[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