Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-06499

Rule2023-06499

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners; Final Rule

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

April 11, 2023

Effective

August 9, 2023

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended ("EPCA"), authorizes the Secretary of Energy to classify additional types of consumer products as covered products upon determining that: classifying the product as a covered product is necessary for the purposes of EPCA; and the average annual per-household energy use by products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours per year ("kWh/yr"). In a final determination published on July 15, 2022, DOE determined that classifying air cleaners as a covered product 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/yr. In this direct final rule, DOE is establishing energy conservation standards for air cleaners. DOE has determined that energy conservation standards for these products will result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21752-21814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06499]

[[Page 21751]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 69

April 11, 2023

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Air
Cleaners; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 21752]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035]
RIN 1904-AF46

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Air Cleaners; Final Rule

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

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
authorizes the Secretary of Energy to classify additional types of
consumer products as covered products upon determining that:
classifying the product as a covered product is necessary for the
purposes of EPCA; and the average annual per-household energy use by
products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours per year
(``kWh/yr''). In a final determination published on July 15, 2022, DOE
determined that classifying air cleaners as a covered product 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/yr. In this direct final rule, DOE is establishing
energy conservation standards for air cleaners. DOE has determined that
energy conservation standards for these products will result in
significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible
and economically justified.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is August 9, 2023, unless
adverse comment is received by July 31, 2023. If adverse comments are
received that DOE determines may provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the direct final rule, a timely withdrawal of this rule
will be published in the Federal Register. If no such adverse comments
are received, compliance with the standards established for air
cleaners in this direct final rule is required on and after December
31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting 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 information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035</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 submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b3a0b0b17121a15181e280f1a151f1a091f082a0e1e080f121415083b1e1e551f141e551c140d">[email&#160;protected]</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#b5f4c5c5d9dcd4dbd6d0e6c1d4dbd1d4c7d1c6e4c0d0c6c1dcdadbc6f5d0d09bd1dad09bd2dac3">[email&#160;protected]</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#06476b636a6f6728516e6f726f6861466e772862696328616970">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Air Cleaners
3. Joint Proposal Submitted by the Joint Stakeholders
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Coverage
C. Test Procedure
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
2. Technology Options
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
2. Cost Analysis
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
a. Product Class 1
b. Product Class 2
c. Product Class 3
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
3. Discussion of MIA Comments
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings

[[Page 21753]]

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Air Cleaner
Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
VI. 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
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule

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 kWh/
yr. Id. Currently, no energy conservation standards are prescribed by
DOE for air cleaners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new
or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
As previously mentioned, and under the authority provided by 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule establishing
energy conservation standards for air cleaners. These standard levels
were submitted jointly to DOE on August 23, 2022, by groups
representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and
consumer groups, hereinafter referred to as ``the Joint Stakeholders.''
\2\ This collective set of comments, titled ``Joint Statement of Joint
Stakeholder Proposal On Recommended Energy Conservation Standards And
Test Procedure For Consumer Room Air Cleaners'' (the ``Joint
Proposal''),\3\ recommends specific energy conservation standards for
air cleaners that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA
requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). See sections II.B.3 and II.B.2 of
this document for a detailed discussion of the Joint Proposal and
history of the current rulemaking, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The Joint Stakeholders include the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM''), Appliance Standards Awareness
Project (``ASAP''), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
(``ACEEE''), Consumer Federation of America (``CFA''), Natural
Resources Defense Council (``NRDC''), the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority (``NYSERDA''), and the Pacific
Gas and Electric Company (``PG&E''). AHAM is representing the
companies who manufacture consumer room air cleaners and are members
of the Portable Appliance Division (DOE has included names of all
manufacturers listed in the footnote on page 1 of the Joint Proposal
and the signatories listed on pages 13-14): 3M Co.; Access Business
Group, LLC; ACCO Brands Corporation; Air King, Air King Ventilation
Products; Airgle Corporation; Alticor, Inc.; Beijing Smartmi
Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.; BISSELL Inc.; Blueair Inc.; BSH
Home Appliances Corporation; De'Longhi America, Inc.; Dyson Limited;
Essick Air Products; Fellowes Inc.; Field Controls; Foxconn
Technology Group; GE Appliances, a Haier company; Gree Electric
Appliances Inc.; Groupe SEB; Guardian Technologies, LLC; Haier Smart
Home Co., Ltd.; Helen of Troy-Health & Home; iRobot; Lasko Products,
Inc.; Molekule Inc.; Newell Brands Inc.; Oransi LLC; Phillips
Domestic Appliances NA Corporation; SharkNinja Operating, LLC; Sharp
Electronics Corporation; Sharp Electronics of Canada Ltd.; Sunbeam
Products, Inc.; Trovac Industries Ltd; Vornado Air LLC; Whirlpool
Corporation; Winix Inc.; and Zojirushi America Corporation.
\3\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After carefully considering the Joint Proposal, DOE determined that
the recommendations contained therein are compliant with 42 U.S.C.
6295(o), as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i) for the issuance of
a direct final rule. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is
simultaneously publishing, elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') proposing that the
identical standard levels contained in this direct final rule be
adopted. Consistent with the statute, DOE is providing a 110-day public
comment period on the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) If
DOE determines that any comments received provide a reasonable basis
for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), DOE
will continue the rulemaking under the NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C))
See section II.A of this document for more details on DOE's statutory
authority.
This direct final rule documents DOE's analyses to objectively and
independently evaluate the energy savings potential, technological
feasibility, and economic justification of the standard levels
recommended in the Joint Proposal, as per the requirements of 42 U.S.C.
6295(o).
Ultimately, DOE found that the standard levels recommended in the
Joint Proposal would result in significant energy savings and are
technologically feasible and economically justified. Table I.1
documents the standards for air cleaners. The standards correspond to
the recommended trial standard level (``TSL'') 3 (as described in
section V.A of this document) and are expressed as an integrated energy
factor (``IEF'') in terms of PM<INF>2.5</INF> \4\ clean air delivery
rate per watt (``PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR/W''), based on the product's
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR. The standards are the same as those recommended
by the Joint Stakeholders, which consist of two-tiered (Tier 1 and Tier
2) standard levels. These standards apply to all products listed in
Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States
starting on December 31, 2023, for Tier 1 standards and on December 31,
2025, for Tier 2 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Section 2.8 of the industry standard AHAM AC-7-2022 defines
PM<INF>2.5</INF> as particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers as measured by a
reference method based on 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, and designated
in accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or by an equivalent method
designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53.

[[Page 21754]]

Table I.1--Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners
[Compliance starting December 31, 2023]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEF (PM2.5 CADR/W) \5\
-----------------------------------------
Product class Tier 1 December Tier 2 December
31, 2023 31, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: 10 <= PM2.5 CADR < 100... 1.7 1.9
PC2: 100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 150.. 1.9 2.4
PC3: PM2.5 CADR >= 150........ 2.0 2.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of
the adopted standards on consumers of air cleaners, as measured by the
average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period
(``PBP'').\6\ The average LCC savings are positive for all product
classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of air cleaners,
which is estimated to be 9.0 years (see section IV.F of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ These values from the Joint Proposal are rounded according
to the sampling plan in 10 CFR 429.68. The rounding has no
functional impact on the standards as compared to the levels in the
Joint Proposal.
\6\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards
(see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative
to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document).

Table I.2--Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Air Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC
Air cleaners class Tier savings Simple payback
(2021$) period (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class 1: 10-100 PM2.5 CADR........... Tier 1.......................... $18 0.9
Tier 2.......................... 12 1.4
Product Class 2: 100-150 PM2.5 CADR.......... Tier 1.......................... 38 0.4
Tier 2.......................... 50 0.5
Product Class 3: 150+ PM2.5 CADR............. Tier 1.......................... 105 0.1
Tier 2.......................... 94 0.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on consumers
is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the
end of the analysis period (2023-2057). Using a real discount rate of
6.6 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of air
cleaners in the case without new standards is $1,565.9 million in
2021$. Under the adopted standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to
range from -4.3 percent to -2.6 percent, which is approximately -$66.7
million to -$40.7 million. In order to bring products into compliance
with standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total
conversion costs of $57.3 million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on
manufacturers is described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021
dollars. and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2022 unless
explicitly stated otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation
standards for air cleaners would save a significant amount of energy.
Relative to the case without standards, the lifetime energy savings for
air cleaners purchased in the analysis period that begins in the
anticipated year of compliance with the standards (2024-2057), amount
to 1.80 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or quads.\8\ This
represents a cumulative savings of 27 percent relative to the energy
use of these products in the case without standards (referred to as the
``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the standards for air cleaners ranges from $5.8 billion (at
a 7-percent discount rate) to $13.7 billion (at a 3-percent discount
rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for
air cleaners purchased in 2024-2057.
In addition, the adopted standards for air cleaners are projected
to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the
standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same
period as for energy savings) of 57.7 million metric tons (``Mt'') \9\
of carbon dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 24.2 thousand tons of sulfur
dioxide (``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 91.2 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 411.4 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.6 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.2 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\10\ The
estimated cumulative reduction in CO<INF>2</INF> emissions through 2030
amounts to 2.5 million Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions

[[Page 21755]]

resulting from the annual electricity use of almost 500 thousand homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\10\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2022 (``AEO2022''). AEO2022 represents current federal and
state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the
time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for
further discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that affect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of
methane (``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SC-N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of
GHG (``SC-GHG'').\11\ DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(``IWG'').\12\ The derivation of these values is discussed in section
IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate
benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount
rate are estimated to be $2.8 billion. DOE does not have a single
central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and
value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-
GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the
Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and
Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990
published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).
\12\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane,
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990,
Washington, DC, February 2021 (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD'').
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions, using benefit per ton estimates
from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this
document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would
be $1.8 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $4.7 billion using
a 3-percent discount rate.\13\ DOE is currently only monetizing (for
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>) PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor health
benefits and (for NO<INF>X</INF>) ozone precursor health benefits, but
will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as
health benefits from reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to
result from the new standards for air cleaners. There are other
important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate
benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of
toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security
benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

Table I.3--Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy
Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion
($2021)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................... 14.1
Climate Benefits *...................................... 2.8
Health Benefits **...................................... 4.7
---------------
Total Benefits [dagger]............................. 21.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs...................... 0.5
---------------
Net Benefits........................................ 21.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................... 6.0
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................... 2.8
Health Benefits **...................................... 1.8
---------------
Total Benefits [dagger]............................. 10.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs...................... 0.2
---------------
Net Benefits........................................ 10.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with product
name shipped in 2024-2057. These results include benefits to consumers
which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2024-2057.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
(SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent
discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate) (see
section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-
GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are
shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support
Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim
Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by
the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(IWG).
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation
purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount
rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.

[[Page 21756]]

The benefits and costs of the standards can also be expressed in
terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total
annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs,
minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation
costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits of emission
reductions, all annualized.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2021, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from
each year to 2021. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the
compliance year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S.
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the
covered products and are measured for the lifetime of air cleaners
shipped in 2024-2057. The benefits associated with reduced emissions
achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based
on the lifetime of air cleaners shipped in 2024-2057. DOE notes that
DOE used its typical analytical time horizon of 30-years and then added
4 additional years to reflect the early compliance dates that are part
of the standard level being adopted in this final rule. Total benefits
for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the
average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-
GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section V.C.2
of this document.
Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the standard, expressed in terms of annualized values.
The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted
in this rule is $19.8 million per year in increased equipment costs,
while the estimated annual benefits are $499 million in reduced
equipment operating costs, $136 million in climate benefits, and $149
million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount
to $764 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the standards is $23.4 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $690 million
in reduced operating costs, $136 million in climate benefits, and $228
million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount
to $1,030 million per year.

Table I.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for Air Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million (2021$/year)
--------------------------------------------------------
Primary Low-net-benefits High-net-benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 689.7 623.7 773.4
Climate Benefits *..................................... 135.6 124.2 149.9
Health Benefits **..................................... 228.4 210.1 251.0
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]............................ 1,053.6 958.1 1,174.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............ 23.4 22.8 24.7
--------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits....................................... 1,030.2 935.3 1,149.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 498.8 459.8 546.9
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate).................. 135.6 124.2 149.9
Health Benefits **..................................... 149.3 139.7 160.9
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]............................ 783.7 723.7 857.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............ 19.8 19.3 20.7
--------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits....................................... 763.9 704.4 837.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with air cleaners shipped in 2024-2057. These
results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2024-2057. The
Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the
AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition,
incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the
Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to
derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1 of this document. Note that the Benefits and
Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four
sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions this analysis uses the
interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous
Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working
Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as filter costs.

[[Page 21757]]

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

DOE has determined that the Joint Proposal containing
recommendations with respect to energy conservation standards for air
cleaners was submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A). After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits
and burdens, DOE has determined that the recommended standards are in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the criteria for
prescribing new or amended standards. Specifically, the Secretary has
determined that the adoption of the recommended standards would result
in the significant conservation of energy and is technologically
feasible and economically justified. In determining whether the
recommended standards are economically justified, the Secretary has
determined that the benefits of the recommended standards exceed the
burdens. Namely, the Secretary has concluded that the recommended
standards, when considering the benefits of energy savings, positive
NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary
value of the emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings,
would yield benefits outweighing the negative impacts on some consumers
and on manufacturers, including the conversion costs that could result
in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
standards for air cleaners is $19.8 million per year in increased
product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $499 million in
reduced product operating costs, $136 million in climate benefits, and
$149 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $764
million per year.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\15\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings of 1.80 quads FFC, the equivalent of
the primary annual energy use of 19 million homes. The NPV of consumer
benefit for these projected energy savings is $5.8 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $13.7 billion using a discount rate of
3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions associated with these
energy savings are 57.7 Mt of CO<INF>2</INF>, 24.2 thousand tons of
SO<INF>2</INF>, 91.2 thousand tons of NO<INF>X</INF>, 0.2 tons of Hg,
411.4 thousand tons of CH<INF>4</INF>, 0.6 thousand tons of
N<INF>2</INF>O. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefit
from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-
percent discount rate) is $2.8 billion. The estimated monetary value of
the health benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions is $1.8 billion using a 7 percent discount rate and $4.7
billion using a 3 percent discount rate. As such, DOE has determined
the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct
final rule are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these
conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the
accompanying technical support document (``TSD'').
Under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is
issuing this direct final rule establishing the energy conservation
standards for air cleaners. Consistent with this authority, DOE is also
publishing elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register a notice of
proposed rulemaking proposing standards that are identical to those
contained in this direct final rule. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i).

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this direct final rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for air
cleaners.

A. Authority

EPCA grants DOE authority to prescribe an energy conservation
standard for any type (or class) of covered products of a type
specified in 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20) if the requirements of 42 U.S.C.
6295(o) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(p) are met and the Secretary determines
that--
(A) the average per household energy use within the United States
by products of such type (or class) exceeded 150 kWh (or its Btu
equivalent) for any 12-month period ending before such determination;
(B) the aggregate household energy use within the United States by
products of such type (or class) exceeded 4,200,000,000 kWh (or its Btu
equivalent) for any such 12-month period;
(C) substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of products of
such type (or class) is technologically feasible; and
(D) the application of a labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6294 to such
type (or class) is not likely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers
to produce, and consumers and other persons to purchase, covered
products of such type (or class) which achieve the maximum energy
efficiency which is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1))
The energy conservation program under EPCA, consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of the 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).
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(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted

[[Page 21758]]

under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the
energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and
6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine
whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for air cleaners appear at
title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart
B, appendix FF (``appendix FF'').
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including air cleaners. Any new
or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of
Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in
the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain products,
including air cleaners, if no test procedure has been established for
the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is
economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard,
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following
seven statutory factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the
standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable,
water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'')
considers relevant.

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

Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of products that has the same function or intended use if DOE
determines that products within such group (A) consume a different kind
of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type
(or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature
which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such
feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In
determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different
standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the
utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an
explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was
established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and
off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for air cleaners
address standby mode and off mode energy use, through the IEF metric.
As IEF includes annual energy consumption in standby mode and off mode
as part of the annual energy consumption metric and DOE is adopting
standards for air cleaners based on IEF the standards in this direct
final rule account for standby mode and off mode energy use of an air
cleaner.
Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE
authority to issue a final rule (hereinafter referred to as a ``direct
final rule'') establishing an energy conservation standard on receipt
of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates),
as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with
respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in
accordance with the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4))
A NOPR that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must
be published simultaneously with the direct final rule, and DOE must
provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on the proposal.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Based on the comments received during
this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE
will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if (1) one
or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those
comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the
direct final rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C))
Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner. Id. After
withdrawing a direct final rule, DOE must proceed with the notice of
proposed rulemaking published simultaneously with the direct final rule
and publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct final
rule was withdrawn. Id.
DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final
rule

[[Page 21759]]

authority. In a final rule amending the Department's ``Procedures,
Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products'' at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A, DOE explained that, because the direct final
rule authority does not refer to any of the other requirements in EPCA,
DOE interprets that provision as not subject to any of those other
requirements. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). Rather, DOE's
authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) is constrained only by the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE's overarching statutory mandate
in issuing energy conservation standards is to choose a standard that
results in the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified--a requirement
found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Id.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
Air cleaners are not currently subject to federal energy
conservation standards. However, some states have adopted standards.
Specifically, the District of Columbia adopted standards in 2020,
Maryland adopted standards in 2022, and Nevada and New Jersey adopted
standards in 2021, as shown in Table II.1. The District of Columbia and
New Jersey State standards went into effect in 2022, while the Nevada
State standard is expected to go into effect in 2023 and the Maryland
State standard is expected to go into effect in 2024.

Table II.1--Air Cleaner Standards Adopted by the District of Columbia
and the States of Maryland, Nevada, and New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum smoke
Smoke CADR bins CADR/W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 <= PM2.5 CADR < 100................................ 1.7
100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 150............................... 1.9
PM2.5 CADR >= 150..................................... 2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These standards are based on smoke clean air delivery rate
(``CADR'') divided by the active mode power consumption in watts
(``W''), which is different from the IEF metric specified in appendix
FF.

Washington State adopted the standards shown in Table II.2 in 2022
with an effective date in 2024.

Table II.2--Air Cleaner Standards Adopted by Washington State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum smoke
Smoke CADR Bins CADR/W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 <= PM2.5 CADR < 100................................ 1.9
100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 150............................... 2.4
PM2.5 CADR >= 150..................................... 2.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These standards are based on smoke CADR divided by the active mode
power consumption in W, which is different from the IEF metric
specified in appendix FF.

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Air Cleaners
DOE has not previously conducted an energy conservation standards
rulemaking for air cleaners. 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. In the January 2022 RFI, DOE requested
information to aid in the development of the technical and economic
analyses to support energy conservation standards for air cleaners,
should they be warranted. 87 FR 3702, 3705.
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/yr; and thus, air cleaners qualify as a
``covered product'' under EPCA. 87 FR 42297.
On March 6, 2023, DOE published a final rule (``March 2023 TP Final
Rule'') establishing a new test procedure (TP) at appendix FF for air
cleaners that references the industry standard, Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') AC-7-2022, ``Energy Test Method for
Consumer Room Air Cleaners'' and includes methods to (1) measure the
performance of the covered product and (2) use the measured results to
calculate an IEF to represent the energy efficiency of air cleaners. 88
FR 14014.
DOE received comments in response to the January 2022 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table II.4.

Table II.4--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the January 2022 RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docket
Commenter(s) Abbreviation No. Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACEEE, ASAP, AHAM, CFA, and NRDC....... Joint Commenters.................. 8 Efficiency Organizations
and Trade Association.
Blueair IAQ............................ Blueair........................... 10 Manufacturer.
Electrolux Home Products Inc. North Electrolux........................ 6 Manufacturer.
America.
Daikin U.S. Corporation................ Daikin............................ 12 Manufacturer.
Lennox International Inc............... Lennox............................ 7 Manufacturer.
Madison Indoor Air Quality............. MIAQ.............................. 5 Manufacturer.
Molekule............................... Molekule.......................... 11 Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance... NEEA.............................. 13 Efficiency Organization.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San CA IOUs........................... 9 Utilities.
Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern
California Edison; collectively, the
California Investor-Owned Utilities.
Synexis LLC............................ Synexis........................... 14 Manufacturer.
Trane Technologies..................... Trane............................. 3 Manufacturer.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, & AHRI.............................. 15 Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\16\
In response to the January 2022 RFI, DOE received certain

[[Page 21760]]

comments pertaining to the scope of coverage and definition for air
cleaners, which DOE addressed and discussed in the July 2022 Final
Determination. Additionally, DOE addressed comments pertaining to the
test procedure in a NOPR published on October 18, 2022 as part of the
test procedure rulemaking establishing appendix FF. 87 FR 63324. All
remaining comments provided by stakeholders in response to the January
2022 RFI are addressed in this direct final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to determine
coverage for air cleaners. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-DET-0022, 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). When referring to comments received on another docket,
the docket number is included prior to the commenter's name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Joint Proposal Submitted by the Joint Stakeholders
This section summarizes the recommendations included in the Joint
Proposal submitted by the Joint Stakeholders. The Joint Proposal
submitted by the Joint Stakeholders urged DOE to publish final rules
adopting the consumer room air cleaner test procedure and standards and
compliance dates contained in the Joint Proposal, as soon as possible,
but not later than December 31, 2022. (Joint Stakeholders, No. 16 at p.
1) The Joint Proposal also recommended that DOE adopt AHAM AC-7-2022 as
the DOE test procedure. (Id. at p. 6) In regards to energy conservation
standards, the Joint Proposal specified two-tiered Tier 1 and Tier 2
standard levels, as shown in Table II.5, for conventional room air
cleaners with proposed compliance dates of December 31, 2023, and
December 31, 2025, respectively. (Id. at p. 9)

Table II.5--Tier 1 and Tier 2 Standards Proposed by the Joint
Stakeholders in the Joint Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEF (PM2.5 CADR/W) IEF (PM2.5 CADR/W)
Product description Tier 1 * Tier 2 **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 <= PM2.5 CADR < 100........ 1.69 1.89
100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 150....... 1.90 2.39
PM2.5 CADR >= 150............. 2.01 2.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Tier 1 standards would have an effective date of December 31, 2023.
** Tier 2 standards would have an effective date of December 31, 2025.

The Tier 1 standards are equivalent to the state standards
established by the States of Maryland, Nevada, and New Jersey, and the
District of Columbia. (Id. at p. 9) Tier 2 standards are equivalent to
the voluntary standards specified in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (``EPA's'') ENERGY STAR Version 2.0 Room Air Cleaners
Specification, Rev. May 2022, (``ENERGY STAR V. 2.0'') and those
adopted by the State of Washington. (Id.) While the standards
established by the States and those specified in ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 are
based on smoke CADR and include only active mode energy consumption in
the calculation of the CADR/W metric, the Joint Stakeholders presented
data to show that there is a strong relationship between the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR calculation and the measured smoke and dust CADR
values. (Id. at p. 6) Additionally, DOE compared the IEF metric,
calculated using PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR and annual energy consumption in
active mode and standby mode (``AEC''), to the smoke CADR/W metric,
calculated using smoke CADR and active mode power consumption, using
the ENERGY STAR database,\17\ and found a strong relationship between
IEF and the CADR/W metric specified in ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 and the State
standards. The Joint Stakeholders stated that the Tier 1 and Tier 2
standards are estimated to save 1.9 quads of FFC energy nationally over
30 years of sales. (Id. at p. 9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Available at: <a href="https://data.energystar.gov/Active-Specifications/ENERGY-STAR-Certified-Room-Air-Cleaners/jmck-i55n/data">https://data.energystar.gov/Active-Specifications/ENERGY-STAR-Certified-Room-Air-Cleaners/jmck-i55n/data</a>. Last accessed: December 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After carefully considering the consensus recommendations for
establishing energy conservation standards for air cleaners submitted
by the Joint Stakeholders, DOE has determined that these
recommendations are in accordance with the statutory requirements of 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a direct final rule.
More specifically, these recommendations comprise a statement
submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of
relevant points of view on this matter. In appendix A to subpart C of
10 CFR part 430 (``appendix A''), DOE explained that to be ``fairly
representative of relevant points of view,'' the group submitting a
joint statement must, where appropriate, include larger concerns and
small business in the regulated industry/manufacturer community, energy
advocates, energy utilities, consumers, and States. However, it will be
necessary to evaluate the meaning of ``fairly representative'' on a
case-by-case basis, subject to the circumstances of a particular
rulemaking, to determine whether fewer or additional parties must be
part of a joint statement in order to be ``fairly representative of
relevant points of view.'' Section 10 of appendix A. In reaching this
determination, DOE took into consideration the fact that the Joint
Stakeholders consist of representatives of manufacturers of the covered
product at issue, a state corporation, and efficiency advocates--all of
which are groups specifically identified by Congress as relevant
parties to any consensus recommendation. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) As
delineated above, the Joint Proposal was signed and submitted by a
broad cross-section of interests, including the trade association
representing small and large manufacturers who produce the subject
products, consumer groups, climate and health advocates, and energy-
efficiency advocacy organizations, each of which signed the Joint
Proposal on behalf of their respective manufacturers and efficiency
advocacy organizations, which includes consumer groups, utilities, and
a state corporation. Moreover, DOE does not read the statute as
requiring a statement submitted by all interested parties before the
Department may proceed with issuance of a direct final rule, nor does
appendix A require the statement be submitted by all interested parties
listed in the appendix. By explicit language of the statute, the
Secretary has the discretion to determine when a joint recommendation
for an energy or water conservation standard has met the requirement
for representativeness (i.e., ``as determined by the Secretary''). Id.
DOE also evaluated whether the recommendation satisfies 42 U.S.C.
6295(o), as applicable. In making this determination, DOE conducted an
analysis to evaluate whether the potential energy conservation
standards under consideration achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified
and result in significant energy conservation. The evaluation is the

[[Page 21761]]

same comprehensive approach that DOE typically conducts whenever it
considers potential energy conservation standards for a given type of
product or equipment.
Upon review, the Secretary determined that the Joint Proposal
comports with the standard-setting criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A). Accordingly, the consensus-recommended efficiency levels
were included as the ``recommended TSL'' for air cleaners (see section
V.A of this document for description of all of the considered TSLs).
The details regarding how the consensus-recommended TSLs comply with
the standard-setting criteria are discussed and demonstrated in the
relevant sections throughout this document.
In sum, as the relevant criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) have
been satisfied, the Secretary has determined that it is appropriate to
adopt the consensus-recommended new energy conservation standards for
air cleaners through this direct final rule. Also, in accordance with
the provisions described in section II.A of this document, DOE is
simultaneously publishing, elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, a NOPR proposing that the identical standard levels contained
in this direct final rule be adopted.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this direct final rule after considering oral and
written comments, data, and information that DOE received in response
to the January 2022 RFI from interested parties that represent a
variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues raised
by these commenters.

A. General Comments

While DOE received comments in response to the January 2022 RFI
pertaining to the specific subtopics in section IV of this document,
DOE also received several general comments in response to the January
2022 RFI from interested parties regarding the rulemaking timing and
process. These comments are summarized and addressed in the following
paragraphs.
The Joint Commenters stated support for DOE's proposal to include
consumer room air cleaners as a covered product and indicated they were
working to negotiate possible Federal energy conservation standards for
consumer room air cleaners, along with an applicable test procedure for
DOE's consideration. (Joint Commenters, No. 8 at p.1) The CA IOUs also
stated that they were engaged with stakeholders on test procedures,
metrics, and efficiency standards for air cleaners. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at
pp. 1-2)
Trane commented that a new energy conservation standard for
consumer air cleaners is necessary because consumers need guidance at a
time of unprecedented energy bills and the opportunity to avoid
unnecessary energy consumption. (Trane, No. 3 at p. 2) Blueair also
commented that it supported energy conservation standards for air
cleaners, citing its own HEPASilentTM technology as proof
that reduced energy consumption and maximum clean air delivery were
compatible. Blueair also stated that it has demonstrated that it is
technologically possible to design and manufacture air cleaners with
reduced energy usage without loss of air cleaning performance.
(Blueair, No. 10 at p. 4) Synexis commented that energy conservation
standards for consumer air cleaners were economically justified,
technologically feasible, and would lead to energy savings. Synexis
commented that implementing uniform Federal test methods and standards
would likely reduce costs by standardizing the evaluation processes and
would provide common criteria so consumers can make informed decisions.
(Synexis, No. 14 at pp. 6-7)
NEEA stated its support for DOE's effort to adopt test procedures
and standards for air cleaners and shared sales data from 2015-2019
compiled from retail store sales in the U.S. Northwest. (NEEA, No. 13
at pp. 1-2) NEEA commented that the compiled data reflected the
dramatic increases in sales and usage of air cleaners caused by the
pandemic and wildfires, making a compelling case for DOE regulation.
(NEEA, No. 13 at p. 2) The CA IOUs also stated that the growth of air
cleaner usage has been accelerated because of the pandemic and
California wildfires, necessitating EPCA energy conservation standards.
(CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 2)
DOE recognizes the comments supporting DOE regulation of air
cleaners, and as discussed elsewhere in this document, DOE has
determined that energy conservation standards for air cleaners are
economically justified, technologically feasible, and would result in
the significant conservation of energy.
Daikin commented that DOE's effort to initiate the test procedure
and energy conservation standards rulemakings for consumer air cleaners
was premature without first finalizing the coverage determination,
segmenting the market based on types of air cleaners, and identifying
the categories that would provide the most energy savings. (Daikin, No.
12 at p. 1) Daikin commented that since this is a new product
rulemaking, DOE must first finalize its coverage determination and then
a test procedure before establishing an energy conservation standard.
Daikin further commented that DOE should provide sufficient time to
comply with the test procedures before determining minimum efficiency
standards. Daikin additionally stated that there may be laboratory test
chamber shortages after a DOE test procedure is established. (Daikin,
No. 12 at p. 3)
DOE appreciates Daikin's concern over the timing and order of
rulemaking publications. DOE notes that the January 2022 RFI sought to
solicit general feedback on air cleaner test procedures and standards
only under the condition that air cleaners are determined to be a
covered product. DOE further notes that the July 2022 Final
Determination was published prior to DOE proposing a test procedure and
establishing an energy conservation standard. The timeline of this
rulemaking is accelerated compared to DOE's typical timeline in order
to follow as closely as possible the schedule outlined in the Joint
Proposal.
MIAQ also commented that it was disappointed by the shortening of
the 75-day comment period to 30 days for the January 2022 RFI and the
combination of the test procedure and standards rulemakings into a
single RFI. MIAQ commented that this impacted its ability to
investigate test laboratory capacity or capabilities. (MIAQ, No. 5 at
p. 2)
DOE notes that while it initially established a 30-day comment
period to allow DOE to review comments received in response to the
January 2022 RFI before finalizing its coverage determination, it
reopened the comment period to provide a 45-day extension. 87 FR 11326.
Lennox commented that DOE must maintain consumer utility of air
cleaners when promulgating new standards and must ensure that any new
standards are economically justified. (Lennox, No. 7 at p. 3)
DOE agrees with Lennox and, as discussed elsewhere in this
document, DOE screened out technology options from consideration that
would not maintain consumer utility. DOE is also establishing standards
that are economically justified and did not select more stringent
standards that would have negative economic impacts on consumers.
The Joint Stakeholders commented that the Joint Proposal comports
with the standards-setting criteria in EPCA and that the Joint Proposal
was designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency
that is

[[Page 21762]]

technologically feasible and economically justified as required by 42
U.S.C. 6295(o). The Joint Stakeholders additionally stated that the
standards proposed in the Joint Proposal would decrease maximum energy
use of a covered product in both Tier 1 and Tier 2, and thus comply
with EPCA's prohibition against standards that increase maximum
allowable energy use of a covered product. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). (Joint
Stakeholders, No. 16 at pp. 11)
DOE agrees that the Joint Proposal provides standards criteria that
are technologically feasible and economically justified, as discussed
throughout this document. DOE believes the standards criteria set by
the Joint Proposal will provide an improvement in energy efficiency and
decrease maximum energy use of covered products.

B. Scope of Coverage

DOE has defined an ``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, volatile organic compound (VOC), and/or microorganisms
from the air. 10 CFR 430.2. It excludes products that operate solely by
means of ultraviolet light without a fan for air circulation. Id.
In response to the January 2022 RFI, the Joint Commenters commented
that minimum energy conservation standards should apply to conventional
room air cleaners with a measured PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR of 10 or
greater in order to capture tabletop/desk portable room air cleaners.
(Joint Commenters, No. 8 at p. 4)
In the March 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established the scope of the
air cleaners test procedure at appendix FF to ``conventional room air
cleaners,'' which are a subset of products that meet the definition of
``air cleaner'' as defined in 10 CFR 430.2. 88 FR 14014, 14044. DOE
established a definition for a conventional room air cleaner as a
consumer room air cleaner that (1) is a portable or wall mounted
(fixed) unit, excluding ceiling mounted unit, that plugs in to an
electrical outlet; (2) operates with a fan for air circulation; and (3)
contains means to remove, destroy, and/or deactivate particulates. The
term ``portable'' is defined in section 2.1.3.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 and
``fixed'' is defined in section 2.1.3.2 of AHAM AC-7-2022. 88 FR 14014,
14044. The scope of appendix FF is limited to conventional room air
cleaners with smoke CADR and dust CADR greater than or equal to 10
cubic feet per minute (``cfm'') and less than or equal to 600 cfm.
This direct final rule covers those consumer products that meet the
definition of conventional room air cleaners with smoke CADR and dust
CADR greater than or equal to 10 cfm and less than or equal to 600 cfm
as defined in section 1 of appendix FF. As discussed in section III.C
of this document, PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR is calculated as the geometric
average of smoke CADR and dust CADR, which is very similar in value to
both the smoke CADR and dust CADR. Therefore, the scope of products
covered in this direct final rule is consumer products that meet the
definition of conventional room air cleaners with PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR
greater than or equal to 10 cfm and less than or equal to 600 cfm.
See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product
classes analyzed in this direct final rule.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE does not
currently prescribe energy conservation standards for air cleaners.
As stated, in the March 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established a new
test procedure for air cleaners at appendix FF. 88 FR 14014.
Specifically, appendix FF establishes an IEF metric, expressed in terms
of PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR/W, which measures the reduction rate of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> particulates in a given room volume per unit power.
The numerator of the IEF metric is PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, which is the
geometric average of smoke CADR and dust CADR, where each of these CADR
metrics refers to the reduction rate of smoke and dust particles,
respectively, in a given room volume with the air cleaner operating.
The denominator of the IEF metric is the annual energy consumption in
active mode and standby mode (AEC) divided by the annual operating
hours in active mode.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ For more details on the AEC and IEF metrics, refer to
section III.H of the March 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 14014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, DOE discussed in the March 2023 TP Final Rule that
for compliance with the standards in Tier 1 of the Joint Proposal, the
Joint Stakeholders recommended that DOE permit section 6.2 of AHAM AC-
1-2020 \19\ for dust CADR to be applied as an alternative for
calculating PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR. The Joint Stakeholders stated that
the dust CADR, determined according to section 6.2 of AHAM AC-1-2020,
is nearly identical to the subset dust CADR used to calculate
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR. The Joint Stakeholders further stated that given
many products have already been tested per AHAM AC-1-2020, allowing
this alternative would ensure that manufacturers are not required to
retest using AHAM AC-7-2022 to demonstrate compliance with a new
standard on a short timeline. (Joint Stakeholders, No. 16 a p. 6); 88
FR 14014, 14030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ American National Standards Institute (``ANSI'')/AHAM
standard, ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 (``AHAM AC-1-2020''), ``Method for
Measuring Performance of Portable Household Electric Room Air
Cleaners''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to section 5.1.1 of appendix FF, PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR is
obtained by combining the CADR of smoke (which includes particle sizes
ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 micrometers (``[mu]m'')) with the CADR of dust
(which includes particle sizes ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 [mu]m) and
performing a geometric average calculation as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AP23.001

The tests to determine smoke CADR and dust CADR are specified in
sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020. The allowable particle size for
smoke particles is 0.1 to 1 [micro]m for the smoke CADR test in AHAM
AC-1-2020 and the allowable particle size for dust particles is 0.5 to
3 [micro]m for the dust CADR test in AHAM AC-1-2020. However, the
calculation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR in section 5.1.1 of appendix FF
specifies a narrower range of allowable particle sizes for the smoke
CADR and dust CADR than the smoke CADR and dust

[[Page 21763]]

CADR tests in sections 5 and 6, respectively, of AHAM AC-1-2020.
While the allowable smoke and dust particle size for the smoke CADR
and dust CADR tests in sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020 is 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 for the
calculation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR in section 5.1.1 of appendix FF
(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.\20\
Accordingly, in the March 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE specified in section
5.1.2 of appendix FF 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. 88 FR 14014. DOE additionally stated that it may revisit
allowing the use of both approaches to calculate PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR
in a future standards rulemaking. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ See Joint Stakeholders, No. 16 at p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this direct final rule, DOE continues to allow 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, may be used to
determine compliance only with the Tier 1 standards specified in this
document. Compliance with Tier 2 standards must be determined using the
smoke and dust particle size specified in the calculation of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR in section 5.1.1 of appendix FF. This aligns with
the test parameters of the Joint Proposal and allows manufacturers more
time to adjust to the tighter particle size requirements specified in
AHAM AC-7-2022. Accordingly, DOE is amending section 5.1.2 of appendix
FF to specify that the alternate calculation for PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR
may be used for determining compliance only with Tier 1 standards
specified at 10 CFR 430.32(ee).

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in
commercially available products or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A
to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (``appendix A'').
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies.
Section 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B of this document
discusses the results of the screening analysis for air cleaners,
particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and
those that are the basis for the standards considered in this
rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this
rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the direct final rule TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE prescribes new or amended standards for a type or class of
covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the
engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically
feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for air
cleaners, using the design parameters for the most efficient products
available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels
that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C
of this document and in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from application of the
TSL to air cleaners purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the
year of compliance with the standards (2024-2057 for the recommended
TSL, and 2028-2057 for the other TSLs).\21\ The savings are measured
over the entire lifetime of air cleaners purchased in the 30-year
analysis period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each
TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case
and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a
product would likely evolve in the absence of energy conservation
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ For the standards recommended in the Joint Proposal, DOE
considered an analysis period beginning in the year of compliance
with the Tier 1 standards (2024) and ending in the same year as the
30-year analysis periods considered for the other analyzed TSLs
(2057) to align the end dates of the analysis periods. DOE also
presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products
shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet models
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential standards
for air cleaners. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H
of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy,
which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations
where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy
savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the
energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For
natural gas, the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to
the site energy savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy
savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting,
processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas,
petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the
impacts of energy conservation standards.\22\ DOE's approach is based
on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types
used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC
energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\23\ For
example, some

[[Page 21764]]

covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption
occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these
products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into
account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the
cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the
global climate crisis, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated, the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule
are projected to result in national energy savings of 1.80 quads of FFC
energy savings, the equivalent of the annual electricity use of 19
million homes. DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard
levels adopted in this direct final rule are ``significant'' within the
meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)(VII)) The
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven
factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of potential new standards on
manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA''),
as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual
cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step
includes both a short-term assessment--based on the cost and capital
requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and
when entities must comply with the regulation--and a long-term
assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed
include (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected
future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and
income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE
analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers,
including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the
impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and
manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to
result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE
takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and
other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of
the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP
analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating cost (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As
discussed in section IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes, and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data
available to DOE, the standards adopted in this document would not
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration
in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It
also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of
any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to
transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the
publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature
and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will
transmit a copy of this direct final rule to the Attorney General with
a request that the Department of Justice (``DOJ'') provide its
determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the
rule in determining whether to proceed with the direct final rule. DOE
will also publish and respond to the DOJ's comments in the Federal
Register in a separate notice.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or

[[Page 21765]]

amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the adopted standards are
likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the
Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also
may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the
Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation
capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health effects
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production and use. DOE
conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may
affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of this document;
the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this
document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions
resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of
this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP
analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential new or
amended energy conservation standards would have on the payback period
for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-
year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test.
In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation
is discussed in section IV.F of this document.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regard to air cleaners. Separate subsections address
each component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new
energy conservation standards. The NIA uses a second spreadsheet set
that provides shipments projections and calculates NES and NPV of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035/document">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035/document</a>. Additionally, DOE used output
from the latest version of the Energy Information Administration's
(``EIA's'') Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO'') for the emissions and
utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope
of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of air cleaners. The key
findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following
sections. See chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD for further
discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may establish separate standards for a group of covered products (i.e.,
establish a separate product class) if DOE determines that separate
standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE
determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related
feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a
determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of
the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are
appropriate. (Id.)
DOE currently does not specify any energy conservation standards or
associated product classes for air cleaners. In the January 2022 RFI,
DOE noted that it may use CADR as a measurement of capacity to
establish product classes. 87 FR 3702, 3711. DOE requested comment on
whether capacity or any other performance-related features, such as air
cleaning technology (i.e., whether the product destroys or deactivates
contaminants from the air or removes them), would justify establishing
different product classes. Id.
NEEA commented that, based on a review of NEEA Retail Products
Platform (``RPP'') sales data for air cleaners and sales from the
ENERGY STAR Retail Products Platform (``ESRPP'') data, product class
distinctions based on CADR and smoke CADR/W would be appropriate.
(NEEA, No. 13 at p. 3)
Trane commented that different classes of air cleaners could be
useful to consumers, who have varying performance goals. (Trane, No. 3
at p. 3)
Synexis stated that the definition of a standard should be
applicable to all devices operating in the air cleaning technology
space as sub-classes would likely confuse the issue and be difficult to
apply equally across all technologies. (Synexis, No. 14 at p. 7)
DOE agrees with NEEA and Trane's comments and, for reasons
discussed later in this section, is establishing three separate air
cleaner product classes based on CADR as a measurement of capacity.
DOE's testing and teardown

[[Page 21766]]

analysis showed that air cleaning technology, particularly UV and ion
generation, did not significantly impact the measured energy use or
efficiency of air cleaners. Accordingly, DOE is not establishing
additional product class distinction based on air cleaning technology.
Regarding Synexis' comment, DOE notes that energy conservation
standards are applicable to all conventional room air cleaners, as
defined in the March 2023 TP Final Rule, but that the applicable
standard level varies based on the product class. The standards are
technology-neutral, and apply to all configurations of conventional
room air cleaners with a PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR rating within the
specified ranges for the three product classes.
The Joint Stakeholders proposed product classes as shown in Table
IV.1 and noted that it was proposing separate product classes because
it is more difficult for smaller air cleaners to reach higher levels of
efficiency because smaller products require smaller components such as
fan blades. The Joint Stakeholders stated that as the blade design is
made more efficient despite its smaller diameter, the optimization
point is tight to achieve adequate air movement while not increasing
noise levels beyond a tolerable level. They further stated that this
makes achieving higher levels of efficiency a more difficult design
challenge while retaining the utility of the smaller size. (Joint
Stakeholders, No. 16 at pp. 9-10)
The Joint Stakeholders also stated that were smaller products
required to meet the same efficiency levels as larger and higher CADR/W
models, a greater change in efficiency of the motor would be necessary,
which could require more expensive motor technology that could lead to
standards that are not economically justified. The Joint Stakeholders
stated that the recommended product classes will help ensure that a
broad range of capacity changes remain available for consumers. (Joint
Stakeholders, No. 16 at p. 10)

Table IV.1--Joint Stakeholder Recommended Air Cleaner Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class PM2.5 CADR bins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1.............................. 10 <= PM2.5 CADR < 100.
PC2.............................. 100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 150.
PC3.............................. PM2.5 CADR >= 150.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE notes that the product classes are defined based on
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, rather than smoke CADR as recommended by NEEA
and as specified in the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 Specification. In the March
2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established the IEF metric based on
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, which is based on the geometric average of the
measured smoke CADR and dust CADR values, consistent with the Joint
Stakeholder recommendation.
As discussed in the following paragraphs, based on investigatory
testing, product teardowns, and a review of the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0
specification, DOE agrees with the Joint Stakeholders that reaching
higher efficiencies is more difficult for smaller capacity products due
to size and component constraints. Therefore, consistent with the Joint
Proposal, DOE is establishing three product classes for air cleaners as
shown in Table IV.1.
DOE determined the three product classes specified in Table IV.1 to
be appropriate based on an analysis of ENERGY STAR-qualified products.
As seen in Figure IV-1, the ENERGY STAR database shows that air cleaner
models at lower CADR values generally have lower efficiencies compared
to models at higher CADR. DOE expects that this is likely due to the
smaller motor and/or filter required for the lower-CADR units, which
are typically intended to be used in rooms with smaller areas (e.g.,
units in Product Class 1 would be recommended for a maximum room size
of 155 square feet). To achieve a certain level of cleaning
performance, a smaller unit would need to include more filtration by
volume in a more limited chassis space (i.e., the air cleaner cabinet).
This would increase the pressure drop across the filter, which would
require more blower power to maintain the same air delivery
performance. These factors impact the overall efficiency of the unit.
At higher CADR values (i.e., air cleaners designed for larger rooms),
the cabinet volume is much larger, which allows the incorporation of a
much larger filter (i.e., the filtration can be spread across a larger
filter area), thereby reducing the pressure drop across the filter and
necessary blower power, and therefore improving efficiency.
Establishing separate product classes for units that are intended
to be used in both smaller and larger rooms is necessary to maintain
consumer utility. For example, Product Class 1 units have a small
cabinet volume (<0.6 cubic feet (``ft\3\'')), are designed for use in a
single small room, such as a bathroom or bedroom (<155 sq. ft), and are
easily portable, which can allow product configurations such as
tabletop or wall plug-ins. Units with larger capacities and
corresponding larger cabinet volumes provide different utility to
consumers. Product Class 2 includes medium cabinet-sized units (0.6-1.2
ft\3\), which are designed for a larger room (155-235 sq. ft) such as a
kitchen or living space. The size and weight of these units generally
allow single-person portability without necessitating the use of
wheels. Finally, Product Class 3 units have a large cabinet (>1.2
ft\3\), are typically less portable than lower-capacity units, in some
cases being equipped with wheels to facilitate moving, and are designed
to be used for an extended duration in a large room (>235 sq. ft) such
as a classroom, office, or large living area. Establishing these
product classes is necessary because the three ranges of capacity each
provide distinct consumer utility in terms of the application based on
room size and portability of the unit and are associated with
inherently different efficiency due to the different filter size and
configurations that can be accommodated. Further, these product class
distinctions will help ensure that higher-capacity units installed in
smaller-sized rooms, which achieve higher efficiencies at the same
active mode power consumption than smaller-capacity units and which
warrant more stringent energy conservation standards, do not lead to
unnecessarily high AEC.

[[Page 21767]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AP23.002

Finally, DOE is establishing Product Class 1 with a
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR lower limit of 10 cfm as opposed to 30 cfm, as
specified in the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 specification, so that tabletop and
desktop portable room air cleaners as well as plug-in air cleaners,
which is a growing segment of the market, will be required to
demonstrate compliance with the adopted standards. DOE notes that the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR lower limit of 10 cfm for Product Class 1 is also
recommended by the Joint Stakeholders in the Joint Proposal.
2. Technology Options
In analyzing the feasibility of new energy conservation standards,
DOE uses information about technology options and prototype designs to
identify technologies that manufacturers could use to meet and/or
exceed a given energy conservation standard level. In the January 2022
RFI, DOE requested information on technologies that are used to improve
the energy efficiency of air cleaners. Specifically, DOE sought
information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics
that are available for each technology option. 87 FR 3702, 3711. For
each technology option suggested by stakeholders, DOE also sought
information regarding its market adoption, costs, and any concerns with
incorporating the technology into products (e.g., impacts on consumer
utility, potential safety concerns, manufacturing or production
challenges, etc.). 87 FR 3702, 3711-3712.
MIAQ and AHRI commented that they could not provide concrete
information on the availability or lack thereof of technologies for
improving energy efficiency of air cleaners for non-portable products
until DOE altered the scope and definitions to exclude products
inappropriate for regulation. MIAQ and AHRI noted that ducted products,
with fans primarily used for ventilating, cooling, and heating, employ
different technologies than portable products, with distinctly
different energy use patterns. (MIAQ, No. 5 at p. 8; AHRI, No. 15 at p.
9)
As discussed in section III.B of this document, the scope of this
standards rulemaking includes conventional room air cleaners with
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR between 10 and 600 cfm (inclusive). Products not
meeting the definition of conventional room air cleaners, such as
ceiling-mounted and whole-home units are not included in the scope of
this rulemaking. Accordingly, DOE has analyzed technology options only
for conventional room air cleaners that are in the scope of this
standards rulemaking.
Trane commented that portable HEPA and other high filter efficiency
filter-based units should be prioritized highest in a new standard
because of their use in classrooms. (Trane, No. 3 at p. 2)
DOE is aware of the prevalence of HEPA filters in air cleaners, and
DOE's teardown sample largely comprised conventional room air cleaners
that utilize a HEPA filter or other high efficiency filters. The
teardown analysis confirmed that, by effectively removing
PM<INF>2.5</INF> particulates, such high efficiency filters are a
technology option for improving air cleaner efficiency as measured
according to the DOE test procedure at appendix FF.
Synexis commented that safety standards should be considered for
air cleaners that generate hazardous by-products, such as ozone, which
can be harmful to humans at levels above established thresholds.
(Synexis, No. 14 at p. 7) Trane also commented that since certain air
cleaning devices, like electronic/reactive air cleaners, may produce
by-products such as ozone, organic acids, and ultrafine particles, this
fact complicates attempts at standards or creates a need for additional
standards. (Trane No. 3 at p. 2) DOE is aware that technology options
that generate ozone or other harmful by-products can have adverse
impacts on health or safety and, as discussed in section IV.B of this
document, DOE has screened-out such technology options accordingly.
In the market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified 19
technology options for air cleaners, as shown in Table IV.2. These
technology options have been determined to improve the efficiency of
air cleaners, as measured by the DOE test procedure. In general, the
technology options with the most significant impact on efficiency
represent improvements to the filter and motor. The motor and filter
relationship is crucial to improving efficiency, as optimization of the
airflow across the filter is the largest factor contributing to an air
cleaner's active mode power consumption.

[[Page 21768]]

Table IV.2--Air Cleaner Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. High efficiency particulate air (``HEPA'')-type filter (99 percent of
0.2[mu]m particles).
2. True HEPA filter (99.97 percent of 0.3[mu]m particles).
3. Activated carbon filter.
4. High density polyethylene (``HDPE'') pre-filter.
5. Photoelectrochemical oxidation (``PECO'') filter.
6. Photocatalytic oxidation (``PCO'') filter.
7. Electrostatic/Polarizing media.
8. Filter shape.
9. Improved Motor Technologies.
10. Low standby-power electronic controls.
11. Direct double-ended blower assembly.
12. Ionization brush.
13. Ionization plates.
14. Air quality sensor.
15. Ozone generators.
16. Thermodynamic sterilization system (``TSS'').
17. Bioreactor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

After identifying all potential technology options for improving
the efficiency of air cleaners, DOE performed a screening analysis (see
section IV.B of this document) to determine which technologies merited
further consideration in the engineering analysis.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing
prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to
subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered
product type with performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as products generally available in the United States at the time,
it will not be considered further.
(4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns. Sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b) of
appendix A.
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
In the January 2022 RFI, DOE requested feedback on whether any air
cleaner technology options would be screened out based on the five
screening criteria described in this section. DOE also requested
information on the technologies that would be screened out and the
screening criteria that would be applicable to each screened out
technology option. 87 FR 3702, 3712.
The subsequent paragraphs include comments from interested parties
pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened
out'') based on the screening criteria.
Molekule commented that its PECO technology includes energy
requirements different from traditional air cleaners and requested an
exemption from Federal energy efficiency standards since its air
cleaners have been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(``FDA'') as Class II medical devices, which allows medical
professionals to use these devices in medical settings to purify the
air for viruses and bacteria. (Molekule, No. 11 at pp. 1-2) Molekule
commented that while the removal and destruction of airborne microbes
is a key benefit in medical settings, it is not measured by CADR tests
for particulate matter. Molekule further stated that any modifications
to meet DOE energy efficiency standards would be burdensome, requiring
the company to re-apply for FDA clearance. (Molekule, No. 11 at p. 3).
While FDA classification is not one of the five screening criteria that
DOE applies, DOE notes that it has screened out PECO technology because
it is a proprietary technology. DOE additionally notes that many air
cleaners are capable of removing or destroying contaminants other than
particulate matter (i.e., air cleaners that can remove, destroy, or
deactivate smoke, dust, or pollen may also remove, destroy or
deactivate microorganisms and/or gaseous pollutants) and that such air
cleaners would be in the scope of this rulemaking and subject to
applicable standards as long as the unit ``contains means to remove,
destroy, and/or deactivate particulates,'' as included in the
definition of a conventional room air cleaner.
Synexis commented that DOE should eliminate this criterion \24\
because it is in direct and fundamental conflict with intellectual
property rights. Synexis stated that if the United States government
grants monopolistic rights to certain technology options through the
patent process, then DOE should not eliminate those same technology
options. (Synexis, No. 14 at p. 7) DOE clarifies that the intent of the
unique-pathway proprietary technologies screening criterion is to
screen out proprietary technologies as a design pathway for achieving
higher efficiencies for the purposes of DOE's analysis only. That is,
if the only way to reach a given efficiency would be to utilize a
proprietary technology, DOE would not include it in its analysis
because manufacturers that do not have access to the proprietary
technology would not be able to meet the efficiency level under
consideration. This would not preclude manufacturers from utilizing
such technologies in their products. The intent of DOE's analysis is to
identify a pathway to achieve higher efficiencies that would generally
be available to all manufacturers, but DOE recognizes that
manufacturers may have more than one pathway to achieve higher
efficiencies, including using proprietary technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ DOE understands Synexis to be referring to the unique-
pathway proprietary technology screening criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Screened-Out Technologies
Photoelectrochemical Oxidation
PECO is a type of photoreactor-based air purification, similar to
PCO technology (described in the next section) with some important
variations. PECO processes pollutants in a photoreactor that utilizes
photons to initiate a reaction that oxidizes and destroys organic
pollutants in the air. The reaction converts pollutants into non-toxic
substances. Specifically, PECO works by shining UV-A light on the
catalytic surface of the PECO filter. Once the catalyst is activated by
the UV-A light, it forms hydroxyl radicals that combine and react with
airborne

[[Page 21769]]

microbiological contaminants, which destroys them.
Since PECO technology is proprietary, DOE has screened out this
technology option as a unique pathway proprietary technology.
Photocatalytic Oxidation (PCO)
The PCO process is similar to PECO in that it utilizes UV radiation
combined with a catalyst to break down pollutants. The major difference
between PCO and PECO is the filter material, UV light, and subsequent
byproducts. While the PECO filter is a proprietary technology, PCO uses
a catalyst such as titanium dioxide. Additionally, PECO does not emit
any harmful byproducts such as ozone and formaldehyde as compared to
the catalysts on PCO filters. Finally, the PECO system utilizes a UV-A
light, instead of a UV-C light found in PCO systems.
When the titanium dioxide used with PCO is activated by UV-C
radiation, it forms oxidizing hydroxyl radicals which react with
pollutants. When a pollutant comes into contact with UV-activated
titanium dioxide, the reaction destroys the pollutant and releases non-
toxic compounds, such as carbon dioxide and water, as byproducts, as
well as certain harmful byproducts such as ozone and formaldehyde.
DOE is screening out the PCO technology option due to health and
safety concerns stemming from the byproducts generated by the reaction
of the PCO filter. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen that can
cause irritation of the skin, eyes, nose, and throat. High levels of
exposure may cause some types of cancers, according to EPA.\25\ For
ozone, DOE describes these concerns in more detail in the following
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ <a href="http://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/formaldehyde.pdf">www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/formaldehyde.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ozone Generation
Ozone is a strong oxidizer and cleaning agent. Ozone generators
work by creating an electrical discharge to split oxygen molecules in
ambient air into single oxygen atoms, which then bind with existing
oxygen molecules in the air to form ozone. Ozone is highly unstable and
reactive, so after it is produced by the generator, it is released in
the air and is claimed to chemically react with air pollutants such as
chemicals, mold, viruses, bacteria, and odors.
DOE has identified concerns with air cleaners that rely on ozone
generation in terms of both efficacy and safety. The same chemical
properties that allow ozone to be highly reactive with organic material
in the air mean that ozone can impact organic material inside the
respiratory system. EPA investigated the use of ozone generation for
air cleaning and in a 1996 publication,\26\ determined that relatively
low amounts of ozone can pose harmful health effects such as decrease
in lung function, aggravation of asthma, throat irritation and
coughing, chest pain and shortness of breath, inflammation of lung
tissue and high susceptibility to respiratory infection. EPA further
researched the effectiveness of ozone at removing indoor air
contaminants and found that there is evidence to suggest that at
concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone is not
effective at removing many odor-causing chemicals, viruses, bacteria,
mold, or other biological pollutants. Additionally, ozone does not
impact particulate matter such as dust or pollen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ <a href="http://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/ozone-generators-are-sold-air-cleaners">www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/ozone-generators-are-sold-air-cleaners</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Due to these health and safety concerns associated with ozone and
lack of efficacy towards particulate removal, DOE has screened out this
technology option.
Thermodynamic Sterilization System (TSS)
DOE has identified air cleaners on the market that use TSS in a
ceramic core to destroy microorganisms and particle pollutants. These
air cleaners do not rely on filter media to trap or remove particles,
but rather utilize air convection to force air through the devices'
internal ceramic core which heats up to about 200 degrees Celsius
(``[deg]C'') (392 degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F'')) and incinerates
pollutants. Manufacturers of these air cleaners claim that TSS can kill
mold, bacteria, germs, and viruses and destroy pollutants such as dust,
pollen, pet dander, hair, and other airborne particulates. After the
air is heated and cleaned, it is immediately cooled using heat transfer
plates and released back out of the device.
TSS is a proprietary technology implemented by a single company.
Therefore, DOE has screened out this technology option as a unique
pathway proprietary technology.
Bioreactor
DOE has identified two air cleaner models on the market that
utilize a bioreactor system to produce clean air. The air cleaners that
use this technology option rely on convection and fans to draw large
particulate matter of over 0.5 microns such as dust and dander into the
bioreactor chamber. Smaller ultra-fine air pollutants and VOCs are
drawn into the chamber of the air purifier by a process of molecular
attraction through an electrostatic grounded air zone.
Once the various types of air contaminants are drawn into the
bioreactor, an activated solution of water, oxygen, enzymes, and the
trapped contaminants lead to an accelerated process of natural
oxidation that digests the air contaminants and breaks them down into
water, carbon dioxide, and base elements. This results in cleaner air
that is released from the air purifier.
Given the scarcity of models on the market with this technology,
DOE has screened out this technology option as it is not proven to be
practicable to manufacture, install, and service this technology on a
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the
compliance date of new standards.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that
all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 met
all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in
DOE's direct final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out
the following technology options:

1. HEPA-type filter (99 percent of 0.2[mu]m particles)
2. True HEPA filter (99.97 percent of 0.3[mu]m particles)
3. Activated carbon filter
4. HDPE pre-filter
5. Electrostatic/Polarizing media
6. Filter shape
7. Improved Motor Technologies
8. Low standby-power electronic controls
9. Direct double ended blower assembly
10. Ionization brush
11. Ionization plates
12. Air quality sensor

DOE determined that these technology options are technologically
feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in
commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds
that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening
criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do
not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product
availability, health, or safety). For additional details, see chapter 4
of the direct final rule TSD.

[[Page 21770]]

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of air cleaners. There are
two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
air cleaners, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the
product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the
NIA).
Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides additional details
regarding the engineering analysis.
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill''
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the ``max-tech'' level (particularly
in cases where the ``max-tech'' level exceeds the maximum efficiency
level currently available on the market).
In this rulemaking, DOE primarily used the efficiency-level
approach. This approach involved reviewing the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0
database to identify the market distribution of existing products. DOE
also used the design-option approach, testing and physically
disassembling commercially available products to fill gaps where data
was not available from the efficiency-level approach (e.g., to identify
efficiency levels below the ENERGY STAR level). From this information,
DOE estimated the manufacturer production costs (``MPCs'') for a range
of products available at that time on the market. DOE then analyzed the
steps manufacturers took to improve product efficiencies. In its
analysis, DOE determined that manufacturers would likely rely on
certain design options to reach higher efficiencies. From this
information, DOE estimated the incremental cost and efficiency impacts
of incorporating specific design options at each efficiency level. This
section provides more detail on the development of efficiency levels
for the air cleaner engineering analysis.
In response to the January 2022 RFI, Molekule commented that air
cleaners that utilize combined technologies such as a fan and UV that
are intended to capture and destroy a wide range of potentially harmful
pollutants should be subject to adjusted requirements. Molekule
additionally commented that devices that feature technologies with
capabilities outside of AHAM AC-1 and its scope of smoke, dust, and
pollen test should receive an additional 15-percent energy allowance.
(Molekule, No. 11 at pp. 2, 5) Molekule commented that air cleaners
that are designed to work against contaminants such as microbes and
organic chemicals may require technology stacks and energy usage beyond
what is needed for mechanical filtration. Molekule further stated that
evaluating such air cleaners solely on particle removal efficiency
without considering these other pollutant classes is an inappropriate
measure of an air cleaner's energy efficiency relative to its potential
benefits. Molekule commented that many proposed and existing standards
for microbes and chemicals, including proposed AHAM AC-4 and AHAM AC-5
tests and NRCC_54013 \27\ protocol, will only gauge the initial
reduction of pollutants, while an important benefit of its devices is
the destruction of pollutants. (Molekule, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE notes
that the air cleaners test procedure at appendix FF requires that all
features pertaining to air cleaning (e.g., UV, ion generator, etc.)
must be activated and set to their highest setting during testing,
while features unrelated to air cleaning are disabled. That is, the air
cleaners test procedure already accounts for these technologies and to
the extent it is necessary, DOE's analysis accounts for the additional
energy consumed by such technologies. Regarding comments related to the
AHAM AC-4 and AHAM AC-5 industry test standards, DOE is not introducing
a test procedure for microbes and chemicals at this time and is not
establishing an additional energy allowance for products that target
these pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ National Research Council Canada (``NRCC'')-54013, ``Method
for Testing Portable Air Cleaners,'' April 2011. Available online
at: <a href="https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/ft/?id=cc1570e0-53cc-476d-b2ee-3e252d8bd739">https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/ft/?id=cc1570e0-53cc-476d-b2ee-3e252d8bd739</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Molekule also commented that air cleaners that utilize automatic or
standby functionality should receive a credit and that DOE should delay
the implementation of energy conservation standards for such air
cleaners until the appropriate standards or credit has been determined.
(Molekule, No. 11 at p. 2) Molekule stated that energy efficiency
requirements should account for the typical operation of the air
cleaner rather than only the maximum performance mode, particularly for
air cleaners that employ air quality sensors. Molekule stated that the
continuous use case is to operate in ``Auto'' mode or at a level lower
than the maximum running speed and that its internal data indicates
that the use of Auto Mode, coupled with other common user behavior of
selecting speeds lower than the maximum speed, results in more than 50-
percent energy savings as compared to the energy use if the device was
operated continuously at maximum speed. (Molekule, No. 11 at p. 5) DOE
notes that the current test procedure at appendix FF requires all air
cleaners to be tested in the maximum performance mode, not in automatic
mode. Accordingly, a credit or separate standards are not necessary for
such units at this time. DOE is aware that an AHAM task force is
currently engaged in discussions to develop an industry test method to
test air cleaners in automatic mode, and DOE is participating in these
meetings. However, DOE's test procedure specifies testing only in
maximum performance mode (consistent with the existing industry
standard) and accordingly, DOE is not providing a credit for units with
automatic mode.
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each product class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a
reference

[[Page 21771]]

point for each class, and measures changes resulting from potential
energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model
in each product class represents the characteristics of a product
typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). Generally, a
baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation
standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically
the most common or least efficient unit on the market. In the January
2022 RFI, DOE requested feedback on appropriate baseline efficiency
levels for DOE to apply, and the product classes to which these
baseline efficiency levels would be applicable, in evaluating whether
to establish energy conservation standards for air cleaners. 87 FR
3702, 3712.
NEEA commented that using the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 levels as the
baseline efficiency level would be appropriate because of the high
percentage of sales of ENERGY STAR units, comprising 87 percent of the
2015 room air cleaner sales. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 4)
Based on publicly available data from ENERGY STAR and AHAM, DOE
estimated that 60 percent of air cleaners on the market do not meet the
ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 levels. Based on the large number of products
available on the market that do not meet the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0
specification, DOE is establishing the baseline efficiency levels below
the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 levels.
As a first step to determine baseline and incremental efficiency
levels, DOE selected units for testing and teardowns using the AHAM
Verifide \28\ and ENERGY STAR databases and identified the CADR values
at which most models were clustered. The ENERGY STAR database includes
smoke CADR, dust CADR, and pollen CADR values in addition to providing
power consumption data, but the AHAM Verifide database includes only
smoke CADR, dust CADR, and pollen CADR values. Using these databases,
DOE selected a representative sample of products for testing and
teardowns. From its test sample, DOE identified a representative
nominal PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR value for each product class based on the
most commonly occurring PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR value for each product
class in its test sample, which are 50 CADR/W, 125 CADR/W, and 200
CADR/W for Product Class 1, Product Class 2, and Product Class 3,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Available at: <a href="https://ahamverifide.org/directory-of-air-cleaners/">https://ahamverifide.org/directory-of-air-cleaners/</a>. Last accessed: January 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For each product class, DOE then selected the baseline efficiency
level based on a commercially available unit below the levels
established by certain States and the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 level. Given
there is no database that contains energy use data for air cleaners
other than the ENERGY STAR database, which provides a list of products
that meet or exceed ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 levels, DOE identified the
baseline efficiency levels by testing a representative sample of
commercially available units that were not included in the ENERGY STAR
database. Through this approach, DOE was able to identify the baseline
efficiency level using the IEF of the least efficient unit tested in
each product class for Product Classes 1 and 3. For Product Class 2,
DOE did not identify any unit in its test sample with an IEF below the
State or ENERGY STAR levels from its limited test sample. Accordingly,
DOE used the baseline unit from Product Class 1, scaled to the
representative PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR for Product Class 2, to determine
a representative baseline unit for Product Class 2. Table IV.3
summarizes the baseline efficiency levels defined for each product
class:

Table IV.3--Baseline Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class PM2.5 CADR bins Minimum IEF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1............................... 10 <= CADR < 100.... 1.53
PC2............................... 100 <= CADR < 150... 1.53
PC3............................... CADR >= 150......... 1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Higher Efficiency Levels
In the January 2022 RFI, DOE requested feedback on design options
that manufacturers would use to increase energy efficiency in air
cleaners above the baseline, including information on the order in
which manufacturers would incorporate the different technologies to
incrementally improve efficiency of products. DOE also requested
feedback on whether the increased energy efficiency would lead to other
design changes that would not occur otherwise. DOE further requested
information regarding any potential impact of design options on a
manufacturer's ability to incorporate additional functions or
attributes in response to consumer demand and on whether certain design
options may not be applicable to (or incompatible with) certain types
of air cleaners. 87 FR 3702, 3713.
NEEA commented that it analyzed the ENERGY STAR database and
identified the max-tech units shown in Table IV.4 for each product
class:

Table IV.4--Max-Tech Units Identified by NEEA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 CADR IEF * (PM2.5
Product class (cfm) CADR/W) AEC (kWh/year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: 10 <= PM2.5 CADR < 100................................... 91.2 9.9 55.0
PC2: 100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 150.................................. 120.0 12.5 57.2
PC3: PM2.5 CADR >= 150........................................ 424.3 14.0 180.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note that NEEA provided each unit's CADR/W in terms of smoke CADR. DOE calculated the PM2.5 CADR values using
the information available from the ENERGY STAR database.

[[Page 21772]]

(NEEA, No. 13 at p. 5)

As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE
also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum
possible efficiency for a given product. Table IV.5 shows the units
that DOE determined to be the maximum available and max-tech units for
each product class. These units are the highest efficiency units
currently available on the market that provide complete consumer
utility. DOE is not aware of any additional technologies that could be
implemented to the identified units, and therefore has determined that
the units represent the max-tech efficiency level in each product
class. The following paragraphs in this section explain DOE's selection
of max-tech units as well as its reasons for deviating from the units
suggested by NEEA.

Table IV.5--Max-Tech Units Analyzed by DOE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative
Product class PM2.5 CADR IEF (PM2.5 CADR/ AEC (kWh/yr)
(cfm) W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: 10 <= PM2.5 CADR < 100................................... 50 5.4 54.1
PC2: 100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 150.................................. 125 12.8 57.3
PC3: PM2.5 CADR >= 150........................................ 200 7.4 157.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE recognizes that the air cleaners included in NEEA's comment may
be the highest efficiency units available on the market for each
product class; however, as noted previously, DOE strived to select
units at the representative PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR value for each
product class, and especially at the max-tech. For Product Class 1 and
Product Class 3, the models suggested by NEEA have roughly twice the
capacity, expressed in terms of PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR, as the
representative capacities selected by DOE--91.2 cfm compared to DOE's
representative PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR value of 50 cfm for Product Class
1 and 424.3 cfm compared to DOE's representative PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR
value of 200 cfm for Product Class 3. For Product Class 2, the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR of the model suggested by NEEA falls within the
range of CADR values that DOE considered for its analysis and DOE's
max-tech unit for Product Class 2 is fairly similar to the unit
suggested by NEEA.
In addition to selecting units within a representative
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR range for each product class, to determine its
max-tech units DOE also selected units that utilized a true HEPA
filter, which is a filter that is rated to remove at least 99.97
percent of particles that have a size of 0.3 [mu]m. DOE selected this
criterion because, according to EPA, the diameter specification of 0.3
[mu]m corresponds to the most penetrating particle size; that is,
particles of 0.3 [mu]m are the most difficult size particles to capture
and particles either larger or smaller than 0.3 [mu]m are generally
captured more easily.\29\ Therefore, DOE selected its max-tech unit to
include a true HEPA filter to ensure that there would not be any loss
in product utility at the selected max-tech efficiency level. The
Product Class 1 and Product Class 3 units suggested by NEEA do not
include a true HEPA filter and instead utilize ionic plates or a filter
that is rated to capture 98 percent of 5 [mu]m particles, neither of
which meet the rating requirement of a HEPA filter for capturing at
least 99.97 percent of particles that have a size of 0.3 [mu]m, which
DOE determined is required to maintain full consumer functionality. DOE
notes that the pressure drop across a HEPA filter would be greater due
to the design of such a filter, which would require a more powerful
motor to move the same quantity of air across the filter as compared to
a less effective filter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ <a href="http://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-hepa-filter">www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-hepa-filter</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the max-tech units selected by DOE for Product Class 2 and
Product Class 3 are the most-efficient units at the representative
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR value, for Product Class 1, DOE observed another
unit that had a higher IEF compared to its selected unit. However, DOE
ultimately selected the unit shown in Table IV.5 because the other unit
did not include a true HEPA filter; instead, it included a filter that
is rated to remove only up to 97 percent of particles that have a size
of 0.3 [mu]m, which DOE determined did not maintain full consumer
functionality.
To establish other incremental higher efficiency levels between the
baseline and max-tech, DOE reviewed data in the ENERGY STAR database to
evaluate the range of efficiencies for air cleaners currently available
on the market. For all three product classes, DOE considered Efficiency
Level 1 (``EL 1'') to correspond to the level established by certain
States. EL 1 also corresponds to the Tier 1 level provided in the Joint
Proposal. DOE selected EL 2 for all product classes to correspond to
the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 level, which is also the Tier 2 level provided
in the Joint Proposal. Finally, DOE identified EL 3 as a ``gap-fill''
level between EL 2 and max-tech (i.e., EL 4) based on number of
available models grouped (or ``clustered'') between EL 2 and max-tech
for each product class. Table IV.6 through Table IV.8 summarize the
efficiency levels analyzed for each product class.

Table IV.6--Efficiency Levels for Product Class 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level IEF (PM2.5 CADR/
EL description W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... Minimum available from 1.5
tested units.
1............................. State Standard Levels; 1.7
Joint Proposal Tier 1.
2............................. ENERGY STAR V. 2.0; 1.9
Joint Proposal Tier 2.
3............................. Gap-fill.............. 3.4
4............................. Maximum available..... 5.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 21773]]

Table IV.7--Efficiency Levels for Product Class 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level IEF (PM2.5 CADR/
EL description W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... Minimum available from 1.5
tested units.
1............................. State Standard Levels; 1.9
Joint Proposal Tier 1.
2............................. ENERGY STAR V. 2.0; 2.4
Joint Proposal Tier 2.
3............................. Gap-fill.............. 5.4
4............................. Maximum available..... 12.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV.8--Efficiency Levels for Product Class 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level IEF (PM2.5 CADR/
EL description W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... Minimum available from 1.2
tested units.
1............................. State Standard Levels; 2.0
Joint Proposal Tier 1.
2............................. ENERGY STAR V. 2.0; 2.9
Joint Proposal Tier 2.
3............................. Gap-fill.............. 6.6
4............................. Maximum available..... 7.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the air cleaners
on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
<bullet> Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
<bullet> Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
<bullet> Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis primarily using the
physical teardown approach. For each product class, DOE tore down a
representative sample of models spanning the entire range of efficiency
levels, as well as multiple manufacturers within each product class.
DOE aggregated the results so that the cost-efficiency relationship
developed for each product class reflects DOE's assessment of a market-
representative ``path'' to achieve each higher efficiency level. The
resulting bill of materials from each teardown provides the basis for
the MPC estimates. In addition to determining MPCs for each efficiency
level, DOE disaggregated the overall MPCs to find the filter costs,
which are used later in the LCC and PBP analyses.
The detailed description of DOE's determination of costs for
baseline and higher efficiency levels is provided in chapter 5 of the
direct final rule TSD.
In the January 2022 RFI, DOE sought input on the increase in MPC
associated with incorporating each particular design option. DOE also
requested information on the investments necessary to incorporate
specific design options, including, but not limited to, costs related
to new or modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and
development efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/
production impacts. 87 FR 3702, 3713.
NEEA commented that it had analyzed the incremental cost of air
cleaners and found the incremental cost was $6.00 for large-capacity
room air cleaners and about $26 for smaller-capacity units. (NEEA, No.
13 at p. 5)
As discussed in the following sections, DOE's teardown results also
showed that incremental MPC between baseline and max-tech units for
Product Class 3 was much smaller compared to the incremental MPC
between baseline and max-tech units for Product Classes 1 and 2. DOE
estimated the incremental MPC between max-tech and baseline for Product
Classes 1 and 2 to be approximately $12, as compared to $26 as stated
by NEEA. This is likely due to the difference in how NEEA and DOE
conducted their analyses--DOE's analysis is based on MPC, which
accounts for the costs associated only with efficiency-related
components, while it is DOE's understanding that NEEA's analysis is
based on retail prices, which could include costs attributed to non-
efficiency-related features.
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
The results of the engineering analysis are reported as incremental
MPCs associated with each efficiency level and product class. At each
efficiency level, DOE tore down a representative unit and excluded the
non-efficiency related components from the MPC calculation. Due to
slight variations in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR of each unit, DOE
applied a normalization to the MPCs using a single representative
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR for each product class. See chapter 5 of the
direct final rule TSD for complete cost-efficiency results.
a. Product Class 1
Table IV.9 summarizes the MPCs at each efficiency level for Product
Class 1.

[[Page 21774]]

Table IV.9--Manufacturer Production Costs for Product Class 1
[2022$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEF (PM2.5 CADR/
EL W) MPC Incremental MPC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................................................... 1.5 $31.24 ................
1........................................................... 1.7 32.25 $1.01
2........................................................... 1.9 33.39 2.15
3........................................................... 3.4 39.27 8.03
4........................................................... 5.4 44.06 12.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The baseline unit in Product Class 1 is typically smaller than the
baseline units in the other two product classes and is equipped with a
shaded pole motor (``SPM'') and rectangular HEPA filter. At EL 1,
efficiency improvements are achievable by optimizing the motor-filter
relationship, typically by reducing the restriction of airflow (and
therefore, the pressure drop across the filter) by increasing the
surface area of the filter, reducing filter thickness, and/or
increasing air inlet/outlet size. Optimizing the air flow across the
filter enables reducing the size and power draw of the motor for an EL
1 unit. Other than alterations to the cabinet size to accommodate the
filter design, these changes do not significantly increase the MPC at
EL 1.
At EL 2, typically the SPM is upgraded to a permanent split
capacitor (``PSC'') motor, which improves overall efficiency while
increasing MPC slightly.
EL 3 and EL 4 units are typically designed to house a cylindrical
filter, and the cabinets of these units are also typically cylindrical
in shape. A cylindrical filter design further reduces the restriction
in air flow across the filter without compromising on performance
because a cylindrical shape allows for a much larger surface area for
the same volume of filter material. The larger surface area reduces the
resistance across the filter material, which reduces the pressure drop
and improves efficiency overall. EL 3 and EL 4 units also utilize a
variable-speed brushless direct-current (``BLDC'') motor, which is much
more efficient than an SPM or PSC motor. EL 4 units additionally
improve energy efficiency by further optimizing the motor-filter
relationship. The incremental costs associated with EL 3 and EL 4 are
typically much higher due to the significant motor upgrade and
cylindrical filter and case design.
b. Product Class 2
When selecting representative units for Product Class 2, DOE was
unable to identify commercially available units for the baseline and EL
1 due to lack of published data for units with efficiencies below the
ENERGY STAR V.2.0 level; the units that DOE selected for its test
sample based on product features did not have measured efficiencies at
EL 1 or lower. Therefore, DOE extrapolated costs from baseline and EL 1
units in Product Class 1 with similar measured IEFs as the Product
Class 2 baseline and EL 1 efficiency levels. Table IV.10 summarizes the
MPCs at each efficiency level for Product Class 2.

Table IV.10--Manufacturer Production Costs for Product Class 2
[2022$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEF (PM2.5 CADR/
EL W) MPC Incremental MPC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................................................... 1.5 $42.97 ................
1........................................................... 1.9 44.26 $1.29
2........................................................... 2.4 45.62 2.65
3........................................................... 5.4 50.45 7.48
4........................................................... 12.8 55.55 12.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimated that the typical baseline unit for Product Class 2 is
similar to the baseline unit from Product Class 1, although it has a
larger cabinet, rectangular filter, and SPM motor in order to achieve a
higher PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR value. At EL 1, DOE estimated that the air
cleaner would require a motor upgrade to a PSC motor to be able to
provide the increasing power required to maintain the desired IEF for
an EL 1 unit at a representative PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR value of 125. At
EL 2, DOE observed a direct, double-ended PSC motor with a blower on
each end, compared to a single-ended blower assembly in the lower-
efficiency units.
Similar to Product Class 1, the EL 3 and EL 4 units utilize a
cylindrical filter and cabinet to improve filter surface area and
airflow as well as a BLDC motor to improve efficiency. At EL 4, the
max-tech unit uses lower-standby power components along with
optimizations to the motor-filter relationship that allowed for the use
of a smaller motor due to a lower pressure drop across the filter.
c. Product Class 3
For Product Class 3, DOE was unable to identify and teardown an EL
1 unit, again due to a lack of published power consumption data for
commercially available units below ENERGY STAR V.2.0. Therefore, DOE
estimated the EL 1 MPC for Product Class 3 by developing a best-fit
curve from the IEF and MPCs of the other efficiency levels for Product
Class 3 and using this best-fit curve to estimate the MPC for EL 1.
Table IV.11 summarizes the MPCs at each efficiency level for the 150+
PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR product class.

[[Page 21775]]

Table IV.11--Manufacturer Production Costs for Product Class 3
[2022$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEF (PM2.5 CADR/
EL W) MPC Incremental MPC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................................................... 1.2 $70.50 ................
1........................................................... 2.0 71.66 $1.17
2........................................................... 2.9 72.50 2.00
3........................................................... 6.6 74.33 3.84
4........................................................... 7.4 74.61 4.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimated that the typical baseline unit for Product Class 3 is
equipped with an electronic interface, a PSC motor, and a rectangular
HEPA filter. For an EL 1 unit, DOE estimated that a PSC motor is still
used, but the motor-filter relationship is optimized along with lower-
standby power components to increase unit efficiency. The
representative EL 2 unit also uses a PSC motor; however, the unit has a
filter with a larger surface area and a larger case with larger air
inlets/outlets to improve airflow compared to the baseline and EL 1
units. The EL 3 and EL 4 units utilize a cylindrical HEPA filter and
BLDC motor to improve airflow through the filter while reducing power
consumption. However, the EL 3 and EL 4 units are typically smaller in
cabinet size compared to lower-efficiency units within Product Class 3.
Therefore, the incremental MPCs at EL 3 and EL 4 is smaller compared to
the incremental MPCs at EL 3 and EL 4 for the other two product
classes.
In addition to determining the MPCs for each representative unit at
each efficiency level, DOE also disaggregated the overall MPC at each
efficiency level to determine filter costs, which are used to determine
the maintenance and repair costs for the LCC and PBP. These costs are
shown in Table IV.12.

Table IV.12--Filter Costs (2022$) Disaggregated From Overall MPCs for Each Representative Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level Product class 1 Product class 2 Product class 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................................................. $2.62 $5.83 $9.06
EL 1...................................................... 1.92 5.00 8.68
EL 2...................................................... 1.79 4.16 8.29
EL 3...................................................... 6.71 10.25 12.10
EL 4...................................................... 7.05 7.78 12.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE observed that the filter MPC typically decreased going from
baseline to EL 2 and then increased for EL 3 and EL 4. This is because
the baseline unit typically has a larger rectangular filter compared to
EL 1 and EL 2 filters, leading to higher filter costs for the baseline
unit. EL 3 and EL 4 units have cylindrical filters with plastic casing,
compared to the paper/cardboard casing seen at baseline through EL 2,
both of which lead to much higher filter costs at these levels.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC.
The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') is the price at
which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce.
The detailed description of DOE's determination of costs for
baseline and higher efficiency levels is provided in chapter 5 of the
direct final rule TSD. The detailed description of DOE's determination
of the industry average manufacturer markup is provided in chapter 12
of the direct final rule TSD

D. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution
chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the
engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC
and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies
mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit
margin.
For air cleaners, DOE relied on the TechSci Research report,\30\
and manufacturer inputs from the manufacturer interviews to develop the
distribution channels and the corresponding market share. DOE developed
baseline and incremental markups for each link in the distribution
chains (after the product leaves the manufacturer). Baseline markups
are applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while
incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between
baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase).
The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and
is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and
after new or amended standards.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ TechSci Research. 2022. United States air purifier market,
forecast and opportunity. June 2022. <a href="http://www.techsciresearch.com/report/us-air-purifier-market/3711.html">www.techsciresearch.com/report/us-air-purifier-market/3711.html</a>.
\31\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate
average baseline and incremental markups. Specifically, DOE used the
2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the ``Electronics and Appliance
Stores'' sector to develop retailer markups,\32\ and the 2017 Annual
Wholesale Trade Survey for both ``Machinery, equipment, and supplies
merchant wholesalers'' and ``Household appliances and electrical and
electronic goods merchant wholesalers'' business types to develop the
markups for distributors.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Retail Trade Survey, 2017.
<a href="http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts.html">www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts.html</a>.
\33\ U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Wholesale Trade Survey, 2017.
<a href="http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/awts.html">www.census.gov/programs-surveys/awts.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To differentiate the retailer markups in the online and offline
retail channels,

[[Page 21776]]

DOE compared the retail prices of top-selling models provided in the
TechSci Research report from major home improvement centers (offline
retail sales) and e-commerce websites (online retail sales) and
estimated that the online retail prices are on average 1.1% lower than
the offline retail prices. Hence, DOE applied the price ratio to the
retailer markups estimated from the 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey to
derive separate markups for the offline retail channel.
Chapter 6 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's
development of markups for air cleaners.

E. Energy Use Analysis

The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of air cleaners at different efficiencies in
representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences,
mobile homes, and commercial buildings, and to assess the energy
savings potential of increased air cleaner efficiency. The energy use
analysis estimates the range of energy use of air cleaners in the field
(i.e., as they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis
provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly
assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating
costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.
DOE determined the annual energy consumption of air cleaners by
multiplying the per operating mode annual operating hours by the power
of standby and active modes. DOE used the Energy Information
Administration's (``EIA'') Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(``RECS'') 2020 \34\ data and EIA's Commercial Building Energy
Consumption Survey (``CBECS'') 2018 \35\ data to represent residential
and commercial consumer samples. In the absence of air cleaner
ownership and usage information in both datasets, for the residential
sector, DOE included all household samples, but adjusted the
residential sample weights based on the geographic distribution of air
cleaner stocks reported by TechSci Research, and the number of air
cleaners per sample based on household size. For the commercial sector,
DOE excluded the vacant and non-used buildings from the CBECS 2018
samples and adjusted the remaining building sample weights based on the
building occupancy, the square footage of the climate-controlled space,
and the stock distribution by building principal activity reported by
TechSci Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Residential Energy Consumption Survey. 2020.
<a href="http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/">www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/</a>.
\35\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey.
2018. <a href="http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2018/">www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2018/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daikin requested that DOE disclose its methodology and results of
the Annual Energy Use assessment. Daikin recognizes that the actual
hours of operation will obviously have a significant impact on the
annual energy consumption of a product. (Daikin, No. 12 at p. 6) NEEA
stated it typically estimates average operation to be 8 hours per day
based on seasonal operation or part-day operation, but noted that the
Northwest Regional Technical Forum estimates 16 hours per day. (NEEA,
No. 11 at p. 5)
The DOE test procedure produces standardized results that can be
used to assess or compare the performance of products operating under
specified laboratory conditions. The test procedure assumes air
cleaners are used 16 hours of the day on active mode (maximum power)
and 8 hours on standby mode which aligns with the ENERGY STAR
description.\36\ Actual energy usage in the field often differs from
that estimated by the test procedure because of variation in operating
conditions, the behavior of users, and other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ ENERGY STAR Certified Room Air Cleaners Database.
Description of ``Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr)'' ``This is the
estimated annual energy use of the room air cleaner under typical
conditions, including the energy used in active modes and partial on
modes . . . The active mode [. . .] is on average 16 hours active
and 8 hours inactive per day. Actual energy consumption will vary
depending on various factors such as the amount of usage in active
model and the settings chosen.'' <a href="http://data.energystar.gov/Active-Specifications/ENERGY-STAR-Certified-Room-Air-Cleaners/jmck-i55n/data">data.energystar.gov/Active-Specifications/ENERGY-STAR-Certified-Room-Air-Cleaners/jmck-i55n/data</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To estimate the actual annual air cleaner energy consumption in the
residential sector, DOE relied on the RECS 2020 consumer sample, in
conjunction with the county-based 2020 air quality data published by
the EPA,\37\ and a market research report conducted by Evergreen
Economics \38\ submitted by stakeholders to determine the annual
operating hours. DOE estimated that the air cleaners operated on
average 10.6 hours per day, and 248 days per year in the residential
sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality System.
Air Quality Index per County. 2020. <a href="http://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-cities-and-counties">www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-cities-and-counties</a>.
\38\ Evergreen Economics. Air Purifier Study Results. February
8, 2021. The document can be found in docket, <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0009">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0009</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To determine the commercial sector air cleaner annual energy
consumption, DOE used the CBECS 2018 building sample regarding the
reported building principal activities, building schedule and occupancy
information. DOE estimated an average of 4,198 annual operating hours,
which is equivalent to 12.9 operating hours per day and 325 operating
days per year.
Chapter 7 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's
energy use analysis for air cleaners.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for
air cleaners. The effect of new or amended energy conservation
standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in
operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following
two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
<bullet> The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them
over the lifetime of the product.
<bullet> The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the
estimated efficiency distribution of air cleaners in the absence of new
or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a
given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of U.S.
households and commercial buildings. As stated previously, DOE
developed household samples from the RECS 2020 and commercial building
samples from the CBECS 2018. For each sample household, DOE determined
the energy consumption for the air cleaners and the appropriate energy
price. By developing a representative sample of households

[[Page 21777]]

and commercial buildings, the analysis captured the variability in
energy consumption and energy prices associated with the use of air
cleaners.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer
markups, and sales taxes--and filter costs. Inputs to the calculation
of operating expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices
and price projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes,
and discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for product
lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached
to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte
Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from
the probability distributions and air cleaner user samples. For this
rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS Excel
together with the Crystal Ball\TM\ add-on.\39\ The model calculated the
LCC for products at each efficiency level for 10,000 housing units and
commercial building units per simulation run. The analytical results
include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC
savings for a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards
case efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte
Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product efficiency is chosen
based on its probability. If the chosen product efficiency is greater
than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under
consideration, the LCC calculation reveals that a consumer is not
impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already
purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the potential
benefits from increasing product efficiency. DOE calculated the LCC for
consumers of air cleaners as if each were to purchase a new product in
the first year of required compliance with new or amended standards.
New standards apply to air cleaners manufactured five years after the
date on which any new standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(2))
However, on August 23, 2022, DOE received a Joint Proposal from the
Joint Stakeholders regarding energy conservation standards for air
cleaners recommending a two-tier approach. Therefore, DOE used 2024 and
2026 as the first years of compliance in one of the scenarios analyzed
based on the Joint Proposal's two-tier standard recommendation, and
used 2028 as the first year of compliance with any new standards for
air cleaners for the other scenarios analyzed based on the statutory
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ Crystal Ball\TM\ is commercially-available software tool to
facilitate the creation of these types of models by generating
probability distributions and summarizing results within Excel,
available at <a href="http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/index.html">www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/index.html</a> (last accessed July 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV.13 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8
of the direct final rule TSD and its appendices.

Table IV.13--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost...................... Derived by multiplying MPCs by
manufacturer and retailer markups
and sales tax, as appropriate. Used
historical data to derive a price
scaling index to project product
costs.
Installation Cost................. No change with efficiency level.
Annual Energy Use................. The total annual energy use by
operating mode multiplied by the
hours per year. Variability: Based
on the RECS 2020 and CBECS 2018.
Energy Prices..................... Electricity: Based on Edison
Electric Institute data for 2021.
Variability: Regional energy prices
determined for 50 states and
Washington DC.
Energy Price Trends............... Based on AEO2022 price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs...... Considered filter change cost only.
Filter change frequency assumed to
be associated with usage. On
average 1.7 filters used per year
for residential sector and 2
filters used per year for
commercial sector.
Product Lifetime.................. Average: 9.0 years.
Discount Rates.................... Approach involves identifying all
possible debt or asset classes that
might be used to purchase the
considered appliances, or might be
affected indirectly. Primary data
source was the Federal Reserve
Board's Survey of Consumer
Finances.
Compliance Date................... 2024/2026 for tiered trial standard
level (TSL) and 2028 for the other
TSLs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources
mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the
table or in chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD.

1. Product Cost
To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described
previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for
baseline products and higher-efficiency products, because DOE applies
an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-
efficiency products.
Economic literature and historical data suggest that the real costs
of many products may trend downward over time according to ``learning''
or ``experience'' curves. An experience curve analysis implicitly
includes factors such as efficiencies in labor, capital investment,
automation, materials prices, distribution, and economies of scale at
an industry-wide level. To derive the learning rate parameter for air
cleaners, DOE obtained historical Producer Price Index (``PPI'') data
for air cleaners from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (``BLS''). A PPI
for ``small electric household appliances'' was available for the time
period between 1982 and 2015.\40\ However, the small electric household
appliances PPI was discontinued beyond 2015 due to insufficient sample
size. To extend the price index beyond 2015, DOE assumed that the more
aggregated product series, small electrical appliances price index, is
representative of the trend of small electric household appliances.
Inflation-adjusted price indices were calculated by dividing the PPI
series by the gross

[[Page 21778]]

domestic product index from Bureau of Economic Analysis for the same
years. Using data from 1982-2021, the estimated learning rate (defined
as the fractional reduction in price expected from each doubling of
cumulative production) is 6 percent. DOE assumed that the air cleaner
manufacturers do not typically manufacture the air filters themselves;
thus, DOE applied the price learning to the non-filter portion of the
cost only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, PPI Industry Data, Small
electric household appliance manufacturers, Product series ID:
PCU33521033521014. Data series available at: <a href="http://www.bls.gov/ppi/">www.bls.gov/ppi/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Installation Cost
Installation costs include labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE found no data
showing that installation costs would be impacted with increased
efficiency levels.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled household and commercial building, DOE determined
the energy consumption for air cleaners at different efficiency levels
using the approach described previously in section IV.E of this
document.
4. Energy Prices
Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the
incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher
efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change
in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE
applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the product
purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices
for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other
efficiency levels considered.
DOE derived electricity prices in 2021 using data from EEI Typical
Bills and Average Rates reports. Based upon comprehensive, industry-
wide surveys, this semi-annual report presents typical monthly electric
bills and average kWh costs to the customer as charged by investor-
owned utilities. For the residential sector, DOE calculated electricity
prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki
(2018).\41\ For the commercial sector, DOE calculated electricity
prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki
(2019).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential Electricity
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001169.
<a href="https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review">https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review</a>.
\42\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Non-residential
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-
2001203. <a href="https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices">https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2021
energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes for
each of the nine census divisions from the reference case in AEO2022,
which has an end year of 2050.\43\ For the years after 2050, DOE held
constant the 2050 electricity prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050.
Washington, DC. Available at <a href="http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/">www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/</a> (last
accessed December 9, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

See chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD for details.
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product
components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Typically,
small incremental increases in product efficiency entail no, or only
minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline
efficiency products.
In this direct final rule analysis, DOE included no changes in
maintenance or repair costs for air cleaners that exceed the baseline
efficiency other than the filter change costs. As described in section
IV.C of this document, differences in filter size, shape, and material
lead to variations in filter costs at each efficiency level within each
product class. DOE determined that replacement filters have the same
distribution channels and markups as the air cleaner units. No price
learning was considered and applied to the filter change costs. Based
on the information received from the manufacturer interviews, for
commercial buildings, DOE estimated a flat filter change frequency of
twice per year. For the residential sector, DOE associated the filter
change frequency with the air cleaner usage. DOE correlated higher
filter change frequency with higher operating hours with the highest
frequency of once every six months and the lowest frequency of once per
year. This filter change rate aligns with the range suggested by
manufacturer interviews. DOE also takes into account that a small
percentage of consumers may never change the air cleaner filters.
6. Product Lifetime
For air cleaners, DOE developed a distribution of lifetimes from
which specific values are assigned to the appliances in the samples.
DOE ensured that the average lifetime estimate of 9 years aligned with
those lifetime estimates suggested by ENERGY STAR,\44\ and by CA IOUs
(who cited EPA and various State Technical Reference Manuals). (CA
IOUs, No. 9 at p. 2) NEEA also cited an estimated lifetime of 9 years.
(NEEA, No. 11 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ Room Air Cleaners

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on April 11, 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.