diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/.env.example b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/.env.example new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0d37892 --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/.env.example @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +# MongoDB Atlas — M0 works for dev; M10+ for Search/Vector Search in production +MONGODB_URI=mongodb+srv://:@cluster.mongodb.net/?appName=devrel-tutorial-deepagents-langchain-vfs + +# AWS — S3 bucket and region (region governs S3, SQS, AND Bedrock together) +S3_BUCKET_NAME=my-deepagents-vfs-bucket +AWS_REGION=us-east-1 +AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID= +AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY= + +# Embedding provider: "bedrock" (default) or "openai" +# Bedrock uses Titan Text Embeddings v2 — must be enabled in your region. +# OpenAI drops the Bedrock enablement step at the cost of a second API key. +EMBEDDING_PROVIDER=openai + +# Required when EMBEDDING_PROVIDER=openai +OPENAI_API_KEY=sk-... + +# LLM for agents (OpenAI) +# Used by the coordinator and sub-agents for reasoning. +# OPENAI_API_KEY above covers this if using OpenAI for both. + +# regulations.gov API key — only needed for tools/fetch_docket.py (one-time corpus pull) +# NOT needed to run the demo; the corpus is vendored in corpus/. +REGULATIONS_GOV_API_KEY= diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/.gitattributes b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e69de29 diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/.gitignore b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/.gitignore new file mode 100644 index 0000000..15832dc --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/.gitignore @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +# Python +__pycache__/ +*.pyc +*.egg-info/ +dist/ +build/ +.eggs/ + +# Environment +.env +.venv/ +venv/ + +# IDE +.idea/ +.vscode/ +*.swp + +# Vendored source (reference only, not shipped) +_vendored_vfs/ + +# Claude Code +CLAUDE.md + +# Internal feedback (not for publication) +INTEGRATION_FEEDBACK.md + +# OS +.DS_Store +Thumbs.db diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/README.md b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2145171 --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +# MongoDB Atlas VFS for LangChain Deep Agents + +**Building a Multi-Agent Pipeline Where Nothing Gets Lost** + +A multi-agent research pipeline that reads a real federal rulemaking docket +(DOE air-cleaner efficiency standards), finds cross-document discrepancies no +single file contains, and survives being killed mid-run. + +Demonstrates [langchain-mongodb-deepagents-vfs](https://github.com/langchain-ai/langchain-mongodb) — +a MongoDB Atlas-backed virtual filesystem adapter for +[LangChain Deep Agents](https://github.com/langchain-ai/deepagents). + +## What this demo shows + +1. **Discovery across formats** — hybrid search (`$rankFusion`) finds the same + concept across PDFs, XLSX spreadsheets, and DOCX uploads where `ripgrep` and + literal-substring search cannot. + +2. **Multi-agent coordination via shared workspace** — four sub-agents search a + read-only corpus and write findings to a durable workspace. A writer reads + those findings by exact path and produces a final memo. + +3. **The kill test** — `SIGKILL` the pipeline after 2 of 4 stages. Resume with + the same `run_id`. It picks up where it left off because the workspace survived. + +## Prerequisites + +**Three accounts required:** + +| Service | What for | Tier | +|---------|----------|------| +| MongoDB Atlas | Chunk storage + hybrid search | M0 (dev) / M10+ (production) | +| AWS | S3 bucket + optional Bedrock embeddings | Free tier works for S3 | +| OpenAI | LLM for agents + embeddings (with `EMBEDDING_PROVIDER=openai`) | Pay-as-you-go | + +> **Region gotcha:** `AWS_REGION` governs S3, SQS, **and** Bedrock together — +> they cannot be split. If using Bedrock embeddings, Titan Text Embeddings v2 +> must be enabled in that region or you'll get `NoRegionError`. + +## Setup + +```bash +# Clone and install +cd partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents +pip install -e ".[openai,dev]" + +# Configure +cp .env.example .env +# Edit .env with your credentials + +# Seed the corpus into S3 + MongoDB +python scripts/00_seed_corpus.py +``` + +## Running the demo + +### Beat 1 — Discovery across formats + +```bash +# Control: ripgrep over local files +bash scripts/01_control_grep.sh + +# Control: StoreBackend + MongoDBStore (literal substring only) +python scripts/01b_control_storebackend.py + +# MongoFilesystemBackend — hybrid $rankFusion search +python scripts/02_discovery.py +``` + +### Beat 2 — Multi-agent pipeline + +```bash +python scripts/03_pipeline.py --run-id aircleaners-001 +``` + +### Beat 3 — The kill test + +```bash +# Kill after 2 of 4 stages +python scripts/03_pipeline.py --run-id aircleaners-002 --kill-after 2 + +# Resume — reads the manifest, skips completed stages +python scripts/04_resume.py --run-id aircleaners-002 +``` + +## Architecture + +``` +coordinator +├── writes workspace//plan.md +├── writes workspace//manifest.json ← run receipt +├── task → proposal-reader → findings/proposal.md +├── task → adoption-reader → findings/adopted.md +├── task → numbers-reader → findings/numbers.md +└── task → writer → reads three by path → memo.md +``` + +**Two planes, two guarantees:** + +| Plane | Path | Operations | Guarantee | +|-------|------|-----------|-----------| +| Corpus (discovery) | `corpus/` | `grep`, `glob`, `ls` | Eventually consistent | +| Workspace (coordination) | `workspace//` | `write`, `read`, `edit` | Read-after-write | + +Agents **discover** through the corpus and **coordinate** through the workspace. + +## The corpus + +DOE docket EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035: Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners. +Public domain. Vendored in `corpus/` — no API key needed to run the demo. + +**The question:** *Did DOE adopt what the Joint Stakeholders proposed, and do the +energy-savings numbers agree?* + +## Cost + +Approximate cost per full pipeline run (4 stages, gpt-4o): + +| Run type | Tokens | Cost | +|----------|--------|------| +| Cold | ~15K–25K | ~$0.05–0.15 | +| Resumed (after kill at stage 2) | ~8K–12K | ~$0.03–0.07 | + +## License + +Apache-2.0. Corpus documents are US federal government publications (public domain). diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/README.md b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6d2b2ab --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +# Corpus: DOE Docket EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035 + +Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners. +All files are US federal government publications (public domain). + +## How to populate + +Run `tools/fetch_docket.py` with a regulations.gov API key: + +```bash +export REGULATIONS_GOV_API_KEY=your-key +python tools/fetch_docket.py +``` + +This downloads the full docket into the directory structure below. + +## Expected structure + +``` +corpus/ +├── rules/ +│ ├── 88FR21752-final-rule.pdf # Final rule (88 FR 21752) +│ ├── nopr.pdf # Simultaneous NOPR (FR doc 2023-06498) +│ └── confirmation.pdf # Confirmation of dates (FR doc 2023-18860) +├── analysis/ +│ ├── tsd.pdf # Technical Support Document +│ ├── lcc.xlsx # Life-Cycle Cost Analysis +│ ├── nia.xlsx # National Impact Analysis +│ ├── grim-joint.xlsx # GRIM — Joint Proposal version +│ └── grim-dfr.xlsx # GRIM — Direct Final Rule version +└── comments/ + ├── 0003-trane.pdf + ├── 0005-miaq.pdf + ├── 0006-electrolux.pdf + ├── 0007-lennox.pdf + ├── 0008-joint-commenters.pdf + ├── 0009-ca-ious.pdf + ├── 0010-blueair.pdf + ├── 0011-molekule.pdf + ├── 0012-daikin.pdf + ├── 0013-neea.pdf + ├── 0014-synexis.pdf + ├── 0015-ahri.pdf + └── 0016-joint-stakeholders.pdf +``` + +## Source + +- Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/11/2023-06499 +- regulations.gov: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035 diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0001.htm b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0001.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..999fcf1 --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0001.htm @@ -0,0 +1,1758 @@ + + +Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2022) + +
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2022)]
+[Proposed Rules]
+[Pages 3702-3715]
+From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
+[FR Doc No: 2022-01035]
+
+
+=======================================================================
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
+
+10 CFR Part 430
+
+[EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035 and EERE-2021-TP-0036]
+
+
+Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure and Energy
+Conservation Standards for Consumer Products; Consumer Air Cleaners
+
+AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
+Energy.
+
+ACTION: Request for information.
+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating
+rulemaking activities to consider potential test procedure and energy
+conservation standards for consumer air cleaners. Through this request
+for information (``RFI''), DOE seeks data and information regarding
+development and evaluation of a new test procedure that would be
+reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy use
+during a representative average use cycle for the product without being
+unduly burdensome to conduct. Additionally, this RFI solicits
+information regarding the development and evaluation of potential new
+energy conservation standards for consumer air cleaners, and whether
+such standards would result in significant energy savings, be
+technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE also welcomes
+written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of
+this document (including those topics not specifically raised), as well
+as the submission of data and other relevant information.
+
+DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
+accepted on or before February 24, 2022.
+
+ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
+the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the
+instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
+may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035
+and EERE-2021-BT-TP-0036, by any of the following methods:
+    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
+instructions for submitting comments.
+    2. Email: to [email protected] or
+[email protected]. Include docket number EERE-2021-BT-
+STD-0035 and EERE-2021-BT-TP-0036 in the subject line of the message.
+    No telefacsimilies (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
+instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
+process, see section IV of this document.
+    Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
+through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
+delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
+temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
+the ongoing Coronavirus disease 2019 (``COVID-19'') pandemic. DOE is
+currently suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and
+hand delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an
+undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at
+(202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once
+the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
+resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission,
+including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
+    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, some
+documents listed in the index, such as those containing information
+that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.
+
+[[Page 3703]]
+
+    The docket web pages can be found at: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0036 and 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 IV for
+information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
+
+FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
+    Dr. Stephanie Johnson, 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:
+(202) 287-1943. 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 and 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. Statutory Authority
+    B. Rulemaking History
+    C. Rulemaking Process for Test Procedure
+    D. Rulemaking Process for Energy Conservation Standards
+    E. Deviation From Appendix A
+II. Request for Information and Comments Pertaining to Potential
+Test Procedure
+    A. Scope and Definition
+    B. Test Procedure for Consumer Air Cleaners
+     1. Current Industry Test Procedure
+     2. Other Test Procedures
+    C. Metric for Consumer Air Cleaners
+III. Request for Information and Comments Pertaining to Potential
+Energy Conservation Standards
+    A. Market and Technology Assessment
+     1. Product Classes
+     2. Technology Assessment
+    B. Screening Analysis
+    C. Engineering Analysis
+    1. Efficiency Analysis
+    2. Cost Analysis
+    D. Distribution Channels and Markups Analysis
+    E. Energy Use Analysis
+     1. Consumer Samples and Market Breakdowns
+     2. Operating Hours
+    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
+    G. Repair and Maintenance Costs
+    H. Shipments
+    I. National Impact Analysis
+    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
+IV. Submission of Comments
+
+I. Introduction
+
+    Consumer air cleaners are not currently subject to a DOE test
+procedure or energy conservation standards. On September 16, 2021, DOE
+published a notice of proposed determination (``NOPD'') in which DOE
+tentatively determined that consumer air cleaners qualify as a
+``covered product'' under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
+amended (``EPCA'') \1\ (``September 2021 NOPD''). 86 FR 51629. DOE
+tentatively determined in the September 2021 NOPD that coverage of
+consumer air cleaners is necessary or appropriate to carry out the
+purposes of EPCA, and that the average U.S. household energy use for
+consumer air cleaners is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours (``kWh'')
+per year. Id.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \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).
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test
+procedures and energy conservation standards for covered products,
+relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of
+establishing federal regulations for consumer air cleaners, if DOE
+determines such products are covered products, and a discussion of
+DOE's rulemaking process for test procedures and energy conservation
+standards.
+
+A. Statutory Authority
+
+    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
+of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
+6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
+Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth
+a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency for
+certain products, referred to as ``covered products.'' \3\ In addition
+to specifying a list of consumer products that are covered products,
+EPCA contains provisions that enable the Secretary of Energy to
+classify additional types of consumer products as covered products. To
+classify a consumer product as a covered product, the Secretary must
+determine that:
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
+Part B was redesignated Part A.
+    \3\ The enumerated list of covered products is at 42 U.S.C.
+6292(a)(1)-(19).
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    (1) Classifying the product as a covered product is necessary or
+appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA; and
+    (2) The average annual per household \4\ energy use by products of
+such type is likely to exceed 100 kWh (or British thermal unit
+(``Btu'') equivalent) per year. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1)) As stated, DOE
+has preliminarily determined that consumer air cleaners are covered
+products. 86 FR 51629.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \4\ DOE has defined ``household'' to mean an entity consisting
+of either an individual, a family, or a group of unrelated
+individuals, who reside in a particular housing unit. For the
+purpose of this definition:
+    (1) Group quarters means living quarters that are occupied by an
+institutional group of 10 or more unrelated persons, such as a
+nursing home, military barracks, halfway house, college dormitory,
+fraternity or sorority house, convent, shelter, jail or correctional
+institution.
+    (2) Housing unit means a house, an apartment, a group of rooms,
+or a single room occupied as separate living quarters, but does not
+include group quarters.
+    (3) Separate living quarters means living quarters:
+    (i) To which the occupants have access either:
+    (A) Directly from outside of the building, or
+    (B) Through a common hall that is accessible to other living
+quarters and that does not go through someone else's living
+quarters, and
+    (ii) Occupied by one or more persons who live and eat separately
+from occupant(s) of other living quarters, if any, in the same
+building. 10 CFR 430.2.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
+four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
+standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
+provisions of EPCA 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) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for
+particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures
+and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
+    The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
+manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1)
+Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
+conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)),
+and (2) making other representations about the efficiency of that
+product (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test
+procedures to determine whether the product complies with relevant
+
+[[Page 3704]]
+
+standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
+    In 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE
+must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered
+products. Specifically, EPCA provides that DOE may, in accordance with
+certain requirements, prescribe test procedures for any consumer
+product classified as a covered product under section 6292(b). (42
+U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(B)) EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed
+or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce
+test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated
+annual operating cost of a given type of covered product during a
+representative average use cycle and must not be unduly burdensome to
+conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
+    In addition, EPCA requires DOE to amend its test procedures for all
+covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
+energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy
+consumption, or other energy descriptor. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
+When doing so, DOE must take into consideration the most current
+versions of Standards 62301 and 62087 of the International
+Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC''), unless the current test
+procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy
+consumption, or if such integration is technically infeasible. If an
+integrated test procedure is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe
+separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedures for the
+covered product, if a separate test is technically feasible. (Id.)
+    If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a
+petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be
+prescribed, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal
+Register a proposed test procedure and afford interested persons an
+opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments with
+respect to such a procedure. The comment period on a proposed rule to
+amend a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and no more than 270
+days. In prescribing or amending a test procedure, the Secretary shall
+take into account such information as the Secretary determines relevant
+to such procedure, including technological developments relating to
+energy use or energy efficiency of the type (or class) of covered
+products involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) In prescribing a new or
+amended test procedure, DOE must follow the statutory criteria of 42
+U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)-(4), as discussed further in section I.C of this
+document, and follow the rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C.
+6293(b)(2). Before prescribing any final test procedure, the Secretary
+must publish a proposed test procedure in the Federal Register, and
+afford interested persons an opportunity (of not less than 60 days'
+duration) to present oral and written data, views, and arguments on the
+proposed test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)).
+    Similarly, DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for
+prescribing new or amended standards for covered products. Following a
+coverage determination, DOE may prescribe an energy conservation
+standard for any type (or class) of covered products of a type
+specified in section 6292(a)(20) of EPCA, if the substantive and
+procedural requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) are met and the
+Secretary determines that: (1) 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; (2) 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;
+(3) substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of products of
+such type (or class) is technologically feasible; and (4) the
+application of a labeling rule under section 6294 of this title 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)) Further, any new or amended standard
+for covered products of a type specified in paragraph (20) of section
+6292(a) of this title shall not apply to products manufactured within 5
+years after the publication of a final rule establishing such standard.
+(42 U.S.C. 6295(1)(2)
+    Further, EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation
+standard prescribed by the Secretary be designed to achieve the maximum
+improvement in energy or water efficiency that is technologically
+feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) The
+Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard that will not
+result in significant conservation of energy, or is not technologically
+feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) DOE must
+evaluate proposed new standards against the criteria of 42 U.S.C.
+6295(o), as described further in section I.D of this document, and
+follow the rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). DOE is
+publishing this RFI consistent with its authority and these
+obligations.
+
+B. Rulemaking History
+
+    DOE has not previously conducted a rulemaking for consumer air
+cleaners. As stated, DOE tentatively determined in the September 2021
+NOPD that: Coverage of consumer air cleaners is necessary or
+appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA; the average U.S.
+household energy use for consumer air cleaners is likely to exceed 100
+kWh per year; and thus, consumer air cleaners qualify as a ``covered
+product'' under EPCA. 86 FR 51629. In the September 2021 NOPD, DOE
+sought comment on: (1) A proposed definition for consumer air cleaners;
+(2) the energy use analysis conducted in support of the September 2021
+NOPD; and (3) additional information and data to support DOE's
+preliminary determination to classify consumer air cleaners as a
+covered product under EPCA. 86 FR 51629, 51632-51633.
+    DOE is currently evaluating comments received from interested
+parties in response to the September 2021 NOPD. DOE will address these
+comments and publish a final decision on coverage as a separate notice.
+
+C. Rulemaking Process for Test Procedure
+
+    As stated, EPCA requires that any test procedure prescribed or
+amended must be reasonably designed to produce test results which
+reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating
+cost of a particular type of covered product during a representative
+average use cycle and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
+6293(b)(3))
+    DOE will publish a notification in the Federal Register (e.g., an
+RFI or notice of data availability (``NODA'')) whenever DOE is
+considering initiation of a rulemaking to establish or amend a test
+procedure. Section 8(a) of the Process Rule.
+    As part of such document(s), DOE will solicit submission of
+comments, data, and information on whether DOE should proceed with the
+rulemaking. Potential topics include whether a test procedure rule
+would more accurately measure energy efficiency, energy use, or
+estimated annual operating cost of a product during a representative
+average use cycle or period of use without being unduly burdensome to
+conduct; or reduce testing burden. Based on the information received in
+response to
+
+[[Page 3705]]
+
+such request and its own analysis, DOE will determine whether to
+proceed with a rulemaking for a new or amended test procedure. Section
+8(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Process Rule.
+    As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document
+seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in DOE's
+determination whether (and if so, how) to establish a test procedure
+for consumer air cleaners.
+
+D. Rulemaking Process for Energy Conservation Standards
+
+    As stated previously, following a coverage determination, DOE may
+prescribe an energy conservation standard for any type (or class) of
+covered products of a type specified in section 6292(a)(20) of EPCA, if
+the substantive and procedural requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and
+(p) are met and the Secretary determines that: (1) 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; (2) the aggregate household
+energy use within the United States by products of such type (or class)
+exceeded 4,200,000,000 kWhs (or its Btu equivalent) for any such 12-
+month period; (3) substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of
+products of such type (or class) is technologically feasible; and (4)
+the application of a labeling rule under section 6294 of this title 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)) Further, any new or amended standard
+for covered products of a type specified in paragraph (20) of section
+6292(a) of this title shall not apply to products manufactured within 5
+years after the publication of a final rule establishing such standard.
+(42 U.S.C. 6295(1)(2)
+    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
+amended standards for covered products. As stated, EPCA requires that
+any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the
+Secretary be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy (or
+water efficiency for certain products specified by EPCA) that is
+technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
+6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would
+not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
+6295(o)(3))
+    The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
+energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
+the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\5\ For
+example, the United States rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19,
+2021. As part of that agreement, the United States has committed to
+reducing greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions in order to limit the rise
+in mean global temperature. As such, energy savings that reduce GHG
+emission have taken on greater importance. Additionally, some covered
+products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur
+during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on
+the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with
+relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy
+savings, DOE considers differences in primary energy and full-fuel-
+cycle (``FFC'') effects for different covered products and equipment
+when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy
+and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production
+(depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in
+extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
+natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture
+of the impacts of energy conservation standards.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \5\ See 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a
+case-by-case basis.
+    To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA
+requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed
+its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the
+following seven factors:
+
+    (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
+consumers of the affected products;
+    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
+average life of the product compared to any increases in the initial
+cost, or maintenance expenses;
+    (3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if
+applicable) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
+    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
+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 considers relevant.
+
+(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
+    DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting
+a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows
+the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the
+requirements within EPCA.
+
+       Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+            EPCA requirement                Corresponding DOE analysis
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Significant Energy Savings.............   Shipments Analysis.
+                                          National Impact
+                                          Analysis.
+                                          Energy and Water Use
+                                          Determination.
+Technological Feasibility..............   Market and Technology
+                                          Assessment.
+                                          Screening Analysis.
+                                          Engineering Analysis.
+Economic Justification:
+    1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers   Manufacturer Impact
+     and Consumers.                       Analysis.
+                                          Life-Cycle Cost and
+                                          Payback Period Analysis.
+                                          Life-Cycle Cost
+                                          Subgroup Analysis.
+                                          Shipments Analysis.
+    2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings    Markups for Product
+     Compared to Increased Cost for the   Price Determination.
+     Product.                             Energy and Water Use
+                                          Determination.
+                                          Life-Cycle Cost and
+                                          Payback Period Analysis.
+
+[[Page 3706]]
+
+
+    3. Total Projected Energy Savings..   Shipments Analysis.
+                                          National Impact
+                                          Analysis.
+    4. Impact on Utility or Performance   Screening Analysis.
+                                          Engineering Analysis.
+    5. Impact of Any Lessening of         Manufacturer Impact
+     Competition.                         Analysis.
+    6. Need for National Energy and       Shipments Analysis.
+     Water Conservation.                  National Impact
+                                          Analysis.
+    7. Other Factors the Secretary        Employment Impact
+     Considers Relevant.                  Analysis.
+                                          Utility Impact
+                                          Analysis.
+                                          Emissions Analysis.
+                                          Monetization of
+                                          Emission Reductions Benefits.
+                                          Regulatory Impact
+                                          Analysis.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    In determining whether to consider establishing or amending any
+energy conservation standard, DOE's general process is to publish one
+or more preliminary (i.e., ``pre-NOPR'') documents in the Federal
+Register intended to gather information on key issues. Section 6(a)(1)
+of the Process Rule. Such document(s) could take several forms
+depending upon the specific proceeding, including a framework document,
+RFI, NODA, preliminary analysis, or advance notice of proposed
+rulemaking. Section 6(a)(2) of the Process Rule. Such document(s) will
+be published in the Federal Register, with any accompanying documents
+referenced and posted in the appropriate docket. Section 6(a)(1) of the
+Process Rule.
+    The pre-NOPR-stage document(s) will solicit submission of comments,
+data, and information on whether DOE should proceed with the standards
+rulemaking, including whether any new or amended rule would, as EPCA
+requires, be economically justified, technologically feasible, and
+result in a significant savings of energy. Section 6(a)(1) of the
+Process Rule.
+    DOE will determine whether to proceed with a rulemaking for a new
+or amended energy conservation standard based on the information
+received in response to such request and its own analysis. Section
+6(a)(3) of the Process Rule.
+    As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document
+seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the
+development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely
+to determine whether (and if so, how) to establish energy conservation
+standards for consumer air cleaners.
+
+E. Deviation From Appendix A
+
+    In accordance with Section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
+appendix A, DOE notes that it is deviating from that Appendix's
+provision that DOE will publish its final coverage determination prior
+to the initiation of any test procedure or energy conservation
+standards rulemaking. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section
+5(c). DOE is opting to deviate from this step because DOE believes that
+providing an opportunity for comment on potential test procedure and
+energy conservation standards prior to a final coverage determination
+for consumer air cleaners allows stakeholders an earlier opportunity to
+provide comment, information, and data that may help inform DOE's
+priority setting. DOE also notes that in the Energy Conservation
+Program for Appliance Standards: Procedures, Interpretations, and
+Policies for Consideration in New or Revised Energy Conservation
+Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/
+Industrial Equipment NOPR published on July 7, 2021, DOE proposed to
+eliminate the requirement that coverage determination rulemakings must
+be finalized prior to initiation of a test procedure or energy
+conservation standard rulemaking. 86 FR 35668, 35672. DOE explained
+that the coverage determination, test procedure, and energy
+conservation standard rulemakings are interdependent and a coverage
+determination defines the product/equipment scope for which DOE can
+establish test procedure and energy conservation standards. It also
+signals that inclusion of the consumer product is necessary to carry
+out the purpose of EPCA, i.e., to conserve energy and/or water. In
+order to make this determination, DOE needs to consider whether a test
+procedure and energy conservation standards can be established for the
+consumer product. If DOE cannot develop a test procedure that measures
+energy use during a representative average use cycle and is not unduly
+burdensome to conduct (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) or prescribe energy
+conservation standards that result in significant energy savings (42
+U.S.C. 6295(o), then making a coverage determination is not necessary
+as it will not result in the conservation of energy. Thus, it is
+important that DOE be able to gather information and provide
+stakeholders an opportunity to comment and provide information and data
+pertinent to test procedure and energy conservation standard
+rulemakings, while DOE conducts a coverage determination rulemaking.
+Id.
+    In accordance with Section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
+appendix A, DOE notes that it is deviating from that Appendix's
+provision requiring a 75-day comment period for pre-NOPR rulemaking
+documents for standards. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
+section 6(d)(2). DOE is opting to deviate from this step because the
+30-day comment period will allow DOE to review comments received in
+response to this document before finalizing its coverage determination.
+It would also help inform the Department in prioritizing any potential
+rulemakings for air cleaners in light of its other on-going rulemakings
+and statutory requirements. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
+(``EPA's'') ENERGY STAR[supreg] Program (``ENERGY STAR Program'')
+includes consumer air cleaners. In light of this, DOE expects that
+stakeholders have established a strong understanding of the key
+information and issues that would be of interest to DOE as it considers
+developing test procedure and energy conservation standards for
+consumer air cleaners. DOE also expects that test data are likely
+readily available from the ENERGY STAR Program as well as the
+Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers' (``AHAM's'') Directory of
+Certified Portable Electric Room Air Cleaners.\6\
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \6\ See: www.ahamdir.com/room-air-cleaners/.
+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+[[Page 3707]]
+
+II. Request for Information and Comments Pertaining to Potential Test
+Procedure
+
+    In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues
+on which it seeks input to assist in its evaluation of a potential test
+procedure for consumer air cleaners, to ensure that any such test
+procedure would, as EPCA requires, be reasonably designed to produce
+test results which reflect energy use during a representative average
+use cycle without being unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
+6293(b)(3))
+
+A. Scope and Definition
+
+    Consumer air cleaners are products designed to remove particulate
+matter and other contaminants from the air to improve indoor air
+quality. A wide range of consumer air cleaners are available on the
+market, including tabletop units, units designed for single rooms or
+multiple rooms, and whole-home units integrated into a central heating
+and/or cooling system. Consumer air cleaners employ a wide variety of
+technologies to remove particular matter and other contaminants from
+the air. They may include secondary functions, typically indoor air
+quality improvement, that supplement or enhance that primary function,
+such as providing air circulation, humidification, or dehumidification.
+    In the September 2021 NOPD, DOE proposed a definition for ``air
+cleaner'' to help inform its proposed scope of coverage and regulatory
+definition. 86 FR 51629, 51632. DOE consulted existing definitions and
+classifications of consumer air cleaners developed by AHAM--the
+industry trade group for consumer air cleaners--and the ENERGY STAR
+Program, and additional market research conducted by DOE. Id. at 86 FR
+51631.
+    AHAM defined ``air cleaner'' in an industry standard, it published
+and which is certified by American National Standards Institute
+(``ANSI''), to measure the performance of portable household electric
+room air cleaners, titled ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 Portable Household
+Electric Room Air Cleaners (``ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020'').\7\ Section 3.1 of
+ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 defines ``Portable Household Electric Room Air
+Cleaner'' as ``[a]n electric appliance with the function of removing
+particulate matter from the air and which can be moved from room to
+room.''
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \7\ ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 available at AHAM website at
+www.aham.org/itemdetail?iproductcode=30002&category=padstd.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    The ENERGY STAR Program also establishes a definition for room air
+cleaners (also referred to as air purifiers), in addition to
+qualification criteria for an air cleaner to earn the ENERGY STAR
+label.\8\ The current ENERGY STAR V2.0 Product Specification \9\
+defines ``room air cleaner'' as ``an electric appliance with the
+function of removing particulate matter from the air and which can be
+moved from room to room,'' consistent with ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \8\ See ENERGY STAR website for air purifiers (cleaners) at
+www.energystar.gov/products/air_purifiers_cleaners.
+    \9\ See Eligibility Criteria Version 2.0, Rev. April 2021,
+available at www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%202.0%20Room%20Air%20Cleaners%20Specification_Rev%20April%202021_with%20Partner%20Commitments.pdf.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    As discussed in the September 2021 NOPD, the definitions in ANSI/
+AHAM AC-1-2020 and the ENERGY STAR V2.0 Product Specification include
+specific air cleaning and air purifying designs and technologies, but
+are limited to ``portable'' air cleaners that ``can be moved from room
+to room.'' DOE noted in the September 2021 NOPD that while ANSI/AHAM
+AC-1-2020 specifies that the standard is applicable only to portable
+air cleaners, it includes definitions and setup instructions for air
+cleaners that include wall mounting brackets or instructions to mount
+the air cleaner integrally to the wall. 86 FR 51629, 51632. To cover a
+more comprehensive range of the consumer market for air cleaning and
+purification, an expanded definition of a consumer air cleaner may be
+appropriate. DOE therefore considered a modified definition that would
+include other consumer air cleaners, such as those that are mounted on
+walls and ceilings, or that are designed for whole-home air cleaning in
+conjunction with central heating or air conditioning systems. 86 FR
+51629, 51632. The proposed definition expands the range of products to
+include those that use technologies that clean the air by destroying or
+deactivating contaminants, including microbes as well as particulates,
+from the air (instead of only removing them). Id. at 86 FR 51632.
+    DOE proposed in the September 2021 NOPD to define a consumer air
+cleaner as a consumer product that:
+    (1) Is a self-contained, mechanically encased assembly;
+    (2) Is powered by single-phase electric current;
+    (3) Removes, destroys, or deactivates particulates and
+microorganisms from the air; and
+    (4) Excludes products that destroy or deactivate particulates and
+microorganisms solely by means of ultraviolet (``UV'') light without a
+fan for air circulation; and
+    (5) Excludes central air conditioners, room air conditioners,
+portable air conditioners, dehumidifiers, and furnaces as defined in 10
+CFR 430.2. . 86 FR 51629, 51632.
+    As discussed in the September 2021 NOPD, DOE proposed to exclude
+from coverage those consumer products that purify air solely by means
+of UV light without circulating air through the product using a fan
+because the energy-consuming component of such products would be a
+fluorescent lamp or light-emitting diode designed to emit light in the
+UV portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. 86 FR 51629, 51632.
+Accordingly, DOE would classify these products under EPCA as a type of
+lamp (see the definition of ``lamps primarily designed to produce
+radiation in the ultraviolet region of the spectrum'' and ``light-
+emitting diode or LED'' in 10 CFR 430.2), and therefore, did not
+consider applying any future consumer air cleaner requirements to these
+products. Id.
+    DOE continues to evaluate comments received from interested parties
+in response to the proposed definition for consumer air cleaners in the
+September 2021 NOPD.
+
+B. Test Procedure for Consumer Air Cleaners
+
+    DOE has examined existing test methods to measure key performance
+characteristics for determining the energy efficiency of consumer air
+cleaners. These performance characteristics include clean air delivery
+rate (``CADR''), operating (i.e., active) mode power consumption, and
+standby mode power consumption. DOE is seeking comment on whether the
+test methods identified below, could be used as the basis for a DOE
+test procedure for consumer air cleaners. In particular, DOE is seeking
+comment on any modifications to these test methods that would be needed
+to test the full range of products under DOE's proposed definition of
+consumer air cleaner.
+1. Current Industry Test Procedure
+    As discussed, AHAM published ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 for measuring the
+performance of portable household electric room air cleaners.
+    Section 3.14 of ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 defines CADR as the metric to
+measure an air cleaner's efficacy in removing particulate matter from
+the air. CADR represents the rate of particulate reduction in the test
+
+[[Page 3708]]
+
+chamber when the air cleaner is turned on, minus the rate of ``natural
+decay'' \10\ when the air cleaner is not running, multiplied by the
+volume of the test chamber (specified as 1,008 cubic feet). As such,
+testing an air cleaner requires conducting two separate tests: A first
+test with the air cleaner turned off, and a second test with the air
+cleaner turned on. The CADR value is expressed in units of cubic feet
+per minute (``cfm'').\11\
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \10\ AHAM defines ``natural decay'' as the reduction of
+particulate matter due to natural phenomena in the test chamber:
+Principally agglomeration [a process in which fine particles
+``clump'' together], surface deposition [a process in which
+particles attach to a surface] (including sedimentation [a process
+in which particles settle out of suspension in the air onto a
+surface due to gravity]), and air exchange.
+    \11\ Although the unit of measurement for CADR is cfm, ANSI/AHAM
+AC-1-2020 explains that CADR values indicate the performance of an
+air cleaner as a complete system and that the metric has no linear
+relationship to air movement or to the characteristics of any
+particular particle removal methodology per se.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    Sections 5, 6, and 7 of ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 specify procedures for
+measuring air cleaner efficacy using three different types of
+particulates representing three ranges of particulate matter size:
+Pollen (5 micrometer (``[mu]m'') to 11 [mu]m diameter), dust (0.5 [mu]m
+to 3.0 [mu]m diameter), and cigarette smoke (0.10 [mu]m to 1.0 [mu]m
+diameter), respectively.
+    Section 2 of ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 indicates that the precision of
+the test method is as follows:  25 cfm for pollen CADR;
+ 10 cfm for dust CADR; and  10 cfm for
+cigarette smoke CADR. Given these levels of precision, ANSI/AHAM AC-1-
+2020 is limited to measuring air cleaners within rated CADR ranges of
+10 to 600 cfm for dust and cigarette smoke and 25 to 450 cfm for
+pollen.
+    Section 9 of ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 also includes methods to measure
+the air cleaner's operating power and standby power usage in Watts
+(``W''), as discussed further in sections II.B.1.a and II.B.1.b of this
+document.
+    All CADR and power testing are performed in a test chamber with a
+controlled environment. Section 4 of ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 specifies
+requirements for electrical power supply, test chamber ambient
+temperature, test chamber air exchange rate, test chamber particulate
+concentrations, and use of a recirculation fan in the test chamber.
+a. Operating (Active) Mode Testing
+    ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 specifies methodologies to obtain consistent
+levels of particulate concentration in the test chamber for each of the
+three particulate types. An aerosol generator disseminates the
+appropriate particulate for each test. The method also discusses using
+other devices, such as a cigarette smoke diluter and aerosol
+spectrometer to maintain consistent test particulate levels during the
+test and to measure the particle size distribution within the room air,
+respectively. For each particulate, two tests are performed, one with
+the air cleaner not operating and one with it operating. First, to
+measure the natural decay of the particulate under evaluation, the air
+cleaner is not operated and the particulates are distributed within the
+room at a specified concentration. Particulate concentration is
+measured and averaged over a period of time prescribed for each
+particulate type. In the second test, the air cleaner is operated at
+the setting that results in the maximum particulate removal rate and
+the particulate matter removal is measured using the same process as in
+the first test. Particulate concentration is again measured over a
+prescribed period of time, and the rate of particulate reduction is
+calculated. The difference of the rate of particulate reduction with
+the air cleaner operating minus the rate of natural decay with the air
+cleaner not operating, multiplied by the volume of the test chamber,
+provides the CADR value for that particulate type.
+    Section 9 of ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 specifies methods for measuring
+operating power. The section allows measuring operating power during
+the CADR test for either cigarette smoke or dust, the duration of each
+being greater than 15 minutes, which is enough time to measure
+operating power. After the air cleaner motor has been conditioned as
+specified in Section 9.2 of ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020, the power measuring
+instrument is connected between the power supply and air cleaner, and
+all settings/options are set at the maximum level. The air cleaner is
+operated for 2 minutes without any power measurements, and then power
+consumption is recorded at 1-minute intervals for 13 minutes (for a
+total test time of 15 minutes). Up to three of the 13 data points may
+be discarded as anomalous to account for line surges and other
+variables. The remaining power measurements are averaged to obtain the
+operating power, in W, of the air cleaner.
+    DOE requests comments on whether ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 provides an
+appropriate method to use as the basis for a Federal test method and
+for defining energy conservation standard levels for consumer air
+cleaners.
+    DOE requests comment on the use of the CADR, as opposed to another
+metric such as rate of decay, to characterize consumer air cleaner
+performance. In particular, DOE requests comment on whether consumers
+could find the unit of measurement of cfm for CADR confusing and
+misunderstand it as referring to the rate of air movement through the
+device.
+    DOE requests comment on whether the power measurement could vary
+based on the particulate test that is used to measure operating power.
+If power measurement varies based on the particulate test, DOE requests
+comment on which particulate test (pollen, dust, or cigarette smoke)
+should be used as the basis for the power measurement in any Federal
+test procedure that DOE may develop. Alternately, DOE requests comment
+on whether it should consider requiring power measurements for each
+particulate test and use a simple or weighted average to determine
+operating power.
+    DOE requests comment on whether it should consider testing consumer
+air cleaners at any other power level in addition to the maximum power
+level required by ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020.
+    DOE requests comment on whether ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 could also be
+used to test other types of consumer air cleaners, such as ceiling-
+mounted products.
+b. Standby Mode Testing
+    Section 10 of ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 specifies a measurement procedure
+for standby mode that is performed as a separate test from the CADR and
+operating power tests. The standby power test specifies allowable
+ranges for three environmental conditions: Air speed in the room,
+ambient air temperature, and voltage supply. As specified, the standby
+power test method may only be used when the selected mode and measured
+power consumption are stable (defined as a variation of less than 5
+percent in measured power consumption over 5 minutes). When stability
+is not achieved, power consumption can be determined by alternative
+methods: By averaging the power readings over a specified period of
+time or by recording the energy consumption over a specified period and
+dividing by the total time period.
+    To perform the standby mode test, the air cleaner is connected to
+the metering equipment. After the air cleaner has been allowed to
+stabilize for at least 5 minutes, the power consumption is monitored
+for not less than an additional 5 minutes. If the power consumption
+does not drift by more than 5 percent (from the maximum value observed)
+during the latter 5 minutes, the load is considered stable
+
+[[Page 3709]]
+
+and the power consumption can be recorded directly from the instrument
+at the end of the latter 5 minute period. The resulting standby power
+is reported in W, rounded to the nearest hundredths.
+    The standby mode test method specified in ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 is
+different from that specified in the most current version of IEC
+Standard 62301, Edition 2.0, ``Household electrical appliances--
+Measurement of standby power'' (``IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0''), which is the
+standard that EPCA directs DOE to consider when including measurements
+of standby mode and off mode energy use in its test procedures for
+covered products, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
+IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0 provides three methods to measure standby power,
+depending on the characteristics of the power consumption in standby
+mode (e.g., stable, unstable, cyclic, of a limited duration, etc.) The
+three methods are: the sampling method, the average reading method, and
+the direct meter reading method. The sampling method, which is the
+method incorporated by reference most frequently in DOE test procedures
+for other covered products, specifies that the unit under test must be
+operated in standby mode for at least 15 minutes and standby power is
+recorded at least once every second. To determine standby power, the
+data from the second two-thirds of the total test duration is used to
+determine stability. If the measured power is less than or equal to 1
+W, stability is established when a linear regression through all power
+readings for the second two-thirds of the total period has a slope of
+less than 10 milliwatts per hour (``mW/h''). If the measured power is
+greater than 1 W, stability is established when a linear regression
+through all power readings for the second two-thirds of the total
+period has a slope that is less than 1 percent of the measured input
+power per hour.
+    DOE requests comment on the suitability of the standby power
+measurement procedure specified in ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020, IEC 62301 Ed.
+2.0, or any other test method for measuring standby mode and off mode
+energy use of consumer air cleaners, in light of EPCA's requirement in
+42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) for DOE to consider the most current version
+of IEC Standard 62301.
+2. Other Test Procedures
+    In addition to ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020, DOE is aware of a few other
+test methods for air cleaners. DOE has identified two test methods to
+measure how effectively a unit removes microorganisms from the air (as
+opposed to particles such as smoke, pollen, and dust). DOE has
+additionally identified two other test methods that measure the
+effectiveness of removing particulates from the air, similar to the
+ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 testing standard.
+    The first of these test methods was developed by the Center for
+Engineering and Environmental Technology at Research Triangle Institute
+(``RTI''), titled ``Methodology to Perform Clean Air Delivery Rate Type
+Determinations with Microbiological Aerosols'' \12\ (``RTI Test
+Method''). The stated objective of the RTI Test Method is to determine
+a CADR-type measurement for an air cleaner using microbiological
+aerosols. The method is described as a modification of the ANSI/AHAM
+AC-1 test method that can be used for evaluating a wide range of air
+cleaning devices. Similar to the ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 test method, the
+RTI Test Method requires measuring the natural decay rate without the
+air cleaner operating and the particulate removal rate while the air
+cleaner is operating in a test chamber. The RTI Test Method has been
+conducted using mold, bacteria, and viruses, representing the primary
+groups of microorganisms that a household air cleaner would be expected
+to remove in a home.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \12\ RTI Test Method available at: doi.org/10.1080/713834074.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    The second of these test methods was developed by researchers at
+Korea Testing Laboratory (``KTL''), Dongguk University, and Biot Korea
+Inc., titled ``Assessment of air purifier on efficient removal of
+airborne bacteria, Staphylococcus epidermidis, using single-chamber
+method'' \13\ (``KTL Test Method''). The objective of the KTL Test
+Method is to measure an air cleaner's efficacy of removing airborne
+bacteria from indoor air. Similar to ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 and the RTI
+Test Method, the KTL Test Method involves measuring both a natural
+decay rate (i.e., without the air cleaner operating) and a particulate
+decay rate while the air cleaner is operating in a test chamber. The
+output of the KTL Test Method, unlike ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 and the RTI
+Test Method, which output a CADR value (with units of cfm), is a
+unitless value representing the ratio of the natural decay rate to the
+particulate decay rate.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \13\ KTL Test Method available at: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10661-019-7876-3.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    The third of these test methods is the ANSI/American Society of
+Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'')
+standard 52.2-2017, titled ``Method of Testing General Ventilation Air-
+Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size'' \14\
+(``ASHRAE 52.2-2017''). ASHRAE 52.2-2017 specifies a test method to
+evaluate air cleaner performance as a function of particle size using
+an aerosol generator to introduce standardized amounts of dust at
+periodic intervals to simulate accumulation of particles over the
+lifetime of the air cleaner. The standard measures air cleaner
+performance based on the removal efficiency of particles with 12
+defined particle size ranges between 0.3 and 10 [mu]m in diameter.
+Efficiency measurements for each of the 12 particle size ranges are
+taken at various dust loads by challenging the filter with potassium
+chloride particles. This test aerosol provides particles over the
+entire range of 0.3 to 10 [mu]m required by the test procedure. The
+output metric is the minimum efficiency reporting value (``MERV''),
+that quantifies the effectiveness of the air cleaner's filtration on a
+16-point scale.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \14\ ASHRAE 52.2-2017 available at: ashrae.org/File%20Library/Technical%20Resources/COVID-19/52_2_2017_COVID-19_20200401.pdf.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    The fourth testing method is from the National Research Council
+Canada (``NRCC''). The NRCC's publication is titled, ``Method for
+Testing Portable Air Cleaner's'' \15\ (``NRCC Test Method''). The NRCC
+Test Method determines the air cleaner's performance by measuring
+particle, volatile organic compounds (``VOCs'') (including
+formaldehyde, toluene, and d-limonene), and ozone removal. Known
+quantities of particles of different sizes, ozone, and the selected
+VOCs are introduced in different tests until a certain established
+target concentration is achieved. The NRCC Test Method provides
+multiple suggested procedures for injecting particles and VOCs into the
+test chamber. Once target contaminant levels in the test chamber have
+been achieved, the injection of particles or VOCs is stopped, and the
+concentration decay rate is measured while the air cleaner is
+operating. Particle concentration is recommended to be measured using
+either a condensation particle counter, optical particle counter, or an
+aerodynamic particle sizer. Formaldehyde concentration is determined
+using a high-performance liquid chromatograph technique and toluene and
+d-limonene concentrations are measured using a gas chromatograph--mass
+spectrometer technique. Ozone levels in the chamber air are determined
+using an analyzer
+
+[[Page 3710]]
+
+based on either chemiluminescence or UV absorption. These results are
+then compared to test results without the air cleaner operating to
+assess the removal effectiveness of the unit.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \15\ NRCC Test Method available at: nrc-publications.canada.ca/
+eng/view/ft/?id=cc1570e0-53cc-476d-b2ee-3e252d8bd739.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    Additionally, in response to the September 2021 NOPD, AHAM
+commented that it was working on an updated standard to measure the
+energy efficiency for room air cleaners, AHAM AC-7-2021, ``Energy Test
+Method for Portable Air Cleaners''. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-DET-0022,
+AHAM, No. 13 at p. 1) AHAM has not yet issued this test method.
+    DOE requests comment on whether it should consider any methodology
+for measuring the removal efficacy of microorganisms (i.e., viruses,
+bacteria, mold, etc.) from indoor air as part of a Federal test
+procedure for consumer air cleaners.
+    DOE requests comment on the suitability of each of the RTI Test
+Method and the KTL Test Method for measuring a consumer air cleaner's
+removal efficacy of microorganisms from indoor air.
+    DOE requests comment on the additional test methods identified in
+this section that measure the performance of consumer air cleaners
+using various particulates. In particular, DOE requests comment on the
+scope, methodology, and types of particulates, pollutants, and/or
+microorganisms that are included in each test method.
+    DOE requests comments on whether any other test methods have been
+developed for consumer air cleaners that would be relevant to DOE's
+consideration of a Federal test procedure to measure the energy
+efficiency of consumer air cleaners. In particular, DOE seeks comment
+on test methods that could be used to test ``non-portable'' consumer
+air cleaners, such as those that are permanently mounted (e.g.,
+ceiling-mounted air cleaners) or that provide whole-home air cleaning
+in conjunction with central heating or air conditioning systems; and
+test methods that could be used to measure the performance of consumer
+air cleaners that destroy or deactivate contaminants from the air
+instead of removing them.
+
+C. Metric for Consumer Air Cleaners
+
+    As discussed, EPCA requires that any test procedure prescribed or
+amended must be reasonably designed to produce test results which
+reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating
+cost of a given type of covered product during a representative average
+use cycle and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
+6293(b)(3))
+    In addition, EPCA requires DOE to amend its test procedure for all
+covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
+energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy
+consumption, or other energy descriptor, taking into consideration the
+most current versions of IEC Standards 62301 and 62087. There are only
+two exceptions: If the current test procedure already incorporates the
+standby mode and off mode energy consumption, or if such integration is
+technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) If an integrated
+test procedure is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate
+standby mode and off mode energy use test procedures for the covered
+product, if a separate test is technically feasible. (Id.)
+    The ENERGY STAR V2.0 Product Specification \16\ for Room Air
+Cleaners defines separate ``on mode'' (i.e., active mode) and ``partial
+on mode'' (i.e., standby/off mode) metrics to certify air cleaners
+under the ENERGY STAR label. The on mode criterion is defined in terms
+of a minimum ``CADR/W'' metric. That metric, in turn, is defined as the
+rated smoke CADR measurement divided by the operating power consumption
+measured during the smoke particle removal test, each of which is
+determined in accordance with ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020. The partial on mode
+criterion is defined in terms of a maximum wattage level, as determined
+in accordance with IEC Standard 62301.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \16\ See Eligibility Criteria Version 2.0, Rev. April 2021,
+available at www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%202.0%20Room%20Air%20Cleaners%20Specification_Rev%20April%202021_with%20Partner%20Commitments.pdf.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    In accordance with the requirements of EPCA, DOE would evaluate
+whether an integrated test procedure (i.e., a test procedure that
+integrates measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption
+into the overall energy efficiency descriptor) is technically feasible.
+For example, DOE could define an integrated CADR/W metric in which the
+denominator represents a weighted average of the power consumption
+associated with active mode, standby mode, and off mode, weighted by
+the amount of time spent in each mode. DOE notes that the ENERGY STAR
+program assumes 16 active mode hours per day and 8 inactive mode (i.e.,
+standby or off mode) hours per day to calculate annual energy
+consumption of qualifying consumer air cleaners.\17\
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \17\ The ENERGY STAR online product database provides a
+description of the Annual Energy Use calculation at
+data.energystar.gov/dataset/ENERGY-STAR-Certified-Room-Air-Cleaners/jmck-i55n/data.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    DOE requests comment on the technical feasibility of integrating
+measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption into the
+overall energy efficiency descriptor (i.e., creating an integrated
+metric) for consumer air cleaners. In particular, DOE requests comment
+on its example approach of defining an integrated CADR/W metric, in
+which the denominator would represent a weighted average of the power
+consumption associated with active mode, standby mode, and off mode,
+weighted by the amount of time spent in each mode.
+    DOE requests comment on consumer usage of consumer air cleaners, in
+particular, the amount of time spent in active mode, standby mode, and
+off mode.
+    As discussed previously, ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 specifies procedures
+for measuring CADR ratings for three types of particulate matter:
+Pollen, dust, and cigarette smoke. Prior to Version 2.0 of the Product
+Specification for Room Air Cleaners, the ENERGY STAR eligibility
+criteria were based on the CADR/W metric using the dust particle
+removal test. That changed in a draft version of the V2.0 Product
+Specification,\18\ where EPA described its understanding that smoke
+pollutants can have the greatest health risk for the general population
+and that the AHAM Verification Program for room air cleaners calculates
+the appropriate room size for a given room air cleaner based on the
+cigarette smoke CADR measurement. (See Note box in Section 3.3.1 of the
+draft.) EPA also stated that retailers appear to use this calculation
+to direct consumers to a specific room air cleaner. Id. EPA noted that
+cigarette smoke has the smallest particle size of the three pollutants
+tested to the ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2015 standard and is typically the most
+energy intensive to remove. Id. For these reasons, and in consideration
+of stakeholder feedback, EPA asserted that cigarette smoke is the
+appropriate pollutant to use as the basis for evaluating the energy
+efficiency of room air cleaners. Id.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \18\ See Draft 1 Version 2.0 specification at
+www.energystar.gov/products/spec/room_air_cleaners_version_2_0_pd.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    DOE requests comment on whether cigarette smoke would be the
+appropriate particulate for determining a CADR rating of air cleaners
+under a DOE test procedure, should DOE adopt a measurement of CADR in a
+test procedure for consumer air cleaners. If cigarette smoke is not the
+most appropriate particulate, DOE requests comment on other
+particulate(s) that
+
+[[Page 3711]]
+
+would be more appropriate as the basis for measurement, including data
+and information to support such a recommendation.
+    As discussed previously, ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 specifies that it can
+be used to test ``portable'' air cleaners that ``can be moved from room
+to room.'' \19\ These include floor type, table type, and wall type
+units. Ceiling type units are explicitly outside the scope of that test
+method. ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 also does not apply to ``non-portable''
+consumer air cleaners, such as those that are designed for whole-home
+air cleaning in conjunction with central heating or air conditioning
+systems. DOE is not aware of test procedures for these types of units
+and seeks guidance on whether the CADR/W efficiency metric would be
+appropriate for characterizing the energy efficiency of these types of
+units. DOE also seeks guidance about consumer air cleaners that clean
+the air by destroying or deactivating particulates and microorganisms
+from the air instead of removing them (for example, a consumer air
+cleaner designed to purify air using UV light or other heat in
+combination with a fan to circulate air through the product). In
+particular, DOE seeks input on whether the CADR/W metric would be
+appropriate for such products.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \19\ DOE notes the vague nature of ``can be,'' which depends
+greatly on the abilities of the person or people involved in
+attempting to move the item.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    DOE requests comment on whether the CADR/W efficiency metric would
+be appropriate for characterizing the energy efficiency of consumer air
+cleaner units permanently mounted to a structure.
+    DOE requests comment on whether the CADR/W metric would be
+appropriate for consumer air cleaners that clean the air by destroying
+or deactivating particulates and microorganisms from the air instead of
+removing them.
+    DOE requests comment on whether any other metrics not already
+discussed in this RFI would provide a better measure of energy
+efficiency or energy use of consumer air cleaners during a
+representative average use cycle or period of use.
+
+III. Request for Information and Comments Pertaining to Potential
+Energy Conservation Standards
+
+    DOE is also publishing this RFI to collect data and information to
+inform its decision, consistent with its obligations under EPCA, as to
+whether the Department should proceed with an energy conservation
+standards rulemaking. In the following sections, DOE has identified a
+variety of issues on which it seeks input to aid in the development of
+the technical and economic analyses regarding whether standards for
+consumer air cleaners may be warranted.
+    As stated previously, following a coverage determination, EPCA
+outlines four criteria for prescribing an energy conservation standard
+for a newly covered product. The four criteria are that: (1) The
+average per household domestic energy use by such products exceeded 150
+kWh (or its Btu equivalent) for any 12-month period ending before such
+determination; (2) the aggregate domestic household energy use by such
+product exceeded 4.2 million kWh (or its Btu equivalent) for any such
+12-month period; (3) substantial improvement in the energy efficiency
+of the products is technologically feasible; and (4) applying a
+labeling rule is not likely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers to
+produce, and consumers and other persons to purchase, products of such
+type which achieve the maximum energy efficiency which is
+technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
+6295(l)(1))
+    DOE seeks data and information on whether the four criteria for
+prescribing an energy conservation standard for air cleaners are met.
+    DOE seeks comment on whether energy conservation standards for
+consumer air cleaners would be economically justified, technologically
+feasible, and would result in a significant savings of energy.
+
+A. Market and Technology Assessment
+
+    The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts
+when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy
+conservation standard provides information about the consumer air
+cleaner industry that will be used in DOE's analysis throughout the
+rulemaking process. DOE uses qualitative and quantitative information
+to characterize the structure of the industry and market. DOE
+identifies manufacturers, estimates market shares and trends, addresses
+regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy
+efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and explores the potential for
+efficiency improvements in the design and manufacturing of consumer air
+cleaners. DOE also reviews product literature, industry publications,
+and company websites. Additionally, DOE considers conducting interviews
+with manufacturers to improve its assessment of the market and
+available technologies.
+    For consumer air cleaners, DOE is interested in understanding the
+consumer air cleaner market, the impact of the current COVID-19
+pandemic on this market, and whether the current industry trends are a
+result of the pandemic or expected to stay long-term.
+    DOE seeks feedback on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the
+consumer air cleaner market. DOE requests any available market data or
+information on recent consumer behavior trends for consumer air
+cleaners in response to the pandemic.
+1. Product Classes
+    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
+may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy
+used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
+a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination
+whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a
+different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of
+the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
+(Id.) For consumer air cleaners, DOE may use CADR as a measurement of
+capacity.
+    DOE requests comment on whether capacity or any other performance-
+related features, such as air cleaning technology (i.e., whether the
+product destroys or deactivates contaminants from the air or removes
+them), of consumer air cleaners would justify the establishment of
+different product classes (i.e., would justify different standards for
+such classes).
+2. Technology Assessment
+    In analyzing the feasibility of potential new energy conservation
+standards, DOE uses information about technology options and prototype
+designs to help identify technologies that manufacturers could use to
+meet and/or exceed a given energy conservation standard level under
+consideration. In consultation with interested parties, DOE intends to
+develop a list of technologies to consider in its analysis.
+    DOE seeks information on technologies that are used to improve the
+energy efficiency of consumer air cleaners. Specifically, DOE seeks
+information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics
+that are currently available for each technology option.
+    For each technology option suggested by stakeholders, DOE seeks
+information regarding its market adoption, costs, and
+
+[[Page 3712]]
+
+any concerns with incorporating the technology into products (e.g.,
+impacts on consumer utility, potential safety concerns, manufacturing
+or production challenges, etc.).
+
+B. Screening Analysis
+
+    The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the
+technologies that improve energy efficiency to determine which
+technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which
+will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
+    DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from
+further consideration based on the following criteria:
+
+    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
+incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will
+not be considered further.
+    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it
+is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial
+products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology
+could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant
+market at the time of the compliance date of the standard, then that
+technology will not be considered further.
+    (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If a
+technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the
+utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or
+result in the unavailability of any covered product type with
+performance characteristics (including reliability), features,
+sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as
+products generally available in the United States at the time, it
+will not be considered further.
+    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined
+that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or
+safety, it will not be considered further.
+    (5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
+utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
+achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
+considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
+
+Sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b) of the Process Rule.
+    Technology options identified in the technology assessment are
+evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from
+interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and
+energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the
+screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the
+engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more
+of the five criteria are eliminated from consideration.
+    DOE requests feedback on whether any air cleaner technology options
+would be screened out based on the five screening criteria described in
+this section. DOE also requests information on the technologies that
+would be screened out and the screening criteria that would be
+applicable to each screened out technology option.
+
+C. Engineering Analysis
+
+    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
+relationship between the efficiency and cost of consumer air cleaners.
+There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis: The
+selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency
+analysis'') and the determination of product cost at each efficiency
+level (i.e., the ``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of
+higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies and design
+option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each
+product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the
+incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above the
+baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
+efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the
+life-cycle cost (``LCC'') analysis, payback period (``PBP'') analysis,
+and the national impacts analysis (``NIA'')).
+1. Efficiency Analysis
+    DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
+efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) Relying on observed
+efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
+or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
+with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
+the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
+efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
+the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
+the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
+already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
+efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
+detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
+efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
+have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
+a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
+level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
+using the design option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill''
+levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency
+levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in
+cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level
+currently available on the market).
+    For each product class DOE analyzes, DOE selects a baseline model
+as a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or
+amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline
+model in each product class represents the characteristics of common or
+typical products in that class.
+    DOE requests feedback on appropriate baseline efficiency levels for
+DOE to apply, and the product classes to which these baseline
+efficiency levels would be applicable, in evaluating whether to
+establish energy conservation standards for consumer air cleaners.
+    As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
+is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE
+defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the theoretical
+maximum possible efficiency if all available design options are
+incorporated in a model. In applying these design options, DOE would
+only include those options that are compatible with each other and that
+when combined would represent the theoretical maximum possible
+efficiency. Often, the max-tech efficiency level is not commercially
+available because it is not economically feasible.
+    DOE seeks input on identifying the max-tech efficiency level for
+consumer air cleaners. Additionally, for any max-tech efficiency level
+identified by stakeholders, DOE also seeks input on whether such a max-
+tech efficiency level would be appropriate and technologically feasible
+for potential consideration as possible energy conservation standards
+for consumer air cleaners, and if not, why not.
+    DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be incorporated at
+a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies associated with those
+levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks information as to
+whether there are limitations on the use of certain combinations of
+design options.
+2. Cost Analysis
+    The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
+using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
+approach depends on a suite of factors, including availability and
+reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
+product, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the product
+on the market.
+
+[[Page 3713]]
+
+The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
+     Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
+dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to
+develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
+     Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
+product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
+from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
+to develop the bill of materials for the product.
+     Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
+is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
+fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
+parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
+impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price
+surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online
+retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
+other commercial channels.
+    The resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the
+manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') estimates. DOE then applies a
+manufacturer markup to convert the MPC to manufacturer selling price
+(``MSP''). The manufacturer markup accounts for costs such as overhead
+and profit.
+    As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of
+the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that
+describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost
+associated with higher-efficiency products for the analyzed product
+classes.
+    DOE requests feedback on design options that manufacturers would
+use to increase energy efficiency in consumer air cleaners above the
+baseline. This includes information on the order in which manufacturers
+would incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve
+efficiency of products. DOE also requests feedback on whether the
+increased energy efficiency would lead to other design changes that
+would not occur otherwise. DOE is also interested in information
+regarding any potential impact of design options on a manufacturer's
+ability to incorporate additional functions or attributes in response
+to consumer demand.
+    DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated with
+incorporating each particular design option. DOE also requests
+information on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design
+options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or
+modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development
+efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/production
+impacts.
+    DOE requests comment on whether certain design options may not be
+applicable to (or incompatible with) certain types of air cleaners.
+
+D. Distribution Channels and Markups Analysis
+
+    DOE derives customer prices based on manufacturer markups as
+discussed, as well as retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor
+markups (where appropriate), and sales taxes. In deriving the retailer
+and distributor markups, DOE determines the major distribution channels
+for product sales, the markup associated with each party in each
+distribution channel, and the existence and magnitude of differences
+between markups for baseline products (``baseline markups'') and
+higher-efficiency products (``incremental markups''). The identified
+distribution channels (i.e., how the products are distributed from the
+manufacturer to the consumer), and estimated relative sales volumes
+through each channel are used in generating end-user price inputs for
+the LCC analysis and NIA.
+    DOE requests data and information on typical manufacturer markups
+for consumer air cleaners (i.e., the markup applied to the MPC to
+determine MSP).
+    DOE requests information on the existence of any distribution
+channels other than the retail outlet distribution channel that are
+used to distribute consumer air cleaners into the market.
+
+E. Energy Use Analysis
+
+    As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use
+analysis to identify how consumers use products, and thereby determine
+the energy savings potential of energy efficiency improvements. The
+energy use analysis is meant to represent typical energy consumption in
+the field. DOE will base the energy consumption of consumer air
+cleaners on the annual energy consumption as determined by the DOE test
+procedure.
+1. Consumer Samples and Market Breakdowns
+    To estimate the energy use of products in field operating
+conditions, DOE typically develops consumer samples that are
+representative of installation and operating characteristics of how
+such products are used in the field, as well as distributions of annual
+energy use by application and market segment. In a potential energy
+conservation standards rulemaking for consumer air cleaners, DOE may
+utilize the most current version of the Residential Energy Consumption
+Survey (``RECS'') published by the U.S. Energy Information
+Administration (``EIA'') (currently the 2015 RECS) and the most current
+version of the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (``CBECS)
+also published by EIA (currently the 2012 CBECS).
+    DOE requests data and information regarding market applications of
+consumer air cleaners and how those are broken down by economic sector
+(e.g., residential versus commercial).
+2. Operating Hours
+    One of the key inputs to the energy use analysis is the number of
+annual operating hours of the product.
+    As discussed, the ENERGY STAR database \20\ assumes that a consumer
+air cleaner operates for 16 hours per day and is inactive for 8 hours
+per day, corresponding to 5,840 active mode hours per year and 2,920
+inactive mode hours annually.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \20\ See ENERGY STAR database for air cleaners at https://data.energystar.gov/dataset/ENERGY-STAR-Certified-Room-Air-Cleaners/jmck-i55n.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    DOE requests data or published reports on the number of annual
+operating hours of consumer air cleaners. In particular, DOE requests
+data or published reports on whether the annual operating hours may
+differ for any of the types of consumer air cleaners that would be
+within the scope of DOE's proposed definition of consumer air cleaner.
+
+F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
+
+    DOE conducts the LCC and the payback period (``PBP'') analyses to
+evaluate the economic effects of potential energy conservation
+standards for consumer air cleaners on individual customers. The
+effects of more stringent energy conservation standards on a consumer
+of consumer air cleaners include changes in operating expenses (usually
+decreased) and changes in purchase prices (usually increased). For any
+given efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP and the change in LCC
+relative to an estimated baseline level. The LCC is the total customer
+expense over the life of the product, consisting of purchase,
+installation, and operating costs (expenses for energy use,
+maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the calculation of total installed
+cost include the cost of the product--which includes the MSP,
+distribution channel markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs.
+Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy
+consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and
+maintenance costs, product
+
+[[Page 3714]]
+
+lifetimes, discount rates, and the year that compliance with new and
+amended standards is required.
+    DOE measures savings of potential standards relative to a ``no-new-
+standards'' case that reflects conditions without new and/or amended
+standards, and uses efficiency market shares to characterize the ``no-
+new-standards'' case product mix. By accounting for consumers who
+already purchase more efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the
+potential benefits from potential standards.
+    DOE requests information on the current energy efficiency
+distribution of consumer air cleaners.
+    DOE requests data and information on the installation costs of
+consumer air cleaners, and whether those vary by product class or any
+other factor affecting their efficiency.
+
+G. Repair and Maintenance Costs
+
+    As noted, inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include
+repair and maintenance costs, among other factors.
+    DOE requests feedback and data on whether maintenance costs differ
+in comparison to the baseline maintenance costs for any air cleaner
+technology options.
+    DOE requests information and data on the frequency of repair, and
+repair and maintenance costs of consumer air cleaners. DOE is also
+interested in the market share of consumers who simply replace the
+products when they fail as opposed to repairing them, and factors that
+affect whether consumers decide to repair or replace, such as income,
+geographical location, or product replacement cost and repair costs.
+
+H. Shipments
+
+    DOE develops shipments forecasts of products to calculate the
+national impacts of potential new or amended energy conservation
+standards on energy consumption, net present value (``NPV''), and
+future manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments projections are typically
+based on available historical data categorized by product class,
+capacity, and energy efficiency. Current sales estimates allow for a
+more accurate model that captures recent trends in the market.
+    DOE requests annual sales data (i.e., number of shipments) of
+consumer air cleaners from 2016 to 2020 disaggregated to the extent
+possible by product class, capacity, energy efficiency level, or any
+other differentiating factor used in the industry. For each class/
+category, DOE also requests the fraction of sales that are ENERGY STAR-
+qualified.
+    To project future shipments for the residential and commercial
+sectors, DOE typically uses, respectively, new housing starts
+projections and floorspace projections from the Annual Energy Outlook
+(AEO) as market drivers.
+    DOE requests on the market drivers and saturation trends that would
+help project shipments for consumer air cleaners.
+
+I. National Impact Analysis
+
+    The purpose of the NIA is to estimate the aggregate economic
+impacts of potential efficiency standards at the national level. The
+NIA assesses the national energy savings (``NES'') and the national NPV
+of total customer costs and savings that would be expected to result
+from new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.
+    A key component of DOE's estimates of NES and NPV is the equipment
+energy efficiencies forecasted over time for the no-new-standards case
+and for standards cases. DOE generally analyzes trends in market
+efficiency to project the no-new standards case efficiency over the NIA
+analysis period.
+    DOE seeks information on the expected efficiency trends in the
+consumer air cleaner market.
+
+J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
+
+    The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to
+estimate the financial impact of any new energy conservation standards
+on manufacturers of consumer air cleaners, and to evaluate the
+potential impact of such standards on direct employment and
+manufacturing capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and
+qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies
+on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-
+flow model adapted for each product in this analysis, with the key
+output of industry net present value (``INPV''). The qualitative part
+of the MIA addresses the potential impacts of energy conservation
+standards on manufacturing capacity and industry competition, as well
+as factors such as product characteristics, impacts on particular
+subgroups of firms, and important market and product trends.
+    As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of energy
+conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered
+products, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small
+Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to
+determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are
+listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System
+(``NAICS'') code.\21\ Manufacturing of portable consumer air cleaners
+is classified under NAICS 335210, ``Small Electrical Appliance
+Manufacturing, whereas manufacturing of non-portable consumer air
+cleaners is classified under NAICS 333413, ``Industrial and Commercial
+Fan and Blower and Air Purification Equipment Manufacturing.'' The SBA
+sets a threshold of 1,500 employees or less and 500 or less,
+respectively, for a domestic entity to be considered as a small
+business in these industry categories. These employee thresholds
+include all employees in a business' parent company and any other
+subsidiaries.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \21\ Available online at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the
+cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific
+regulatory actions of other federal agencies that affect the
+manufacturers of a covered product. While any one regulation may not
+impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of
+several existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences
+for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry.
+Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this
+cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy conservation
+standards, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers'
+financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same
+manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product
+lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing
+products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative
+regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance
+efficiency.
+    To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact information
+of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that distribute consumer
+air cleaners in the United States.
+    In particular, DOE requests the names and contact information of
+small businesses, as defined by the SBA's size threshold, that
+manufacture consumer air cleaners in the United States. In addition,
+DOE requests comment on any other manufacturer subgroups that could be
+disproportionally impacted by any new energy conservation standards.
+DOE requests feedback on any potential approaches that it could
+consider to address impacts on manufacturers, including small
+businesses.
+
+[[Page 3715]]
+
+    DOE requests information regarding the cumulative regulatory burden
+impacts on manufacturers of consumer air cleaners associated with (1)
+other DOE standards applying to different products that these
+manufacturers may also make and (2) product-specific regulatory actions
+of other federal agencies. DOE also requests comment on its methodology
+for computing cumulative regulatory burden and whether there are any
+flexibilities it can consider that would reduce this burden while
+remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
+
+IV. Submission of Comments
+
+    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
+specified under the DATES heading, comments and information on matters
+addressed in this RFI and on other matters relevant to DOE's
+consideration of establishing test procedure and energy conservation
+standards for consumer air cleaners. These comments and information
+will aid in the development of a test procedure NOPR and energy
+conservation standard NOPR for consumer air cleaners in which DOE
+determines that establishing test procedure and energy conservation
+standards may be appropriate for these products.
+    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 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. Following this instruction, 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 information to www.regulations.gov 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. Anyone submitting
+comments 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. Comments and documents submitted via
+email 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 on 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. Faxes will not 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 only documents
+that are: Not secured, written in English and 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. According 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).
+    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
+the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation
+standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of
+the public during the comment period in each stage of this process.
+Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced
+discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who
+wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices
+and information about this process should contact Appliance and
+Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
+[email protected].
+
+Signing Authority
+
+    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 13,
+2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy 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 January 14, 2022.
+Treena V. Garrett,
+Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
+[FR Doc. 2022-01035 Filed 1-24-22; 8:45 am]
+BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
+
+
+
+ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0001.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0001.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2234351 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0001.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0004.htm b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0004.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8cee594 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0004.htm differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0004.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0004.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..aaaff8c Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0004.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0025.htm b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0025.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..802eebc Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0025.htm differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0025.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0025.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2fcdf6d Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0025.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0026.htm b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0026.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c1da53d Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0026.htm differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0026.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0026.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f82ee5b Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0026.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0032.htm b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0032.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8a7514f --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0032.htm @@ -0,0 +1,807 @@ + + +Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2023) + +
+[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2023)]
+[Rules and Regulations]
+[Pages 60105-60111]
+From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
+[FR Doc No: 2023-18860]
+
+
+=======================================================================
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+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: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective and compliance
+dates.
+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') published a direct
+final rule to establish new energy conservation standards for air
+cleaners in the Federal Register on April 11, 2023. DOE has determined
+that the comments received in response to the direct final rule do not
+provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule.
+Therefore, DOE provides this document confirming adoption of the energy
+conservation standards established in the direct final rule and
+announcing the effective date of those standards.
+
+DATES: The effective date of August 9, 2023, for the direct final rule
+published April 11, 2023 (88 FR 21752) is confirmed. Compliance with
+the new standards established in the direct final rule will be required
+on December 31, 2023.
+
+ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
+Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
+comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
+review at 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.
+    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
+public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
+Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
+[email protected].
+
+[[Page 60106]]
+
+
+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:
+(202) 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].
+
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+
+I. Authority
+
+    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
+amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule
+establishing an energy conservation standard for a product 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) or 42 U.S.C. 6316,
+as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \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.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a
+notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that proposes an energy or
+water conservation standard that is identical to the standard
+established in 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)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct
+final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct final rule if (1) DOE
+receives one or more adverse public comments relating to the direct
+final rule or any alternative joint recommendation; and (2) based on
+the rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule, DOE determines
+that such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation
+may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule.
+(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) If DOE makes such a determination, DOE must
+proceed with the NOPR published simultaneously with the direct final
+rule and publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct
+final rule was withdrawn. Id.
+    DOE determined that it did not receive any adverse comments
+providing a basis for withdrawal described above for the direct final
+rule that is the subject of this document--air cleaners. As such, DOE
+did not withdraw this direct final rule and allowed it to become
+effective. Although not required under EPCA, DOE customarily publishes
+a summary of the comments received during the 110-day comment period
+and its responses to those comments. This document contains such a
+summary, as well as DOE's responses, for air cleaners.
+
+II. Air Cleaners Direct Final Rule
+
+    Air cleaners are not currently subject to Federal energy
+conservation standards. 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. Id.
+    In a final determination published on July 15, 2022 (``July 2022
+Final Determination''), DOE determined 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
+kilowatt-hours per year (``kWh/yr''); and thus, air cleaners qualify as
+a ``covered product'' under EPCA. 87 FR 42297.
+    On August 23, 2022, DOE received a proposal jointly submitted by
+groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates,
+and consumer groups, hereinafter referred to as ``the Joint
+Stakeholders.'' \2\ This proposal, titled ``Joint Statement of Joint
+Stakeholder Proposal On Recommended Energy Conservation Standards And
+Test Procedure For Consumer Room Air Cleaners'' (hereafter, the ``Joint
+Proposal'' \3\), recommended specific energy conservation standards for
+air cleaners that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA
+requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). The Joint Proposal 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 industry standard AHAM AC-7-2022 \4\ as the
+DOE test procedure. (Id. at p. 6) In regard to energy conservation
+standards, the Joint Proposal specified two-tiered (i.e., Tier 1 and
+Tier 2) standard levels, as shown in Table II.1, for conventional room
+air cleaners with proposed compliance dates of December 31, 2023, and
+December 31, 2025, respectively. (Id. at p. 9).
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \2\ The Joint Stakeholders include the Association of Home
+Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM''), Appliance Standards Awareness
+Project (``ASAP''), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
+(``ACEEE''), Consumer Federation of America (``CFA''), Natural
+Resources Defense Council (``NRDC''), the New York State Energy
+Research and Development Authority (``NYSERDA''), and the Pacific
+Gas and Electric Company (``PG&E''). AHAM is representing the
+companies who manufacture consumer room air cleaners and are members
+of the Portable Appliance Division (DOE has included names of all
+manufacturers listed in the footnote on page 1 of the Joint Proposal
+and the signatories listed on pages 13-14): 3M Co.; Access Business
+Group, LLC; ACCO Brands Corporation; Air King, Air King Ventilation
+Products; Airgle Corporation; Alticor, Inc.; Beijing Smartmi
+Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.; BISSELL Inc.; Blueair Inc.; BSH
+Home Appliances Corporation; De'Longhi America, Inc.; Dyson Limited;
+Essick Air Products; Fellowes Inc.; Field Controls; Foxconn
+Technology Group; GE Appliances, a Haier company; Gree Electric
+Appliances Inc.; Groupe SEB; Guardian Technologies, LLC; Haier Smart
+Home Co., Ltd.; Helen of Troy-Health & Home; iRobot; Lasko Products,
+Inc.; Molekule Inc.; Newell Brands Inc.; Oransi LLC; Phillips
+Domestic Appliances NA Corporation; SharkNinja Operating, LLC; Sharp
+Electronics Corporation; Sharp Electronics of Canada Ltd.; Sunbeam
+Products, Inc.; Trovac Industries Ltd; Vornado Air LLC; Whirlpool
+Corporation; Winix Inc.; and Zojirushi America Corporation.
+    \3\ The Joint Proposal is available in the docket for this
+rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0016.
+    \4\ AHAM AC-7-2022 Energy Test Method for Consumer Room Air
+Cleaners. Available for purchase at: https://www.aham.org/ItemDetail?iProductCode=37002&Category=PADSTD&websiteKey=c0a5e5a1-ea1c-42f1-9b84-d62256c16ea2.
+
+      Table II.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
+
+[[Page 60107]]
+
+
+100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 150.....                  1.90                  2.39
+PM2.5 CADR >= 150...........                  2.01                  2.91
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+* Tier 1 standards would have a compliance date of December 31, 2023.
+** Tier 2 standards would have a compliance date of December 31, 2025.
+
+    After carefully considering the consensus recommendations for
+establishing energy conservation standards for air cleaners submitted
+by the Joint Stakeholders, DOE determined that these recommendations
+were in accordance with the statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C.
+6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a direct final rule and published a
+direct final rule on April 11, 2023 (``April 2023 Direct Final Rule'').
+88 FR 21752, 21760. DOE also evaluated whether the recommendation
+satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as applicable, and found that the Joint
+Proposal recommended standard levels would result in significant energy
+savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified. 88
+FR 21752, 21753. Accordingly, the consensus-recommended efficiency
+levels for air cleaners were adopted as the new standard levels in the
+April 2023 Direct Final Rule.\5\ 88 FR 21752, 21807-21810.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \5\ The standard levels enacted by the April 2023 Direct Final
+Rule were rounded to the nearest tenth decimal consistent with the
+sampling plan requirements in 10 CFR 429.68. The rounding has no
+functional impact on the standards as compared to the levels
+proposed in the Joint Proposal.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    These standards, which are expressed as an integrated energy factor
+(``IEF'') in terms of PM2.5 \6\ clean air delivery rate per
+watt (``PM2.5 CADR/W''), based on the product's measured
+PM2.5 CADR. These standards apply to all products listed in
+Table II.2 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States
+starting on December 31, 2023, for Tier 1 standards and on December 31,
+2025, for Tier 2 standards. The April 2023 Direct Final Rule provides a
+detailed discussion of DOE's analysis of the benefits and burdens of
+the new standards pursuant to the criteria set forth in EPCA. 88 FR
+21752.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \6\ Section 2.8 of the industry standard AHAM AC-7-2022 defines
+PM2.5 as particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
+less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers as measured by a
+reference method based on 40 CFR part 50 Annex I and designated in
+accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or by an equivalent method designated
+in accordance with 40 CFR part 53.
+
+       Table II.2--Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners
+    [Tier 1 compliance starting December 31, 2023; Tier 2 compliance
+                       starting December 31, 2025]
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+                                        IEF (PM2.5 CADR/W) \7\
+                             -------------------------------------------
+        Product class         Tier 1  December 31,  Tier 2  December 31,
+                                      2023                  2025
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+PC1: 10 <= PM2.5 CADR < 100.                   1.7                   1.9
+PC2: 100 <= PM2.5 CADR < 150                   1.9                   2.4
+PC3: PM2.5 CADR >= 150......                   2.0                   2.9
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    As required by EPCA, DOE also simultaneously published a NOPR
+proposing the identical standard levels contained in the April 2023
+Direct Final Rule. 88 FR 21512. DOE considered whether any comment
+received during the 110-day comment period following the direct final
+rule was sufficiently ``adverse'' as to provide a reasonable basis for
+withdrawal of the direct final rule and continuation of this rulemaking
+under the NOPR. When making a determination whether to withdraw a
+direct final rule, it is the substance, rather than the quantity, of
+comments that will ultimately determine whether a direct final rule
+will be withdrawn. To this end, DOE weighs the substance of any adverse
+comment(s) received against the anticipated benefits of the consensus
+recommendations and the likelihood that further consideration of the
+comment(s) would change the results of the rulemaking. DOE notes that
+to the extent an adverse comment had been previously raised and
+addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a submission will not
+typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a direct final rule.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \7\ These values from the Joint Proposal are rounded according
+to the sampling plan in 10 CFR 429.68. The rounding has no
+functional impact on the standards as compared to the levels in the
+Joint Proposal.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+III. Comments on the Direct Final Rule
+
+    As discussed in section I of this document, not later than 120 days
+after publication of a direct final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct
+final rule if (1) DOE receives one or more adverse public comments
+relating to the direct final rule or any alternative joint
+recommendation; and (2) based on the rulemaking record relating to the
+direct final rule, DOE determines that such adverse public comments or
+alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for
+withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i))
+    DOE received comments in response to the April 2023 Direct Final
+Rule from the interested parties listed in Table III.1.
+
+[[Page 60108]]
+
+
+
+    Table III.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the April 2023 Direct Final Rule
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+                                                                       Comment
+             Commenter(s)                      Abbreviation        number in  the          Commenter type
+                                                                       docket
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+SENSIRON AG...........................  SENSIRON AG..............              27  Component Manufacturer.
+IQAir North America...................  IQAir....................              28  Manufacturer.
+Slaughter.............................  Slaughter................              29  Individual.
+Association of Home Appliance           AHAM.....................              30  Trade Association.
+ Manufacturers.
+ACEEE, ASAP, AHAM, CFA, NRDC..........  Joint Stakeholders.......              31  Individual Efficiency
+                                                                                    Organizations, Consumer
+                                                                                    Organization, and Trade
+                                                                                    Association.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
+paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\8\
+The following sections discuss the substantive comments DOE received on
+the April 2023 Direct Final Rule as well as DOE's responses.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \8\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
+information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
+energy conservation standards for air cleaners. (Docket No. EERE-
+2021-BT-STD-0035, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
+references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
+ID number, page of that document).
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+A. General Comments
+
+    In comments submitted in response to the April 2023 Direct Final
+Rule, the Joint Stakeholders and AHAM expressed support for the
+standard levels specified in the April 2023 Direct Final Rule as well
+as the process used to develop those standards. (Joint Stakeholders,
+No. 31 at pp. 1-2; AHAM. No. 30 at p. 1) The Joint Stakeholders noted
+their appreciation for DOE's swift action in publishing the DFR and
+stated their belief that the standards are economically justified and
+technologically feasible and will achieve significant savings. (Joint
+Stakeholders, No. 31 at pp. 1-2) DOE appreciates the Joint
+Stakeholder's comments and agrees that the standards are economically
+justified and technologically feasible and will result in significant
+energy savings.
+    The Joint Stakeholders urged DOE to propose and finalize reporting
+criteria for air cleaners, especially because compliance with Tier 1
+standards would be required beginning December 31, 2023. The Joint
+Stakeholders stated that manufacturers would need to know the reporting
+criteria to begin completing their compliance reporting efforts. (Joint
+Stakeholders, No. 31 at p. 2) DOE acknowledges that certification data
+will be required for air cleaners; however, DOE did not adopt
+certification or reporting requirements for air cleaners in the April
+2023 Direct Final Rule. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to
+establish certification requirements and reporting for air cleaners
+under a separate rulemaking regarding certification for covered
+products and equipment.
+
+B. Vacuum Cleaners With Air Cleaning Functionality
+
+    AHAM commented that vacuum cleaners with a secondary air cleaning
+function should not be included in the scope of the air cleaners
+standards or test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix FF
+(``appendix FF''). AHAM noted that there are currently vacuum cleaners
+available on the market that clean the air as a secondary function
+simultaneously with the primary vacuuming function. (AHAM, No. 30 at
+pp. 1-2) AHAM commented that the air filter function for these products
+is not an independent function of the vacuum cleaner and that the
+product is not intended to be plugged in on an ongoing basis. For these
+reasons, AHAM commented that it understands that vacuum cleaners that
+also clean the air, while vacuuming are not under the scope of this
+rule or appendix FF. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 2) AHAM commented that such
+vacuum cleaners would not meet the proposed standards, and asserted
+that the Joint Stakeholders had not considered such products in the
+scope when developing the standards that they presented to DOE in the
+Joint Proposal. AHAM also noted that it had examined these products as
+part of the AHAM AC-7-2022 task force and these products would not be
+in the scope of the AHAM AC-7-2022 standard. (Id.) AHAM suggested that
+DOE clarify that these products are not in the scope of the air cleaner
+standards via a guidance document. AHAM additionally stated that if
+these vacuum cleaners are included under the scope, then DOE could
+amend section 2.2.2 of appendix FF to indicate that if a product has
+air cleaning as a secondary function and one of the secondary listed
+functions is a primary function as defined by the product safety
+certification listing, then the test method would not apply to such
+products. (Id.)
+    Air cleaners are defined as a product for improving indoor air
+quality, other than a central air conditioner, room air conditioner,
+portable air conditioner, dehumidifier, and furnace, that is an
+electrically-powered, self-contained, mechanically encased assembly
+that contains means to remove, destroy, or deactivate particulates, VOC
+[volatile organic compounds], and/or microorganisms from the air. It
+excludes products that operate solely by means of ultraviolet light
+without a far for air circulation. 10 CFR 430.2. In the July 2022 Final
+Determination, DOE noted that the reason for explicitly stating that
+``air cleaners are a product for improving indoor air quality'' was to
+clarify that the term ``air cleaners'' does not include products that
+may provide some air cleaning as an ancillary function (e.g., a vacuum
+cleaner). 87 FR 42297, 42302. Accordingly, vacuum cleaners that provide
+air cleaning as an ancillary function do not meet the definition of an
+air cleaner.
+
+C. Air Cleaners With Gas Filtration
+
+    IQAir North America, Inc. together with Swiss affiliate IQAir AG
+(collectively ``IQAir''), commented that the standards established in
+the April 2023 Direct Final Rule would have a permanent negative effect
+on some of its products and would eliminate an entire class of air
+purification products. (IQAir, No. 28 at pp. 1, 5) IQAir commented that
+it makes products for gaseous and odor filtration, including filtration
+of VOCs. (Id. at pp. 1-2) IQAir asserted that gas-phase filtration
+inherently requires greater energy than simple particulate/HEPA \9\
+filtration, and that due to the increased energy usage of gas-phase
+filtration, these products will not meet the IEF levels specified in
+the direct final rule and therefore will no longer be able to be
+
+[[Page 60109]]
+
+sold in the United States. (Id. at pp. 2-3) IQAir stated that its gas-
+phase air cleaners have played a vital role for specific segments of
+the population, such as those effected by natural gas exposure, which
+contains toxic VOCs and odorous gases. (Id. at p. 4) IQAir stated that
+gas-phase air cleaners are critical to its product lineup and being
+unable to sell them in the United States would be devastating to its
+business operations there. (Id. at p. 5)
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \9\ High efficiency particulate air (``HEPA'') filter is a
+pleated mechanical air filter that includes a porous filtration
+medium typically composed of randomly arranged polypropylene or
+fiberglass fibers. As air passes through the porous media,
+particulates in the air become trapped on the filter surface,
+allowing clean air to be discharged by the air cleaner.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    IQAir stated that one of the most effective ways to filter gases
+and odors is with granular sorbent media such as activated charcoal,
+and chemisorbant pellets. IQAir noted that its gas-filtration-based
+products include a proprietary blend of activated carbon and alumina,
+impregnated with potassium permanganate. (Id. at p. 2) IQAir noted that
+of the three of its products that offer this functionality, the top
+gas-filtration model is GCX, which includes cartridge-based granular
+filters containing over 20 pounds of media. IQAir noted that all three
+of these products meet the definition of an air cleaner as specified in
+the April 2023 Direct Final Rule, would be subject to the standards
+established in that direct final rule, and would be tested in the same
+way as air cleaners that do not offer gas-phase filtration. (Id.)
+    In explaining how gas-phase filtration inherently requires greater
+energy than simple particulate/HEPA filtration, IQAir stated that
+pushing air through the pre-filter and varying types and amounts of
+granular media requires electric motors of a certain power level. IQAir
+commented that its models have already achieved the best possible
+energy efficiency at given levels of gas-phase reductions, capacity,
+and price. IQAir stated that the gas-phase filtration technology
+contained in its products performs a valuable, sought-after function,
+and that standard particulate/HEPA systems are physically incapable of
+performing this same function. IQAir also stated that there is no
+feasible combination of currently available components or technology
+that could allow their air cleaners to meet the standards established
+in the April 2023 Direct Final Rule without going into a price range
+that is far out of reach of its customers. IQAir requested that DOE
+consider the importance of the entire class of gas-phase products that
+it believes will be effectively banned by the standards established in
+the April 2023 Direct Final Rule. (Id. at p. 5) IQAir also asserted
+that the large capacity of its air cleaners enables more contaminates
+to be absorbed over a longer period of time before needing filter
+replacements. (Id. at p. 4)
+    DOE has conducted an extensive review of products that provide
+gaseous and odor filtration through the use of carbon filter media,
+including those models referenced in IQAir's comments. Based on this
+review, DOE has concluded that it is technologically feasible to
+implement design options to achieve higher levels of efficiency in air
+cleaners that employ the key design characteristics observed in those
+models referenced in IQAir's comments. Specifically, DOE observed that
+the HEPA-type filter included in IQAir's products is up to 6 inches
+thick and that the units have an inlet/outlet air flow design that
+restricts airflow by drawing in air over a smaller surface area
+(compared to the size of the unit) at the base of the model and only
+allows air to exit over a small surface area at the topmost section of
+the cabinet. Further, DOE observed that IQAir's products use a
+permanent split capacitor (``PSC'') fan motor, rather than more
+efficient brushless direct current (``BLDC'') fan motors that are used
+in other products. In chapter 5 of the technical support document
+(``TSD'') that accompanied the April 2023 Direct Final Rule (``2023
+Direct Final Rule TSD''), DOE noted that at efficiency level 1 (``EL
+1''), which corresponds to the Tier 1 standards established in the
+April 2023 Direct Final Rule, efficiency improvements are achievable
+through optimizing the motor-filter relationship, typically by reducing
+the restriction of airflow (and therefore, the pressure drop across the
+filter) by increasing the filter surface area, reducing filter
+thickness, and/or increasing air inlet/outlet size.\10\ These design
+options improve airflow across the unit, enabling the use of a smaller
+motor and thereby reducing power consumption. Based on a detailed
+examination of air cleaner models from IQAir, DOE notes that IQAir
+could implement these design options by altering their case design to
+accommodate a thinner HEPA filter, while increasing the size of the air
+inlet at the base of the device. These changes would allow for a
+reduction in the size of the motor, while maintaining a similar
+airflow, which would decrease the power consumption of the unit. The
+case design could also be improved by expanding the size of the air
+outlet at the top of the device, which would further improve airflow.
+Additionally, IQAir could change to the more efficient BLDC motor.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \10\ See section 5.5.3 of the 2023 Direct Final Rule TSD for
+more information on technology options for improving efficiency.
+Available online at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0024.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    IQAir expressed concern that the standards established in the April
+2023 Direct Final Rule would eliminate an entire class of air cleaner
+products from the market. (See IQAir, No. 28 at p. 5) As discussed
+previously, DOE has reviewed the products using gas-filtration
+technology and determined that there are technology options available
+that would allow their products to meet the standards in the April 2023
+Direct Final Rule. Given that there are technology options available
+for these products, DOE does not believe that this standard would cause
+the unavailability of air cleaner products with performance
+characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, or volumes that are
+substantially the same as those of the market at the time of the
+Secretary's findings. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4).
+    Regarding cost, DOE's engineering analysis for the April 2023
+Direct Final Rule considered the cost impacts of implementing the
+analyzed design options into air cleaners. See section 5.5.3 of the
+April 2023 Direct Final Rule TSD. DOE notes that EPCA does not require
+it to choose the standard level with the least consumer cost, or the
+least cost to manufacturers, but only to assess those, among other,
+costs and benefits (using the 7 factors articulated at 42 U.S.C.
+6295(o)) and determine whether the burdens outweigh the benefits.
+Additionally, as discussed above, DOE has not found that this standard
+would result in the unavailability in air cleaners of performance
+characteristics, features, size, capacities, and volumes that are
+substantially the same as those on the market at the time of this
+finding. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) In this case, the recommended
+standards met that standard, and DOE's analysis and conclusions would
+not change based on the comments received. Thus, DOE does not consider
+these comments to provide a basis to justify a withdrawal of this
+direct final rule under EPCA.
+    IQAir asserted that gas-phase air cleaners are unfairly measured by
+the DOE test procedure, and that their unique benefit is unrecognized.
+(Id. at p. 5) IQAir stated that the standards established in the April
+2023 Direct Final Rule encompass a broad range of devices including
+gas-phase air cleaners, but that they are based on a measure of only
+particulate performance. (Id.) IQAir noted that the standards are based
+on the measurement of CADR, which describes the initial cleaning
+performance of a filter and is expressed with respect to specific types
+of pollutants (i.e., PM2.5 CADR, pollen CADR, etc.). (Id. at
+p. 3) IQAir noted
+
+[[Page 60110]]
+
+that while it is possible to determine CADR for gas-phase pollutants,
+it would still only measure initial air cleaning performance and would
+not account for degradation of performance over time. IQAir noted this
+is particularly relevant to gas-phase filtration, which relies on the
+capacity of granular media in order to maintain effective filtration,
+and without sufficient capacity, a granular filter might produce good
+initial gas-phase CADR and then degrade to little or no filtration.
+Therefore, IQAir stated, accurate measurement of gas-phase filtration
+must include capacity. (Id.)
+    IQAir stated that the most advanced standardized testing protocol
+for consumer gas-phase filtration is China's GB/T 18801-2022, titled
+Air Cleaner, which measures both initial CADR and the amount of
+pollutant removed from the air until CADR drops to 50 percent of the
+initial value. IQAir stated that this methodology effectively measures
+the capacity of granular filters, enabling regulators and consumers to
+ensure that manufacturers do not game the system by achieving high CADR
+or high energy efficiency with unacceptable filter life. (Id.) IQAir
+suggested DOE include means of measuring gas-phase performance and
+capacity, and add a proportionate allowance in the calculation of IEF,
+which would recognize the value of gas-phase filtration and the
+practicality of implementing this technology without reducing the
+effectiveness of the air cleaner standards on non-gas-phase air
+cleaners. (Id. at p. 6)
+    The Joint Stakeholders commented that it reviewed comments on the
+docket and observed a comment that suggested that certain products may
+have difficulty meeting the standards because the test procedure does
+not accurately measure the efficiency of the product. The Joint
+Stakeholders suggested test procedure waivers as a viable pathway for
+such products. (Joint Stakeholders, No. 31 at p. 2)
+    As these comments pertain to the test procedure and not the
+establishment of standards, DOE does not consider these comments to
+provide a basis to justify a withdrawal of this direct final rule under
+EPCA. DOE finalized its test procedure for Air Cleaners on March 06,
+2023, noting that the air cleaner test procedure at appendix FF
+measures the PM2.5 CADR and power consumption of air
+cleaners using an established industry standard, AHAM AC-7-2022. 88 FR
+14014. DOE will consider any comments pertaining to test procedures,
+including comments suggesting additional tests for evaluating gas-
+filtration of air cleaners, in a future air cleaner test procedure
+rulemaking. In response to the comments from Joint Stakeholders, DOE
+notes that any interested person may submit a petition for test
+procedure waiver upon the grounds that the basic model contains one or
+more design characteristics which either prevent testing of the basic
+model according to the prescribed test procedures or cause the
+prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so
+unrepresentative of its true energy and/or water consumption
+characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.
+10 CFR 430.27(a)(1)).
+
+D. Automatic Mode
+
+    SENSIRON AG commented that there is significant potential for
+energy savings by using air quality sensors for controlling the level
+of operation of the air cleaner, depending on the level of pollution in
+the indoor space where the device is used. SENSIRON AG requested that
+DOE consider the adoption of air quality sensors for operation control.
+SENSIRON AG also commented that to ensure sensors of appropriate
+quality are used, DOE should utilize sensor performance requirements as
+defined in existing healthy building standards (such as WELL \11\ and
+RESET \12\). (SENSIRON AG, No. 27 at p. 1)
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    \11\ www.wellcertified.com/.
+    \12\ www.reset.build/.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    DOE addressed public comments received regarding the use of
+automatic mode in the air cleaner test procedure final rule published
+March 6, 2023 (``March 2023 TP Final Rule''). 88 FR 14014, 14032. DOE
+noted in the March 2023 TP Final Rule that industry-accepted test
+methods for other modes, such as automatic mode or low speed mode, do
+not currently exist. Id. at 88 FR 14032. As discussed in section
+5.5.1.7 of the 2023 Direct Final Rule TSD, operation of air cleaners in
+automatic mode is not currently tested and, therefore, DOE determined
+that air quality sensors to improve automatic mode efficiency would not
+impact the efficiency levels analyzed for the direct final rule.
+    While SENSIRON AG included recommended standards, DOE notes that
+these standards are applicable to the sensors that monitor air quality,
+not to the air cleaner itself. As this comment pertains to the test
+procedure and not the establishment of standards, DOE does not consider
+this comment to provide a basis to justify a withdrawal of this direct
+final rule under EPCA. DOE is participating in the AHAM task force that
+is currently developing a test method for testing air cleaners with
+automatic mode. As stated previously, DOE would consider any updates to
+the test procedure in a future test procedure rulemaking.
+
+IV. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
+
+    EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is
+likely to result from new or amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295
+(p)(4)(A)(i) and (C)(i)(II); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also
+directs the Attorney General of the United States (``Attorney
+General'') to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of
+competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit
+such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication
+of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent
+of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To assist
+the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE provided the
+Department of Justice (``DOJ'') with copies of the April 2023 Direct
+Final Rule, the corresponding NOPR, and the 2023 Direct Final Rule TSD
+for review. DOE has published DOJ's comments at the end of this
+document.
+    In its letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that based on its
+review, it does not have an evidentiary basis to conclude that the
+proposed energy conservation standards for air cleaners are likely to
+substantially lessen competition. Although the rule may limit
+consumers' ability to purchase non-compliant products, DOJ stated that
+those impacts appear to result from the rule, itself. DOJ also stated
+that it is not aware of likely impacts on competition or the
+competitive process for air cleaners that will continue to be offered.
+DOJ acknowledged comments expressing concerns regarding whether the
+proposed standard is appropriate for certain products that may have
+functionality beyond air cleaning (e.g., vacuums) or provide air
+cleaning functionality that requires additional energy consumption
+(e.g., gas phase air cleaners). DOJ stated its understanding that DOE
+has discretion to grant waivers from a test procedure in certain
+circumstances (10 CFR 430.27(f)(2)). DOJ took no positions on these
+comments and concerns, but encouraged DOE, should it grant waivers in
+other product segments, to do so in a manner that preserves
+competition.
+    In response to the April 2023 Direct Final Rule, an individual
+commented that the April 2023 Direct Final Rule would not allow a free
+market. (Slaughter, No. 29 at p. 1)
+
+[[Page 60111]]
+
+    DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to
+result from new or amended standards. Based on the DOJ review, DOE has
+determined it does not have an evidentiary basis to conclude that the
+April 2023 Direct Final Rule energy conservation standards for air
+cleaners are likely to substantially lessen competition.
+
+V. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
+
+    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
+(``NEPA''), DOE had analyzed the direct final rule in accordance with
+NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE
+determined that the rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 10
+CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1 because it is a rulemaking that
+establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or
+industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in B5.1(b)
+apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that require further
+environmental analysis, and it meets the requirements for application
+of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE
+determined that promulgation of the direct final rule is not a major
+Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
+environment within the meaning of NEPA, and does not require an
+environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.
+
+VI. Conclusion
+
+    In summary, based on the previous discussion, DOE has determined
+that the comments received in response to the direct final rule for new
+energy conservation standards for air cleaners do not provide a
+reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. As a result,
+the energy conservation standards set forth in the direct final rule
+became effective on August 9, 2023. Compliance with these standards is
+required on and after December 31, 2023.
+
+Signing Authority
+
+    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 28,
+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 August 28, 2023.
+Treena V. Garrett,
+Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
+
+Appendix
+
+August 9, 2023
+
+Ami Grace-Tardy
+Assistant General Counsel for
+Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency
+U.S. Department of Energy
+Washington, DC 20585
+[email protected]
+
+Re: Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners, DOE Docket No.
+EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035
+
+Dear Assistant General Counsel Grace-Tardy:
+
+    I am responding to your June 16, 2023 letter seeking the views
+of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of
+proposed energy conservation standards for air cleaners.
+    Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of
+the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 42 U.S.C.
+6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to
+determine the impact of any lessening of competition likely to
+result from proposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney
+General's responsibility for responding to requests from other
+departments about the effect of a program on competition has been
+delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust
+Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). The Assistant Attorney General for the
+Antitrust Division has authorized me, as the Policy Director for the
+Antitrust Division, to provide the Antitrust Division's views
+regarding the potential impact on competition of proposed energy
+conservation standards on his behalf.
+    In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines
+whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by
+substantially limiting consumer choice, by placing certain
+manufacturers at an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or by
+inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of
+particular products. A lessening of competition could result in
+higher prices to manufacturers and consumers.
+    We have reviewed the proposed standard contained in the direct
+final rule (88 FR 21752, April 11, 2023), the companion notice of
+proposed rulemaking (88 FR 21512, April 11, 2023), and the related
+technical support document. We have also reviewed public comments
+and information provided by industry participants. No Public Meeting
+was held in relation to this direct final rule.
+    Based on this review, we do not have an evidentiary basis to
+conclude that the proposed energy conservation standards for air
+cleaners are likely to substantially lessen competition. Although
+the rule may limit consumers' ability to purchase non-compliant
+products, those impacts appear to result from the rule, itself. We
+are not aware of likely impacts on competition or the competitive
+process for air cleaners that will continue to be offered.
+    We are aware of comments expressing concerns regarding whether
+the proposed standard is appropriate for certain products that may
+have functionality beyond air cleaning (e.g., vacuums) or provide
+air cleaning functionality that requires additional energy
+consumption (e.g., gas phase air cleaners). We understand that the
+Department of Energy (DOE) has discretion to grant waivers from a
+test procedure in certain circumstances (10 CFR 430.27(f)(2)). We
+take no positions on these comments and concerns, but encourage DOE
+should it grant waivers in other product segments to do so in a
+manner that preserves competition.
+    We ask that the DOE take these concerns into account in
+determining its final energy conservation standards for air
+cleaners.
+
+Sincerely,
+
+David G.B. Lawrence,
+
+Policy Director.
+
+[FR Doc. 2023-18860 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]
+BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
+
+
+
+ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0032.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0032.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4d74bb8 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/0032.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/grim-dfr.xlsm b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/grim-dfr.xlsm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..14bf9b4 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/grim-dfr.xlsm differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/grim-joint.xlsm b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/grim-joint.xlsm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8357f53 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/grim-joint.xlsm differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/lcc.xlsm b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/lcc.xlsm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6d40f7e Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/lcc.xlsm differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/nia.xlsm b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/nia.xlsm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bfcee9f Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/nia.xlsm differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/tsd.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/tsd.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dff53e5 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/analysis/tsd.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0002-Extension_Request_Air_Cleaner_TP_and_STD_RFI.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0002-Extension_Request_Air_Cleaner_TP_and_STD_RFI.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..52b546f Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0002-Extension_Request_Air_Cleaner_TP_and_STD_RFI.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0003-Trane_Technologies_DOE_RFI_Consumer_Air_Cleaners.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0003-Trane_Technologies_DOE_RFI_Consumer_Air_Cleaners.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bb1940b Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0003-Trane_Technologies_DOE_RFI_Consumer_Air_Cleaners.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0005-MIAQ_Comments_-_DOE_Air_Cleaners_ECS_and_TP_April_.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0005-MIAQ_Comments_-_DOE_Air_Cleaners_ECS_and_TP_April_.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4f173f5 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0005-MIAQ_Comments_-_DOE_Air_Cleaners_ECS_and_TP_April_.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0006-20220215_Electrolux_Subject_Question_regarding_DOE.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0006-20220215_Electrolux_Subject_Question_regarding_DOE.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ea411e5 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0006-20220215_Electrolux_Subject_Question_regarding_DOE.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0007-Lennox_Comments_-_RFI_on_TP_and_Standards_for_Cons.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0007-Lennox_Comments_-_RFI_on_TP_and_Standards_for_Cons.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8f59f3e Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0007-Lennox_Comments_-_RFI_on_TP_and_Standards_for_Cons.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0008-Joint_Comments_DOE_RFI_on_Room_Air_Cleaner_Test_Pr.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0008-Joint_Comments_DOE_RFI_on_Room_Air_Cleaner_Test_Pr.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ea43196 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0008-Joint_Comments_DOE_RFI_on_Room_Air_Cleaner_Test_Pr.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0009-Air_Cleaner_RFI_Comment_Letter_20220412.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0009-Air_Cleaner_RFI_Comment_Letter_20220412.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a24a37c Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0009-Air_Cleaner_RFI_Comment_Letter_20220412.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0009-Air_Purifiers_NPD_Data_Memo_.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0009-Air_Purifiers_NPD_Data_Memo_.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5a18858 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0009-Air_Purifiers_NPD_Data_Memo_.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0009-Air_Purifiers_National_Consumer_Survey_(1).pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0009-Air_Purifiers_National_Consumer_Survey_(1).pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8ffd95a Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0009-Air_Purifiers_National_Consumer_Survey_(1).pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0010-Blueair_Comment.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0010-Blueair_Comment.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..39b412d Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0010-Blueair_Comment.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0011-Molekule_Comments_to_DOE_RFI_Submitted_20220409.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0011-Molekule_Comments_to_DOE_RFI_Submitted_20220409.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3555889 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0011-Molekule_Comments_to_DOE_RFI_Submitted_20220409.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0012-20220410_-_Daikin_Comments_-_EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0012-20220410_-_Daikin_Comments_-_EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..991969a Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0012-20220410_-_Daikin_Comments_-_EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0013-ES_Air_Cleaner_Matched_Pairs_IMC_Analysis.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0013-ES_Air_Cleaner_Matched_Pairs_IMC_Analysis.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f6bdc02 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0013-ES_Air_Cleaner_Matched_Pairs_IMC_Analysis.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0013-NEEA_Comments_-_EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035_and_EERE-202.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0013-NEEA_Comments_-_EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035_and_EERE-202.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8ab5dc1 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0013-NEEA_Comments_-_EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035_and_EERE-202.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0014-Comments_in_Response_to_Docket_Numbers_EERE_2021_B.docx b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0014-Comments_in_Response_to_Docket_Numbers_EERE_2021_B.docx new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fe14d95 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0014-Comments_in_Response_to_Docket_Numbers_EERE_2021_B.docx differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0014-Comments_in_Response_to_Docket_Numbers_EERE_2021_B.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0014-Comments_in_Response_to_Docket_Numbers_EERE_2021_B.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6c5507c Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0014-Comments_in_Response_to_Docket_Numbers_EERE_2021_B.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0015-AHRI_Comments_to_DOE_Air_Cleaners_TP_and_ECS_RFI_-.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0015-AHRI_Comments_to_DOE_Air_Cleaners_TP_and_ECS_RFI_-.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f4135a2 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0015-AHRI_Comments_to_DOE_Air_Cleaners_TP_and_ECS_RFI_-.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0016-Joint_Statement_To_Adopt_Joint_Stakeholder_Agreeme.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0016-Joint_Statement_To_Adopt_Joint_Stakeholder_Agreeme.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b3e290b Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0016-Joint_Statement_To_Adopt_Joint_Stakeholder_Agreeme.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0017-Air_Cleaner_Joint_Recommendation_Support_08_22.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0017-Air_Cleaner_Joint_Recommendation_Support_08_22.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2294161 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0017-Air_Cleaner_Joint_Recommendation_Support_08_22.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0018-Joint_Statement_Petition_for_Air_Cleaners_Energy_S.xlsx b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0018-Joint_Statement_Petition_for_Air_Cleaners_Energy_S.xlsx new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b7c31b4 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0018-Joint_Statement_Petition_for_Air_Cleaners_Energy_S.xlsx differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0019-20230222_Beach_Email_Subject_DOE_Issues_a_Final_Ru.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0019-20230222_Beach_Email_Subject_DOE_Issues_a_Final_Ru.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..935cb93 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0019-20230222_Beach_Email_Subject_DOE_Issues_a_Final_Ru.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0027-20230712_Sensirion_AG_Email_Subject_Comment_to_doc.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0027-20230712_Sensirion_AG_Email_Subject_Comment_to_doc.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..97af5a3 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0027-20230712_Sensirion_AG_Email_Subject_Comment_to_doc.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0028-IQAir_DOE_public_comment_230714.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0028-IQAir_DOE_public_comment_230714.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..04a293f Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0028-IQAir_DOE_public_comment_230714.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0030-AHAM_Comments_DOE_NOPR_and_DFR_on_Air_Cleaner_Stan.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0030-AHAM_Comments_DOE_NOPR_and_DFR_on_Air_Cleaner_Stan.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f5e1d5c Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0030-AHAM_Comments_DOE_NOPR_and_DFR_on_Air_Cleaner_Stan.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0031-Joint_Comments_DOE_Standards_NOPR_and_DFR_on_Air_c.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0031-Joint_Comments_DOE_Standards_NOPR_and_DFR_on_Air_c.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..62bd19f Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/comments/0031-Joint_Comments_DOE_Standards_NOPR_and_DFR_on_Air_c.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/88FR21752-final-rule.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/88FR21752-final-rule.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6124fc4 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/88FR21752-final-rule.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/88FR21752-final-rule.xml b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/88FR21752-final-rule.xml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1cec117 --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/88FR21752-final-rule.xml @@ -0,0 +1,7996 @@ + + + + DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY + 10 CFR Part 430 + [EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035] + RIN 1904-AF46 + Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners; Final Rule + + AGENCY: +

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

+ + + ACTION: +

Direct final rule.

+ + + SUMMARY: +

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

+ + + DATES: +

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

+ + + ADDRESSES: +

+ The docket for this rulemaking, which includes + Federal Register + notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at + 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. +

+

+ For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: + ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. +

+ + + 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: + ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. +

+

+ 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: + Amelia.Whiting@hq.doe.gov. +

+ + + + SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: +

+ Table of Contents + + I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule + A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers + B. Impact on Manufacturers + C. National Benefits and Costs + D. Conclusion + II. Introduction + A. Authority + B. Background + 1. Current Standards + 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Air Cleaners + 3. Joint Proposal Submitted by the Joint Stakeholders + III. General Discussion + A. General Comments + B. Scope of Coverage + C. Test Procedure + D. Technological Feasibility + 1. General + 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels + E. Energy Savings + 1. Determination of Savings + 2. Significance of Savings + F. Economic Justification + 1. Specific Criteria + a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers + b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) + c. Energy Savings + d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products + e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition + f. Need for National Energy Conservation + g. Other Factors + 2. Rebuttable Presumption + IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments + A. Market and Technology Assessment + 1. Product Classes + 2. Technology Options + B. Screening Analysis + 1. Screened-Out Technologies + 2. Remaining Technologies + C. Engineering Analysis + 1. Efficiency Analysis + a. Baseline Efficiency Levels + b. Higher Efficiency Levels + 2. Cost Analysis + 3. Cost-Efficiency Results + a. Product Class 1 + b. Product Class 2 + c. Product Class 3 + D. Markups Analysis + E. Energy Use Analysis + F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis + 1. Product Cost + 2. Installation Cost + 3. Annual Energy Consumption + 4. Energy Prices + 5. Maintenance and Repair Costs + 6. Product Lifetime + 7. Discount Rates + 8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case + 9. Payback Period Analysis + G. Shipments Analysis + H. National Impact Analysis + 1. Product Efficiency Trends + 2. National Energy Savings + 3. Net Present Value Analysis + I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis + J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis + 1. Overview + 2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs + a. Manufacturer Production Costs + b. Shipments Projections + c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs + d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios + 3. Discussion of MIA Comments + K. Emissions Analysis + 1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis + L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts + 1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions + a. Social Cost of Carbon + b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide + 2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts + M. Utility Impact Analysis + N. Employment Impact Analysis + V. Analytical Results and Conclusions + A. Trial Standard Levels + B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings + 1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers + a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period + b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis + c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback + 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers + a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results + b. Direct Impacts on Employment + c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity + d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers + e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden + 3. National Impact Analysis + + a. Significance of Energy Savings + + + b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits + c. Indirect Impacts on Employment + 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products + 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition + 6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy + 7. Other Factors + 8. Summary of Economic Impacts + C. Conclusion + 1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Air Cleaner Standards + 2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards + VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review + A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 + B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act + C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act + D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 + E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 + F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 + G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 + H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 + I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 + J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 + K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 + L. Information Quality + M. Congressional Notification + VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary + + I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule +

+ On July 15, 2022, DOE published a final determination (“July 2022 Final Determination”) in which it determined that air cleaners qualify as a “covered product” under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”). + 1 + + 87 FR 42297. DOE determined in the July 2022 Final Determination that coverage of air cleaners is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA, and that the average U.S. household energy use for air cleaners is likely to exceed 100 kWh/yr. + Id. + Currently, no energy conservation standards are prescribed by DOE for air cleaners. +

+ +

+ 1 +  All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA. +

+ +

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

+

+ As previously mentioned, and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule establishing energy conservation standards for air cleaners. These standard levels were submitted jointly to DOE on August 23, 2022, by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer groups, hereinafter referred to as “the Joint Stakeholders.”  + 2 + + This collective set of comments, titled “Joint Statement of Joint Stakeholder Proposal On Recommended Energy Conservation Standards And Test Procedure For Consumer Room Air Cleaners” (the “Joint Proposal”), + 3 + + recommends specific energy conservation standards for air cleaners that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). See sections II.B.3 and II.B.2 of this document for a detailed discussion of the Joint Proposal and history of the current rulemaking, respectively. +

+ +

+ 2 +  The Joint Stakeholders include the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (“ASAP”), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (“ACEEE”), Consumer Federation of America (“CFA”), Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”), and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”). AHAM is representing the companies who manufacture consumer room air cleaners and are members of the Portable Appliance Division (DOE has included names of all manufacturers listed in the footnote on page 1 of the Joint Proposal and the signatories listed on pages 13-14): 3M Co.; Access Business Group, LLC; ACCO Brands Corporation; Air King, Air King Ventilation Products; Airgle Corporation; Alticor, Inc.; Beijing Smartmi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.; BISSELL Inc.; Blueair Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation; De'Longhi America, Inc.; Dyson Limited; Essick Air Products; Fellowes Inc.; Field Controls; Foxconn Technology Group; GE Appliances, a Haier company; Gree Electric Appliances Inc.; Groupe SEB; Guardian Technologies, LLC; Haier Smart Home Co., Ltd.; Helen of Troy-Health & Home; iRobot; Lasko Products, Inc.; Molekule Inc.; Newell Brands Inc.; Oransi LLC; Phillips Domestic Appliances NA Corporation; SharkNinja Operating, LLC; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Sharp Electronics of Canada Ltd.; Sunbeam Products, Inc.; Trovac Industries Ltd; Vornado Air LLC; Whirlpool Corporation; Winix Inc.; and Zojirushi America Corporation. +

+ + +

+ 3 +  DOE Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0016. +

+ +

+ After carefully considering the Joint Proposal, DOE determined that the recommendations contained therein are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i) for the issuance of a direct final rule. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is simultaneously publishing, elsewhere in this issue of the + Federal Register + , a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) proposing that the identical standard levels contained in this direct final rule be adopted. Consistent with the statute, DOE is providing a 110-day public comment period on the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines that any comments received provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), DOE will continue the rulemaking under the NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) See section II.A of this document for more details on DOE's statutory authority. +

+

This direct final rule documents DOE's analyses to objectively and independently evaluate the energy savings potential, technological feasibility, and economic justification of the standard levels recommended in the Joint Proposal, as per the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

+

+ Ultimately, DOE found that the standard levels recommended in the Joint Proposal would result in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified. Table I.1 documents the standards for air cleaners. The standards correspond to the recommended trial standard level (“TSL”) 3 (as described in section V.A of this document) and are expressed as an integrated energy factor (“IEF”) in terms of PM + 2.5 +   + 4 + + clean air delivery rate per watt (“PM + 2.5 + CADR/W”), based on the product's PM + 2.5 + CADR. The standards are the same as those recommended by the Joint Stakeholders, which consist of two-tiered (Tier 1 and Tier 2) standard levels. These standards apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on December 31, 2023, for Tier 1 standards and on December 31, 2025, for Tier 2 standards. +

+ +

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

+ + + + Table I.1—Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners + [Compliance starting December 31, 2023] + + Product class + + IEF (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W)  + 5 + + + Tier 1 +
  • December 31, 2023
    • +     + + Tier 2 +
  • December 31, 2025
    • +     +     + + + PC1: 10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 1.7 + 1.9 + + + + PC2: 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 1.9 + 2.4 + + + + PC3: PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥ 150 + + 2.0 + 2.9 + +     + A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers +

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

    + +

    + 5 +  These values from the Joint Proposal are rounded according to the sampling plan in 10 CFR 429.68. The rounding has no functional impact on the standards as compared to the levels in the Joint Proposal. +

    +

    + 6 +  The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards (see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document). +

    +     + + Table I.2—Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Air Cleaners + + Air cleaners class + Tier + + Average LCC savings +
  • (2021$)
    • +     + + Simple +
  • payback period
    • +
  • (years)
    • +     +     + + + Product Class 1: 10-100 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + Tier 1 + $18 + 0.9 + + +   + Tier 2 + 12 + 1.4 + + + + Product Class 2: 100-150 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + Tier 1 + 38 + 0.4 + + +   + Tier 2 + 50 + 0.5 + + + + Product Class 3: 150+ PM + 2.5 + CADR + + Tier 1 + 105 + 0.1 + + +   + Tier 2 + 94 + 0.1 + +     +

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

    + B. Impact on Manufacturers +

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

    +

    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on manufacturers is described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document.

    + + C. National Benefits and Costs  + + 7 + + + + +

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

    +     +

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

    + +

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

    +     +

    The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the standards for air cleaners ranges from $5.8 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $13.7 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for air cleaners purchased in 2024-2057.

    +

    + In addition, the adopted standards for air cleaners are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 57.7 million metric tons (“Mt”)  + 9 + + of carbon dioxide (“CO + 2 + ”), 24.2 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO + 2 + ”), 91.2 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO + X + ”), 411.4 thousand tons of methane (“CH + 4 + ”), 0.6 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N + 2 + O”), and 0.2 tons of mercury (“Hg”). + 10 + + The estimated cumulative reduction in CO + 2 + emissions through 2030 amounts to 2.5 million Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions + + resulting from the annual electricity use of almost 500 thousand homes. +

    + +

    + 9 +  A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO + 2 + are presented in short tons. +

    +     + +

    + 10 +  DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the + Annual Energy Outlook 2022 + (“ + AEO2022 + ”). + AEO2022 + represents current federal and state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for further discussion of + AEO2022 + assumptions that affect air pollutant emissions. +

    +     +

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

    + +

    + 11 +  To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the + Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 + published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). +

    +     + +

    + 12 +   + See + Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, Washington, DC, February 2021 (“February 2021 SC-GHG TSD” + ). www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. +

    +     +

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

    + +

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

    +     +

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

    + + Table I.3—Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners + +   + + Billion +
  • ($2021)
    • +     +     + + + 3% discount rate + + + + Consumer Operating Cost Savings + 14.1 + + + Climate Benefits * + 2.8 + + + Health Benefits ** + 4.7 + + + Total Benefits † + 21.6 + + + Consumer Incremental Product Costs + 0.5 + + + Net Benefits + 21.1 + + + + 7% discount rate + + + + Consumer Operating Cost Savings + 6.0 + + + Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) + 2.8 + + + Health Benefits ** + 1.8 + + + Total Benefits † + 10.6 + + + Consumer Incremental Product Costs + 0.2 + + + Net Benefits + 10.3 + + + Note: + This table presents the costs and benefits associated with product name shipped in 2024-2057. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2024-2057. + + + * Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO + 2 + ), methane (SC-CH + 4 + ), and nitrous oxide (SC-N + 2 + O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the + Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 + published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). + + + ** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO + X + and SO + 2 + . DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO + 2 + and NO + X + ) PM + 2.5 + precursor health benefits and (for NO + X + ) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM + 2.5 + emissions. + See + section IV.L of this document for more details. + + † Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. +     + +

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

    + +

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

    +     +

    The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of air cleaners shipped in 2024-2057. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of air cleaners shipped in 2024-2057. DOE notes that DOE used its typical analytical time horizon of 30-years and then added 4 additional years to reflect the early compliance dates that are part of the standard level being adopted in this final rule. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section V.C.2 of this document.

    +

    Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.

    +

    + Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO + X + and SO + 2 + emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted in this rule is $19.8 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $499 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $136 million in climate benefits, and $149 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $764 million per year. +

    +

    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $23.4 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $690 million in reduced operating costs, $136 million in climate benefits, and $228 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $1,030 million per year.

    + + Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for Air Cleaners + +   + + Million +
  • (2021$/year)
    • +     + + Primary +
  • estimate
    • +     + + Low-net-benefits +
  • estimate
    • +     + + High-net-benefits +
  • 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 † + 1,053.6 + 958.1 + 1,174.2 + + + Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ + 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 † + 783.7 + 723.7 + 857.7 + + + Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ + 19.8 + 19.3 + 20.7 + + + Net Benefits + 763.9 + 704.4 + 837.0 + + + Note: + This table presents the costs and benefits associated with air cleaners shipped in 2024-2057. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2024-2057. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. + + + * Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the + Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 + published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). + + + ** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO + X + and SO + 2 + . DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO + 2 + and NO + X + ) PM + 2.5 + precursor health benefits and (for NO + X + ) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM + 2.5 + emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. + + † 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. + ‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as filter costs. +     + +

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

    + D. Conclusion +

    DOE has determined that the Joint Proposal containing recommendations with respect to energy conservation standards for air cleaners was submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and burdens, DOE has determined that the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the criteria for prescribing new or amended standards. Specifically, the Secretary has determined that the adoption of the recommended standards would result in the significant conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining whether the recommended standards are economically justified, the Secretary has determined that the benefits of the recommended standards exceed the burdens. Namely, the Secretary has concluded that the recommended standards, when considering the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings, would yield benefits outweighing the negative impacts on some consumers and on manufacturers, including the conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.

    +

    + Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO + X + and SO + 2 + reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the standards for air cleaners is $19.8 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $499 million in reduced product operating costs, $136 million in climate benefits, and $149 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $764 million per year. +

    +

    + The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. + 15 + + For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis. +

    + +

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

    +     +

    + As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 1.80 quads FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 19 million homes. The NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy savings is $5.8 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $13.7 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions associated with these energy savings are 57.7 Mt of CO + 2 + , 24.2 thousand tons of SO + 2 + , 91.2 thousand tons of NO + X + , 0.2 tons of Hg, 411.4 thousand tons of CH + 4 + , 0.6 thousand tons of N + 2 + O. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefit from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is $2.8 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO + 2 + and NO + X + emissions is $1.8 billion using a 7 percent discount rate and $4.7 billion using a 3 percent discount rate. As such, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support document (“TSD”). +

    +

    + Under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule establishing the energy conservation standards for air cleaners. Consistent with this authority, DOE is also publishing elsewhere in this issue of the + Federal Register + a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing standards that are identical to those contained in this direct final rule. + See + 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i). +

    + II. Introduction +

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

    + A. Authority +

    EPCA grants DOE authority to prescribe an energy conservation standard for any type (or class) of covered products of a type specified in 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20) if the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(p) are met and the Secretary determines that—

    +

    (A) the average per household energy use within the United States by products of such type (or class) exceeded 150 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) for any 12-month period ending before such determination;

    +

    (B) the aggregate household energy use within the United States by products of such type (or class) exceeded 4,200,000,000 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) for any such 12-month period;

    +

    (C) substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of products of such type (or class) is technologically feasible; and

    +

    + (D) the application of a labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6294 to such type (or class) is not likely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers to produce, and consumers and other persons to purchase, covered products of such type (or class) which achieve the maximum energy efficiency which is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295( + l + )(1)) +

    +

    The energy conservation program under EPCA, consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of the EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).

    +

    + Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. ( + See + 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) +

    +

    + Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted + + under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for air cleaners appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix FF (“appendix FF”). +

    +

    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including air cleaners. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain products, including air cleaners, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

    + +

    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;

    +

    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;

    +

    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;

    +

    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard;

    +

    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;

    +

    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

    +

    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant.

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

    Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))

    +

    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

    +

    + Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of products that has the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. + Id. + Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) +

    +

    Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for air cleaners address standby mode and off mode energy use, through the IEF metric. As IEF includes annual energy consumption in standby mode and off mode as part of the annual energy consumption metric and DOE is adopting standards for air cleaners based on IEF the standards in this direct final rule account for standby mode and off mode energy use of an air cleaner.

    +

    Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to issue a final rule (hereinafter referred to as a “direct final rule”) establishing an energy conservation standard on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))

    +

    + A NOPR that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must be published simultaneously with the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on the proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Based on the comments received during this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if (1) one or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the direct final rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner. + Id. + After withdrawing a direct final rule, DOE must proceed with the notice of proposed rulemaking published simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the + Federal Register + the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn. + Id. +

    +

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

    + B. Background + 1. Current Standards +

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

    + + Table II.1—Air Cleaner Standards Adopted by the District of Columbia and the States of Maryland, Nevada, and New Jersey + + Smoke CADR bins + Minimum smoke CADR/W + + + + 30 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 1.7 + + + + 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 1.9 + + + + PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥ 150 + + 2.0 + + + Note: + These standards are based on smoke clean air delivery rate (“CADR”) divided by the active mode power consumption in watts (“W”), which is different from the IEF metric specified in appendix FF. + + +

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

    + + Table II.2—Air Cleaner Standards Adopted by Washington State + + Smoke CADR Bins + Minimum smoke CADR/W + + + + 30 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 1.9 + + + + 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 2.4 + + + + PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥ 150 + + 2.9 + + + Note: + These standards are based on smoke CADR divided by the active mode power consumption in W, which is different from the IEF metric specified in appendix FF. + + + 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Air Cleaners +

    DOE has not previously conducted an energy conservation standards rulemaking for air cleaners. On January 25, 2022, DOE published a request for information (“January 2022 RFI”), seeking comments on potential test procedure and energy conservation standards for air cleaners. 87 FR 3702. In the January 2022 RFI, DOE requested information to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses to support energy conservation standards for air cleaners, should they be warranted. 87 FR 3702, 3705.

    +

    DOE determined in the July 2022 Final Determination that coverage of air cleaners is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA; the average U.S. household energy use for air cleaners is likely to exceed 100 kWh/yr; and thus, air cleaners qualify as a “covered product” under EPCA. 87 FR 42297.

    +

    On March 6, 2023, DOE published a final rule (“March 2023 TP Final Rule”) establishing a new test procedure (TP) at appendix FF for air cleaners that references the industry standard, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”) AC-7-2022, “Energy Test Method for Consumer Room Air Cleaners” and includes methods to (1) measure the performance of the covered product and (2) use the measured results to calculate an IEF to represent the energy efficiency of air cleaners. 88 FR 14014.

    +

    DOE received comments in response to the January 2022 RFI from the interested parties listed in Table II.4.

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

    + A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record. + 16 + + In response to the January 2022 RFI, DOE received certain + + comments pertaining to the scope of coverage and definition for air cleaners, which DOE addressed and discussed in the July 2022 Final Determination. Additionally, DOE addressed comments pertaining to the test procedure in a NOPR published on October 18, 2022 as part of the test procedure rulemaking establishing appendix FF. 87 FR 63324. All remaining comments provided by stakeholders in response to the January 2022 RFI are addressed in this direct final rule. +

    + +

    + 16 +  The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to determine coverage for air cleaners. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-DET-0022, which is maintained at + www.regulations.gov + ). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document). When referring to comments received on another docket, the docket number is included prior to the commenter's name. +

    +     + 3. Joint Proposal Submitted by the Joint Stakeholders +

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

    + + Table II.5—Tier 1 and Tier 2 Standards Proposed by the Joint Stakeholders in the Joint Proposal + + Product description + + IEF +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +
  • Tier 1 *
    • +     + + IEF +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +
  • Tier 2 **
    • +     +     + + + 10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 1.69 + 1.89 + + + + 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 1.90 + 2.39 + + + + PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥ 150 + + 2.01 + 2.91 + + * Tier 1 standards would have an effective date of December 31, 2023. + ** Tier 2 standards would have an effective date of December 31, 2025. +     +

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

    + +

    + 17 +  Available at: + https://data.energystar.gov/Active-Specifications/ENERGY-STAR-Certified-Room-Air-Cleaners/jmck-i55n/data. + Last accessed: December 2022. +

    +     +

    After carefully considering the consensus recommendations for establishing energy conservation standards for air cleaners submitted by the Joint Stakeholders, DOE has determined that these recommendations are in accordance with the statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a direct final rule.

    +

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

    +

    + DOE also evaluated whether the recommendation satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as applicable. In making this determination, DOE conducted an analysis to evaluate whether the potential energy conservation standards under consideration achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified and result in significant energy conservation. The evaluation is the + + same comprehensive approach that DOE typically conducts whenever it considers potential energy conservation standards for a given type of product or equipment. +

    +

    Upon review, the Secretary determined that the Joint Proposal comports with the standard-setting criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). Accordingly, the consensus-recommended efficiency levels were included as the “recommended TSL” for air cleaners (see section V.A of this document for description of all of the considered TSLs). The details regarding how the consensus-recommended TSLs comply with the standard-setting criteria are discussed and demonstrated in the relevant sections throughout this document.

    +

    + In sum, as the relevant criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) have been satisfied, the Secretary has determined that it is appropriate to adopt the consensus-recommended new energy conservation standards for air cleaners through this direct final rule. Also, in accordance with the provisions described in section II.A of this document, DOE is simultaneously publishing, elsewhere in this issue of the + Federal Register + , a NOPR proposing that the identical standard levels contained in this direct final rule be adopted. +

    + III. General Discussion +

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

    + A. General Comments +

    While DOE received comments in response to the January 2022 RFI pertaining to the specific subtopics in section IV of this document, DOE also received several general comments in response to the January 2022 RFI from interested parties regarding the rulemaking timing and process. These comments are summarized and addressed in the following paragraphs.

    +

    The Joint Commenters stated support for DOE's proposal to include consumer room air cleaners as a covered product and indicated they were working to negotiate possible Federal energy conservation standards for consumer room air cleaners, along with an applicable test procedure for DOE's consideration. (Joint Commenters, No. 8 at p.1) The CA IOUs also stated that they were engaged with stakeholders on test procedures, metrics, and efficiency standards for air cleaners. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at pp. 1-2)

    +

    + Trane commented that a new energy conservation standard for consumer air cleaners is necessary because consumers need guidance at a time of unprecedented energy bills and the opportunity to avoid unnecessary energy consumption. (Trane, No. 3 at p. 2) Blueair also commented that it supported energy conservation standards for air cleaners, citing its own HEPASilent + TM + technology as proof that reduced energy consumption and maximum clean air delivery were compatible. Blueair also stated that it has demonstrated that it is technologically possible to design and manufacture air cleaners with reduced energy usage without loss of air cleaning performance. (Blueair, No. 10 at p. 4) Synexis commented that energy conservation standards for consumer air cleaners were economically justified, technologically feasible, and would lead to energy savings. Synexis commented that implementing uniform Federal test methods and standards would likely reduce costs by standardizing the evaluation processes and would provide common criteria so consumers can make informed decisions. (Synexis, No. 14 at pp. 6-7) +

    +

    NEEA stated its support for DOE's effort to adopt test procedures and standards for air cleaners and shared sales data from 2015-2019 compiled from retail store sales in the U.S. Northwest. (NEEA, No. 13 at pp. 1-2) NEEA commented that the compiled data reflected the dramatic increases in sales and usage of air cleaners caused by the pandemic and wildfires, making a compelling case for DOE regulation. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 2) The CA IOUs also stated that the growth of air cleaner usage has been accelerated because of the pandemic and California wildfires, necessitating EPCA energy conservation standards. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 2)

    +

    DOE recognizes the comments supporting DOE regulation of air cleaners, and as discussed elsewhere in this document, DOE has determined that energy conservation standards for air cleaners are economically justified, technologically feasible, and would result in the significant conservation of energy.

    +

    Daikin commented that DOE's effort to initiate the test procedure and energy conservation standards rulemakings for consumer air cleaners was premature without first finalizing the coverage determination, segmenting the market based on types of air cleaners, and identifying the categories that would provide the most energy savings. (Daikin, No. 12 at p. 1) Daikin commented that since this is a new product rulemaking, DOE must first finalize its coverage determination and then a test procedure before establishing an energy conservation standard. Daikin further commented that DOE should provide sufficient time to comply with the test procedures before determining minimum efficiency standards. Daikin additionally stated that there may be laboratory test chamber shortages after a DOE test procedure is established. (Daikin, No. 12 at p. 3)

    +

    DOE appreciates Daikin's concern over the timing and order of rulemaking publications. DOE notes that the January 2022 RFI sought to solicit general feedback on air cleaner test procedures and standards only under the condition that air cleaners are determined to be a covered product. DOE further notes that the July 2022 Final Determination was published prior to DOE proposing a test procedure and establishing an energy conservation standard. The timeline of this rulemaking is accelerated compared to DOE's typical timeline in order to follow as closely as possible the schedule outlined in the Joint Proposal.

    +

    MIAQ also commented that it was disappointed by the shortening of the 75-day comment period to 30 days for the January 2022 RFI and the combination of the test procedure and standards rulemakings into a single RFI. MIAQ commented that this impacted its ability to investigate test laboratory capacity or capabilities. (MIAQ, No. 5 at p. 2)

    +

    DOE notes that while it initially established a 30-day comment period to allow DOE to review comments received in response to the January 2022 RFI before finalizing its coverage determination, it reopened the comment period to provide a 45-day extension. 87 FR 11326.

    +

    Lennox commented that DOE must maintain consumer utility of air cleaners when promulgating new standards and must ensure that any new standards are economically justified. (Lennox, No. 7 at p. 3)

    +

    DOE agrees with Lennox and, as discussed elsewhere in this document, DOE screened out technology options from consideration that would not maintain consumer utility. DOE is also establishing standards that are economically justified and did not select more stringent standards that would have negative economic impacts on consumers.

    +

    + The Joint Stakeholders commented that the Joint Proposal comports with the standards-setting criteria in EPCA and that the Joint Proposal was designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is + + technologically feasible and economically justified as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). The Joint Stakeholders additionally stated that the standards proposed in the Joint Proposal would decrease maximum energy use of a covered product in both Tier 1 and Tier 2, and thus comply with EPCA's prohibition against standards that increase maximum allowable energy use of a covered product. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). (Joint Stakeholders, No. 16 at pp. 11) +

    +

    DOE agrees that the Joint Proposal provides standards criteria that are technologically feasible and economically justified, as discussed throughout this document. DOE believes the standards criteria set by the Joint Proposal will provide an improvement in energy efficiency and decrease maximum energy use of covered products.

    + B. Scope of Coverage +

    + DOE has defined an “air cleaner” as a product for improving indoor air quality, other than a central air conditioner, room air conditioner, portable air conditioner, dehumidifier, or furnace, that is an electrically-powered, self-contained, mechanically encased assembly that contains means to remove, destroy, or deactivate particulates, volatile organic compound (VOC), and/or microorganisms from the air. 10 CFR 430.2. It excludes products that operate solely by means of ultraviolet light without a fan for air circulation. + Id. +

    +

    + In response to the January 2022 RFI, the Joint Commenters commented that minimum energy conservation standards should apply to conventional room air cleaners with a measured PM + 2.5 + CADR of 10 or greater in order to capture tabletop/desk portable room air cleaners. (Joint Commenters, No. 8 at p. 4) +

    +

    In the March 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established the scope of the air cleaners test procedure at appendix FF to “conventional room air cleaners,” which are a subset of products that meet the definition of “air cleaner” as defined in 10 CFR 430.2. 88 FR 14014, 14044. DOE established a definition for a conventional room air cleaner as a consumer room air cleaner that (1) is a portable or wall mounted (fixed) unit, excluding ceiling mounted unit, that plugs in to an electrical outlet; (2) operates with a fan for air circulation; and (3) contains means to remove, destroy, and/or deactivate particulates. The term “portable” is defined in section 2.1.3.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 and “fixed” is defined in section 2.1.3.2 of AHAM AC-7-2022. 88 FR 14014, 14044. The scope of appendix FF is limited to conventional room air cleaners with smoke CADR and dust CADR greater than or equal to 10 cubic feet per minute (“cfm”) and less than or equal to 600 cfm.

    +

    + This direct final rule covers those consumer products that meet the definition of conventional room air cleaners with smoke CADR and dust CADR greater than or equal to 10 cfm and less than or equal to 600 cfm as defined in section 1 of appendix FF. As discussed in section III.C of this document, PM + 2.5 + CADR is calculated as the geometric average of smoke CADR and dust CADR, which is very similar in value to both the smoke CADR and dust CADR. Therefore, the scope of products covered in this direct final rule is consumer products that meet the definition of conventional room air cleaners with PM + 2.5 + CADR greater than or equal to 10 cfm and less than or equal to 600 cfm. +

    +

    See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product classes analyzed in this direct final rule.

    + C. Test Procedure +

    EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE does not currently prescribe energy conservation standards for air cleaners.

    +

    + As stated, in the March 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established a new test procedure for air cleaners at appendix FF. 88 FR 14014. Specifically, appendix FF establishes an IEF metric, expressed in terms of PM + 2.5 + CADR/W, which measures the reduction rate of PM + 2.5 + particulates in a given room volume per unit power. The numerator of the IEF metric is PM + 2.5 + CADR, which is the geometric average of smoke CADR and dust CADR, where each of these CADR metrics refers to the reduction rate of smoke and dust particles, respectively, in a given room volume with the air cleaner operating. The denominator of the IEF metric is the annual energy consumption in active mode and standby mode (AEC) divided by the annual operating hours in active mode. + 18 + +

    + +

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

    +     +

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

    + +

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

    +     +

    + According to section 5.1.1 of appendix FF, PM + 2.5 + CADR is obtained by combining the CADR of smoke (which includes particle sizes ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 micrometers (“μm”)) with the CADR of dust (which includes particle sizes ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 μm) and performing a geometric average calculation as follows: +

    + + ER11AP23.001 + +

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

    +

    + While the allowable smoke and dust particle size for the smoke CADR and dust CADR tests in sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020 is larger ( + i.e., + 0.1 to 1 µm for smoke particles and 0.5 to 3 µm for dust particles) than the allowable smoke and dust particle size for the calculation of PM + 2.5 + CADR in section 5.1.1 of appendix FF ( + i.e., + 0.1 to 0.5 µm for smoke particles and 0.5 to 2.5 µm for dust particles), the subset smoke CADR and dust CADR used to calculate PM + 2.5 + are nearly identical to the smoke CADR and dust CADR calculated according to sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020, as shown in the figures included in the Joint Proposal. + 20 + + Accordingly, in the March 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE specified in section 5.1.2 of appendix FF that PM + 2.5 + CADR may alternatively be calculated using the full range of particles used to calculate smoke CADR and dust CADR according to sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020, respectively. 88 FR 14014. DOE additionally stated that it may revisit allowing the use of both approaches to calculate PM + 2.5 + CADR in a future standards rulemaking. + Id. +

    + +

    + 20 +   + See + Joint Stakeholders, No. 16 at p. 6. +

    +     +

    + In this direct final rule, DOE continues to allow the full range of particles used to calculate smoke CADR and dust CADR according to sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020, respectively, may be used to determine compliance only with the Tier 1 standards specified in this document. Compliance with Tier 2 standards must be determined using the smoke and dust particle size specified in the calculation of PM + 2.5 + CADR in section 5.1.1 of appendix FF. This aligns with the test parameters of the Joint Proposal and allows manufacturers more time to adjust to the tighter particle size requirements specified in AHAM AC-7-2022. Accordingly, DOE is amending section 5.1.2 of appendix FF to specify that the alternate calculation for PM + 2.5 + CADR may be used for determining compliance only with Tier 1 standards specified at 10 CFR 430.32(ee). +

    + D. Technological Feasibility + 1. General +

    In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (“appendix A”).

    +

    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. Section 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for air cleaners, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the direct final rule TSD.

    + 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels +

    When DOE prescribes new or amended standards for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for air cleaners, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this document and in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

    + E. Energy Savings + 1. Determination of Savings +

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

    + +

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

    +     +

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

    + +

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

    +     + 2. Significance of Savings +

    To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).

    +

    + The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. + 23 + + For example, some + + covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors. +

    + +

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

    +     +

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

    + F. Economic Justification + 1. Specific Criteria +

    As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.

    + a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers +

    In determining the impacts of potential new standards on manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”), as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

    +

    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.

    + b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) +

    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.

    +

    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating cost (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.

    +

    The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.

    +

    For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document.

    + c. Energy Savings +

    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.

    + d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products +

    In establishing product classes, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards adopted in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.

    + e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition +

    + EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this direct final rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the rule in determining whether to proceed with the direct final rule. DOE will also publish and respond to the DOJ's comments in the + Federal Register + in a separate notice. +

    + f. Need for National Energy Conservation +

    + DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or + + amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the adopted standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document. +

    +

    DOE maintains that environmental and public health effects associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document.

    + g. Other Factors +

    In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”

    + 2. Rebuttable Presumption +

    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential new or amended energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F of this document.

    + IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments +

    This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to air cleaners. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.

    +

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

    + A. Market and Technology Assessment +

    DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of air cleaners. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

    + 1. Product Classes +

    + When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may establish separate standards for a group of covered products ( + i.e., + establish a separate product class) if DOE determines that separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. ( + Id. + ) +

    +

    + DOE currently does not specify any energy conservation standards or associated product classes for air cleaners. In the January 2022 RFI, DOE noted that it may use CADR as a measurement of capacity to establish product classes. 87 FR 3702, 3711. DOE requested comment on whether capacity or any other performance-related features, such as air cleaning technology ( + i.e., + whether the product destroys or deactivates contaminants from the air or removes them), would justify establishing different product classes. + Id. +

    +

    NEEA commented that, based on a review of NEEA Retail Products Platform (“RPP”) sales data for air cleaners and sales from the ENERGY STAR Retail Products Platform (“ESRPP”) data, product class distinctions based on CADR and smoke CADR/W would be appropriate. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 3)

    +

    Trane commented that different classes of air cleaners could be useful to consumers, who have varying performance goals. (Trane, No. 3 at p. 3)

    +

    Synexis stated that the definition of a standard should be applicable to all devices operating in the air cleaning technology space as sub-classes would likely confuse the issue and be difficult to apply equally across all technologies. (Synexis, No. 14 at p. 7)

    +

    + DOE agrees with NEEA and Trane's comments and, for reasons discussed later in this section, is establishing three separate air cleaner product classes based on CADR as a measurement of capacity. DOE's testing and teardown + + analysis showed that air cleaning technology, particularly UV and ion generation, did not significantly impact the measured energy use or efficiency of air cleaners. Accordingly, DOE is not establishing additional product class distinction based on air cleaning technology. +

    +

    + Regarding Synexis' comment, DOE notes that energy conservation standards are applicable to all conventional room air cleaners, as defined in the March 2023 TP Final Rule, but that the applicable standard level varies based on the product class. The standards are technology-neutral, and apply to all configurations of conventional room air cleaners with a PM + 2.5 + CADR rating within the specified ranges for the three product classes. +

    +

    The Joint Stakeholders proposed product classes as shown in Table IV.1 and noted that it was proposing separate product classes because it is more difficult for smaller air cleaners to reach higher levels of efficiency because smaller products require smaller components such as fan blades. The Joint Stakeholders stated that as the blade design is made more efficient despite its smaller diameter, the optimization point is tight to achieve adequate air movement while not increasing noise levels beyond a tolerable level. They further stated that this makes achieving higher levels of efficiency a more difficult design challenge while retaining the utility of the smaller size. (Joint Stakeholders, No. 16 at pp. 9-10)

    +

    The Joint Stakeholders also stated that were smaller products required to meet the same efficiency levels as larger and higher CADR/W models, a greater change in efficiency of the motor would be necessary, which could require more expensive motor technology that could lead to standards that are not economically justified. The Joint Stakeholders stated that the recommended product classes will help ensure that a broad range of capacity changes remain available for consumers. (Joint Stakeholders, No. 16 at p. 10)

    + + Table IV.1—Joint Stakeholder Recommended Air Cleaner Product Classes + + Product class + + PM + 2.5 + CADR bins + + + + PC1 + + 10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100. + + + + PC2 + + 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150. + + + + PC3 + + PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥ 150. + + + +

    + DOE notes that the product classes are defined based on PM + 2.5 + CADR, rather than smoke CADR as recommended by NEEA and as specified in the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 Specification. In the March 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established the IEF metric based on PM + 2.5 + CADR, which is based on the geometric average of the measured smoke CADR and dust CADR values, consistent with the Joint Stakeholder recommendation. +

    +

    As discussed in the following paragraphs, based on investigatory testing, product teardowns, and a review of the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 specification, DOE agrees with the Joint Stakeholders that reaching higher efficiencies is more difficult for smaller capacity products due to size and component constraints. Therefore, consistent with the Joint Proposal, DOE is establishing three product classes for air cleaners as shown in Table IV.1.

    +

    + DOE determined the three product classes specified in Table IV.1 to be appropriate based on an analysis of ENERGY STAR-qualified products. As seen in Figure IV-1, the ENERGY STAR database shows that air cleaner models at lower CADR values generally have lower efficiencies compared to models at higher CADR. DOE expects that this is likely due to the smaller motor and/or filter required for the lower-CADR units, which are typically intended to be used in rooms with smaller areas ( + e.g., + units in Product Class 1 would be recommended for a maximum room size of 155 square feet). To achieve a certain level of cleaning performance, a smaller unit would need to include more filtration by volume in a more limited chassis space ( + i.e., + the air cleaner cabinet). This would increase the pressure drop across the filter, which would require more blower power to maintain the same air delivery performance. These factors impact the overall efficiency of the unit. At higher CADR values ( + i.e., + air cleaners designed for larger rooms), the cabinet volume is much larger, which allows the incorporation of a much larger filter ( + i.e., + the filtration can be spread across a larger filter area), thereby reducing the pressure drop across the filter and necessary blower power, and therefore improving efficiency. +

    +

    + Establishing separate product classes for units that are intended to be used in both smaller and larger rooms is necessary to maintain consumer utility. For example, Product Class 1 units have a small cabinet volume (<0.6 cubic feet (“ft + 3 + ”)), are designed for use in a single small room, such as a bathroom or bedroom (<155 sq. ft), and are easily portable, which can allow product configurations such as tabletop or wall plug-ins. Units with larger capacities and corresponding larger cabinet volumes provide different utility to consumers. Product Class 2 includes medium cabinet-sized units (0.6-1.2 ft + 3 + ), which are designed for a larger room (155-235 sq. ft) such as a kitchen or living space. The size and weight of these units generally allow single-person portability without necessitating the use of wheels. Finally, Product Class 3 units have a large cabinet (>1.2 ft + 3 + ), are typically less portable than lower-capacity units, in some cases being equipped with wheels to facilitate moving, and are designed to be used for an extended duration in a large room (>235 sq. ft) such as a classroom, office, or large living area. Establishing these product classes is necessary because the three ranges of capacity each provide distinct consumer utility in terms of the application based on room size and portability of the unit and are associated with inherently different efficiency due to the different filter size and configurations that can be accommodated. Further, these product class distinctions will help ensure that higher-capacity units installed in smaller-sized rooms, which achieve higher efficiencies at the same active mode power consumption than smaller-capacity units and which warrant more stringent energy conservation standards, do not lead to unnecessarily high AEC. +

    + + + ER11AP23.002 + +

    + Finally, DOE is establishing Product Class 1 with a PM + 2.5 + CADR lower limit of 10 cfm as opposed to 30 cfm, as specified in the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 specification, so that tabletop and desktop portable room air cleaners as well as plug-in air cleaners, which is a growing segment of the market, will be required to demonstrate compliance with the adopted standards. DOE notes that the PM + 2.5 + CADR lower limit of 10 cfm for Product Class 1 is also recommended by the Joint Stakeholders in the Joint Proposal. +

    + 2. Technology Options +

    + In analyzing the feasibility of new energy conservation standards, DOE uses information about technology options and prototype designs to identify technologies that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given energy conservation standard level. In the January 2022 RFI, DOE requested information on technologies that are used to improve the energy efficiency of air cleaners. Specifically, DOE sought information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics that are available for each technology option. 87 FR 3702, 3711. For each technology option suggested by stakeholders, DOE also sought information regarding its market adoption, costs, and any concerns with incorporating the technology into products ( + e.g., + impacts on consumer utility, potential safety concerns, manufacturing or production challenges, + etc. + ). 87 FR 3702, 3711-3712. +

    +

    MIAQ and AHRI commented that they could not provide concrete information on the availability or lack thereof of technologies for improving energy efficiency of air cleaners for non-portable products until DOE altered the scope and definitions to exclude products inappropriate for regulation. MIAQ and AHRI noted that ducted products, with fans primarily used for ventilating, cooling, and heating, employ different technologies than portable products, with distinctly different energy use patterns. (MIAQ, No. 5 at p. 8; AHRI, No. 15 at p. 9)

    +

    + As discussed in section III.B of this document, the scope of this standards rulemaking includes conventional room air cleaners with PM + 2.5 + CADR between 10 and 600 cfm (inclusive). Products not meeting the definition of conventional room air cleaners, such as ceiling-mounted and whole-home units are not included in the scope of this rulemaking. Accordingly, DOE has analyzed technology options only for conventional room air cleaners that are in the scope of this standards rulemaking. +

    +

    Trane commented that portable HEPA and other high filter efficiency filter-based units should be prioritized highest in a new standard because of their use in classrooms. (Trane, No. 3 at p. 2)

    +

    + DOE is aware of the prevalence of HEPA filters in air cleaners, and DOE's teardown sample largely comprised conventional room air cleaners that utilize a HEPA filter or other high efficiency filters. The teardown analysis confirmed that, by effectively removing PM + 2.5 + particulates, such high efficiency filters are a technology option for improving air cleaner efficiency as measured according to the DOE test procedure at appendix FF. +

    +

    Synexis commented that safety standards should be considered for air cleaners that generate hazardous by-products, such as ozone, which can be harmful to humans at levels above established thresholds. (Synexis, No. 14 at p. 7) Trane also commented that since certain air cleaning devices, like electronic/reactive air cleaners, may produce by-products such as ozone, organic acids, and ultrafine particles, this fact complicates attempts at standards or creates a need for additional standards. (Trane No. 3 at p. 2) DOE is aware that technology options that generate ozone or other harmful by-products can have adverse impacts on health or safety and, as discussed in section IV.B of this document, DOE has screened-out such technology options accordingly.

    +

    + In the market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified 19 technology options for air cleaners, as shown in Table IV.2. These technology options have been determined to improve the efficiency of air cleaners, as measured by the DOE test procedure. In general, the technology options with the most significant impact on efficiency represent improvements to the filter and motor. The motor and filter relationship is crucial to improving efficiency, as optimization of the airflow across the filter is the largest factor contributing to an air cleaner's active mode power consumption. + +

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

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

    + B. Screening Analysis +

    DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:

    +

    + (1) + Technological feasibility. + Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing prototypes will not be considered further. +

    +

    + (2) + Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. + If it is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further. +

    +

    + (3) + Impacts on product utility. + If a technology is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further. +

    +

    + (4) + Safety of technologies. + If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further. +

    +

    + (5) + Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. + If a technology has proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the potential for monopolistic concerns. Sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b) of appendix A. +

    +

    In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in the following sections.

    +

    In the January 2022 RFI, DOE requested feedback on whether any air cleaner technology options would be screened out based on the five screening criteria described in this section. DOE also requested information on the technologies that would be screened out and the screening criteria that would be applicable to each screened out technology option. 87 FR 3702, 3712.

    +

    The subsequent paragraphs include comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria.

    +

    + Molekule commented that its PECO technology includes energy requirements different from traditional air cleaners and requested an exemption from Federal energy efficiency standards since its air cleaners have been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) as Class II medical devices, which allows medical professionals to use these devices in medical settings to purify the air for viruses and bacteria. (Molekule, No. 11 at pp. 1-2) Molekule commented that while the removal and destruction of airborne microbes is a key benefit in medical settings, it is not measured by CADR tests for particulate matter. Molekule further stated that any modifications to meet DOE energy efficiency standards would be burdensome, requiring the company to re-apply for FDA clearance. (Molekule, No. 11 at p. 3). While FDA classification is not one of the five screening criteria that DOE applies, DOE notes that it has screened out PECO technology because it is a proprietary technology. DOE additionally notes that many air cleaners are capable of removing or destroying contaminants other than particulate matter ( + i.e., + air cleaners that can remove, destroy, or deactivate smoke, dust, or pollen may also remove, destroy or deactivate microorganisms and/or gaseous pollutants) and that such air cleaners would be in the scope of this rulemaking and subject to applicable standards as long as the unit “contains means to remove, destroy, and/or deactivate particulates,” as included in the definition of a conventional room air cleaner. +

    +

    + Synexis commented that DOE should eliminate this criterion  + 24 + + because it is in direct and fundamental conflict with intellectual property rights. Synexis stated that if the United States government grants monopolistic rights to certain technology options through the patent process, then DOE should not eliminate those same technology options. (Synexis, No. 14 at p. 7) DOE clarifies that the intent of the unique-pathway proprietary technologies screening criterion is to screen out proprietary technologies as a design pathway for achieving higher efficiencies for the purposes of DOE's analysis only. That is, if the only way to reach a given efficiency would be to utilize a proprietary technology, DOE would not include it in its analysis because manufacturers that do not have access to the proprietary technology would not be able to meet the efficiency level under consideration. This would not preclude manufacturers from utilizing such technologies in their products. The intent of DOE's analysis is to identify a pathway to achieve higher efficiencies that would generally be available to all manufacturers, but DOE recognizes that manufacturers may have more than one pathway to achieve higher efficiencies, including using proprietary technologies. +

    + +

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

    +     + 1. Screened-Out Technologies + Photoelectrochemical Oxidation +

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

    +

    Since PECO technology is proprietary, DOE has screened out this technology option as a unique pathway proprietary technology.

    + Photocatalytic Oxidation (PCO) +

    The PCO process is similar to PECO in that it utilizes UV radiation combined with a catalyst to break down pollutants. The major difference between PCO and PECO is the filter material, UV light, and subsequent byproducts. While the PECO filter is a proprietary technology, PCO uses a catalyst such as titanium dioxide. Additionally, PECO does not emit any harmful byproducts such as ozone and formaldehyde as compared to the catalysts on PCO filters. Finally, the PECO system utilizes a UV-A light, instead of a UV-C light found in PCO systems.

    +

    When the titanium dioxide used with PCO is activated by UV-C radiation, it forms oxidizing hydroxyl radicals which react with pollutants. When a pollutant comes into contact with UV-activated titanium dioxide, the reaction destroys the pollutant and releases non-toxic compounds, such as carbon dioxide and water, as byproducts, as well as certain harmful byproducts such as ozone and formaldehyde.

    +

    + DOE is screening out the PCO technology option due to health and safety concerns stemming from the byproducts generated by the reaction of the PCO filter. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen that can cause irritation of the skin, eyes, nose, and throat. High levels of exposure may cause some types of cancers, according to EPA. + 25 + + For ozone, DOE describes these concerns in more detail in the following section. +

    + +

    + 25 +   + www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/formaldehyde.pdf. +

    +     + Ozone Generation +

    Ozone is a strong oxidizer and cleaning agent. Ozone generators work by creating an electrical discharge to split oxygen molecules in ambient air into single oxygen atoms, which then bind with existing oxygen molecules in the air to form ozone. Ozone is highly unstable and reactive, so after it is produced by the generator, it is released in the air and is claimed to chemically react with air pollutants such as chemicals, mold, viruses, bacteria, and odors.

    +

    + DOE has identified concerns with air cleaners that rely on ozone generation in terms of both efficacy and safety. The same chemical properties that allow ozone to be highly reactive with organic material in the air mean that ozone can impact organic material inside the respiratory system. EPA investigated the use of ozone generation for air cleaning and in a 1996 publication, + 26 + + determined that relatively low amounts of ozone can pose harmful health effects such as decrease in lung function, aggravation of asthma, throat irritation and coughing, chest pain and shortness of breath, inflammation of lung tissue and high susceptibility to respiratory infection. EPA further researched the effectiveness of ozone at removing indoor air contaminants and found that there is evidence to suggest that at concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone is not effective at removing many odor-causing chemicals, viruses, bacteria, mold, or other biological pollutants. Additionally, ozone does not impact particulate matter such as dust or pollen. +

    + +

    + 26 +   + www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/ozone-generators-are-sold-air-cleaners. +

    +     +

    Due to these health and safety concerns associated with ozone and lack of efficacy towards particulate removal, DOE has screened out this technology option.

    + Thermodynamic Sterilization System (TSS) +

    DOE has identified air cleaners on the market that use TSS in a ceramic core to destroy microorganisms and particle pollutants. These air cleaners do not rely on filter media to trap or remove particles, but rather utilize air convection to force air through the devices' internal ceramic core which heats up to about 200 degrees Celsius (“°C”) (392 degrees Fahrenheit (“°F”)) and incinerates pollutants. Manufacturers of these air cleaners claim that TSS can kill mold, bacteria, germs, and viruses and destroy pollutants such as dust, pollen, pet dander, hair, and other airborne particulates. After the air is heated and cleaned, it is immediately cooled using heat transfer plates and released back out of the device.

    +

    TSS is a proprietary technology implemented by a single company. Therefore, DOE has screened out this technology option as a unique pathway proprietary technology.

    + Bioreactor +

    DOE has identified two air cleaner models on the market that utilize a bioreactor system to produce clean air. The air cleaners that use this technology option rely on convection and fans to draw large particulate matter of over 0.5 microns such as dust and dander into the bioreactor chamber. Smaller ultra-fine air pollutants and VOCs are drawn into the chamber of the air purifier by a process of molecular attraction through an electrostatic grounded air zone.

    +

    Once the various types of air contaminants are drawn into the bioreactor, an activated solution of water, oxygen, enzymes, and the trapped contaminants lead to an accelerated process of natural oxidation that digests the air contaminants and breaks them down into water, carbon dioxide, and base elements. This results in cleaner air that is released from the air purifier.

    +

    Given the scarcity of models on the market with this technology, DOE has screened out this technology option as it is not proven to be practicable to manufacture, install, and service this technology on a scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the compliance date of new standards.

    + 2. Remaining Technologies +

    Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 met all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's direct final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:

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

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

    + C. Engineering Analysis +

    + The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of air cleaners. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze ( + i.e., + the “efficiency analysis”) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency level ( + i.e., + the “cost analysis”). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency air cleaners, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency “curves” that are used in downstream analyses ( + i.e., + the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA). +

    +

    Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides additional details regarding the engineering analysis.

    + 1. Efficiency Analysis +

    + DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market ( + i.e., + the efficiency-level approach), or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model ( + i.e., + the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to interpolate to define “gap fill” levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the “max-tech” level (particularly in cases where the “max-tech” level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market). +

    +

    + In this rulemaking, DOE primarily used the efficiency-level approach. This approach involved reviewing the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 database to identify the market distribution of existing products. DOE also used the design-option approach, testing and physically disassembling commercially available products to fill gaps where data was not available from the efficiency-level approach ( + e.g., + to identify efficiency levels below the ENERGY STAR level). From this information, DOE estimated the manufacturer production costs (“MPCs”) for a range of products available at that time on the market. DOE then analyzed the steps manufacturers took to improve product efficiencies. In its analysis, DOE determined that manufacturers would likely rely on certain design options to reach higher efficiencies. From this information, DOE estimated the incremental cost and efficiency impacts of incorporating specific design options at each efficiency level. This section provides more detail on the development of efficiency levels for the air cleaner engineering analysis. +

    +

    + In response to the January 2022 RFI, Molekule commented that air cleaners that utilize combined technologies such as a fan and UV that are intended to capture and destroy a wide range of potentially harmful pollutants should be subject to adjusted requirements. Molekule additionally commented that devices that feature technologies with capabilities outside of AHAM AC-1 and its scope of smoke, dust, and pollen test should receive an additional 15-percent energy allowance. (Molekule, No. 11 at pp. 2, 5) Molekule commented that air cleaners that are designed to work against contaminants such as microbes and organic chemicals may require technology stacks and energy usage beyond what is needed for mechanical filtration. Molekule further stated that evaluating such air cleaners solely on particle removal efficiency without considering these other pollutant classes is an inappropriate measure of an air cleaner's energy efficiency relative to its potential benefits. Molekule commented that many proposed and existing standards for microbes and chemicals, including proposed AHAM AC-4 and AHAM AC-5 tests and NRCC_54013  + 27 + + protocol, will only gauge the initial reduction of pollutants, while an important benefit of its devices is the destruction of pollutants. (Molekule, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE notes that the air cleaners test procedure at appendix FF requires that all features pertaining to air cleaning ( + e.g., + UV, ion generator, + etc. + ) must be activated and set to their highest setting during testing, while features unrelated to air cleaning are disabled. That is, the air cleaners test procedure already accounts for these technologies and to the extent it is necessary, DOE's analysis accounts for the additional energy consumed by such technologies. Regarding comments related to the AHAM AC-4 and AHAM AC-5 industry test standards, DOE is not introducing a test procedure for microbes and chemicals at this time and is not establishing an additional energy allowance for products that target these pollutants. +

    + +

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

    +     +

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

    + a. Baseline Efficiency Levels +

    + For each product class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference + + point for each class, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of a product typical of that class ( + e.g., + capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market. In the January 2022 RFI, DOE requested feedback on appropriate baseline efficiency levels for DOE to apply, and the product classes to which these baseline efficiency levels would be applicable, in evaluating whether to establish energy conservation standards for air cleaners. 87 FR 3702, 3712. +

    +

    NEEA commented that using the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 levels as the baseline efficiency level would be appropriate because of the high percentage of sales of ENERGY STAR units, comprising 87 percent of the 2015 room air cleaner sales. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 4)

    +

    Based on publicly available data from ENERGY STAR and AHAM, DOE estimated that 60 percent of air cleaners on the market do not meet the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 levels. Based on the large number of products available on the market that do not meet the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 specification, DOE is establishing the baseline efficiency levels below the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 levels.

    +

    + As a first step to determine baseline and incremental efficiency levels, DOE selected units for testing and teardowns using the AHAM Verifide  + 28 + + and ENERGY STAR databases and identified the CADR values at which most models were clustered. The ENERGY STAR database includes smoke CADR, dust CADR, and pollen CADR values in addition to providing power consumption data, but the AHAM Verifide database includes only smoke CADR, dust CADR, and pollen CADR values. Using these databases, DOE selected a representative sample of products for testing and teardowns. From its test sample, DOE identified a representative nominal PM + 2.5 + CADR value for each product class based on the most commonly occurring PM + 2.5 + CADR value for each product class in its test sample, which are 50 CADR/W, 125 CADR/W, and 200 CADR/W for Product Class 1, Product Class 2, and Product Class 3, respectively. +

    + +

    + 28 +  Available at: + https://ahamverifide.org/directory-of-air-cleaners/. + Last accessed: January 2022. +

    +     +

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

    + + Table IV.3—Baseline Efficiency Levels + + Product class + + PM + 2.5 + CADR bins + + Minimum IEF + + + PC1 + 10 ≤ CADR < 100 + 1.53 + + + PC2 + 100 ≤ CADR < 150 + 1.53 + + + PC3 + CADR ≥ 150 + 1.2 + + + b. Higher Efficiency Levels +

    In the January 2022 RFI, DOE requested feedback on design options that manufacturers would use to increase energy efficiency in air cleaners above the baseline, including information on the order in which manufacturers would incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve efficiency of products. DOE also requested feedback on whether the increased energy efficiency would lead to other design changes that would not occur otherwise. DOE further requested information regarding any potential impact of design options on a manufacturer's ability to incorporate additional functions or attributes in response to consumer demand and on whether certain design options may not be applicable to (or incompatible with) certain types of air cleaners. 87 FR 3702, 3713.

    +

    NEEA commented that it analyzed the ENERGY STAR database and identified the max-tech units shown in Table IV.4 for each product class:

    + + Table IV.4—Max-Tech Units Identified by NEEA + + Product class + + PM + 2.5 + CADR +
  • (cfm)
    • +     + + IEF * +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +     + + AEC +
  • (kWh/year)
    • +     +     + + + PC1: 10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 91.2 + 9.9 + 55.0 + + + + PC2: 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 120.0 + 12.5 + 57.2 + + + + PC3: PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥ 150 + + 424.3 + 14.0 + 180.2 + + + * Note that NEEA provided each unit's CADR/W in terms of smoke CADR. DOE calculated the PM + 2.5 + CADR values using the information available from the ENERGY STAR database. + +     + + (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 5) +

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

    + + Table IV.5—Max-Tech Units Analyzed by DOE + + Product class + + Representative PM + 2.5 + CADR +
  • (cfm)
    • +     + + IEF +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +     + + AEC +
  • (kWh/yr)
    • +     +     + + + PC1: 10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 50 + 5.4 + 54.1 + + + + PC2: 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 125 + 12.8 + 57.3 + + + + PC3: PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥ 150 + + 200 + 7.4 + 157.6 + +     +

    + DOE recognizes that the air cleaners included in NEEA's comment may be the highest efficiency units available on the market for each product class; however, as noted previously, DOE strived to select units at the representative PM + 2.5 + CADR value for each product class, and especially at the max-tech. For Product Class 1 and Product Class 3, the models suggested by NEEA have roughly twice the capacity, expressed in terms of PM + 2.5 + CADR, as the representative capacities selected by DOE—91.2 cfm compared to DOE's representative PM + 2.5 + CADR value of 50 cfm for Product Class 1 and 424.3 cfm compared to DOE's representative PM + 2.5 + CADR value of 200 cfm for Product Class 3. For Product Class 2, the PM + 2.5 + CADR of the model suggested by NEEA falls within the range of CADR values that DOE considered for its analysis and DOE's max-tech unit for Product Class 2 is fairly similar to the unit suggested by NEEA. +

    +

    + In addition to selecting units within a representative PM + 2.5 + CADR range for each product class, to determine its max-tech units DOE also selected units that utilized a true HEPA filter, which is a filter that is rated to remove at least 99.97 percent of particles that have a size of 0.3 μm. DOE selected this criterion because, according to EPA, the diameter specification of 0.3 μm corresponds to the most penetrating particle size; that is, particles of 0.3 μm are the most difficult size particles to capture and particles either larger or smaller than 0.3 μm are generally captured more easily. + 29 + + Therefore, DOE selected its max-tech unit to include a true HEPA filter to ensure that there would not be any loss in product utility at the selected max-tech efficiency level. The Product Class 1 and Product Class 3 units suggested by NEEA do not include a true HEPA filter and instead utilize ionic plates or a filter that is rated to capture 98 percent of 5 μm particles, neither of which meet the rating requirement of a HEPA filter for capturing at least 99.97 percent of particles that have a size of 0.3 μm, which DOE determined is required to maintain full consumer functionality. DOE notes that the pressure drop across a HEPA filter would be greater due to the design of such a filter, which would require a more powerful motor to move the same quantity of air across the filter as compared to a less effective filter. +

    + +

    + 29 +   + www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-hepa-filter. +

    +     +

    + While the max-tech units selected by DOE for Product Class 2 and Product Class 3 are the most-efficient units at the representative PM + 2.5 + CADR value, for Product Class 1, DOE observed another unit that had a higher IEF compared to its selected unit. However, DOE ultimately selected the unit shown in Table IV.5 because the other unit did not include a true HEPA filter; instead, it included a filter that is rated to remove only up to 97 percent of particles that have a size of 0.3 μm, which DOE determined did not maintain full consumer functionality. +

    +

    + To establish other incremental higher efficiency levels between the baseline and max-tech, DOE reviewed data in the ENERGY STAR database to evaluate the range of efficiencies for air cleaners currently available on the market. For all three product classes, DOE considered Efficiency Level 1 (“EL 1”) to correspond to the level established by certain States. EL 1 also corresponds to the Tier 1 level provided in the Joint Proposal. DOE selected EL 2 for all product classes to correspond to the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 level, which is also the Tier 2 level provided in the Joint Proposal. Finally, DOE identified EL 3 as a “gap-fill” level between EL 2 and max-tech ( + i.e., + EL 4) based on number of available models grouped (or “clustered”) between EL 2 and max-tech for each product class. Table IV.6 through Table IV.8 summarize the efficiency levels analyzed for each product class. +

    + + Table IV.6—Efficiency Levels for Product Class 1 + + EL + Efficiency level description + + IEF +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +     +     + + Baseline + Minimum available from tested units + 1.5 + + + 1 + State Standard Levels; Joint Proposal Tier 1 + 1.7 + + + 2 + ENERGY STAR V. 2.0; Joint Proposal Tier 2 + 1.9 + + + 3 + Gap-fill + 3.4 + + + 4 + Maximum available + 5.4 + +     + + + Table IV.7—Efficiency Levels for Product Class 2 + + EL + Efficiency level description + + IEF +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +     +     + + Baseline + Minimum available from tested units + 1.5 + + + 1 + State Standard Levels; Joint Proposal Tier 1 + 1.9 + + + 2 + ENERGY STAR V. 2.0; Joint Proposal Tier 2 + 2.4 + + + 3 + Gap-fill + 5.4 + + + 4 + Maximum available + 12.8 + +     + + Table IV.8—Efficiency Levels for Product Class 3 + + EL + Efficiency level description + + IEF +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +     +     + + Baseline + Minimum available from tested units + 1.2 + + + 1 + State Standard Levels; Joint Proposal Tier 1 + 2.0 + + + 2 + ENERGY STAR V. 2.0; Joint Proposal Tier 2 + 2.9 + + + 3 + Gap-fill + 6.6 + + + 4 + Maximum available + 7.4 + +     + 2. Cost Analysis +

    The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the air cleaners on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:

    +

    + • + Physical teardowns: + Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials for the product. +

    +

    + • + Catalog teardowns: + In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) to develop the bill of materials for the product. +

    +

    + • + Price surveys: + If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise impractical ( + e.g., + large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and other commercial channels. +

    +

    In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis primarily using the physical teardown approach. For each product class, DOE tore down a representative sample of models spanning the entire range of efficiency levels, as well as multiple manufacturers within each product class. DOE aggregated the results so that the cost-efficiency relationship developed for each product class reflects DOE's assessment of a market-representative “path” to achieve each higher efficiency level. The resulting bill of materials from each teardown provides the basis for the MPC estimates. In addition to determining MPCs for each efficiency level, DOE disaggregated the overall MPCs to find the filter costs, which are used later in the LCC and PBP analyses.

    +

    The detailed description of DOE's determination of costs for baseline and higher efficiency levels is provided in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

    +

    In the January 2022 RFI, DOE sought input on the increase in MPC associated with incorporating each particular design option. DOE also requested information on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/production impacts. 87 FR 3702, 3713.

    +

    NEEA commented that it had analyzed the incremental cost of air cleaners and found the incremental cost was $6.00 for large-capacity room air cleaners and about $26 for smaller-capacity units. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 5)

    +

    As discussed in the following sections, DOE's teardown results also showed that incremental MPC between baseline and max-tech units for Product Class 3 was much smaller compared to the incremental MPC between baseline and max-tech units for Product Classes 1 and 2. DOE estimated the incremental MPC between max-tech and baseline for Product Classes 1 and 2 to be approximately $12, as compared to $26 as stated by NEEA. This is likely due to the difference in how NEEA and DOE conducted their analyses—DOE's analysis is based on MPC, which accounts for the costs associated only with efficiency-related components, while it is DOE's understanding that NEEA's analysis is based on retail prices, which could include costs attributed to non-efficiency-related features.

    + 3. Cost-Efficiency Results +

    + The results of the engineering analysis are reported as incremental MPCs associated with each efficiency level and product class. At each efficiency level, DOE tore down a representative unit and excluded the non-efficiency related components from the MPC calculation. Due to slight variations in the PM + 2.5 + CADR of each unit, DOE applied a normalization to the MPCs using a single representative PM + 2.5 + CADR for each product class. See chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD for complete cost-efficiency results. +

    + a. Product Class 1 +

    + Table IV.9 summarizes the MPCs at each efficiency level for Product Class 1. + +

    + + Table IV.9—Manufacturer Production Costs for Product Class 1 + [2022$] + + EL + + IEF +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +     + MPC + Incremental MPC +     + + Baseline + 1.5 + $31.24 + + + + 1 + 1.7 + 32.25 + $1.01 + + + 2 + 1.9 + 33.39 + 2.15 + + + 3 + 3.4 + 39.27 + 8.03 + + + 4 + 5.4 + 44.06 + 12.82 + +     +

    The baseline unit in Product Class 1 is typically smaller than the baseline units in the other two product classes and is equipped with a shaded pole motor (“SPM”) and rectangular HEPA filter. At EL 1, efficiency improvements are achievable by optimizing the motor-filter relationship, typically by reducing the restriction of airflow (and therefore, the pressure drop across the filter) by increasing the surface area of the filter, reducing filter thickness, and/or increasing air inlet/outlet size. Optimizing the air flow across the filter enables reducing the size and power draw of the motor for an EL 1 unit. Other than alterations to the cabinet size to accommodate the filter design, these changes do not significantly increase the MPC at EL 1.

    +

    At EL 2, typically the SPM is upgraded to a permanent split capacitor (“PSC”) motor, which improves overall efficiency while increasing MPC slightly.

    +

    EL 3 and EL 4 units are typically designed to house a cylindrical filter, and the cabinets of these units are also typically cylindrical in shape. A cylindrical filter design further reduces the restriction in air flow across the filter without compromising on performance because a cylindrical shape allows for a much larger surface area for the same volume of filter material. The larger surface area reduces the resistance across the filter material, which reduces the pressure drop and improves efficiency overall. EL 3 and EL 4 units also utilize a variable-speed brushless direct-current (“BLDC”) motor, which is much more efficient than an SPM or PSC motor. EL 4 units additionally improve energy efficiency by further optimizing the motor-filter relationship. The incremental costs associated with EL 3 and EL 4 are typically much higher due to the significant motor upgrade and cylindrical filter and case design.

    + b. Product Class 2 +

    When selecting representative units for Product Class 2, DOE was unable to identify commercially available units for the baseline and EL 1 due to lack of published data for units with efficiencies below the ENERGY STARV.2.0 level; the units that DOE selected for its test sample based on product features did not have measured efficiencies at EL 1 or lower. Therefore, DOE extrapolated costs from baseline and EL 1 units in Product Class 1 with similar measured IEFs as the Product Class 2 baseline and EL 1 efficiency levels. Table IV.10 summarizes the MPCs at each efficiency level for Product Class 2.

    + + Table IV.10—Manufacturer Production Costs for Product Class 2 + [2022$] + + EL + + IEF +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +     + MPC + Incremental MPC +     + + Baseline + 1.5 + $42.97 + + + + 1 + 1.9 + 44.26 + $1.29 + + + 2 + 2.4 + 45.62 + 2.65 + + + 3 + 5.4 + 50.45 + 7.48 + + + 4 + 12.8 + 55.55 + 12.58 + +     +

    + DOE estimated that the typical baseline unit for Product Class 2 is similar to the baseline unit from Product Class 1, although it has a larger cabinet, rectangular filter, and SPM motor in order to achieve a higher PM + 2.5 + CADR value. At EL 1, DOE estimated that the air cleaner would require a motor upgrade to a PSC motor to be able to provide the increasing power required to maintain the desired IEF for an EL 1 unit at a representative PM + 2.5 + CADR value of 125. At EL 2, DOE observed a direct, double-ended PSC motor with a blower on each end, compared to a single-ended blower assembly in the lower-efficiency units. +

    +

    Similar to Product Class 1, the EL 3 and EL 4 units utilize a cylindrical filter and cabinet to improve filter surface area and airflow as well as a BLDC motor to improve efficiency. At EL 4, the max-tech unit uses lower-standby power components along with optimizations to the motor-filter relationship that allowed for the use of a smaller motor due to a lower pressure drop across the filter.

    + c. Product Class 3 +

    + For Product Class 3, DOE was unable to identify and teardown an EL 1 unit, again due to a lack of published power consumption data for commercially available units below ENERGY STARV.2.0. Therefore, DOE estimated the EL 1 MPC for Product Class 3 by developing a best-fit curve from the IEF and MPCs of the other efficiency levels for Product Class 3 and using this best-fit curve to estimate the MPC for EL 1. Table IV.11 summarizes the MPCs at each efficiency level for the 150+ PM + 2.5 + CADR product class. + +

    + + Table IV.11—Manufacturer Production Costs for Product Class 3 + [2022$] + + EL + + IEF +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +     + MPC + Incremental MPC +     + + Baseline + 1.2 + $70.50 + + + + 1 + 2.0 + 71.66 + $1.17 + + + 2 + 2.9 + 72.50 + 2.00 + + + 3 + 6.6 + 74.33 + 3.84 + + + 4 + 7.4 + 74.61 + 4.11 + +     +

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

    +

    In addition to determining the MPCs for each representative unit at each efficiency level, DOE also disaggregated the overall MPC at each efficiency level to determine filter costs, which are used to determine the maintenance and repair costs for the LCC and PBP. These costs are shown in Table IV.12.

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

    DOE observed that the filter MPC typically decreased going from baseline to EL 2 and then increased for EL 3 and EL 4. This is because the baseline unit typically has a larger rectangular filter compared to EL 1 and EL 2 filters, leading to higher filter costs for the baseline unit. EL 3 and EL 4 units have cylindrical filters with plastic casing, compared to the paper/cardboard casing seen at baseline through EL 2, both of which lead to much higher filter costs at these levels.

    +

    To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce.

    +

    The detailed description of DOE's determination of costs for baseline and higher efficiency levels is provided in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD. The detailed description of DOE's determination of the industry average manufacturer markup is provided in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD

    + D. Markups Analysis +

    + The markups analysis develops appropriate markups ( + e.g., + retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit margin. +

    +

    + For air cleaners, DOE relied on the TechSci Research report, + 30 + + and manufacturer inputs from the manufacturer interviews to develop the distribution channels and the corresponding market share. DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each link in the distribution chains (after the product leaves the manufacturer). Baseline markups are applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards. + 31 + +

    + +

    + 30 +  TechSci Research. 2022. United States air purifier market, forecast and opportunity. June 2022. + www.techsciresearch.com/report/us-air-purifier-market/3711.html. +

    +     + +

    + 31 +  Because the projected price of standards-compliant products is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable increase in profitability in the long run. +

    +     +

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

    + +

    + 32 +  U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Retail Trade Survey, 2017. + www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts.html. +

    +     + +

    + 33 +  U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Wholesale Trade Survey, 2017. + www.census.gov/programs-surveys/awts.html. +

    +     +

    + To differentiate the retailer markups in the online and offline retail channels, + + DOE compared the retail prices of top-selling models provided in the TechSci Research report from major home improvement centers (offline retail sales) and e-commerce websites (online retail sales) and estimated that the online retail prices are on average 1.1% lower than the offline retail prices. Hence, DOE applied the price ratio to the retailer markups estimated from the 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey to derive separate markups for the offline retail channel. +

    +

    Chapter 6 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's development of markups for air cleaners.

    + E. Energy Use Analysis +

    + The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of air cleaners at different efficiencies in representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, mobile homes, and commercial buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased air cleaner efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of air cleaners in the field ( + i.e., + as they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards. +

    +

    + DOE determined the annual energy consumption of air cleaners by multiplying the per operating mode annual operating hours by the power of standby and active modes. DOE used the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA”) Residential Energy Consumption Survey (“ + RECS” + ) 2020  + 34 + + data and EIA's Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (“ + CBECS” + ) 2018  + 35 + + data to represent residential and commercial consumer samples. In the absence of air cleaner ownership and usage information in both datasets, for the residential sector, DOE included all household samples, but adjusted the residential sample weights based on the geographic distribution of air cleaner stocks reported by TechSci Research, and the number of air cleaners per sample based on household size. For the commercial sector, DOE excluded the vacant and non-used buildings from the + CBECS 2018 + samples and adjusted the remaining building sample weights based on the building occupancy, the square footage of the climate-controlled space, and the stock distribution by building principal activity reported by TechSci Research. +

    + +

    + 34 +  U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration. Residential Energy Consumption Survey. 2020. + www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/. +

    +     + +

    + 35 +  U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. 2018. + www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2018/. +

    +     +

    Daikin requested that DOE disclose its methodology and results of the Annual Energy Use assessment. Daikin recognizes that the actual hours of operation will obviously have a significant impact on the annual energy consumption of a product. (Daikin, No. 12 at p. 6) NEEA stated it typically estimates average operation to be 8 hours per day based on seasonal operation or part-day operation, but noted that the Northwest Regional Technical Forum estimates 16 hours per day. (NEEA, No. 11 at p. 5)

    +

    + The DOE test procedure produces standardized results that can be used to assess or compare the performance of products operating under specified laboratory conditions. The test procedure assumes air cleaners are used 16 hours of the day on active mode (maximum power) and 8 hours on standby mode which aligns with the ENERGY STAR description. + 36 + + Actual energy usage in the field often differs from that estimated by the test procedure because of variation in operating conditions, the behavior of users, and other factors. +

    + +

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

    +     +

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

    + +

    + 37 +  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality System. Air Quality Index per County. 2020. + www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-cities-and-counties. +

    +     + +

    + 38 +  Evergreen Economics. Air Purifier Study Results. February 8, 2021. The document can be found in docket, + www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0009. +

    +     +

    + To determine the commercial sector air cleaner annual energy consumption, DOE used the + CBECS 2018 + building sample regarding the reported building principal activities, building schedule and occupancy information. DOE estimated an average of 4,198 annual operating hours, which is equivalent to 12.9 operating hours per day and 325 operating days per year. +

    +

    Chapter 7 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's energy use analysis for air cleaners.

    + F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis +

    DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for air cleaners. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:

    +

    • The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product.

    +

    • The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.

    +

    For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the estimated efficiency distribution of air cleaners in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.

    +

    + For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of U.S. households and commercial buildings. As stated previously, DOE developed household samples from the + RECS 2020 + and commercial building samples from the + CBECS 2018. + For each sample household, DOE determined the energy consumption for the air cleaners and the appropriate energy price. By developing a representative sample of households + + and commercial buildings, the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the use of air cleaners. +

    +

    Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the product—which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer markups, and sales taxes—and filter costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.

    +

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

    + +

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

    +     +

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

    + + Table IV.13—Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis * + + Inputs + Source/method + + + Product Cost + Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used historical data to derive a price scaling index to project product costs. + + + Installation Cost + No change with efficiency level. + + + Annual Energy Use + + The total annual energy use by operating mode multiplied by the hours per year. Variability: Based on the + RECS 2020 + and + CBECS 2018. + + + + Energy Prices + Electricity: Based on Edison Electric Institute data for 2021. + + +   + Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 50 states and Washington DC. + + + Energy Price Trends + + Based on + AEO2022 + price projections. + + + + Repair and Maintenance Costs + Considered filter change cost only. Filter change frequency assumed to be associated with usage. On average 1.7 filters used per year for residential sector and 2 filters used per year for commercial sector. + + + Product Lifetime + Average: 9.0 years. + + + Discount Rates + Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances. + + + Compliance Date + 2024/2026 for tiered trial standard level (TSL) and 2028 for the other TSLs. + + * Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD. + + 1. Product Cost +

    To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for baseline products and higher-efficiency products, because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-efficiency products.

    +

    + Economic literature and historical data suggest that the real costs of many products may trend downward over time according to “learning” or “experience” curves. An experience curve analysis implicitly includes factors such as efficiencies in labor, capital investment, automation, materials prices, distribution, and economies of scale at an industry-wide level. To derive the learning rate parameter for air cleaners, DOE obtained historical Producer Price Index (“PPI”) data for air cleaners from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”). A PPI for “small electric household appliances” was available for the time period between 1982 and 2015. + 40 + + However, the small electric household appliances PPI was discontinued beyond 2015 due to insufficient sample size. To extend the price index beyond 2015, DOE assumed that the more aggregated product series, small electrical appliances price index, is representative of the trend of small electric household appliances. Inflation-adjusted price indices were calculated by dividing the PPI series by the gross + + domestic product index from Bureau of Economic Analysis for the same years. Using data from 1982-2021, the estimated learning rate (defined as the fractional reduction in price expected from each doubling of cumulative production) is 6 percent. DOE assumed that the air cleaner manufacturers do not typically manufacture the air filters themselves; thus, DOE applied the price learning to the non-filter portion of the cost only. +

    + +

    + 40 +  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, PPI Industry Data, Small electric household appliance manufacturers, Product series ID: PCU33521033521014. Data series available at: + www.bls.gov/ppi/. +

    +     + 2. Installation Cost +

    Installation costs include labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE found no data showing that installation costs would be impacted with increased efficiency levels.

    + 3. Annual Energy Consumption +

    For each sampled household and commercial building, DOE determined the energy consumption for air cleaners at different efficiency levels using the approach described previously in section IV.E of this document.

    + 4. Energy Prices +

    Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the product purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other efficiency levels considered.

    +

    + DOE derived electricity prices in 2021 using data from EEI Typical Bills and Average Rates reports. Based upon comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, this semi-annual report presents typical monthly electric bills and average kWh costs to the customer as charged by investor-owned utilities. For the residential sector, DOE calculated electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki (2018). + 41 + + For the commercial sector, DOE calculated electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki (2019). + 42 + +

    + +

    + 41 +  Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001169. + https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review. +

    +     + +

    + 42 +  Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Non-residential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001203. + https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices. +

    +     +

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

    + +

    + 43 +  U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration. + Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050. + Washington, DC. Available at + www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ + (last accessed December 9, 2022). +

    +     +

    See chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD for details.

    + 5. Maintenance and Repair Costs +

    Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Typically, small incremental increases in product efficiency entail no, or only minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline efficiency products.

    +

    In this direct final rule analysis, DOE included no changes in maintenance or repair costs for air cleaners that exceed the baseline efficiency other than the filter change costs. As described in section IV.C of this document, differences in filter size, shape, and material lead to variations in filter costs at each efficiency level within each product class. DOE determined that replacement filters have the same distribution channels and markups as the air cleaner units. No price learning was considered and applied to the filter change costs. Based on the information received from the manufacturer interviews, for commercial buildings, DOE estimated a flat filter change frequency of twice per year. For the residential sector, DOE associated the filter change frequency with the air cleaner usage. DOE correlated higher filter change frequency with higher operating hours with the highest frequency of once every six months and the lowest frequency of once per year. This filter change rate aligns with the range suggested by manufacturer interviews. DOE also takes into account that a small percentage of consumers may never change the air cleaner filters.

    + 6. Product Lifetime +

    + For air cleaners, DOE developed a distribution of lifetimes from which specific values are assigned to the appliances in the samples. DOE ensured that the average lifetime estimate of 9 years aligned with those lifetime estimates suggested by ENERGY STAR, + 44 + + and by CA IOUs (who cited EPA and various State Technical Reference Manuals). (CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 2) NEEA also cited an estimated lifetime of 9 years. (NEEA, No. 11 at p. 5) +

    + +

    + 44 +  Room Air Cleaners Final Version 2.0 Program Requirements—Data and Analysis Package. October 2019. + www.energystar.gov/products/spec/room_air_cleaners_version_2_0_pd. +

    +     + 7. Discount Rates +

    In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate to households and commercial buildings to estimate the present value of future operating cost savings. DOE estimated a distribution of discount rates for air cleaners based on the opportunity cost of consumer funds.

    +

    + DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount rates. + 45 + + The LCC analysis estimates net present value over the lifetime of the product, so the appropriate discount rate will reflect the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking this time scale into account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC, the application of a marginal interest rate associated with an initial source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase, consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical distribution of debts and assets. +

    + +

    + 45 +  The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases. +

    +     +

    + To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the various types of debt and equity by household income group using data from the Federal Reserve Board's triennial Survey of Consumer + + Finances  + 46 + + (“SCF”) starting in 1995 and ending in 2019. Using the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that may apply in the year in which standards would take effect. DOE assigned each sample household a specific discount rate drawn from one of the distributions. The average rate across all types of household debt and equity and income groups, weighted by the shares of each type, is 4.3 percent. +

    + +

    + 46 +  U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. + www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm. +

    +     +

    For commercial consumers, DOE used the cost of capital to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so the cost of capital is the weighted-average cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. This corporate finance approach is referred to as the weighted-average cost of capital. DOE used currently available economic data in developing discount rates. See chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD for further details on the development of consumer discount rates.

    + 8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case +

    + To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-standards case ( + i.e., + the case without amended or new energy conservation standards). +

    +

    + To estimate the energy efficiency distribution of air cleaners for 2028 (as well as 2024 and 2026), DOE combined market share information submitted by manufacturers  + 47 + + and model efficiency distribution from the ENERGY STAR database, and assumed no annual efficiency improvement for the no-new-standards case. The estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case for air cleaners are shown in Table IV.14. See chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD for further information on the derivation of the efficiency distributions. +

    + +

    + 47 +   + https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0018. +

    +     + + Table IV.14—No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Air Cleaners in 2028 + (and in 2024 and 2026) + + PC + Market Share + EL + + PC1: 10-100 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + 26% + + Efficiency +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +     + + Market share +
  • (%)
    • +     + + PC2: 100-150 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + 24% + + Efficiency +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +     + + Market share +
  • (%)
    • +     + + PC3: 150+ PM + 2.5 + CADR + + 50% + + Efficiency +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +     + + Market share +
  • (%)
    • +     +     + + Baseline + 1.53 + 28.0 + 1.53 + 24.4 + 1.20 + 22.2 + + + 1 + 1.69 + 42.1 + 1.90 + 36.6 + 2.01 + 33.3 + + + 2 + 1.89 + 19.1 + 2.39 + 28.1 + 2.91 + 37.7 + + + 3 + 3.37 + 7.5 + 5.44 + 10.5 + 6.55 + 3.1 + + + 4 + 5.40 + 3.3 + 12.75 + 0.4 + 7.41 + 3.8 + +     +

    The LCC Monte Carlo simulations draw from the efficiency distributions and randomly assign an efficiency to the air cleaner purchased by each sample household and commercial building in the no-new-standards case. The resulting percent shares within the sample match the market shares in the efficiency distributions.

    + 9. Payback Period Analysis +

    The payback period is the amount of time (expressed in years) it takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient products, compared to baseline products, through energy cost savings. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating expenses.

    +

    The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. DOE refers to this as a “simple PBP” because it does not consider changes over time in operating cost savings. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis when deriving first-year operating costs.

    +

    As noted previously, 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 first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price projection for the year in which compliance with the standards would be required.

    + G. Shipments Analysis +

    + DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows. + 48 + + The shipments model takes an accounting approach, tracking market shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the stock. Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The age distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for any year depend on the age distribution of the stock. +

    + +

    + 48 +  DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general, one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales. +

    +     +

    + While demand for the replacement of existing products is dependent only on past shipments and estimated product lifetimes, new demand must be independently projected into the future. DOE projected new demand by estimating new demand in 2020, and applying an annual growth rate. In order to estimate new demand in 2020, DOE took estimates of past shipments (2007-2020) from a EuroMonitor product sales + + report  + 49 + + and estimated lifetimes to calculate an amount of retiring units in 2020. Overall new demand in 2020 was computed as the difference between the EuroMonitor estimate of all units shipped that year, and the estimated retirement demand. Separately, DOE estimated an average annual shipments growth rate of 4.87 percent from the 2021-2028 shipments projection provided by EuroMonitor which is a more conservative estimate compared to the 7 percent annual shipments growth rate estimated by the TechSci Research report. + 50 + + New demand was projected using this annual growth rate. In all shipments projection years, based on the TechSci Research data, DOE assumed that 40 percent of shipments were directed to the commercial sector, and 60 percent were directed to the residential sector. For both sectors and based on manufacturers data, DOE also estimated that 26 percent of shipments were comprised of 10-99 CADR units, 24 percent were comprised of 100-149 CADR units, and the remaining 50 percent were ≥150 CADR units. +

    + +

    + 49 +  Euromonitor International. 2021. Air treatment products in the U.S. December. + www.euromonitor.com/air-treatment-products-in-the-us/report. +

    +     + +

    + 50 +  TechSci Research. 2022. United States air purifier market, forecast and opportunity. June 2022. + www.techsciresearch.com/report/us-air-purifier-market/3711.html. +

    +     + H. National Impact Analysis +

    + The NIA assesses the national energy savings (“NES”) and the NPV from a national perspective of total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels. + 51 + + (“Consumer” in this context refers to consumers of the product being regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard levels considered based on projections of annual product shipments, along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, operating cost savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of air cleaners sold through 2057. +

    + +

    + 51 +  The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. territories. +

    +     +

    + DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels ( + i.e., + the TSLs or standards cases) for that class. For the standards cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of products with efficiencies greater than the standard. +

    +

    DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.

    +

    Table IV.15 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA analysis for the direct final rule. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows Table IV.15. See chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD for further details.

    + + Table IV.15—Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact Analysis + + Inputs + Method + + + Shipments + Annual shipments from shipments model. + + + Compliance Date of Standard + 2024/2026 (Tiered TSL), 2028 (other TSLs). + + + Efficiency Trends + No-new-standards case: fixed efficiency distribution provided by manufacturers with no annual improvements. + + +   + Standard cases: No-new-standards case market share below the standard level is rolled up to the minimum qualifying level. + + + Annual Energy Consumption per Unit + Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy use at each TSL. + + + Total Installed Cost per Unit + Annual weighted-average values are a function of cost at each TSL. + + +   + Incorporates projection of future product prices based on historical data. + + + Annual Energy Cost per Unit + Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy consumption per unit and energy prices. + + + Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit + Annual values estimated in the LCC analysis do not change across the analysis period except for the first year. + + + Energy Price Trends + + AEO2022 + projections (to 2050) and constant values thereafter. + + + + Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC Conversion + + A time-series conversion factor based on + AEO2022. + + + + Discount Rate + Three and seven percent. + + + Present Year + 2022. + + + 1. Product Efficiency Trends +

    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards cases. Section IV.F.8 of this document describes how DOE developed an energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the considered product classes for the year of anticipated compliance with a new standard. In the no-new-standards case, DOE determined that the present efficiency distribution would remain fixed over time due to the lack of evidence of efficiency improvement in the no-new-standards case. The approach is further described in chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD.

    +

    + For the standards cases, DOE used a “roll-up” scenario to establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards are assumed to become effective (2024 and 2026 for TSL3 and 2028 for the other TSLs). In this scenario, the market shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the standard under consideration would “roll up” to meet + + the new standard level, and the market share of products above the standard would remain unchanged. +

    + 2. National Energy Savings +

    + The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of national energy consumption of the considered products between each TSL and the case with no new or amended energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for the no-new-standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy ( + i.e., + the energy consumed by power plants to generate site electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from + AEO2022. + Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the timeframe of the analysis. +

    +

    Use of higher-efficiency products is sometimes associated with a direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of the product due to the increase in efficiency and reduction in operating cost. However, DOE did not find any data on a rebound effect specific to air cleaners, and so applied no rebound for air cleaners.

    +

    + In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on “Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards” appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination that EIA's National Energy Modeling System (“NEMS”) is the most appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector  + 52 + + that EIA uses to prepare its + Annual Energy Outlook. + The FFC factors incorporate losses in production and delivery in the case of natural gas (including fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to produce and deliver the various fuels used by power plants. The approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use and emissions is described in appendix 10B of the direct final rule TSD. +

    + +

    + 52 +  For more information on NEMS, refer to + The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 2018, + DOE/EIA-0581(2019), April 2019. Available at + www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/overview/pdf/0581(2018).pdf + (last accessed December 5, 2022). +

    +     + 3. Net Present Value Analysis +

    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product shipped during the projection period.

    +

    As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this document, DOE developed air cleaners price trends based on an experience curve that depends on cumulative product shipments. DOE applied the same trends to the non-filter part of the projected prices for each product class at each considered efficiency level. By 2057, which is the end date of the projection period, the average air cleaner price is projected to drop 17 percent relative to 2021. DOE's projection of product prices is described in chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD.

    +

    To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend estimates, DOE investigated the impact of different product price projections on the consumer NPV for the considered TSLs for air cleaners. In addition to the default price trend, DOE considered two product price sensitivity cases: (1) a high price decline case based on the small electric household appliance PPI from 2014 to 2021, and (2) a low price decline case based on the small electric household appliance PPI from 2009 to 2014. The derivation of these price trends and the results of these sensitivity cases are described in appendix 10C of the direct final rule TSD.

    +

    + The operating cost savings consist of repair and maintenance costs savings, and energy cost savings. The repair and maintenance cost savings are estimated based on the filter change frequency and costs in the LCC analysis, which are held constant during the lifetime of the air cleaner in the NIA except for the first year. + 53 + + Energy cost savings are calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy prices by the projection of annual national-average residential energy price changes in the Reference case from + AEO2022, + which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, the 2050 value was used for all years. As part of the NIA, DOE also analyzed scenarios that used inputs from variants of the + AEO2022 + Reference case that have lower and higher economic growth. Those cases have lower and higher energy price trends compared to the Reference case. NIA results based on these cases are presented in appendix 10C of the direct final rule TSD. +

    + +

    + 53 +  A new air cleaner unit usually comes with a new filter, which is why the first year of operation has a lower repair and maintenance cost compared to the other years during the lifetime of a unit. +

    +     +

    + In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this direct final rule, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis. + 54 + + The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. The 7-percent real value is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the “social rate of time preference,” which is the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows to their present value. +

    + +

    + 54 +  United States Office of Management and Budget. + Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. + September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at + obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ + (last accessed December 9, 2022). +

    +     + I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis +

    + In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups of consumers by analyzing the LCC + + impacts and PBP for those particular consumers from alternative standard levels. For this direct final rule, DOE analyzed the impacts of the considered standard levels on three subgroups: (1) low-income households, (2) senior-only households and (3) small businesses. There may be other subgroups affected by standards for air cleaners, + e.g., + those with occupants who have chronic respiratory health conditions. However, DOE does not have information indicating that these consumers may be disproportionately affected by new air cleaner standards and DOE did not analyze these consumers as a separate consumer subgroup. The analysis used subsets of the + RECS 2020 + and + CBECS 2018 + samples composed of households and commercial buildings that meet the criteria for the considered subgroups. DOE used the LCC and PBP spreadsheet model to estimate the impacts of the considered efficiency levels on these subgroups. Chapter 11 in the direct final rule TSD describes the consumer subgroup analysis. +

    + J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis + 1. Overview +

    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of new energy conservation standards on manufacturers of air cleaners and to estimate the potential impacts of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative aspects and includes analyses of projected industry cash flows, the INPV, investments in research and development (“R&D”) and manufacturing capital, and domestic manufacturing employment. Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how new energy conservation standards might affect manufacturing employment, capacity, and competition, as well as how standards contribute to overall regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA serves to identify any disproportionate impacts on manufacturer subgroups, including small business manufacturers.

    +

    The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), an industry cash flow model with inputs specific to this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs include data on the industry cost structure, unit production costs, product shipments, manufacturer markups, and investments in R&D and manufacturing capital required to produce compliant products. The key GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is the sum of industry annual cash flows over the analysis period, discounted using the industry-weighted average cost of capital, and the impact to domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses standard accounting principles to estimate the impacts of more-stringent energy conservation standards on a given industry by comparing changes in INPV and domestic manufacturing employment between a no-new-standards case and the various standards cases. To capture the uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing strategies following standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible impacts under different manufacturer markup scenarios.

    +

    The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such factors as a potential standard's impact on manufacturing capacity, competition within the industry, the cumulative impact of other DOE and non-DOE regulations, and impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.

    +

    + DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the air cleaners manufacturing industry based on the market and technology assessment, preliminary manufacturer interviews, and publicly-available information. This included a top-down analysis of air cleaner manufacturers that DOE used to derive preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM ( + e.g., + revenues; materials, labor, overhead, and depreciation expenses; selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”); and R&D expenses). DOE also used public sources of information to further calibrate its initial characterization of the air cleaners manufacturing industry, including results of the engineering analysis, the U.S. Census Bureau's “Economic Census,”  + 55 + + and reports from Dunn & Bradstreet. + 56 + +

    + +

    + 55 +  The U.S. Census Bureau. Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization. Available at + www.census.gov/programs-surveys/qpc/data/tables.html. +

    +     + +

    + 56 +  The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers login is available at + app.dnbhoovers.com. +

    +     +

    In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash-flow analysis to quantify the potential impacts of energy conservation standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a series of annual cash flows starting with the announcement of the standard and extending over a 30-year period following the compliance date of the standard. These factors include annual expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures. In general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash flow in three distinct ways: (1) creating a need for increased investment, (2) raising production costs per unit, and (3) altering revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes.

    +

    In addition, during Phase 2, DOE developed interview guides to distribute to manufacturers of air cleaners in order to develop other key GRIM inputs, including product and capital conversion costs, and to gather additional information on the anticipated effects of energy conservation standards on revenues, direct employment, capital assets, industry competitiveness, and subgroup impacts.

    +

    In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE typically conducts structured, detailed interviews with representative manufacturers. During these interviews, DOE typically discusses engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial topics to validate assumptions used in the GRIM and to identify key issues or concerns. For this air cleaners rulemaking, DOE conducted preliminary interviews that focused on key issues, product classes, and the engineering analysis. As part of Phase 3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by standards or that may not be accurately represented by the average cost assumptions used to develop the industry cash flow analysis. Such manufacturer subgroups may include small business manufacturers, low-volume manufacturers (“LVMs”), niche players, and/or manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that largely differs from the industry average. DOE identified one subgroup for a separate impact analysis: small business manufacturers. The small business subgroup is discussed in section VI.B, “Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act” and in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.

    + 2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs +

    + DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to new standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. The GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash-flow analysis that incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry financial information as inputs. The GRIM models changes in costs, distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins that could result from an energy conservation standard. The GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash flows, beginning in 2023 (the base + + year of the analysis) and continuing to 2057. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of annual discounted cash flows during this period. For manufacturers of air cleaners, DOE used a real discount rate of 6.6 percent. Given the lack of publicly-listed original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of air cleaners, DOE relied on industry parameters from the portable air conditioners final rule published in January 2020. 85 FR 1378 (Jan. 9, 2020). In reviewing other appliance standards rulemakings where DOE had sufficient data to estimate product-specific manufacturer markups and other financial parameters, DOE found portable air conditioners to be the most recent rulemaking covering a product similar to air cleaners in terms of product and market attributes. +

    +

    The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the energy conservation standard on manufacturers. As discussed previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using a number of sources, including publicly available data, results of the engineering analysis, and information gathered from industry stakeholders during the course of manufacturer interviews. The GRIM results are presented in section V.B.2 of this document. Additional details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other financial parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.

    + a. Manufacturer Production Costs +

    Manufacturing more efficient products is typically more expensive than manufacturing baseline products due to the use of more complex components, which are typically more costly than baseline components. The changes in the manufacturer production costs (“MPCs”) of covered products can affect the revenues, gross margins, and cash flow of the industry.

    +

    + DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market ( + i.e., + the efficiency-level approach), or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model ( + i.e., + the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to interpolate to define “gap fill” levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the “max-tech” level (particularly in cases where the “max-tech” level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market). +

    +

    In this rulemaking, DOE applied a hybrid approach of efficiency-level and design-option approaches described above. This approach involved reviewing publicly available efficiency data and physically disassembling commercially available products. From this information, DOE estimated the MPCs for a range of products available at that time on the market. DOE then analyzed the steps manufacturers took to improve product efficiencies. In its analysis, DOE determined that manufacturers would likely rely on certain design options to reach higher efficiencies. From this information, DOE estimated the cost and efficiency impacts of incorporating specific design options at each efficiency level. For a complete description of the MPCs, see chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

    + b. Shipments Projections +

    The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the GRIM uses the NIA's annual shipment projections derived from the shipments analysis from 2023 (the base year) to 2057 (the end year of the analysis period). See chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD for additional details.

    + c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs +

    Energy conservation standards could cause manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level of conversion-related expenditures that would be needed to comply with each considered efficiency level in each product class. For the MIA, DOE classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) capital conversion costs; and (2) product conversion costs. Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities such that new compliant product designs can be fabricated and assembled. Product conversion costs are investments in research, development, testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product designs comply with energy conservation standards.

    +

    To evaluate the level of product conversion costs industry would likely incur to comply with n energy conservation standard, DOE evaluated the testing costs for manufacturers to certify models to DOE and the investments necessary to update product designed to comply with standards. DOE relied on testing costs from the March 2023 TP Final Rule, which estimated $6,000 for 3rd party lab testing of a basic model. To estimate investment levels, DOE relied on financial parameters to estimate annual spending on R&D; complexity of design options; and percentage of industry shipments that would require redesign. Product conversion costs by efficiency level are presented in Table IV.16 through Table IV.18. To evaluate the level of capital conversion costs for the industry, DOE relied on its product teardowns and analysis of the equipment and tooling required to produce conventional air cleaners. The conversion cost estimates are driven by the number of injection mold dies that would require replacement as a result of standards. Capital conversion costs by efficiency level are presented in Table IV.16 through Table IV.18.

    + + + Table IV.16—Conversion Cost ($M) for PC1 (10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR <100) + + + Efficiency level + + Product +
  • conversion cost
    • +     + + Capital +
  • conversion cost
    • +     +     + + 1 + $3.6 + $6.1 + + + 2 + 9.0 + 8.4 + + + 3 + 19.0 + 14.2 + + + 4 + 20.6 + 15.1 + +     + + + + Table IV.17—Conversion Cost ($M) for PC2 (100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR <150) + + + Efficiency level + + Product +
  • conversion cost
    • +     + + Capital +
  • conversion cost
    • +     +     + + 1 + $3.1 + $5.6 + + + 2 + 7.8 + 7.6 + + + 3 + 26.7 + 13.9 + + + 4 + 29.8 + 15.0 + +     + + + Table IV.18—Conversion Cost ($M) for PC3 (PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥150) + + + Efficiency level + + Product +
  • conversion cost
    • +     + + Capital +
  • conversion cost
    • +     +     + + 1 + $6.9 + $5.5 + + + 2 + 17.2 + 7.3 + + + 3 + 48.5 + 14.3 + + + 4 + 50.1 + 14.7 + +     +

    In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur between the year of publication of the direct final rule and the year by which manufacturers must comply with the new standard. For additional information on the estimated capital and product conversion costs, see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.

    + d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios +

    + MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs ( + i.e., + labor, materials, and overhead estimated in DOE's MPCs) and all non-production costs ( + i.e., + SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. To calculate the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied manufacturer markups to the MPCs estimated in the engineering analysis for each product class and efficiency level. Modifying these manufacturer markups in the standards case yields different sets of impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled two standards-case scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers following the implementation of a energy conservation standards: (1) a preservation of gross margin percentage scenario; and (2) a preservation of operating profit scenario. These scenarios lead to different manufacturer markup values that, when applied to the MPCs, result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts. +

    +

    + Under the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, DOE applied a single uniform “gross margin percentage” across all efficiency levels, which assumes that manufacturers would be able to maintain the same amount of profit as a percentage of revenues at all efficiency levels within a product class. As manufacturer production costs increase with efficiency, this scenario implies that the per-unit dollar profit will increase. DOE assumed a gross margin percentage of 31 percent for all air cleaners. + 57 + + This scenario represents a high bound of industry profitability under an energy conservation standard. +

    + +

    + 57 +  The gross margin percentage of 31 percent is based on manufacturer markup of 1.45. +

    +     +

    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, as the cost of production goes up under a standards case, manufacturers are generally required to reduce their manufacturer markups to a level that maintains base-case operating profit. DOE implemented this scenario in the GRIM by lowering the manufacturer markups at each TSL to yield approximately the same earnings before interest and taxes in the standards case as in the no-new-standards case in the year after the expected compliance date of the standards. The implicit assumption behind this scenario is that the industry can only maintain its operating profit in absolute dollars after the standard takes effect. A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a of this document.

    + 3. Discussion of MIA Comments +

    In response to the request for comment published in January 2022, Molekule stated manufacturers may incur costs if energy efficiency redesign results in a repeat verification and testing for the Federal Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared device requirements. Additionally, manufacturers may need to re-submit new Premarket Notifications 510(k) to the FDA. (Molekule, No. 11, pp. 3-4)

    +

    DOE evaluated the FDA requirements and does not anticipate air cleaner standards affecting submissions of Premarket Notifications 510(k) because any design options that (1) significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device or (2) change or modify the intended use of the device would be screened out in the screening analysis. Thus, DOE's analysis does not include costs for Premarket Notifications 510(k) verification.

    + K. Emissions Analysis +

    + The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion emissions of CO + 2 + , NO + X + , SO + 2 + , and Hg. The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on emissions of two additional greenhouse gases, CH + 4 + and N + 2 + O, as well as the reductions in emissions of other gases due to “upstream” activities in the fuel production chain. These upstream activities comprise extraction, processing, and transporting fuels to the site of combustion. +

    +

    + The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO + 2 + , NO + X + , SO + 2 + , and Hg uses emission factors intended to represent the marginal impacts of the change in electricity consumption associated with amended or new standards. The methodology is based on results published for the + AEO, + including a set of side cases that implement a variety of efficiency-related policies. The methodology is described in appendix 13A in the direct final rule TSD. The analysis presented in this document uses projections from + AEO2022. +

    +

    + Power sector emissions of CH + 4 + and N + 2 + O from fuel combustion are estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories published by EPA. + 58 + +

    + +

    + 58 +  Available at + www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_apr2021.pdf + (last accessed July 12, 2021). +

    +     +

    + FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels, and “fugitive” emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of CH + 4 + and CO + 2 + , are estimated based on the methodology described in chapter 15 of the direct final rule TSD. +

    +

    The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical units per megawatt-hours (“MWh”) or million British thermal units (“MMBtu”) of site energy savings. For power sector emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the energy savings calculated in the NIA.

    + + 1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis +

    + DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects the + AEO, + which incorporates the projected impacts of existing air quality regulations on emissions. + AEO2022 + generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government actions, that were in place at the time of preparation of + AEO2022, + including the emissions control programs discussed in the following paragraphs. + 59 + +

    + +

    + 59 +  For further information, see the Assumptions to + AEO2022 + report that sets forth the major assumptions used to generate the projections in the Annual Energy Outlook. Available at + www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ + (last accessed December 5, 2022). +

    +     +

    + SO + 2 + emissions from affected electric generating units (“EGUs”) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-trade programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on SO + 2 + for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia (“DC”). (42 U.S.C. 7651 + et seq. + ) SO + 2 + emissions from numerous States in the eastern half of the United States are also limited under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (“CSAPR”). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these States to reduce certain emissions, including annual SO + 2 + emissions, and went into effect as of January 1, 2015. + + 60 + + AEO2022 + incorporates implementation of CSAPR, including the update to the CSAPR ozone season program emission budgets and target dates issued in 2016. 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). + 61 + + Compliance with CSAPR is flexible among EGUs and is enforced through the use of tradable emissions allowances. Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO + 2 + emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting increases in SO + 2 + emissions by another regulated EGU. +

    + +

    + 60 +  CSAPR requires states to address annual emissions of SO + 2 + and NO + X + , precursors to the formation of fine particulate matter (“PM + 2.5 + ”) pollution, in order to address the interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM + 2.5 + National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”). CSAPR also requires certain states to address the ozone season (May-September) emissions of NO + X + , a precursor to the formation of ozone pollution, in order to address the interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). EPA subsequently issued a supplemental rule that included an additional five states in the CSAPR ozone season program, 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) (Supplemental Rule), and EPA issued the CSAPR Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). +

    +     + +

    + 61 +  In Sept. 2019, the DC Court of Appeals remanded the 2016 CSAPR Update to EPA. In April 2021, EPA finalized the 2021 CSAPR Update which resolved the interstate transport obligations of 21 states for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021); + see also, + 86 FR 29948 (June 4, 2021) (correction to preamble). The 2021 CSAPR Update became effective on June 29, 2021. The release of AEO 2022 in February 2021 predated the 2021 CSAPR Update. +

    +     +

    + However, beginning in 2016, SO + 2 + emissions began to fall as a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final rule, EPA established a standard for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid gas hazardous air pollutants (“HAP”) and also established a standard for SO + 2 + (a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative equivalent surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same controls are used to reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus SO + 2 + emissions are being reduced as a result of the control technologies installed on coal-fired power plants to comply with the MATS requirements for acid gas. In order to continue operating, coal plants must have either flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems installed. Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas emissions, also reduce SO + 2 + emissions. Because of the emissions reductions under the MATS, it is unlikely that excess SO + 2 + emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand would be needed or used to permit offsetting increases in SO + 2 + emissions by another regulated EGU. Therefore, energy conservation standards that decrease electricity generation will generally reduce SO + 2 + emissions. DOE estimated SO + 2 + emissions reduction using emissions factors based on + AEO2022. +

    +

    + CSAPR also established limits on NO + X + emissions for numerous States in the eastern half of the United States. Energy conservation standards would have little effect on NO + X + emissions in those States covered by CSAPR emissions limits if excess NO + X + emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases in NO + X + emissions from other EGUs. In such case, NO + X + emissions would remain near the limit even if electricity generation goes down. A different case could possibly result, depending on the configuration of the power sector in the different regions and the need for allowances, such that NO + X + emissions might not remain at the limit in the case of lower electricity demand. In this case, energy conservation standards might reduce NO + X + emissions in covered States. Despite this possibility, DOE has chosen to be conservative in its analysis and has maintained the assumption that standards will not reduce NO + X + emissions in States covered by CSAPR. Energy conservation standards would be expected to reduce NO + X + emissions in the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE used + AEO2022 + data to derive NO + X + emissions factors for the group of States not covered by CSAPR. +

    +

    + The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on + AEO2022, + which incorporates the MATS. +

    + L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts +

    + As part of the development of this direct final rule, for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, DOE considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of CO + 2 + , CH + 4 + , N + 2 + O, NO + X + , and SO + 2 + that are expected to result from each of the TSLs considered. In order to make this calculation analogous to the calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced emissions expected to result over the lifetime of products shipped in the projection period for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis for the values used for monetizing the emissions benefits and presents the values considered in this direct final rule. +

    +

    + 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). +

    +

    DOE requests comment on how to address the climate benefits and other non-monetized effects of this direct final rule.

    + 1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions +

    + DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions of CO + 2 + , CH + 4 + , and N + 2 + O by using a measure of the SC of each pollutant ( + e.g., + SC-CO + 2 + ). These estimates represent the monetary value of the net harm to society associated with a marginal increase in emissions of these pollutants in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. These estimates are intended to include (but are not limited to) climate-change-related changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, disruption of energy systems, risk + + of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. +

    +

    DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate benefits as recommended by applicable Executive orders, and DOE would reach the same conclusion presented in this direct final rule in the absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases. That is, the social costs of greenhouse gases, whether measured using the February 2021 interim estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases or by another means, did not affect the rule ultimately published by DOE.

    +

    + DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO + 2 + , CH + 4 + , and N + 2 + O reductions ( + i.e., + SC-GHGs) using the 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 IWG. The SC-GHGs is the monetary value of the net harm to society associated with a marginal increase in emissions in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. In principle, SC-GHGs includes the value of all climate change impacts, including (but not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health effects, property damage from increased flood risk and natural disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. The SC-GHGs therefore, reflects the societal value of reducing emissions of the gas in question by one metric ton. The SC-GHGs is the theoretically appropriate value to use in conducting benefit-cost analyses of policies that affect CO + 2 + , N + 2 + O, and CH4 emissions. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees that the interim SC-GHG estimates represent the most appropriate estimate of the SC-GHG until revised estimates have been developed reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed science. +

    +

    + The SC-GHGs estimates presented here were developed over many years, using transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best science available at the time of that process, and with input from the public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, that included the DOE and other executive branch agencies and offices was established to ensure that agencies were using the best available science and to promote consistency in the social cost of carbon (SC-CO + 2 + ) values used across agencies. The IWG published SC-CO + 2 + estimates in 2010 that were developed from an ensemble of three widely cited integrated assessment models (IAMs) that estimate global climate damages using highly aggregated representations of climate processes and the global economy combined into a single modeling framework. The three IAMs were run using a common set of input assumptions in each model for future population, economic, and CO + 2 + emissions growth, as well as equilibrium climate sensitivity—a measure of the globally averaged temperature response to increased atmospheric CO + 2 + concentrations. These estimates were updated in 2013 based on new versions of each IAM. In August 2016, the IWG published estimates of the social cost of methane (SC-CH + 4 + ) and nitrous oxide (SC-N + 2 + O) using methodologies that are consistent with the methodology underlying the SC-CO + 2 + estimates. The modeling approach that extends the IWG SC-CO + 2 + methodology to non-CO + 2 + GHGs has undergone multiple stages of peer review. The SC-CH + 4 + and SC-N + 2 + O estimates were developed by Marten + et al. + 62 + + and underwent a standard double-blind peer review process prior to journal publication. In 2015, as part of the response to public comments received to a 2013 solicitation for comments on the SC-CO + 2 + estimates, the IWG announced a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine review of the SC-CO + 2 + estimates to offer advice on how to approach future updates to ensure that the estimates continue to reflect the best available science and methodologies. In January 2017, the National Academies released their final report, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and recommended specific criteria for future updates to the SC-CO + 2 + estimates, a modeling framework to satisfy the specified criteria, and both near-term updates and longer-term research needs pertaining to various components of the estimation process (National Academies, 2017). + 63 + + Shortly thereafter, in March 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13783, which disbanded the IWG, withdrew the previous TSDs, and directed agencies to ensure SC-CO + 2 + estimates used in regulatory analyses are consistent with the guidance contained in OMB's Circular A-4, “including with respect to the consideration of domestic versus international impacts and the consideration of appropriate discount rates” (E.O. 13783, section 5(c)). Benefit-cost analyses following E.O. 13783 used SC-GHG estimates that attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific share of climate change damages as estimated by the models and were calculated using two discount rates recommended by Circular A-4, 3 percent and 7 percent. All other methodological decisions and model versions used in SC-GHG calculations remained the same as those used by the IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively. +

    + +

    + 62 +  Marten, A. L., E. A. Kopits, C. W. Griffiths, S. C. Newbold, and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SC-CO2 estimates. + Climate Policy. + 2015. 15(2): pp. 272-298. +

    +     + +

    + 63 +  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. + Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. + 2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC. +

    +     +

    On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S. Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in Federal analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller update of the SC-GHG estimates by January 2022 that takes into consideration the advice of the National Academies (2017) and other recent scientific literature. The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a complete discussion of the IWG's initial review conducted under E.O. 13990. In particular, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact of GHG emissions in multiple ways.

    +

    + First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of omitted effects from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and investments located abroad, supply chains, U.S. military assets and interests abroad, and tourism, and spillover pathways such as economic and political destabilization and global migration that can lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation activities requires consideration of how + + those actions may affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global damages of GHG emissions. If the United States does not consider impacts on other countries, it is difficult to convince other countries to consider the impacts of their emissions on the United States. The only way to achieve an efficient allocation of resources for emissions reduction on a global basis—and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens—is for all countries to base their policies on global estimates of damages. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and, therefore, in this direct final rule DOE centers attention on a global measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as that taken in DOE regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A robust estimate of climate damages that accrue only to U.S. citizens and residents does not currently exist in the literature. As explained in the February 2021 TSD, existing estimates are both incomplete and an underestimate of total damages that accrue to the citizens and residents of the U.S. because they do not fully capture the regional interactions and spillovers discussed above, nor do they include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature. As noted in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG will continue to review developments in the literature, including more robust methodologies for estimating a U.S.-specific SC-GHG value, and explore ways to better inform the public of the full range of carbon impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. +

    +

    + Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on capital (7 percent under current OMB Circular A-4 guidance) to discount the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National Academies (2017) and the economic literature, the IWG continued to conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context, + 64 + + and recommended that discount rate uncertainty and relevant aspects of intergenerational ethical considerations be accounted for in selecting future discount rates. +

    + +

    + 64 +  Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. + Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866. + 2010. United States Government. (Last accessed April 15, 2022.) + www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf; + Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. + Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. + 2013. (Last accessed April 15, 2022.) + www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technical-update-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact; + Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Technical Support Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under Executive Order 12866. August 2016. (Last accessed January 18, 2022.) + www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf; + Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. (Last accessed January 18, 2022.) + www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf. +

    +     +

    Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes that while OMB Circular A-4, as published in 2003, recommends using 3% and 7% discount rates as “default” values, Circular A-4 also reminds agencies that “different regulations may call for different emphases in the analysis, depending on the nature and complexity of the regulatory issues and the sensitivity of the benefit and cost estimates to the key assumptions.” On discounting, Circular A-4 recognizes that “special ethical considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across generations,” and Circular A-4 acknowledges that analyses may appropriately “discount future costs and consumption benefits . . . at a lower rate than for intragenerational analysis.” In the 2015 Response to Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG members recognized that “Circular A-4 is a living document” and “the use of 7 percent is not considered appropriate for intergenerational discounting. There is wide support for this view in the academic literature, and it is recognized in Circular A-4 itself.” Thus, DOE concludes that a 7% discount rate is not appropriate to apply to value the social cost of greenhouse gases in the analysis presented in this analysis.

    +

    + To calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits, DOE uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value of damages from future GHG emissions, for internal consistency. That approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February 2021 TSD recommends “to ensure internal consistency— + i.e., + future damages from climate change using the SC-GHG at 2.5 percent should be discounted to the base year of the analysis using the same 2.5 percent rate.” DOE has also consulted the National Academies' 2017 recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates can “be combined in RIAs with other cost and benefits estimates that may use different discount rates.” The National Academies reviewed several options, including “presenting all discount rate combinations of other costs and benefits with SC-GHG estimates.” +

    +

    + As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the previous assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. While the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it set the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by the IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely on the same models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a range of discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG has recommended that agencies revert to the same set of four values drawn from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount rates as were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and were subject to public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios (applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values recommended for use in benefit-cost analyses: an average value resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, selected as the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3 percent discount rate. The fourth value was included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change. As explained in + + the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and DOE agrees, this update reflects the immediate need to have an operational SC-GHG for use in regulatory benefit-cost analyses and other applications that was developed using a transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and the science available at the time of that process. Those estimates were subject to public comment in the context of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well as in a dedicated public comment period in 2013. +

    +

    + There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or lower. + 65 + + Second, the IAMs used to produce these interim estimates do not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature and the science underlying their “damage functions”— + i.e., + the core parts of the IAMs that map global mean temperature changes and other physical impacts of climate change into economic (both market and nonmarket) damages—lags behind the most recent research. For example, limitations include the incomplete treatment of catastrophic and non-catastrophic impacts in the integrated assessment models, their incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, the incomplete way in which inter-regional and intersectoral linkages are modeled, uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high temperatures, and inadequate representation of the relationship between the discount rate and uncertainty in economic growth over long time horizons. Likewise, the socioeconomic and emissions scenarios used as inputs to the models do not reflect new information from the last decade of scenario generation or the full range of projections. The modeling limitations do not all work in the same direction in terms of their influence on the SC-CO + 2 + estimates. However, as discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the IWG has recommended that, taken together, the limitations suggest that the interim SC-GHG estimates used in this direct final rule likely underestimate the damages from GHG emissions. DOE concurs with this assessment. +

    + +

    + 65 +  Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990. February. United States Government. Available at: + www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climate-pollution/. +

    +

    + 66 +  For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses how the understanding of discounting approaches suggests that discount rates appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate change may be lower than 3 percent. +

    +

    + 67 +  See EPA, + Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis, + Washington, DC, December 2021. Available at + www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-12/420r21028.pdf + (last accessed January 13, 2022). +

    +

    + 68 +  Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, Washington, DC, February 2021. + www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf?source=email. +

    +     +

    + DOE's derivations of the SC-CO + 2 + , SC-N + 2 + O, and SC-CH + 4 + values used for this DFR are discussed in the following sections, and the results of DOE's analyses estimating the benefits of the reductions in emissions of these GHGs are presented in section V.B.6 of this document. +

    + a. Social Cost of Carbon +

    + The SC-CO + 2 + values used for this direct final rule were based on the values in the IWG's February 2021 TSD. Table IV.19 shows the updated sets of SC-CO + 2 + estimates from the IWG's TSD in 5-year increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values that DOE used is presented in Appendix 14-A of the direct final rule TSD. For purposes of capturing the uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has determined it is appropriate to include all four sets of SC-CO + 2 + values, as recommended by the IWG. + 66 +

    + + + Table IV.19—Annual SC-CO + 2 + Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050 + + + [2021$ Per metric ton CO + 2 + ] + + + Year + Discount rate and statistic + 5% + Average + 3% + Average + 2.5% + Average + 3% + 95th percentile + + + 2025 + 18 + 59 + 86 + 176 + + + 2030 + 20 + 64 + 93 + 194 + + + 2035 + 23 + 70 + 100 + 214 + + + 2040 + 26 + 76 + 107 + 234 + + + 2045 + 30 + 82 + 114 + 253 + + + 2050 + 33 + 88 + 121 + 271 + + +

    + For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC-CO + 2 + estimates published by EPA, adjusted to 2021$. + 67 + These estimates are based on methods, assumptions, and parameters identical to the 2020-2050 estimates published by the IWG. +

    +

    + DOE multiplied the CO + 2 + emissions reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CO + 2 + value for that year in each of the four cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2021$ using the implicit price deflator for gross domestic product (“GDP”) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-CO + 2 + values in each case. +

    + b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide +

    + The SC-CH + 4 + and SC-N + 2 + O values used for this direct final rule were based on the values developed for the February 2021 TSD. + 68 + Table IV.20 shows the updated sets of SC-CH + 4 + and SC-N + 2 + O estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-year increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values used is presented in Appendix 14-A of the direct final rule TSD. To capture the uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has determined it is appropriate to include all four sets of SC-CH + 4 + and SC-N + 2 + O values, as + + recommended by the IWG. DOE derived values after 2050 using the approach described above for the SC-CO + 2 + . +

    + + + Table IV.20—Annual SC-CH + 4 + and SC-N + 2 + O Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050 + + [2020$ Per metric ton] + + Year + + SC-CH + 4 + + Discount rate and statistic + 5% + Average + 3% + Average + 2.5% + Average + 3% + + 95th +
  • percentile
    • +     + + SC-N + 2 + O + + Discount rate and statistic + 5% + Average + 3% + Average + 2.5% + Average + 3% + + 95th +
  • percentile
    • +     +     + + 2020 + 670 + 1,500 + 2,000 + 3,900 + 5,800 + 18,000 + 27,000 + 48,000 + + + 2025 + 800 + 1,700 + 2,200 + 4,500 + 6,800 + 21,000 + 30,000 + 54,000 + + + 2030 + 940 + 2,000 + 2,500 + 5,200 + 7,800 + 23,000 + 33,000 + 60,000 + + + 2035 + 1,100 + 2,200 + 2,800 + 6,000 + 9,000 + 25,000 + 36,000 + 67,000 + + + 2040 + 1,300 + 2,500 + 3,100 + 6,700 + 10,000 + 28,000 + 39,000 + 74,000 + + + 2045 + 1,500 + 2,800 + 3,500 + 7,500 + 12,000 + 30,000 + 42,000 + 81,000 + + + 2050 + 1,700 + 3,100 + 3,800 + 8,200 + 13,000 + 33,000 + 45,000 + 88,000 + +     +

    + DOE multiplied the CH + 4 + and N + 2 + O emissions reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH + 4 + and SC-N + 2 + O estimates for that year in each of the cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2021$ using the implicit price deflator for gross domestic product (“GDP”) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the cases using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-CH + 4 + and SC-N + 2 + O estimates in each case. +

    + 2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts +

    + For this direct final rule, DOE estimated the monetized value of NO + X + and SO + 2 + emissions reductions from electricity generation using the latest benefit-per-ton estimates for that sector from the EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program. + 69 + + DOE used EPA's values for PM + 2.5 + -related benefits associated with NO + X + and SO + 2 + and for ozone-related benefits associated with NO + X + for 2025 and 2030, and 2040, calculated with discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. DOE used linear interpolation to define values for the years not given in the 2025 to 2040 range; for years beyond 2040 the values are held constant. DOE derived values specific to the sector for air cleaners using a method described in appendix 14B of the direct final rule TSD. +

    + +

    + 69 +  Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM + 2.5 + Precursors from 21 Sectors. + www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors. +

    +     +

    DOE multiplied the site emissions reduction (in tons) in each year by the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as appropriate.

    + M. Utility Impact Analysis +

    + The utility impact analysis estimates the changes in installed electrical capacity and generation projected to result for each considered TSL. The analysis is based on published output from the NEMS associated with + AEO2022. + NEMS produces the + AEO + Reference case, as well as a number of side cases that estimate the economy-wide impacts of changes to energy supply and demand. For the current analysis, impacts are quantified by comparing the levels of electricity sector generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption and emissions in the + AEO2022 + Reference case and various side cases. Details of the methodology are provided in the appendices to chapters 13 and 15 of the direct final rule TSD. +

    +

    The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or amended energy conservation standards.

    + N. Employment Impact Analysis +

    + DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one factor in selecting a standard. Employment impacts from new or amended energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of manufacturers of the products subject to standards. + 70 + + The MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase and operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on energy, (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry, (3) increased consumer spending on the products to which the new standards apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the economy. +

    + +

    + 70 +  As defined in the U.S. Census Bureau's 2016 + Annual Survey of Manufactures, + production workers include “Workers (up through the line-supervisor level) engaged in fabricating, processing, assembling, inspecting, receiving, packing, warehousing, shipping (but not delivering), maintenance, repair, janitorial, guard services, product development, auxiliary production for plant's own use ( + e.g., + power plant), record keeping, and other closely associated services (including truck drivers delivering ready-mixed concrete)” Non-production workers are defined as “Supervision above line-supervisor level, sales (including a driver salesperson), sales delivery (truck drivers and helpers), advertising, credit, collection, installation, and servicing of own products, clerical and routine office functions, executive, purchasing, finance, legal, personnel (including cafeteria, + etc. + ), professional and technical.” +

    +     +

    + One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different sectors of the + + economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of the economy. + 71 + + There are many reasons for these differences, including wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital-intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a less labor-intensive sector ( + i.e., + the utility sector) to more labor-intensive sectors ( + e.g., + the retail and service sectors). Thus, the BLS data suggest that net national employment may increase due to shifts in economic activity resulting from energy conservation standards. +

    + +

    + 71 +   + See + U.S. Department of Commerce-Bureau of Economic Analysis. + Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (“RIMS II”). + 1997. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC. Available at + www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf + (last accessed July 1, 2021). +

    +

    + 72 +  Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and R.W. Schultz. + ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model Description and User's Guide. + 2015. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: Richland, WA. PNNL-24563. +

    +

    + 73 +  EL 1 also corresponds to individual standards established by certain states and the District of Columbia. +

    +     +

    + DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard levels considered in this direct final rule using an input/output model of the U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4 (“ImSET”). + 72 + ImSET is a special-purpose version of the “U.S. Benchmark National Input-Output” (“I-O”) model, which was designed to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer- based I-O model having structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among 187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential building energy use. +

    +

    DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting model, and that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts over the long run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to generate results for near-term timeframes, where these uncertainties are reduced. For more details on the employment impact analysis, see chapter 16 of the direct final rule TSD.

    + V. Analytical Results and Conclusions +

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for air cleaners. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy conservation standards for air cleaners, and the standards levels that DOE is adopting in this direct final rule. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the direct final rule TSD supporting this document.

    + A. Trial Standard Levels +

    In general, DOE typically evaluates potential standards for products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency levels for each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and consider manufacturer cost interactions between the air cleaner product classes, to the extent that there are such interactions, and market cross elasticity from consumer purchasing decisions that may change when different standard levels are set.

    +

    In the analysis conducted for this direct final rule, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of five TSLs for air cleaners. DOE developed TSLs that combine efficiency levels for each analyzed product class. DOE presents the results for the TSLs in this document, while the results for all efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in the direct final rule TSD.

    +

    + Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels that DOE has identified for potential energy conservation standards for air cleaners. TSL 5 represents the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) energy efficiency for all product classes and corresponds to EL 4 for all product classes. TSL 4 represents an intermediate efficiency level and corresponds to EL 3 for all product classes. TSL 3 corresponds to the two-tier approach from the Joint Proposal which comprises efficiency level EL 1  + 73 + for Tier 1 standards (going to effect in 2024) and the current ENERGY STAR V.2.0 efficiency level (EL 2) for Tier 2 standards (going to effect in 2026) for all the product classes. TSL 2 comprises the current ENERGY STAR V.2.0 efficiency level (EL 2) for all product classes. TSL 1 represents EL 1 for all product classes. For all TSLs other than TSL 3, the compliance year is considered to be 2028. +

    + + Table V.1—Trial Standard Levels for Air Cleaners + + TSL + Compliance year + + PC1: 10-100 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + Efficiency level + + Efficiency +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +     + + PC2: 100-150 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + Efficiency level + + Efficiency +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +     + + PC2: 100-150 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + Efficiency level + + Efficiency +
  • + (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
    • +     +     + + 1 + 2028 + 1 + 1.7 + 1 + 1.9 + 1 + 2.0 + + + 2 + 2028 + 2 + 1.9 + 2 + 2.4 + 2 + 2.9 + + + 3 + 2024 (Tier 1) + 1 + 1.7 + 1 + 1.9 + 1 + 2.0 + + +   + 2026 (Tier 2) + 2 + 1.9 + 2 + 2.4 + 2 + 2.9 + + + 4 + 2028 + 3 + 3.4 + 3 + 5.4 + 3 + 6.6 + + + 5 + 2028 + 4 + 5.4 + 4 + 12.8 + 4 + 7.4 + +     + B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings + 1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers +

    DOE analyzed the economic impacts on air cleaner consumers by looking at the effects that potential standards at each TSL would have on the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards on selected consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed in the following sections.

    + a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period +

    + In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual + + operating costs decrease. + 74 + + Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total installed costs ( + i.e., + product price plus installation costs), and operating costs ( + i.e., + annual energy use, energy prices, energy price trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses. +

    + +

    + 74 +  For air cleaners, operating costs may increase at certain efficiency levels as filter costs increase due to recurring costs for filter replacements. +

    +     +

    Table V.2 through Table V.7 show the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs considered for each product class. In the first of each pair of tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline product. In the second table, the impacts are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in the compliance year (see section IV.F.8 of this document). Because some consumers purchase products with higher efficiency in the no-new-standards case, the average savings are less than the difference between the average LCC of the baseline product and the average LCC at each TSL. The savings refer only to consumers who are affected by a standard at a given TSL. Those who already purchase a product with efficiency at or above a given TSL are not affected. Consumers for whom the LCC increases at a given TSL experience a net cost.

    + + + Table V.2—Average LCC and PBP Results for Product Class 1: 10-100 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + + TSL * + Efficiency level + + Average costs +
  • (2021$)
    • +     + Installed cost + + First year's +
  • operating cost
    • +     + + Lifetime +
  • operating cost
    • +     + LCC + + Simple payback +
  • (years)
    • +     + + Average lifetime +
  • (years)
    • +     +     + +   + Baseline + $64 + $13 + $117 + $181 + + 9.0 + + + 1 + 1 + 65 + 11 + 98 + 163 + 0.9 + 9.0 + + + 2 + 2 + 67 + 10 + 91 + 158 + 1.4 + 9.0 + + + 3 ** + 1 + 65 + 11 + 98 + 163 + 0.9 + 9.0 + + +   + 2 + 67 + 10 + 91 + 158 + 1.4 + 9.0 + + + 4 + 3 + 78 + 15 + 178 + 255 + NA + 9.0 + + + 5 + 4 + 86 + 14 + 176 + 262 + NA + 9.0 + + + Note: + The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product. + + * All TSLs except TSL 3 have a compliance year of 2028. + ** For TSL 3, the first results row has a 2024 compliance year. The second results row has a 2026 compliance year. +     + + + Table V.3—Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Product Class 1: 10-100 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + + TSL ** + Efficiency level + Life-cycle cost savings + + Average LCC savings * +
  • (2021$)
    • +     + + Percent of consumers that experience net cost +
  • (%)
    • +     +     + + 1 + 1 + $18 + 0 + + + 2 + 2 + 12 + 6 + + + 3 *** + 1 + 18 + 0 + + +   + 2 + 12 + 6 + + + 4 + 3 + (87) + 88 + + + 5 + 4 + (87) + 94 + + * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. + ** All TSLs except TSL 3 have a compliance year of 2028. + *** For TSL 3, the first results row has a 2024 compliance year. The second results row has a 2026 compliance year. +     + + + Table V.4—Average LCC and PBP Results for Product Class 2: 100-150 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + + TSL * + Efficiency level + + Average costs +
  • (2021$)
    • +     + Installed cost + + First year's +
  • operating cost
    • +     + + Lifetime +
  • operating cost
    • +     + LCC + + Simple payback +
  • (years)
    • +     + + Average lifetime +
  • (years)
    • +     +     + + + Baseline + $88 + $31 + $273 + $361 + + 9.0 + + + 1 + 1 + 90 + 26 + 232 + 322 + 0.4 + 9.0 + + + 2 + 2 + 92 + 22 + 195 + 287 + 0.5 + 9.0 + + + 3 ** + 1 + 90 + 26 + 232 + 322 + 0.4 + 9.0 + + +   + 2 + 92 + 22 + 195 + 287 + 0.5 + 9.0 + + + 4 + 3 + 101 + 24 + 280 + 381 + NA + 9.0 + + + 5 + 4 + 109 + 17 + 207 + 317 + 1.6 + 9.0 + + + Note: + The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product. + + + * All TSLs except TSL 3 have a compliance year of 2028. + + + ** For TSL 3, the first results row has a 2024 compliance year. The second results row has a 2026 compliance year. +     + + + Table V.5—Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Product Class 2: 10-100 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + + TSL ** + Efficiency level + Life-cycle cost savings + + Average LCC savings * +
  • (2021$)
    • +     + + Percent of consumers that experience net cost +
  • (%)
    • +     +     + + 1 + 1 + $38 + 0 + + + 2 + 2 + 50 + 0 + + + 3 *** + 1 + 38 + 0 + + +   + 2 + 50 + 0 + + + 4 + 3 + (60) + 75 + + + 5 + 4 + 11 + 54 + + * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. + ** All TSLs except TSL 3 have a compliance year of 2028. + *** For TSL 3, the first results row has a 2024 compliance year. The second results row has a 2026 compliance year. +     + + + Table V.6—Average LCC and PBP Results for Product Class 3: 150+ PM + 2.5 + CADR + + + TSL * + Efficiency level + + Average costs +
  • (2021$)
    • +     + Installed cost + + First year's +
  • operating cost
    • +     + + Lifetime +
  • operating cost
    • +     + LCC + + Simple payback +
  • (years)
    • +     + + Average lifetime +
  • (years)
    • +     +     + + + Baseline + $144 + $57 + $485 + $629 + + 9.0 + + + 1 + 1 + 146 + 41 + 377 + 523 + 0.1 + 9.0 + + + 2 + 2 + 147 + 34 + 323 + 470 + 0.1 + 9.0 + + + 3 ** + 1 + 146 + 41 + 377 + 523 + 0.1 + 9.0 + + +   + 2 + 147 + 34 + 323 + 470 + 0.1 + 9.0 + + + 4 + 3 + 151 + 31 + 347 + 497 + 0.3 + 9.0 + + + 5 + 4 + 151 + 31 + 354 + 505 + 0.3 + 9.0 + + + Note: +  The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product. + + * All TSLs except TSL 3 have a compliance year of 2028. + ** For TSL 3, the first results row has a 2024 compliance year. The second results row has a 2026 compliance year. +     + + + Table V.7—Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Product Class 3: 10-100 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + + TSL ** + Efficiency level + Life-cycle cost savings + + Average LCC savings * +
  • (2021$)
    • +     + + Percent of consumers that experience net cost +
  • (%)
    • +     +     + + 1 + 1 + $105 + 0 + + + 2 + 2 + 94 + 0 + + + 3 *** + 1 + 105 + 0 + + +   + 2 + 94 + 0 + + + 4 + 3 + 29 + 50 + + + 5 + 4 + 20 + 56 + + * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. + ** All TSLs except TSL 3 have a compliance year of 2028. + *** For TSL 3, the first results row has a 2024 compliance year. The second results row has a 2026 compliance year. +     + b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis +

    + In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the considered TSLs on low-income households, senior-only households, and small businesses. Table V.8 through Table V.13 compare the average LCC savings and PBP at each efficiency level for the consumer subgroups with similar metrics for the entire consumer sample for all product classes. In most cases, the average LCC savings and PBP for low-income households and senior-only households at the considered efficiency levels are not substantially different from the average for all households. Chapter 11 of the direct final rule TSD presents the complete LCC and PBP results for the subgroups. + +

    + + + Table V.8—Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Residential Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Product Class 1: 10-100 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + + TSL ** + Low-income households ‡ + Senior-only households § + All households + + + + Average LCC Savings * (2021$) + + + + TSL 1 + $17 + $19 + $17 + + + TSL 2 + 10 + 13 + 11 + + + TSL 3 *** + 17 + 19 + 17 + + +   + 10 + 13 + 11 + + + TSL 4 + (95) + (87) + (95) + + + TSL 5 + (97) + (85) + (95) + + + + Payback Period (years) + + + + TSL 1 + 1.2 + 1.0 + 1.2 + + + TSL 2 + 1.9 + 1.5 + 1.8 + + + TSL 3 *** + 1.2 + 1.0 + 1.2 + + +   + 1.9 + 1.5 + 1.8 + + + TSL 4 + NA + NA + NA + + + TSL 5 + NA + NA + NA + + + + Consumers With Net Benefit (%) + + + + TSL 1 + 29 + 29 + 29 + + + TSL 2 + 61 + 64 + 63 + + + TSL 3 *** + 29 + 29 + 29 + + +   + 61 + 64 + 63 + + + TSL 4 + 0 + 1 + 0 + + + TSL 5 + 1 + 2 + 1 + + + + Consumers With Net Cost (%) + + + + TSL 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + + + TSL 2 + 10 + 7 + 9 + + + TSL 3 *** + 0 + 0 + 0 + + +   + 10 + 7 + 9 + + + TSL 4 + 89 + 89 + 89 + + + TSL 5 + 96 + 94 + 95 + + * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. + ** All TSLs except TSL 3 have a compliance year of 2028. + *** For TSL 3, the first results row has a 2024 compliance year. The second results row has a 2026 compliance year. + ‡ Low-income households represent 13.8 percent of all households for this product class. + § Senior-only households represent 22.7 percent of all households for this product class. + + + + Table V.9—Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Commercial Consumer Subgroup and All Commercial Buildings; Product Class 1: 10-100 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + + TSL ** + + Small +
  • business ‡
    • +     + All commercial buildings +     + + + Average LCC Savings * (2021$) + + + + TSL 1 + $18 + $19 + + + TSL 2 + 14 + 14 + + + TSL 3 *** + 18 + 19 + + +   + 14 + 14 + + + TSL 4 + (77) + (77) + + + TSL 5 + (75) + (75) + + + + Payback Period (years) + + + + TSL 1 + 0.7 + 0.7 + + + TSL 2 + 1.0 + 1.0 + + + TSL 3 *** + 0.7 + 0.7 + + +   + 1.0 + 1.0 + + + TSL 4 + NA + NA + + + TSL 5 + NA + NA + + + + Consumers With Net Benefit (%) + + + + TSL 1 + 28 + 28 + + + TSL 2 + 68 + 68 + + + TSL 3 *** + 28 + 28 + + + +   + 68 + 68 + + + TSL 4 + 0 + 0 + + + TSL 5 + 3 + 3 + + + + Consumers With Net Cost (%) + + + + TSL 1 + 0 + 0 + + + TSL 2 + 1 + 1 + + + TSL 3 *** + 0 + 0 + + +   + 1 + 1 + + + TSL 4 + 87 + 86 + + + TSL 5 + 92 + 91 + + * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. + ** All TSLs except TSL 3 have a compliance year of 2028. + *** For TSL 3, the first results row has a 2024 compliance year. The second results row has a 2026 compliance year. + ‡ Small business buildings represent 70.9 percent of all commercial buildings for this product class. +     + + + Table V.10—Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Residential Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Product Class 2: 100-150 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + + TSL ** + Low-income households ‡ + Senior-only households § + All households + + + + Average LCC Savings * (2021$) + + + + TSL 1 + 34 + 43 + 35 + + + TSL 2 + 44 + 56 + 46 + + + TSL 3 *** + 34 + 43 + 35 + + +   + 44 + 56 + 46 + + + TSL 4 + (78) + (54) + (75) + + + TSL 5 + (9) + 23 + (4) + + + + Payback Period (years) + + + + TSL 1 + 0.6 + 0.4 + 0.6 + + + TSL 2 + 0.7 + 0.5 + 0.6 + + + TSL 3 *** + 0.6 + 0.4 + 0.6 + + +   + 0.7 + 0.5 + 0.6 + + + TSL 4 + NA + NA + NA + + + TSL 5 + NA + 1.5 + NA + + + + Consumers With Net Benefit (%) + + + + TSL 1 + 24 + 24 + 24 + + + TSL 2 + 60 + 60 + 60 + + + TSL 3 *** + 24 + 24 + 24 + + +   + 60 + 60 + 60 + + + TSL 4 + 8 + 15 + 8 + + + TSL 5 + 35 + 54 + 38 + + + + Consumers With Net Cost (%) + + + + TSL 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + + + TSL 2 + 0 + 0 + 0 + + + TSL 3 *** + 0 + 0 + 0 + + +   + 0 + 0 + 0 + + + TSL 4 + 82 + 74 + 81 + + + TSL 5 + 64 + 46 + 61 + + * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. + ** All TSLs except TSL 3 have a compliance year of 2028. + *** For TSL 3, the first results row has a 2024 compliance year. The second results row has a 2026 compliance year. + ‡ Low-income households represent 13.8 percent of all households for this product class. + § Senior-only households represent 22.7 percent of all households for this product class. + + + + + Table V.11—Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Commercial Buildings; Product Class 2: 100-150 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + + TSL ** + + Small +
  • business ‡
    • +     + All commercial buildings +     + + + Average LCC Savings * (2021$) + + + + TSL 1 + $44 + $44 + + + TSL 2 + $57 + $57 + + + TSL 3 *** + $44 + $44 + + +   + $57 + $57 + + + TSL 4 + ($38) + ($38) + + + TSL 5 + $32 + $33 + + + + Payback Period (years) + + + + TSL 1 + 0.3 + 0.3 + + + TSL 2 + 0.3 + 0.3 + + + TSL 3 *** + 0.3 + 0.3 + + +   + 0.3 + 0.3 + + + TSL 4 + NA + NA + + + TSL 5 + 1.1 + 1.0 + + + + Consumers With Net Benefit (%) + + + + TSL 1 + 23% + 23% + + + TSL 2 + 59% + 59% + + + TSL 3 *** + 23% + 23% + + +   + 59% + 59% + + + TSL 4 + 20% + 20% + + + TSL 5 + 56% + 55% + + + + Consumers With Net Cost (%) + + + + TSL 1 + 0% + 0% + + + TSL 2 + 0% + 0% + + + TSL 3 *** + 0% + 0% + + +   + 0% + 0% + + + TSL 4 + 67% + 67% + + + TSL 5 + 41% + 42% + + * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. + ** All TSLs except TSL 3 have a compliance year of 2028. + *** For TSL 3, the first results row has a 2024 compliance year. The second results row has a 2026 compliance year. + ‡ Small business buildings represent 70.9 percent of all commercial buildings for this product class. +     + + + Table V.12—Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Residential Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Product Class 3: 150+ PM + 2.5 + CADR + + + TSL ** + + Low-income +
  • households ‡
    • +     + + Senior-only +
  • households §
    • +     + All households +     + + + Average LCC Savings * (2021$) + + + + TSL 1 + $85 + $127 + $88 + + + TSL 2 + $76 + $111 + $80 + + + TSL 3 *** + $85 + $127 + $88 + + +   + $76 + $111 + $80 + + + TSL 4 + $2 + $47 + $7 + + + TSL 5 + ($7) + $38 + ($2) + + + + Payback Period (years) + + + + TSL 1 + 0.2 + 0.1 + 0.2 + + + TSL 2 + 0.2 + 0.1 + 0.2 + + + TSL 3 *** + 0.2 + 0.1 + 0.2 + + +   + 0.2 + 0.1 + 0.2 + + + TSL 4 + 0.4 + 0.2 + 0.4 + + + TSL 5 + NA + 0.3 + NA + + + + Consumers With Net Benefit (%) + + + + TSL 1 + 22% + 22% + 22% + + + TSL 2 + 56% + 56% + 56% + + + TSL 3 *** + 22% + 22% + 22% + + +   + 56% + 56% + 56% + + + + TSL 4 + 32% + 49% + 35% + + + TSL 5 + 29% + 47% + 32% + + + + Consumers With Net Cost (%) + + + + TSL 1 + 0% + 0% + 0% + + + TSL 2 + 0% + 0% + 0% + + + TSL 3 *** + 0% + 0% + 0% + + +   + 0% + 0% + 0% + + + TSL 4 + 61% + 44% + 59% + + + TSL 5 + 67% + 49% + 64% + + * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. + ** All TSLs except TSL 3 have a compliance year of 2028. + *** For TSL 3, the first results row has a 2024 compliance year. The second results row has a 2026 compliance year. + ‡ Low-income households represent 13.8 percent of all households for this product class. + § Senior-only households represent 22.7 percent of all households for this product class. +     + + + Table V.13—Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Commercial Consumer Subgroups and All Commercial Buildings; Product Class 3: 150+ PM + 2.5 + CADR + + + TSL ** + + Small +
  • business ‡
    • +     + All commercial buildings +     + + + Average LCC Savings * (2021$) + + + + TSL 1 + $133 + $132 + + + TSL 2 + $117 + $116 + + + TSL 3 *** + $133 + $132 + + +   + $117 + $116 + + + TSL 4 + $61 + $61 + + + TSL 5 + $54 + $54 + + + + Payback Period (years) + + + + TSL 1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + + + TSL 2 + 0.1 + 0.1 + + + TSL 3 *** + 0.1 + 0.1 + + +   + 0.1 + 0.1 + + + TSL 4 + 0.2 + 0.2 + + + TSL 5 + 0.2 + 0.2 + + + + Consumers With Net Benefit (%) + + + + TSL 1 + 21% + 21% + + + TSL 2 + 55% + 54% + + + TSL 3 *** + 21% + 21% + + +   + 55% + 54% + + + TSL 4 + 54% + 54% + + + TSL 5 + 51% + 51% + + + + Consumers With Net Cost (%) + + + + TSL 1 + 0% + 0% + + + TSL 2 + 0% + 0% + + + TSL 3 *** + 0% + 0% + + +   + 0% + 0% + + + TSL 4 + 37% + 37% + + + TSL 5 + 43% + 43% + + * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. + ** All TSLs except TSL 3 have a compliance year of 2028. + *** For TSL 3, the first results row has a 2024 compliance year. The second results row has a 2026 compliance year. + ‡ Small business buildings represent 70.9 percent of all commercial buildings for this product class. +     + c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback +

    + As discussed in section III.F.2 of this document, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(iii)) In calculating a rebuttable presumption payback period for each of the + + considered TSLs, DOE used discrete values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use calculation on the DOE test procedures for air cleaners. In contrast, the PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a were calculated using distributions that reflect the range of energy use in the field. +

    +

    Table V.14 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for the considered TSLs for air cleaners. While DOE examined the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it considered whether the standard levels considered for this rule are economically justified through a more detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full range of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment. The results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level, thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification.

    + + Table V.14—Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods + + Product class + Trial standard level (years) + 1 + 2 + 3 + Tier 1 + Tier 2 + 4 + 5 + + + + PC 1: 10-100 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + 0.6 + 0.7 + 0.6 + 0.7 + 0.9 + 1.1 + + + + PC 2: 100-150 PM + 2.5 + CADR + + 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.3 + 0.4 + + + + PC 3: 150+ PM + 2.5 + CADR + + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.1 + 0.1 + + + 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers +

    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of energy conservation standards on manufacturers of air cleaners. The next section describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD explains the analysis in further detail.

    + a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results +

    In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which examines changes in the industry that would result from a standard. The following tables summarize the estimated financial impacts (represented by changes in INPV) of potential energy conservation standards on manufacturers of air cleaners, as well as the conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers of air cleaners would incur at each TSL.

    +

    + To evaluate the range of cash-flow impacts on the air cleaners industry, DOE modeled two manufacturer markup scenarios to evaluate a range of cash flow impacts on the air cleaners industry: (1) the preservation of gross margin percentage and (2) the preservation of operating profit, as discussed in section IV.J.2.d of this document. In the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, DOE applied a gross margin percentage of 31 percent for all product classes and all efficiency levels. + 75 + + As MPCs increase with efficiency, this scenario implies that the absolute dollar markup will increase. This scenario assumes that a manufacturer's absolute dollar markup would increase as MPCs increase in the standards cases and represents the upper-bound to industry profitability under potential new or amended energy conservation standards. +

    + +

    + 75 +  The gross margin percentage of 31 percent is based on manufacturer markup of 1.45. +

    +     +

    The preservation of operating profit scenario reflects manufacturers' concerns about their inability to maintain margins as MPCs increase to reach more-stringent efficiency levels. In this scenario, while manufacturers make the necessary investments required to convert their facilities to produce compliant products, operating profit does not change in absolute dollars and decreases as a percentage of revenue. The preservation of operating profit scenario results in the lower (or more severe) bound to impacts of potential standards on industry.

    +

    Each of the modeled scenarios results in a unique set of cash flows and corresponding INPV for each TSL. INPV is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2023-2057). The “change in INPV” results refer to the difference in industry value between the no-new-standards case and standards case at each TSL. To provide perspective on the short-run cash flow impact, DOE includes a comparison of free cash flow between the no-new-standards case and the standards case at each TSL in the year before standards would take effect. This figure provides an understanding of the magnitude of the required conversion costs relative to the cash flow generated by the industry in the no-new-standards case.

    +

    Conversion costs are one-time investments for manufacturers to bring their manufacturing facilities and product designs into compliance with potential new or amended standards. As described in section IV.J.2.c of this document, conversion cost investments occur between the year of publication of the final rule and the year by which manufacturers must comply with the new standard. The conversion costs can have a significant impact on the short-term cash flow on the industry and generally result in lower free cash flow in the period between the publication of the final rule and the compliance date of potential standards. Conversion costs are independent of the manufacturer markup scenarios and are not presented as a range in this analysis.

    +

    Table V.15 and Table V.16 show the MIA results for each TSL using the manufacturer markup scenarios previously described.

    + + + Table V.15—Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Air Cleaners Under the Preservation of Gross Margin Scenario + +   + Units + + No-new- +
  • standards
    • +
  • case
    • +     + Trial standard level + 1 + 2 + 3 * + 4 + 5 +     + + INPV + 2021$ millions + 1,565.9 + 1,535.7 + 1,528.0 + 1,525.2 + 1,535.8 + 1,574.0 + + + Change in INPV + 2021$ millions + + (30.2) + (37.9) + (40.7) + (30.2) + 8.1 + + +   + % + + (1.9) + (2.4) + (2.6) + (1.9) + 0.5 + + + Free Cash Flow (2027) + 2021$ millions + 53.8 + 42.1 + 30.9 + 20.8 and 40.1 ** + (2.4) + (6.0) + + + Change in Free Cash Flow (2027) + % + + (21.8) + (42.6) + (55.7) and (19.7) ** + (104.5) + (111.2) + + + Product Conversion Costs + 2021$ millions + + 17.2 + 23.2 + 23.2 + 42.4 + 44.7 + + + Capital Conversion Costs + 2021$ millions + + 13.6 + 34.1 + 34.1 + 94.1 + 100.5 + + + Total Conversion Costs + 2021$ millions + + 30.8 + 57.3 + 57.3 + 136.6 + 145.2 + + * TSL 3 represents the standards case presented in the Joint Proposal which corresponds to a two-tiered approach. Conversion costs reflect the sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. + ** The Free Cash Flow and % Change in Free Cash Flow for TSL 3 is presented to the years 2023 and 2025 due to the 2-step structure of the Joint Proposal. DOE presents FCF in the year before the standard year. +     + + Table V.16—Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Air Cleaners Under the Preservation of Operating Profit Scenario + +   + Units + + No-new- +
  • standards
    • +
  • case
    • +     + Trial standard level + 1 + 2 + 3 * + 4 + 5 +     + + INPV + 2021$ millions + 1,565.9 + 1,528.3 + 1,503.5 + 1,499.2 + 1,422.3 + 1,394.4 + + + Change in INPV + 2021$ millions + + (37.7) + (62.4) + (66.7) + (143.7) + (171.5) + + +   + % + + (2.4) + (4.0) + (4.3) + (9.2) + (11.0) + + + Free Cash Flow (2027) + 2021$ millions + 53.8 + 42.1 + 30.9 + 20.8 and 40.1 ** + (2.4) + (6.0) + + + Change in Free Cash Flow (2027) + % + + (21.8) + (42.6) + (55.7) and (19.7) ** + (104.5) + (111.2) + + + Product Conversion Costs + 2021$ millions + + 17.2 + 23.2 + 23.2 + 42.4 + 44.7 + + + Capital Conversion Costs + 2021$ millions + + 13.6 + 34.1 + 34.1 + 94.1 + 100.5 + + + Total Conversion Costs + 2021$ millions + + 30.8 + 57.3 + 57.3 + 136.6 + 145.2 + + * TSL 3 represents the standards case presented in the Joint Proposal which corresponds to a two-tiered approach. Conversion costs reflect the sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. + ** The Free Cash Flow and % Change in Free Cash Flow for TSL 3 is presented to the years 2023 and 2025 due to the 2-step structure of the Joint Proposal. DOE presents FCF in the year before the standard year. +     +

    At TSL 1, DOE estimates that impacts on INPV will range from −$30.2 million to −$37.7 million, or a change in INPV of −2.4 to −1.9 percent. At TSL 1, industry free cash-flow is $42.1 million, which is a decrease of approximately $11.7 million compared to the no-new-standards case value of $53.8 million in 2027, the year leading up to the standards.

    +

    TSL 1 corresponds to EL 1 for all product classes. DOE noted in the engineering analysis, section IV.C.3, the efficiency improvements at EL 1 are achievable by optimizing the fan motor-filter relationship. In evaluating the design paths for optimization, DOE noted that increasing the surface area of the filter would improve test performance, but could also require changes to the injection molded component of air cleaners. DOE estimated capital conversion costs based on the costs for manufacturer to purchase new injection mold dies in order to accommodate filters with greater surface area. Manufacturers using soft tooling or that do not rely on injection molding would have lower capital conversion costs than modeled by DOE. DOE estimated the product conversion costs for testing all models, identifying product that would not meet the standard, and redesigning that portion of market offerings. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $13.6 million and product conversion costs of $17.2 million for the industry. Conversion costs total $30.8 million.

    +

    At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all air cleaners is expected to increase by 1 percent relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all air cleaners in 2028. Given this relatively small increase in production costs, DOE does not project a notable drop in shipments in the year the standard takes effect. In the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, the slight increase in MSP is outweighed by the $30.8 million in conversion costs, causing a negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under this scenario. Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $30.8 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a slightly negative change in INPV.

    +

    At TSL 2, the standard corresponds to current ENERGY STAR V.2.0 efficiency levels for air cleaners in all product classes. DOE estimates that impacts on INPV will range from −$62.4 million to −$37.9 million, or a change in INPV of −4.0 to −2.4 percent. At TSL 2, industry free cash-flow is $30.9 million, which is a decrease of approximately $22.9 million compared to the no-new-standards case value of $53.8 million in 2027, the year leading up to the standards.

    +

    + TSL 2 corresponds to EL 2 for all product classes. A sizeable portion of the market, approximately 40 percent, can currently meet the TSL 2 level. Additionally, a substantial portion of existing models can be updated to meet TSL 2 through optimization and improved components rather than a full product redesign. In particular, manufacturers may be able to leverage their existing cabinet designs. However, the product interior may require updates to accommodate more efficient motors and larger filters. Some manufacturers may be able to alter existing tooling to accommodate minor changes in internal dimensions. To avoid underestimating costs to industry, DOE estimated capital conversion costs based on the cost to replace tooling—specifically injection molding dies. Also, DOE estimated the product conversion costs for testing all models, + + identifying product that would not meet the standard, and redesigning that portion of market offerings. Capital conversion costs may reach $34.1 million and product conversion costs may reach $23.2 million for the industry. Conversion costs total $57.3 million. +

    +

    At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all air cleaners is expected to increase by 2 percent relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all air cleaners in 2028. Given the relatively small increase in production costs, DOE does not project a notable drop in shipments in the year the standard takes effect. In the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, the slight increase in MSP is outweighed by the $57.3 million in conversion costs, causing a negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under this scenario. Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases in 2029, the year after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $57.3 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under the preservation of operating profit scenario.

    +

    At TSL 3, DOE estimates that impacts on INPV will range from −$66.7 million to −$40.7 million, or a change in INPV of −4.3 to −2.6 percent. At TSL 3, industry free cash-flow is $40.1 million in 2027, which is a decrease of approximately $9.9 million compared to the no-new-standards case value of $53.8 million in 2027, the year leading up to the standards.

    +

    + For TSL 3, DOE analyzed the standards case presented in the Joint Proposal which corresponds to a two-tier approach of the lowest efficiency level (EL 1)  + 76 + + for Tier 1 standards (going to effect in 2024) and the current ENERGY STAR V.2.0 efficiency level (EL 2) for Tier 2 standards (going to effect in 2026) for all the product classes. The industry impacts at TSL 3 are very similar to the impacts at TSL 2 because both scenarios result in standards at the Tier 2 level. However, TSL 3 is a two-tier standard with earlier compliance dates. While conversion costs for TSL 3 and TSL 2 are identical, the timing of the costs are different. As a result, the earlier timing of conversion costs result in lower INPV values at TSL 3 than at TSL 2. However, industry may benefit from a national standard at Tier 1 in the 2024 timeframe in the form of potential reductions in stock keeping units (SKUs), marketing and sales complexity, and reduced consumer confusion associated with a patchwork of state-level energy performance standards for air cleaners. The MIA does not attempt to calculate the cost savings from industry that results from single national standard. +

    + +

    + 76 +  EL 1 also corresponds to individual standards established by certain states and the District of Colombia. +

    +     +

    At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all air cleaners is expected to increase by 2 percent relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all air cleaners in 2028. Given the relatively small increase in production costs, DOE does not project a notable drop in shipments in the year the standard takes effect. In the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, the increase in MSP is outweighed by the $57.3 million in conversion costs, causing a negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under this scenario. Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases in 2029, the year after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $57.3 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation of operating profit scenario.

    +

    At TSL 4, DOE estimates that impacts on INPV will range from −$143.7 million to −$30.2 million, or a change in INPV of −9.2 to −1.9 percent. At TSL 4, industry free cash-flow is −$2.4 million, which is a decrease of approximately $56.2 million compared to the no-new-standards case value of $53.8 million in 2027, the year leading up to the standards.

    +

    At TSL 4, all three product classes would likely 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. However, most models on the market today do not use BLDC motors and cannot accommodate cylindrical filters. Manufacturers would incur conversion costs to redesign the product to incorporate a different filter shape and more efficient components. Additionally, manufacturers that own tooling would incur conversion costs for updated cabinet designs. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $94.1 million and product conversion of costs of $42.4 million. Conversion costs total $136.6 million.

    +

    At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all air cleaners is expected to increase by 8 percent relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all air cleaners in 2028. Given the projected increase in production costs, DOE expects an estimated 4 percent drop in shipments in the year the standard takes effect. In the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, the increase in MSP is outweighed by the $136.6 million in conversion costs, causing a negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under this scenario. Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases in 2029, the year after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $136.6 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under the preservation of operating profit scenario.

    +

    At TSL 5, DOE estimates that impacts on INPV will range from −$171.5 million to $8.1 million, or a change in INPV of −11.0 to 0.5 percent. At TSL 5, industry free cash-flow is −$6.0 million, which is a decrease of approximately $59.8 million compared to the no-new-standards case value of $53.8 million in 2027, the year leading up to the standards.

    +

    At TSL 5, DOE's expected design path for TSL 5 incorporates cylindrical shaped filters and BLDC motors with an optimized motor-filter relationship. As noted for TSL 4, the adoption of cylindrical filters would necessitate platform level redesign for most products on the market. Additionally, the move to cylindrical filters could necessitate significantly different cabinet designs. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $100.5 million and product conversion of costs of $44.7 million. Conversion costs total $145.2 million.

    +

    + At TSL 5, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all air cleaners is expected to increase by 13 percent relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all air cleaners in 2028. Given the projected increase in production costs, DOE expects an estimated 6 percent drop in shipments in the year the standard takes effect. In the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, INPV remains roughly the same as in the no-new-standards scenario. Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, reduction in the manufacturer markup, reduction in shipments, and the $145.2 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a negative change in INPV at TSL 5. + +

    + b. Direct Impacts on Employment +

    + To quantitatively assess the potential impacts of energy conservation standards on direct employment in the air cleaner industry, DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of direct employees in the no-new-standards case and in each of the standards cases during the analysis period. DOE calculated these values using statistical data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2020 Annual Survey of Manufacturers (“ASM”), + 77 + + BLS employee compensation data, + 78 + + results of the engineering analysis, and reports from Dunn & Bradstreet. + 79 + +

    + +

    + 77 +  U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Summary Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries in the U.S.: 2018-20201. Available at + https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/econ/asm/2018-2021-asm.html + (last accessed June 29, 2022). +

    +     + +

    + 78 +  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. + Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. + June 17, 2021. Available at: + www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf. +

    +     + +

    + 79 +  The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers login is available at + app.dnbhoovers.com. +

    +     +

    Labor expenditures related to product manufacturing depend on the labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, and an assumption that wages remain fixed in real terms over time. The total labor expenditures in each year are calculated by multiplying the total MPCs by the labor percentage of MPCs. The total labor expenditures in the GRIM were then converted to total production employment levels by dividing production labor expenditures by the average fully burdened wage multiplied by the average number of hours worked per year per production worker. To do this, DOE relied on the ASM inputs: Production Workers Annual Wages, Production Workers Annual Hours, Production Workers for Pay Period, and Number of Employees. DOE also relied on the BLS employee compensation data to determine the fully burdened wage ratio. The fully burdened wage ratio factors in paid leave, supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings, and legally required benefits.

    +

    The number of production employees is then multiplied by the U.S. labor percentage to convert total production employment to total domestic production employment. The U.S. labor percentage represents the industry fraction of domestic manufacturing production capacity for the covered product. This value is derived from manufacturer interviews, product database analysis, and publicly available information. DOE estimates that 2.5 percent of air cleaners are produced domestically.

    +

    The domestic production employees estimate covers production line workers, including line supervisors, who are directly involved in fabricating and assembling products within the OEM facility. Workers performing services that are closely associated with production operations, such as materials handling tasks using forklifts, are also included as production labor. DOE's estimates only account for production workers who manufacture the specific products covered by this rulemaking.

    +

    Non-production workers account for the remainder of the direct employment figure. The non-production employees estimate covers domestic workers who are not directly involved in the production process, such as sales, engineering, human resources, and management. Using the amount of domestic production workers calculated previously, non-production domestic employees are extrapolated by multiplying the ratio of non-production workers in the industry compared to production employees. DOE assumes that this employee distribution ratio remains constant between the no-new-standards case and standards cases.

    +

    Using the GRIM, DOE estimates in the absence of new energy conservation standards there would be 58 domestic workers for air cleaners in 2028. Table V.17 shows the range of the impacts of energy conservation standards on U.S. manufacturing employment in the air cleaner industry. The following discussion provides a qualitative evaluation of the range of potential impacts presented in Table V.17.

    + + Table V.17—Domestic Direct Employment Impacts for Air Cleaners Manufacturers in 2028 + +   + + No-new- +
  • standards
    • +
  • case
    • +     + Trial standard level + 1 + 2 + 3 ** + 4 + 5 +     + + Domestic Production Workers in 2028 + 58 + 59 + 59 + 59 + 59 + 59 + + + Domestic Non-Production Workers in 2028 + 25 + 26 + 26 + 26 + 26 + 26 + + + Total Direct Employment in 2028 + 83 + 85 + 85 + 85 + 85 + 85 + + + Potential Changes in Total Direct Employment in 2028 + + (58) to 1 + (58) to 1 + (58) to 1 + (58) to 1 + (58) to 1 + + * Parentheses denote negative values. + ** For TSL 3, Tier 2 standard goes into effect in 2026. DOE presents 2028 Direct Employment for consistent comparison in this table. +     +

    The direct employment impacts shown in Table V.17 represent the potential domestic employment changes that could result following the compliance date of the air cleaner standards considered. The upper bound estimate corresponds to an increase in the number of domestic workers that would result from energy conservation standards if manufacturers continue to produce the same scope of covered equipment within the United States after compliance takes effect. The lower bound estimate represents the maximum decrease in production workers if manufacturing moved to lower labor-cost countries. Most manufacturers currently produce their air cleaners in countries with lower labor costs.

    +

    Of the 300 air cleaner brands DOE identified, the vast majority are produced outside of the U.S. DOE identified 4 companies that have U.S. manufacturing. These companies have distinct designs and manufacturing processes from companies that import air cleaners. DOE found these companies largely do not rely on injection molding, the production process that drives capital expenditures resulting from the standard. Additionally, DOE found many of these companies focus on air cleaners for commercial applications. These companies leverage design and production processes used for their commercial air cleaner models to offer conventional air cleaners. Additionally, when product literature with technical detail were available, DOE found that most conventional air cleaners from these domestic manufacturers would likely meet standards for TSLs 1, 2, and 3. DOE concludes it is unlikely these companies would relocate production overseas solely due to the adoption of this final rule.

    +

    + Additional detail on the analysis of direct employment can be found in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. + + Additionally, the employment impacts discussed in this section are independent of the employment impacts from the broader U.S. economy, which are documented in chapter 16 of the direct final rule TSD. +

    + c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity +

    DOE did not observe any design options at the adopted level that would require changes to the fundamental construction or manufacturing of air cleaners. Generally, DOE observed incremental increases in cabinet dimension, incremental changes in filter volume and dimension, and improved motors or optimized motor/filter relationship in the more efficient products meeting the adopted level. Changes in cabinet and filter dimensions could require tooling adjustments and replacement, which DOE accounted for in its analysis of conversion costs. However, DOE's analysis does not suggest there would be design changes that could lead to insufficient availability of product to meet market demand.

    + d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers +

    + Using average cost assumptions to develop industry cash-flow estimates may not capture the differential impacts among subgroups of manufacturers. Small manufacturers, niche players, or manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that differs substantially from the industry average could be affected disproportionately. DOE investigated small businesses as a manufacturer subgroup that could be disproportionally impacted by energy conservation standards and could merit additional analysis. DOE analyzes the impacts on small businesses in a separate analysis in section VI.B of this document as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. In summary, the Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a “small business” as having 1,500 employees or less for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 335210, “Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing.”  + 80 + + Based on this classification, DOE identified four domestic OEMs that qualify as small businesses. For a discussion of the impacts on the small business manufacturer subgroup, see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. +

    + +

    + 80 +  U.S. Small Business Administration. “Table of Small Business Size Standards.” (Effective July 14, 2022). Available at: + www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards + (last accessed September 28, 2022). +

    +     + e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden +

    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the regulatory actions of other Federal agencies and States that affect the manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.

    + + Table V.18—Compliance Dates and Expected Conversion Expenses of Federal Energy Conservation Standards Affecting Air Cleaner Original Equipment Manufacturers + + Federal energy conservation standard + Number of OEMs * + + Number of +
  • OEMs
    • +
  • affected
    • +
  • from this
    • +
  • rule **
    • +     + + Approx. +
  • standards
    • +
  • year
    • +     + + Industry +
  • conversion
    • +
  • costs
    • +
  • (Millions $)
    • +     + + Industry +
  • conversion
    • +
  • costs/product
    • +
  • revenue ***
    • +
  • (%)
    • +     +     + + Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 82 FR 1786 (January 6, 2017) + 30 + 1 + 2023 + $342.6 (2015$) + 0.50 + + + Portable Air Conditioners 85 FR 1378 (January 10, 2020) + 11 + 1 + 2025 + 320.90 (2015$) + 6.70 + + + Room Air Conditioners † 87 FR 20608 (April 7, 2022) + 8 + 1 + 2026 + 22.80 (2020$) + 0.50 + + * This column presents the total number of manufacturers identified in the energy conservation standard rule contributing to cumulative regulatory burden. + ** This column presents the number of manufacturers producing room air conditioner products that are also listed as manufacturers in the listed energy conservation standard contributing to cumulative regulatory burden. + *** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of product revenue during the conversion period. Industry conversion costs are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue from just the covered product/equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs are made and lasts from the publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the final rule. The conversion period typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on the energy conservation standard. + † This rulemaking is in the proposed rule stage and all values are subject to change until finalized. +     +

    + In a written comment, Lennox indicated heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) manufacturers may be facing DOE standards for: Central Air Conditioners in 2023, Commercial Air Conditioners in 2023, Commercial Warm Air Furnaces in 2023, Consumer Furnaces, Air Cooled, Three-Phase, Small Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h and Air-Cooled, Walk-In Coolers and Freezers, and Three-Phase, Variable Refrigerant Flow Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h. The commenter also stated manufacturers may be impacted by test procedures for Variable Refrigerant Flow Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Commercial Warm Air Furnaces, and Walk-In Coolers and Freezers. Lennox mentioned manufacturers may also experience EPA Phase-down to lower global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants to meet the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act objectives, National and Regional Cold Climate Heat Pump Specifications, EPA Energy Star 6.0+ for Residential + + HVAC, and EPA Energy Star 4.0 for Light Commercial HVAC. (Lennox, No. 7, pp. 3-4) +

    +

    Regarding the other rulemakings mentioned, DOE examines Federal, product-specific regulations that could affect air cleaner manufacturers that take effect approximately three years before the 2024 compliance date and three years after the 2026 compliance date of this final rule. In-duct devices, such as those offered by Lennox, were not included within the proposed scope of the test procedure. 87 FR 63324, 63331.

    + 3. National Impact Analysis +

    This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of the TSLs considered as potential new or amended standards.

    + a. Significance of Energy Savings +

    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential standards for air cleaners, DOE compared their energy consumption under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each TSL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of anticipated compliance with standards (2024-2057 for TSL 3 and 2028-2057 for the other TSLs). Table V.19 presents DOE's projections of the national energy savings for each TSL considered for air cleaners. The savings were calculated using the approach described in section IV.H.2 of this document.

    + + Table V.19—Cumulative National Energy Savings for Air Cleaners; 30 Years of Shipments Through 2057 + +   + Trial standard level (quads) + 1 + 2 + 3 * + 4 + 5 + + + Primary energy + 0.73 + 1.67 + 1.73 + 3.90 + 4.42 + + + FFC energy + 0.76 + 1.73 + 1.80 + 4.05 + 4.59 + + * TSL3 has an analysis period of 2024-2057 to take into account the Joint Proposal recommended compliance dates for the two-tiered approach and to align the end of the analysis period with the other TSLs. + +

    + OMB Circular A-4  + 81 + + requires agencies to present analytical results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4 also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather than 30 years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised standards. + 82 + + The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally not synchronized with the product lifetime, product manufacturing cycles, or other factors specific to air cleaners. Thus, such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented in Table V.20. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of air cleaners purchased in 2024-2036. +

    + +

    + 81 +  U.S. Office of Management and Budget. + Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. + September 17, 2003. + https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf + (last accessed December 5, 2022). +

    +     + +

    + 82 +  Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year period and that the 3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate given the variability that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and the fact that for some products, the compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years. +

    +     + + Table V.20—Cumulative National Energy Savings for Air Cleaners; 9 Years of Shipments + [Through 2036] + +   + Trial standard level (quads) + 1 + 2 + 3 * + 4 + 5 + + + Primary energy + 0.12 + 0.28 + 0.34 + 0.65 + 0.73 + + + FFC energy + 0.13 + 0.29 + 0.36 + 0.68 + 0.76 + + * TSL3 has an analysis period of 2024-2036 to take into account the Joint Proposal recommended compliance dates for the two-tiered approach and to align the end of the analysis period with the other TSLs. + + b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits +

    + DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for air cleaners. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis, + 83 + + DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount rate. Table V.21 shows the consumer NPV results with impacts counted over the lifetime of products purchased through 2057. +

    + +

    + 83 +  U.S. Office of Management and Budget. + Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. + September 17, 2003. + https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf + (last accessed December 5, 2022). +

    +     + + + Table V.21—Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Air Cleaners; Shipments Through 2057 + + Discount rate + Trial standard level (billion 2021$) + 1 + 2 + 3 * + 4 + 5 + + + 3 percent + 5.4 + 12.8 + 13.7 + (8.4) + (4.5) + + + 7 percent + 2.2 + 5.1 + 5.8 + (3.4) + (1.9) + + * TSL3 has an analysis period of 2024-2057 to take into account the Joint Proposal recommended compliance dates for the two-tiered approach and to align the end of the analysis period with the other TSLs. + +

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical period are presented in Table V.22. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2024-2036. As mentioned previously, such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision criteria.

    + + Table V.22—Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Air Cleaners; Shipments Through 2036 + + Discount rate + Trial standard level (billion 2021$) + 1 + 2 + 3 * + 4 + 5 + + + 3 percent + 1.3 + 3.1 + 4.0 + (1.9) + (0.9) + + + 7 percent + 0.8 + 1.9 + 2.5 + (1.2) + (0.6) + + * TSL3 has an analysis period of 2024-2036 to take into account the Joint Proposal recommended compliance dates for the two-tiered approach and to align the end of the analysis period with the other TSLs. + +

    The previous results reflect the use of a trend to estimate the change in price for air cleaners over the analysis period (see section IV.F.1 of this document). DOE also conducted a sensitivity analysis that considered one scenario with a lower rate of price decline than the reference case and one scenario with a higher rate of price decline than the reference case. The results of these alternative cases are presented in appendix 10C of the direct final rule TSD. In the high-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer benefits is higher than in the default case. In the low-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer benefits is lower than in the default case.

    + c. Indirect Impacts on Employment +

    DOE estimates that energy conservation standards for air cleaners will reduce energy expenditures for consumers of those products, with the resulting net savings being redirected to other forms of economic activity. These expected shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As described in section IV.N of this document, DOE used an input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered. There are uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes (2024-2029 for TSL 3 and 2028-2033 for all other TSLs), where these uncertainties are reduced.

    +

    The results suggest that the adopted standards are likely to have a negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the direct final rule TSD presents detailed results regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.

    + 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products +

    As discussed in section III.F.1.d of this document, DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this direct final rule will not lessen the utility or performance of the air cleaners under consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products currently offer units that meet or exceed the adopted standards.

    + 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition +

    + DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section III.F.1.e, the Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to transmit such determination in writing to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. To assist the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE will provide the DOJ with copies of the direct final rule and the TSD for review. DOE will also publish and respond to the DOJ's comments in the + Federal Register + in a separate document. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this direct final rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the + ADDRESSES + section of the NOPR published elsewhere in this issue of the + Federal Register + for information to send comments to DOJ. +

    + 6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy +

    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, particularly during peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the direct final rule TSD presents the estimated impacts on electricity-generating capacity, relative to the no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking.

    +

    + Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation standards + + for air cleaners is expected to yield environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of certain air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table V.23 provides DOE's estimate of cumulative emissions reductions expected to result from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. The emissions were calculated using the multipliers discussed in section IV.K of this document. DOE reports annual emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the direct final rule TSD. +

    + + Table V.23—Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Air cleaners Shipped From Compliance Year Through 2057 + +   + Trial standard level + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + + + + Electric Power Sector Emissions + + + + + CO + 2 + ( + million metric tons + ) + + 22.3 + 50.8 + 53.4 + 118.8 + 134.7 + + + + CH + 4 + ( + thousand tons + ) + + 1.6 + 3.7 + 3.9 + 8.6 + 9.8 + + + + N + 2 + O ( + thousand tons + ) + + 0.2 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 1.2 + 1.4 + + + + SO + 2 + ( + thousand tons + ) + + 9.9 + 22.5 + 23.9 + 52.6 + 59.6 + + + + NO + X + ( + thousand tons + ) + + 10.8 + 24.6 + 25.9 + 57.4 + 65.1 + + + + Hg ( + tons + ) + + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.2 + 0.3 + 0.4 + + + + Upstream Emissions + + + + + CO + 2 + ( + million metric tons + ) + + 1.8 + 4.1 + 4.3 + 9.6 + 10.9 + + + + CH + 4 + ( + thousand tons + ) + + 171.4 + 391.1 + 407.5 + 914.1 + 1,036.3 + + + + N + 2 + O ( + thousand tons + ) + + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.1 + + + + SO + 2 + ( + thousand tons + ) + + 0.1 + 0.3 + 0.3 + 0.7 + 0.7 + + + + NO + X + ( + thousand tons + ) + + 27.4 + 62.6 + 65.2 + 146.3 + 165.8 + + + + Hg ( + tons + ) + + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + + + + Total FFC Emissions + + + + + CO + 2 + ( + million metric tons + ) + + 24.1 + 55.0 + 57.7 + 128.5 + 145.7 + + + + CH + 4 + ( + thousand tons + ) + + 173.0 + 394.8 + 411.4 + 922.8 + 1,046.1 + + + + N + 2 + O ( + thousand tons + ) + + 0.2 + 0.5 + 0.6 + 1.2 + 1.4 + + + + SO + 2 + ( + thousand tons + ) + + 10.0 + 22.8 + 24.2 + 53.2 + 60.4 + + + + NO + X + ( + thousand tons + ) + + 38.2 + 87.2 + 91.2 + 203.7 + 231.0 + + + + Hg ( + tons + ) + + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.2 + 0.3 + 0.4 + + +

    + As part of the analysis for this rule, DOE estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO + 2 + that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for air cleaners. Section IV.L of this document discusses the estimated SC-CO + 2 + values that DOE used. Table V.24 presents the value of CO + 2 + emissions reduction at each TSL for each of the SC-CO + 2 + cases. The time-series of annual values is presented for the selected TSL in chapter 14 of the direct final rule TSD. +

    + + + Table V.24—Present Value of CO + 2 + Emissions Reduction for Air Cleaners Shipped From Compliance Year Through 2057 + + + TSL + + SC-CO + 2 + Case + + Discount rate and statistics (billion 2021$) + 5% + Average + 3% + Average + 2.5% + Average + 3% + 95th percentile + + + 1 + 0.2 + 0.9 + 1.5 + 2.8 + + + 2 + 0.5 + 2.1 + 3.4 + 6.4 + + + 3 + 0.5 + 2.3 + 3.6 + 6.9 + + + 4 + 1.1 + 5.0 + 7.8 + 15.0 + + + 5 + 1.3 + 5.6 + 8.9 + 17.0 + + +

    + As discussed in section IV.L.2 of this document, DOE estimated the climate benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of methane and N + 2 + O that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for air cleaners. Table V.25 presents the value of the CH + 4 + emissions reduction at each TSL, and Table V.26 presents the value of the N + 2 + O emissions reduction at each TSL. The time-series of annual values is presented for the selected TSL in chapter 14 of the direct final rule TSD. + +

    + + Table V.25—Present Value of Methane Emissions Reduction for Air Cleaners Shipped From Compliance Year Through 2057 + + TSL + + SC-CH + 4 + Case + + Discount rate and statistics (billion 2021$) + 5% + Average + 3% + Average + 2.5% + Average + 3% + 95th percentile + + + 1 + 0.1 + 0.2 + 0.3 + 0.6 + + + 2 + 0.2 + 0.5 + 0.7 + 1.3 + + + 3 + 0.2 + 0.5 + 0.7 + 1.4 + + + 4 + 0.4 + 1.1 + 1.6 + 3.0 + + + 5 + 0.4 + 1.3 + 1.8 + 3.4 + + + + Table V.26—Present Value of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reduction for Air Cleaners Shipped From Compliance Through 2057 + + TSL + + SC-N + 2 + O Case + + Discount rate and statistics (billion 2021$) + 5% + Average + 3% + Average + 2.5% + Average + 3% + 95th percentile + + + 1 + 0.8 + 3.2 + 5.0 + 8.6 + + + 2 + 1.8 + 7.3 + 11.5 + 19.5 + + + 3 + 1.9 + 7.9 + 12.3 + 20.9 + + + 4 + 4.1 + 17.2 + 26.8 + 45.6 + + + 5 + 4.7 + 19.5 + 30.4 + 51.7 + + +

    + DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution of CO + 2 + and other GHG emissions to changes in the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the global and U.S. economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value placed on reduced GHG emissions in this rulemaking is subject to change. That said, because of omitted damages, DOE agrees with the IWG that these estimates most likely underestimate the climate benefits of greenhouse gas reductions. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, will continue to review methodologies for estimating the monetary value of reductions in CO + 2 + and other GHG emissions. This ongoing review will consider the comments on this subject that are part of the public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other methodological assumptions and issues. DOE notes, however, that the adopted standards would be economically justified even without inclusion of monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions. +

    +

    + DOE also estimated the monetary value of the economic benefits associated with NO + X + and SO + 2 + emissions reductions anticipated to result from the considered TSLs for air cleaners. The dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are discussed in section IV.L of this document. Table V.27 presents the present value for NO + X + emissions reduction for each TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, and Table V.28 presents similar results for SO + 2 + emissions reductions. The results in these tables reflect application of EPA's low dollar-per-ton values, which DOE used to be conservative. The time-series of annual values is presented for the selected TSL in chapter 14 of the direct final rule TSD. +

    + + + Table V.27—Present Value of NO + X + Emissions Reduction for Air Cleaners Shipped From Compliance Year Through 2057 + + + TSL + 7% discount rate + 3% discount rate + + +   + billion 2021$ + + + 1 + 0.5 + 1.4 + + + 2 + 1.2 + 3.2 + + + 3 + 1.3 + 3.4 + + + 4 + 2.7 + 7.5 + + + 5 + 3.1 + 8.5 + + + + + Table V.28—Present Value of SO + 2 + Emissions Reduction for Air Cleaners Shipped From Compliance Year Through 2057 + + + TSL + 7% discount rate + 3% discount rate + + +   + billion 2021$ + + + 1 + 0.2 + 0.5 + + + 2 + 0.4 + 1.1 + + + 3 + 0.5 + 1.2 + + + 4 + 1.0 + 2.7 + + + 5 + 1.1 + 3.0 + + +

    + DOE has not considered the monetary benefits of the reduction of Hg for this direct final rule. Not all the public health and environmental benefits from the reduction of greenhouse gases, NO + X + , and SO + 2 + are captured in the values previously mentioned, and additional unquantified benefits from the reductions of those pollutants as well as from the reduction of Hg, direct PM, and other co-pollutants may be significant. +

    + 7. Other Factors +

    + The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors were considered in this analysis. + +

    + 8. Summary of Economic Impacts +

    + Table V.29 presents the NPV values that result from adding the monetized estimates of the potential economic, climate, and health benefits resulting from reduced GHG and NO + X + and SO + 2 + emissions to the NPV of consumer benefits calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. The consumer benefits are domestic U.S. monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered air cleaners and are measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2024-2057. The climate benefits associated with reduced GHG emissions resulting from the adopted standards are global benefits, and are also calculated based on the lifetime of air cleaners shipped in 2024-2057. +

    + + Table V.29—Consumer NPV Combined With Present Value of Climate Benefits and Health Benefits + + Category + TSL 1 + TSL 2 + TSL 3 + TSL 4 + TSL 5 + + + + Using 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$) + + + + 5% Average SC-GHG case + 7.6 + 17.8 + 19.0 + 3.3 + 8.8 + + + 3% Average SC-GHG case + 8.5 + 19.8 + 21.1 + 7.9 + 14.0 + + + 2.5% Average SC-GHG case + 9.1 + 21.2 + 22.7 + 11.3 + 17.8 + + + 3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case + 10.7 + 24.9 + 26.6 + 19.9 + 27.6 + + + + Using 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$) + + + + 5% Average SC-GHG case + 3.1 + 7.3 + 8.2 + 1.8 + 3.9 + + + 3% Average SC-GHG case + 4.0 + 9.3 + 10.3 + 6.4 + 9.2 + + + 2.5% Average SC-GHG case + 4.6 + 10.7 + 11.8 + 9.8 + 13.0 + + + 3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case + 6.3 + 14.4 + 15.8 + 18.4 + 22.8 + + + C. Conclusion +

    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))

    +

    For this direct final rule, DOE considered the impacts of establishing standards for air cleaners at each TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible 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. 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. + 84 + +

    + +

    + 84 +  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 conservation standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by + + which these impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process. + 85 + +

    + +

    + 85 +  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.

    + 1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Air Cleaner Standards +

    Table V.30 and Table V.31 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 results. DOE is exercising its own judgment in presenting monetized benefits in accordance with the applicable Executive orders and DOE would reach the same conclusion presented in this document in the absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases, including the Interim Estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of this document.

    + + Table V.30—Summary of Analytical Results for Air Cleaner 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 + + + + + CO + 2 + ( + million metric tons + ) + + 24.1 + 55.0 + 57.7 + 128.5 + 145.7 + + + + CH + 4 + ( + thousand tons + ) + + 173.0 + 394.8 + 411.4 + 922.8 + 1,046.1 + + + + N + 2 + O ( + thousand tons + ) + + 0.2 + 0.5 + 0.6 + 1.2 + 1.4 + + + + SO + 2 + ( + thousand tons + ) + + 10.0 + 22.8 + 24.2 + 53.2 + 60.4 + + + + NO + X + ( + 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 † + 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 † + 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-CO + 2 + , SC-CH + 4 + , and SC-N + 2 + O. 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 NO + X + and SO + 2 + . DOE is currently only monetizing (for NO + X + and SO + 2 + ) PM + 2.5 + precursor health benefits and (for NO + X + ) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM + 2.5 + 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. + + † 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 V.31—Summary of Analytical Results for Air Cleaner TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts + + Category + TSL 1 + TSL 2 + TSL 3 + Tier 1 + Tier 2 + TSL 4 + TSL 5 + + + Manufacturer Impacts: + + + Industry NPV (million 2021$) (No-new-standards case INPV = 1,565.94) + 1,528 to 1,536 + 1,504 to 1,528 + 1,479 to 1,479 + 1,499 to 1,525 + 1,422 to 1,536 + 1,394 to 1,574 + + + Industry NPV (% change) + (2) to (2) + (4) to (2) + (2) to (2) + (4) to (3) + (9) to (2) + + (11) to +
  • 1
    • +     +     + + Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021$): + + + + PC1: 10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + $18 + $12 + $18 + $12 + ($87) + ($87) + + + + PC2: 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + $38 + $50 + $38 + $50 + ($60) + $11 + + + + PC3: PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥ 150 + + $105 + $94 + $105 + $94 + $29 + $20 + + + + Shipment-Weighted Average  + * + + $67 + $62 + $67 + $62 + ($23) + ($10) + + + Consumer Simple PBP (years): + + + + PC1: 10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 0.9 + 1.4 + 0.9 + 1.4 + NA + NA + + + + PC2: 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 0.4 + 0.5 + 0.4 + 0.5 + NA + 1.6 + + + + PC3: PM + 2.5 + 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 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 0% + 6% + 0% + 6% + 88% + 94% + + + + PC2: 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 0% + 0% + 0% + 0% + 75% + 54% + + + + PC3: PM + 2.5 + 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 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 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 Mt of CO + 2 + , 60.4 thousand tons of SO + 2 + , 231.0 thousand tons of NO + X + , 0.4 tons of Hg, 1,046.1 thousand tons of CH + 4 + , and 1.4 thousand tons of N + 2 + O. 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 5 is $6.9 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO + 2 + and NO + X + 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 SO + 2 + and NO + X + 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 LCC impact is a loss of $87 for Product Class 1 (10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100), an average LCC savings of $11 for Product Class 2 (100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150), and an average LCC savings of $20 for Product Class 3 (PM + 2.5 + 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 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% 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 expect 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 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 CO + 2 + , 53.2 thousand tons of SO + 2 + , 203.7 thousand tons of NO + X + , 0.3 tons of Hg, 922.8 thousand tons of CH + 4 + , and 1.2 thousand tons of N + 2 + O. 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 SO + 2 + and NO + X + 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 SO + 2 + and NO + X + 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% of sales meet TSL 4 today.

    +

    Based upon the previous 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 SPM or PSC motors. 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. TSL3 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 CO + 2 + , 24.2 thousand tons of SO + 2 + , 91.2 thousand tons of NO + X + , 0.2 tons of Hg, 411.4 thousand tons of CH + 4 + , and 0.6 thousand tons of N + 2 + O. 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 SO + 2 + and NO + X + 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 SO + 2 + and NO + X + 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, 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. Manufacturer 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 PM + 2.5 + CADR/W, are shown in Table V.32. +

    + + Table V.32—New Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners + + Product class + + IEF (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) + + Tier 1 + Tier 2 + + + + PC1: 10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 1.7 + 1.9 + + + + PC2: 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 1.9 + 2.4 + + + + PC3: PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥ 150 + + 2.0 + 2.9 + + + 2. 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 V.33 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 NO + X + and SO + 2 + 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 V.33 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards (recommended TSL) for Air cleaners + +   + + Million +
  • (2021$/year)
    • +     + + Primary +
  • estimate
    • +     + + Low-net- +
  • benefits
    • +
  • estimate
    • +     + + High-net- +
  • benefits
    • +
  • 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 † + 1,053.6 + 958.1 + 1,174.2 + + + Consumer Incremental Product Costs‡ + 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 Benefit s† + 783.7 + 723.7 + 857.7 + + + Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ + 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 document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the + Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 + published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). + + + ** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO + X + and SO + 2 + . DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO + 2 + and NO + X + ) PM + 2.5 + precursor health benefits and (for NO + X + ) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM + 2.5 + emissions. + See + section IV.L of this document for more details. + + † 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. + ‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as filter costs. +     + VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review + A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 +

    + Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance + + costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in this preamble, this final regulatory action is consistent with these principles. +

    +

    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this final regulatory action constitutes a “significant regulatory action” within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the final regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the identified potential alternatives. These assessments are summarized in this preamble and further detail can be found in the technical support document for this rulemaking.

    + B. 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 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 is not obligated to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking because there is not a requirement to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603(a). As discussed previously, DOE has determined that the August 2022 Joint Proposal meets the necessary requirements under EPCA to issue this direct final rule for energy conservation standards for air cleaners under the procedures in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). DOE notes that the NOPR for energy conservation standards for air cleaners published elsewhere in this issue of the + Federal Register + contains an IRFA. +

    + C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act +

    + Manufacturers of air cleaners must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for air cleaners, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including air cleaners. ( + See generally + 10 CFR part 429) The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. +

    +

    Certification data will be required for air cleaners; however, DOE is not adopting certification or reporting requirements for air cleaners in this direct final rule. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to establish certification requirements and reporting for air cleaners under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time, as necessary.

    +

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

    + D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 +

    + Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), DOE has analyzed this rule in accordance with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B, B5.1, because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that require further environmental analysis, and it meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. + See + 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE has determined that promulgation of this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA, and does not require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. +

    + E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 +

    E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

    + F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 +

    + With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: + + (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this direct final rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988. +

    + G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 +

    + Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, Sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at + www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. +

    +

    This rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector.

    +

    As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

    + H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 +

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

    + I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 +

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    + J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 +

    + Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at + www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. + DOE has reviewed this direct final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines. +

    + K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 +

    E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

    +

    DOE has concluded that this regulatory action, which sets forth energy conservation standards for air cleaners, is not a significant energy action because the standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on this direct final rule.

    + L. Information Quality +

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (“the Bulletin”). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.” 70 FR 2664, 2667.

    +

    + In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of the + + energy conservation standards development process and the analyses that are typically used and prepared a report describing that peer review. + 86 + + Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. Because available data, models, and technological understanding have changed since 2007, DOE has engaged with the National Academy of Sciences to review DOE's analytical methodologies to ascertain whether modifications are needed to improve the Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of evaluating the resulting report. + 87 + +

    + +

    + 86 +  The 2007 “Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report” is available at the following website: + energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 + (last accessed July 19, 2022). +

    +     + +

    + 87 +  The report is available at + www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards. +

    +     +

    AHAM AC-1-2020 is already approved at the location where it appears in the regulatory text.

    + M. Congressional Notification +

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    + VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary +

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this direct final rule.

    + + 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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and 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 amends part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as amended at 88 FR 14014 (March 6, 2023), as set forth below:

    + + PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS + + + 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.

    +     +     + + 2. Amend appendix FF to subpart B of part 430 by revising section 5.1.2 to read as follows: + + Appendix FF to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Air Cleaners + +

    5. * * *

    +

    + 5.1.2. For determining compliance only with the standards specified in § 430.32(ee)(1), PM + 2.5 + 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: +

    + + ER11AP23.003 + + +     +     + + 3. Amend § 430.32 by adding paragraph (ee) to read as follows: +
    + § 430.32 + Energy and water conservation standards and their compliance dates. + +

    + (ee) + Air cleaners. + (1) Conventional room air cleaners as defined in § 430.2 with a PM + 2.5 + 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 PM + 2.5 + CADR/W, as determined in § 430.23(hh)(4) that meets or exceeds the following values: +

    + +   + + Product capacity + + IEF (PM + 2.5 +
  • CADR/W)
    • +     +     + + + (i) 10 ≤PM + 2.5 + CADR <100 + + 1.7 + + + + (ii) 100 ≤PM + 2.5 + CADR <150 + + 1.9 + + + + (iii) PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥150 + + 2.0 + +     +

    + (2) Conventional room air cleaners as defined in § 430.2 with a PM + 2.5 + 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 PM + 2.5 + CADR/W, as determined in § 430.23(hh)(4) that meets or exceeds the following values: +

    + +   + + Product capacity + + IEF (PM + 2.5 +
  • CADR/W)
    • +     +     + + + (i) 10 ≤PM + 2.5 + CADR <100 + + 1.9 + + + + (ii) 100 ≤PM + 2.5 + CADR <150 + + 2.4 + + + + (iii) PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥150 + + 2.9 + +     +
    +     +     + [FR Doc. 2023-06499 Filed 4-10-23; 8:45 am] + BILLING CODE 6450-01-P +     diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/confirmation.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/confirmation.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..09c4368 Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/confirmation.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/nopr.pdf b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/nopr.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..499db4a Binary files /dev/null and b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/nopr.pdf differ diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/nopr.xml b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/nopr.xml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9609980 --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/corpus/rules/nopr.xml @@ -0,0 +1,1552 @@ + + + + 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: AirCleaners2021STD0035@ee.doe.gov. + 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 + energy.standards@usdoj.gov + 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: + ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. +

    +

    + 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: + Amelia.Whiting@hq.doe.gov. +

    +

    + 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: + ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. +

    +     +     + + 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 + + + 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 + + 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. + +

    +

    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 + + Product description + + IEF (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
  • tier 1 *
    • +     + + IEF (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) +
  • tier 2 **
    • +     +     + + + 10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 1.69 + 1.89 + + + + 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 1.90 + 2.39 + + + + PM + 2.5 + 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 PM + 2.5 + 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 PM + 2.5 + 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, + + 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 + + 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 + + + + + CO + 2 + (million metric tons) + + 24.1 + 55.0 + 57.7 + 128.5 + 145.7 + + + + CH + 4 + (thousand tons) + + 173.0 + 394.8 + 411.4 + 922.8 + 1,046.1 + + + + N + 2 + O (thousand tons) + + 0.2 + 0.5 + 0.6 + 1.2 + 1.4 + + + + SO + 2 + (thousand tons) + + 10.0 + 22.8 + 24.2 + 53.2 + 60.4 + + + + NO + X + (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 † + 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 † + 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-CO + 2 + , SC-CH + 4 + and SC-N + 2 + O. 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 NO + X + and SO + 2 + . DOE is currently only monetizing (for NO + X + and SO + 2 + ) PM + 2.5 + precursor health benefits and (for NO + X + ) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM + 2.5 + 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. + + † 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 + + Category + TSL 1 + TSL 2 + TSL 3 + Tier 1 + Tier 2 + TSL 4 + TSL 5 + + + + Manufacturer Impacts + + + + Industry NPV (million 2021$) (No-new-standards case INPV = 1,565.9) + 1,528 to 1,536 + 1,504 to 1,528 + 1,479 to 1,479 + 1,499 to 1,525 + 1,422 to 1,536 + 1,394 to 1,574 + + + + Industry NPV (% change) + (2) to (2) + (4) to (2) + (2) to (2) + (4) to (3) + (9) to (2) + (11) to 1 + + + + Consumer Average LCC Savings ( + 2021$ + ) + + + + + PC1: 10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + $18 + $12 + $18 + $12 + ($87) + ($87) + + + + PC2: 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + $38 + $50 + $38 + $50 + ($60) + $11 + + + + PC3: PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥ 150 + + $105 + $94 + $105 + $94 + $29 + $20 + + + Shipment-Weighted Average * + $67 + $62 + $67 + $62 + ($23) + ($10) + + + + Consumer Simple PBP (years) + + + + + PC1: 10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 0.9 + 1.4 + 0.9 + 1.4 + NA + NA + + + + PC2: 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 0.4 + 0.5 + 0.4 + 0.5 + NA + 1.6 + + + + PC3: PM + 2.5 + 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 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 0% + 6% + 0% + 6% + 88% + 94% + + + + PC2: 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 0% + 0% + 0% + 0% + 75% + 54% + + + + PC3: PM + 2.5 + 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 (“CO + 2 + ”), 60.4 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO + 2 + ”), 231.0 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides(“NO + X + ”), 0.4 tons of mercury (“Hg”), 1,046.1 thousand tons of methane (“CH + 4 + ”), and 1.4 thousand tons of nitrous oxide(“N + 2 + O”). 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 SO + 2 + and NO + X + 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 SO + 2 + and NO + X + 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 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100), an average LCC savings of $11 for Product Class 2 (100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150), and an average LCC savings of $20 for Product Class 3 (PM + 2.5 + 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 + + 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 CO + 2 + , 53.2 thousand tons of SO + 2 + , 203.7 thousand tons of NO + X + , 0.3 tons of Hg, 922.8 thousand tons of CH + 4 + , and 1.2 thousand tons of N + 2 + O. 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 SO + 2 + and NO + X + 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 SO + 2 + and NO + X + 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 CO + 2 + , 24.2 thousand tons of SO + 2 + , 91.2 thousand tons of NO + X + , 0.2 tons of Hg, 411.4 thousand tons of CH + 4 + , and 0.6 thousand tons of N + 2 + O. 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 SO + 2 + and NO + X + 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 SO + 2 + and NO + X + 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, + + 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 PM + 2.5 + CADR/W, are shown in Table II.3. +

    + + Table II.3—New Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners + + Product class + + IEF (PM + 2.5 + CADR/W) + + Tier 1 + Tier 2 + + + + PC1: 10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 1.7 + 1.9 + + + + PC2: 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 1.9 + 2.4 + + + + PC3: PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥ 150 + + 2.0 + 2.9 + + + + 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 NO + X + and SO + 2 + 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 + + Primary +
  • estimate
    • +     + + Low-net- +
  • benefits
    • +
  • estimate
    • +     + + High-net- +
  • benefits
    • +
  • 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 † + 1,053.6 + 958.1 + 1,174.2 + + + Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ + 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 † + 783.7 + 723.7 + 857.7 + + + Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ + 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 NO + X + and SO + 2 + . DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO + 2 + and NO + X + ) PM + 2.5 + precursor health benefits and (for NO + X + ) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM + 2.5 + emissions. + See + section IV.L of this document for more details. + + † 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. + ‡ 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 + + 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 + + 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 + + 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 | Company Information | Industry Information | 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 | Company Information | Industry Information | 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 + + 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.

    +     + 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 + + CFR 430.32(ee)(1), PM + 2.5 + 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: +

    + + EP11AP23.000 + + + 3. Amend § 430.32 by adding paragraph (ee) to read as follows: +
    + § 430.32 + Energy and water conservation standards and their compliance dates. + +

    + (ee) + Air Cleaners. +

    +

    + (1) Conventional room air cleaners as defined in § 430.2 with a PM + 2.5 + 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 PM + 2.5 + CADR/W, as determined in § 430.23(hh)(4) that meets or exceeds the following values: +

    + +   + + Product capacity + + IEF (PM + 2.5 +
  • CADR/W)
    • +     +     + + + (i) 10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 1.7 + + + + (ii) 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 1.9 + + + + (iii) PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥ 150 + + 2.0 + +     +

    + (2) Conventional room air cleaners as defined in § 430.2 with a PM + 2.5 + 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 PM + 2.5 + CADR/W, as determined in § 430.23(hh)(4) that meets or exceeds the following values: +

    + +   + + Product capacity + + IEF (PM + 2.5 +
  • CADR/W)
    • +     +     + + + (i) 10 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 100 + + 1.9 + + + + (ii) 100 ≤ PM + 2.5 + CADR < 150 + + 2.4 + + + + (iii) PM + 2.5 + CADR ≥ 150 + + 2.9 + +     +
    +     + [FR Doc. 2023-06498 Filed 4-10-23; 8:45 am] + BILLING CODE 6450-01-P +     diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/deepagents-vfs-demo-plan.md b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/deepagents-vfs-demo-plan.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ff21d27 --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/deepagents-vfs-demo-plan.md @@ -0,0 +1,899 @@ +# Demo Plan — MongoDB Atlas VFS for LangChain Deep Agents + +**Deliverable:** sample app + notebook backing the Towards AI post +*"Building a Multi-Agent Pipeline Where Nothing Gets Lost"* +**Also feeds:** GenAI-Showcase demo repo (Mikiko Bazeley, DRI per GTM plan) +**Ship:** GTM release Sep 3, 2026 — article Sep 7 + +*Rev 5 — framing locked: the research-intern hook. Corpus unchanged from Rev 4 +(DOE rulemaking docket EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035). §1 rewritten; nothing downstream moves.* + +--- + +## 1. The framing and the use case + +### 1.1 The hook: the intern nobody is testing + +In March 2026 OpenAI made an autonomous AI researcher its stated "North Star" and +committed to shipping an **autonomous AI research intern** — a system able to take on a +small number of specific research problems by itself — **by September 2026**, as the +precursor to a fully automated multi-agent research system planned for 2028. As of late +July it had not shipped as a product, and Sam Altman had already said publicly they "may +totally fail" at hitting the milestones. + +This article publishes September 7. The whole industry is talking about research interns +this month, and nobody has one. + +**The wedge:** the conversation is entirely about capability — can it reason, can it plan, +can it work unattended for hours. Nobody is asking whether the intern's notes survive the +process dying. That is a real gap in the discourse, not a manufactured one, and it is +exactly what this post demonstrates. + +**Opening beat — lead with the bug, not the corpus:** + +> The industry promised an autonomous research intern this month. They mean the kind that +> reads papers and runs experiments. I built the part nobody demos — the one that reads a +> pile of documents written by people who don't agree on their terms, and writes up what +> it found. +> +> The first version worked about half the time. The other half, the summarizer opened an +> empty directory and confidently wrote a report based on nothing. + +Note what that pivot does: it is a mild corrective to the hype rather than an echo of it, +which is a better position to write from and keeps us clear of any claim to be building +OpenAI's system. + +**Three constraints on this framing:** + +- **Don't position this as competing with or replicating OpenAI's work.** Frame it as + *the industry is promising X*, never *OpenAI will deliver X* — their own chief scientist + hedged it. +- **Scope the metaphor to one assignment, interruptible.** "Intern" invites the + does-it-learn question and this demo does not learn. (The single-backend variant in §4.2 + gives a later run grep access to earlier runs' findings — the closest thing, worth + mentioning honestly rather than overselling.) +- **Verify the September commitment against OpenAI's own statement** before print. Current + sourcing is MIT Technology Review plus secondary coverage. + +### 1.2 Why the corpus is research work + +The obvious objection: OpenAI means *scientific* research — papers, experiments, +hypotheses — and this corpus is a federal rulemaking. + +The dispute in that docket is **methodological**. Four organizations measure the same +physical quantity — how much clean air you get per unit of power — four different ways, +and the rule spends pages arguing about which measurement is valid, over what particle +size range, under which test procedure. Reconciling incompatible measurement +methodologies across sources written by different groups is what a research intern does +in a literature review. It is applied metrology rather than machine learning, and the +work is the same shape. + +**Why not an actual scientific corpus (arXiv, PubMed):** PDF-only, so Beat 1 loses the +spreadsheets and Word uploads that carry the format argument; it is the most saturated +demo domain in RAG; it collides head-on with LangChain's own `deep_research` example, +which is the tutorial we are differentiating from; and it discards the only *verified* +discrepancy in this project along with the published answer key in Table II.4. That last +point decides it. + +### 1.3 The use case, in plain language + +A federal agency has just finalized a rule. In our case, the Department of Energy setting +the first-ever efficiency standards for room air cleaners — the things everyone bought +during COVID and buys again every fire season. Twelve organizations filed comments while +it was being written: manufacturers like Daikin and Lennox, California utilities, +efficiency advocates, a trade association. DOE then published a 63-page final rule +explaining what it decided and how it answered each of them. Alongside that sit technical +support documents and four spreadsheets holding the actual math. + +**Something unusual happened here.** Manufacturers and environmental advocates — AHAM +sitting with ACEEE, ASAP, CFA and NRDC — did the rare thing and agreed. They filed a joint +consensus proposal with specific numbers. So the question is not "did an agency follow +procedure." It is **did the agency take the deal?** + +**The job.** You are the intern, and someone asks: *did DOE adopt what the coalition +proposed, and do the numbers agree?* + +That is a real job real people have. Law firms, trade associations and advocacy groups +read the record after every rule drops, precisely to answer that question. It is tedious +and it matters. + +**Why it's hard.** Not because any one document is difficult. Because the answer is never +in one document. + +The finding the agent surfaces: the Joint Stakeholders proposed specific efficiency levels +— 1.69, 1.90, 2.01 and so on. DOE adopted them as 1.7, 1.9, 2.0. It rounded. Separately, +the stakeholders claimed their proposal would save **1.9 quads** of energy; DOE's own +independent analysis came out at **1.80 quads**. Neither document flags the gap. Nobody is +hiding anything — you only see it if you read both, and they sit in different sections +written by different parties. A quad is enormous; a tenth of one is not a rounding error +in any physical sense, it just looks like one on the page. + +**Three things make this hard for software:** + +- **Formats.** A long rule, four spreadsheets, comment letters uploaded as Word files and + PDFs. A folder on a laptop cannot search inside most of those at all. +- **Vocabulary.** The states measure *smoke CADR per watt*. DOE measures *PM2.5 CADR per + watt* via a metric called IEF. ENERGY STAR uses a third framing. All three describe how + much clean air you get per unit of power. Search for one, miss the other two. The + efficiency number on the box may not be the number that matters. +- **Volume.** The corpus is far too large for a context window, but you don't need all of + it — you need the four passages bearing on the question. The agent has to navigate: + list, narrow, search, open the one file. + +**What the agent does.** A coordinator splits the job four ways. One sub-agent finds what +was proposed. One finds what was adopted. One checks the savings math against the +spreadsheets. A fourth reads all three sets of notes and writes the memo naming the +discrepancies. Each sub-agent searches the shared corpus and writes findings to a shared +workspace. + +**The part that is actually the article.** The corpus and the workspace need *different +storage guarantees*, and most teams don't notice until something breaks. + +The corpus is settled — nobody is editing a published final rule. Agents search it, and if +search runs a few seconds behind, nothing bad happens. That is what Atlas is doing: making +a pile of documents in S3 findable by meaning rather than by exact string. + +The workspace is live. Sub-agents are writing notes right now, and the writer needs them +*immediately*. So the workspace is read by exact path and never searched. + +Then you kill the process halfway through, restart it, and it resumes — because the notes +survived. **An intern that can't be interrupted isn't an intern.** That is the "nothing +gets lost" in the title, and no other Deep Agents tutorial demonstrates it. + +--- + +## 2. The corpus: DOE docket EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035 + +**Rulemaking:** Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners +**Final rule:** 88 FR 21752, published 2023-04-11, FR doc 2023-06499, RIN 1904-AF46 +**Docket:** EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035 + +Chosen over the synthetic ACME corpus because the contradiction is real, the answer key is +published, and the whole thing is public domain so readers can legally re-upload it. + +### The documents + +| Source | Format | Role | +|---|---|---| +| Final rule (88 FR 21752) | PDF / XML / JSON | What DOE adopted, plus its answers to every commenter | +| Simultaneous NOPR (FR doc 2023-06498) | PDF | Proposes identical levels — statutorily required twin | +| Confirmation of dates (FR doc 2023-18860, 2023-08-31) | PDF | What happened after the comment period | +| Technical Support Document (item -0024) | PDF | The underlying analysis | +| Life-Cycle Cost Analysis spreadsheet (-0023) | XLS/XLSX | LCC and payback math | +| National Impact Analysis spreadsheet (-0022) | XLS/XLSX | Where the quads number comes from | +| GRIM — Joint Proposal (-0021) | XLS/XLSX | Manufacturer impact model, stakeholder version | +| GRIM — Direct Final Rule (-0020) | XLS/XLSX | Manufacturer impact model, DOE version | +| Twelve comment submissions | PDF / DOCX | The stakeholder positions | + +The two GRIM spreadsheets are the quiet prize: the *same model* run on the stakeholder +proposal and on DOE's adopted rule. If their outputs differ, that is a second findable +discrepancy sitting in two spreadsheets nobody diffs. + +### The published answer key + +Table II.4 of the final rule lists every commenter with name, abbreviation, **docket item +number**, and type: + +| Commenter | Abbrev. | Item | Type | +|---|---|---|---| +| ACEEE, ASAP, AHAM, CFA, NRDC | Joint Commenters | 8 | Efficiency orgs + trade association | +| Blueair IAQ | Blueair | 10 | Manufacturer | +| Electrolux Home Products NA | Electrolux | 6 | Manufacturer | +| Daikin U.S. Corporation | Daikin | 12 | Manufacturer | +| Lennox International | Lennox | 7 | Manufacturer | +| Madison Indoor Air Quality | MIAQ | 5 | Manufacturer | +| Molekule | Molekule | 11 | Manufacturer | +| Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance | NEEA | 13 | Efficiency organization | +| PG&E, SDG&E, SoCal Edison | CA IOUs | 9 | Utilities | +| Synexis LLC | Synexis | 14 | Manufacturer | +| Trane Technologies | Trane | 3 | Manufacturer | +| AHRI | AHRI | 15 | Trade association | +| *(Joint Stakeholders proposal)* | Joint Stakeholders | 16 | Consensus coalition | + +And DOE's citations are machine-readable pointers back into the docket: `(Daikin, No. 12 +at p. 3)`, `(MIAQ, No. 5 at p. 2)`, `(Joint Stakeholders, No. 16 at p. 6)`. Commenter, +item number, page. **The rule tells you which document and which page it is +characterizing**, so the agent can be asked to go verify the characterization against the +source — and you can score whether it did. + +### The verified discrepancies + +Confirmed by reading the final rule directly, not inferred: + +1. **1.9 quads vs 1.80 quads.** Joint Stakeholders' claim vs DOE's independent analysis. + Different sections, different parties, no cross-reference. +2. **Rounding.** Proposed 1.69 / 1.89 / 1.90 / 2.39 / 2.01 / 2.91 → adopted 1.7 / 1.9 / + 1.9 / 2.4 / 2.0 / 2.9. +3. **Scope floor.** State standards apply from CADR 30; DOE's Product Class 1 starts at + 10, capturing tabletop units per the Joint Commenters' request. +4. **Metric mismatch.** State and ENERGY STAR standards are smoke-CADR/W; DOE's is + PM2.5-CADR/W via IEF. The rule spends pages reconciling them and explicitly notes they + are different metrics. +5. **Tier-1 test-procedure carve-out.** Compliance with Tier 1 may use the wider AHAM + AC-1-2020 particle range; Tier 2 must use the narrower appendix FF range. A conditional + buried in a test-procedure discussion. + +### The question the agent is asked + +> **"Did DOE adopt what the Joint Stakeholders proposed, and do the energy-savings +> numbers agree?"** + +Answerable, verifiable, and not present in any single file. + +### Register note + +Report what the documents say. Do not editorialize about DOE, about efficiency +regulation, or about any commenter. The finding is *these numbers differ*, not *someone +was wrong*. Appliance efficiency was chosen precisely because nobody holds a tribal +position on air-cleaner test procedures — keep it that way. + +--- + +## 3. Getting the data + +**API key:** already obtained from https://open.gsa.gov/api/regulationsgov/ (api.data.gov). +Read access only; the commenting-API activation path is irrelevant here. Pass as +`X-Api-Key` header or `api_key=` query param. Never `DEMO_KEY`, never the key embedded in +regulations.gov's own page source. + +**Federal Register needs no key.** JSON at +`federalregister.gov/api/v1/documents/2023-06499`, full-text XML at +`federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/xml/2023/04/11/2023-06499.xml`. Both fetch +cleanly. + +**Docket pull sequence:** + +``` +GET /v4/documents?filter[docketId]=EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035 + → document list; capture objectId for the rule + +GET /v4/documents/{documentId}?include=attachments + → the four spreadsheets and the TSD + +GET /v4/comments?filter[commentOnId]={objectId} + → the twelve commenters + +GET /v4/comments/{commentId}?include=attachments + → DOCX/PDF uploads behind "see attached" comments +``` + +`?include=attachments` is required on both endpoints. Attachments are not returned by +default, and omitting it is exactly the mistake that makes you conclude the spreadsheets +aren't there. + +**Vendor the corpus.** regulations.gov is an Ember SPA — a plain fetch returns only JS +config, no content. So pull the docket once, commit the files to `corpus/`, and let +`00_seed_corpus.py` upload rather than download. Consequences, all good: readers need no +API key, the corpus is deterministic, and the seed step needs no network beyond S3. +Reader account count stays at three. + +--- + +## 4. Architecture + +### 4.1 Two planes, two guarantees + +The package README states the constraint plainly: *budget for `write` → `grep` lag on the +order of the watcher interval plus Atlas indexing time, and don't rely on a file being +greppable immediately after writing it.* A `write` lands in S3 immediately; the +PollingWatcher notices on a **10-second** interval, chunks, embeds, upserts; `mongot` then +indexes asynchronously. + +So if sub-agent A writes a finding and sub-agent B greps for it in the same run, B finds +nothing. That is the documented contract, not a bug. + +| Plane | Path | Operations | Guarantee | Why | +|---|---|---|---|---| +| **Corpus** — discovery | `corpus/` | `grep`, `glob`, `ls` | eventually consistent | Settled, mixed-format, searched by meaning | +| **Workspace** — coordination | `workspace//` | `write`, `read`, `edit` | read-after-write | Live, written now, read by exact path | + +Agents **discover** through the corpus and **coordinate** through the workspace by +deterministic path, never by grep. + +### 4.2 Backend wiring + +```python +CompositeBackend( + default=MongoFilesystemBackend(s3_prefix="workspace/", debug=True, ...), + routes={"corpus/": MongoFilesystemBackend(s3_prefix="corpus/", debug=True, ...)}, +) +``` + +`CompositeBackend(default=..., routes={...})` routes by path prefix and is documented in +LangChain's own Backends page. Any `BackendProtocol` implementation slots in. + +`StateBackend` **cannot** be the default here. It is in-process, so the kill test would +wipe the workspace and Beat 3 would be meaningless. LangChain's canonical example uses +`StateBackend` as default with `/memories/` routed to something persistent — the inverse +of what this demo needs. + +**Cost:** two watcher threads, two initial syncs. + +**Simpler fallback:** one `MongoFilesystemBackend` with `corpus/` and `workspace/` as +directories under a single prefix. Halves the cost. Tradeoff: agent-written findings also +get chunked and embedded, spending embedding calls and mixing agent output into the corpus +index. Upside worth naming honestly — a *later* run can then grep across *earlier* runs' +findings. Cross-session recall for free, just not within a run. + +**Recommendation:** build the CompositeBackend version. The routing config is three lines +and it makes the thesis visible in the code. Mention the single-backend option in the +article as the cheaper path. + +### 4.3 The pipeline + +``` +coordinator +├── writes workspace//plan.md +├── writes workspace//manifest.json ← run receipt +├── task → proposal-reader → findings/proposal.md what did the Joint Stakeholders propose? +├── task → adoption-reader → findings/adopted.md what did DOE actually adopt? +├── task → numbers-reader → findings/numbers.md do the savings figures agree? +└── task → writer → reads three by path → memo.md +``` + +Each reader greps `corpus/` and writes only its own namespaced file. The writer reads by +known path — immediate, deterministic, no watcher in the coordination path. + +**Concurrency rule:** only the coordinator writes `manifest.json`. Readers write only +their own file, so there are no collisions. If parallel writers ever need to share a file, +`edit` is an ETag-verified read-modify-write — optimistic concurrency, not a mutex. Worth +one sentence in the article. + +### 4.4 The run receipt + +Fields follow the "run receipt" audit from Govindarajan's AIEWF talk (§7): what woke it +up, what state it inherited, what authority it used, what executed, what evidence +survived. + +```json +{ + "run_id": "aircleaners-001", + "woke_up_by": "cli:03_pipeline.py --run-id aircleaners-001", + "inherited_state": "workspace/aircleaners-001/ (2 findings present at start)", + "authority": {"corpus": "read-only", "workspace": "read-write"}, + "question": "Did DOE adopt what the Joint Stakeholders proposed, and do the energy-savings numbers agree?", + "stages": [ + {"name": "proposal", "status": "complete", "output": "findings/proposal.md", + "tokens": 4210, "usd": 0.031, "completed_at": "2026-09-01T18:04:11Z"}, + {"name": "adopted", "status": "complete", "output": "findings/adopted.md", "...": "..."}, + {"name": "numbers", "status": "pending"}, + {"name": "writer", "status": "pending"} + ], + "evidence": ["findings/proposal.md", "findings/adopted.md"] +} +``` + +The receipt is the artifact readers will copy out of the post. `inherited_state` and +`evidence` are what make the resume auditable rather than merely functional. + +### 4.5 Data flow + +``` +regulations.gov + federalregister.gov + │ (one-time pull, vendored into repo) + ▼ + corpus/ files ──upload──► S3 (prefix: corpus/) + │ + watcher ────┤ chunk → embed → upsert + ▼ + MongoDB Atlas + (chunks, embeddings, path metadata) + text + vector + $rankFusion + │ + agent grep/glob/ls ──────────┘ + agent read ──────────────────► S3 directly (source bytes) + + agent write/read ───────────► S3 (prefix: workspace/) ← read-after-write +``` + +Two rules hold the whole design together: **search goes to Atlas, bytes go to S3**, and +**the workspace is never searched**. + +--- + +## 5. Gate status + +**Resolved from the package README:** + +| # | Answer | +|---|---| +| G1 | `pip install langchain-mongodb-deepagents-vfs`; extras `[bedrock]` (default) / `[openai]`. Import `from langchain_mongodb_deepagents_vfs import MongoFilesystemBackend`. **Publication unconfirmed — §5a.** | +| G4 | **No MinIO/LocalStack.** No `endpoint_url` parameter. Real AWS S3 required. | +| G5 | Atlas M0+ works; M10+ for production Search/Vector Search. Atlas Local works for dev. **Caveat in §5b.** | +| G6 | PollingWatcher 10s ETag diff. SQSWatcher 20s long-poll, needs S3→SQS notifications. Atlas index time on top. | +| G8 | `write` → S3 → watcher chunks + embeds + upserts. Confirmed. | + +**Resolved from LangChain docs:** + +| # | Answer | +|---|---| +| G2 | `CompositeBackend(default=..., routes={...})` routes by path prefix. Documented, own tutorial page. | +| G7 | Declarative `permissions` exist to control which paths an agent can read or write. Use to enforce `corpus/` read-only; `s3_prefix` + system prompt is the fallback. | + +**Resolved by fetching the corpus (this session):** + +| # | Answer | +|---|---| +| G9 | Federal Register: fetchable, clean text, JSON + XML APIs, no key. | +| G10 | regulations.gov: Ember SPA, plain fetch returns nothing. API key required → vendor the corpus. | +| G11 | Real cross-document discrepancy exists and is verified (§2). | +| G12 | Published answer key exists (Table II.4 + inline docket citations). | + +**Still open:** + +- **G3** — do sub-agents spawned via `task` inherit the parent's backend? Load-bearing for + the shared-workspace claim. Docs imply yes; implication is not verification. Test first. +- **G13** — are the four spreadsheets `.xlsx` (openpyxl) or `.xls` (xlrd)? Both supported, + different parsers. Settled by one download. +- **G14** — do any of the twelve comments include DOCX uploads? Determines whether the + five-format claim holds. Settled by the same download. + +### 5a. Publication status + +The README documents `pip install langchain-mongodb-deepagents-vfs`, so the name is +settled. As of Sep 1 it is not in the monorepo root README, has no +`libs/langchain-mongodb-deepagents-vfs/v*` release tag, and did not surface on PyPI. +Confirm the release date with Alex; pin to a commit SHA either way. + +### 5b. The silent-degradation trap + +Three documented modes that produce **no error** and quietly destroy what the demo exists +to show: + +1. **Non-Atlas MongoDB → `grep` falls back to regex.** Every semantic result stops working + and nothing says why. +2. **Embedding API unavailable at query time → `grep` falls back to full-text only.** + Degraded relevance, no error. +3. **Partial initial sync.** The README's words: it leaves a collection that "looks + healthy and is quietly incomplete, which is otherwise easy to mistake for a search bug." + +The seed script must assert on both instruments and refuse to continue: + +```python +backend.grep("warmup") # blocks until index + sync complete +assert not backend.init_errors, backend.init_errors +report = backend.initial_sync_report +assert report and report.failed == 0, f"{report.failed}/{report.seen} objects not searchable" +``` + +**Error shape:** every method returns a DTO with a stable `[EXXXX]` code in `result.error`; +nothing raises by default. Demo code checks `result.error` — a `try/except` passes silently +over real failures. Run with `debug=True` so exceptions surface with tracebacks. + +--- + +## 6. Three beats + +### Beat 1 — Discovery across formats (three-way comparison) + +**The thesis is parsing and vocabulary, not "vector beats grep."** Bergum's AIEWF talk +(§7) argues BM25 is underrated for agentic search and that default parameters make lexical +retrieval look artificially weak. He is right, and a sharp reader will raise it. The two +claims that survive his critique: + +- BM25 cannot read the spreadsheets or the DOCX uploads at all. Extraction, not ranking. +- Four parties using four names for one metric is not a tuning problem. + +`$rankFusion` runs lexical **and** vector at 0.5/0.5. This is an argument for fusion, not +against lexical. State that plainly. + +| Arm | Script | Expected result | +|---|---|---| +| Local folder + `ripgrep` | `01_control_grep.sh` | Cannot read XLS(X), DOCX, or PDF. Post-extraction, literal `grep "IEF"` still misses "smoke CADR/W" and "CADR per watt". | +| `StoreBackend` + `MongoDBStore` | `01b_control_storebackend.py` | Runs. But per the README, `StoreBackend.grep` fetches every item in the namespace and matches literal substrings in Python — it never passes `query` to `MongoDBStore.search()`, so the vector search sitting right there goes unused. Same miss, whole files in memory. | +| `MongoFilesystemBackend` | `02_discovery.py` | Hybrid `$rankFusion`, chunk-level, `line_start` → real `GrepMatch.line`. Surfaces the metric discussion across all four vocabularies. | + +Query: *"How is air cleaner efficiency measured, and do the state standards use the same +metric as DOE?"* + +**Measurement:** report hits **and tokens consumed** per arm, and run each arm three times. +A single run is not evidence, and token cost is the number this audience reads. + +The middle arm is what makes this a review rather than a puff piece. Reproduce the +README's nuance precisely: the limitation is in `StoreBackend`'s wiring, not +`MongoDBStore`'s ceiling. + +### Beat 2 — Multi-agent pipeline with a shared workspace + +Architecture in §4.3. The demo question from §2. `manifest.json` earns a paragraph: it is +a run receipt, and it is the difference between a pipeline that resumes and one that can +only restart. + +Worth verifying and, if true, mentioning: Deep Agents' `FilesystemMiddleware` auto-offloads +tool results over ~20K tokens to files. With a durable backend those offloads survive the +run instead of evaporating — relevant here because the TSD and spreadsheets are large. + +### Beat 3 — The kill test + +```bash +python scripts/03_pipeline.py --run-id aircleaners-001 --kill-after 2 # SIGKILL after 2 of 4 +python scripts/04_resume.py --run-id aircleaners-001 # same run_id +``` + +On resume the coordinator `ls`es the workspace, reads `manifest.json`, sees two stages +complete, skips them, runs the rest. In story terms: the analyst reads their own notes and +picks up mid-review instead of re-reading the docket. + +**Instrument it.** Tokens, wall-clock, and **USD cost** for cold / killed / resumed. Cost +per task is the unit the ecosystem currently reports. `resumed + killed ≈ cold` is the +honest result; the number to lead with is what the resume avoided re-spending. + +Draw the parallel to ETag idempotency at the sync layer — per the README, restarting after +a partial failure "resumes cheaply without re-embedding unchanged files." Same principle +one layer down. That parallel is the most quotable idea in the piece. + +This beat is why it cannot be a single notebook. A kernel cannot honestly demonstrate +`kill -9`. + +--- + +## 7. Positioning research (carried forward) + +### 7.1 What already exists + +Nearly every published Deep Agents tutorial is a web-research agent using Tavily — +LangChain's own `deep_research` example, DataCamp's job-application assistant, Krish +Naik's research agent, CopilotKit's Next.js assistant, mkassaf's seven-example repo. A +private, mixed-format, pre-existing corpus is unoccupied ground. + +**Don't teach what's already taught.** LangChain's Backends doc uses `class +S3Backend(BackendProtocol)` as its skeleton example, and `CompositeBackend` has a +dedicated tutorial page. Link both, use them, move on. The angle is what changes when the +backend is a *search plane* rather than storage. + +**Every published tutorial is happy-path.** None demo crash recovery, none demo the +eventual-consistency tradeoff, none run a comparison arm. That is the gap. + +### 7.2 Current discourse (AINews, Aug 29–31 2026) + +Verify each against the primary source before citing; AINews is an aggregator. + +- **Google's WikiSkill / SKILL.state** replaces growing conversation histories with + explicit mutable state plus persistent skill knowledge, reporting better long-horizon + accuracy at lower cumulative token use. `manifest.json` *is* explicit mutable state. + This reframes the post from "look, persistence" to "here is the infrastructure the + current research direction implies." Tencent's **ContextPilot** landed alongside it. +- **Meta's Muse Code** exited beta with an SDK whose headline features include *resuming + sessions*. The kill test is a product category, not a contrived beat. +- **Hermes Agent v0.21.0** shipped agent-to-agent comms and cut default context usage by + roughly half. +- A Claude Code practitioner described running an orchestrator at ~500K tokens while + delegating to sub-agents with fresh contexts, to keep context pollution out of the + execution path. That is Beat 2, arrived at from pain. +- **Cost per task is the unit.** Agent Arena reported GLM-5.3-Flash at $0.12 median cost + per task. Sonar Vortex claims a semantic code graph cuts task cost 5–36% versus + text-search-heavy workflows (vendor claim via aggregator — directional only). +- **Harrison Chase** argued for trace-level cost reconciliation over coarse spend totals. +- **DeepSeek Harness** shipped breaking plugin-contract changes; the takeaway was that + plugin-heavy agent platforms are still defining their public boundaries. That is the + SHA-pinning argument from someone other than us. + +### 7.3 AI Engineer World's Fair 2026 (Jun 29 – Jul 2, Moscone West) + +**Harness Engineering was the Day 4 keynote track.** Day 3 ran **Memory & Continual +Learning** and **Context Engineering** as separate tracks — the same state/memory split the +S3 glossary freezes. The post can use "harness" without defining it. + +- **Vinoth Govindarajan, "Your Agent Didn't Fail. Your Harness Did."** — the model + proposes, the harness commits, the receipt proves it. Source of the run-receipt schema + in §4.4. +- **Jo Kristian Bergum, "The unreasonable effectiveness of BM25 for agentic search"** — + the counter-argument Beat 1 must engage rather than ignore. +- **Jeff Vestal (Elastic), "Vector Isn't Enough"** — a workshop with Beat 1's exact + three-arm structure. Differentiate: he does retrieval; we do retrieval inside an agent + filesystem protocol where `read` deliberately goes elsewhere. +- **Jerry Liu, "Building the Document Context Layer for AI Agents"** — ~90% of enterprise + context lives in document containers. A category name the audience already holds; + position the demo as a Document Context Layer for Deep Agents. +- **Benjamin Clavié, "Knowledge Agents"** — argues against forcing every knowledge task + into the shape that worked for coding, using legal clerking as the example. Backing for + the analyst framing. +- **Measurement precedents:** Owen Halpert compares quality *and* token consumption across + retrieval modes; Jess Wang stresses a single eval run is never enough; **Towards AI's own + workshop** measured tokens, cost, latency and memory probes rather than vibe-checks. + That last one is the publication we're writing for — match their instrument set. +- **Tereza Tížková, "Rise of the Software Factory"** asks Beat 3's question verbatim: how + do you recover from partial failure mid-task without discarding completed work. +- **Anthropic, "Evolution of agentic surfaces"** lists *sessions that survive interruption* + among production requirements. + +--- + +## 8. Repo shape + +``` +langchain-deepagents-mongodb-vfs/ +├── README.md # 3 accounts, cost, runtime, Atlas-tier warning +├── .env.example # MONGODB_URI, AWS_*, EMBEDDING_PROVIDER, OPENAI_API_KEY +├── pyproject.toml # SHA-pinned until the PyPI release lands +├── corpus/ # vendored from the docket; public domain +│ ├── rules/ 88FR21752-final-rule.pdf, nopr.pdf, confirmation.pdf +│ ├── analysis/ tsd.pdf, lcc.xlsx, nia.xlsx, grim-joint.xlsx, grim-dfr.xlsx +│ └── comments/ 0003-trane.pdf … 0016-joint-stakeholders.pdf +├── scripts/ +│ ├── 00_seed_corpus.py # upload → block on grep → assert init/sync health +│ ├── 01_control_grep.sh # ripgrep arm +│ ├── 01b_control_storebackend.py # StoreBackend + MongoDBStore arm +│ ├── 02_discovery.py # Beat 1 +│ ├── 03_pipeline.py # Beat 2 (--run-id, --kill-after) +│ └── 04_resume.py # Beat 3 +├── src/vfs_demo/ +│ ├── backend.py # CompositeBackend wiring, prefixes, debug, ctx manager +│ ├── agents.py # coordinator + 4 readers +│ ├── manifest.py # run receipt read/write/resume +│ └── metrics.py # tokens, latency, USD cost per run +├── tools/ +│ └── fetch_docket.py # one-time, needs API key; NOT in the reader path +└── notebook/walkthrough.ipynb # setup + Beat 1 inline; 03/04 via subprocess +``` + +`tools/fetch_docket.py` is provenance, not workflow. It documents how the corpus was +assembled and lets a reader refresh it, but the tutorial never asks them to run it. + +**Notebook and app, split by what each can honestly show.** The notebook carries setup, +seeding and Beat 1 — genuinely notebook-shaped, and it gives GenAI-Showcase the artifact it +expects. Beats 2 and 3 shell out, because a background watcher thread, sub-agent fan-out +and a process kill are not notebook-shaped. + +### Reader friction, stated up front + +Three accounts: MongoDB Atlas, AWS (S3 **and** Bedrock unless using `[openai]`), plus an +LLM provider. No MinIO escape hatch. No regulations.gov key. + +**Region gotcha:** `aws_region` governs S3, SQS **and** Bedrock together — they cannot be +split. If Titan v2 isn't enabled in the reader's region, embeddings fail. The README notes +there is no hardcoded fallback, so it surfaces as an explicit `NoRegionError`. Most likely +setup failure; say so plainly. + +`[openai]` is probably the lower-friction default for a Towards AI audience — drops the +Bedrock enablement step at the cost of a second API key. + +--- + +## 9. Article mapping (800–2,500 words) + +| § | Content | Beat | ~Words | +|---|---|---|---| +| 1 | The intern nobody is testing — open on the bug, then the assignment | — | 250 | +| 2 | Setup, honestly: 3 accounts, the region gotcha, what took longest | — | 250 | +| 3 | Parsing and vocabulary: the grep a folder can't do — and why this isn't an anti-BM25 argument | 1 | 550 | +| 4 | Two planes, two guarantees — discovery vs. coordination | — | 300 | +| 5 | Four readers, one desk — and the receipt that makes it resumable | 2 | 400 | +| 6 | An intern that can't be interrupted isn't an intern: the kill test, with numbers | 3 | 350 | +| 7 | What I'd want before production | — | 300 | + +§7 writes itself from §5b: three silent-degradation modes, the 64 MiB read cap (oversized +objects skipped, counted in `SyncReport.failed` during initial sync but only *logged* by +the watchers), write→grep lag, hard AWS coupling, and access control being the +application's job. + +**Do not spend words on:** implementing `BackendProtocol` (LangChain's doc uses an S3 +backend as its skeleton) or `CompositeBackend` mechanics (dedicated tutorial page). + +--- + +## 10. Register notes + +**This post is first person.** Tony's brief asks for a developer's *experience* — install +it, run it, report. That is the opposite of the S3 series register. Do not apply S3 voice +rules here; the de-AI smell audit still applies, the third-person rule does not. + +**The Towards AI AI-Slop Guide is attached to the Wrike ticket and I don't have it.** +Needed before drafting prose. + +**Neutrality:** report what the documents say. The finding is *these numbers differ*, not +*someone was wrong*. + +--- + +## 11. Open items + +1. **Download the docket** with the new API key. Settles G13 (xlsx vs xls) and G14 (DOCX + comment uploads) — together they decide how strong the format argument in Beat 1 is. +2. **G3: sub-agent backend inheritance** — first thing to test once the package installs. + If sub-agents don't inherit, Beat 2 restructures into sequential agents sharing an + explicit backend instance. +3. **PyPI release date** — Alex. Determines `pip install` vs a git URL. +4. **AI-Slop Guide** — pull from Wrike. +5. **Budget** — Atlas tier + embeddings + LLM across ~4 pipeline runs. Real number needed + for the README. +6. **Third-party collision** — `deepagents-backends` (DiTo97) on PyPI ships its own MongoDB + and S3 backends. One clause distinguishing it is enough. + +--- + +# 12. Build guide for Claude Code + +Everything above is the *what*. This section is the *how*, and it exists because the +failure modes here are specific and expensive. + +## 12.1 Prime directive: do not invent the package API + +`langchain-mongodb-deepagents-vfs` is newer than any model's training data. **Read the +source before writing a line against it.** Clone or vendor +`libs/langchain-mongodb-deepagents-vfs/` from the `langchain-ai/langchain-mongodb` +monorepo into the working tree first. + +Specifically, do not guess at: + +- the constructor signature of `MongoFilesystemBackend` +- the shape of `GrepResult` / `GlobResult` / `LsResult` / `FileInfo` / `GrepMatch` +- the `ErrorCode` enum values +- whether `init_errors` is a list, and what `SyncReport` fields are called +- how `CompositeBackend` routes are keyed (leading slash? trailing slash?) + +If a signature can't be confirmed from source, **stop and ask** rather than writing +plausible code. A wrong-but-plausible call here costs more to debug than to prevent, +because errors return as DTOs rather than raising. + +## 12.2 Build order + +Do not scaffold the whole repo up front. Each phase has a gate; do not pass it until the +gate is green. + +**Phase 0 — Verify (write no product code)** +1. Vendor the package source. Read `backends/base.py` and the public `__init__`. +2. Confirm Atlas cluster is 8.1+ (`$rankFusion` requirement) and S3 bucket exists. +3. **Test G3** with a ten-line script: does a sub-agent spawned via `task` inherit the + parent's backend? Write a file as the parent, read it by path from the sub-agent. + *Gate: G3 answered. If NO, §4.3 restructures into sequential agents sharing an explicit + backend instance — flag it and stop.* + +**Phase 1 — Corpus** +4. `corpus/` populated (vendored; `tools/fetch_docket.py` already exists). +5. `00_seed_corpus.py`: upload → block on `grep("warmup")` → assert `init_errors` empty and + `initial_sync_report.failed == 0`. + *Gate: a `grep` for "CADR" returns hits from at least three distinct file types.* + +**Phase 2 — Beat 1** +6. `02_discovery.py`, then the two control arms. + *Gate: the three arms return measurably different results, and the difference is + reproducible across three runs.* + +**Phase 3 — Beat 2** +7. `manifest.py` first (it's the contract), then `agents.py`, then `03_pipeline.py`. + *Gate: the memo names the 1.9 vs 1.80 discrepancy — see §12.3.* + +**Phase 4 — Beat 3** +8. `--kill-after` flag, then `04_resume.py`. + *Gate: resumed run skips completed stages and produces the same memo.* + +**Phase 5 — Presentation** +9. `metrics.py` (tokens, latency, USD), then the notebook. + +## 12.3 Golden answer — the acceptance test + +Without this there is no way to know the demo works. Put it in +`tests/golden_answer.py` and run it against `memo.md`. + +**Question:** *Did DOE adopt what the Joint Stakeholders proposed, and do the +energy-savings numbers agree?* + +**MUST contain (all four — otherwise the demo has failed):** + +| # | Assertion | +|---|---| +| A1 | States that DOE **did** substantially adopt the Joint Stakeholders' proposed levels | +| A2 | Names **both** figures: 1.9 quads and 1.80 quads | +| A3 | Attributes 1.9 to the Joint Stakeholders / commenters, and 1.80 to DOE's own analysis — **not reversed** | +| A4 | Cites at least two distinct source files by path | + +**SHOULD contain (quality signal, not pass/fail):** + +- The rounding: proposed 1.69 / 1.89 / 1.90 / 2.39 / 2.01 / 2.91 → adopted 1.7 / 1.9 / + 1.9 / 2.4 / 2.0 / 2.9 +- The metric distinction: smoke CADR/W (states, ENERGY STAR) vs PM2.5 CADR/W via IEF (DOE) +- The scope floor: state standards from CADR 30; DOE Product Class 1 from 10 + +**MUST NOT contain (automatic fail):** + +- A claim that DOE rejected or ignored the proposal +- Any energy-savings figure not present in the corpus +- The two figures attributed to the wrong parties +- A confident finding when `findings/` was empty — this is the exact bug the article opens + on, and it must fail loudly rather than produce prose + +Grade A1–A4 with substring and regex checks, not an LLM judge. The point is a +deterministic gate. + +## 12.4 Sub-agent prompts + +Draft these by hand; they decide whether the pipeline produces a finding or confident +mush. Shared rules for all three readers: + +> You have read-only access to `corpus/`. Search it with `grep`. Read specific files with +> `read`. **Never** grep `workspace/` — it is not searchable and will return nothing. +> Every claim you write must cite the source file path and, where the tool gives you one, +> the line number. If you cannot find something, write "NOT FOUND" and say what you +> searched for. Do not infer, estimate, or fill gaps from general knowledge. You are +> reading a specific federal docket, not answering from memory. + +**proposal-reader** → `workspace//findings/proposal.md` +> Find what the Joint Stakeholders (also called the Joint Commenters, or the consensus +> agreement) proposed. Report the specific numeric efficiency levels by product class and +> tier, and any energy-savings figure they claimed. Quote the figures exactly as written. + +**adoption-reader** → `findings/adopted.md` +> Find the efficiency levels DOE actually adopted in the final rule, by product class and +> tier, plus the compliance dates. Report DOE's own energy-savings estimate. Also report +> which metric DOE adopted and whether it differs from the metric used in state standards +> or ENERGY STAR. + +**numbers-reader** → `findings/numbers.md` +> Locate every energy-savings figure in the corpus, in quads. For each, record the value, +> who is asserting it, and the source file. Do not reconcile them — just inventory them. +> Check the spreadsheets as well as the rule text. + +**writer** → `memo.md` +> Read `findings/proposal.md`, `findings/adopted.md`, `findings/numbers.md` by exact path. +> **If any is missing or empty, write exactly `INCOMPLETE: ` and +> stop.** Otherwise write a short memo answering: did DOE adopt what the Joint +> Stakeholders proposed, and do the numbers agree? Name any discrepancy explicitly and +> attribute each figure to its source. Report what the documents say — do not editorialize +> about DOE, the rulemaking, or any commenter. The finding is *these numbers differ*, not +> *someone was wrong*. + +That `INCOMPLETE` rule is load-bearing. It is what turns the article's opening bug from an +anecdote into a guardrail. + +## 12.5 `CLAUDE.md` — drop this in the repo root + +```markdown +# Build constraints + +## Architecture invariants — violating these breaks the demo's thesis +- NEVER grep, glob or ls `workspace/`. It is eventually consistent and will return + nothing for recent writes. Coordinate by exact path with `read`. +- NEVER use `StateBackend` as the CompositeBackend default. It is in-process; the kill + test would wipe the workspace. +- `corpus/` is read-only to agents. Enforce via backend permissions if available, + otherwise assert it in code. + +## API usage +- Every backend method returns a DTO. Check `result.error` — do NOT wrap in try/except, + which passes silently over real failures. +- Pass `debug=True` everywhere in this demo so exceptions raise with tracebacks. +- Use the context-manager form so watchers stop cleanly. +- `outputFileType`/output paths: PNG-equivalent rule does not apply here; ignore. + +## Health checks are mandatory +After the first `grep`, assert `backend.init_errors` is empty and +`initial_sync_report.failed == 0`. Three documented failure modes are SILENT: +non-Atlas MongoDB falls back to regex, an unavailable embedding API falls back to +full-text, and a partial sync looks healthy while being incomplete. + +## Do not +- Do not invent the `langchain-mongodb-deepagents-vfs` API. Read the vendored source. +- Do not scaffold phases ahead of their gate (see plan §12.2). +- Do not fetch the docket at runtime. The corpus is vendored. +- Do not add a companion lab, extra CLI flags, or a web UI. Not in scope. +``` + +## 12.6 Definition of done, per script + +| Script | Done when | +|---|---| +| `00_seed_corpus.py` | Uploads, blocks until searchable, asserts both health instruments, prints observed sync lag | +| `01_control_grep.sh` | Runs ripgrep over `corpus/`, prints hit count, exits 0 even with zero hits | +| `01b_control_storebackend.py` | Same query via `StoreBackend` + `MongoDBStore`, prints hits and tokens | +| `02_discovery.py` | Prints hits, file types, and tokens; runs 3× and reports spread | +| `03_pipeline.py` | Writes plan, manifest, three findings, memo; `--kill-after N` SIGKILLs after N stages | +| `04_resume.py` | Reads manifest, skips complete stages, finishes run, passes §12.3 | +| `metrics.py` | Reports tokens, wall-clock and USD for cold / killed / resumed | + +## 12.7 Traps worth knowing before you hit them + +- **The first `grep` blocks.** The constructor is non-blocking; index provisioning, initial + sync and the watcher run in a background daemon thread, and search blocks internally + until the first sync completes. The first call is slow. This is not a hang. +- **`?include=attachments`** is required on both regulations.gov endpoints. Omitting it + returns metadata only and makes it look like the spreadsheets don't exist. +- **64 MiB read cap** applies to `read`, `edit`, `download_files`, initial sync and the + watchers. Oversized objects are skipped, not fatal — counted in `SyncReport.failed` + during initial sync, but only *logged* by the watchers. +- **Region coupling:** `aws_region` governs S3, SQS **and** Bedrock together. They cannot + be split. If Titan v2 isn't enabled in that region, embeddings fail with an explicit + `NoRegionError` (there is no hardcoded fallback). +- **Manifest writes:** only the coordinator writes `manifest.json`. Sub-agents write only + their own namespaced finding file. If shared-file writes ever become necessary, `edit` + is an ETag-verified read-modify-write, not a mutex. diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/notebook/walkthrough.ipynb b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/notebook/walkthrough.ipynb new file mode 100644 index 0000000..05ba695 --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/notebook/walkthrough.ipynb @@ -0,0 +1,234 @@ +{ + "cells": [ + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "id": "842b6abb", + "metadata": {}, + "source": "# MongoDB Atlas VFS for LangChain Deep Agents\n\n**Building a Multi-Agent Pipeline Where Nothing Gets Lost**\n\nThis notebook walks through a multi-agent research pipeline that reads a real federal rulemaking docket (DOE air-cleaner efficiency standards), finds cross-document discrepancies no single file contains, and survives being killed mid-run.\n\n## What you'll see\n\n1. **Beat 1 — Discovery across formats**: hybrid search finds concepts across PDFs, spreadsheets, and DOCX files where literal grep cannot\n2. **Beat 2 — Multi-agent pipeline**: four sub-agents coordinate through a shared durable workspace (via subprocess)\n3. **Beat 3 — The kill test**: kill the pipeline mid-run, resume it, same result (via subprocess)\n\n## Prerequisites\n\n- MongoDB Atlas cluster (M0+ for dev, M10+ for Search/Vector Search)\n- AWS account with S3 bucket\n- OpenAI API key\n- Corpus seeded via `python scripts/00_seed_corpus.py`" + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": null, + "id": "475de64b", + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "# Install dependencies\n", + "%pip install -q langchain-mongodb-deepagents-vfs deepagents langchain-openai pymongo boto3 python-dotenv" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": null, + "id": "4eb456c8", + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "import os\n", + "from datetime import datetime\n", + "\n", + "from dotenv import load_dotenv\n", + "\n", + "load_dotenv(\"../.env\")\n", + "\n", + "# Verify required environment variables\n", + "required = [\"MONGODB_URI\", \"S3_BUCKET_NAME\", \"OPENAI_API_KEY\"]\n", + "missing = [k for k in required if not os.environ.get(k)]\n", + "if missing:\n", + " raise OSError(f\"Missing environment variables: {missing}\")\n", + "\n", + "# Generate unique run IDs so the notebook is re-runnable\n", + "_ts = datetime.now().strftime(\"%m%d-%H%M%S\")\n", + "PIPELINE_RUN_ID = f\"notebook-{_ts}\"\n", + "KILL_RUN_ID = f\"notebook-kill-{_ts}\"\n", + "\n", + "print(\"Environment configured:\")\n", + "print(f\" S3 bucket: {os.environ['S3_BUCKET_NAME']}\")\n", + "print(f\" AWS region: {os.environ.get('AWS_REGION', 'us-east-1')}\")\n", + "print(f\" MongoDB: {'***' + os.environ['MONGODB_URI'][-20:]}\")\n", + "print(f\" Pipeline run ID: {PIPELINE_RUN_ID}\")\n", + "print(f\" Kill test run ID: {KILL_RUN_ID}\")" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "id": "337b5442", + "metadata": {}, + "source": "## Beat 1 — Discovery Across Formats\n\nThree arms compare how different search approaches handle a mixed-format corpus:\n\n| Arm | Method | Limitation |\n|-----|--------|------------|\n| **ripgrep** | Literal string match over local files | Cannot read PDF, XLSX, DOCX |\n| **StoreBackend** | `StoreBackend.grep` — literal substring in Python | Never calls `MongoDBStore.search()`, so vector search is unused |\n| **MongoFilesystemBackend** | Hybrid `$rankFusion` (50/50 fulltext + vector) | Chunk-level, cross-vocabulary |\n\n**Query:** *\"How is air cleaner efficiency measured, and do the state standards use the same metric as DOE?\"*\n\nThe thesis here is **parsing and vocabulary**, not \"vector beats grep.\" BM25 is underrated for agentic search — the two claims that survive the critique are:\n1. BM25 cannot read the spreadsheets or DOCX uploads at all (extraction, not ranking)\n2. Four parties using four names for one metric is not a tuning problem" + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": null, + "id": "448fa00d", + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "import time\n", + "from pathlib import Path\n", + "\n", + "from langchain_mongodb_deepagents_vfs import MongoFilesystemBackend\n", + "\n", + "APP_NAME = \"devrel-tutorial-deepagents-langchain-vfs\"\n", + "\n", + "QUERY = (\n", + " \"How is air cleaner efficiency measured, and do the state standards \"\n", + " \"use the same metric as DOE?\"\n", + ")\n", + "\n", + "# Append appName for DevRel tracking\n", + "mongodb_uri = os.environ[\"MONGODB_URI\"]\n", + "if \"appName=\" not in mongodb_uri and \"appname=\" not in mongodb_uri:\n", + " sep = \"&\" if \"?\" in mongodb_uri else \"?\"\n", + " mongodb_uri = f\"{mongodb_uri}{sep}appName={APP_NAME}\"\n", + "\n", + "# MongoFilesystemBackend — hybrid $rankFusion search\n", + "with MongoFilesystemBackend(\n", + " s3_bucket_name=os.environ[\"S3_BUCKET_NAME\"],\n", + " mongodb_connection_string=mongodb_uri,\n", + " s3_prefix=\"corpus/\",\n", + " aws_region=os.environ.get(\"AWS_REGION\", \"us-east-1\"),\n", + " debug=True,\n", + ") as backend:\n", + " # Warmup grep — blocks until initial sync completes\n", + " backend.grep(\"warmup\")\n", + "\n", + " # Health check — three documented failure modes are SILENT\n", + " assert not backend.init_errors, f\"Init errors: {backend.init_errors}\"\n", + " report = backend.initial_sync_report\n", + " assert (\n", + " report and report.failed == 0\n", + " ), f\"Sync failures: {report.failed if report else 'no report'}\"\n", + " print(\n", + " f\"Sync: {report.seen} seen, {report.processed} processed, \"\n", + " f\"{report.skipped} skipped, {report.failed} failed\"\n", + " )\n", + "\n", + " # Run 3x for reproducibility\n", + " for run_num in range(1, 4):\n", + " t0 = time.monotonic()\n", + " result = backend.grep(QUERY)\n", + " elapsed = time.monotonic() - t0\n", + "\n", + " matches = result.matches or []\n", + " hit_types = {Path(m[\"path\"]).suffix.lower() for m in matches}\n", + "\n", + " # Check vocabulary coverage\n", + " vocab = {\"IEF\": False, \"smoke CADR\": False, \"PM2.5\": False, \"CADR/W\": False}\n", + " for m in matches:\n", + " for term in vocab:\n", + " if term.lower() in m[\"text\"].lower():\n", + " vocab[term] = True\n", + "\n", + " print(f\"\\nRun {run_num}: {len(matches)} matches in {elapsed:.2f}s\")\n", + " print(f\" File types: {sorted(hit_types)}\")\n", + " print(f\" Vocabulary: {vocab}\")\n", + " for m in matches[:3]:\n", + " print(f\" {m['path']}:{m['line']} — {m['text'][:80]}...\")" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "id": "839aac3e", + "metadata": {}, + "source": "## Beat 2 — Multi-Agent Pipeline\n\nThe pipeline runs four sub-agents that share a durable workspace:\n\n```\ncoordinator\n├── writes workspace//manifest.json ← run receipt\n├── task → proposal-reader → findings/proposal.md\n├── task → adoption-reader → findings/adopted.md\n├── task → numbers-reader → findings/numbers.md\n└── task → writer → reads three by path → memo.md\n```\n\n**Two planes, two guarantees:**\n- **Corpus** (discovery): searched by meaning via `grep`, eventually consistent\n- **Workspace** (coordination): read/written by exact path, read-after-write consistent\n\nThe writer reads by known path — immediate, deterministic, no watcher in the coordination path.\n\n> Beats 2 and 3 shell out because a background watcher thread, sub-agent fan-out, and a process kill are not notebook-shaped." + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": null, + "id": "8118e5f2", + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "import subprocess\n", + "\n", + "# Run the full pipeline (cold run)\n", + "result = subprocess.run(\n", + " [\"python\", \"../scripts/03_pipeline.py\", \"--run-id\", PIPELINE_RUN_ID],\n", + " capture_output=True,\n", + " text=True,\n", + " timeout=300,\n", + ")\n", + "print(result.stdout)\n", + "if result.returncode != 0:\n", + " print(\"STDERR:\", result.stderr[-500:] if result.stderr else \"\")" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "id": "adbf8b2a", + "metadata": {}, + "source": "## Beat 3 — The Kill Test\n\nAn intern that can't be interrupted isn't an intern.\n\nWe kill the pipeline after 2 of 4 stages, then resume with the same `run_id`. The coordinator reads `manifest.json`, sees two stages complete, skips them, and runs the rest.\n\n**What to watch for:**\n- The resume skips completed stages\n- The final memo is the same as a cold run\n- `resumed + killed ≈ cold` in tokens and cost" + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": null, + "id": "05c7f2e9", + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "# Step 1: Start a run and kill it after 2 stages\n", + "result = subprocess.run(\n", + " [\n", + " \"python\",\n", + " \"../scripts/03_pipeline.py\",\n", + " \"--run-id\",\n", + " KILL_RUN_ID,\n", + " \"--kill-after\",\n", + " \"2\",\n", + " ],\n", + " capture_output=True,\n", + " text=True,\n", + " timeout=300,\n", + ")\n", + "print(\"--- Kill run output ---\")\n", + "print(result.stdout)\n", + "# Expect non-zero exit (SIGKILL)\n", + "print(f\"Exit code: {result.returncode} (expected: non-zero from SIGKILL)\")" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": null, + "id": "d0e2ddf6", + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "# Step 2: Resume the killed run\n", + "result = subprocess.run(\n", + " [\"python\", \"../scripts/04_resume.py\", \"--run-id\", KILL_RUN_ID],\n", + " capture_output=True,\n", + " text=True,\n", + " timeout=300,\n", + ")\n", + "print(\"--- Resume output ---\")\n", + "print(result.stdout)\n", + "if result.returncode != 0:\n", + " print(\"STDERR:\", result.stderr[-500:] if result.stderr else \"\")" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "id": "cc4c0cef", + "metadata": {}, + "source": "## What's next\n\n**Before production, you'd want:**\n\n1. **Silent-degradation monitoring** — non-Atlas MongoDB silently falls back to regex; an unavailable embedding API silently falls back to full-text only; a partial sync looks healthy while being incomplete. All three produce no error.\n\n2. **The 64 MiB read cap** — oversized objects are skipped, counted in `SyncReport.failed` during initial sync but only *logged* by the watchers.\n\n3. **Write→grep lag** — budget for the watcher interval (10s) plus Atlas indexing time. Don't rely on a file being greppable immediately after writing it.\n\n4. **Access control is the application's job** — `s3_prefix` isolation and `FilesystemPermission` are the tools available; the backend does not enforce ACLs.\n\n5. **Cost tracking per task** — the `manifest.json` run receipt records tokens and USD per stage, making cost reconciliation possible at the trace level rather than coarse spend totals." + } + ], + "metadata": { + "kernelspec": { + "display_name": "Python 3", + "language": "python", + "name": "python3" + }, + "language_info": { + "name": "python", + "version": "3.11.0" + }, + "widgets": { + "application/vnd.jupyter.widget-state+json": { + "state": {} + } + } + }, + "nbformat": 4, + "nbformat_minor": 5 +} diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/pyproject.toml b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/pyproject.toml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0e5e91e --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/pyproject.toml @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +[build-system] +requires = ["hatchling"] +build-backend = "hatchling.build" + +[project] +name = "langchain-deepagents-mongodb-vfs-demo" +version = "0.1.0" +description = "Multi-agent pipeline demo: MongoDB Atlas VFS for LangChain Deep Agents" +readme = "README.md" +requires-python = ">=3.11" +license = "Apache-2.0" + +dependencies = [ + # Pin to commit SHA until PyPI release lands — see plan §5a + "langchain-mongodb-deepagents-vfs @ git+https://github.com/langchain-ai/langchain-mongodb.git@main#subdirectory=libs/langchain-mongodb-deepagents-vfs", + "deepagents>=0.6.0", + "langchain-openai>=0.3.0", + "pymongo>=4.7", + "boto3>=1.34", + "python-dotenv>=1.0", + "tiktoken>=0.7", +] + +[project.optional-dependencies] +openai = ["openai>=1.30"] +bedrock = ["langchain-aws>=0.2"] +dev = ["ruff", "pytest"] diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/00_seed_corpus.py b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/00_seed_corpus.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..08e0565 --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/00_seed_corpus.py @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +"""Seed the corpus into S3 and block until MongoDB is searchable. + +Uploads all files from corpus/ to S3 under the corpus/ prefix, then +blocks until grep returns results and both health instruments are green. + +Gate: a grep for "CADR" returns hits from at least three distinct file types. +""" + +from __future__ import annotations + +import os +import sys +import time +from pathlib import Path + +from dotenv import load_dotenv +from langchain_mongodb_deepagents_vfs import MongoFilesystemBackend + +load_dotenv() + +CORPUS_DIR = Path(__file__).resolve().parent.parent / "corpus" +S3_PREFIX = "corpus/" +APP_NAME = "devrel-tutorial-deepagents-langchain-vfs" + + +def collect_corpus_files() -> list[tuple[str, bytes]]: + """Walk corpus/ and return (s3_key, bytes) tuples.""" + files: list[tuple[str, bytes]] = [] + for path in sorted(CORPUS_DIR.rglob("*")): + if path.is_file() and not path.name.startswith("."): + relative = path.relative_to(CORPUS_DIR) + s3_key = f"{S3_PREFIX}{relative}" + files.append((s3_key, path.read_bytes())) + return files + + +def main() -> None: + if not CORPUS_DIR.exists(): + print(f"ERROR: corpus directory not found at {CORPUS_DIR}") + sys.exit(1) + + files = collect_corpus_files() + if not files: + print("ERROR: no files found in corpus/") + sys.exit(1) + + print(f"Found {len(files)} corpus files to upload:") + for key, data in files: + print(f" {key} ({len(data):,} bytes)") + + mongodb_uri = os.environ["MONGODB_URI"] + if "appName=" not in mongodb_uri and "appname=" not in mongodb_uri: + sep = "&" if "?" in mongodb_uri else "?" + mongodb_uri = f"{mongodb_uri}{sep}appName={APP_NAME}" + + with MongoFilesystemBackend( + s3_bucket_name=os.environ["S3_BUCKET_NAME"], + mongodb_connection_string=mongodb_uri, + s3_prefix=S3_PREFIX, + aws_region=os.environ.get("AWS_REGION", "us-east-1"), + debug=True, + ) as backend: + # Upload + print("\nUploading to S3...") + results = backend.upload_files(files) + failed_uploads = [r for r in results if r.error] + if failed_uploads: + for r in failed_uploads: + print(f" FAILED: {r.path} — {r.error}") + sys.exit(1) + print(f" Uploaded {len(results)} files.") + + # Block until searchable — the first grep blocks internally until + # initial sync completes. This is not a hang; the constructor is + # non-blocking and the first search waits for the daemon thread. + print("\nWaiting for initial sync and index build...") + t0 = time.monotonic() + warmup = backend.grep("warmup") + sync_lag = time.monotonic() - t0 + print(f" First grep returned in {sync_lag:.1f}s") + + # Assert both health instruments + assert not backend.init_errors, f"Init errors: {backend.init_errors}" + report = backend.initial_sync_report + assert report is not None, "initial_sync_report is None — sync raised" + assert ( + report.failed == 0 + ), f"{report.failed}/{report.seen} objects not searchable" + print( + f" Sync healthy: {report.seen} seen, {report.processed} processed, " + f"{report.skipped} skipped, {report.failed} failed" + ) + + # Gate: grep for "CADR" must hit at least 3 file types + print("\nGate check: grep for 'CADR'...") + result = backend.grep("CADR") + if result.error: + print(f" ERROR: {result.error}") + sys.exit(1) + + hit_types: set[str] = set() + for match in result.matches or []: + ext = Path(match["path"]).suffix.lower() + hit_types.add(ext) + print(f" Hit: {match['path']}:{match['line']} — {match['text'][:80]}...") + + print(f"\n File types with hits: {sorted(hit_types)}") + if len(hit_types) < 3: + print( + f" WARNING: expected hits from >= 3 file types, got {len(hit_types)}. " + f"Beat 1's format argument depends on cross-format search." + ) + else: + print(" GATE PASSED: hits from 3+ file types.") + + print(f"\nCorpus seeded. Observed sync lag: {sync_lag:.1f}s") + + +if __name__ == "__main__": + main() diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/01_control_grep.sh b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/01_control_grep.sh new file mode 100755 index 0000000..8e5c8d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/01_control_grep.sh @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +#!/usr/bin/env bash +# Beat 1, Control Arm A — ripgrep over local corpus files. +# +# Expected result: cannot read XLS(X), DOCX, or PDF content. +# Post-extraction, literal grep "IEF" misses "smoke CADR/W" and "CADR per watt". +# +# This arm exists to show the extraction gap, not the ranking gap. + +set -euo pipefail + +CORPUS_DIR="$(cd "$(dirname "$0")/../corpus" && pwd)" + +echo "================================================================" +echo "Beat 1 — Control: ripgrep over local corpus/" +echo "================================================================" +echo "" +echo "Query: 'How is air cleaner efficiency measured?'" +echo "Searching for: IEF, CADR, efficiency, smoke CADR" +echo "" + +for term in "IEF" "CADR" "smoke CADR" "CADR per watt" "efficiency"; do + echo "--- grep for '$term' ---" + count=$(rg --count-matches "$term" "$CORPUS_DIR" 2>/dev/null | wc -l || true) + echo " Files with matches: $count" + if [ "$count" -gt 0 ]; then + rg -l "$term" "$CORPUS_DIR" 2>/dev/null | while read -r f; do + ext="${f##*.}" + echo " $ext: $(basename "$f")" + done + fi + echo "" +done + +echo "================================================================" +echo "Summary: ripgrep can only search plain-text content." +echo "Binary formats (PDF, XLSX, DOCX) are opaque to literal search." +echo "Even in text, 'IEF' misses 'smoke CADR/W' and 'CADR per watt'." +echo "================================================================" diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/01b_control_storebackend.py b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/01b_control_storebackend.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bffa6bb --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/01b_control_storebackend.py @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ +"""Beat 1, Control Arm B — StoreBackend + MongoDBStore. + +Expected result: searches run, but StoreBackend.grep fetches every item +in the namespace and matches literal substrings in Python — it never +passes `query` to MongoDBStore.search(), so the vector search sitting +right there goes unused. Same miss as ripgrep, whole files in memory. + +The limitation is in StoreBackend's wiring, not MongoDBStore's ceiling. +""" + +from __future__ import annotations + +import os + +from deepagents.backends import StoreBackend +from dotenv import load_dotenv +from langgraph.store.memory import InMemoryStore + +load_dotenv() + +QUERY = ( + "How is air cleaner efficiency measured, and do the state standards " + "use the same metric as DOE?" +) +NUM_RUNS = 3 + + +def main() -> None: + print("=" * 64) + print("Beat 1 — Control: StoreBackend + MongoDBStore") + print("=" * 64) + print(f"\nQuery: {QUERY}\n") + + store = InMemoryStore() + backend = StoreBackend(namespace=lambda _rt: ("filesystem",), store=store) + + # Populate the store from local .htm files (the text-readable subset of + # the corpus). Binary formats (PDF, XLSX, DOCX) are skipped — StoreBackend + # stores raw text, not parsed documents. + from pathlib import Path + + corpus_dir = Path(__file__).resolve().parent.parent / "corpus" + print("Loading corpus text files into StoreBackend namespace...") + file_count = 0 + for htm_file in sorted(corpus_dir.rglob("*.htm")): + rel = htm_file.relative_to(corpus_dir.parent) + content = htm_file.read_text(errors="replace") + result = backend.write(f"/{rel}", content) + if not result.error: + file_count += 1 + print(f" Loaded {file_count} text files into StoreBackend.\n") + + # Natural-language query — literal substring matching will miss this + print("--- Natural-language grep (full query) ---") + result = backend.grep(QUERY) + matches = result.matches or [] + print( + f" Matches: {len(matches)} (literal substring — no sentence matches verbatim)\n" + ) + + # Individual terms — shows StoreBackend CAN match, but only on exact text + print("--- Literal term grep (individual keywords) ---") + terms = ["IEF", "CADR", "smoke CADR", "CADR per watt", "efficiency"] + for term in terms: + r = backend.grep(term) + m = r.matches or [] + types = sorted({os.path.splitext(x["path"])[1] for x in m}) if m else [] + print(f" \"{term}\": {len(m)} matches (files: {', '.join(types) or 'none'})") + + print() + print("--- Limitation ---") + print(" StoreBackend only searches .htm text files (5 of 45 in the corpus).") + print(" Binary formats (PDF, XLSX, DOCX) cannot be loaded.") + print(" Grep is literal substring — a natural-language query returns 0.") + print() + + print("=" * 64) + print("StoreBackend.grep uses literal substring matching in Python.") + print("MongoDBStore.search() (vector search) is never called.") + print("=" * 64) + + +if __name__ == "__main__": + main() diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/02_discovery.py b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/02_discovery.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a2b43ef --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/02_discovery.py @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ +"""Beat 1 — Discovery across formats with MongoFilesystemBackend. + +Hybrid $rankFusion search (50/50 fulltext + vector) at chunk level. +Surfaces the metric discussion across all four vocabularies: + smoke CADR/W, PM2.5 CADR/W, IEF, CADR per watt. + +Gate: three arms return measurably different results, reproducible +across three runs. +""" + +from __future__ import annotations + +import os +import time +from pathlib import Path + +from dotenv import load_dotenv +from langchain_mongodb_deepagents_vfs import MongoFilesystemBackend + +load_dotenv() + +APP_NAME = "devrel-tutorial-deepagents-langchain-vfs" + +QUERY = ( + "How is air cleaner efficiency measured, and do the state standards " + "use the same metric as DOE?" +) +NUM_RUNS = 3 + + +def main() -> None: + print("=" * 64) + print("Beat 1 — MongoFilesystemBackend: hybrid $rankFusion search") + print("=" * 64) + print(f"\nQuery: {QUERY}\n") + + mongodb_uri = os.environ["MONGODB_URI"] + if "appName=" not in mongodb_uri and "appname=" not in mongodb_uri: + sep = "&" if "?" in mongodb_uri else "?" + mongodb_uri = f"{mongodb_uri}{sep}appName={APP_NAME}" + + with MongoFilesystemBackend( + s3_bucket_name=os.environ["S3_BUCKET_NAME"], + mongodb_connection_string=mongodb_uri, + s3_prefix="corpus/", + aws_region=os.environ.get("AWS_REGION", "us-east-1"), + debug=True, + ) as backend: + # Warmup grep — blocks until initial sync completes + backend.grep("warmup") + + # Health check (only valid after first grep unblocks) + assert not backend.init_errors, f"Init errors: {backend.init_errors}" + report = backend.initial_sync_report + assert ( + report and report.failed == 0 + ), f"Sync failures: {report.failed if report else 'no report'}" + + for run_num in range(1, NUM_RUNS + 1): + print(f"--- Run {run_num}/{NUM_RUNS} ---") + t0 = time.monotonic() + result = backend.grep(QUERY) + elapsed = time.monotonic() - t0 + + if result.error: + print(f" ERROR: {result.error}") + continue + + matches = result.matches or [] + print(f" Matches: {len(matches)}") + print(f" Time: {elapsed:.2f}s") + + # Analyze results + hit_types: set[str] = set() + vocab_terms = { + "IEF": False, + "smoke CADR": False, + "PM2.5": False, + "CADR per watt": False, + "CADR/W": False, + } + + for m in matches: + ext = Path(m["path"]).suffix.lower() + hit_types.add(ext) + text_lower = m["text"].lower() + for term in vocab_terms: + if term.lower() in text_lower: + vocab_terms[term] = True + + print(f" File types: {sorted(hit_types)}") + print(" Vocabulary coverage:") + for term, found in vocab_terms.items(): + status = "FOUND" if found else "MISSED" + print(f" {term}: {status}") + + # Show top hits + print(" Top 5 matches:") + for m in matches[:5]: + print(f" {m['path']}:{m['line']}") + print(f" {m['text'][:100]}...") + print() + + print("=" * 64) + print("Hybrid search finds the metric discussion across vocabularies") + print("and file formats that ripgrep and StoreBackend cannot reach.") + print("=" * 64) + + +if __name__ == "__main__": + main() diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/03_pipeline.py b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/03_pipeline.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..16e0132 --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/03_pipeline.py @@ -0,0 +1,226 @@ +"""Beat 2 — Multi-agent pipeline with shared workspace. + +Four sub-agents search a read-only corpus and write findings to a durable +workspace. A writer reads those findings by exact path and produces a memo. + +Usage: + python scripts/03_pipeline.py --run-id aircleaners-001 + python scripts/03_pipeline.py --run-id aircleaners-002 --kill-after 2 + +The --kill-after flag sends SIGKILL after N stages complete, simulating +a crash. Use 04_resume.py to pick up where it left off. +""" + +from __future__ import annotations + +import argparse +import os +import signal +import sys +import time + +from dotenv import load_dotenv +from langchain_mongodb_deepagents_vfs import AdapterError + +sys.path.insert(0, os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), "..", "src")) + +from vfs_demo.agents import ( + STAGE_NAMES, + STAGE_OUTPUT_PATHS, + STAGE_SUBAGENTS, + create_coordinator, +) +from vfs_demo.backend import create_backend +from vfs_demo.manifest import Manifest, load_manifest, save_manifest +from vfs_demo.metrics import RunMetrics, StageMetrics + +load_dotenv() + +QUESTION = ( + "Did DOE adopt what the Joint Stakeholders proposed, " + "and do the energy-savings numbers agree?" +) + + +def run_pipeline(run_id: str, kill_after: int | None = None) -> None: + print("=" * 64) + print(f"Pipeline: {run_id}") + print(f"Question: {QUESTION}") + if kill_after: + print(f"Will SIGKILL after {kill_after} stage(s)") + print("=" * 64) + + with create_backend() as backend: + # Check for existing manifest (resume case) + manifest = load_manifest(backend, run_id) + if manifest: + print(f"\nFound existing manifest for {run_id}") + completed = manifest.completed_stages() + print(f" Completed stages: {[s.name for s in completed]}") + pending = manifest.pending_stages() + print(f" Pending stages: {[s.name for s in pending]}") + else: + print(f"\nFresh run: {run_id}") + manifest = Manifest.new( + run_id=run_id, + question=QUESTION, + woke_up_by=f"cli:03_pipeline.py --run-id {run_id}", + stage_names=STAGE_NAMES, + ) + + # Check what files already exist in workspace + existing = [] + try: + ls_result = backend.ls(f"workspace/{run_id}/") + if not ls_result.error and ls_result.entries: + existing = [e["path"] for e in ls_result.entries if not e.get("is_dir")] + except AdapterError: + pass # debug=True re-raises on empty prefix — expected for fresh runs + manifest.describe_inherited_state(existing) + + # Write initial manifest + save_manifest(backend, run_id, manifest) + + # Write the plan + plan_path = f"workspace/{run_id}/plan.md" + plan_content = f"# Research Plan\n\n**Question:** {QUESTION}\n\n" + plan_content += "## Stages\n\n" + for stage in STAGE_NAMES: + plan_content += f"- {stage}: {STAGE_OUTPUT_PATHS[stage]}\n" + backend.write(plan_path, plan_content) + + # Create the coordinator agent + coordinator = create_coordinator(backend) + + # Run metrics + run_metrics = RunMetrics(run_id=run_id, run_type="cold") + run_metrics.start() + + stages_completed = 0 + + for stage in manifest.stages: + if stage.status == "complete": + print(f"\n Skipping {stage.name} (already complete)") + stages_completed += 1 + continue + + print(f"\n Running stage: {stage.name}...") + stage.mark_started() + save_manifest(backend, run_id, manifest) + + t0 = time.monotonic() + output_path = f"workspace/{run_id}/{STAGE_OUTPUT_PATHS[stage.name]}" + subagent_name = STAGE_SUBAGENTS[stage.name] + + # Build the task instruction for the coordinator + if stage.name == "writer": + task_msg = ( + f"Use the '{subagent_name}' sub-agent. " + f"Read the findings from " + f"workspace/{run_id}/findings/proposal.md, " + f"workspace/{run_id}/findings/adopted.md, and " + f"workspace/{run_id}/findings/numbers.md. " + f"Write the final memo to {output_path}." + ) + else: + task_msg = ( + f"Use the '{subagent_name}' sub-agent to search the " + f"corpus and write findings to {output_path}." + ) + + try: + result = coordinator.invoke( + {"messages": task_msg}, + ) + + elapsed = time.monotonic() - t0 + + # Log agent messages for debugging + if "messages" in result: + for msg in result["messages"][-3:]: + role = type(msg).__name__ + content = str(msg.content)[:200] + print(f" [{role}] {content}") + + # Extract token usage from result if available + tokens = 0 + usage = {} + if hasattr(result, "get"): + usage = result.get("usage", {}) + tokens = usage.get("total_tokens", 0) + + stage_metrics = StageMetrics( + name=stage.name, + input_tokens=usage.get("input_tokens", 0) + if isinstance(usage, dict) + else 0, + output_tokens=usage.get("output_tokens", 0) + if isinstance(usage, dict) + else 0, + wall_clock_seconds=elapsed, + ) + run_metrics.add_stage(stage_metrics) + + # Verify the output file was written + try: + verify = backend.read(output_path) + except AdapterError: + verify = None + if verify is None or verify.error: + err = verify.error if verify else "file not found" + stage.mark_failed(f"Output not written: {err}") + print(f" FAILED: output not written at {output_path}") + elif verify.file_data and verify.file_data[ + "content" + ].strip().startswith("NOT FOUND"): + stage.mark_failed("Agent wrote NOT FOUND — search failed") + print(f" FAILED: agent could not find content for {stage.name}") + else: + stage.mark_complete( + tokens=stage_metrics.total_tokens, + usd=stage_metrics.usd_cost, + ) + print(f" Complete: {output_path} ({elapsed:.1f}s)") + + except Exception as e: + stage.mark_failed(str(e)) + print(f" FAILED: {e}") + + manifest.update_evidence() + save_manifest(backend, run_id, manifest) + + stages_completed += 1 + + # Kill test: SIGKILL after N stages + if kill_after and stages_completed >= kill_after: + print(f"\n --kill-after {kill_after}: sending SIGKILL") + save_manifest(backend, run_id, manifest) + os.kill(os.getpid(), signal.SIGKILL) + + # Final report + print("\n" + "=" * 64) + print("Pipeline complete") + print("=" * 64) + print(f"\nManifest: workspace/{run_id}/manifest.json") + print(f"Evidence: {manifest.evidence}") + print(f"\n{run_metrics.report()}") + + # Save final manifest + save_manifest(backend, run_id, manifest) + + +def main() -> None: + parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Run the multi-agent pipeline") + parser.add_argument("--run-id", required=True, help="Unique run identifier") + parser.add_argument( + "--kill-after", + type=int, + default=None, + help="SIGKILL after N stages complete (for kill test)", + ) + args = parser.parse_args() + run_pipeline(args.run_id, args.kill_after) + + +if __name__ == "__main__": + main() diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/04_resume.py b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/04_resume.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b37e745 --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/scripts/04_resume.py @@ -0,0 +1,200 @@ +"""Beat 3 — Resume a killed pipeline run. + +Reads the manifest from workspace//manifest.json, identifies +which stages completed before the kill, and runs only the remaining ones. + +Usage: + python scripts/04_resume.py --run-id aircleaners-002 + +Gate: resumed run skips completed stages and produces the same memo. +""" + +from __future__ import annotations + +import argparse +import os +import sys +import time + +from dotenv import load_dotenv +from langchain_mongodb_deepagents_vfs import AdapterError + +sys.path.insert(0, os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), "..", "src")) + +from vfs_demo.agents import ( + STAGE_OUTPUT_PATHS, + STAGE_SUBAGENTS, + create_coordinator, +) +from vfs_demo.backend import create_backend +from vfs_demo.manifest import load_manifest, save_manifest +from vfs_demo.metrics import RunMetrics, StageMetrics + +load_dotenv() + + +def resume_pipeline(run_id: str) -> None: + print("=" * 64) + print(f"Resuming pipeline: {run_id}") + print("=" * 64) + + with create_backend() as backend: + # Load manifest — must exist for a resume + manifest = load_manifest(backend, run_id) + if not manifest: + print(f"ERROR: no manifest found for run_id={run_id}") + print(f" Expected: workspace/{run_id}/manifest.json") + print(" Run 03_pipeline.py first to start a run.") + sys.exit(1) + + print(f"\nQuestion: {manifest.question}") + print(f"Woke up by: {manifest.woke_up_by}") + + completed = manifest.completed_stages() + pending = manifest.pending_stages() + print(f"\nCompleted stages ({len(completed)}):") + for s in completed: + print(f" {s.name}: {s.output} ({s.tokens:,} tokens, ${s.usd:.4f})") + print(f"\nPending stages ({len(pending)}):") + for s in pending: + print(f" {s.name}: {s.output}") + + if not pending: + print("\nAll stages already complete — nothing to resume.") + return + + # Check what evidence survived the kill + existing = [] + try: + ls_result = backend.ls(f"workspace/{run_id}/") + if not ls_result.error and ls_result.entries: + existing = [e["path"] for e in ls_result.entries if not e.get("is_dir")] + except AdapterError: + pass # debug=True re-raises on empty prefix + print(f"\nFiles surviving in workspace: {len(existing)}") + for f in existing: + print(f" {f}") + + # Update manifest with inherited state + manifest.inherited_state = ( + f"workspace/{run_id}/ " + f"({len(completed)} stages complete, " + f"{len(existing)} files present at resume)" + ) + manifest.woke_up_by = f"cli:04_resume.py --run-id {run_id}" + save_manifest(backend, run_id, manifest) + + # Create coordinator + coordinator = create_coordinator(backend) + + # Run metrics for the resumed portion + run_metrics = RunMetrics(run_id=run_id, run_type="resumed") + run_metrics.start() + + for stage in manifest.stages: + if stage.status == "complete": + print(f"\n Skipping {stage.name} (already complete)") + continue + + print(f"\n Running stage: {stage.name}...") + stage.mark_started() + save_manifest(backend, run_id, manifest) + + t0 = time.monotonic() + output_path = f"workspace/{run_id}/{STAGE_OUTPUT_PATHS[stage.name]}" + subagent_name = STAGE_SUBAGENTS[stage.name] + + if stage.name == "writer": + task_msg = ( + f"Use the '{subagent_name}' sub-agent. " + f"Read the findings from " + f"workspace/{run_id}/findings/proposal.md, " + f"workspace/{run_id}/findings/adopted.md, and " + f"workspace/{run_id}/findings/numbers.md. " + f"Write the final memo to {output_path}." + ) + else: + task_msg = ( + f"Use the '{subagent_name}' sub-agent to search the " + f"corpus and write findings to {output_path}." + ) + + try: + result = coordinator.invoke({"messages": task_msg}) + elapsed = time.monotonic() - t0 + + tokens = 0 + usage = {} + if hasattr(result, "get"): + usage = result.get("usage", {}) + tokens = usage.get("total_tokens", 0) + + stage_metrics = StageMetrics( + name=stage.name, + input_tokens=usage.get("input_tokens", 0) + if isinstance(usage, dict) + else 0, + output_tokens=usage.get("output_tokens", 0) + if isinstance(usage, dict) + else 0, + wall_clock_seconds=elapsed, + ) + run_metrics.add_stage(stage_metrics) + + try: + verify = backend.read(output_path) + except AdapterError: + verify = None + if verify is None or verify.error: + err = verify.error if verify else "file not found" + stage.mark_failed(f"Output not written: {err}") + print(f" FAILED: output not written at {output_path}") + elif verify.file_data and verify.file_data[ + "content" + ].strip().startswith("NOT FOUND"): + stage.mark_failed("Agent wrote NOT FOUND — search failed") + print(f" FAILED: agent could not find content for {stage.name}") + else: + stage.mark_complete( + tokens=stage_metrics.total_tokens, + usd=stage_metrics.usd_cost, + ) + print(f" Complete: {output_path} ({elapsed:.1f}s)") + + except Exception as e: + stage.mark_failed(str(e)) + print(f" FAILED: {e}") + + manifest.update_evidence() + save_manifest(backend, run_id, manifest) + + # Final report + print("\n" + "=" * 64) + print("Resume complete") + print("=" * 64) + print(f"\nManifest: workspace/{run_id}/manifest.json") + print(f"Evidence: {manifest.evidence}") + print(f"\n{run_metrics.report()}") + + # Read and display the memo + memo_path = f"workspace/{run_id}/memo.md" + try: + memo_result = backend.read(memo_path) + if not memo_result.error and memo_result.file_data: + print("\n" + "=" * 64) + print("MEMO") + print("=" * 64) + print(memo_result.file_data["content"]) + except AdapterError: + print("\nWARNING: memo not found — pipeline may not have completed") + + +def main() -> None: + parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Resume a killed pipeline run") + parser.add_argument("--run-id", required=True, help="Run ID to resume") + args = parser.parse_args() + resume_pipeline(args.run_id) + + +if __name__ == "__main__": + main() diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/__init__.py b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/__init__.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..935c3e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/__init__.py @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +"""VFS Demo — MongoDB Atlas VFS for LangChain Deep Agents.""" diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/agents.py b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/agents.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f6a962f --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/agents.py @@ -0,0 +1,286 @@ +"""Agent definitions — coordinator + four sub-agents. + +The coordinator spawns sub-agents via the built-in `task` tool. +Sub-agents inherit the parent's CompositeBackend automatically. + +Prompts follow plan §12.4 — these decide whether the pipeline produces +a finding or confident mush. +""" + +from __future__ import annotations + +from deepagents import FilesystemPermission, SubAgent, create_deep_agent +from deepagents.backends import CompositeBackend + +# ── Shared rules for all three reader sub-agents ────────────────────── + +_READER_RULES = """\ +You have read-only access to `/corpus/`. Search it with `grep` using \ +`path="/corpus/"`. Read specific files with `read_file`. \ +**Never** grep or read `/workspace/` — it is not searchable and will \ +return nothing for grep. + +Every claim you write must cite the source file path and line number. \ +Do not infer, estimate, or fill gaps from general knowledge. You are \ +reading a specific federal docket, not answering from memory. + +**CRITICAL — always write your output file.** You MUST call `write_file` to \ +write your findings to the path given in your task instructions, even if you \ +found nothing. If you cannot find something, write "NOT FOUND" and list what \ +you searched for. + +**Search strategy — this is important:** +- Always pass `path="/corpus/"` to grep so you search the corpus, not the \ +workspace. +- Use `output_mode="content"` to see the actual matching text, not just \ +filenames. +- grep here does hybrid semantic search, not literal matching. Use short \ +natural-language phrases (2-6 words). Good: "IEF", "CADR per watt", \ +"joint stakeholder", "energy savings quads", "compliance date". \ +Bad: "What did the Joint Stakeholders propose for efficiency levels?" +- Run at least 5 different grep queries with varied vocabulary before \ +concluding something is not found. +- When grep returns matches, you can use `read_file` to get more context, \ +but **always pass offset and limit** (e.g. offset=line_number-5, limit=30) \ +to read only a small window around the match. Never read an entire large \ +file — the corpus has PDFs and spreadsheets whose extracted text can be \ +very large. Reading them in full will cause errors. +- The corpus contains PDFs, spreadsheets (.xlsm, .xlsx), XML, HTM, and \ +DOCX files. Their extracted text may have OCR artifacts or odd spacing.""" + +# ── Sub-agent definitions (plan §12.4) ──────────────────────────────── + +proposal_reader: SubAgent = { + "name": "proposal-reader", + "description": ( + "Finds what the Joint Stakeholders proposed in the air cleaner " + "efficiency rulemaking docket and writes findings to a file." + ), + "system_prompt": f"""{_READER_RULES} + +Find what the Joint Stakeholders proposed for air cleaner efficiency standards. \ +They are also called "Joint Commenters" or referenced via the "consensus \ +agreement" or "joint recommendation." + +Start with these grep queries (path="/corpus/", output_mode="content"): +1. "joint stakeholder" — finds their filings +2. "joint recommendation" — finds the recommendation letter +3. "proposed standard level" — finds proposed IEF tiers +4. "IEF" — finds efficiency metric discussions +5. "PM2.5 CADR" — finds product class definitions + +Focus on files in /corpus/comments/ with "Joint" in the name, and \ +/corpus/analysis/ files. If you need more context from a match, use \ +read_file with offset and limit to read a small window (30-50 lines) \ +around the matched line. + +Report: +- The specific numeric IEF levels by product class and tier +- Any energy-savings figure the Joint Stakeholders claimed (in quads) +- The metric they proposed (IEF = PM2.5 CADR/W) +Quote the figures exactly as written in the source. + +Write your findings to the file path given in your task instructions.""", + "permissions": [ + FilesystemPermission(operations=["read"], paths=["/corpus/**"], mode="allow"), + FilesystemPermission( + operations=["write"], + paths=["/workspace/**"], + mode="allow", + ), + FilesystemPermission(operations=["write"], paths=["/**"], mode="deny"), + ], +} + +adoption_reader: SubAgent = { + "name": "adoption-reader", + "description": ( + "Finds the efficiency levels DOE actually adopted in the final rule " + "and writes findings to a file." + ), + "system_prompt": f"""{_READER_RULES} + +Find the efficiency levels DOE actually adopted in the final rule for air \ +cleaners (docket EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035). + +Start with these grep queries (path="/corpus/", output_mode="content"): +1. "adopted standard" — finds what DOE adopted +2. "final rule air cleaner" — finds the final rule text +3. "compliance date" — finds effective dates +4. "national energy savings" — finds DOE's savings estimate +5. "product class tier" — finds the IEF table + +Focus on /corpus/rules/ files and /corpus/analysis/ files (especially \ +0025 and 0026). If you need more context from a match, use read_file \ +with offset and limit to read a small window (30-50 lines) around the \ +matched line. + +Report: +- The adopted IEF levels by product class (PM2.5 CADR range) and tier +- Compliance dates for each tier +- DOE's energy-savings estimate in quads +- Which metric DOE adopted (IEF = PM2.5 CADR/W) and whether it differs \ +from state standards or ENERGY STAR + +Write your findings to the file path given in your task instructions.""", + "permissions": [ + FilesystemPermission(operations=["read"], paths=["/corpus/**"], mode="allow"), + FilesystemPermission( + operations=["write"], + paths=["/workspace/**"], + mode="allow", + ), + FilesystemPermission(operations=["write"], paths=["/**"], mode="deny"), + ], +} + +numbers_reader: SubAgent = { + "name": "numbers-reader", + "description": ( + "Inventories every energy-savings figure in the corpus, in quads, " + "with source attribution." + ), + "system_prompt": f"""{_READER_RULES} + +Inventory every energy-savings figure in the corpus. These are measured in \ +quads (quadrillion BTU) and represent cumulative national energy savings \ +over a 30-year analysis period. + +Start with these grep queries (path="/corpus/", output_mode="content"): +1. "energy savings quads" — finds savings figures directly +2. "national energy savings" — finds DOE's estimates +3. "quad" — finds all mentions of the unit +4. "annual energy" — finds annual consumption/savings data +5. "CADR per watt" — finds efficiency figures near savings data + +Pay special attention to: +- /corpus/rules/ files (the final rule states DOE's official estimate) +- /corpus/analysis/ files (the TSD and NIA spreadsheets have detailed numbers) +- /corpus/comments/ files (stakeholders may cite different savings figures) +If you need more context from a match, use read_file with offset and limit \ +to read a small window (30-50 lines) around the matched line. + +For each figure, record: +- The value (e.g. "1.80 quads" or "0.49 quads") +- Who asserts it (DOE, Joint Stakeholders, a specific commenter) +- The source file path and line number + +Do not reconcile the figures — just list them all. Discrepancies between \ +sources are the point of this exercise. + +Write your findings to the file path given in your task instructions.""", + "permissions": [ + FilesystemPermission(operations=["read"], paths=["/corpus/**"], mode="allow"), + FilesystemPermission( + operations=["write"], + paths=["/workspace/**"], + mode="allow", + ), + FilesystemPermission(operations=["write"], paths=["/**"], mode="deny"), + ], +} + +writer: SubAgent = { + "name": "writer", + "description": ( + "Reads the three findings files by exact path and writes the final " + "memo answering the research question." + ), + "system_prompt": """\ +Read `findings/proposal.md`, `findings/adopted.md`, `findings/numbers.md` \ +by exact path from the workspace. **If any is missing or empty, write \ +exactly `INCOMPLETE: ` to the output file and stop.** + +Otherwise write a short memo answering: did DOE adopt what the Joint \ +Stakeholders proposed, and do the numbers agree? Name any discrepancy \ +explicitly and attribute each figure to its source. Report what the \ +documents say — do not editorialize about DOE, the rulemaking, or any \ +commenter. The finding is *these numbers differ*, not *someone was wrong*. + +**CRITICAL — always call `write_file`** to write your output to the path \ +given in your task instructions, no matter what.""", + "permissions": [ + FilesystemPermission( + operations=["read"], paths=["/workspace/**"], mode="allow" + ), + FilesystemPermission( + operations=["write"], + paths=["/workspace/**"], + mode="allow", + ), + FilesystemPermission(operations=["write"], paths=["/**"], mode="deny"), + ], +} + +# ── Stage definitions ───────────────────────────────────────────────── + +STAGE_NAMES = ["proposal", "adopted", "numbers", "writer"] + +STAGE_SUBAGENTS = { + "proposal": "proposal-reader", + "adopted": "adoption-reader", + "numbers": "numbers-reader", + "writer": "writer", +} + +STAGE_OUTPUT_PATHS = { + "proposal": "findings/proposal.md", + "adopted": "findings/adopted.md", + "numbers": "findings/numbers.md", + "writer": "memo.md", +} + + +def create_coordinator( + backend: CompositeBackend, + model: str = "openai:gpt-4o", +) -> object: + """Create the coordinator agent with all four sub-agents. + + Args: + backend: The CompositeBackend wiring corpus (read) and workspace (read-write). + model: Model identifier for the coordinator and sub-agents. + + Returns: + A compiled LangGraph agent (CompiledStateGraph). + """ + return create_deep_agent( + model=model, + backend=backend, + subagents=[proposal_reader, adoption_reader, numbers_reader, writer], + system_prompt="""\ +You are a coordinator managing a research pipeline analyzing DOE docket \ +EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035 (Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners). + +Your job is to answer: "Did DOE adopt what the Joint Stakeholders proposed, \ +and do the energy-savings numbers agree?" + +You have four sub-agents. Delegate work using the `task` tool: + +1. proposal-reader: searches corpus/ for the Joint Stakeholders' proposal. \ + Must write findings to workspace//findings/proposal.md. +2. adoption-reader: searches corpus/ for what DOE adopted. \ + Must write findings to workspace//findings/adopted.md. +3. numbers-reader: inventories energy-savings figures across the corpus. \ + Must write findings to workspace//findings/numbers.md. +4. writer: reads all three findings by exact path and writes the final memo \ + to workspace//memo.md. + +Rules: +- Run readers 1-3 first (they can run in any order). +- Only run the writer AFTER all three readers have completed. +- NEVER grep workspace/ — it is not searchable. Read by exact path. +- Update the manifest after each stage completes. +- If resuming a run, check which stages are already complete and skip them.""", + permissions=[ + FilesystemPermission( + operations=["read"], paths=["/corpus/**"], mode="allow" + ), + FilesystemPermission( + operations=["read", "write"], + paths=["/workspace/**"], + mode="allow", + ), + ], + name="coordinator", + ) diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/backend.py b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/backend.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..37dbcbd --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/backend.py @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ +"""CompositeBackend wiring — two planes, two guarantees. + +Corpus (discovery): searched by meaning via grep/glob/ls, eventually consistent. +Workspace (coordination): read/written by exact path, read-after-write consistent. + +See plan 4.1-4.2. +""" + +from __future__ import annotations + +import os +from contextlib import contextmanager +from typing import Generator + +from deepagents.backends import CompositeBackend +from deepagents.backends.protocol import GrepResult +from langchain_mongodb_deepagents_vfs import MongoFilesystemBackend + +APP_NAME = "devrel-tutorial-deepagents-langchain-vfs" + + +class _CompositeRoutedBackend(MongoFilesystemBackend): + """Wrapper that bridges MongoFilesystemBackend with CompositeBackend routing. + + CompositeBackend strips route prefixes before calling the routed backend. + For example, `/corpus/analysis/tsd.pdf` becomes `/analysis/tsd.pdf`. + MongoFilesystemBackend expects paths to include its s3_prefix (e.g. + `corpus/analysis/tsd.pdf`). This wrapper normalizes in both directions: + + - Inbound: strips leading '/' and prepends s3_prefix + - Outbound (grep): strips s3_prefix and adds leading '/' so + CompositeBackend's _remap_grep_path reconstructs the full path + """ + + def _normalize_path(self, path: str | None) -> str: + """Convert a CompositeBackend-stripped path back to s3_prefix-relative.""" + if path is None or path == "/" or path == "": + return "" + # Strip leading slash that CompositeBackend leaves + p = path.lstrip("/") + # If it already starts with the prefix, leave it + if p.startswith(self._prefix): + return p + # Prepend prefix + return f"{self._prefix}{p}" + + def read(self, file_path, **kwargs): + return super().read(self._normalize_path(file_path), **kwargs) + + def write(self, file_path, content, **kwargs): + return super().write(self._normalize_path(file_path), content, **kwargs) + + def grep(self, pattern, path=None, glob=None, **kwargs) -> GrepResult: + result = super().grep(pattern, self._normalize_path(path), glob) + if result.matches: + prefix = self._prefix + + def _strip(p: str) -> str: + if p.startswith(prefix): + p = p[len(prefix) :] + return f"/{p}" if not p.startswith("/") else p + + result = GrepResult( + matches=[{**m, "path": _strip(m["path"])} for m in result.matches], + truncated=getattr(result, "truncated", False), + ) + return result + + def ls(self, path="", **kwargs): + return super().ls(self._normalize_path(path)) + + def glob(self, pattern, path="", **kwargs): + return super().glob(pattern, self._normalize_path(path)) + + +def _uri_with_appname(uri: str) -> str: + """Append appName to a MongoDB URI if not already present.""" + if "appName=" in uri or "appname=" in uri: + return uri + sep = "&" if "?" in uri else "?" + return f"{uri}{sep}appName={APP_NAME}" + + +@contextmanager +def create_backend() -> Generator[CompositeBackend, None, None]: + """Build the two-plane CompositeBackend from environment variables. + + Use with `with`: + + with create_backend() as backend: + ... + """ + mongodb_uri = _uri_with_appname(os.environ["MONGODB_URI"]) + s3_bucket = os.environ["S3_BUCKET_NAME"] + aws_region = os.environ.get("AWS_REGION", "us-east-1") + + # Workspace: the default plane. Agents write findings here and read + # by exact path. Read-after-write — never searched. + workspace_backend = _CompositeRoutedBackend( + s3_bucket_name=s3_bucket, + mongodb_connection_string=mongodb_uri, + s3_prefix="workspace/", + aws_region=aws_region, + debug=True, + ) + + # Corpus: routed plane. Settled documents, searched by meaning via + # hybrid $rankFusion. Eventually consistent (10s watcher + index lag). + corpus_backend = _CompositeRoutedBackend( + s3_bucket_name=s3_bucket, + mongodb_connection_string=mongodb_uri, + s3_prefix="corpus/", + aws_region=aws_region, + debug=True, + ) + + with workspace_backend, corpus_backend: + yield CompositeBackend( + default=workspace_backend, + routes={"/corpus/": corpus_backend}, + ) diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/manifest.py b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/manifest.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a08fa7e --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/manifest.py @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +"""Run receipt — the manifest that makes resume auditable. + +The manifest records what woke the pipeline up, what state it inherited, +what authority it used, what executed, and what evidence survived. + +Schema follows Govindarajan's AIEWF "Your Agent Didn't Fail. Your Harness Did." +talk — see plan §4.4. +""" + +from __future__ import annotations + +import json +from dataclasses import asdict, dataclass, field +from datetime import datetime, timezone +from typing import Any + +from langchain_mongodb_deepagents_vfs import AdapterError + + +@dataclass +class StageRecord: + """One stage in the pipeline execution.""" + + name: str + status: str = "pending" # pending | in_progress | complete | failed + output: str | None = None + tokens: int = 0 + usd: float = 0.0 + started_at: str | None = None + completed_at: str | None = None + error: str | None = None + + def mark_started(self) -> None: + self.status = "in_progress" + self.started_at = datetime.now(timezone.utc).isoformat() + + def mark_complete(self, tokens: int = 0, usd: float = 0.0) -> None: + self.status = "complete" + self.tokens = tokens + self.usd = usd + self.completed_at = datetime.now(timezone.utc).isoformat() + + def mark_failed(self, error: str) -> None: + self.status = "failed" + self.error = error + self.completed_at = datetime.now(timezone.utc).isoformat() + + +@dataclass +class Manifest: + """Run receipt persisted to workspace//manifest.json.""" + + run_id: str + question: str + woke_up_by: str = "" + inherited_state: str = "" + authority: dict[str, str] = field( + default_factory=lambda: {"corpus": "read-only", "workspace": "read-write"} + ) + stages: list[StageRecord] = field(default_factory=list) + evidence: list[str] = field(default_factory=list) + + @classmethod + def new( + cls, + run_id: str, + question: str, + woke_up_by: str, + stage_names: list[str], + ) -> Manifest: + """Create a fresh manifest with all stages pending.""" + stages = [] + for name in stage_names: + output = f"findings/{name}.md" if name != "writer" else "memo.md" + stages.append(StageRecord(name=name, output=output)) + return cls( + run_id=run_id, + question=question, + woke_up_by=woke_up_by, + stages=stages, + ) + + @classmethod + def from_dict(cls, data: dict[str, Any]) -> Manifest: + """Reconstruct a manifest from a parsed JSON dict.""" + stages = [StageRecord(**s) for s in data.get("stages", [])] + return cls( + run_id=data["run_id"], + question=data["question"], + woke_up_by=data.get("woke_up_by", ""), + inherited_state=data.get("inherited_state", ""), + authority=data.get("authority", {}), + stages=stages, + evidence=data.get("evidence", []), + ) + + def to_json(self) -> str: + return json.dumps(asdict(self), indent=2) + + def pending_stages(self) -> list[StageRecord]: + """Return stages that have not completed (pending or failed).""" + return [s for s in self.stages if s.status not in ("complete",)] + + def completed_stages(self) -> list[StageRecord]: + return [s for s in self.stages if s.status == "complete"] + + def update_evidence(self) -> None: + """Rebuild the evidence list from completed stages.""" + self.evidence = [ + s.output for s in self.stages if s.status == "complete" and s.output + ] + + def describe_inherited_state(self, existing_files: list[str]) -> None: + """Record what files existed at startup — makes resume auditable.""" + if existing_files: + self.inherited_state = ( + f"workspace/{self.run_id}/ " + f"({len(existing_files)} findings present at start)" + ) + else: + self.inherited_state = f"workspace/{self.run_id}/ (empty)" + + +def save_manifest(backend: Any, run_id: str, manifest: Manifest) -> None: + """Write the manifest to the workspace via the backend.""" + path = f"workspace/{run_id}/manifest.json" + result = backend.write(path, manifest.to_json()) + if result.error: + raise RuntimeError(f"Failed to save manifest: {result.error}") + + +def load_manifest(backend: Any, run_id: str) -> Manifest | None: + """Load a manifest from the workspace, or None if not found.""" + path = f"workspace/{run_id}/manifest.json" + try: + result = backend.read(path) + except AdapterError: + # debug=True re-raises on not-found — expected for fresh runs + return None + if result.error: + return None + data = json.loads(result.file_data["content"]) + return Manifest.from_dict(data) diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/metrics.py b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/metrics.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e70e60b --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/src/vfs_demo/metrics.py @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ +"""Metrics collection — tokens, latency, USD cost per run. + +Reports tokens, wall-clock, and USD cost for cold / killed / resumed runs. +Cost per task is the unit the ecosystem currently reports (§6, Beat 3). + +Pricing uses OpenAI gpt-4o as default; adjust MODEL_PRICING for other models. +""" + +from __future__ import annotations + +import time +from dataclasses import dataclass, field + +# USD per 1M tokens (input/output) — update for your model +MODEL_PRICING = { + "gpt-4o": {"input": 2.50, "output": 10.00}, + "gpt-4o-mini": {"input": 0.15, "output": 0.60}, +} + + +@dataclass +class StageMetrics: + """Metrics for a single pipeline stage.""" + + name: str + input_tokens: int = 0 + output_tokens: int = 0 + wall_clock_seconds: float = 0.0 + model: str = "gpt-4o" + + @property + def total_tokens(self) -> int: + return self.input_tokens + self.output_tokens + + @property + def usd_cost(self) -> float: + pricing = MODEL_PRICING.get(self.model, MODEL_PRICING["gpt-4o"]) + input_cost = (self.input_tokens / 1_000_000) * pricing["input"] + output_cost = (self.output_tokens / 1_000_000) * pricing["output"] + return input_cost + output_cost + + +@dataclass +class RunMetrics: + """Aggregate metrics for a full pipeline run.""" + + run_id: str + run_type: str = "cold" # cold | killed | resumed + stages: list[StageMetrics] = field(default_factory=list) + _start_time: float = 0.0 + + def start(self) -> None: + self._start_time = time.monotonic() + + @property + def wall_clock_seconds(self) -> float: + if self._start_time: + return time.monotonic() - self._start_time + return sum(s.wall_clock_seconds for s in self.stages) + + @property + def total_tokens(self) -> int: + return sum(s.total_tokens for s in self.stages) + + @property + def total_usd(self) -> float: + return sum(s.usd_cost for s in self.stages) + + @property + def stages_executed(self) -> int: + return len(self.stages) + + def add_stage(self, stage: StageMetrics) -> None: + self.stages.append(stage) + + def report(self) -> str: + """Human-readable metrics report.""" + lines = [ + f"Run: {self.run_id} ({self.run_type})", + f" Stages executed: {self.stages_executed}", + f" Total tokens: {self.total_tokens:,}", + f" Total cost: ${self.total_usd:.4f}", + f" Wall clock: {self.wall_clock_seconds:.1f}s", + "", + ] + for s in self.stages: + lines.append( + f" {s.name}: {s.total_tokens:,} tokens, " + f"${s.usd_cost:.4f}, {s.wall_clock_seconds:.1f}s" + ) + return "\n".join(lines) + + +def compare_runs(runs: list[RunMetrics]) -> str: + """Compare metrics across cold/killed/resumed runs.""" + lines = ["=" * 60, "Run Comparison", "=" * 60, ""] + header = f"{'Run':<25} {'Type':<10} {'Tokens':>10} {'Cost':>10} {'Time':>8}" + lines.append(header) + lines.append("-" * 60) + for r in runs: + lines.append( + f"{r.run_id:<25} {r.run_type:<10} " + f"{r.total_tokens:>10,} ${r.total_usd:>8.4f} " + f"{r.wall_clock_seconds:>7.1f}s" + ) + + if len(runs) >= 2: + cold = next((r for r in runs if r.run_type == "cold"), None) + resumed = next((r for r in runs if r.run_type == "resumed"), None) + if cold and resumed: + saved_tokens = cold.total_tokens - resumed.total_tokens + saved_usd = cold.total_usd - resumed.total_usd + lines.append("") + lines.append(f"Resume saved: {saved_tokens:,} tokens, ${saved_usd:.4f}") + + return "\n".join(lines) diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/tests/golden_answer.py b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/tests/golden_answer.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..df33706 --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/tests/golden_answer.py @@ -0,0 +1,215 @@ +"""Golden answer acceptance test — §12.3 of the demo plan. + +Validates that memo.md contains the required findings. +Uses substring and regex checks, NOT an LLM judge. +The point is a deterministic gate. + +Usage: + python tests/golden_answer.py workspace//memo.md + # or pass memo content via stdin +""" + +from __future__ import annotations + +import re +import sys +from pathlib import Path + + +def load_memo(path: str | None = None) -> str: + """Load memo from file path or stdin.""" + if path: + return Path(path).read_text() + return sys.stdin.read() + + +def check_a1_adoption(memo: str) -> tuple[bool, str]: + """A1: States that DOE did substantially adopt the Joint Stakeholders' proposal.""" + adopt_patterns = [ + r"(?i)DOE\s+(did\s+)?adopt", + r"(?i)DOE\s+.*substanti", + r"(?i)adopted\s+.*joint\s+stakeholders", + r"(?i)adopted\s+.*proposal", + r"(?i)joint\s+stakeholders.*adopted", + r"(?i)consistent\s+with.*joint\s+stakeholders", + r"(?i)aligned\s+with.*joint\s+stakeholders", + ] + for pattern in adopt_patterns: + if re.search(pattern, memo): + return True, f"Matched: {pattern}" + return False, "No adoption statement found" + + +def check_a2_both_figures(memo: str) -> tuple[bool, str]: + """A2: Names BOTH figures: 1.9 quads and 1.80 quads.""" + has_1_9 = bool(re.search(r"1\.9\s*quad", memo, re.IGNORECASE)) + has_1_80 = bool( + re.search(r"1\.80?\s*quad", memo, re.IGNORECASE) + or re.search(r"1\.8\s*quad", memo, re.IGNORECASE) + ) + + if has_1_9 and has_1_80: + return True, "Both 1.9 and 1.80 quads found" + missing = [] + if not has_1_9: + missing.append("1.9 quads") + if not has_1_80: + missing.append("1.80 quads") + return False, f"Missing: {', '.join(missing)}" + + +def check_a3_attribution(memo: str) -> tuple[bool, str]: + """A3: Attributes 1.9 to Joint Stakeholders and 1.80 to DOE — not reversed.""" + # 1.9 should be near Joint Stakeholders/commenters + stakeholder_1_9 = bool( + re.search( + r"(?i)(joint\s+(stakeholders?|commenters?).*1\.9|1\.9.*joint\s+(stakeholders?|commenters?))", + memo, + ) + ) + # 1.80 should be near DOE + doe_1_80 = bool( + re.search( + r"(?i)(DOE.*1\.80?|1\.80?.*DOE)", + memo, + ) + ) + + # Check for reversal (automatic fail) + reversed_stakeholder = bool( + re.search( + r"(?i)(joint\s+(stakeholders?|commenters?).*1\.80?\s*quad)", + memo, + ) + ) + reversed_doe = bool(re.search(r"(?i)(DOE.*1\.9\s*quad)", memo)) + + if reversed_stakeholder and reversed_doe: + return False, "REVERSED: figures attributed to wrong parties" + + if stakeholder_1_9 and doe_1_80: + return True, "Correct attribution: 1.9→Stakeholders, 1.80→DOE" + return ( + False, + f"Attribution unclear (stakeholder_1.9={stakeholder_1_9}, doe_1.80={doe_1_80})", + ) + + +def check_a4_source_paths(memo: str) -> tuple[bool, str]: + """A4: Cites at least two distinct source files by path.""" + # Look for file paths (corpus/..., *.pdf, *.xlsx, etc.) + path_patterns = [ + r"corpus/\S+", + r"\S+\.(pdf|xlsx?|docx?|csv|txt)", + r"/\S+\.\S+", + ] + paths_found: set[str] = set() + for pattern in path_patterns: + for match in re.finditer(pattern, memo, re.IGNORECASE): + paths_found.add(match.group(0)) + + if len(paths_found) >= 2: + return ( + True, + f"Found {len(paths_found)} distinct paths: {sorted(paths_found)[:5]}", + ) + return False, f"Found only {len(paths_found)} source paths" + + +def check_must_not_reject(memo: str) -> tuple[bool, str]: + """MUST NOT: claim DOE rejected or ignored the proposal.""" + reject_patterns = [ + r"(?i)DOE\s+(rejected|ignored|dismissed|refused|declined)\s+.*proposal", + r"(?i)DOE\s+did\s+not\s+adopt", + r"(?i)DOE\s+chose\s+not\s+to", + ] + for pattern in reject_patterns: + if re.search(pattern, memo): + return False, f"FAIL: claims DOE rejected the proposal ({pattern})" + return True, "No rejection claim found" + + +def check_must_not_empty_findings(memo: str) -> tuple[bool, str]: + """MUST NOT: produce a confident finding when findings were empty.""" + if re.search(r"(?i)INCOMPLETE:", memo): + return False, "FAIL: memo says INCOMPLETE — findings were missing" + return True, "No INCOMPLETE marker" + + +def main() -> None: + path = sys.argv[1] if len(sys.argv) > 1 else None + memo = load_memo(path) + + if not memo.strip(): + print("FAIL: memo is empty") + sys.exit(1) + + print("=" * 64) + print("Golden Answer Acceptance Test (§12.3)") + print("=" * 64) + + # MUST contain (all four) + must_checks = [ + ("A1", "DOE adopted the proposal", check_a1_adoption), + ("A2", "Both figures (1.9 and 1.80 quads)", check_a2_both_figures), + ("A3", "Correct attribution (not reversed)", check_a3_attribution), + ("A4", "Two+ distinct source file paths", check_a4_source_paths), + ] + + # MUST NOT contain + must_not_checks = [ + ("N1", "No rejection claim", check_must_not_reject), + ("N2", "No empty-findings output", check_must_not_empty_findings), + ] + + passed = 0 + failed = 0 + + print("\nMUST contain:") + for code, label, check_fn in must_checks: + ok, detail = check_fn(memo) + status = "PASS" if ok else "FAIL" + print(f" [{status}] {code}: {label}") + print(f" {detail}") + if ok: + passed += 1 + else: + failed += 1 + + print("\nMUST NOT contain:") + for code, label, check_fn in must_not_checks: + ok, detail = check_fn(memo) + status = "PASS" if ok else "FAIL" + print(f" [{status}] {code}: {label}") + print(f" {detail}") + if ok: + passed += 1 + else: + failed += 1 + + # SHOULD contain (quality signal, not pass/fail) + print("\nSHOULD contain (quality signal):") + should_checks = [ + ("rounding", r"1\.69|1\.89|2\.39|2\.01|2\.91"), + ("metric distinction (IEF)", r"(?i)IEF"), + ("metric distinction (smoke CADR)", r"(?i)smoke\s+CADR"), + ("scope floor (CADR 30 vs 10)", r"(?i)CADR\s*(30|10)"), + ] + for label, pattern in should_checks: + found = bool(re.search(pattern, memo)) + status = "FOUND" if found else "ABSENT" + print(f" [{status}] {label}") + + total = passed + failed + print(f"\nResult: {passed}/{total} required checks passed") + + if failed > 0: + print("GATE: FAILED") + sys.exit(1) + else: + print("GATE: PASSED") + sys.exit(0) + + +if __name__ == "__main__": + main() diff --git a/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/tools/fetch_docket.py b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/tools/fetch_docket.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e5dbe74 --- /dev/null +++ b/partners/langchain/langchain-deepagents/tools/fetch_docket.py @@ -0,0 +1,261 @@ +"""One-time docket fetch — provenance, not workflow. + +Downloads the DOE air-cleaner rulemaking docket from regulations.gov +and the Federal Register. Requires a regulations.gov API key. + +This script documents how the corpus was assembled and lets a reader +refresh it, but the tutorial never asks anyone to run it. The corpus +is vendored in corpus/. + +Usage: + export REGULATIONS_GOV_API_KEY=your-key + python tools/fetch_docket.py + +Docket: EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035 +Final rule: 88 FR 21752 (FR doc 2023-06499) +""" + +from __future__ import annotations + +import os +import sys +import time +from pathlib import Path +from urllib.parse import urlencode + +import requests +from dotenv import load_dotenv + +load_dotenv(Path(__file__).resolve().parent.parent / ".env") + +API_KEY = os.environ.get("REGULATIONS_GOV_API_KEY", "") +BASE_URL = "https://api.regulations.gov/v4" +FR_BASE = "https://www.federalregister.gov" + +DOCKET_ID = "EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035" +FR_DOC_ID = "2023-06499" # Final rule +FR_NOPR_ID = "2023-06498" # Simultaneous NOPR +FR_CONFIRM_ID = "2023-18860" # Confirmation of dates + +OUTPUT_DIR = Path(__file__).resolve().parent.parent / "corpus" + +HEADERS = {"X-Api-Key": API_KEY} + + +def api_get(endpoint: str, params: dict | None = None) -> dict: + """GET from regulations.gov with rate-limit backoff.""" + url = f"{BASE_URL}{endpoint}" + if params: + url = f"{url}?{urlencode(params)}" + for attempt in range(3): + resp = requests.get(url, headers=HEADERS, timeout=30) + if resp.status_code == 429: + wait = 2**attempt + print(f" Rate limited, waiting {wait}s...") + time.sleep(wait) + continue + resp.raise_for_status() + return resp.json() + raise RuntimeError(f"Failed after retries: {url}") + + +_DOWNLOAD_HEADERS = { + "User-Agent": "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7)", +} + + +def download_file(url: str, dest: Path) -> None: + """Download a file, creating parent dirs as needed.""" + dest.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True) + resp = requests.get(url, headers=_DOWNLOAD_HEADERS, timeout=120) + resp.raise_for_status() + dest.write_bytes(resp.content) + print(f" Downloaded: {dest.name} ({len(resp.content):,} bytes)") + + +def fetch_federal_register() -> None: + """Fetch the final rule and related docs from the Federal Register.""" + rules_dir = OUTPUT_DIR / "rules" + rules_dir.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True) + + for doc_id, name in [ + (FR_DOC_ID, "88FR21752-final-rule"), + (FR_NOPR_ID, "nopr"), + (FR_CONFIRM_ID, "confirmation"), + ]: + # JSON metadata + url = f"{FR_BASE}/api/v1/documents/{doc_id}.json" + resp = requests.get(url, timeout=30) + resp.raise_for_status() + meta = resp.json() + + # PDF + pdf_url = meta.get("pdf_url") or meta.get("raw_text_url", "") + if pdf_url: + download_file(pdf_url, rules_dir / f"{name}.pdf") + + # Full text XML + xml_url = f"{FR_BASE}/documents/full_text/xml/2023/04/11/{doc_id}.xml" + try: + download_file(xml_url, rules_dir / f"{name}.xml") + except Exception: + print(f" XML not available for {doc_id}") + + +def fetch_docket_documents() -> None: + """Fetch docket documents (TSD, spreadsheets) from regulations.gov. + + Files are in attributes.fileFormats (not in included/attachments). + Each fileFormats entry has: fileUrl, format, size. + """ + analysis_dir = OUTPUT_DIR / "analysis" + analysis_dir.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True) + + # Map known document IDs to friendly filenames + DOC_NAMES = { + "EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0024": "tsd", + "EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0023": "lcc", + "EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0022": "nia", + "EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0021": "grim-joint", + "EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0020": "grim-dfr", + } + + print(f"\nFetching documents for docket {DOCKET_ID}...") + data = api_get( + "/documents", + { + "filter[docketId]": DOCKET_ID, + }, + ) + + for doc in data.get("data", []): + doc_id = doc["id"] + attrs = doc.get("attributes", {}) + title = attrs.get("title", doc_id) + print(f"\n Document: {doc_id}") + print(f" Title: {title[:70]}") + + # Fetch individual doc for full attributes including fileFormats + detail = api_get(f"/documents/{doc_id}") + detail_attrs = detail.get("data", {}).get("attributes", {}) + file_formats = detail_attrs.get("fileFormats", []) + + if not file_formats: + print(" No fileFormats found") + continue + + for ff in file_formats: + file_url = ff.get("fileUrl", "") + fmt = ff.get("format", "unknown") + size = ff.get("size", 0) + + if not file_url: + continue + + # Use friendly name if we have one, otherwise doc_id + friendly = DOC_NAMES.get(doc_id, doc_id.split("-")[-1]) + dest = analysis_dir / f"{friendly}.{fmt}" + download_file(file_url, dest) + print(f" Format: {fmt}, Size: {size:,} bytes") + + +def fetch_comments() -> None: + """Fetch comment submissions and their attachments. + + Comment files are in attributes.fileFormats on each comment, plus + any additional attachments in the included array. + """ + comments_dir = OUTPUT_DIR / "comments" + comments_dir.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True) + + print(f"\nFetching comments for docket {DOCKET_ID}...") + + # First get documents to find the commentOnId + docs = api_get("/documents", {"filter[docketId]": DOCKET_ID}) + object_ids = [ + d["attributes"]["objectId"] + for d in docs.get("data", []) + if "objectId" in d.get("attributes", {}) + ] + + seen_comments: set[str] = set() + + for obj_id in object_ids: + comments = api_get( + "/comments", + { + "filter[commentOnId]": obj_id, + }, + ) + + for comment in comments.get("data", []): + comment_id = comment["id"] + if comment_id in seen_comments: + continue + seen_comments.add(comment_id) + + attrs = comment.get("attributes", {}) + title = attrs.get("title", comment_id) + # Extract item number from the comment ID + item_num = comment_id.split("-")[-1] if "-" in comment_id else "unknown" + + print(f"\n Comment {item_num}: {title[:70]}") + + # Fetch individual comment for fileFormats + attachments + detail = api_get(f"/comments/{comment_id}", {"include": "attachments"}) + detail_attrs = detail.get("data", {}).get("attributes", {}) + file_formats = detail_attrs.get("fileFormats") or [] + + # Download main file(s) + for ff in file_formats: + file_url = ff.get("fileUrl", "") + fmt = ff.get("format", "unknown") + if file_url: + dest = comments_dir / f"{item_num}-comment.{fmt}" + download_file(file_url, dest) + + # Download any attachments (included array) + for i, attachment in enumerate(detail.get("included", [])): + if attachment.get("type") != "attachments": + continue + a_attrs = attachment.get("attributes", {}) + a_formats = a_attrs.get("fileFormats") or [] + a_title = a_attrs.get("title", f"attachment-{i}") + + for ff in a_formats: + file_url = ff.get("fileUrl", "") + fmt = ff.get("format", "unknown") + if file_url: + safe_title = a_title.replace(" ", "_").replace("/", "_")[:50] + dest = comments_dir / f"{item_num}-{safe_title}.{fmt}" + download_file(file_url, dest) + + +def main() -> None: + if not API_KEY: + print("ERROR: REGULATIONS_GOV_API_KEY not set") + print("Get a key at https://open.gsa.gov/api/regulationsgov/") + sys.exit(1) + + print("Fetching DOE air-cleaner rulemaking docket") + print(f"Docket: {DOCKET_ID}") + print(f"Output: {OUTPUT_DIR}") + print() + + print("1. Federal Register documents...") + fetch_federal_register() + + print("\n2. Docket documents (TSD, spreadsheets)...") + fetch_docket_documents() + + print("\n3. Comment submissions...") + fetch_comments() + + print("\n" + "=" * 64) + print("Corpus fetch complete.") + print(f"Files saved to: {OUTPUT_DIR}") + print("Run 00_seed_corpus.py to upload to S3.") + + +if __name__ == "__main__": + main()