[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31964-31970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12338]



  Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 31964]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket Number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060]
RIN 1904-AC64


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Residential Dishwashers

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

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 
amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer 
products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including 
residential dishwashers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of 
Energy (DOE) to determine whether amended standards would be 
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a 
significant amount of energy. In this proposed rule, DOE proposes 
amended energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers 
identical to those set forth in a direct final rule published elsewhere 
in today's Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse comment and 
determines that such comment may provide a reasonable basis for 
withdrawing the direct final rule, DOE will publish a notice 
withdrawing the final rule and will proceed with this proposed rule.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the 
proposed standards no later than September 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: See section III, ``Public Participation,'' for details.
    Any comments submitted must identify the proposed rule for Energy 
Conservation Standards for Residential Dishwashers, and provide docket 
number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) 
number 1904-AC64. Comments may be submitted using any of the following 
methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number 
and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed 
copies.
    Docket: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov, 
including Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060.
    For further information on how to submit or review public comments 
or view hard copies of the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 
586-2945 or email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-7463, email: [email protected].
    Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121, (202) 586-7796, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Legal Authority
II. Proposed Standards
    A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Dishwashers
    B. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards
III. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Public Meeting
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction and Legal Authority

    Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 
(EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other 
Than Automobiles,\1\ a program covering most major household appliances 
(collectively referred to as ``covered products''), which includes the 
residential dishwashers that are the subject of this rulemaking. (42 
U.S.C. 6292(a)(6)) EPCA, as amended by the Energy Information and 
Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110-140), prescribed the 
current energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers (42 
U.S.C. 6295(g)(10), and directed DOE to publish a final rule no later 
than January 1, 2015, to determine whether to amend the standards in 
effect for dishwashers manufactured on or after January 1, 2018. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B)(i))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EISA 2007 also amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE 
authority DOE to issue a final rule (hereinafter referred to as a 
``direct final rule'') establishing an energy conservation standard for 
a covered 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 conservation 
standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o). EPCA also requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 
that proposes an identical energy conservation standard be published 
simultaneously with the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a 
public comment period of at least 110 days. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Not 
later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if one or 
more adverse comments or an alternative joint recommendation are 
received relating to the direct final rule, the Secretary must 
determine whether the comments or alternative recommendation may 
provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 
other applicable law. If the Secretary makes such a determination, DOE 
must withdraw the direct final rule and proceed with the simultaneously 
published NOPR. DOE must also publish in the Federal Register the 
reason why the direct final rule was withdrawn. Id.
    On July 30, 2010, DOE received the ``Agreement on Minimum Federal 
Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related 
Matters for Specified Appliances'' (hereinafter, the ``Joint 
Petition''),\2\ a comment submitted by groups representing 
manufacturers (the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), 
Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), General Electric Company (GE), 
Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG),

[[Page 31965]]

BSH Home Appliances (BSH), Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS), Viking 
Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp 
Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, 
Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, 
Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and DeLonghi); energy and environmental 
advocates (American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 
Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Natural Resources Defense 
Council (NRDC), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water 
Efficiency (AWE), Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), and 
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)); and consumer groups 
(Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and the National Consumer Law 
Center (NCLC)) (collectively, the ``Joint Petitioners''). The Joint 
Petitioners recommended specific energy conservation standards for 
residential dishwashers that they believed would satisfy the EPCA 
requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Earthjustice submitted a comment 
affirming its support for the Joint Petition.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060, Comment 1.
    \3\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060, Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has considered the recommended energy conservation standards 
and believes that they meet the EPCA requirements for issuance of a 
direct final rule. As a result, DOE has published a direct final rule 
establishing energy conservation standards for dishwashers elsewhere in 
today's 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 today's proposed rule.
    For further background information on these proposed standards and 
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. That document includes 
additional discussion on the EPCA requirements for promulgation of 
energy conservation standards, the current standards for residential 
dishwashers, and the history of the standards rulemakings establishing 
such standards, as well as information on the test procedures used to 
measure the energy efficiency of dishwashers. The document also 
contains an in-depth discussion of the analyses conducted in support of 
this rulemaking, the methodologies DOE used in conducting those 
analyses, and the analytical results.

II. Proposed Standards

    When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy 
conservation standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of 
covered product shall 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)) In determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, DOE must determine 
whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, considering to 
the greatest extent practicable the seven statutory factors set forth 
in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard must 
also result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B))
    The Department considered the impacts of standards at each trial 
standard level (TSL) considered by DOE, beginning with maximum 
technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was 
economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not economically 
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.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and burdens of each 
TSL, DOE has included tables that 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, such as low-income 
households and seniors, who may be disproportionately affected by a 
national standard. Section V.B.1.b of the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register presents the estimated impacts of 
each TSL for these subgroups.

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Dishwashers

    Table II.1 and Table II.2 present a summary of the quantitative 
impacts estimated for each TSL for dishwashers. The efficiency levels 
contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of the direct final 
rule.

                            Table II.1--Summary of Results for Residential Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels: National Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                           TSL 1                        TSL 2                        TSL 3                        TSL 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Energy Savings (quads).....  0.02.......................  0.07.......................  0.94.......................  1.59
National Water Savings (trillion      0.01.......................  0.14.......................  0.56.......................  1.71
 gal.).
Net Present Value (2010$ billion):
    3% discount rate................  0.12.......................  0.46.......................  6.51.......................  17.45
    7% discount rate................  0.03.......................  0.08.......................  1.96.......................  5.88
Cumulative Emissions Reduction:
    CO2 (million metric tons).......  1.15.......................  4.06.......................  65.02......................  98.62
    NOX (thousand tons).............  0.96.......................  3.54.......................  54.27......................  83.31
    Hg (tons).......................  0.004......................  0.000......................  0.274......................  0.304
Value of Emissions Reduction:
    CO2 (2010$ million) *...........  5 to 79....................  16 to 242..................  278 to 4515................  427 to 6951
    NOX - 3% discount rate (2010$     0 to 3.....................  1 to 10....................  14 to 148..................  22 to 230
     million).
    NOX - 7% discount rate (2010$     0 to 1.....................  0 to 5.....................  6 to 59....................  9 to 91
     million).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
** Values are for 2047.


[[Page 31966]]


   Table II.2--Summary of Results for Residential Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels: Consumer and Manufacturer
                                                     Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                      TSL 1              TSL 2              TSL 3              TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact to Industry NPV (2010$             (44.3)-(45.3)      (73.9)-(84.6)    (128.9)-(174.4)    (145.6)-(202.7)
 million, 8.5% discount rate).......
Industry NPV (% change).............        (7.0)-(7.1)      (11.6)-(13.3)      (20.2)-(27.4)      (22.8)-(31.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Consumer Mean LCC Savings (2010$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Dishwasher.................                  1                  3                 41                108
Compact Dishwasher..................                 13                 12                 52                 52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Consumer Median PBP (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Dishwasher.................                5.9               11.8                6.6                4.5
Compact Dishwasher..................                0.3                0.3                2.1                2.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Dishwasher:
    Net Cost (%)....................                1.9               18.7               29.7               22.9
    No Impact (%)...................               96.3               64.1               20.0                9.0
    Net Benefit (%).................                1.7               17.2               50.4               68.1
Compact Dishwasher:
    Net Cost (%)....................                6.4                6.5                5.4                5.4
    No Impact (%)...................               75.6               75.6               50.2               50.2
    Net Benefit (%).................               18.0               17.9               44.4               44.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.

    DOE first considered TSL 4, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. TSL 4 would save 1.59 quads of energy and 1.71 
trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE considers significant. Under TSL 
4, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $5.88 billion, using a discount 
rate of 7 percent, and $17.45 billion, using a discount rate of 3 
percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 99 Mt of 
CO2, 83 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.304 tons of 
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $427 million to $6,951 million. Total 
generating capacity in 2047 is estimated to decrease by 0.800 GW under 
TSL 4.
    At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a savings of $108 for standard 
dishwashers and a savings of $52 for compact dishwashers. The median 
payback period is 4.5 years for standard dishwashers and 2.1 years for 
compact dishwashers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC 
benefit is 68.1 percent for standard dishwashers and 44.4 percent for 
compact dishwashers. However, 22.9 percent of standard dishwasher 
consumers and 5.4 percent of compact dishwasher consumers experience an 
LCC net cost. In addition, DOE is concerned that reducing energy and 
water use at TSL 4 without implementing significantly higher-cost 
technologies could result in the loss of certain consumer utility. 
Specifically, a substantially longer cycle time could be required to 
maintain cleaning performance. Because it is uncertain how greatly 
consumers value short cycle times, DOE is concerned that TSL 4 may 
result in significant loss of consumer utility.
    At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$145.6 million to a decrease of $202.7 million, equivalent to 22.8 
percent and 31.8 percent, respectively. Current products that meet 
efficiency standards specified by this TSL represent less than 9 
percent of shipments in the year leading up to amended standards; thus, 
manufacturers would have to redesign nearly all products by the 2018 
compliance date to meet demand. Redesigning all units to meet the 
current max-tech efficiency levels would require considerable capital 
and product conversion expenditures. At TSL 4, the capital conversion 
costs total $226.3 million, 2.23 times the industry annual capital 
expenditure in the year leading up to amended standards. DOE estimates 
that complete platform redesigns would cost the industry $76.7 million 
in product conversion costs. These conversion costs largely relate to 
the research programs required to develop products that meet the 
efficiency standards set forth by TSL 4, and represent 164.5 percent of 
the industry annual budget for research and development. As such, the 
conversion costs associated with the changes in products and 
manufacturing facilities required at TSL 4 would require significant 
use of manufacturers' financial reserves (manufacturer capital pools), 
impacting other areas of business that compete for these resources and 
significantly reducing INPV. In addition, manufacturers could face a 
substantial impact on profitability at TSL 4. Because manufacturers 
earn a premium for ENERGY STAR products and additional profit for 
products that exceed the ENERGY STAR level, collapsing the market to 
one commodity product makes it unlikely that manufacturers could 
maintain their base-case profitability on these products after 
compliance with the standards is required. As a result, DOE expects 
that TSL 4 would yield impacts closer to the high end of the range of 
INPV impacts. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached, as 
DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss of 31.8 percent in INPV 
to dishwasher manufacturers.
    The Secretary concludes that at TSL 4 for residential dishwashers, 
the benefits of energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, generating capacity reductions, emission reductions, and the 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions 
would be outweighed by the economic burden on some consumers, the 
potential burden on all consumers from loss of product utility, and the 
impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion costs and profit 
margin

[[Page 31967]]

impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV. Consequently, 
the Secretary has concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 would save 0.94 quads of energy 
and 0.56 trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE considers significant. 
Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $1.96 billion, using 
a discount rate of 7 percent, and $6.51 billion, using a discount rate 
of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 65 Mt of 
CO2, 54 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.274 ton of 
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $278 million to $4,515 million. Total 
generating capacity in 2047 is estimated to decrease by 0.719 GW under 
TSL 3.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $41 for standard 
dishwashers and a savings of $52 for compact dishwashers. The median 
payback period is 6.6 years for standard dishwashers and 2.1 years for 
compact dishwashers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC 
benefit is 50.4 percent for standard dishwashers and 44.4 percent for 
compact dishwashers. However, 29.7 percent of standard dishwasher 
consumers and 5.4 percent of compact dishwasher consumers experience an 
LCC net cost. In addition, DOE is concerned that reducing energy and 
water use at TSL 3 without implementing significantly higher-cost 
technologies could result in the loss of certain consumer utility. 
Specifically, a substantially longer cycle time could be required to 
maintain cleaning performance. Because it is uncertain how greatly 
consumers value short cycle times, DOE is concerned that TSL 3 may 
result in significant loss of consumer utility.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$128.9 million to a decrease of $174.4 million, decreases of 20.2 
percent and 27.4 percent, respectively. Current products that meet 
efficiency standards specified by this TSL represent less than 20 
percent of shipments in the year leading up to amended standards; thus, 
manufacturers would have to overhaul a significant fraction of products 
by the 2018 compliance date to meet demand. Redesigning significant 
component systems or developing new platforms entirely to meet the 
efficiency levels specified by this TSL would require considerable 
capital and product conversion expenditures. At TSL 3, the estimated 
capital conversion costs total $195.4 million, which is 1.93 times the 
industry annual capital expenditure in the year leading up to amended 
standards. DOE estimates that the redesigns necessary to meet these 
standards would cost the industry $66.5 million in product conversion 
costs. These conversion costs largely relate to the research programs 
required to develop products that meet the efficiency standards set 
forth by TSL 3, and represent 142.6 percent of the industry annual 
budget for research and development in the year leading up to amended 
standards. As such, the conversion costs associated with the changes in 
products and manufacturing facilities required at TSL 3 would require 
significant use of manufacturers' financial reserves (manufacturer 
capital pools), impacting other areas of business that compete for 
these resources and significantly reducing INPV. In addition, 
manufacturers could face a substantial impact on profitability at TSL 
3. Because manufacturers earn a premium for ENERGY STAR products and 
additional profit for products that exceed the ENERGY STAR level, 
collapsing the market to one commodity product makes it unlikely that 
manufacturers could maintain their base-case profitability on these 
products after compliance with the standards is required. As a result, 
DOE expects that TSL 3 would yield impacts closer to the high end of 
the range of INPV impacts. If the high end of the range of impacts is 
reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a net loss of 27.4 
percent in INPV to dishwasher manufacturers.
    The Secretary concludes that at TSL 3 for residential dishwashers, 
the benefits of energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, generating capacity reductions, emission reductions, and the 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions 
would be outweighed by the economic burden on some consumers, the 
potential burden on all consumers from loss of product utility, and the 
impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion costs and profit 
margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV. 
Consequently, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 3 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 0.07 quads of energy 
and 0.14 trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE considers significant. 
Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $0.08 billion, using 
a discount rate of 7 percent, and $0.46 billion, using a discount rate 
of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 4.06 Mt of 
CO2, 3.54 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.000 ton of 
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 2 ranges from $16 million to $242 million. Total 
generating capacity in 2047 is estimated to decrease by 0.001 GW under 
TSL 2.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings of $3 for standard 
dishwashers and a savings of $12 for compact dishwashers. The median 
payback period is 11.8 years for standard dishwashers and 0.3 years for 
compact dishwashers. While some consumers experience an LCC increase, 
this increase is very small in most cases.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$73.9 million to a decrease of $84.6 million, decreases of 11.6 percent 
and 13.3 percent, respectively. All dishwasher manufacturers currently 
produce products that meet the efficiency levels specified at TSL 2. As 
such, this level corresponds more to incremental product conversions 
rather than the platform redesigns expected for TSL 3 and TSL 4. 
Products at or above the efficiency levels of TSL 2 represent over 63 
percent of shipments in the year leading up to amended standards. As 
such, DOE believes that the scope of the redesigns necessary to meet 
TSL 2 by the 2013 compliance date greatly mitigates concerns over 
manufacturers' ability to redesign products and switch over the bulk of 
production in time to meet the amended standards by the compliance date 
(operational risk). DOE estimates that the improvements to 
manufacturing facilities necessary to meet these standards would cost 
the industry $59.1 million in capital conversion costs, over $130 
million less than those incurred at TSL 3, and only 55.7 percent of the 
industry budget for capital expenditure in the year leading up to 
amended standards. TSL 2 will require an estimated 34.9 million in 
product conversion costs primarily relating to the research and 
development programs needed to improve upon existing platforms to meet 
the specified efficiency levels. This represents 71.6 percent of the 
industry budget for research and development in the year leading up to 
amended standards. The substantial reduction in conversion costs over 
those incurred at higher TSLs, coupled with the fact that many products 
currently meet the efficiency standards set forth by TSL 2, greatly 
mitigate the operational risk and impact on INPV.
    The Secretary concludes that at TSL 2 for residential dishwashers, 
the benefits of energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, generating capacity reductions, emission reductions, and the 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions 
would outweigh the impacts on manufacturers, including the

[[Page 31968]]

conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for 
manufacturers.
    In addition, the efficiency levels in TSL 2 correspond to the 
recommended levels in the Joint Petition, which DOE believes sets forth 
a statement by interested persons that are fairly representative of 
relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of 
covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) and contains 
recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that 
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged 
the submission of consensus agreements as a way for diverse interested 
parties to develop an independent and probative analysis useful in DOE 
standard setting and to expedite the rulemaking process. DOE also 
believes that the standard levels recommended in the consensus 
agreement may increase the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while 
decreasing the risk of litigation.
    After considering the analysis and the benefits and burdens of TSL 
2, the Secretary concludes that this TSL will offer the maximum 
improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified, and will result in the significant conservation 
of energy. Therefore, DOE proposes to adopt TSL 2 for residential 
dishwashers. The proposed amended energy conservation standards for 
residential dishwashers, which are a maximum allowable annual energy 
use and maximum allowable per-cycle water consumption, are shown in 
Table II.3.

                  Table II.3--Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dishwashers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Compliance date: May 30, 2013
             Product class             -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum annual energy use *      Maximum per-cycle water consumption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Standard (>=8 place settings plus 6  307 kWh/year.......................  5.0 gallons/cycle.
 serving pieces).
2. Compact (<8 place settings plus 6    222 kWh/year.......................  3.5 gallons/cycle.
 serving pieces).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Annual energy use, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, is calculated as: The sum of the annual standby
  electrical energy in kWh and the product of (1) the representative average dishwasher use cycles per year and
  (2) the sum of machine electrical energy consumption per cycle in kWh, the total water energy consumption per
  cycle in kWh, and, for dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle, the drying energy consumption divided by 2
  in kWh. A truncated normal cycle is defined as the normal cycle interrupted to eliminate the power-dry feature
  after the termination of the last rinse option.

B. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards

    The benefits and costs of today's standards can also be expressed 
in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the 
sum of (1) the annualized national economic value, expressed in 2010$, 
of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed 
standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using 
less energy and water, minus increases in product purchase costs, which 
is another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary 
value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO2 
emission reductions.\4\ The value of the CO2 reductions, 
otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using 
a range of values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a 
recent interagency process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-
series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE 
calculated a present value in 2011, the year used for discounting 
the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of 
costs and benefits using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all 
costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 
shown in Table II.4. From the present value, DOE then calculated the 
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period that yields the same 
present value. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. 
Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that 
the time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized 
values were determined would be a steady stream of payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although combining the values of operating savings and 
CO2 reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues 
should be considered. First, the national operating savings are 
domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of 
market transactions while the value of CO2 reductions is 
based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost 
savings and SCC are performed with different methods that use quite 
different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings 
is measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2013-2047. The SCC 
values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future 
climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of 
carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.
    Table II.4 shows the annualized values for residential dishwashers 
under TSL 2, expressed in 2010$. The results under the primary estimate 
are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs 
other than CO2 reductions, for which DOE used a 3-percent 
discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a value of 
$22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$), the cost of the standards for dishwashers 
in today's rule is $46 million per year in increased equipment costs, 
while the annualized benefits are $53 million per year in reduced 
equipment operating costs, $3.9 million in CO2 reductions, 
and $0.24 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, 
the net benefit amounts to $11 million per year. Using a 3-percent 
discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC series 
corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$), the cost of 
the standards for dishwashers in today's rule is $44 million per year 
in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $66 million per 
year in reduced operating costs, $3.9 million in CO2 
reductions, and $0.26 million in reduced NOX emissions. In 
this case, the net benefit amounts to $27 million per year.

[[Page 31969]]



                                      Table II.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards (TSL 2) for Residential Dishwashers Sold in 2013-2047
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                       Monetized  (million 2010$/year)
                                                  Discount rate             --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Primary estimate*                  Low net benefits estimate*            High net benefits estimate*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings..............  7%...................................  53...................................  48...................................  59
                                      3%...................................  66...................................  59...................................  75
CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t**...........  5%...................................  1.1..................................  1.0..................................  1.3
CO2 Reduction at $22.3/t**..........  3%...................................  3.9..................................  3.5..................................  4.7
CO2 Reduction at $36.5/t**..........  2.5%.................................  6.1..................................  5.4..................................  7.2
CO2 Reduction at $67.6/t**..........  3%...................................  12.0.................................  10.8.................................  14.2
NOX Reduction at $2,537/t**.........  7%...................................  0.24.................................  0.23.................................  0.27
                                      3%...................................  0.26.................................  0.24.................................  0.30
Total[dagger].......................  7% plus CO2 range....................  54 to 65.............................  49 to 59.............................  60 to 73
                                      7%...................................  57...................................  52...................................  64
                                      3% plus CO2 range....................  68 to 78.............................  60 to 70.............................  76 to 89
                                      3%...................................  70...................................  63...................................  80
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Product Costs...........  7%...................................  46...................................  44...................................  43
                                      3%...................................  44...................................  41...................................  40
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Total Net Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total[dagger].......................  7% plus CO2 range....................  8 to 19..............................  6 to 16..............................  17 to 30
                                      7%...................................  11...................................  8....................................  20
                                      3% plus CO2 range....................  24 to 35.............................  19 to 29.............................  37 to 49
                                      3%...................................  27...................................  22...................................  40
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2047 from the dishwashers purchased from 2013 through 2047. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior
  to 2013 in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The extent of the costs and benefits will depend on the
  projected price trends of dishwashers, as the consumer demand for dishwashers is a function of dishwasher prices. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of
  energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2011 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate for
  projected product price trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate for projected product price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for projected product
  price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.G.3 of the direct final rule.
** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC
  distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount
  rate. The value for NOX (in 2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$). In the rows labeled as ``7% plus
  CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

III. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule until 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 notice.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The 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 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 regulations.gov cannot 
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive 
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on 
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section 
below.
    DOE processes submissions made through 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

[[Page 31970]]

comment tracking number that regulations.gov provides after you have 
successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail. 
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also 
will be posted to 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. Email submissions are 
preferred. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please 
provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit 
printed copies. No facsimiles (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. 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, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier 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. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if 
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential 
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    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

    If DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere in 
today's 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 today's Federal Register. Please see the direct final rule 
for further details.

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's 
proposed rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

10 CFR Part 430

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 11, 2012.
David Danielson,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
parts 429 and 430 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as 
set forth below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

    1. The authority citation for Part 429 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

    2. In Sec.  429.19 revise paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.19  Dishwashers.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Pursuant to Sec.  429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall 
include the following public product-specific information: The 
estimated annual energy use in kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr) and the 
water consumption in gallons per cycle.
* * * * *

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

    3. The authority citation for Part 430 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    4. In Sec.  430.32 add paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) All dishwashers manufactured on or after May 30, 2013, shall 
meet the following standard--
    (i) Standard size dishwashers shall not exceed 307 kwh/year and 5.0 
gallons per cycle.
    (ii) Compact size dishwashers shall not exceed 222 kwh/year and 3.5 
gallons per cycle.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-12338 Filed 5-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P