[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37794-37804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16564]


 ========================================================================
 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. 84, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 37794]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014]


Energy Efficiency Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Residential Clothes Washers

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

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an 
effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation 
standards for residential clothes washers (``RCWs''). This request for 
information (``RFI'') solicits information from the public to help DOE 
determine whether amended standards for RCWs would result in 
significant amount of additional energy savings and whether such 
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified. 
As part of this RFI, DOE seeks comment on whether there have been 
sufficient technological or market changes since the most recent 
standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more 
stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that 
could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no 
new standard'' determination because a more stringent standard: Would 
not result in a significant savings of energy; is not technologically 
feasible; is not economically justified; or any combination of 
foregoing. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject 
within the scope of this document (including topics not raised in this 
RFI).

DATES: Written comments and information will be accepted on or before 
September 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested 
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-
STD-0014, by any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: Consumer[email protected]. Include the 
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014 in the subject line of the message.
    3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case 
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section III of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in 
the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, 
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    The docket web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section III of this document for information on how 
to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email: 
[email protected].
    Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other 
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority and Background
    B. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
    A. Products Covered by This Rulemaking
    B. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Product Classes
    2. Technology Assessment
    C. Screening Analysis
    D. Engineering Analysis
    1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technology Levels
    3. Intermediate Efficiency Levels
    4. Other Efficiency Level Considerations
    5. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
    E. Markups Analysis
    F. Energy and Water Use Analysis
    G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
    H. Shipments Analysis
    I. National Impact Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    K. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
III. Submission of Comments

I. Introduction

A. Authority and Background

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 
(``EPCA''),\1\ among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the 
energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain 
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of 
EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 
Other

[[Page 37795]]

Than Automobiles. These products include RCWs, the subject of this 
document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, 
Public Law 115-270 (Oct. 23, 2018).
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially 
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy 
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include 
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), 
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal 
preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or 
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set 
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).
    EPCA required that all rinse cycles of clothes washers manufactured 
after January 1, 1988 include an unheated water option, but stated that 
such clothes washers may have a heated water rinse option. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(g)(2) EPCA directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to 
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)(A) 
and (B)) DOE completed the first rulemaking cycle for RCWs in 1991 by 
establishing performance-based energy conservation standards for top-
loading compact and top-loading standard-size RCWs manufactured on or 
after May 14, 1994. 56 FR 22249 (May 14, 1991). DOE completed a second 
rulemaking cycle by publishing a final rule on January 12, 2001 
(``January 2001 Final Rule''), which amended the standards for top-
loading compact and standard-size RCWs and established performance-
based standards for front-loading RCWs. 66 FR 3314. These amended 
standards were based on a joint proposal submitted to DOE by clothes 
washer manufacturers and energy conservation advocates. Id.
    EPCA further amended the energy conservation standards for top-
loading and front-loading standard-size RCWs manufactured on or after 
January 1, 2011.\3\ (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(A)) EPCA further directed DOE 
to conduct a rulemaking to determine whether to amend the standards in 
effect for RCWs manufactured on or after January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(g)(9)(B)(i))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPCA required that a top-loading or front-loading standard-
size RCW manufactured on or after January 1, 2011, must have a 
Modified Energy Factor of at least 1.26, and a water factor of not 
more than 9.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most recently, DOE completed a third rulemaking cycle to amend the 
standards for RCWs by publishing a direct final rule on May 31, 2012 
(``May 2012 Direct Final Rule''). 77 FR 32307. These amended standards 
were based on a joint proposal submitted to DOE by interested parties 
representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and 
consumer groups.
    The current energy conservation standards are located in title 10 
of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, section 32(g). 
The currently applicable DOE test procedures for RCWs appear at 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix J2 (``Appendix J2'').
    EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance 
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the 
energy conservation standards for each type of covered product and 
publish either a notice of determination that the standards do not need 
to be amended or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that 
includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a 
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
    DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to 
inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.

B. Rulemaking Process

    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or 
amended energy conservation standard be designed to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy or water efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) To 
determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires 
that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its 
burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the 
following seven factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the affected products;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the product compared to any increase in the initial cost or 
maintenance expenses;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products 
likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers 
relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting 
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I-1 shows 
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the 
requirements within EPCA.

       Table I-1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            EPCA requirement                Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings.............   Shipments Analysis.
                                          National Impact
                                          Analysis.
                                          Energy and Water Use
                                          Determination.
Technological Feasibility..............   Market and Technology
                                          Assessment.
                                          Screening Analysis.
                                          Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
    1. Economic impact on manufacturers   Manufacturer Impact
     and consumers.                       Analysis.
                                          Life-Cycle Cost and
                                          Payback Period Analysis.
                                          Life-Cycle Cost
                                          Subgroup Analysis.
                                          Shipments Analysis.

[[Page 37796]]

 
    2. Lifetime operating cost savings    Markups for Product
     compared to increased cost for the   Price Determination.
     product.                             Energy and Water Use
                                          Determination.
                                          Life-Cycle Cost and
                                          Payback Period Analysis.
    3. Total projected energy and water   Shipments Analysis.
     savings.
                                          National Impact
                                          Analysis.
    4. Impact on utility or performance   Screening Analysis.
                                          Engineering Analysis.
    5. Impact of any lessening of         Manufacturer Impact
     competition.                         Analysis.
    6. Need for national energy and       Shipments Analysis.
     water conservation.
                                          National Impact
                                          Analysis.
    7. Other factors the Secretary        Employment Impact
     considers relevant.                  Analysis.
                                          Utility Impact
                                          Analysis.
                                          Emissions Analysis.
                                          Monetization of
                                          Emissions Reductions Benefits.
                                          Regulatory Impact
                                          Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document 
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the 
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely 
to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for RCWs.

II. Request for Information and Comments

    In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues 
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and 
economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for RCWs may be 
warranted.
    As an initial matter, DOE seeks comment on whether there have been 
sufficient technological or market changes since the most recent 
standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more 
stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that 
could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no 
new standard'' determination because a more stringent standard: (1) 
Would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not 
technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any 
combination of foregoing.
    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the 
conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in 
this document. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' 
Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs 
associated with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with 
Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with 
that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on 
measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its energy conservation 
standards rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and 
compliance and certification requirements applicable to RCWs, while 
remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.

A. Products Covered by This Rulemaking

    This RFI covers those products that meet the definitions for RCWs, 
as codified at 10 CFR 430.2:
    EPCA does not define the term ``clothes washer''. DOE has defined a 
``clothes washer'' as a consumer product designed to clean clothes, 
utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical 
agitation or other movement, that must be one of the following classes: 
automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes washers, and other 
clothes washers. 10 CFR 430.2
    An ``automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer that 
has a control system that is capable of scheduling a preselected 
combination of operations, such as regulation of water temperature, 
regulation of the water fill level, and performance of wash, rinse, 
drain, and spin functions without the need for user intervention 
subsequent to the initiation of machine operation. Some models may 
require user intervention to initiate these different segments of the 
cycle after the machine has begun operation, but they do not require 
the user to intervene to regulate the water temperature by adjusting 
the external water faucet valves. Id.
    A ``semi-automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer 
that is the same as an automatic clothes washer except that user 
intervention is required to regulate the water temperature by adjusting 
the external water faucet valves. Id.
    ``Other clothes washer'' means a class of clothes washer that is 
not an automatic or semi-automatic clothes washer. Id.
    Issue II.A.1. DOE requests comment on whether the definitions for 
RCWs require any revisions--and if so, how those definitions should be 
revised.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

    The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts 
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy 
conservation standard provides information about the RCW industry that 
will be used throughout the rulemaking process. DOE uses qualitative 
and quantitative information to characterize the structure of the 
industry and market. DOE identifies manufacturers, estimates market 
shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives 
intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and 
explores the potential for efficiency improvements in the design and 
manufacturing of RCWs. DOE also reviews product literature, industry 
publications, and company websites. Additionally, DOE conducts 
interviews with manufacturers to improve its assessment of the market 
and available technologies for RCWs.
1. Product Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy 
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify 
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination 
whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a 
different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of 
the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate. 
Id.

[[Page 37797]]

    For RCWs, the current energy conservation standards specified in 10 
CFR 403.32(g) are based on four product classes, differentiated by 
capacity and method of loading clothes (i.e., axis of loading):
     Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet (cu.ft.) 
capacity);
     Top-loading, standard (1.6 cu.ft. or greater capacity);
     Front-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cu.ft. capacity); 
and
     Front-loading, standard (1.6 cu.ft. or greater capacity).

10 CFR 430.32(g)(3).

    In a previous rulemaking to amend standards applicable to 
commercial clothes washers, DOE determined specifically that the ``axis 
of loading'' constituted a feature that justified separate product 
classes for top loading and front loading clothes washers, and that 
``the longer average cycle time of front-loading machines warrants 
consideration of separate [product] classes.'' 79 FR 74492, 74498 
(Sept. 15, 2014). DOE stated that a split in preference between top 
loaders and front loaders would not indicate consumer indifference to 
the axis of loading, but rather that a certain percentage of the market 
expresses a preference for (i.e., derives utility from) the top-loading 
configuration. DOE further noted that separation of clothes washer 
equipment classes by location of access is similar in nature to the 
equipment classes for residential refrigerator-freezers, which include 
separate product classes based on the access of location of the freezer 
compartment (e.g., top-mounted, side-mounted, and bottom-mounted). The 
location of the freezer compartment on these products provides no 
additional performance-related utility other than consumer preference. 
In other words, the location of access itself provides distinct 
consumer utility. Id. 79 FR 74499. DOE also reasoned that top-loading 
residential clothes washers are available with the same efficiency 
levels, control panel features, and price points as front-loading 
residential clothes washers, and that given these equivalencies, 
purchase of top loaders indicates a preference among certain consumers 
for the top-loading configuration, i.e., the top-loading configuration 
provides utility to those customers preferring one configuration over 
another, with all other product attributes being equal. Id.
    Issue II.B.1. DOE requests feedback on the current RCW product 
classes and whether changes to these individual product classes and 
their descriptions should be made.
    DOE is also aware that new configurations and features are 
available for RCWs that may not have been available at the time of the 
last energy conservation standards analysis. For example, DOE is aware 
of auxiliary or supplementary clothes washers designed to accompany a 
standard-size RCW from the same manufacturer, which may be integrated 
as a single product; RCWs that contain a built-in basin that can be 
used to pre-treat and soak clothing before the start of a wash cycle; 
and RCWs that provide drying functionality as an optional feature that 
can be added to the end of a wash cycle.
    Issue II.B.2. DOE seeks to ensure that it does not inhibit the 
development of features, or eliminate from the market existing 
features, that provide utility to the consumer. DOE therefore requests 
information regarding such new configurations and features, including 
how prevalent they are in the market, the consumer utility of such 
features, and data detailing the corresponding impacts on energy use.
    DOE recently granted a petition for rulemaking to propose a new 
product class for dishwashers with a normal cycle of 60 minutes or 
fewer.\4\ DOE determined that under the product-class provision in EPCA 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)), cycle time is a performance-related feature for 
dishwashers that justifies a separate product class subject to a higher 
or lower standard than that currently applicable to dishwashers. In the 
context of dishwashers, DOE found that there is consumer utility in 
shorter cycle times to clean a normally-soiled load of dishes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A pre-publication version of the notice granting the 
petition is available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/07/f64/dishwasher-petition-nopr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue II.B.3. DOE requests comment on the extent to which shorter 
cycles for RCWs could likewise affect consumer utility and whether 
creation of a separate product class would enable the availability of 
such products.
    Additionally, as noted, EPCA identifies product capacity as a 
performance-related feature that may justify the establishment of a 
higher or lower standard than that which applies (or would apply) for 
such type or class for any group of covered products. 42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(1)(B). For clothes washers, products with a larger capacity are 
inherently able to achieve higher efficiency levels; conversely, 
products with smaller capacity are inherently unable to achieve as high 
efficiency levels, for two main reasons. First, a larger tub capacity 
can contribute to improved efficiency because a larger amount of 
clothing can be washed using an incremental increase in the quantity of 
water that is less than the incremental increase in capacity, therefore 
reducing the amount of water and energy per pound of clothing. Second, 
a larger drum diameter can exert a higher g-force on the clothing 
during the final-spin portion of the cycle, thus removing more water 
and reducing the drying energy component of the integrated modified 
energy factor (``IMEF'') metric (resulting in a better IMEF rating).
    DOE notes that the front-loading clothes washer market is segmented 
based on product width (which inherently affects clothes washer 
capacity). A significant majority of front-loading RCWs currently on 
the market in the United States have a nominal cabinet width of 27 
inches or greater. However, the front-loading market also includes 
narrower products with a nominal cabinet width of 24 inches. These 
products are designed to be installed in confined spaces such as small 
closets and under-counter installations. At the time of the rulemaking 
culminating in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, the efficiency levels of 
both 27-inch and 24-inch RCWs overlapped sufficiently such that both 
types of products were available at the efficiency levels considered 
for the rulemaking analysis and at the amended standard level. However, 
in the current market, almost no overlap in efficiency exists between 
24-inch and 27-inch RCWs (specifically, the 24-inch products have lower 
efficiency ratings than the 27-inch products, which may be due to the 
limitation on drum diameter and volume, as described above).
    Similarly, while a significant majority of top-loading RCWs 
currently on the market have a nominal cabinet width of 27 inches or 
greater, the standard-size product class also includes smaller products 
that typically have clothes container capacities less than 3 cu.ft. and 
are designed to be portable. Due to size and installation limitations, 
such products may be less able to incorporate certain efficiency-
related technologies such as larger drum volume or higher spin speeds 
compared to 27-inch stationary products.
    Issue II.B.4. DOE requests information and data on the installation 
environments and consumer use of smaller-size front-loading and top-
loading RCWs such as those designed for confined spaces and/or portable 
use.
2. Technology Assessment
    In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy 
conservation standards, DOE uses

[[Page 37798]]

information about existing technology options and prototype designs to 
help identify technologies that manufacturers could use to meet and/or 
exceed a given set of energy conservation standards under 
consideration. In consultation with interested parties, DOE intends to 
develop a list of technologies to consider in its analysis. That 
analysis will likely include a number of the technology options DOE 
considered during its most recent rulemaking for RCWs. A complete list 
of those options appears in Table II-1.

     Table II-1--Technology Options for Residential Clothes Washers
       Considered in Development of the May 2012 Direct Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptive control systems.
Added insulation.
Advanced agitation concepts for vertical-axis machines.
Automatic fill control.
Bubble action.
Capacity increase.
Direct-drive motor.
Electrolytic disassociation of water.
Horizontal-axis design.
Horizontal-axis design with recirculation.
Hot water circulation loop.
Improved fill control.
Improved horizontal-axis-washer drum design.
Improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture content.
Increased motor efficiency.
Low standby-power design.
Ozonated laundering.
Plastic particle cleaning.
Reduced thermal mass.
Silver ion injection.
Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology.
Thermostatically-controlled mixing valves.
Tighter tub tolerance.
Ultrasonic washing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue II.B.5. DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in 
Table II-1 regarding their applicability to the current market and how 
these technologies may impact the efficiency of RCWs as measured 
according to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how 
these technologies may have changed since they were considered in the 
May 2012 Direct Final Rule analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks 
information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics 
currently available for each technology option.
    Issue II.B.6. DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it 
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies 
may impact product features or consumer utility.

C. Screening Analysis

    The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the 
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which 
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which 
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
    DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from 
further consideration based on the following criteria:
    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not 
be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products 
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be 
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the 
time of the effective date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If a 
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the 
utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or result 
in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance 
characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 
and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally 
available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered 
further.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, ultrasonic 
washing technology was screened out on the basis of adverse impacts 
on product utility. As described in Chapter 4 of the Technical 
Support Document accompanying the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE 
concluded that ultrasonic washing technology would not adequately 
remove soil from clothing and would therefore reduce consumer 
utility. In addition, bubble cavitations caused by standing 
ultrasonic waves could potentially damage some fragile clothing or 
clothing fasteners, further reducing consumer utility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b).

    Technology options identified in the technology assessment are 
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from 
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and 
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the 
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the 
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more 
of the four criteria are eliminated from consideration.
    Table II-2 summarizes the screened-out technology options, and the 
applicable screening criteria, from the May 2012 Direct Final Rule.

[[Page 37799]]



           Table II-2--Previously Screened Out Technology Options From the May 2012 Direct Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    EPCA criteria (X = basis for screening out)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Practicability to
   Screened technology option        Technological       manufacture,      Adverse impact on  Adverse impacts on
                                      feasibility        install, and       product utility    health and safety
                                                            service
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added insulation................                  X   ..................
Bubble action...................  ..................                  X
Electrolytic disassociation of                    X                   X
 water..........................
Ozonated laundering.............  ..................                  X
Plastic particle cleaning.......  ..................                  X
Ultrasonic washing..............  ..................  ..................                  X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue II.C.1. DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the 
four screening criteria described in this section would have on each of 
the technology options listed in Table II-1 with respect to RCWs. 
Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same criteria 
would affect any other technology options not already identified in 
this document with respect to their potential use in RCWs.
    Issue II.C.2. With respect to the screened out technology options 
listed in Table II-2, DOE seeks information on whether these options 
would, based on current and projected assessments regarding each of 
them, remain screened out under the four screening criteria described 
in this section. With respect to each of these technology options, DOE 
requests comment on what steps, if any, could be (or have already been) 
taken to facilitate the introduction of each option as a means to 
improve the energy performance of RCWs and the potential to impact 
consumer utility of RCWs. DOE also requests comment on whether any of 
the remaining technology options (i.e., those not screened out) should 
be screened out under the four screening criteria.

D. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship 
of products at different levels of increased energy efficiency 
(``efficiency levels''). This relationship serves as the basis for the 
cost-benefit calculations for consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. 
In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the 
increase in manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') associated with 
increasing the efficiency of products above the baseline, up to the 
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level for 
each product class.
    DOE has historically used the following three methodologies to 
generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency 
levels (``ELs'') for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which 
provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design 
options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level 
approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in 
energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design 
options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or 
reverse-engineering) approach, which provides ``bottom-up'' 
manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of 
increased efficiency, based on detailed data as to costs for parts and 
material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that 
operate at particular efficiency levels.
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    For each established product class, DOE selects a baseline model as 
a reference point against which any changes resulting from energy 
conservation standards can be measured. The baseline model in each 
product class represents the characteristics of common or typical 
products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that meets 
the current minimum energy conservation standards and provides basic 
consumer utility. If DOE determines that a rulemaking is necessary, 
consistent with this analytical approach, for each product class, DOE 
tentatively plans to consider the current standard levels as the 
baseline efficiency levels.
    The current standards for all four product classes are based on two 
metrics:

    (1) IMEF, expressed as cu.ft. per kilowatt-hour per cycle 
(cu.ft/kWh/cycle), and calculated as the clothes container capacity 
in cu.ft. divided by the sum, expressed in kWh, of: (1) The total 
weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption; (2) the total 
weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption; (3) the 
per-cycle energy consumption for removing moisture from a test load; 
and (4) the per-cycle standby and off mode energy consumption; and
    (2) Integrated Water Factor (``IWF''), expressed in gallons per 
cycle per cu.ft. (gal/cycle/cu.ft.), and calculated as the total 
weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles, expressed 
in gallons per cycle, divided by the clothes container capacity in 
cu.ft.

    The current standards for RCWs are found in 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4).
    Issue II.D.1. DOE requests feedback on whether using the potential 
baseline efficiency levels identified above for each product class 
would be appropriate for DOE to apply to each product class in 
evaluating whether to amend the current energy conservation standards 
for these products. DOE requests data and information to determine 
baseline efficiency levels to better evaluate amending energy 
conservation standards for these products.
2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technology Levels
    As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level 
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. Table 
II-3 in the next section shows the current maximum available IMEF 
efficiency levels for each existing RCW product class, based on 
information in DOE's Compliance Certification Database.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available at 
https://www.regulations.doe.gov/compliance-certification-database. 
Last accessed April 2, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the maximum 
possible efficiency for a given product. In the May 2012 Direct Final 
Rule, DOE determined that the maximum available efficiency levels for 
RCWs corresponded to the max-tech efficiency levels.
    Issue II.D.2. DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available 
efficiency levels are appropriate and technologically feasible for 
consideration as possible energy conservation standards for the 
products at issue.
    Issue II.D.3. DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available 
efficiency levels correspond to the max-tech efficiency levels, given 
the current

[[Page 37800]]

state of technology, or whether DOE should consider max-tech efficiency 
levels different than the current maximum available efficiency levels.
    Issue II.D.4. DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be 
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies 
associated with those levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks 
information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain 
combinations of design options.
3. Intermediate Efficiency Levels
    DOE may also define intermediate efficiency levels in between the 
baseline and max-tech efficiency levels. Typically, DOE identifies 
intermediate efficiency levels, where appropriate, based on a variety 
of sources including, but not limited to: (1) Clusters of models 
currently on the market at intermediate efficiency levels; (2) 
efficiency levels defined by programs such as ENERGY STAR or the 
Consortium for Energy Efficiency's (``CEE'') Super-Efficient Home 
Appliances Initiative; or (3) ``gap-fill'' levels to bridge large 
divides between existing clusters in the market.
    Table II-3 indicates potential intermediate efficiency levels, 
along with baseline and maximum available levels, that DOE could 
consider for each existing RCW product class, based on a preliminary 
review of the current market according to models listed in DOE's 
Compliance Certification Database.

                           Table II-3--Efficiency Levels for Existing Product Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Efficiency level     IMEF (cu.ft./  IWF (gal/cycle/
           Product class               Efficiency level         description         kWh/ cycle)       cu.ft.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading, Compact..............  Baseline.............  2018 DOE standard....            1.15            12.0
                                    Max Available........  Maximum currently                1.24            11.3
                                                            certified to DOE.
Top-Loading, Standard.............  Baseline.............  2018 DOE standard....            1.57             6.5
                                    Intermediate.........  2018 ENERGY STAR.....            2.06             4.3
                                    Intermediate.........  2015 CEE Tier 1......            2.38             3.7
                                    Max Available........  2018 CEE Tier 1 (>2.5            2.76             3.2
                                                            cu.ft.), maximum
                                                            currently certified
                                                            to DOE.
Front-Loading, Compact............  Baseline.............  2018 DOE standard....            1.13             8.3
                                    Max Available........  Maximum currently                1.17             6.8
                                                            certified to DOE.
Front-Loading, Standard...........  Baseline.............  2018 DOE standard....            1.84             4.7
                                    Intermediate.........  2015 ENERGY STAR                 2.38             3.7
                                                            (>2.5 cu.ft.).
                                    Intermediate.........  2018 ENERGY STAR                 2.76             3.2
                                                            (>2.5 cu.ft.).
                                    Intermediate.........  2018 ENERGY STAR Most            2.92             3.2
                                                            Efficient (>2.5
                                                            cu.ft.).
                                    Max Available........  Maximum currently                3.10             2.7
                                                            certified to DOE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue II.D.5. DOE seeks input on whether the potential efficiency 
level definitions shown in Table II-3 are appropriate for each product 
class. DOE also seeks input on whether DOE should consider any 
additional ``gap fill'' efficiency levels between any of the potential 
efficiency levels shown in the table.
4. Other Efficiency Level Considerations
    As an alternative to the current RCW standards based on IMEF and 
IWF, DOE could consider defining an IMEF and/or IWF standard as an 
equation based on capacity. Such an approach would be consistent with 
the approach used by DOE for consumer refrigerator-freezer standards, 
for example. If DOE were to adopt such an approach, the efficiency 
levels considered in the analysis would represent variations from a 
baseline equation that DOE would establish. For example, if such an 
approach used a linear equation to define the standard, the higher 
efficiency levels considered in the analysis could represent equations 
with the same slope as the baseline equation but with a different y-
intercept, or vice-versa, or some combination of both.
    Issue II.D.6. DOE requests feedback on whether it should consider 
an IMEF and/or IWF standard as an equation based on capacity.
5. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
    As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of 
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that 
describe the estimated increases in MPC associated with higher-
efficiency products for the analyzed product classes. For the May 2012 
Direct Final Rule, DOE developed the cost-efficiency relationships for 
the top-loading standard and front-loading standard product classes 
using a combination of the reverse-engineering approach and the 
efficiency-level approach. DOE used the design-option approach to 
develop the cost-efficiency relationships for the top-loading compact 
and front-loading compact product classes, because less data was 
available for these product classes.
    Issue II.D.7. DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would 
incorporate any of the technology options listed in Table II-1 to 
increase energy efficiency in RCWs beyond the baseline within each 
product class. This includes information on the order in which 
manufacturers would incorporate the different technologies to 
incrementally improve the efficiencies of products. DOE also requests 
feedback on whether the increased energy efficiency would lead to other 
design changes that would not occur otherwise. DOE is also interested 
in information regarding any potential impact of design options on a 
manufacturer's ability to incorporate additional functions or 
attributes in response to consumer demand.
    Issue II.D.8. DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC 
associated with incorporating each particular design option. 
Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how the costs estimated 
for design options in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule have changed since 
the time of that analysis. DOE also requests information on the 
investments necessary to incorporate specific design options, 
including, but not limited to, costs related to new or modified tooling 
(if any), materials, engineering and development efforts to implement 
each design option, and manufacturing/production impacts.
    Issue II.D.9. DOE requests comment on whether certain design 
options may not be applicable to (or may be incompatible with) specific 
product classes.
    To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit 
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer 
markup) to the MPC.

[[Page 37801]]

The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') is the price at 
which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. For the May 
2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE used a baseline manufacturer markup of 1.22 
for all product classes to convert MPC to MSP.
    Issue II.D.10. DOE requests feedback on whether a baseline 
manufacturer markup of 1.22 remains appropriate for RCWs.

E. Markups Analysis

    To carry out the life-cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period 
(``PBP'') calculations, DOE would need to determine the cost to the 
residential consumer of baseline products, and the cost of more-
efficient units the consumer would purchase under potential amended 
standards. By applying a multiplier called a ``markup'' to the MSP, DOE 
is able to estimate the residential consumer's price. In generating 
end-user price inputs, DOE must identify distribution channels (i.e., 
how the products are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer) 
and estimate relative sales volumes through each channel. In the May 
2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE only accounted for the retail outlets 
distribution channel because data from the Association of Home 
Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') 2005 Fact Book indicated that the 
overwhelming majority of residential appliances were sold through 
retail outlets, as described in chapter 6 of the technical support 
document accompanying the May 2012 Direct Final Rule. The main actors 
included were manufacturers and retailers.\7\ The AHAM 2009 Fact Book 
indicated a similar share for the products sold. Thus, DOE analyzed a 
manufacturer-to-consumer distribution channel consisting of three 
parties: (1) The manufacturers producing the products, (2) the 
retailers purchasing the products from manufacturers and selling them 
to consumers, and (3) the consumers who purchase the products. In the 
May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE did not include a separate distribution 
channel for RCWs included as part of a new home because DOE did not 
have enough information to characterize which of these products come 
pre-installed by builders in the new homes. Should sufficient 
information become available, DOE may consider including a separate 
distribution channel that includes a contractor in addition to the 
existing retail outlets distribution channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a potential new analysis, DOE would determine an average 
manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``SEC'') 10-K reports filed by publicly traded 
manufacturers of appliances whose product range includes RCWs. DOE will 
determine an average retailer markup by analyzing both economic census 
data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the annual SEC 10-K reports filed 
by publicly traded retailers.
    In addition to developing manufacturer and retailer markups, DOE 
would develop and include sales taxes to calculate appliance retail 
prices. DOE would use an internet source, the Sales Tax Clearinghouse, 
to calculate applicable sales taxes.
    Issue II.E.1. DOE requests information on the existence of any 
distribution channels other than the retail outlet distribution channel 
that should be included in a future analysis. DOE also requests data on 
the fraction of RCW sales that go through both, a wholesaler/retailer 
and a contractor, as well as the fraction of sales through any other 
identified channels.

F. Energy and Water Use Analysis

    As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy and water 
use analysis to identify how products are used by consumers, and 
thereby determine the energy and water savings potential of efficiency 
improvements. The energy and water use analysis seeks to capture the 
range of operating conditions for RCWs in U.S. homes. The energy and 
water use analysis is meant to represent typical energy and water 
consumption in the field.
    To determine the field energy and water use of products that would 
meet possible standard levels, DOE would use data from the Energy 
Information Administration's (``EIA's'') 2015 Residential Energy 
Consumption Survey (``RECS''), the most recent survey available from 
EIA.\8\ RECS is a national sample survey of housing units that collects 
statistical information on the consumption of and expenditures for 
energy in housing units along with data on energy-related 
characteristics of the housing units and occupants. RECS provides 
sufficient information to establish the type (product class) of RCW 
used in each household. As a result, DOE would be able to develop 
household samples for each of the considered product classes. RECS 
specifies the use cycles of RCWs, thereby allowing DOE to determine the 
RCW's annual energy and water consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For information on RECS, see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each sample household, DOE would estimate the field-based 
annual energy and water use of front- and top-loading standard-capacity 
RCWs by multiplying the annual number of RCW cycles for each household 
by the per-cycle energy and water use values established by the 
engineering analysis (using the DOE test procedure) for each considered 
efficiency level. Per-cycle energy use is calculated in the test 
procedure as the sum of per-cycle machine energy use (including the 
energy used to heat water and remove moisture from clothing), and 
standby mode and off-mode energy use.
    Issue II.F.1. DOE requests input from interested parties on 
approaches for specifying the typical values and variability in the 
annual energy consumption of RCWs.
    For the purpose of its analysis, DOE would account for any rebound 
effect in its determination of annual energy and water consumption. The 
rebound effect occurs when a piece of equipment, made more efficient 
and used more intensively, does not yield the expected energy savings 
from the efficiency improvement. In the case of more efficient RCWs, 
research to date indicates no conclusive causality between increased 
efficiency and increased use.
    Issue II.F.2. DOE seeks comments on any rebound effect associated 
with more efficient RCWs. In other words, DOE seeks input on what 
portion of the energy savings resulting from more efficient models may 
be offset due to increased usage of RCWs.

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

    The effects of more stringent energy conservation standards on a 
consumer of RCWs include changes in operating expenses (usually 
decreased) and changes in purchase prices (usually increased). DOE 
would analyze data input variability and uncertainty by performing the 
LCC and PBP calculations on a representative sample of households from 
RECS for the considered product classes using Monte Carlo simulation 
and probability distributions. The analysis results are a distribution 
of results showing the range of LCC savings and PBPs for a given 
efficiency level relative to the baseline level.
    DOE would analyze the net effect on consumers by calculating the 
LCC and PBP using engineering performance data (section II.D of this 
document), energy and water consumption data (section II.F of this 
document), and equipment

[[Page 37802]]

retail prices (section II.E of this document). Inputs to the LCC and 
PBP calculation include the total installed cost to the consumer 
(purchase price plus installation cost) and operating cost (energy and 
water expenses, repair costs, and maintenance costs). Additional inputs 
to the LCC calculation include energy price forecasts, the lifetime of 
the RCW or other defined period of analysis, and discount rates.
    To derive the installation costs, DOE would use the 2017 RSMeans 
Residential Cost Data on labor requirements to estimate installation 
costs for RCWs.\9\ DOE would make adjustments to the costs if needed to 
account for changes in weight and/or dimensions of higher-efficiency 
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Residential Costs with RSMeans Data 2017 available at http://www.rsmeans.com/products/books.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue II.G.1. DOE seeks input on whether RCW installation costs 
scale with equipment weight and/or dimensions.
    In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE did not have any data to 
support increases in maintenance and repair costs associated with 
increases in efficiency levels within each of the product classes 
considered in the analysis. Therefore, DOE did not assume that more 
efficient RCWs in each product class would have greater repair or 
maintenance costs. 77 FR 32308, 32342.
    Issue II.G.2. DOE requests feedback and data on whether or not 
maintenance costs differ by technology option for any of the options 
listed in Table II-1.
    Issue II.G.3. DOE requests information and data on the frequency of 
repair and repair costs by product class.
    DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts of potential standard levels 
relative to a no-standards case that reflects the market in the absence 
of amended standards. DOE would develop market-share efficiency data 
(i.e., the distribution of product shipments by efficiency) for the 
product classes DOE is considering, for the year in which compliance 
with any amended standards would be required. By accounting for 
consumers who already purchase more efficient products, DOE would avoid 
overstating the potential benefits from potential standards.
    Issue II.G.4. DOE seeks input and data on the fraction of RCWs 
currently sold with efficiencies greater than the minimum energy 
conservation standards, including the January 1, 2018, standards. DOE 
also requests information on expected trends in product efficiency over 
the next 5 years.

H. Shipments Analysis

    DOE develops shipments forecasts of RCWs to calculate the national 
impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy 
consumption, net present value (``NPV''), and future manufacturer cash 
flows. Typically, DOE shipments projections utilize available 
historical data broken out by product class, capacity, and efficiency. 
In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed a shipments model for 
RCWs driven by historical shipments data, which were used to build up a 
product stock and calibrate the shipments model. 77 FR 32308, 32344. 
The key drivers of the shipments model included the new owner and 
replacement markets. Current sales estimates would allow for a more 
accurate model that captures recent trends in the market.
    Issue II.H.1. DOE requests annual sales data (i.e., number of 
shipments) for top-loading standard, front-loading standard, top-
loading compact, and front-loading compact RCW units. For each 
category, DOE also requests the fraction of sales that are ENERGY STAR 
qualified.
    Table II-4 provides a summary table of the data requested in Issue 
II.H.1:

      Table II-4--Summary Table of Shipments-Related Data Requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fraction of
                                          Annual sales *   ENERGY  STAR-
              Product class                (number sold)   rated annual
                                                             sales (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-loading, compact....................  ..............  ..............
Top-loading, standard...................  ..............  ..............
Front-loading, compact..................  ..............  ..............
Front-loading, standard (all):
  24-inch                                 ..............  ..............
  products..............................
  27-inch                                 ..............  ..............
  products..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Sales for last 5 years, if available.

    Issue II.H.2. DOE requests data and information on any trends in 
the RCW market that could be used to forecast expected trends in 
product class market share.
    An initial analysis of market data indicates that consumers are 
purchasing more top-loading units in recent years, showing an upswing 
in the market share for this product class.
    Issue II.H.3. DOE seeks data and information on whether the trend 
towards increased sales of top-loading units is expected to continue or 
level off.

I. National Impact Analysis

    The purpose of the national impact analysis (``NIA'') is to 
estimate aggregate impacts of potential efficiency standards at the 
national level. Impacts reported by DOE include the national energy 
savings (``NES'') from potential standards and the national net present 
value (``NPV'') of the total consumer benefits. The NIA considers 
lifetime impacts of potential standards on RCWs shipped in a 30-year 
period that begins with the expected compliance date for new or amended 
standards.
    Analyzing impacts of potential amended energy conservation 
standards for RCWs requires a comparison of projected U.S. energy 
consumption with and without the amended standards. The forecasts 
contain projections of annual appliance shipments (section II.H of this 
document), the annual energy and water consumption of new RCWs (section 
II.F of this document), and the purchase price of new RCWs (section 
II.E of this document).
    A key component of DOE's estimates of NES and NPV would be the RCW 
energy efficiency forecasted over time for the no-standards case and 
each of the potential standards cases. In the May 2012 Direct Final 
Rule, DOE based projections of no-standards-case shipment-weighted 
efficiency (``SWEF'') for the RCW product classes on growth rates 
determined from historical data provided by AHAM. 77 FR 32308, 32342. 
For a potential future rulemaking, DOE would expect to consider recent 
trends in efficiency and input from interested parties to update 
product energy efficiency forecasts.
    Issue II.I.1. DOE seeks historical SWEF (IMEF and IWF) data for 
RCWs by product class. DOE also seeks historical market share data 
showing the percentage of product shipments by efficiency level for as 
many product classes as possible.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to 
estimate the financial impact of any amended energy conservation 
standards on manufacturers of RCWs, and to evaluate the potential 
impact of such standards on direct employment and manufacturing 
capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. 
The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government 
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-flow model adapted 
for covered RCW product classes, with the key output of industry

[[Page 37803]]

net present value (``INPV''). The qualitative part of the MIA addresses 
the potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturing 
capacity and industry competition, as well as factors such as product 
characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and 
important market and product trends.
    As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze the impacts of potential 
amended energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of 
RCWs, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small 
Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to 
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are 
listed by the North American Industry Classification System 
(``NAICS'').\10\ Manufacturing of RCWs is classified under NAICS 
335220, ``Major Household Appliance Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a 
threshold of 1,500 employees of less for a domestic entity to be 
considered as a small business. This employee threshold includes all 
employees in the parent company and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Available online at: https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one 
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the 
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have 
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may 
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy 
conservation standards, including previous standards affecting the same 
product, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers' 
financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same 
manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product 
lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing 
products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative 
regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance 
efficiency.
    Issue II.J.1. To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and 
contact information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that 
distribute RCWs in the United States.
    Issue II.J.2. DOE has identified small businesses as a subgroup of 
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by future 
amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests the names and 
contact information of small business manufacturers, as defined by the 
SBA's size threshold for RCW manufacturers, that distribute products in 
the United States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any other 
manufacturer subgroups that potentially could be disproportionally 
impacted by amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests 
feedback on any potential approaches that could be considered to 
address impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses.
    Issue II.J.3. DOE requests information regarding the impact of 
cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers of RCWs associated with 
(1) other DOE standards applying to different products that these 
manufacturers may also make and import and (2) product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment 
on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory burden and how 
DOE could reduce this burden while complying with the requirements of 
EPCA.

K. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics

    In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which 
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome 
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on 
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of 
amended energy conservation standards for RCWs.
    In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE 
welcomes comment on any other aspect of energy conservation standards 
for RCWs not already addressed by the specific areas identified in this 
document.

III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by 
September 3, 2019, comments and information on matters addressed in 
this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of 
amended energy conservation standards for RCWs. After the close of the 
comment period, DOE will review the public comments received and may 
begin collecting data, conducting the analyses discussed in this RFI.
    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies Office 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. 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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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

[[Page 37804]]

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. 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, 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, 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 to Consumer 
[email protected] 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).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively 
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the 
comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions 
with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of 
the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes 
to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and 
information about this process or would like to request a public 
meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff 
at (202) 287-1445 or via email at 
[email protected].

    Signed in Washington, DC, on July 23, 2019.
Alexander N. Fitzsimmons,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2019-16564 Filed 8-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P