[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21512-21525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06498]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 21512]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

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


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Air Cleaners

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

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 notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), 
DOE proposes new energy conservation standards for air cleaners 
identical to those set forth in a direct final rule published elsewhere 
in this Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse comment and 
determines that such comment may provide a reasonable basis for 
withdrawal, DOE will publish a notice withdrawing the direct final rule 
and will proceed with this proposed rule.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
NOPR no later than July 31, 2023. Comments regarding the likely 
competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the 
Department of Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or 
before May 11, 2023.

ADDRESSES: See section III, ``Public Participation,'' for details. If 
DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for 
additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of 
any meeting in the Federal Register.
    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number 
EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by 
docket number EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035, by any of the following methods: 
Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number 
EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035 in the subject line of the message.
    Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. 
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not 
necessary to include printed copies. No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will 
be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on this process, see section III of this 
document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section III of this document for information on how to submit comments 
through www.regulations.gov.
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites 
input from market participants and other interested persons with views 
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested 
persons may contact the Division at [email protected] on or 
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the 
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this 
proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 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: 
[email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other 
public comments on the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Air Cleaners
II. Proposed Standards
    A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Air Cleaners 
Standards
    B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
III. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Public Meeting
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

[[Page 21513]]

    A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with Other Rules and 
Regulations
    6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction

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

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\ 
grants the U.S. Department of Energy (``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--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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))
    DOE has determined that air cleaners meet the four criteria 
outlined in 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1) for prescribing energy conservation 
standards for newly covered products. First, in a final determination 
published on July 15, 2022 (``July 2022 Final Determination''), DOE 
noted that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (``EPA's'') 
ENERGY STAR database \2\ includes a range of portable configurations of 
air cleaners with an average annual energy consumption of 299 kWh, 
which exceeded the 150 kWh threshold. 87 FR 42297, 42305. DOE further 
noted that the average energy consumption of non-ENERGY STAR qualified 
models is likely higher. Id. EPCA specifies that the term ``energy 
use'' means the quantity of energy directly consumed by a consumer 
product at point of use determined in accordance with test procedures 
under 42 U.S.C. 6293 (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) Although the values of annual 
energy consumption discussed in the July 2022 Final Determination were 
obtained prior to the establishment of the DOE air cleaners test 
procedure, they were measured using substantively the same methodology 
as in the newly established test procedure. Therefore, DOE has 
determined that for a 12-month period ending before its determination 
for this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), the average per 
household energy use within the United States by air cleaners exceeded 
150 kWh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Available at: https://data.energystar.gov/Active-Specifications/ENERGY-STAR-Certified-Room-Air-Cleaners/jmck-i55n/data. Last accessed: December 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has also determined that 21.8 million households in the United 
States use at least one air cleaner (see chapter 10 of the direct final 
rule technical support document (``TSD'') available in the docket for 
this rulemaking). Based on an average annual energy consumption per 
unit of at least 299 kWh, as measured by the DOE test procedure for air 
cleaners, the aggregate household energy use within the United States 
by air cleaners was at least 6,518,000,000 kWh, which exceeded 
4,200,000,000 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) for the 12-month period 
ending before the determination in this NOPR. Further, DOE has 
determined that substantial energy improvement in the energy efficiency 
of air cleaners is technologically feasible (see chapter 5 of the 
direct final rule TSD available in the docket for this rulemaking.), 
and has determined that the application of a labeling rule under 42 
U.S.C. 6294 to air cleaners is not likely to be sufficient to induce 
manufacturers to produce, and consumers and other persons to purchase, 
air cleaners that achieve the maximum energy efficiency which is 
technologically feasible and economically justified (see chapter 17 of 
the direct final rule TSD available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DOE estimated that such a labeling program would lead to 
approximately 41% of the energy savings DOE estimated for the new 
standards. See chapter 17 of the direct final rule TSD available in 
the docket for this rulemaking for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal 
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA 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 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 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 42 U.S.C. 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

[[Page 21514]]

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 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 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 product 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 the feature and 
other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a 
standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher 
or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 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 integrated 
energy factor (``IEF'') metric. IEF includes annual energy consumption 
in standby mode as part of the annual energy consumption parameter and 
DOE is proposing standards for air cleaners based on IEF; therefore, 
the standards in this NOPR account for standby mode 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 provisions of 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 this 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.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    Air cleaners are not currently subject to energy conservation 
standards.
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.

[[Page 21515]]

    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 August 23, 2022, groups representing manufacturers, energy and 
environmental advocates, and consumer groups, hereinafter referred to 
as ``the Joint Stakeholders,'' \4\ submitted a ``Joint Statement of 
Joint Stakeholder Proposal On Recommended Energy Conservation Standards 
And Test Procedure For Consumer Room Air Cleaners'' (``Joint 
Proposal''),\5\ which 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 the Association of Home 
Appliance Manufacturers' (``AHAM's'') industry standard, AHAM AC-7-
2022, ``Energy Test Method for Consumer Room Air Cleaners,'' 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 I.1, for conventional room air 
cleaners with proposed compliance dates of December 31, 2023, and 
December 31, 2025, respectively. (Id. at p. 9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.
    \5\ Available as document number 16 in the docket for this 
rulemaking.

      Table I.1--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 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 clean air delivery rate (``CADR'') and include only 
active mode energy consumption in the calculation of the CADR per watt 
(``CADR/W'') metric, the Joint Stakeholders presented data to show that 
there is a strong relationship between the PM2.5 CADR 
calculation, which is the metric specified in appendix FF, and the 
measured smoke and dust CADR values. (Id. at p. 6) Additionally, DOE 
compared the IEF metric, calculated using PM2.5 CADR and 
annual energy consumption in active mode and standby mode, to the smoke 
CADR/W metric, calculated using smoke CADR and active mode power 
consumption, using the ENERGY STAR database, 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)
    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 previously, 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,

[[Page 21516]]

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 
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.
    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 the issuance of a direct final rule. As a result, 
DOE has published a direct final rule establishing energy conservation 
standards for air cleaners elsewhere in this Federal Register.
    If DOE receives adverse comments that may provide a reasonable 
basis for withdrawal and withdraws the direct final rule, DOE will 
consider those comments and any other comments received in determining 
how to proceed with this proposed rule.
    For further background information on these proposed standards and 
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this Federal Register. That document includes additional 
discussion on the EPCA requirements for promulgation of the energy 
conservation standards, the history of the standards rulemakings 
establishing such standards, as well as information on the test 
procedures used to measure the energy efficiency of air cleaners. The 
document also contains in-depth discussion of the analyses conducted in 
support of this proposed rulemaking, the methodologies DOE used in 
conducting those analyses, and the analytical results.

II. Proposed Standards

    When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the 
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, 
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    DOE considered the impacts of standards for air cleaners at each 
trial standard level (``TSL''), beginning with the maximum 
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') level, to determine whether 
that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not 
justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and 
undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency 
level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified 
and saves a significant amount of energy. DOE refers to this process as 
the ``walk-down'' analysis.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on 
employment.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers 
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of 
information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or 
aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant 
delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term, 
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings 
relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational 
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant 
tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between 
renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than 
perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, 
consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than 
expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy 
cost savings.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forgo the 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to 
lost revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy 
savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the 
standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products 
purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings 
from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of 
shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 
of the direct final rule TSD available in the docket for this proposed 
rulemaking. However, DOE's current analysis does not explicitly control 
for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, preferences across 
subcategories of products or specific features, or consumer price 
sensitivity variation according to household income.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883. 
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller 
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes 
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, 
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical 
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare 
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses 
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy

[[Page 21517]]

conservation standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology 
by which these impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory 
process.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Sanstad, A. H. Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf (last accessed July 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the potential 
impact of energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to 
quantify this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Air Cleaners Standards

    Table II.1 and Table II.2 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for air cleaners. The national impacts are 
measured over the lifetime of air cleaners purchased in the analysis 
period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with standards 
(2024-2057 for TSL3 and 2028-2057 for the other TSLs). The energy 
savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer 
to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') results. The efficiency levels contained 
in each TSL are described in section V.A of the direct final rule 
published elsewhere in this Federal Register.

                Table II.1--Summary of Analytical Results for Air Cleaners TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Category                            TSL 1      TSL 2      TSL 3      TSL 4      TSL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads....................................................       0.76       1.73       1.80       4.05       4.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)................................       24.1       55.0       57.7      128.5      145.7
CH4 (thousand tons)......................................      173.0      394.8      411.4      922.8    1,046.1
N2O (thousand tons)......................................        0.2        0.5        0.6        1.2        1.4
SO2 (thousand tons)......................................       10.0       22.8       24.2       53.2       60.4
NOX (thousand tons)......................................       38.2       87.2       91.2      203.7      231.0
Hg (tons)................................................        0.1        0.1        0.2        0.3        0.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings..........................        5.6       13.2       14.1      (5.9)      (0.8)
Climate Benefits *.......................................        1.1        2.6        2.8        6.1        6.9
Health Benefits **.......................................        1.9        4.4        4.7       10.2       11.6
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................        8.6       20.2       21.6       10.4       17.7
Consumer Incremental Product Costs.......................        0.1        0.4        0.5        2.4        3.7
Consumer Net Benefits....................................        5.4       12.8       13.7      (8.4)      (4.5)
Total Net Benefits.......................................        8.5       19.8       21.1        7.9       14.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings..........................        2.2        5.3        6.0      (2.3)      (0.2)
Climate Benefits *.......................................        1.1        2.6        2.8        6.1        6.9
Health Benefits **.......................................        0.7        1.6        1.8        3.7        4.2
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................        4.1        9.5       10.6        7.5       10.9
Consumer Incremental Product Costs.......................        0.1        0.2        0.2        1.1        1.7
Consumer Net Benefits....................................        2.2        5.1        5.8      (3.4)      (1.9)
Total Net Benefits.......................................        4.0        9.3       10.3        6.4        9.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with air cleaners shipped from the compliance year
  through 2057. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped
  starting in the compliance year up through 2057.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together,
  these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated
  with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department 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 NOX and SO2) 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. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
  of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. 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 the Department 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.


                            Table II.2--Summary of Analytical Results for Air Cleaner TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       TSL 3
                        Category                               TSL 1           TSL 2     --------------------------------      TSL 4           TSL 5
                                                                                              Tier 1          Tier 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2021$) (No-new-standards case INPV  1,528 to 1,536  1,504 to 1,528  1,479 to 1,479  1,499 to 1,525  1,422 to 1,536  1,394 to 1,574
 = 1,565.9).............................................

[[Page 21518]]

 
Industry NPV (% change).................................      (2) to (2)      (4) to (2)      (2) to (2)      (4) to (3)      (9) to (2)       (11) to 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: 10 <= PM2.5 CADR < 100.............................             $18             $12             $18             $12           ($87)           ($87)
PC2: 100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 150............................             $38             $50             $38             $50           ($60)             $11
PC3: PM2.5 CADR >= 150..................................            $105             $94            $105             $94             $29             $20
Shipment-Weighted Average *.............................             $67             $62             $67             $62           ($23)           ($10)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Consumer Simple PBP (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: 10 <= PM2.5 CADR < 100.............................             0.9             1.4             0.9             1.4              NA              NA
PC2: 100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 150............................             0.4             0.5             0.4             0.5              NA             1.6
PC3: PM2.5 CADR >= 150..................................             0.1             0.1             0.1             0.1             0.3             0.3
Shipment-Weighted Average *.............................             0.4             0.5             0.4             0.5              NA              NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Percent of Consumers That Experience a Net Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: 10 <= PM2.5 CADR < 100.............................              0%              6%              0%              6%             88%             94%
PC2: 100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 150............................              0%              0%              0%              0%             75%             54%
PC3: PM2.5 CADR >= 150..................................              0%              0%              0%              0%             50%             56%
Shipment-Weighted Average *.............................              0%              1%              0%              1%             66%             65%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. The entry ``NA'' means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain TSLs.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2028.

    DOE first considered TSL 5, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels for all the three product classes. Specifically, for 
all three product classes, DOE's expected design path for TSL 5 (which 
represents EL 4 for all product classes) incorporates cylindrical 
shaped filters and brushless direct current (``BLDC'') motors with an 
optimized motor-filter relationship. In particular, the cylindrical 
filter, which reduces the pressure drop across the filter because it 
allows for a larger surface area for the same volume of filter 
material, optimized with the size of the BLDC motor provides the 
improvement in efficiency at TSL 5 compared to TSL 4. TSL 5 would save 
an estimated 4.59 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. 
Under TSL 5, the net present value (``NPV'') of consumer benefit would 
be -$1.9 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$4.5 billion 
using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 145.7 million 
metric tons (``Mt'') of carbon dioxide (``CO2''), 60.4 
thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (``SO2''), 231.0 thousand 
tons of nitrogen oxides(``NOX''), 0.4 tons of mercury 
(``Hg''), 1,046.1 thousand tons of methane (``CH4''), and 
1.4 thousand tons of nitrous oxide(``N2O''). The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced greenhouse gas 
(``GHG'') emissions (associated with the average social cost of GHG 
(``SC-GHG'') at a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 5 is $6.9 billion. 
The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced 
SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 5 is $4.2 billion 
using a 7-percent discount rate and $11.6 billion using a 3-percent 
discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 5 is $9.2 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 5 is $14.0 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however, DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 5, the average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') impact is a loss of 
$87 for Product Class 1 (10 <= PM2.5 CADR < 100), an average 
LCC savings of $11 for Product Class 2 (100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 
150), and an average LCC savings of $20 for Product Class 3 
(PM2.5 CADR >= 150). The simple payback period cannot be 
calculated for Product Class 1 due to the max-tech EL not being cost 
effective compared to the baseline EL, and is 1.6 years for Product 
Class 2 and 0.3 years for Product Class 3. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost is 94 percent for Product Class 1, 54 
percent for Product Class 2 and 56 percent for Product Class 3.
    For the low-income consumer group, the average LCC impact is a loss 
of $97 for Product Class 1, an average LCC loss of $9 for Product Class 
2, and an average LCC loss of $7 for Product Class 3. The simple 
payback period cannot be calculated for Product Class 1 due to a higher 
annual operating cost for the selected EL than the cost for baseline 
units, and is 2.7 years and 0.5 years for Product Class 2 and Product 
Class 3, respectively. The fraction of low-income consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost is 95 percent for Product Class 1, 64 
percent for Product Class 2 and 67 percent for Product Class 3.
    At TSL 5, the projected change in industry net present value 
(``INPV'') ranges from a decrease of $171.5 million to an increase of 
$8.1 million, which corresponds to a decrease of 11.0 percent and an 
increase of 0.5 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry may 
need to invest $145.2 million to comply with standards set at TSL 5.
    At TSL 5, compliant models are typically designed to house a 
cylindrical filter, and the cabinets of these units are also typically 
cylindrical in shape. The move to cylindrical designs would require 
investment in new designs and new production tooling for most of the 
industry, as only 3 percent of units shipped meet TSL 5 today. 
Manufacturers would need to invest in both updated designs and updated 
cabinet tooling. The vast majority of product is made from injection 
molded plastic and DOE expects the need for new injection molding dies 
to drive conversion cost for the industry.
    The Secretary concludes that at TSL 5 for air cleaners, the 
benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and the estimated 
monetary value of the

[[Page 21519]]

emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on many 
consumers (negative LCC savings of Product Class 1, a majority of 
consumers with net costs for all three product classes, and negative 
NPV of consumer benefits), and the capital conversion costs and profit 
margin impacts that could result in reductions in INPV for 
manufacturers.
    DOE next considered TSL 4, which represents the second highest 
efficiency levels. TSL 4 comprises EL 3 for all three product classes. 
Specifically, DOE's expected design path for TSL 4 incorporates many of 
the same technologies and design strategies as described for TSL 5. At 
TSL 4, all three product classes would incorporate cylindrical shaped 
filters and BLDC motors without an optimized motor-filter relationship. 
The cylindrical filter, which reduces the pressure drop across the 
filter because it allows for a larger surface area for the same volume 
of filter material, provides the improvement in efficiency at TSL 4 
compared to TSL 3 which utilizes rectangular shaped filters and less 
efficient motor designs. TSL 4 would save an estimated 4.05 quads of 
energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of 
consumer benefit would be -$3.4 billion using a discount rate of 7 
percent, and -$8.4 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 128.5 Mt of 
CO2, 53.2 thousand tons of SO2, 203.7 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.3 tons of Hg, 922.8 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 1.2 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 4 is $6.1 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 4 is $3.7 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $10.2 billion 
using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $6.4 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $7.9 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a loss of $87 for Product Class 
1, an average LCC loss of $60 for Product Class 2 and an average 
savings of $29 for Product Class 3. The simple payback period cannot be 
calculated for Product Class 1 and Product Class 2 due to the higher 
annual operating cost compared to the baseline units, and is 0.3 years 
for Product Class 3. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC 
cost is 88 percent for Product Class 1, 75 percent for Product Class 2 
and 50 percent for Product Class 3.
    For the low-income consumer group, the average LCC impact is an 
average loss of $95 for Product Class 1, an average LCC loss of $78 for 
Product Class 2 and an average savings of $2 for Product Class 3. The 
simple payback period cannot be calculated for Product Class 1 and 
Product Class 2 due to a higher annual operating cost for the selected 
EL than the cost for baseline units, and is 0.4 years for Product Class 
3. The fraction of low-income consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 
89 percent for Product Class 1, 82 percent for Product Class 2 and 61 
percent for Product Class 3.
    At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$143.7 million to a decrease of $30.2 million, which correspond to 
decreases of 9.2 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. Industry 
conversion costs could reach $136.6 million at this TSL.
    At TSL 4, compliant models are typically designed to house a 
cylindrical filter, and the cabinets of these units are also typically 
cylindrical in shape--much like TSL 5. Again, the major driver of 
impacts to manufacturers is the move to cylindrical designs, requiring 
redesign of products and investment in new production tooling for most 
of the industry, as only 7 percent of sales meet TSL 4 today.
    Based upon the above considerations, the Secretary concludes that 
at TSL 4 for air cleaners, the benefits of energy savings, emission 
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the health benefits and 
climate benefits from emissions reductions would be outweighed by 
negative LCC savings for Product Class 1 and Product Class 2, the high 
percentage of consumers with net costs for all product classes, 
negative NPV of consumer benefits, and the capital conversion costs and 
profit margin impacts that could result in reductions in INPV for 
manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded 
that TSL 4 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered the recommended TSL (TSL3), which represents 
the Joint Proposal with EL 1 (Tier 1) going into effect in 2024 
(compliance date December 31, 2023) and EL 2 (Tier 2) going into effect 
in 2026 (compliance date December 31, 2025). EL 1 comprises the lowest 
EL considered which aligns with the standards established by the States 
of Maryland, Nevada, and New Jersey, and the District of Columbia. EL 2 
comprises the current ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 level and the standard adopted 
by the State of Washington. DOE's design path for TSL 3, which includes 
both EL 1 and EL 2 for all three product classes, includes rectangular 
shaped filters and either shaded-pole motors (``SPM'') or permanent 
split capacitor motors (``PSC''). Specifically, for Product Class 1, 
the Tier 1 standard, which is represented by EL 1, includes a 
rectangular filter and SPM motor with an optimized motor-filter 
relationship while the Tier 2 standard, which is represented by EL 2, 
includes a rectangular filter and PSC motor, which is generally more 
efficient than an SPM motor. For Product Class 2 and Product Class 3, 
the Tier 1 standard, which is represented by EL 1, includes a 
rectangular filter and PSC motor while the Tier 2 standard, which is 
represented by EL 2, also includes a rectangular filter and PSC motor 
but with an optimized motor-filter relationship, which improves the 
efficiency of EL 2 over EL 1. TSL 3 would save an estimated 1.80 quads 
of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of 
consumer benefit would be $13.7 billion using a discount rate of 7 
percent, and $5.8 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at the recommended TSL are 57.7 
Mt of CO2, 24.2 thousand tons of SO2, 91.2 
thousand tons of NOX, 0.2 tons of Hg, 411.4 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.6 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
the recommended TSL is $2.8 billion. The estimated monetary value of 
the health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions at the recommended TSL is $1.8 billion using a 7-percent 
discount rate and $4.7 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at the recommended 
TSL is $10.3 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 
and costs,

[[Page 21520]]

the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $21.1 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
standard level is economically justified.
    At the recommended TSL with the two-tier approach, the average LCC 
impacts are average savings of $18 and $12 for Product Class 1, $38 and 
$50 for Product Class 2, and $105 and $94 for Product Class 3, for Tier 
1 and Tier 2 respectively. The simple payback periods are below 1.4 
years for the two tiers of Product Class 1, below 0.5 years for the two 
tiers of Product Class 2, and 0.1 for the two tiers of Product Class 3. 
The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is below 6 
percent for the two tiers of all three product classes.
    For the low-income consumer group, the average LCC impact is a 
savings of $17 and $10 for the two tiers of Product Class 1, $34 and 
$44 for the two tiers of Product Class 2, and $85 and $76 for the two 
tiers of Product Class 3. The simple payback periods for the two-tier 
approach are 1.2 years for Tier 1 and 1.9 years for Tier 2 for Product 
Class 1, are 0.6 years and 0.7 years for Tier 1 and Tier 2 respectively 
for Product Class 2, and is 0.2 years for both tiers of Product Class 
3. The fraction of low-income consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 
10 percent for Tier 2 of Product Class 1, and 0 percent for Tier 1 of 
Product Class 1 and all other tiers of the other product classes.
    At the recommended TSL, the projected change in INPV ranges from a 
decrease of $66.7 million to a decrease of $40.7 million, which 
correspond to decreases of 4.3 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively. 
Industry conversion costs could reach $57.3 million at this TSL.
    A sizeable portion of the market, approximately 40 percent, can 
currently meet the Tier 2 level. Additionally, a substantial portion of 
existing models can be updated to meet Tier 2 through optimization and 
improved components rather than a full product redesign. In particular, 
manufacturers may be able to leverage their existing cabinet designs, 
reducing the level of investment necessitated by the standard.
    An even larger portion of the market, approximately 76 percent, can 
meet the Tier 1 level today. Efficiency improvements to meet Tier 1 are 
achievable by improving the motor or 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. Manufacturers may be able to leverage 
their existing cabinet designs, reducing the level of investment 
necessitated by the standard.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has concluded that at a standard set at the 
recommended TSL for air cleaners would be economically justified. At 
this TSL, the average LCC savings for all three product classes are 
positive. Only an estimated 6 percent of Product Class 1 consumers 
experience a net cost. No Product Class 2 and Product Class 3 consumers 
would experience net cost based on the estimates. The FFC national 
energy savings are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is 
positive using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. At the 
recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the 
more conservative discount rate of 7 percent, is over 84 times higher 
than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard 
levels at the recommended TSL are economically justified even without 
weighing the estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When 
those emissions reductions are included--representing $2.8 billion in 
climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent 
discount rate), and $4.7 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or 
$1.8 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--the 
rationale becomes stronger still.
    As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL 
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 
EPCA. Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select 
the new energy conservation standards, DOE notes that as compared to 
TSL 4 and TSL 5, TSL 3 has positive LCC savings for all selected 
standards levels, a shorter payback period, smaller percentages of 
consumers experiencing a net cost, a lower maximum decrease in INPV, 
and lower manufacturer conversion costs.
    Although DOE considered new standard levels for air cleaners by 
grouping the efficiency levels for each product class into TSLs, DOE 
analyzes and evaluates all possible ELs for each product class in its 
analysis. For all three product classes, the adopted standard levels 
represent units with rectangular filter shape with a PSC motor at EL 1 
and an optimized motor-filter relationship at EL 2. Additionally, for 
all three product classes the adopted standard levels represent the 
maximum energy savings that does not result in a large percentage of 
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost. TSL 3 would also realize an 
additional 0.07 quads FFC energy savings compared to TSL 2, which 
selects the same standard levels but with a later compliance date. The 
efficiency levels at the specified standard levels result in positive 
LCC savings for all three product classes, significantly reduce the 
number of consumers experiencing a net cost, and reduce the decrease in 
INPV and conversion costs to the point where DOE has concluded these 
levels are economically justified, as discussed for TSL 3 in the 
preceding paragraphs.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE adopts the 
energy conservation standards for air cleaners at the recommended TSL. 
The new energy conservation standards for air cleaners, which are 
expressed in IEF using PM2.5 CADR/W, are shown in Table 
II.3.

     Table II.3--New Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                IEF (PM2.5 CADR/W)
              Product class              -------------------------------
                                              Tier 1          Tier 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 21521]]

B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards

    The benefits and costs of the adopted standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2021$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the adopted standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less 
energy), minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the 
annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits.
    Table II.4 shows the annualized values for air cleaners under the 
recommended TSL, expressed in 2021$. The results under the primary 
estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent 
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the 
standards adopted in this rule 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. In this case, the net benefit amounts 
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 amounts to 
$1,030 million per year.

        Table II.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards (Recommended TSL) for Air Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Million 2021$/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Low-net-        High-net-
                                                                      Primary        benefits        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.1of 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
  proposed rule). 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.

III. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule unit the date provided in the DATES section at the 
beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit 
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of the proposal in 
this notice and the analysis as described in the direct final rule 
published elsewhere in this Federal Register, DOE is particularly 
interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties 
concerning the following issues:
    1. The product classes established for air cleaners. See section 
IV.A.1 of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this Federal 
Register.
    2. The technology options identified to improve the efficiency of 
air cleaners and whether there are additional technologies available 
that may improve air cleaner performance. See section IV.A.2 of the 
direct final rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register.
    3. The baseline efficiency levels DOE identified for each product 
class. See section IV.C.1.a of the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this Federal Register.
    4. The max-tech efficiency levels DOE identified for each product 
class and the technology options available at max-tech. See section 
IV.C.1.b of the direct

[[Page 21522]]

final rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register.
    5. The incremental manufacturer production costs DOE estimated at 
each efficiency level for each product class. See section IV.C.3 of the 
direct final rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register.
    6. The filter costs DOE estimated at each efficiency level for each 
product class. See section IV.C.3 of the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this Federal Register.
    7. Consumer usage data to indicate annual energy use by household 
or commercial building including: average number of air cleaners per 
household or average number of air cleaners per commercial building 
square footage; average number of usage hours per day; average number 
months of operation per year; average number of filter changes per 
year; and most common fan setting. See section IV.E of the direct final 
rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register.
    8. Historical shipments data and shipments growth rate by 
efficiency level and product class for both the residential and 
commercial markets. See section IV.G of the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this Federal Register.
    9. Product conversion costs, which are investments in research and 
development, product testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized 
costs necessary to update product designs to comply with energy 
conservation standards. See section IV.J.2.c of the direct final rule 
published elsewhere in this Federal Register.
    10. Capital conversion costs, which are investments in property, 
plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or change existing 
manufacturing facilities such that compliant product designs can be 
fabricated and assembled. See section IV.J.2.c of the direct final rule 
published elsewhere in this Federal Register.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If 
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

B. Public Meeting

    As stated previously, if DOE withdraws the direct final rule 
published elsewhere in this Federal Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for additional 
comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of any meeting 
in the Federal Register.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

    The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are 
identical to those conducted for the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this Federal Register. Please see the direct final rule 
for further details.

A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for

[[Page 21523]]

public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if 
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. As required by E.O. 13272, 
``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 
53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on 
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on 
small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. 
68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the 
Office of the General Counsel's website (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has prepared the following FRFA for the products 
that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
    For manufacturers of air cleaners, the SBA has set a size 
threshold, which defines those entities classified as ``small 
businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small 
business size standards to determine whether any small entities would 
be subject to the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The 
size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification 
System (``NAICS'') code and industry description and are available at 
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. Manufacturing of air 
cleaners is classified under NAICS 335210, ``Small Electrical Appliance 
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer 
for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    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 EPCA.\8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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 the requirements under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(A)-(B), DOE is issuing this NOPR proposing 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''. 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''), 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).
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles. DOE has determined the coverage of air 
cleaners is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA. 
87 FR 42297. Furthermore, once a product is determined to be a covered 
product, the Secretary may establish standards for such product, 
subject to the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p), provided that 
DOE determines that the additional criteria at 42 U.S.C. 6295(l) and 42 
U.S.C. 6295(p) have been met.
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 
February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. DOE conducted a market survey to 
identify potential small manufacturers of air cleaners. DOE began its 
assessment by reviewing Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers' 
(AHAM's) database \9\ of air cleaners, models in ENERGY STAR V.2.0,\10\ 
California Air Resources Board,\11\ and individual company websites. 
DOE then consulted publicly available data, such as manufacturer 
websites, manufacturer specifications and product literature, and 
import/export logs (e.g., bills of lading from Panjiva \12\), to 
identify original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') of air cleaners. 
DOE further relied on public data and subscription-based market 
research tools (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet reports \13\) to determine 
company, location, headcount, and annual revenue. DOE screened out 
companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not 
meet the SBA's definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned 
and operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. ``Find a 
Certified Room Air Cleaner.'' Available at: https://ahamverifide.org/directory-of-air-cleaners/ Last accessed January 
24, 2022.
    \10\ Available at: https://data.energystar.gov/Active-Specifications/ENERGY-STAR-Certified-Room-Air-Cleaners/jmck-i55n/data. Last accessed May 31, 2022.
    \11\ The California Air Resources Board. ``List of CARB-
Certified Air Cleaning Devices.'' Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/list-carb-certified-air-cleaning-devices Last 
accessed May 31, 2022.
    \12\ S&P Global. Panjiva Market Intelligence is available at: 
panjiva.com/import-export/United-States (Last accessed May 5, 2022).
    \13\ The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers login is available at 
app.dnbhoovers.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE initially identified 43 OEMs that sell air cleaners in the 
United States. Of the 43 OEMs identified, DOE tentatively determined 
four companies qualify as small businesses and are not foreign-owned 
and operated.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    DOE identified four small, domestic OEMs based on models in the 
``List of CARB-Certified Air Cleaning Devices'' \14\ and through 
individual company website searches. The four companies had limited 
technical specifications available in their public documents. However, 
in some cases, DOE was able to determine likely product performance 
based on the available specifications, component information, and 
filter design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The California Air Resources Board. ``List of CARB-
Certified Air Cleaning Devices.'' Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/list-carb-certified-air-cleaning-devices Last 
accessed May 31, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the first small business, DOE believes the company's range of 
products are likely within the scope of the test procedure and subject 
to the energy conservation standard. These products would meet Tier 2 
levels based on the available design information. The second small 
business has two models that are likely within the scope of the test 
procedure and subject to the energy conservation standard. Again, DOE 
has reviewed the publicly available

[[Page 21524]]

information and determined that both models would likely meet Tier 2 
levels.
    DOE determined that the third small business has two models that 
are within the scope of the test procedure and subject to the energy 
conservation standard. DOE suspects these two models would likely meet 
Tier 1, but not Tier 2 standards. DOE determined the fourth small 
business likely has five models that are within the scope of the test 
procedure and subject to the energy conservation standard. Based on the 
product specifications, three of those models may need redesign to meet 
Tier 2 standards.
    To meet the required efficiencies, DOE estimated conversion costs 
for the third small business by using model counts to scale the 
industry conversion costs. The third small business accounts for 0.1 
percent of models on the market that DOE identified. Based on a review 
of publicly available information, DOE believes the first small 
business utilizes soft tooling and flexible manufacturing techniques 
for production. Therefore, DOE anticipates this small manufacturer 
would have limited capital expenditures. To be conservative, DOE 
assumes this small manufacturer accounts to 0.1 percent of industry 
capital conversion costs at TSL 3, totaling $10,350. Product conversion 
costs may be necessary for developing, qualifying, sourcing, and 
testing new components. To be conservative, DOE assumed the 
manufacturer would incur 1 percent of industry product conversion 
costs. DOE estimates that the third small business may incur $10,350 in 
capital conversion costs and $18,000 in product conversion costs to 
meet Tier 2 standards for those two models. Based on subscription-based 
market research reports,\15\ the first small business has an annual 
revenue of approximately $1.31 million. The total conversion costs of 
$28,350 are approximately 0.7 percent of the third small business's 
revenue over the 3-year conversion period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ D&B Hoovers [verbar] Company Information [verbar] Industry 
Information [verbar] Lists, app.dnbhoovers.com/ (Last accessed 
November 29, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on a review of publicly available information, DOE estimated 
conversion costs for the fourth small business by using model counts to 
scale the industry conversion costs. The third small business accounts 
for 0.4 percent of models on the market that DOE identified. To be 
conservative, DOE assumed 1 percent of industry capital conversion 
costs and 1 percent of industry product conversion costs for the 
relevant product classes at TSL 3 would be attributable to this small 
business. The conversion costs total $121,500. Based on subscription-
based market research reports,\16\ the fourth small business has an 
annual revenue of approximately $272.64 million. The total conversion 
costs of $121,500 are approximately 0.01 percent of the first small 
business's revenue over the 3-year conversion period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ D&B Hoovers [bond] Company Information [bond] Industry 
Information [bond] Lists, app.dnbhoovers.com/ (Last accessed 
November 29, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small 
businesses that would result from the adopted standards, represented by 
TSL 3. In reviewing alternatives to the adopted standards, DOE examined 
energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels. While TSL 
1 and TSL 2 would reduce the impacts on small business manufacturers, 
it would come at the expense of a reduction in energy savings. TSL 1 
achieves 29 percent lower energy savings compared to the energy savings 
at TSL 3. TSL 2 achieves 18 percent lower energy savings compared to 
the energy savings at TSL 3.
    Establishing standards at TSL 3 balances the benefits of the energy 
savings at TSL 3 with the potential burdens placed on air cleaner 
manufacturers, including small business manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE 
is not adopting one of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, or 
the other policy alternatives examined as part of the regulatory impact 
analysis and included in chapter 17 of the direct final rule TSD.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue 
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an 
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a 
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final 
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, 
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to 
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain 
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small 
businesses.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 22, 
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on March 24, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 
430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Section 5.1.2 of appendix FF to subpart B of part 430 is revised to 
read as follows:

Appendix FF to Subpart B of Part 430-Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Air Cleaners

* * * * *
    5. Active Mode CADR and Power Measurement
* * * * *
    5.1.2. For determining compliance only with the standards specified 
in 10

[[Page 21525]]

CFR 430.32(ee)(1), PM2.5 CADR may alternately be calculated 
using the smoke CADR and dust CADR values determined according to 
Sections 5 and 6, respectively, of AHAM AC-1-2020, according to the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP23.000

* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  430.32 by adding paragraph (ee) to read as follows:


Sec.  430.32   Energy and water conservation standards and their 
compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (ee) Air Cleaners.
    (1) Conventional room air cleaners as defined in Sec.  430.2 with a 
PM2.5 clean air delivery rate (CADR) between 10 and 600 
(both inclusive) cubic feet per minute (cfm) and manufactured on or 
after December 31, 2023 and before December 31, 2025, shall have an 
integrated energy factor (IEF) in PM2.5 CADR/W, as 
determined in Sec.  430.23(hh)(4) that meets or exceeds the following 
values:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            IEF (PM2.5
                    Product capacity                          CADR/W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 10 <= PM2.5 CADR < 100..............................             1.7
(ii) 100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 150............................             1.9
(iii) PM2.5 CADR >= 150.................................             2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Conventional room air cleaners as defined in Sec.  430.2 with a 
PM2.5 clean air delivery rate (CADR) between 10 and 600 
(both inclusive) cubic feet per minute (cfm) and manufactured on or 
after December 31, 2025, shall have an integrated energy factor (IEF) 
in PM2.5 CADR/W, as determined in Sec.  430.23(hh)(4) that 
meets or exceeds the following values:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            IEF (PM2.5
                    Product capacity                          CADR/W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 10 <= PM2.5 CADR < 100..............................             1.9
(ii) 100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 150............................             2.4
(iii) PM2.5 CADR >= 150.................................             2.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-06498 Filed 4-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P