[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