Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 82 (Wednesday, April 30, 2025)

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 82 (Wednesday, April 30, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17895-17908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-07351]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 30, 2025 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 17895]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[EERE-2024-BT-TP-0011]

Energy Conservation Program: Notification of Petition for
Rulemaking

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

ACTION: Notification of petition for rulemaking; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: On September 11, 2024, the Department of Energy (``DOE'')
received a petition from Dyson Inc. for DOE to revoke the procedures by
which manufacturers must measure and represent to consumers the
effective room size coverage and integrated energy factor of their air
cleaner products. If the provisions are not revoked, Dyson Inc.
requested that DOE stay enforcement of these provisions pending a new
notice and comment period regarding potential amendments to these
provisions. DOE is not revoking or staying enforcement of the test
procedure and representations provisions raised in Dyson's petition at
this time. Through this notification, DOE is seeking views on whether
it should grant the petition and undertake a rulemaking to consider the
proposal contained in the petition, as well as any data or information
that could be used in DOE's determination whether to grant the
petition.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before May 30, 2025.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE-2024-BT-TP-0011. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2024-BT-TP-0011, by any of the
following methods:
Email: AirCleanersPetition2024TP0011@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket
number and/or RIN 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. 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, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 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 the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a
public meeting is held), 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-2024-BT-TP-0011. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop
EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (240) 315-4339. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Uchechukwu ``Emeka'' Eze, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202)
586-4798. Email: uchechukwu.eze@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''),
5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides among other things, that ``[e]ach agency
shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance,
amendment, or repeal of a rule.'' (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) The Energy Policy
and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''), also specifically permits
test procedures petitions. (See, 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) \1\ If the
Secretary determines, on his own behalf or in response to a petition by
any interested person, that a test procedure should be prescribed or
amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal Register
proposed test procedures and afford interested persons an opportunity
to present oral and written data, views, and arguments with respect to
such procedures. The comment period shall not be less than 60 days and
may be extended for good cause shown to not 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)) When DOE determines that test
procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE's practice is to publish
its determination not to amend the test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DOE received a petition from Dyson Inc. (``Dyson'') as described in
this document and set forth verbatim below,\2\ requesting that DOE
amend its regulations to revoke the following regulatory text from the
Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR''): (1) 10 CFR 429.68(a)(4), which
specifies that any represented value of the effective room size of an
air cleaner basic model must be calculated as the product of 1.55 and
the represented smoke clean air delivery rate (``CADR'') value of the
basic model; and, (2) 10 CFR 430.23(hh)(4), which specifies that the
annual energy consumption and integrated energy factor (``IEF'') of a
conventional room air

[[Page 17896]]

cleaner is measured in accordance with section 7 of 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix FF (``appendix FF''). In its petition, Dyson also
requests that if DOE does not revoke the provisions as requested in the
petition, that DOE stay enforcement of those provisions pending a
period of notice and comment to consider further changes to the test
procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Dyson's petition for rulemaking is available in the docket
at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2024-BT-TP-0011-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a final rule published on March 6, 2023 (88 FR 14014), DOE
established the air cleaners test procedure at appendix FF and 10 CFR
430.23(hh) and sampling and representation requirements at 10 CFR
429.68. These test procedure requirements were established through a
rulemaking process that included a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR'') published on October 18, 2022. 87 FR 63324. Following
publication of the NOPR, on August 23, 2022, DOE received a letter
titled ``Joint Statement of Joint Stakeholder Proposal on Recommended
Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedure for Consumer Room Air
Cleaners'' (hereafter referred to as the ``Joint Proposal'') \3\
submitted by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (``AHAM''),\4\ Consumer Federation of America, Natural
Resources Defense Council, New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
collectively, the ``Joint Stakeholders.'' In the Joint Proposal, the
signatories recommended DOE adopt a Federal test procedure by
incorporating by reference industry standards AHAM AC-7-2022 \5\ and
AHAM AC-1-2020.\6\ In the March 2023 test procedure final rule, DOE
considered comments received in response to the test procedure NOPR as
well as the Joint Proposal in adopting the current air cleaners test
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2024-BT-TP-0011-0002.
\4\ Representing the following companies who manufacture
consumer room air cleaners and are members of the Portable Appliance
Division: 3M Co., ACCO Brands Corporation, 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., Foxconn Technology Group, Gree Electric Appliances
Inc., Groupe SEB, Haier Smart Home Co., Ltd., Helen of Troy-Health &
Home, Lasko Products, Inc., Molekule Inc., Newell Brands Inc.,
Oransi LLC, Phillips Domestic Appliances NA Corporation, SharkNinja
Operating, LLC, Vornado Air LLC, Winix Inc., and Zojirushi America
Corporation.
\5\ AHAM AC-7-2022, ``Energy Test Method for Consumer Room Air
Cleaners,'' copyright 2022.
\6\ ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020, ``Method for Measuring Performance of
Portable Household Electric Room Air Cleaners,'' ANSI-approved
December 2020, including AHAM Standard Interpretation on September
19, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In announcing this petition for public comment, DOE is seeking
views on whether it should grant the petition and undertake a
rulemaking to consider the proposal contained in the petition. DOE
welcomes comments on any aspect of the petition. By seeking comment on
whether to grant this petition, DOE takes no position at this time
regarding the merits of the suggested rulemaking or the assertions in
Dyson's petition. Accordingly, DOE is not revoking or staying
enforcement of the provisions referenced in Dyson's petition.

Submission of Comments

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
petition no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this document. 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.
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. If this instruction is followed, 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 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. 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.
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 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-

[[Page 17897]]

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. Submit these documents via email. 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).

Signing Authority

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 21,
2025, by Louis Hrkman, 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 April 24, 2025.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

PETITION FOR AMENDMENT

Before the

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

In the Matter of: Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Air
Cleaners
Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-TP-0036

Petition for Amendment

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. DOE Has Adopted A Test Procedure Poorly Suited To Determining
Room Size Coverage And IEF Scores for Air Cleaners
B. In Reliance On DOE, FTC Has Proposed To Adopt The Same Poorly
Suited Test Procedure
C. Dyson Has Confirmed That Room Size Coverage Claims And IEF
Scores Based On The Test Procedure Are Inaccurate And Inconsistent
III. Grounds for Petition
A. The Room Size Coverage Rule And IEF Rule Require
Manufacturers To Display Product Claims That Are Inaccurate And
Inconsistent
B. The Room Size Coverage Rule And IEF Rule Mislead Consumers
C. The Room Size Coverage Rule And IEF Rule Stifle Innovation
D. The Room Size Coverage Rule And IEF Rule Result In Increased
Energy Consumption
E. The Room Size Coverage Rule And IEF Rule Should Be, At
Minimum, Stayed To Provide Time For Notice And Comment On Whether To
Revoke Or Modify The Rules
IV. Conclusion

Dyson Inc. (``Dyson'') respectfully petitions the United States
Department of Energy (``DOE'') pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(e) to:
1. amend part 429 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations to remove section 429.68(a)(4), a section
which requires that ``[a]ny represented value of the effective room
size, in square feet, of a[n air cleaner] must be calculated as the
product of 1.55 and the represented smoke CADR value of the [air
cleaner]'' (the ``Room Size Coverage Rule''); and,
2. amend part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations to remove section 430.23(hh)(4), a section
which requires that ``[t]he annual energy consumption, expressed in
kilowatt-hours per year, and the integrated energy factor, expressed in
CADR per watts (CADR/W), for conventional room air cleaners, shall be
measured in accordance with section 7 of appendix FF of this subpart''
(the ``IEF Rule'').

I. Executive Summary

DOE implemented the Room Size Coverage Rule and the IEF Rule on
March 6, 2023 (effective December 31, 2023) to establish standard
procedures by which manufacturers may measure and represent to
consumers the effective room size coverage and integrated energy factor
(``IEF'') scores of their air cleaner products. In enacting these
rules, DOE stated that it ``considers room size [and IEF, which is a
`function of the room size that the unit is expected to operate in'] to
be an important metric that must be represented accurately and
consistently to provide meaningful information to consumers.'' \7\
Dyson agrees. It is important for consumers to have accurate
information about the efficacy and efficiency with which different air
cleaners clean various sized rooms. Unfortunately, the Room Size
Coverage Rule and the IEF Rule do exactly the opposite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Air
Cleaners, 88 FR 14014 at 8 (Mar. 6, 2023), at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dyson, therefore, petitions DOE to revoke the Room Size Coverage
Rule and the IEF Rule because they: (1) obligate manufacturers to make
frequently inaccurate and misleading claims about the efficacy and
efficiency with which their products operate, (2) stifle innovation by
manufacturers to develop products that operate better where it counts--
in consumers' homes--rather than in a highly stylized test chamber, and
(3) undermine energy efficient consumer purchasing decisions in
violation of DOE's broader mandate to properly ``regulate the energy
efficiency of [ ] consumer products . . . .'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

More particularly, the Room Size Coverage Rule and the IEF Rule
should be revoked because they obligate manufacturers to express air
cleaner room size coverage and IEF scores using clean air delivery
rates (``CADR'') measured in reliance on the test procedure AHAM-AC-1-
2020 (the ``AHAM CADR Test''), incorporated by reference into Appendix
FF to Subpart B of Part 430, Title 10. As explained herein, the AHAM
CADR Test suffers from severe flaws that result in CADRs that do not
have real-world validity and, when used to calculate room size coverage
and IEF scores, result in misleading information reaching consumers
about the absolute and relative capabilities of different air cleaners
to effectively and efficiently clean various sized rooms.
These concerns are not new to DOE. Manufacturers, including Dyson,
submitted comments during the notice and comment period in December
2022 urging DOE not to adopt mandates that would result in inaccurate
and inconsistent measures of room size coverage and energy efficiency.
DOE rejected these comments on the basis that, in summary, `something
is better than nothing.' Dyson disagrees when the `something' results
in misleading consumers, stifling innovation and wasteful energy
consumption.
Dyson has subsequently developed test data and retained external
experts to review Dyson's test data and perform a literature review.
The expert report of Dr. Timothy Morse, Ph.D., and Dr. Khaled Hashad,
Ph.D., of Exponent, is annexed hereto as Exhibit A (the ``Exponent
Report''). Like Dyson,

[[Page 17898]]

experts Morse and Hashad conclude that the AHAM CADR Test does not
produce reliable CADRs that can be used to measure the efficacy and
efficiency with which air cleaners can clean various sized rooms.
Based upon this new and accumulating body of evidence, Dyson urges
DOE to revoke the Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule or, to the
extent that DOE after full consideration of this Petition still wishes
to impose a one-size-fits-all test for room size coverage claims and
IEF scores, stay enforcement of the Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF
Rule and open a period of notice and comment so the public can submit
their views on how, if at all, DOE can mandate a test procedure with
greater real-world validity.
The importance of this petition is underscored by the recent
proposed rulemaking by the United States Federal Trade Commission
(``FTC''), which has proposed to add room size coverage claims to its
required EnergyGuide labels on air cleaners, and to mandate that room
size coverage numbers must be calculated using the standard adopted by
DOE--i.e., the Room Size Coverage Rule.\9\ Dyson has opposed the FTC's
rulemaking in written comments \10\ and will present its critiques
during a hearing scheduled for September 19, 2024. FTC has not yet
issued a final rule and DOE can take this opportunity to revoke the
Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule and avoid agencies like FTC
``doubling down'' on DOE's flawed approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Energy Labeling Rule, 89 FR 7566, 7568 (Feb. 2, 2024).
\10\ Comment from Dyson, Inc., REGULATIONS.GOV (Mar. 19, 2024),
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2024-0008-0010; Comment from
Dyson, Inc., REGULATIONS.GOV (April 19, 2024), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2024-0008-0022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. DOE Has Adopted a Test Procedure Poorly Suited To Determining Room
Size Coverage and IEF Scores for Air Cleaners

On March 6, 2023, DOE published a final rule entitled Energy
Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Air Cleaners.\11\ The final
rule, incorporating the Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule, mandated
that all representations to consumers concerning the room size coverage
capabilities of air cleaners and all IEF scores must be calculated
using CADRs measured in reliance on the AHAM CADR Test.\12\ DOE
implemented the final rule over the objections of Dyson and other air
cleaner manufacturers on the ground that it is important to require a
standard method for substantiation of room size coverage claims and IEF
scores. The final rule went into effect on December 31, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Air
Cleaners, 88 FR 14014 (Mar. 6, 2023).
\12\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CADR is not a measure of room size coverage or energy consumption.
Likewise, the AHAM CADR Test is not designed to measure the size of the
room that an air cleaner is capable of cleaning or its energy
consumption. CADR is a measure of the clean air volume that an air
cleaner can provide in a fixed amount of time and space. It is the air
cleaner equivalent of a vehicle's 0-60 mph acceleration test, as it
measures an air cleaner's purification speed on the maximum fan mode
within a 28 m\3\ chamber. In practical terms, it measures how quickly
an air cleaner can remove a pollutant from a room (e.g., how quickly
can it remove the smell of burnt toast from a kitchen). Consumers are
not using air cleaners primarily, let alone exclusively, for such a
narrow purpose.
The AHAM CADR Test is a nearly 40-year-old test procedure (albeit
updated from time to time) developed by the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM''). The test is performed in a small
chamber (28 m\3\) equipped with a single sensor to monitor the particle
count in the air and two fans to circulate the air: a ceiling fan and a
powerful wall-mounted recirculation fan. Before the test begins, the
test subject air cleaner is placed in the center of the chamber,
manually set to maximum speed and both the ceiling and wall mounted
recirculation fans are switched on. The air cleaner remains operating
at full speed throughout the duration of the test; there is no
provision made for automatic sensor-response or standby modes. A
controlled amount of pollutant is then pumped into the room, allowing
the fans in the chamber to mix and homogenize the pollutant
concentration before pollutant levels in this ``well-mixed'' room are
measured by the single sensor. At the start of the test, the ceiling
fan is turned off, but the recirculation fan remains running. The test
lasts for 20 minutes. Following the test, a `CADR Score' is calculated
by measuring how much faster the air cleaner removed particles from the
air compared to how fast the particles would naturally have `decayed'
or dropped and settled on surfaces but for the air cleaner, which is
then multiplied by the volume of the test chamber. The below image at
Figure 1 illustrates the setup of a CADR test chamber.

[[Page 17899]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30AP25.045

Figure 1.¹³
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020, p.1 (pdf p. 26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a number of problems with the design of the AHAM CADR
Test which render it inapt to measure CADRs used for determining room
size coverage or energy consumption. For example, the AHAM CADR Test:
Measures short-term performance only. The AHAM CADR Test
measures how quickly an air cleaner can clean the air in a standardized
room (e.g., how quickly it can remove the smell of burnt toast from a
kitchen) when the contaminated air is pressurized by the recirculation
fan and `fed' to the air cleaner. The test does not measure whether an
air cleaner can clean a room of a given size and keep it clean over a
sustained period under real-world conditions, which is the typical
application of an air cleaner.
Uses a high-powered fan to homogenize the air and move it
toward the air cleaner. The AHAM CADR Test uses an active system (a
high-powered recirculation fan), which homogenizes and pushes the air
toward the air cleaner. The active system obscures important
distinctions between air cleaners that do and do not have lateral
whole-room air distribution technology (their own powerful, built-in
fans), giving air cleaners without consumer-benefiting lateral air
distribution artificial boosts in performance relative to those that
do.
Places the air cleaner in the center of the test chamber.
The AHAM CADR Test requires that the tester place the air cleaner in
the center of the test chamber with only one sensor in the chamber
testing how well the air cleaner has cleaned the chamber, rather than
placing the air cleaner against a wall or in a corner--where consumers
typically place air cleaners--and using multiple sensors to evaluate
how well the air cleaner is cleaning the whole test chamber. These
aspects of the test procedure obscure material differences in
technology like lateral whole-room air distribution, which help to
ensure wider coverage of a room by an air cleaner even when placed (as
is typical) against a wall or in a corner.
Uses a small test chamber. The AHAM CADR Test chamber is
considerably smaller than most rooms in consumers' homes. This is
significant since the AHAM CADR Test is highly sensitive to different
size chambers, resulting in arbitrary room size coverage claims when
results are extrapolated to larger size rooms.
Operates air cleaners in maximum power mode. The AHAM CADR
Test requires that air cleaners remain at maximum fan speed during the
entirety of the test, which ignores air cleaner sensor technologies in
many but not all modern air cleaners that match the speed of the
internal fan to the level of pollutants in the air. This test
requirement undermines energy efficient purchasing decisions by
consumers, who in the real world will run their air cleaners on
``normal'' or ``automatic'' modes both as a matter of energy efficiency
and comfort (maximum power modes are loud), which modes are not
reflected in room size coverage claims made based on CADR.
On October 18, 2022, DOE published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(``NOPR'') \14\ and opened a comment period which ended on December 19,
2022. In the NOPR, DOE requested, among other things, comments on a
proposal to use CADR to calculate the effective room size that can be
serviced by an air cleaner and ``whether it is appropriate to use smoke
CADR as the metric to calculate effective room size or if it should be
based on PM2.5 CADR instead [which includes smoke and other
pollutants].'' \15\ DOE presented the choice as binary (smoke vs. a mix
of

[[Page 17900]]

smoke and other pollutants) and did not ask whether CADR itself is
suitable for calculating effective room size or IEF score or whether
the AHAM CADR Test was an appropriate procedure to calculate CADR for
these purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ 2022-10-18 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for
Air Cleaners; Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment,
REGULATIONS.GOV (Oct. 18, 2022), at 19, https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0036-0018.
\15\ 2022-11-09 Presentation: Air Cleaners Test Procedure:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Public Meeting--REGULATIONS.GOV (Nov.
9, 2022), at 49, https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0036-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dyson opposed DOE's adoption of CADR, stating in a comment that the
range of air cleaner technologies and home environments precludes a
one-size-fits-all room size calculation--particularly in a mandatory
regulatory context.\16\ Dyson cautioned DOE not to base room size
coverage determinations on CADR, as the metric and performance output
from the AHAM CADR Test methodology does not accurately reflect real-
life performance.\17\ In particular, Dyson urged that CADR is
unsuitable for calculating room size coverage because:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ 2022-12-16 Dyson Comment response to the published Notice
of proposed rulemaking and request for comment, REGULATIONS.GOV
(Dec. 16, 2022), at 1-2, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-TP0036-0027.
\17\ At various points during the DOE's rulemaking, other
commenters expressed concerns about the validity or usefulness of
CADR as well. See, e.g., 2024-02-24 Synexis Comment response to the
published Reopening of Comment Period; Request for information,
REGULATIONS.GOV (Apr. 11, 2022), at 4, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0036-0009 (noting that ``CADR test chambers
are not representative of actual room sizes, and therefore CADR
ratings do not reflect actual usage under real-world conditions.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Manufacturers already offer nuanced estimates of room size
coverage customized for different environments and technologies, and
collapsing the measurement of room size coverage claims to a single
methodology withholds consumer relevant information tailored to
consumers' differing needs and manufacturers' differing offerings.
2. The AHAM CADR Test uses a recirculation fan that is not present
in real-world spaces and gives air cleaners with poor or no lateral
whole-room air circulation an artificial boost in room size coverage.
3. The AHAM CADR Test runs all models on maximum and does not
account for automatic sensor-response modes, which are common in
today's marketplace and impact real-world room size coverage
capabilities.
4. Room size coverage claims calculated using CADR do not scale
properly and are inaccurate.
Similarly, Synexis LLC submitted a comment asserting that ``CADR
ratings do not reflect actual usage under real-world conditions.'' \18\
Synexis' criticism focused on the size of the test chambers, which
``are not representative of actual room sizes.'' \19\ Synexis instead
advocated for ``[t]esting in large chambers,'' as such chambers are
``more appropriate . . . [and] more representative of real world
conditions.'' \20\ Synexis expressed concern that ``using CADR[] alone
. . . might be misleading with regard to overall energy consumption
required to achieve maximum effectiveness.'' \21\ Likewise, Molekule,
Inc. criticized CADR for failing to account for the benefits of
different technologies offered with different air cleaners.\22\
Molekule expressed concern that using a standard test method would be
bad for consumers and for achieving energy efficiency, asserting that
``energy standards based solely on traditional [AHAM CADR Test]-based
testing methods that only focus on particulate capture are likely to
hinder the development and distribution of innovative devices . . . .''
\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ 2024-02-24 Synexis Comment response to the published
Reopening of Comment Period; Request for information,
REGULATIONS.GOV (Apr. 11, 2022) at 4, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-TP0036-0009.
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id. at 5
\21\ Synexis discussed other test methods which may be
alternatives to CADR, including AHAM-AC-5-2022 (2022), the Research
Triangle Institute test method, and the National Research Council
Canada rest method. (See Id., at 3-4).
\22\ 2022-04-09 Molekule Comment response to the published
Reopening of Comment Period; Request for information,
REGULATIONS.GOV (Apr. 11, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-TP-00360012.
\23\ 2024-02-24 Synexis Comment response to the published
Reopening of Comment Period; Request for information,
REGULATIONS.GOV (Apr. 11, 2022) at 2, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-TP0036-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE acknowledged in its final rulemaking that the AHAM CADR Test
does not reflect real-world spaces (in particular, the use of a
powerful recirculation fan) and does not account for commonplace modern
air cleaner technologies (for example, automatic sensor-response mode
and built-in lateral whole-room air circulation). Further, DOE admitted
that there is no current test procedure for air cleaners in automatic
mode that measures energy efficiency.\24\ Nevertheless, DOE adopted the
final rule as DOE initially proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Air
Cleaners, 88 FR 14014 at 8 (Mar. 6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. In Reliance on DOE, FTC Has Proposed To Adopt the Same Poorly Suited
Test Procedure

On February 2, 2024, FTC published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(89 FR 7566),\25\ proposing to adopt the Room Size Coverage Rule for
room size coverage claims on EnergyGuide Labels,\26\ which
manufacturers are required to include on air cleaner product packaging.
The proposed rule has the potential to magnify the harm to consumers
and innovators already being caused by DOE's Room Size Coverage Rule
and--to the extent DOE determines that it should revoke the Room Size
Coverage Rule--to create administrative headaches across multiple
agencies and impose otherwise unnecessary economic burdens on
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Energy Labeling Rule, 89 FR 7566, 7568 (Feb. 2, 2024).
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC2024-0008-0001.
\26\ See Energy Labelling Rule, 16 CFR part 305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dyson submitted two comments to FTC on March 18, 2024,\27\ and
April 19, 2024.\28\ In its comments, Dyson emphasized its concerns that
adoption of the Room Size Coverage Rule would lead to consumer
confusion and stifle innovation in the market for air cleaners. Dyson
urged FTC not to ``double down'' on a flawed approach to substantiation
of room size coverage claims until DOE has had an opportunity to
consider this petition. Fortunately, FTC has not acted on its proposal
and has granted Dyson's request for a hearing, scheduled for September
19, 2024. The potential for agency action resulting in additional
consumer, manufacturer and regulatory harm stemming from the Room Size
Coverage Rule and IEF Rule nevertheless underscores the need for DOE to
take a second look at the Rules now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Comment from Dyson, Inc., REGULATIONS.GOV (Mar. 18, 2024),
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-20240008-0010 (containing
initial comments and requesting a hearing).
\28\ Comment from Dyson, Inc., REGULATIONS.GOV (April 19, 2024),
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2024-0008-0022 (providing
further comments and re-iterating request for a hearing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Dyson Has Confirmed That Room Size Coverage Claims and IEF Scores
Based on CADR are Inaccurate

After DOE's issuance of the Room Size Coverage Rule, Dyson has
performed additional testing on a range of air cleaner models sold by
manufacturers in the US (1) using the AHAM CADR Test, (2) using the
AHAM CADR Test with corrections for certain of its flaws, and (3) under
simulated real-world conditions. The data from testing performed by
Dyson demonstrate that the Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule
obligate manufacturers who make room size coverage and IEF claims to
publish inaccurate and inconsistent representations about their
products that inevitably result in misleading consumers, stifling
innovation and increasing energy inefficiency. Dyson retained Dr. Tim
Morse, Ph.D., and Dr. Khaled Hashad, Ph.D., of Exponent to perform an
evaluation of Dyson's data and the relevant literature. Drs. Morse

[[Page 17901]]

and Hashad came to the same conclusions, as discussed herein and in the
attached Exponent Report.

III. Grounds for Petition

For the reasons highlighted below and in the Exponent Report, Dyson
petitions DOE to amend 29 CFR 429 and 430 to revoke the Room Size
Coverage Rule and IEF Rule. DOE intended to provide consumers with
benchmarks to select the most effective and efficient air cleaner for
their rooms. However, room size coverage claims and IEF scores
calculated with CADR measured using the AHAM CADR Test are inaccurate
and inconsistent, and result in consumer confusion, stifled innovation
and increased energy consumption.
If, however, DOE believes that these claims must be standardized
via regulation, Dyson respectfully submits that the Room Size Coverage
Rule and IEF Rule should be stayed pending a new notice and comment
period concerning proposed substitutions for, or modifications to, the
AHAM CADR Test that would allow CADRs used in determining room size
coverage claims and IEF scores to have greater real world validity, and
thus, give consumers more relevant and less deceptive information about
the energy efficacy and efficiency of air cleaners.

A. The Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule Require Manufacturers To
Display Product Claims That are Inaccurate and Inconsistent, Thereby
Misleading Consumers About the Right Air Cleaners for Their Homes

Dyson tested seven name-brand air cleaner units with varying
features using the chamber prescribed by the AHAM CADR Test and using
chambers better reflecting real-world conditions (e.g., larger
chambers, air cleaners in the corners of the chambers, and no high-
powered recirculation fans in the chambers). As shown in the data and
summarized in Figure 2(a), below and to the left, for most air cleaners
(5 out of 7 that were tested), the AHAM CADR Test artificially inflates
the CADR scores by as much as 45%. Moreover, there is no consistency
across tested units in terms of inflation (or deflation for 1 out of
7). Thus, AHAM CADR Test-based CADR scores are not only inaccurate, but
also inconsistent and cannot serve as a basis to discern relative
performance. This is problematic for consumers as the energy efficiency
and efficacy of an air cleaner may be significantly lower than the
efficiency and efficacy purportedly measured using the AHAM CADR Test
and advertised on the product pursuant to the Room Size Coverage Rule
and IEF Rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30AP25.046

Figures 2(a) and (b).²⁹
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ See Exponent Report at 26-27. CADR obtained for various air
cleaner products tested using the AHAM standard and tested under
typical indoor conditions (larger chamber (81 m\3\), air cleaner at
the corner, and no external mixing). (a) For most air cleaners the
AHAM standard test resulted in an increase in CADR that can reach up
to 45%, (b) products 3 and 7 had similar CADR in the AHAM test but
product 7 had a 15% decrease in CADR compared to product 6 when
tested in typical indoor conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The inaccuracy and lack of consistency among CADR scores is because
the AHAM CADR Test is an inappropriate test method for determining room
size coverage (and, therefore, IEF scores, which DOE has said are
``inherently a function of the room size that the unit is expected to
operate in'' \30\). The AHAM CADR Test was designed to enable
scientific, repeatable testing of an air cleaner's speed of cleaning in
isolated laboratory conditions. It was not designed to provide an
accurate representation of how these products perform in larger rooms
under real-world conditions--i.e., in consumers' homes. This is evident
from the prescribed test environment, which is not relevant to, or
reflective of, real-world environments in which consumers will use the
tested air cleaners, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Air
Cleaners, 88 FR 14014 at 8 (Mar. 6, 2023), at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Test Chamber Contains a High-Powered Fan \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ See Exponent Report at Section 4.1 at 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The AHAM CADR Test chamber contains a powerful, wall-mounted
recirculation fan which operates continuously during testing to achieve
artificial mixing. The fan circulates and mixes particles introduced
into the test chamber, evenly spreading the particles to create a
homogeneous environment so that readings taken by the single sensor
approximate particle concentrations across the chamber. This is highly
stylized and unrealistic. Many consumer homes do not have any fans at
all \32\ and are unlikely to have an `even spread' of pollutants.
Moreover, fans used in real-world spaces are not comparable to the
recirculation fan used in a CADR test--as the latter is extremely
powerful, requires a substantial amount of energy to operate and
essentially `feeds' the polluted air to the air cleaner, which may have
limited ability to circulate and push the air itself. Figure 3, below,
illustrates the significant power of the recirculation fan recommended
in the AHAM CADR Test standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ A 2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey by the U.S.
Energy Information Administration found that most U.S. apartments
did not have any ceiling fan, and of 123.53m U.S. homes surveyed (of
all sizes) 34.08m had no ceiling fans. Source: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/hc/pdf/HC%207.1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 17902]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30AP25.047

Figure 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ Assumed 8 hours daily use on maximum power at $0.15 per
kWh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 4 below displays the CADR for various air cleaners tested
with and without artificial mixing and in two different chamber sizes
(28 m\3\ and 81 m\3\). The test data indicate that for air cleaners
with builtin lateral whole-room air circulation technology (that
ensures whole-room air circulation in the real world in consumers'
homes) the artificial mixing has no impact on the CADR score (1 and 3).
However, for air cleaners that do not have technology sufficient to
circulate the air in consumers' homes (2, 5-7),\34\ the artificial
mixing can erroneously increase the CADR by up to 32%, rendering room
size coverage claims and IEF scores calculated using CADR absolutely
and relatively inaccurate.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ Air cleaner 4 performed near-equally well on both tests,
despite not being equipped with lateral whole-room air circulation
technology. Why that model performed differently than similarly
situated models 2, 5, 6 and 7 is beyond the scope of this petition,
but the disparity further illustrates the unreliability of CADR for
predicting realworld performance.
\35\ See Exponent Report at 8. Moreover, an air cleaner can only
clean air that passes through its filter. Without the presence of a
powerful recirculation fan to circulate air (and the pollutants),
natural air movement may never be powerful enough to move pollutants
from the far side of a room to an air cleaner unless the air cleaner
has builtin air circulation and mixing technology.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30AP25.048

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

[[Page 17903]]

Figure 4.³⁶
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ See Exponent Report at 20. The CADR for various air cleaner
products tested in two different test chamber sizes, 28 m\3\ and 81
m\3\, with and without mixing. For some products the use of a
recirculation fan (mixing) resulted in minimal changes in CADR,
while for other products it resulted in an increase of CADR by up to
32%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This flaw results in a perverse outcome where the more effective
and technologically advanced air cleaners score worse relative to other
air cleaners. The high-powered recirculation fan is essentially giving
all air cleaners ``credit'' for having lateral whole-room air
circulation technology that enables more effective cleaning of the
room. The fan is doing the work for the air cleaners that do not do it
themselves.
2. The Air Cleaner is Placed in the Center of the Test Chamber \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ See Exponent Report, Section 4.3 at 23-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The AHAM CADR Test places the air cleaner in the center of the
testing chamber. However, consumers are much more likely to place an
air cleaner in the corner of a room or against a wall than in the
center of a room. Placement against a wall or in a corner is not only
logical from a practical and common sense perspective (as this is where
outlets are usually located and consumers will generally not want an
air cleaner `getting in the way' by placing it in the center of a
room), but Dyson has undertaken owner surveys which found that only a
small minority (17%) of users placed an air cleaner in the center of
their room, whereas 43% placed it in the corner and 40% placed it up
against a wall, as reflected in Figure 5, below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30AP25.049

Figure 5.³⁸
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ Survey data from 584 Dyson air cleaner owners across
Canada, France, and Australia relating to air cleaner placement in
consumer homes. Conducted in 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Location matters. Indeed, a study that investigated the CADR of an
air cleaner located at four different locations in an office space
showed that the CADR can vary by up to 27% (compared to the average)
depending on its location in the room.\39\ Thus, testing with an air
cleaner in the center of the room is not reflective of likely usage
conditions and could materially skew results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ K[uuml]pper, M., Asbach, C., Schneiderwind, U., Finger, H.,
Spiegelhoff, D., & Schumacher, S. (2019). Testing of an indoor air
cleaner for particulate pollutants under realistic conditions in an
office room. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 19(8), 1655-1665.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dyson tested air cleaners in both 81 m\3\ and 169 m\3\ test
chambers with no mixing and different cleaner locations (center or
corner). As shown in Figure 6, below, placing an air cleaner in the
corner of the chamber instead of the center can result in a
significantly lower CADR. In the most extreme case, placing the air
cleaner in the center, instead of the corner, resulted in a 34%
increase in CADR.

[[Page 17904]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30AP25.050

Figure 6.⁴⁰
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ See Exponent Report at 25. The CADR for various air cleaner
products tested by Dyson in two different test chamber sizes, 81 and
169 m\3\, without mixing, with the air cleaner placed in the corner
and center of the test chamber. For some products the placement of
the air cleaner resulted in minimal changes in CADR, while for other
products it resulted in an increase of CADR by up to 34% when the
air cleaner was moved from the corner to center of the room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, placement of the air cleaner in the center of the test
chamber is both misleading (because it artificially increases the CADR)
and unfair (because it benefits some air cleaners that do not have
lateral whole-room air circulation more than air cleaners that do).
3. The Test Chamber is Smaller Than Consumers' Average Rooms and Relies
on a Single Sensor \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ See Exponent Report, Section 4.2 at 20-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumer survey data obtained by Dyson found that, in the U.S., 52%
of homes had a family room larger than 360 square feet (19 m\2\).\42\
In addition, it is generally accepted that an `average' family room in
the U.S. is approximately 400 square feet (20 m\2\).\43\ The AHAM CADR
Test chamber is considerably smaller; it is the equivalent of only 125
square feet (12 m\2\). Furthermore, houses (and rooms in houses) have
become larger over the last 30-40 years, compared to when the AHAM CADR
Test was first developed in the 1980s. According to data from the
Census Bureau, family homes built in 1990 were 2,080 ft\2\ (193 m\2\)
on average. By 2015, family homes had increased to an average of 2,687
ft\2\ (250 m\2\) and for 2022 the average family home was 2,383 ft\2\
(221 m\2\).\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ Survey of Dyson product owners based in the US conducted in
2016, with 361 respondents.
\43\ Jessica Walrack, How Much Square Footage Do You Need?
Updated on December 14, 2021, https://www.thebalancemoney.com/how-much-square-footage-do-you-need-5201264.
\44\ Highlights of 2023 Characteristics of New Housing, 2023
https://www.census.gov/construction/chars/highlights.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is easier for an air cleaner to clean and remove pollutants
contained in a smaller space than a larger one. In a CADR chamber-sized
space (125 square feet), even with pollutants at the furthest distance
from an air cleaner, this will be a relatively short distance and
relatively easy to clean.
The larger a room, the further away pollution events (e.g., fumes
from cooking or pollen or pollution from outside) may be. Without the
aid of a powerful recirculation fan (as discussed above), an air
cleaner will need to bring these pollutants to it via its own means, in
addition to natural circulation, to filter them.
Figure 7, below, demonstrates that CADR for different air cleaners
in test chambers 28 m\3\ and 81 m\3\ with ``mixing'' (aka a powerful
recirculation fan) can vary by up to 16%. These differences are likely
to lead to misidentification of the air cleaner with the best CADR
performance.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ See Exponent Report at 22.

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

[[Page 17905]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30AP25.051

Figure 7.⁴⁶
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ See id. CADR for various air cleaners tested in a 28 and 81
m3 chamber. Testing in different test chamber sizes can result in a
16% difference in CADR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example, for the 28 m\3\ size test chamber (the size prescribed
by the AHAM CADR Test), air cleaner #6 performs better, i.e., has a
higher CADR than air cleaner #3. However, when the test chamber size is
closer to real room sizes (81 m\3\), air cleaner #3 performs better,
i.e., has the higher CADR. Thus, with respect to CADR in a real-world
room, air cleaner #3 is the better appliance but the AHAM standard
would identify air cleaner #6 as the higher-performing appliance--and,
pursuant to the Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule--air cleaner #6
also would be identified to consumers as covering a larger-sized room
than air cleaner #3 and with a potentially higher IEF score.
As discussed above, to achieve more effective large room cleaning,
certain air cleaners have builtin lateral whole-room air circulation
and mixing technology to ensure that pollutants on one side of a large
room are moved around the room and towards the air cleaner. An air
cleaner without such technology will not be able to do this
effectively. Built-in air circulation and mixing technology are not
standard in air cleaners, and products with such technology widely
range in terms of their strength and capacity. Testing in a small 28
m\3\ chamber does not enable such capability or technology to be
properly tested, as even an air cleaner without built-in air
circulation and mixing technology will be able to more easily clean the
chamber at that size. This makes the small AHAM CADR Test chamber
unsuitable for measuring an air cleaner's ability to clean larger
spaces. In some scenarios, an air cleaner simply will be unable to
clean a room greater than a certain size (regardless of CADR score)
because it has insufficient lateral air circulation to push faroff
pollutants into its filter.
The problems with using a small test chamber are compounded by
using only one sensor to test purification and having the cleaner in
the center of the room. Again, these components of the AHAM CADR Test
fail to give the resulting CADR relevance to consumers in real world
spaces. In real world spaces, most consumers will place cleaners in the
corner of (larger) rooms, and will want to know not how clean the room
is right next to the air cleaner (as tested by the single sensor in the
AHAM CADR Test chamber), but rather, how clean the room is in various
locations, including most importantly where people are located in the
room. Studies have shown that the CADR can change up to 35.7% based on
the test chamber volume.\47\ Notably, other international standards
\48\ specify a test chamber size based on the air cleaners' CADR, which
better accounts for the impact of chamber volume on CADR measurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ Fan, Y., Liu, J., Zhao, L., Wang, C., Moon, D., & Song, S.
(2024). Study on the test accuracy of the high-air-volume cleaner
under different test chamber volumes. Journal of Cleaner Production,
448, 141684.
\48\ E.g., (GB/T18801-2022) and (SPS-KACA002-132:2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The Test Fails To Account for Automatic Sensor-Response Technology
\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ Exponent Report, Section 6 at 34-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The AHAM CADR Test requires the tested air cleaner to operate at
maximum fan speed throughout the duration of the test and, therefore,
does not account for increasingly prevalent automatic sensor-response
mode technology, which adjusts fan speed based on the level of
pollution in the room in order to conserve energy and increase consumer
comfort.
In the same way that a thermostat regulates a home's heating system
depending on the temperature, an air cleaner with automatic sensor-
response technology monitors and senses the air quality in a room and
intelligently adjusts fan speed to respond to `pollution events' (for
example: fumes from cooking or using cleaning products). This
technology is now widely adopted by modern air cleaners and is a driver
of consumer purchasing decisions. Of the top 50 selling air cleaners in
the U.S. by revenue share, over 56% of this revenue is from products
with some form of automatic response technology.\50\ The consumer
benefits from automatic sensor-response technology because the air
cleaner uses no more energy than necessary to clean the room. There
also is an acoustic benefit offered by the lower fan speeds of
``smart'' air cleaners using this technology, which reduces noise
pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ Based on air cleaner sales data in the United Sates for the
12 months between January 2023 and December 2023.

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

[[Page 17906]]

If an air cleaner is always run at the maximum fan speed it will
inevitably `overclean' the space, as it will keep running even once a
pollution event has been cleaned, thereby wasting energy. It is also
not reflective of how many air cleaner products available on the market
today operate, and thus not reflective of what a large proportion of
consumers owning air cleaners will experience.
The Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule are intended to measure
and encourage more energy efficient choices by consumers, ensuring that
consumers have an accurate representation of how large a space an air
cleaner can effectively clean and how energy efficient it is in doing
the cleaning. However, by running all tested air cleaners at maximum
fan speed, the AHAM CADR Test fails to account for the energy-saving
and other consumer benefits of air cleaners with this technology.

B. The Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule Mislead Consumers

In its response to Dyson's previous comments, DOE acknowledged that
it was willing to accept inaccurate and inconsistent data because it
was nevertheless important to have a test that DOE considered
scientific, repeatable and easy to administer. DOE's decision, born of
expedience at the cost of accuracy and consumer welfare, does not
achieve DOE's goal of giving consumers relevant information about the
energy efficacy and efficiency with which different air cleaners can
clean various size rooms. To the contrary, it promotes consumer
confusion by ignoring material differences in product features like
active versus passive systems and systems that promote efficiency of
use versus those that do not, as demonstrated by the new data
highlighted by Dyson above and by Drs. Morse and Hashad in the Exponent
Report.
While Dyson sympathizes with DOE's desire to have a test that all
industry participants can be held to that is repeatable, objective and
capable of being implemented to ensure that manufacturers are not
making claims lacking in scientific substantiation, the test must
nevertheless provide relevant and accurate information to inform
consumer purchasing decisions. A bad standardized test is worse than no
standardized test. Consumers should be given accurate and reliable
information that helps them answer two questions: (1) how effectively
will the air cleaner clean the room where I will be using it, and (2)
how efficiently will the air cleaner do that cleaning and at what cost
in terms of its energy consumption? Room size coverage claims and IEF
scores calculated using CADRs measured by the AHAM CADR Test--as
mandated by the Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule--fail to
accurately answer either question.
As is evident from Figure 8, below, as flaws in the AHAM CADR Test
are corrected, the CADR scores for different products (and, therefore,
room size coverage claims and IEF scores) vary dramatically. The
significant variance (and drop in CADR scores for many products without
features such as lateral whole-room air circulation technology) as
real-world conditions are introduced into the test chamber,
demonstrates that the gap between what consumers experience in `real
life' vs. performance in the AHAM CADR Test chamber can be substantial.
The Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule inhibit a consumers' ability
to identify an air cleaner that is the right size for their space in
the real world, and to consider the energy consumption, cost and
environmental impact of one air cleaner versus another.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30AP25.052

[[Page 17907]]

Figure 8.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Room size
Room size capability
capability when real
(AHAM CADR world
TEST method) conditions are
ft\2\ introduced
ft\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product A............................... 166 129
Product B............................... 285 281
Product C............................... 290 234
Product D............................... 142 109
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example, if a consumer wishes to purchase an air cleaner for
his 280 ft\2\ living room, he would be influenced by Product C's
claimed room size figure of 290 ft\2\ and perhaps purchase this
product. However, when this consumer uses Product C in his home, he
will not be using the product in the same conditions as found in the
AHAM CADR Test chamber: he will not have a powerful recirculation fan
and will likely place the product in the corner of an average-sized
room--introducing simple real-world conditions that are not accounted
for by the AHAM CADR Test and not reflected in room size coverage
claims and IEF scores calculated using CADR.
The performance experienced by the consumer using Product C in his
home will be materially worse than what the consumer has been led to
believe would be the performance by the air cleaner. Product C may only
be able to effectively clean a space of 234 ft\2\--far smaller than
what the consumer believed would be the effective room size coverage
when purchasing the air cleaner in reliance on DOEmandated product
performance claims. This mismatch between claims and reality will
result in Product C taking a longer time to effectively clean the room
it was advertised as being suited for, leading to increased energy
consumption and energy costs when compared to what the consumer will
have anticipated, as well as poorer performance. In some scenarios, the
undersized air cleaner may not be able to clean the room at all.
Product B (which scored slightly worse than Product C under AHAM
CADR Test conditions and yet maintained the same score despite
introduction of real-world conditions (dropping only from 285 ft\2\ to
281 ft\2\)), will perform as well in the consumers' home as advertised
pursuant to the Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule. However, this
does not help the consumer who has already purchased Product C,
erroneously believing it will perform as well, or better than, Product
B (and may have been sold at a lower price than Product B because it
did not need to incorporate built-in air mixing and circulating
technologies used by Product B in order to score comparatively well on
the AHAM CADR Test).
This is a problem. As DOE has acknowledged, the inability of
consumers to select the right-sized air cleaners for their homes
results in, among other things, energy inefficiency and increased
energy consumption, in violation of DOE's remit to establish standards
for energy efficiency:

Room size would strongly impact the capacity of the air cleaner
that would be required to clean the air in the desired room. For
instance, if the air cleaner is too small compared to the size of
the room it is being used in, it will be ineffective, thus providing
low efficiency. Conversely, if an air cleaner is too big for the
room that it is operated in, it will clean the air very quickly and
continue operating, leading to increased energy use. Therefore, it
is important that an air cleaner be selected such that its capacity
(expressed in terms of its CADR) is appropriate for the size of the
room that it is intended to be used in.⁵¹
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Air
Cleaners, 88 FR 14014 at 21 (Mar. 6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Room Size Coverage Rule And IEF Rule Stifle Innovation

By failing to account for real-world conditions and, in particular,
providing undeserved ``extra credit'' to air cleaners without lateral
whole-room air circulation fans, room size coverage claims and IEF
scores calculated using CADRs measured by the AHAM CADR Test provide
insufficient and inaccurate differentiation between the performance of
air cleaners that do have such technology and the performance of air
cleaners that do not have such technology. Likewise, by not accounting
for features like automatic sensor-response technologies that enable
certain air cleaners to be more energy efficient, room size coverage
claims and IEF scores calculated using the AHAM CADR Test prevent
brands from competing for consumers based on those consumer- and
environmentally-friendly technologies. This perverse situation not only
leads to frustration of a consumers' ability to choose the right air
cleaner for their homes, but also reduces manufacturers' incentive to
continue to innovate to create better products that enhance consumer
welfare. Why invest in innovation if, under the Room Size Coverage Rule
and IEF Rule, air cleaners without performance and energy efficiency-
improving technologies appear to consumers to be equally effective and
efficient as those products whose manufacturers have invested in
researching and developing improved technologies?

D. The Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule Result in Increased Energy
Consumption

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (``EPCA'') requires
that any test procedures prescribed or amended by DOE shall be
reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy
efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered
product, including air cleaners. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)). The Room
Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule fail to comply with the EPCA.
Room size coverage claims and IEF scores compliant with the Room
Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule do not provide accurate information to
consumers concerning the efficiency and efficacy of different air
cleaners due to the multiple flaws in the AHAM CADR Test discussed
above. As a result, consumers will unknowingly choose the wrong
products for their rooms, resulting in increased energy consumption, as
DOE itself acknowledged in the final rule.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ Id. (``Room size would strongly impact the capacity of the
air cleaner that would be required to clean the air in the desired
room. For instance, if the air cleaner is too small compared to the
size of the room it is being used in, it will be ineffective, thus
providing low efficiency. Conversely, if an air cleaner is too big
for the room that it is operated in, it will clean the air very
quickly and continue operating, leading to increased energy use.
Therefore, it is important that an air cleaner be selected such that
its capacity (expressed in terms of its CADR) is appropriate for the
size of the room that it is intended to be used in.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Likewise, the Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule perversely
encourage rather than prevent greenwashing (i.e., false, deceptive or
exaggerated claims about the environmental bona fides of a product that
are apt to mislead consumers). The purported rationale for the Room
Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule is energy efficiency: ensuring that
accurate room size claims and energy efficiency metrics are available
to consumers so that they can make more informed purchasing decision
and have clarity around expected energy consumption. This information
inevitably also influences a consumer's perception of how `green' a
particular product is, an important factor for many consumers today. As
long as the Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule rely on CADRs measured
using the AHAM CADR Test, certain manufacturers and distributors of air
cleaners will have an easy route to promote their products as `greener'
than they are and claim that their products will achieve a level of
performance that they will, in fact,

[[Page 17908]]

never achieve in a larger space (absent the purchase of a second air
cleaner)--to the detriment of consumer welfare and DOE's remit to
promote energy efficiency.

E. The Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule Should Be, at Minimum,
Stayed To Provide Time for Notice and Comment on Whether To Revoke or
Modify the Rules

Dyson recognizes that it is not possible to `exactly' replicate
consumer conditions in every given scenario when designing a
laboratory-based test method which is reliable, repeatable, and
scalable for mass testing. To the extent DOE wants to maintain a
standard rule for substantiation of room size coverage claims that is
repeatable and scalable for mass testing yet more reliable in terms of
giving consumers meaningful information about the efficacy and energy
efficiency with which different air cleaners will clean various sized
rooms, Dyson urges DOE to revoke the Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF
Rule and open a period of notice and comment concerning alternative
approaches to testing CADR. If, however, DOE is not inclined to revoke
the Rules before opening a new period of notice and comment, DOE
should, at minimum, stay enforcement of the Room Size Coverage Rule and
IEF Rule.
As discussed in detail in the Exponent Report, there may be
relatively simple alterations to CADR testing that would narrow the gap
between lab-based testing that is repeatable yet lacking in real-world
relevancy, and testing which is more reflective of consumer
environments, without compromising the ability to have a test that is
repeatable and scalable. The Exponent Report discusses in Section 4.5
the following types of modifications that would improve its real-world
validity, among others:
[ssquf] Adjustable chamber sizing.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ See Exponent Report at p. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ssquf] Elimination of the recirculation fan and installation of
multiple sensors.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ssquf] Placement of the air cleaner in a corner of the
chamber.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dyson has concerns that the desire to provide a one-size-fits-all
test for room size coverage claims and IEF scores will always create
more harm than good, and that any calculation relying on the AHAM CADR
Test as its methodological foundation will fail to generate accurate
and meaningful information that helps consumers discern which air
cleaners on the market will most effectively and efficiently clean
rooms of various sizes. Nevertheless, if DOE is inclined to require a
standard test for room size coverage claims (if something truly is
better than nothing in this context), Dyson respectfully submits that
DOE revoke or, failing that, stay the Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF
Rule and open a period of notice and comment so that interested parties
can provide inputs to DOE concerning changes or substitutions that can
be made to give room size coverage claims and IEF scores greater real-
world validity.

IV. Conclusion

The Room Size Coverage Rule and IEF Rule require air cleaner
manufacturers to make product claims that are neither accurate nor
consistent, and that do not support energy efficiency. The Rules rely
upon a test methodology that has significant shortcomings which result
in inflated, inaccurate performance and energy efficiency claims,
frustrating consumers' ability to make informed purchasing decisions
and choose an air cleaner which is suitable for their homes. Further,
the difference between the inflated performance and energy efficiency
claims communicated to consumers under the Room Size Coverage Rule and
IEF Rule, and the actual performance of air cleaners in real world
conditions, results in consumers using more energy, and incurring more
costs, to clean their spaces than they were led to believe.
DOE needs to act now to reverse course on the Room Size Coverage
Rule and IEF Rule and avoid continued misleading of consumers, stifling
of innovation and wasteful energy consumption, as well as avoid the
Rules' adoption by other regulators, including FTC, which would amplify
the negative impact of the mandates and make them more difficult to
unwind in the future.
Accordingly, Dyson respectfully requests that DOE:
1. Amend part 429 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations to remove section 429.68(a)(4), and,
2. Amend part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations to remove section 430.23(hh)(4), or in the
alternative,
3. Stay enforcement of 429.68(a)(4) and 430.23(hh)(4), and open a
period of notice and comment to receive public comments on potential
substitutions for room size coverage claims and IEF scores based on
CADRs calculated using the AHAM CADR Test, or potential revisions that
can be made to the AHAM CADR Test to better approximate real-world
performance of air cleaners and to promote greater energy efficiency.

Sincerely,

Elena Stein,
General Counsel Dyson, Inc.

CC: United States Federal Trade Commission

[FR Doc. 2025-07351 Filed 4-29-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P