceptable (e.g., on-demand usage). (MIAQ, No. 26 at p. 9)
DOE understands that the annual active mode hours may need to be
periodically updated to keep up with technology trends. EPCA requires
that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for
each type of covered product to determine whether amended test
procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements
for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be
reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)) DOE welcomes stakeholders to submit any relevant data
and information regarding consumer usage hours in different modes of
operation.
For the reasons discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is
finalizing the calculation of active mode energy consumption using an
estimated 5,840 hours per year in active mode, as proposed in the
October 2022 NOPR.

H. Standby Mode Testing

Section 6 of AHAM AC-7-2022 defines the setup and procedures to
measure air cleaner standby mode power consumption. In the October 2022
NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference all subsections of
section 6 of AHAM AC-7-2022, which establish conditions of measurement,
preparation of the air cleaner model for testing, test procedure, test
results, and the annual combined low power mode energy consumption
calculations. 87 FR 63324, 63340.
Section 6.3 of AHAM AC-7-2022 references section 5.3 of IEC 62301
Ed. 2.0 for the procedure to measure standby mode power. Sections 6.4.1
and 6.4.2 of AHAM AC-7-2022 define measurements for inactive mode
power, PIA, and off mode power, POM, respectively. DOE proposed to
reference section 6.4 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft. Id. at 87 FR 63340-
63341.
Section 6.5 of AHAM AC-7-2022 defines an annual combined low power
mode energy consumption calculation based on PIA and POM as follows:

ETLP = {(PIA x SIA) + (POM x SOM){time} x K

Where:

PIA = air cleaner inactive mode power, in W, for air cleaners
capable of operating in inactive mode; otherwise, PIA = 0,
POM = air cleaner off mode power, in W, for air cleaners capable of
operating in off mode; otherwise, POM = 0,
SIA = annual hours in inactive mode and defined as SLP if no off
mode is possible, [SLP/2] if both inactive mode and off mode are
possible, and 0 if no inactive mode is possible,
SOM = annual hours in off mode and defined as SLP if no inactive
mode is possible, [SLP/2] if both inactive mode and off mode are
possible, and 0 if no off mode is possible,
K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for Wh to kWh,
S<INF>LP</INF> = 2,920 air cleaner inactive mode annual hours.

Consistent with the active mode energy consumption calculation,
AHAM AC-7-2022 specifies 2,920 annual hours in standby mode, which is

[[Page 14036]]

equivalent to 8 hours per day and is consistent with the estimated
standby mode hours specified in the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 Specification.
Accordingly, in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to reference these
requirements for standby mode. Id.
DOE requested feedback on its proposal to reference section 6 of
AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft to determine annual combined low power mode energy
consumption. Id.
During the Public Meeting, an unidentified stakeholder asked if the
secondary functions would be disabled during standby mode testing.
(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 39) As discussed in section
III.D of this document, DOE is incorporating by reference from section
2 of AHAM AC-7-2022 definitions for ``secondary function'' and
``standby mode.'' Because the definition of standby mode excludes
secondary functions (i.e., functions that enable, supplement, or
enhance a primary function and which are not directly related to air
cleaning, including a vacuum, heating, humidification, or additional
ambient room lights (e.g., night light)), any such secondary functions
would be disabled during standby mode testing.
For the reasons discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is
finalizing the annual combined low power mode energy consumption
determination, as proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.

I. Integrated Energy Factor Metric

As discussed, EPCA requires that DOE's test procedures for all
covered products integrate measures of standby mode and off mode energy
consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or
other energy descriptor, unless such integration is technically
infeasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
DOE's analysis shows that it is technically feasible to integrate
active mode and standby mode energy consumption into an overall
performance metric for air cleaners. Specifically, active mode and
standby mode power consumption can be combined into the AEC metric
using the respective estimated annual usage hours. Further, to express
air cleaner performance as a function of its power use, DOE's analysis
shows that an integrated metric, such as IEF, is technically feasible.
This approach is similar to other DOE test procedures, such as room air
conditioners (see section 5.2.2 of 10 CFR 430, appendix F) and
dehumidifiers (see section 5.4 of 10 CFR 430, appendix X1), which
specify a metric that is expressed as space conditioning function
provided per unit power.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference
section 7 of AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft, which provides a calculation to
determine AEC and IEF for air cleaners as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06MR23.003

Where:

CADR = PM<INF>2.5</INF> Clean air delivery rate from the combined
smoke and dust test [cfm].
E<INF>active</INF> = air cleaner active mode test energy consumption
(in kWh per year).
E<INF>TLP</INF> = low power mode annual energy consumption
(expressed in kWh per year). 87 FR 63324, 63341-63342.

DOE requested comment on its proposal to reference section 7 of
AHAM AC-7-2022 Draft for the AEC and IEF calculations. Id. at 87 FR
63342.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the proposed methodology
for determining AEC and IEF. AAF commented that the report that would
be generated from the test procedure should include a statement
indicating that measured CADR is only for the highest air flow setting
for the device, and that it may not reflect performance at lower air
velocities. (AAF, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 31-32)
DOE is not adopting any reporting requirements as part of this
final rule. Reporting requirements will be addressed in a future
certification rulemaking. For the reasons discussed here and in the
October 2022 NOPR, DOE is finalizing the AEC and IEF calculations, as
proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.

J. Effective Room Size

DOE is aware that air cleaner manufacturers typically include
several representations in marketing materials for their air cleaner
models (e.g., smoke CADR, dust CADR, pollen CADR, CADR/W, room size,
etc.). DOE has observed that room size is represented in different ways
among various models and different values of suitable room sizes may be
specified even for the same model. As an illustrative example, DOE
identified a model that is marketed for a large room up to 912 square
feet, when completing one air change per hour and taking up to 60
minutes to clean air, while the same air cleaner is also represented as
being suitable for a room size of 190 square feet with 4.8 air changes
per hour and taking about 12.5 minutes to clean air. Further, this unit
is rated in the AHAM Verifide \29\ program as being applicable for a
room size of 190 square feet. It is unlikely that the acceptable room
size for an air cleaner of a given capacity can be increased
proportionally, potentially to infinity, in such a manner, without
having an impact on the cleaning performance of the air cleaner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ AHAM Verifide. <a href="http://ahamverifide.org/directory-of-air-cleaners/">ahamverifide.org/directory-of-air-cleaners/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Room size would strongly impact the capacity of the air cleaner
that would be required to clean the air in the desired room. For
instance, if the air cleaner is too small compared to the size of the
room it is being used in, it will be ineffective, thus providing low
efficiency. Conversely, if an air cleaner is too big for the room that
it is operated in, it will clean the air very quickly and still
continue operating, leading to increased energy use. Therefore, it is
important that an air cleaner be selected such that its capacity
(expressed in terms of its CADR) is appropriate for the size of the
room that it is intended to be used in. Additionally, for any air
cleaner, the represented values of CADR and IEF are inherently a
function of the room size that the unit is expected to

[[Page 14037]]

operate in (i.e., the represented CADR value is inherently a function
of the test chamber size, number of air exchanges provided, and the
initial concentration of the contaminant). Accordingly, DOE considers
room size to be an important metric that must be represented accurately
and consistently to provide meaningful information to consumers.
Section 8.6 and Annex E of AHAM AC-1-2020 specify a calculation for
the effective room size based on standard construction criteria for
rooms and a history of the natural decay rate of small particles as
determined for cigarette smoke. Specifically, the room size calculation
is based on the ability of the air cleaner to reduce the concentration
of particles, expressed in CADR, in a room at steady state to a new
steady-state concentration that is 80 percent less than the original
when the air cleaner is operating. The calculation includes additional
assumptions such as a mixing factor equal to 1.0, an air exchange rate
of 1 per hour, a cigarette smoke particle natural decay equal to the
average background natural decay (from statistical study), a ceiling
height of 8 feet, and a cigarette smoke particle generation or influx
rate such that a cigarette smoke particle concentration of 1 is
maintained at the initial steady state. Based on its estimations, AHAM
AC-1-2020 specifies that the effective room size, in square feet, that
can be serviced by an air cleaner is 1.55 times the smoke CADR value of
the air cleaner.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to include this calculation
as a represented value for room size. 87 FR 63324, 63342. Specifically,
DOE proposed to include in 10 CFR 429.67 that the effective room size
be calculated as the product of 1.55 and the basic model's represented
value of smoke CADR. DOE further proposed that this represented value
of effective room size, in square feet, be rounded to the nearest whole
number. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to include a calculation from
AHAM AC-1-2020 for the effective room size that can be serviced by an
air cleaner. DOE requested comment on whether it is appropriate to use
smoke CADR as the metric to calculate effective room size or if it
should be based on PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR instead, in which case, DOE
requested comment on whether multiplying PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR by 1.55
to determine effective room size in square feet is appropriate or if a
different constant would need to be used instead. Id.
The Joint Commenters commented that they recommend communicating
room size to consumers via a uniform test method, AHAM AC-1-2020 and
urged DOE and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to coordinate. The
Joint Commenters suggested that the recommended room size appear on the
EnergyGuide label. The Joint Commenters stated that regardless of
whether DOE or FTC specifies the test procedure, the relevant agency
must use the test method specified in AHAM AC-1-2020, which calculates
the recommended room size in square feet based on the removal of at
least 80 percent of smoke particles in a steady-state room environment
(assuming the room experiences incoming pollutants at the rate of one
air change per hour) and with complete mixing in the room. (Joint
Commenters, No. 34 at p. 3)
The Joint Commenters commented that DOE and FTC should not consider
using a PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR or other CADR value in place of the smoke
CADR value used in the AHAM test method because the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
CADR is not measured directly. The Joint Commenters stated that AHAM
AC-1-2020 uses a specific engineering tobacco smoke to generate the
smoke CADR, which has particles that are 100 to 1000 times smaller than
the width of a human hair. The Joint Commenters commented that even if
a consumer does not smoke, engineering tobacco smoke is a surrogate for
many of the fine particles that may be found in a home. The Joint
Commenters noted that the relationship between cleaning rate in CADR
and room size to clean to the 80-percent level has been verified by
scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and
recognized as reasonable by the FTC. The Joint Commenters stated that
they strongly urge DOE and/or the FTC to use smoke CADR to determine
the recommended room size. (Joint Commenters, No. 34 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs expressed a concern at the different methodologies used
to derive and promote recommended room sizes. The CA IOUs also
suggested that the FTC's EnergyGuide label should list the room size as
determined by AHAM AC-1-2020 because it is an appropriate and accepted
methodology. The CA IOUs commented that DOE should coordinate with the
FTC on its open rulemaking relating to the EnergyGuide label for air
cleaners. The CA IOUs commented that room size is often the first
prominent feature on an air cleaner product listing and a guiding
metric for consumers to identify the most appropriate product, but that
the top three consumer report-rated air cleaners listed on the
<a href="http://Amazon.com">Amazon.com</a> website use different methodologies or have inconsistent
recommendations for room size measurements. The CA IOUs further stated
that for consumers to make an informed decision, a single
recommendation including the proper context was critical for this
product. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at pp. 2-3)
Carrier commented that an effective room size should be a
represented value and suggested that the room-size calculation should
be based on PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, since this is used in the IEF
calculation. Carrier stated a belief that multiplying the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR by 1.55 should yield consistent results with the
AHAM AC-1-2020 calculation. (Carrier, No. 31 at p. 5)
Daikin recommended that DOE should focus on PM<INF>2.5</INF> as its
primary pollutant of concern, especially in displaying regulated
performance ratings. Consequently, Daikin commented that the room size
metric should be based on PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR. (Daikin, No. 35 at p.
3)
Dyson stated that AHAM AC-1-2020 currently precludes a reasonable
one-size fits all room size calculation in a mandatory regulatory
context. Dyson commented that DOE should refrain from including room
size coverage in the scope of the air cleaner test procedure at this
time. Dyson cited several reasons: (1) manufacturers currently offer
nuanced estimates of room size coverage customized for different spaces
to help consumers make shopping decisions. Collapsing room-size
coverage claims to a single basis would prevent consumers from using
the comparison, especially in large, commercial spaces (e.g., offices,
schools); (2) AHAM AC-1-2020 uses a recirculation fan during the test
that may not be present in real-world spaces, yet the result from this
test is used to extrapolate room coverage onto larger volumes than the
test chamber with the result that machines with poor lateral whole-room
air circulation receive an artificial ``boost''; (3) available data
have not shown how AHAM AC-1-2020 room coverage translates to
purification of real spaces, or how consistent that is across different
rooms and product designs. The increase in measured CADR in actual
larger chambers may not scale by the same factor for differently
designed units; (4) the measured CADR of an air cleaner per AHAM AC-1-
2020 was intrinsically linked to the test chamber physical volume,
meaning the result was not ``air cleaned per minute,'' but rather
``active decay minus natural decay multiplied by the volume of the test
chamber'' or ``air cleaned per minute in that room, with the
recirculation fan''; and (5) the lack of test provisions for air
cleaners with automatic, sensor-response modes makes DOE's room
coverage proposal

[[Page 14038]]

overly simplistic, as automatic modes and sensors are common in today's
air cleaner marketplace. Dyson noted an air cleaner with automatic mode
solves this concern, but this distinction is absent with the proposed
AHAM AC-1-2020 test method, which only specifies the machine to be run
constantly in the highest fan speed operating mode (Dyson, No. 27 at
pp. 1-2)
DOE recognizes that manufacturers may want to provide nuanced
estimates of room size coverage for different usage scenarios. DOE also
recognizes that the use of a recirculation fan during testing may not
be present in all real-world spaces, but the recirculation fan is
necessary during testing to maintain a homogenous environment within
the test chamber to enable repeatable and reproducible results. DOE
also notes that while automatic mode and sensors are common in today's
air cleaners, the test procedure adopted in this document measures the
performance of air cleaners in maximum performance mode without the use
of any sensors and the measured room size metric is based on the
conditions in which the air cleaner is tested (i.e., maximum
performance mode). Additionally, the PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR and IEF
measurements are representative only for a given set of conditions
(e.g., test chamber size, initial particulate concentration, etc.).
Accordingly, it is necessary that the effective room size specification
is representative of the other rated parameters, such as
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, AEC, and IEF.
Additionally, while DOE had requested comment on whether it should
consider specifying the effective room size calculation in terms of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, as opposed to smoke CADR, which is used to
calculate effective room size in AHAM AC-1-2020, DOE has determined
that using smoke CADR is appropriate because smoke CADR is determined
directly through testing, whereas PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR is a calculated
value. The effective room size calculation specified in AHAM AC-1-2020
is also provided specifically for smoke CADR, and it is possible that
some assumptions would need to be changed if the effective room size
were to be calculated using a different metric.
For the reasons discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is
finalizing the representation of the effective room size, as proposed
in the October 2022 NOPR. Further, DOE intends to coordinate with FTC
regarding labeling requirements for air cleaners during the ongoing
rulemaking (see 87 FR 64399).

K. Sampling Plan

In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed the following sampling plan
and rounding requirements applicable to any representations of energy
consumption or energy efficiency of air cleaners. 87 FR 63324, 63342.
The sampling requirements would be included in the proposed 10 CFR
429.67. Specifically, DOE proposed that the general sampling
requirements of 10 CFR 429.11 for selecting units to be tested be
applicable to air cleaners. Id. In addition, DOE proposed that for each
air cleaner basic model, a sufficient sample size must be randomly
selected to ensure that a representative value of energy consumption
for a basic model is greater than or equal to the higher of the mean of
the sample or upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.10. For IEF or other measure of energy consumption where a
higher value is preferable to the consumer, the representative value
shall be less than or equal to the lower of the mean of the sample or
the lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by
0.90. Id. The mean, UCL, and LCL are calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06MR23.004

where:

x is the sample mean;
n is the number of units in the test sample;
x<INF>i</INF> is the i\th\ sample;
s is the sample standard deviation; and
t<INF>0.95</INF> is the t statistic for a 95 percent one-tailed
confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom.

This proposed sampling plan for air cleaners is consistent with
sampling plans already established for portable air conditioners,\30\
dehumidifiers,\31\ and other similar products that are portable and/or
provide space conditioning functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ 10 CFR 429.62.
\31\ 10 CFR 429.36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also proposed that all calculations be performed with the
unrounded measured values, and that representations of pollen CADR,
smoke CADR, dust CADR, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR values of a basic
model be calculated as the mean of the CADR for each tested unit of the
basic model, rounded to the nearest whole number. Id. at 87 FR 63343.
DOE further proposed that AEC be rounded to the nearest 0.1 kWh/year
and the IEF be rounded to the nearest 0.1 CADR/W. As noted previously,
DOE proposed that the effective room size be rounded to the nearest
whole number. DOE proposed that these rounding instructions would be
included in the proposed sampling plan for air cleaners. Id.
DOE did not propose any certification or reporting requirements for
air cleaners in the October 2022 NOPR. DOE would propose certification
requirements through a separate rulemaking in the future, as needed.
DOE requested comment on the proposed sampling plan and rounding
requirements for smoke CADR, dust CADR, PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, AEC, and
IEF. Id.
AHRI recommended the expedited adoption of PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR
and suggested that DOE define the test procedure around a single
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR test as opposed to a calculated rating. AHRI also
advised DOE to ensure that data is meaningful to end users regardless
of the results and the consumers should be able to understand the
rating system and make informed decisions based on the information
provided. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 7) AHRI recommended that DOE use
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR given that DOE is limited to one metric per
product. AHRI commented that PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR should be
prioritized over other CADR including smoke, dust, AEC, and IEF as it
can be considered more representative than the other more specific
particulates. AHRI stated that using PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR would reduce
overall test burden because it allows for testing more units while
requiring that fewer tests be run, thereby lowering testing costs. AHRI
commented that air quality considerations necessitate that the metric
be standardized. AHRI commented that DOE should not prohibit
manufacturers from making claims where needed for specific particles,
but recommended against DOE regulating them. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 8)
DOE's statutory authority does not limit the number of parameters
that are required to be reported as part of the certification and
compliance requirements. That is, interim variables that are used for
calculating the final metric, such as smoke CADR and dust CADR, may be
reported. DOE is not establishing certification or reporting

[[Page 14039]]

requirements for air cleaners in this final rule, but may consider
proposals to establish certification requirements and reporting for air
cleaners under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment
certification.
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE align the rounding for AEC with
CADR and round to the nearest whole number instead of 0.1 kWh per year.
The CA IOUs stated that DOE's proposal to round CADR values to the
nearest whole number for reporting would be consistent with AHAM AC-1-
2020. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at p. 4)
The Joint Commenters commented that they recommend DOE specify
rounding AEC to the nearest whole number to be consistent with AHAM AC-
1-2020's rounding of CADR and room size to whole numbers. (Joint
Commenters, No. 34 at p. 4)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) requested
information on the proposed rounding of CADR to the nearest whole
number when the precision of the method is to <plus-minus>10 cfm. NIST
asked for clarification on whether rounding would be to the nearest 10
cfm. (Public Webinar Transcript, NIST, No. 25 at p. 48)
In consideration of stakeholder comments, DOE has determined that
it is more appropriate to round AEC to the nearest whole number, as
determined from the accuracy of the test measurement instrumentation.
Accordingly, DOE has updated the rounding requirements for AEC to be
rounded to the nearest whole number. Additionally, DOE is maintaining
rounding CADR to the nearest whole number, which is also consistent
with the rounding requirements specified in AHAM AC-1-2020.
Additionally, while DOE proposed in the October 2022 NOPR that the
sampling requirements would be included in the proposed 10 CFR 429.67,
DOE is finalizing the sampling requirements in 10 CFR 429.68 because 10
CFR 429.67 presents certification requirements for certain commercial
air conditioning and heating equipment. Relatedly, DOE is also updating
paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) in 10 CFR 429.11, which lists the general
sampling requirements for selecting units to be tested to change the
referenced sections from 10 CFR 429.14 through 10 CFR 429.65 to 10 CFR
429.14 through 10 CFR 429.68.
For the reasons discussed here and in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE is
finalizing the sampling plan, as proposed in the October 2022 NOPR,
while updating the rounding requirements for AEC to be rounded to the
nearest whole number.
As discussed previously, manufacturers will not be required to test
according to the DOE test procedure until compliance is required with
any future applicable standards for air cleaners that are established.

L. Test Procedure Costs

EPCA requires that test procedures proposed by DOE not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE references industry
standards AHAM AC-7-2022, AHAM AC-1-2020, and IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0 to
measure pollen CADR, smoke CADR, dust CADR, and active mode and standby
mode power consumption. DOE also uses these measured values to
calculate PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, AEC, and IEF as specified in AHAM AC-
7-2022 and effective room size as specified in AHAM AC-1-2020. The
following paragraphs discuss DOE's evaluation of estimated costs
associated with this proposal.
Based on quotes from third-party laboratories, in the October 2022
NOPR, DOE estimated average testing costs to be approximately $3,000 to
test one unit according to AHAM AC-1-2020 at such a laboratory. 87 FR
63324, 63343. These costs would include the tests to determine pollen
CADR, smoke CADR, dust CADR, active mode power, and standby mode power.
DOE typically requires at least two units to be tested for each basic
model. Therefore, DOE estimated that manufacturers would incur testing
costs of approximately $6,000 per basic model (because of the minimum
sample size of two units, as specified in 10 CFR 429.11(b)). Id.
DOE requested comment on its initial determination of the costs for
testing according to the proposed new air cleaner test procedure. DOE
also requested comment on the potential impact to manufacturers from
the proposed new air cleaner test procedure. Id.
Carrier commented that DOE's estimated average testing cost is low.
Carrier commented that its recent experience has been $2,500 per
aerosol, which would amount to $7,500 per unit or $15,000 per basic
model. (Carrier, No. 31 at pp. 5-6)
As discussed, DOE's estimates of $3,000 per test unit and $6,000
per basic model were based on DOE's recent experience performing
testing of air cleaners at qualified third-party laboratories. DOE
recognizes that these costs may not be reflective of the costs incurred
by all manufacturers who use third-party test laboratories.
Accordingly, DOE has revised its estimate from the October 2022
analysis and determines that the cost required to conduct the air
cleaner test procedure established by this final rule could range from
$3,000 to $7,500 per unit and $6,000 to $15,000 per basic model.

M. Effective and Compliance Dates

The effective date for the adopted test procedure will be 30 days
after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. As
previously stated, there are currently no energy conservation standards
for air cleaners. Beginning on the compliance date of any energy
conservation standards for air cleaners, any representations with
respect to the energy use or efficiency of these products, including
those made for certification purposes, must be made in accordance with
the test procedure established in this final rule.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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), 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

[[Page 14040]]

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 final
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 final regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any
final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a
proposed rule 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 Executive Order
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,''
67 FR 53461 (August 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 DOE rulemaking
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available
on the Office of the General Counsel's w

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on March 6, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.