Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Dryers, 16309-16318 [2015-07058]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules
applies to a holder of a license to
operate a LWR under 10 CFR part 50; a
holder of a renewed LWR license under
10 CFR part 54; an applicant for a
construction permit or operating license
under 10 CFR part 50; or an applicant
for a design approval, a COL, or
manufacturing license under 10 CFR
part 52. A holder of a COL issued under
10 CFR part 52 is not included in the
group of entities that may take
advantage of the provisions of § 50.69.
The specific reasons for excluding
COL holders from the group of entities
that may take advantage of the
provisions of § 50.69 were not discussed
in the Federal Register notice for either
the proposed or final ‘‘Risk-Informed
Categorization and Treatment of
Structures, Systems and Components for
Nuclear Power Reactors’’ rule. However,
as discussed at a public meeting on
October 17, 2012 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML12341A153), the NRC staff
provided the following reasons:
1. After issuance of the COL, the staff
was concerned primarily that
implementation of the provisions of
§ 50.69 in the midst of construction and
Inspections, Tests, Analysis, and
Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) closure
would lead to proposed changes in the
NRC’s approved requirements on some
SSCs prior to the Commission making a
finding regarding the COL ITAAC
acceptance criteria in accordance with
§ 52.103(g). Such a situation could
create an unexpected budget shortfall
related to a higher resource burden for
the NRC due to an increased number of
license amendments submitted for
review concurrent with supporting
construction and ITAAC completion
and complicate the NRC’s ability to
reach a finding under § 52.103(g).
2. Since the proposed rule allowed for
the provisions of § 50.69 to be adopted
as part of the COL application, COL
applicants could take advantage of these
provisions as part of the COL review.
This approach would be consistent with
the NRC’s Principles of Good Regulation
regarding efficiency, since the staff
believed that implementation of the
provisions of § 50.69 following the
Commission’s making a finding per
§ 52.103(g) would require substantial
additional resources to conduct the
review of license amendments necessary
to implement the provisions of § 50.69.
The NRC did not receive any
comments from the nuclear industry nor
the general public on the absence of
COL holders from the applicability
provisions of the proposed rule. The
final rule, as issued, retained this
feature of the proposed rule.
The NRC is examining the issues
raised in PRM–50–110 to determine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Mar 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
whether they should be considered in
rulemaking. The NRC is not requesting
public comment at this time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day
of March, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kenneth R. Hart,
Acting, Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015–07092 Filed 3–26–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket Number EERE–2014–BT–STD–
0058]
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Dryers
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information (RFI).
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is initiating an effort to
determine whether to amend the current
energy conservation standards for
residential clothes dryers. According to
the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act’s 6-year review requirement, DOE
must publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking to propose amended
standards for residential clothes dryers
or a notice of determination that the
existing standards do not need to be
amended by August 24, 2017. This
notice seeks to solicit information from
the public to help DOE determine
whether amended standards for
residential clothes dryers would result
in a significant amount of additional
energy savings and whether those
standards would be technologically
feasible and economically justified.
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested on or before
May 11, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are
encouraged to submit comments
electronically. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email:
ResClothesDryers2014STD0058@
ee.doe.gov. Include docket number
EERE–2014–BT–STD–0058 in the
subject line of the message. All
comments should clearly identify the
name, address, and, if appropriate,
organization of the commenter.
• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16309
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
Request for Information for Energy
Conservation Standards for Residential
Clothes Dryers, Docket No. EERE–2014–
BT–STD–0058, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121. If possible, please submit all items
on a compact disc (CD), in which case
it is not necessary to include printed
copies.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Office, 950
L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:
(202) 586–2945. If possible, please
submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed
copies.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this rulemaking. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Docket: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the
index may not be publicly available,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure.
A link to the docket Web page can be
found at: https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0058. This Web page contains a link to
the docket for this notice on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. The
www.regulations.gov Web page contains
simple instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
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:
ResClothesDryers2014STD0058@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email:
peter.cochran@hq.doe.gov.
For information on how to submit or
review public comments, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by
email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
16310
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Products Covered by This Rulemaking
B. Test Procedure
C. Market Assessment
D. Engineering Analysis
E. Markups Analysis
F. Energy Use Analysis
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
H. Shipments Analysis
I. National Impact Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or
the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C.
6291–6309, as codified), established the
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than
Automobiles.2 These products include
residential clothes dryers, the subject of
this Request for Information (RFI).
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or
amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the
new or amended standard must result in
a significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also
provides that not later than 6 years after
issuance of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, DOE must publish
either a notice of determination that
standards for the product do not need to
be amended, or a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) including new
proposed energy conservation
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
On April 21, 2011, DOE published a
direct final rule (2011 Direct Final Rule)
amending the energy conservation
standards for residential clothes dryers.
76 FR 22454. The amended energy
conservation standards were based on a
new metric, the combined energy factor
(CEF), that incorporates energy use in
active mode, standby mode, and off
mode. DOE established an initial
compliance date of April 24, 2014 for
the amended standards. Subsequently,
DOE amended the compliance date for
the new standards to January 1, 2015. 76
FR 52852 (Aug. 24, 2011).
Thus, DOE must publish either a
NOPR proposing amended standards for
residential clothes dryers or a notice of
determination that the existing
standards do not need to be amended by
August 24, 2017. This RFI seeks input
from the public to assist DOE with its
determination on whether new or
amended standards pertaining to
residential clothes dryers are warranted.
In making this determination, DOE must
evaluate whether amended standards
would: (1) Yield a significant savings in
energy use; and (2) be both
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B))
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered products,
including residential clothes dryers.
Any new or amended standard for a
covered product must be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE
may not adopt any standard that would
not result in the significant conservation
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In
deciding whether a proposed standard
is economically justified, DOE must
determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this
determination after receiving comments
on the proposed standard, and by
considering, to the greatest extent
practicable, the following seven
statutory factors:
1. The economic impact of the
standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
2. The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the affected products compared to any
increases in the initial cost, or
maintenance expenses;
3. The total projected amount of
energy and water (if applicable) savings
likely to result directly from the
imposition of the standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the affected products
likely to result from the imposition of
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 imposition of 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))
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
Technological Feasibility ..........................................................................
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Economic Justification:
1. Economic impact on manufacturers and consumers ...................
2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared to increased cost for
the product.
3. Total projected energy savings .....................................................
4. Impact on utility or performance ...................................................
5. Impact of any lessening of competition ........................................
1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Mar 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
• Market and Technology Assessment.
• Screening Analysis.
• Engineering Analysis.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
Markups for Product Price Determination.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
2 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the American
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act
(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules
16311
TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS—Continued
EPCA requirement
Corresponding DOE analysis
6. Need for national energy and water conservation ........................
7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant ............................
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE
is publishing this notice as the first step
in the analysis process and is requesting
input and data from interested parties to
aid in the development of the technical
analyses.
II. Request for Information and
Comments
In the next section, DOE has
identified a variety of questions that
DOE would like to receive input on to
aid in the development of the technical
and economic analyses regarding
whether amended standards for
residential clothes dryers may be
warranted. In addition, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this rulemaking that may
not be identified specifically in this
notice. As part of the process for
soliciting information, DOE is providing
a document titled ‘‘APPENDIX—
EXAMPLES OF RESIDENTIAL
CLOTHES DRYER DATA’’ (available at
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0058) to provide examples of the type of
data needed for the rulemaking
analyses.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Products Covered by This
Rulemaking
DOE defines an electric clothes dryer
to mean ‘‘a cabinet-like appliance
designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type
drum with forced air circulation. The
heat source is electricity and the drum
and blower(s) are driven by an electric
motor(s).’’ (10 CFR 430.2) Similarly,
DOE defines a gas clothes dryer to mean
‘‘a cabinet-like appliance designed to
dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum with
forced air circulation. The heat source is
gas and the drum and blower(s) are
driven by an electric motor(s).’’ (10 CFR
430.2) As part of this rulemaking, DOE
intends to address energy conservation
standards for both electric and gas
clothes dryers.
B. Test Procedure
DOE’s test procedures for clothes
dryers are codified in appendix D1 and
appendix D2 to subpart B of Title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Mar 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Utility Impact Analysis.
Employment Impact Analysis.
Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
On January 6, 2011, DOE issued an
amended test procedure for residential
clothes dryers, in which it (1) adopted
the provisions for the measurement of
standby mode and off mode energy use
along with a new energy efficiency
metric, Combined Energy Factor (CEF),
that incorporates energy use in active
mode, standby mode, and off mode; and
(2) adopted several amendments to the
clothes dryer test procedure concerning
active mode. 76 FR 972. DOE created a
new appendix D1 in 10 CFR part 430
subpart B that contained the amended
test procedure for clothes dryers.
DOE issued a final rule on August 14,
2013 (August 2013 TP Final Rule), to
amend the clothes dryer test procedure,
in which it: (1) Updated appendix D1 to
reference the latest edition of the
International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) Standard 62301,
‘‘Household electrical appliances—
Measurement of standby power,’’
Edition 2.0 2011–01; (2) amended
appendix D1 to clarify the cycle settings
used for the test cycle, the requirements
for the gas supply for gas clothes dryers,
the installation conditions for console
lights, the method for measuring the
drum capacity, the maximum allowable
weighing scale range, and the allowable
use of a relative humidity meter; and (3)
created a new appendix D2 that
includes, in addition to the amendments
discussed above, testing methods for
measuring the effects of automatic cycle
termination. 78 FR 49608.
Manufacturers must use either the test
procedures in appendix D1 or D2 to
demonstrate compliance with energy
conservation standards for clothes
dryers as of January 1, 2015.
Manufacturers must use a single
appendix for all representations,
including certifications of compliance,
and may not use appendix D1 for
certain representations and appendix D2
for other representations.
DOE may consider energy
conservation standards using the new
appendix D2 test method to more
accurately account for the effects of
automatic cycle termination.
Interested parties have commented
publicly, as part of the previous test
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
procedure rulemaking process and more
recently through other public channels,
that the DOE clothes dryer test
procedures may not produce results that
are representative of consumer use with
regards to test load size and
composition, cycle settings for the test
cycle, and other provisions in the test
procedure. DOE also notes that Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL) recently published reports
evaluating clothes dryer performance
using the new appendix D2 test method
and investigating new automatic cycle
termination concepts for improving
clothes dryer efficiency.3 In
consideration of these concerns
regarding the test procedure and the
recent clothes dryer automatic cycle
termination research, DOE initiated an
effort to determine whether
amendments to the test procedure are
warranted. DOE held a public meeting
on November 13, 2014, to solicit
comments from interested parties on
potential changes to the clothes dryer
test procedure.4
C. Market Assessment
The market and technology
assessment provides information about
the residential clothes dryer industry
that will be used throughout the
rulemaking process. For example, this
3 K. Gluesenkamp, Residential Clothes Dryer
Performance Under Timed and Automatic Cycle
Termination Test Procedures, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory Report No. ORNL/TM–2014/431 (2014)
(‘‘ORNL/TM–2014/431 Report’’) (Available at:
https://web.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/docs/2014-10-09ORNL-DryerFinalReport-TM-2014-431.pdf); W.
TeGrotenhuis, Clothes Dryer Automatic
Termination Sensor Evaluation. Volume 1:
Characterization of Energy Use in Residential
Clothes Dryers, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory Report No. PNNL–23621 (2014)
(‘‘PNNL–23621 Report’’) (Available at: https://
www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/
technical_reports/PNNL-23621.pdf); W.
TeGrotenhuis, Clothes Dryer Automatic
Termination Sensor Evaluation. Volume 2:
Improved Sensor and Control Designs, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory Report No. PNNL–
23616 (2014) (Available at: https://www.pnnl.gov/
main/publications/external/technical_reports/
PNNL-23616.pdf).
4 The docket for this test procedure rulemaking is
available at: https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-TP-0034.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
16312
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules
information will be used to determine
whether the existing product class
structure requires modification based on
technological improvements in the
design and manufacturing of such
products. DOE uses qualitative and
quantitative information to analyze the
residential clothes dryer industry and
market. DOE will identify and
characterize the manufacturers of
clothes dryers, estimate market shares
and trends, address regulatory and nonregulatory initiatives intended to
improve energy efficiency or reduce
energy consumption, and explore the
potential for technological
improvements in the design and
manufacturing of clothes dryers. DOE
will also review product literature,
industry publications, and company
Web sites. Additionally, DOE will
consider conducting interviews with
manufacturers to assess the overall
market for residential clothes dryers.
TABLE II.1—EXISTING CLOTHES DRYER to screen out technologies that are not
appropriate for consideration in the
PRODUCT CLASSES
Vented dryers
1. Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (ft3) or
greater capacity).
2. Electric, Compact (120 volts (V)) (less
than 4.4 ft3 capacity).
3. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4
ft3 capacity).
4. Gas.
Ventless dryers
5. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4
ft3 capacity).
6. Electric, Combination Washer/Dryer.
Based on DOE’s review of products
available on market, DOE notes that at
least one manufacturer offers a ventless
clothes dryers with a drum capacity
greater than 4.4 cubic feet. As a result,
DOE tentatively proposes to establish an
additional product class for ventless
electric standard clothes dryers listed in
Table II.2.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 would
justify a different standard. In making a
determination whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different
standard, DOE must consider factors
such as the utility to the consumer of
the feature and other factors DOE
determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q))
During the previous energy
conservation standards rulemaking for
residential clothes dryers, DOE
established four product classes for
vented clothes dryers and two product
classes for ventless clothes dryers. DOE
established separate product classes for
ventless clothes dryers because of the
unique utility they offer consumers, i.e.,
the ability to have a clothes dryer in a
living area where vents are impossible
to install, such as an apartment in a
high-rise building, where venting dryers
would be precluded due to venting
restrictions. As part of the previous
rulemaking, DOE established product
classes for ventless electric compact
(240V) clothes dryers and ventless
electric combination washer/dryers.5
The product classes established in the
previous energy conservation standards
rulemaking are presented in Table II.1.
5 A ventless combination washer/dryer is a device
that washes and then dries clothes in the same
basket/cavity in a combined cycle.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Mar 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
TABLE II.2—PROPOSED CLOTHES
DRYER PRODUCT CLASSES
Vented dryers
7. Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (ft3) or
greater capacity).
8. Electric, Compact (120 volts (V)) (less
than 4.4 ft3 capacity).
9. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4
ft3 capacity).
10. Gas.
Ventless dryers
11. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater
capacity).
12. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than
4.4 ft3 capacity).
13. Electric, Combination Washer/Dryer.
Issue C.1 DOE requests feedback on
the proposed product classes and seeks
information regarding other product
classes it should consider for inclusion
in its analysis. In particular, DOE
requests comment on the determination
to consider a separate product class for
ventless electric clothes dryers with
drum capacities of 4.4 cubic feet or
greater. If commenters believe that
additional product classes are
warranted, DOE requests comment as to
how those classes should be configured,
as well as energy use data and utility or
performance-related information
justifying the need for a separate class.
Technology Assessment and Screening
Analysis
The purpose of the technology
assessment is to develop a preliminary
list of technologies that could
potentially be used to improve the
efficiency of residential clothes dryers.
The purpose of the screening analysis is
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
engineering analysis due to the
following four factors: (1) Technological
feasibility, (2) practicability to
manufacture, install, and service, (3)
impacts on product utility to
consumers, and (4) health and safety.
(10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix
A, section (4)(a)(4)) The technologies
that pass the screening are considered in
the engineering analysis.
DOE uses information about existing
and past technology options and
prototype designs to help identify
technologies that manufacturers could
use to meet and/or exceed energy
conservation standards. In consultation
with interested parties, DOE intends to
develop a list of technologies to
consider in its analysis. Initially, this
list will include the technology options
considered during the most recent
residential clothes dryer standards
rulemaking, including those that were
screened out in the previous
rulemaking.
DOE plans to initially consider all of
the technologies for residential clothes
dryers identified in the previous
standards rulemaking. These technology
options are listed in Table II.3.
TABLE II.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES DRYERS
Dryer Control or Drum Upgrades
1. Improved termination.
2. Increased insulation.
3. Modified operating conditions.
4. Improved air circulation.
5. Improved drum design.
Methods of Exhaust Heat Recovery (Vented Models Only)
6. Recycle exhaust heat.
7. Inlet air preheat.
8. Inlet air preheat, condensing mode.
Heat Generation Options
9. Heat pump, electric only.
10. Microwave, electric only.
11. Modulating heat.
12. Indirect heating.
Component Improvements
13. Improved motor efficiency.
14. Improved fan efficiency.
Standby Power Improvements
15. Switching Power Supply.
16. Transformerless Power Supply with
Auto-Powerdown.
Based on a preliminary review of the
clothes dryer market and information
published in recent trade publications,
technical reports, and manufacturer
literature, DOE has observed that the
results of the technology screening
analysis performed during the previous
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
16313
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules
rulemaking remain largely relevant for
this rulemaking.
Issue C.2 DOE seeks information on
how the above technologies, and any
other technologies that may improve
clothes dryer efficiency: (1) Apply to the
current market; and (2) improve
efficiency of clothes dryers as measured
according to the DOE test procedure
under appendix D2.
D. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates
the cost-efficiency relationship of
products at different levels of increased
energy efficiency. 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 cost associated with
increasing the efficiency of products
above the baseline to the maximum
technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’)
efficiency level for each product class.
The baseline model is used as a
reference point for each product class in
the engineering analysis and the lifecycle cost and payback-period analyses.
Baseline Models
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 just meets the
current minimum energy conservation
standards by a small margin.
In developing the baseline efficiency
levels, DOE initially considered the
current standards for residential clothes
dryers manufactured on or after January
1, 2015 presented in Table II.4.
Since the last standards rulemaking,
DOE amended the clothes dryer test
procedures as part of the August 2013
TP Final Rule to create a new appendix
D2 that includes testing methods for
more accurately measuring the effects of
automatic cycle termination. Because
DOE is proposing to consider energy
conservation standards based on the
appendix D2 test method, DOE would
have to establish baseline efficiency
levels considering this new test
procedure.
TABLE II.4—JANUARY 1, 2015
As part of the August 2013 TP Final
CLOTHES DRYER ENERGY CON- Rule, DOE presented test data for each
product class comparing the efficiencies
SERVATION STANDARD LEVELS
measured under the appendix D1 and
CEF
D2 test procedures. 78 FR 49614–15. In
Product class
(lb/kWh)
addition, ORNL and PNNL conducted
testing on separate models according to
Vented dryers
the appendix D1 and the new appendix
1. Electric, Standard (4.4
3.73 D2 test procedures.6 Table II.5 presents
ft3 or greater capacity) ..
2. Electric, Compact (120
the average measured CEF values using
v) (less than 4.4 ft3 caappendix D1 and D2 for each product
pacity) ............................
3.61 class using the test data from DOE,
3. Electric, Compact (240
ORNL, and PNNL.
v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ............................
4. Gas ...............................
Ventless dryers
5. Electric, Compact (240
v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ............................
6. Electric, Combination
Washer/Dryer ................
3.27
3.30
2.55
2.08
TABLE II.5—CLOTHES DRYER TEST DATA USING APPENDIX D1 AND D2
Appendix D1
Number of test
units
Product class
Vented Electric Standard .................................................................
Vented Electric Compact (240V) .....................................................
Vented Electric Compact (120V) .....................................................
Vented Gas ......................................................................................
Ventless Electric Compact (240V) ...................................................
Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer ..................................
Using these data, DOE developed
tentative baseline efficiency levels by
applying the percentage difference in
efficiency between appendix D1 and D2,
as presented in Table II.5, to the energy
Appendix D2
Average CEF
(lb/kWh)
12
4
1
8
1
2
conservation standards for clothes
dryers required on January 1, 2015,
presented in Table II.4. The proposed
baseline efficiency levels are presented
in Table II.6. DOE did not have
Average CEF
(lb/kWh)
3.83
3.65
3.75
3.43
2.98
2.55
% Change
¥16.7
¥16.2
¥41.9
¥16.2
¥8.4
¥3.9
3.19
3.06
2.18
2.87
2.73
2.45
sufficient data to characterize the
baseline efficiency level for the newly
proposed product class, ventless electric
standard clothes dryers.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE II.6—PROPOSED BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Product class
Current
Standard CEF
(Appendix D1)
(lb/kWh)
Vented dryers:
1. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ......................................................................................
2. Electric, Compact (120 v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ...........................................................................
3. Electric, Compact (240 v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ...........................................................................
3.73 ..................
3.61 ..................
3.27 ..................
6 ORNL/TM–2014/431 Report at 12; PNNL–23621
Report at 2.1–2.3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Mar 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
Proposed Baseline CEF
(Appendix D2)
(lb/kWh)
3.11.
3.03.
1.90.
16314
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.6—PROPOSED BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS—Continued
Current
Standard CEF
(Appendix D1)
(lb/kWh)
Product class
4. Gas .........................................................................................................................................................
Ventless dryers:
5. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ......................................................................................
6. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ...........................................................................
7. Electric, Combination Washer/Dryer ......................................................................................................
Issue D.1 DOE requests comment on
approaches that it should consider
when determining the baseline
efficiency levels for each product class,
including information regarding the
merits and/or limitations of such
approaches. DOE also requests
additional test data to characterize the
baseline efficiency levels for each
product class. In particular, DOE
requests appendix D2 test data broken
down by standby/off mode and active
mode energy use for each product class,
including the newly proposed product
class for ventless electric standard
dryers. DOE requests additional test
data for residential clothes dryers
showing the difference in measured
efficiency using the appendix D1 test
procedure and the appendix D2 test
procedure.
Higher Efficiency Levels
DOE will analyze each product class
to determine the relevant trial standard
levels (TSLs) and to develop
incremental manufacturing cost data at
each higher efficiency level. DOE
generally selects incremental efficiency
levels based on a review of industry
standards and the efficiency of products
available on the market.
For the vented clothes dryer product
classes, DOE tentatively plans to
consider an efficiency level associated
with the current standard level nominal
Proposed
Baseline CEF
(Appendix D2)
(lb/kWh)
3.30 ..................
2.77.
Not Applicable ..
2.55 ..................
2.08 ..................
Not Available.
2.33.
2.00.
values without the adjustment used to
develop the baseline efficiency levels
discussed above. Because there is a large
gap between these two efficiency levels,
DOE is tentatively planning to consider
evenly spaced gap fill efficiency levels.
DOE also plans to consider efficiency
levels corresponding to the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) Version 1.0 ENERGY STAR
performance specification
requirements 7 and the ENERGY STAR
2014 Emerging Technology Award
criteria for advanced clothes dryers.8
Table II.7 shows the proposed efficiency
levels for the vented clothes dryer
product classes.
TABLE II.7—EFFICIENCY LEVELS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR VENTED CLOTHES DRYERS
Integrated efficiency level (CEF)
(lb/kWh)
Level
Efficiency level description
Electric standard
Baseline ............
1
2
3
4
........................
........................
........................
........................
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
5 ........................
DOE Standard w/Adjusted Appendix D2
Energy Use.
Gap Fill .....................................................
Gap Fill .....................................................
DOE Standard ..........................................
ENERGY STAR Performance Specification.
ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award.
Electric compact
(120V)
Electric compact
(240V)
Gas
3.11
2.10
2.74
2.77
3.31
3.52
3.73
3.93
2.60
3.11
3.61
3.80
2.92
3.09
3.27
3.45
2.94
3.12
3.30
3.48
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.0
For the ventless electric compact
(240V) clothes dryer and ventless
electric combination washer/dryer
product classes, DOE is again proposing
an incremental efficiency level
associated with the current standard
level nominal values. For ventless
electric compact (240V) clothes dryers,
DOE is proposing an additional gap fill
level between the baseline and the
current standard level nominal value.
DOE also plans to consider efficiency
levels corresponding to the Version 1.0
ENERGY STAR performance
specification requirements and the
ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging
Technology Award criteria. For ventless
electric combination washer/dryers,
because limited data are available
regarding the efficiency of products
measured according to the new
appendix D2 test procedure, DOE is
tentatively proposing to consider
efficiency levels corresponding to the
relative increase in efficiency levels
considered for the 2011 Direct Final
Rule analysis. For ventless electric
standard clothes dryers, DOE notes that
one recently introduced ventless electric
standard clothes dryer qualifies for the
ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging
Technology Award. DOE plans to
consider an efficiency level associated
with this unit. However, DOE is
unaware of any data to determine other
incremental efficiency levels for
ventless electric standard clothes dryers.
The proposed efficiency levels for the
ventless clothes dryer product classes
are presented in Table II.8 and Table
II.9.
7 ENERGY STAR Program Requirements Product
Specification for Clothes Dryers: Eligibility Criteria
Version 1.0, (May 19, 2014) (Available at: https://
www.energystar.gov//products/certified-products/
detail/17517/partners).
8 ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology
Award Criteria for Advanced Clothes Dryers, (May
13, 2014) (Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/
about/awards/energy-star-emerging-technologyaward/2014-emerging-technology-award-advancedclothes-dryers).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Mar 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules
16315
TABLE II.8—EFFICIENCY LEVELS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR VENTLESS ELECTRIC STANDARD AND COMPACT (240V)
CLOTHES DRYERS
Integrated efficiency level (CEF)
(lb/kWh)
Level
Efficiency level description
Electric
compact
(240V)
Electric
standard
Baseline ............
1 ........................
2 ........................
3 ........................
4 ........................
DOE Standard w/Adjusted Appendix D2 Energy Use ...................................................
Gap Fill ...........................................................................................................................
DOE Standard ................................................................................................................
ENERGY STAR Performance Specification ..................................................................
ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award .....................................................
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.5
2.33
2.44
2.55
2.68
4.3
TABLE II.9—EFFICIENCY LEVELS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMBINATION WASHER/DRYERS
Level
Integrated
efficiency level
(CEF)
(lb/kWh)
Efficiency level description
Electric
combination
washer/dryer
Baseline ............
1 ........................
2 ........................
3 ........................
4 ........................
5 ........................
6 ........................
DOE Standard w/Adjusted Appendix D2 Energy Use .....................................................................................
DOE Standard ..................................................................................................................................................
2011 Direct Final Rule Analysis Gap Fill .........................................................................................................
EL 2 + 1.5 Watt Standby .................................................................................................................................
EL 3 + 0.08 Watt Standby ...............................................................................................................................
Gap Fill .............................................................................................................................................................
Max-Tech (Heat Pump) ....................................................................................................................................
Issue D.3 DOE seeks input
concerning the efficiency levels it
tentatively plans to use for each product
class for collecting incremental cost data
from manufacturers of residential
clothes dryers. In particular, DOE seeks
additional data on the efficiency of
products measured according to the new
appendix D2 test procedure to
characterize the range of efficiencies
available on the market for each product
class. DOE also seeks input on
appropriate maximum technologically
feasible efficiency levels whether any
additional intermediate efficiency levels
should be considered and the basis for
why those levels should be selected.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Approach for Determining the CostEfficiency Relationship
In order to create the cost-efficiency
relationship, DOE intends to use an
efficiency-level approach,
supplemented with reverse engineering
(physical teardowns and testing of
existing products in the market), to
identify the incremental cost and
efficiency improvement associated with
each efficiency level.
DOE will analyze technologies and
associated costs representative of
baseline units as part of the reverseengineering process. DOE intends to
perform reverse engineering for each
product class being analyzed. Whenever
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Mar 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
possible, DOE will attempt to reverse
engineer test units that share similar
platforms to better identify the
efficiency benefits and costs of design
options. As units are torn down, all
design options used in them are noted
and reviewed. Prior to tear down, DOE
also plans to conduct limited testing to
establish what control strategies are
being used by manufacturers in
conjunction with design options and
platform design. Unit testing may
include the measurement of
disaggregated energy consumption to
identify the relationship between
particular components and control
strategies taken by manufacturers to
achieve higher efficiency levels. As part
of the reverse-engineering process, DOE
will attempt to generate a cost-efficiency
relationship for each efficiency level
identified. DOE also requests
incremental cost data for each efficiency
level. DOE intends the data to represent
the average industry-wide incremental
production cost for each technology.
To be useful in the manufacturer
impact analysis, manufacturer cost
information should reflect the
variability in baseline models, design
strategies, and cost structures that can
exist among manufacturers. This
information allows DOE to better
understand the industry and its
associated cost structure, and helps DOE
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2.00
2.08
2.26
2.29
2.36
2.46
3.55
predict the most likely impact of new
energy efficiency regulations. For
example, the reverse-engineering
methodology allows DOE to estimate the
‘‘green-field’’ costs of building new
facilities, yet the majority of plants in
any given industry are comprised of a
mix of assets in different stages of
depreciation. Interviews with
manufacturers not only help DOE refine
its capital expenditure estimates, but
they also allow DOE to refine its
estimates regarding depreciation and
other financial parameters.
DOE will refine the cost-efficiency
data it generates through the reverseengineering activities with information
obtained through follow-up
manufacturer interviews and, as
necessary, information contained in the
market and technology assessment and
further review of publicly available cost
and performance information.
Issue D.5 DOE requests feedback on
using an efficiency-level approach
supplemented with reverse engineering
to determine the relationship between
manufacturer cost and energy efficiency
for residential clothes dryers.
Issue D.6 DOE also requests
incremental cost data for each clothes
dryer efficiency level as well as
information about the design options
associated with each efficiency level.
DOE intends the data to represent the
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
16316
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
average industry-wide incremental
production cost for each technology.
EPCA also requires DOE to consider
any lessening of the utility or the
performance of a covered product likely
to result from the imposition of a new
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV))
As part of its analysis of higher
efficiency levels, DOE will consider
whether new standards may impact the
utility of residential clothes dryers.
Issue D.7 DOE seeks comment on
whether any new standards may impact
the utility of clothes dryers. If such
impacts exist, can the effects be
quantified? If so, how?
E. Markups Analysis
To carry out the life-cycle cost (LCC)
and payback period (PBP) calculations,
DOE needs to determine the cost to the
residential consumer of baseline
products that satisfies the currently
applicable standards, and the cost of the
more-efficient unit the consumer would
purchase under potential amended
standards. By applying a multiplier
called a ‘‘markup’’ to the manufacturer’s
selling price, DOE is able to estimate the
residential consumer’s price.
For the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE
used distribution channels, based on
data from the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), to
characterize how products pass to the
consumer. For clothes dryers, the main
actors are manufacturers and retailers.
Thus, DOE analyzed a manufacturer-toconsumer 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. DOE plans to use
the same approach in the current
rulemaking.
As was done in the last rulemaking
and consistent with the approach
followed for other energy consuming
products, DOE will determine an
average manufacturer markup by
considering the annual Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) 10–K
reports filed by publicly traded
manufacturers of appliances whose
product range includes clothes dryers.
DOE then revises the initial
manufacturer markup estimate based on
feedback received during manufacturer
interviews. 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 manufacturer and
retailer markups, DOE will include sales
tax in its retail price calculations. DOE
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Mar 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
will use an Internet source, the Sales
Tax Clearinghouse, to calculate
applicable sales taxes.
Issue E.1 DOE seeks input from
stakeholders on whether the
distribution channels described above
are still relevant for residential clothes
dryers. DOE also welcomes comments
concerning its proposed approach to
developing estimates of markups for
clothes dryers.
F. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy analysis is
to assess the energy-savings potential of
different product efficiencies. DOE uses
the annual energy consumption and
energy-savings potential in the LCC and
PBP analyses to establish the savings in
consumer operating costs at various
product efficiency levels. In contrast to
the DOE test procedure, which provides
a measure of the energy use, energy
efficiency or annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle, the energy use
analysis captures a range of operating
conditions for clothes dryers in U.S.
homes.
For the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE
developed distributions of values for
several operating conditions, including
number of cycles, remaining moisture
content (RMC), and load weights that
reflect its best estimate of the range of
practices found in U.S. homes. 76 FR
22508. DOE also evaluated the indirect
impact of a clothes dryer standard on
heating and cooling loads in a
household. To calculate this impact,
DOE first characterized the location of
the clothes dryers in a conditioned
space based on the Energy Information
Administration’s (EIA’s) 2005
Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(RECS), and the 2009 American Housing
Survey (AHS). For these installations,
DOE utilized the results from a
European Union study about the
impacts of clothes dryers on home
heating and cooling loads to determine
the appropriate factor to apply to the
total clothes dryer energy use.9
To determine the field energy use of
products that would be required to meet
amended standard levels, DOE proposes
to use data from the EIA’s 2009 RECS,
or the most recent such survey available
from EIA.10 RECS is a national sample
9 I. Rudenauer and C.O. Gensch, Energy demand
¨
of tumble dryers with respect to differences in
technology and ambient conditions. Report
commissioned by European Committee of Domestic
Equipment Manufacturers (CECED) (January 13,
2004) (Available at: www.oeko.de/oekodoc/202/
2004-009-en.pdf).
10 U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption
Survey: 2009 RECS Survey Data (2013) (Available
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
clothes dryer used in each household.
As a result, DOE will be able to develop
household samples for each of the
considered product classes.
DOE requests comment or seeks input
from stakeholders on the following
issues pertaining to the energy use
analysis:
Issue F.1 Approaches for specifying
the typical annual energy consumption
of residential clothes dryers;
Issue F.2 Data sources that DOE can
use to characterize the variability in
annual energy consumption of clothes
dryers.
Issue F.3 Data sources to
characterize the indirect impact of dryer
energy use on heating and cooling loads
of a household.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
The purpose of the LCC and PBP
analysis is to analyze the effects of
potential amended energy conservation
standards on consumers of residential
clothes dryers by determining how a
potential amended standard affects the
consumers’ operating expenses (usually
decreased) and total installed costs
(usually increased).
DOE intends to 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 simulations 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.
Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis
are categorized as: (1) Inputs for
establishing the purchase expense,
otherwise known as the total installed
cost, and (2) inputs for calculating the
operating expense. The primary inputs
for establishing the total installed cost
are the baseline consumer price,
standard-level consumer price
increases, and installation costs.
Baseline consumer prices and standardlevel consumer price increases will be
determined by applying markups to
manufacturer price estimates. The
installation cost is added to the
at: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/
data/2009/).
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules
consumer price to arrive at a total
installed cost.
In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE
derived the installation costs from RS
Means 2008. 76 FR 22513. DOE plans to
use similar data sources for this
rulemaking, with adjustments to reflect
current-day labor and material prices as
well as to scale installation cost for
higher-efficiency products based on
equipment weight and/or dimensions.
Issue G.1 DOE seeks input on
whether clothes dryer installation costs
scale with equipment weight and/or
dimensions.
The primary inputs for calculating the
operating costs are product energy
consumption, product efficiency,
electricity prices and forecasts,
maintenance and repair costs, product
lifetime, and discount rates.
Repair costs are associated with
repairing or replacing components that
have failed in the appliance, whereas
maintenance costs are associated with
maintaining the operation of the
equipment. In the 2011 Direct Final
Rule, DOE derived annualized
maintenance and repair frequencies
based on Consumer Reports data on
repair and maintenance issues for
clothes dryers during the first 4 years of
ownership. DOE estimated that on
average 1.5 percent of electric and 1.75
percent of gas clothes dryers are
maintained or repaired each year. Based
on RS Means Facilities Maintenance &
Repair 2010 Cost Data,11 DOE also
estimated that an average service call
and any necessary repair or
maintenance takes about 2.5 hours. DOE
further estimated that the average
material cost is equal to one-half of the
equipment cost. The values for cost per
service call were then annualized by
multiplying by the frequencies and
dividing by the average equipment
lifetime of 16 years. 76 FR 22514. DOE
plans to use similar data sources for this
rulemaking.
In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE
also assumed that repair costs vary in
direct proportion with the product price
at higher efficiency levels as
replacement costs for more-efficient
components are likely to be greater than
replacement costs for components in
baseline products.
Issue G.2 DOE seeks stakeholder
input on the approach for estimating
repair and maintenance costs for more
efficient clothes dryers. DOE also seeks
stakeholder comment on the assumption
that repair costs vary in direct
proportion to product price as well as
11 Available at: https://
rsmeans.reedconstructiondata.com/60300.aspx.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Mar 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
historical repair cost data as a function
of efficiency.
DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts
of potential standard levels relative to a
base case that reflects the market in the
absence of amended standards. DOE
plans to 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
or new standards would be required. By
accounting for consumers who already
purchase more efficient products, DOE
avoids overstating the potential benefits
from new or amended standards.
Issue G.4 DOE seeks stakeholder
input and data on the fraction of clothes
dryers sold that exceed the minimum
energy efficiency standards. DOE also
requests information on expected trends
in product efficiency over the next five
years.
H. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses shipment projections by
product class and efficiency level in its
analysis of the national impacts of
potential standards, as well as in the
manufacturer impact analysis.
In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE
developed a shipments model for
clothes dryers driven by historical
shipments data. 76 FR 22516. The key
drivers of the shipments model
included the new owner and
replacement markets.
Issue H.1 DOE seeks stakeholder
input and data showing the distribution
of shipments by product class.
In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE
modeled the decision to repair or
replace equipment for existing owners
and the impact that decision would
have on the shipments model. DOE
estimated how increases in product
purchase price and decreases in product
operating costs due to standards affect
product shipments.12
Issue H.2 DOE seeks input and data
on factors that influence a consumer’s
decisions to repair or replace failed
products.
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
12 DOE-Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products, Technical Support Document: Energy
Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and
Commercial and Industrial Equipment, Residential
Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners, chapter
9 (2011) (Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-00100053).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16317
and the national net present value
(NPV) of the total consumer benefits.
The NIA considers lifetime impacts of
potential standards on clothes dryers
shipped in a 30-year period that begins
with the expected compliance date for
new or amended standards.
To develop the NES, DOE calculates
annual energy consumption of clothes
dryers in households for the base case
and each standards case. To develop the
national NPV of consumer benefits from
potential standards, DOE calculates
national annual energy expenditures
and annual product expenditures for the
base case and the standards cases. DOE
calculates total annual energy
expenditures using data on annual
energy consumption in each case,
forecasted average annual energy prices,
and shipment projections. The
difference each year between operating
cost savings and increased product
expenditures is the net savings or net
costs.
A key component of DOE’s estimates
of NES and NPV is the product energy
efficiency forecasted over time for the
base case and for each of the standards
cases. In the 2011 Direct Final Rule,
DOE based projections of base-case
shipment-weighted efficiency (SWEF)
for the clothes dryer product classes on
growth rates determined from historical
data provided by AHAM.13 For this
rulemaking, DOE plans on considering
recent trends in efficiency and input
from stakeholders to update product
energy efficiency forecasts.
Issue I.1 DOE seeks historical SWEF
data for residential clothes dryers by
product class and stakeholder input
regarding future trends in efficiency.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer
impact analysis (MIA) is to estimate the
financial impact of potential energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of residential clothes
dryers and to evaluate the potential
impact of such standards on
competition, 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
used to estimate a range of potential
impacts on manufacturer profitability.
The qualitative part of the MIA
addresses a proposed standard’s
potential impacts on manufacturing
capacity and industry competition, as
well as factors such as product
characteristics, impacts on particular
13 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
chapter 10.
27MRP1
16318
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
subgroups of firms, and key issues from
the manufacturers’ perspective.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to
analyze impacts of potential energy
conservation standards on small
business manufacturers of covered
products. DOE intends to use the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA) small
business size standards to determine
whether manufacturers qualify as small
businesses. The size standards are listed
by North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code and
industry description.14 Manufacturing
of residential clothes dryers is classified
under NAICS 335224, ‘‘Household
Laundry Equipment Manufacturing.’’
The SBA sets a threshold of 1,000
employees or less for an entity to be
considered as a small business for this
category. This 1,000-employee threshold
would include all employees in a
business’s parent company and any
other subsidiaries.
DOE intends to conduct a market
survey using publicly available
information to identify potential small
manufacturers using the abovementioned size threshold. In identifying
potential small businesses, DOE
generally uses its Compliance
Certification Management System
(CCMS), industry trade association
membership directories (including
AHAM), individual company Web sites,
and market research tools (e.g., Hoovers
reports) to create a list of companies that
manufacture or sell products covered by
this rulemaking.
Issue J.1 DOE requests comment on
whether there are any small business
manufacturers of residential clothes
dryers that it should consider in its
analysis.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to
submit in writing by May 11, 2015,
comments and information on matters
addressed in this notice and on other
matters relevant to DOE’s consideration
of new or amended energy
conservations standards for residential
clothes dryers. After the close of the
comment period, DOE will collect data,
conduct analyses, and review public
comments, as needed. These actions
will aid in the development of a NOPR
for residential clothes dryers if DOE
decides to amend the standards for such
products.
DOE considers public participation to
be a very important part of the process
for developing test procedures and
energy conservation standards. DOE
actively encourages the participation
14 Available at: https://www.sba.gov/content/
small-business-size-standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Mar 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 rulemaking should contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945, or
via email at Brenda.Edwards@
ee.doe.gov.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 23,
2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015–07058 Filed 3–26–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2015–0496; Directorate
Identifier 2014–NM–101–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to supersede
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005–18–
18, which applies to certain The Boeing
Company Model 757 airplanes. AD
2005–18–18 currently requires
inspections of certain wire bundles in
the left and right engine-to-wing aft
fairings for discrepancies; installation of
back-to-back p-clamps between the wire
and hydraulic supply tube at the aft end
of the right-hand strut only; and
associated re-routing of the wire
bundles, if necessary. Since we issued
AD 2005–18–18, we have determined
that the service information referenced
in AD 2005–18–18 did not adequately
address fuel shutoff valve (FSV) wires at
the aft end of the struts. This proposed
AD would add an installation of spiral
cable wrap on FSV wires at the aft end
of the strut, for both left and right
engines, and related investigative and
corrective actions. We are proposing
this AD to prevent chafing between the
wire bundle and the structure of the aft
fairing, which could result in electrical
arcing and subsequent ignition of
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
flammable vapors and possible
uncontrollable fire.
We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by May 11, 2015.
DATES:
You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data
& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707,
MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207;
telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1;
fax 206–766–5680; Internet https://
www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view
this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057. For information on
the availability of this material at the
FAA, call 425–227–1221. It is also
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2015–
0496.
ADDRESSES:
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2015–
0496; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6498;
fax: 425–917–6590; email:
christopher.r.baker@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16309-16318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07058]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket Number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058]
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Dryers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information (RFI).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 dryers. According to the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act's 6-year review requirement, DOE must publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking to propose amended standards for residential
clothes dryers or a notice of determination that the existing standards
do not need to be amended by August 24, 2017. This notice seeks to
solicit information from the public to help DOE determine whether
amended standards for residential clothes dryers would result in a
significant amount of additional energy savings and whether those
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before May
11, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments
electronically. Comments may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
Email: ResClothesDryers2014STD0058@ee.doe.gov. Include
docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058 in the subject line of the message.
All comments should clearly identify the name, address, and, if
appropriate, organization of the commenter.
Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, Request for
Information for Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes
Dryers, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a
compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed
copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to
include printed copies.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this rulemaking. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will
be accepted.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. However, some documents listed in the index may not be publicly
available, such as those containing information that is exempt from
public disclosure.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058. This Web
page contains a link to the docket for this notice on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains
simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket.
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: ResClothesDryers2014STD0058@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: peter.cochran@hq.doe.gov.
For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact
Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
[[Page 16310]]
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Products Covered by This Rulemaking
B. Test Procedure
C. Market Assessment
D. Engineering Analysis
E. Markups Analysis
F. Energy Use Analysis
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
H. Shipments Analysis
I. National Impact Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as
codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles.\2\ These products include residential
clothes dryers, the subject of this Request for Information (RFI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical
Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must
result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR) including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1))
On April 21, 2011, DOE published a direct final rule (2011 Direct
Final Rule) amending the energy conservation standards for residential
clothes dryers. 76 FR 22454. The amended energy conservation standards
were based on a new metric, the combined energy factor (CEF), that
incorporates energy use in active mode, standby mode, and off mode. DOE
established an initial compliance date of April 24, 2014 for the
amended standards. Subsequently, DOE amended the compliance date for
the new standards to January 1, 2015. 76 FR 52852 (Aug. 24, 2011).
Thus, DOE must publish either a NOPR proposing amended standards
for residential clothes dryers or a notice of determination that the
existing standards do not need to be amended by August 24, 2017. This
RFI seeks input from the public to assist DOE with its determination on
whether new or amended standards pertaining to residential clothes
dryers are warranted. In making this determination, DOE must evaluate
whether amended standards would: (1) Yield a significant savings in
energy use; and (2) be both technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including residential clothes
dryers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would
not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically
justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard
exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this
determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by
considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven
statutory factors:
1. The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the affected products compared to any increases in the initial
cost, or maintenance expenses;
3. The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable)
savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the affected
products likely to result from the imposition of 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
imposition of 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))
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technological Feasibility.............. Market and Technology
Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic impact on manufacturers Manufacturer Impact
and consumers. Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost
Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime operating cost savings Markups for Product
compared to increased cost for the Price Determination.
product. Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total projected energy savings.. Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
4. Impact on utility or performance Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of any lessening of Manufacturer Impact
competition. Analysis.
[[Page 16311]]
6. Need for national energy and Shipments Analysis.
water conservation. National Impact
Analysis.
7. Other factors the Secretary Emissions Analysis.
considers relevant.
Utility Impact
Analysis.
Employment Impact
Analysis.
Monetization of
Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this notice as
the first step in the analysis process and is requesting input and data
from interested parties to aid in the development of the technical
analyses.
II. Request for Information and Comments
In the next section, DOE has identified a variety of questions that
DOE would like to receive input on to aid in the development of the
technical and economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for
residential clothes dryers may be warranted. In addition, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking
that may not be identified specifically in this notice. As part of the
process for soliciting information, DOE is providing a document titled
``APPENDIX--EXAMPLES OF RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES DRYER DATA'' (available at
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058) to
provide examples of the type of data needed for the rulemaking
analyses.
A. Products Covered by This Rulemaking
DOE defines an electric clothes dryer to mean ``a cabinet-like
appliance designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum with forced air
circulation. The heat source is electricity and the drum and blower(s)
are driven by an electric motor(s).'' (10 CFR 430.2) Similarly, DOE
defines a gas clothes dryer to mean ``a cabinet-like appliance designed
to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum with forced air circulation. The
heat source is gas and the drum and blower(s) are driven by an electric
motor(s).'' (10 CFR 430.2) As part of this rulemaking, DOE intends to
address energy conservation standards for both electric and gas clothes
dryers.
B. Test Procedure
DOE's test procedures for clothes dryers are codified in appendix
D1 and appendix D2 to subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). On January 6, 2011, DOE issued an amended test
procedure for residential clothes dryers, in which it (1) adopted the
provisions for the measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use
along with a new energy efficiency metric, Combined Energy Factor
(CEF), that incorporates energy use in active mode, standby mode, and
off mode; and (2) adopted several amendments to the clothes dryer test
procedure concerning active mode. 76 FR 972. DOE created a new appendix
D1 in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B that contained the amended test
procedure for clothes dryers.
DOE issued a final rule on August 14, 2013 (August 2013 TP Final
Rule), to amend the clothes dryer test procedure, in which it: (1)
Updated appendix D1 to reference the latest edition of the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301,
``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,''
Edition 2.0 2011-01; (2) amended appendix D1 to clarify the cycle
settings used for the test cycle, the requirements for the gas supply
for gas clothes dryers, the installation conditions for console lights,
the method for measuring the drum capacity, the maximum allowable
weighing scale range, and the allowable use of a relative humidity
meter; and (3) created a new appendix D2 that includes, in addition to
the amendments discussed above, testing methods for measuring the
effects of automatic cycle termination. 78 FR 49608. Manufacturers must
use either the test procedures in appendix D1 or D2 to demonstrate
compliance with energy conservation standards for clothes dryers as of
January 1, 2015. Manufacturers must use a single appendix for all
representations, including certifications of compliance, and may not
use appendix D1 for certain representations and appendix D2 for other
representations.
DOE may consider energy conservation standards using the new
appendix D2 test method to more accurately account for the effects of
automatic cycle termination.
Interested parties have commented publicly, as part of the previous
test procedure rulemaking process and more recently through other
public channels, that the DOE clothes dryer test procedures may not
produce results that are representative of consumer use with regards to
test load size and composition, cycle settings for the test cycle, and
other provisions in the test procedure. DOE also notes that Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL) recently published reports evaluating clothes dryer performance
using the new appendix D2 test method and investigating new automatic
cycle termination concepts for improving clothes dryer efficiency.\3\
In consideration of these concerns regarding the test procedure and the
recent clothes dryer automatic cycle termination research, DOE
initiated an effort to determine whether amendments to the test
procedure are warranted. DOE held a public meeting on November 13,
2014, to solicit comments from interested parties on potential changes
to the clothes dryer test procedure.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ K. Gluesenkamp, Residential Clothes Dryer Performance Under
Timed and Automatic Cycle Termination Test Procedures, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory Report No. ORNL/TM-2014/431 (2014) (``ORNL/TM-
2014/431 Report'') (Available at: https://web.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/docs/2014-10-09-ORNL-DryerFinalReport-TM-2014-431.pdf); W.
TeGrotenhuis, Clothes Dryer Automatic Termination Sensor Evaluation.
Volume 1: Characterization of Energy Use in Residential Clothes
Dryers, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Report No. PNNL-23621
(2014) (``PNNL-23621 Report'') (Available at: https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-23621.pdf); W.
TeGrotenhuis, Clothes Dryer Automatic Termination Sensor Evaluation.
Volume 2: Improved Sensor and Control Designs, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory Report No. PNNL-23616 (2014) (Available at:
https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-23616.pdf).
\4\ The docket for this test procedure rulemaking is available
at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-TP-
0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Market Assessment
The market and technology assessment provides information about the
residential clothes dryer industry that will be used throughout the
rulemaking process. For example, this
[[Page 16312]]
information will be used to determine whether the existing product
class structure requires modification based on technological
improvements in the design and manufacturing of such products. DOE uses
qualitative and quantitative information to analyze the residential
clothes dryer industry and market. DOE will identify and characterize
the manufacturers of clothes dryers, estimate market shares and trends,
address regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve
energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and explore the
potential for technological improvements in the design and
manufacturing of clothes dryers. DOE will also review product
literature, industry publications, and company Web sites. Additionally,
DOE will consider conducting interviews with manufacturers to assess
the overall market for residential clothes dryers.
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 would
justify a different standard. In making a determination whether a
performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must
consider factors such as the utility to the consumer of the feature and
other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
During the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking for
residential clothes dryers, DOE established four product classes for
vented clothes dryers and two product classes for ventless clothes
dryers. DOE established separate product classes for ventless clothes
dryers because of the unique utility they offer consumers, i.e., the
ability to have a clothes dryer in a living area where vents are
impossible to install, such as an apartment in a high-rise building,
where venting dryers would be precluded due to venting restrictions. As
part of the previous rulemaking, DOE established product classes for
ventless electric compact (240V) clothes dryers and ventless electric
combination washer/dryers.\5\ The product classes established in the
previous energy conservation standards rulemaking are presented in
Table II.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A ventless combination washer/dryer is a device that washes
and then dries clothes in the same basket/cavity in a combined
cycle.
Table II.1--Existing Clothes Dryer Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented dryers
1. Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (ft\3\) or greater capacity).
2. Electric, Compact (120 volts (V)) (less than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
3. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
4. Gas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ventless dryers
5. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
6. Electric, Combination Washer/Dryer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on DOE's review of products available on market, DOE notes
that at least one manufacturer offers a ventless clothes dryers with a
drum capacity greater than 4.4 cubic feet. As a result, DOE tentatively
proposes to establish an additional product class for ventless electric
standard clothes dryers listed in Table II.2.
Table II.2--Proposed Clothes Dryer Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented dryers
7. Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (ft\3\) or greater capacity).
8. Electric, Compact (120 volts (V)) (less than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
9. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
10. Gas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ventless dryers
11. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ or greater capacity).
12. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
13. Electric, Combination Washer/Dryer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue C.1 DOE requests feedback on the proposed product classes and
seeks information regarding other product classes it should consider
for inclusion in its analysis. In particular, DOE requests comment on
the determination to consider a separate product class for ventless
electric clothes dryers with drum capacities of 4.4 cubic feet or
greater. If commenters believe that additional product classes are
warranted, DOE requests comment as to how those classes should be
configured, as well as energy use data and utility or performance-
related information justifying the need for a separate class.
Technology Assessment and Screening Analysis
The purpose of the technology assessment is to develop a
preliminary list of technologies that could potentially be used to
improve the efficiency of residential clothes dryers. The purpose of
the screening analysis is to screen out technologies that are not
appropriate for consideration in the engineering analysis due to the
following four factors: (1) Technological feasibility, (2)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service, (3) impacts on
product utility to consumers, and (4) health and safety. (10 CFR part
430, subpart C, appendix A, section (4)(a)(4)) The technologies that
pass the screening are considered in the engineering analysis.
DOE uses information about existing and past technology options and
prototype designs to help identify technologies that manufacturers
could use to meet and/or exceed energy conservation standards. In
consultation with interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of
technologies to consider in its analysis. Initially, this list will
include the technology options considered during the most recent
residential clothes dryer standards rulemaking, including those that
were screened out in the previous rulemaking.
DOE plans to initially consider all of the technologies for
residential clothes dryers identified in the previous standards
rulemaking. These technology options are listed in Table II.3.
Table II.3--Technology Options for Residential Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dryer Control or Drum Upgrades
1. Improved termination.
2. Increased insulation.
3. Modified operating conditions.
4. Improved air circulation.
5. Improved drum design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methods of Exhaust Heat Recovery (Vented Models Only)
6. Recycle exhaust heat.
7. Inlet air preheat.
8. Inlet air preheat, condensing mode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat Generation Options
9. Heat pump, electric only.
10. Microwave, electric only.
11. Modulating heat.
12. Indirect heating.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Improvements
13. Improved motor efficiency.
14. Improved fan efficiency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standby Power Improvements
15. Switching Power Supply.
16. Transformerless Power Supply with Auto-Powerdown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a preliminary review of the clothes dryer market and
information published in recent trade publications, technical reports,
and manufacturer literature, DOE has observed that the results of the
technology screening analysis performed during the previous
[[Page 16313]]
rulemaking remain largely relevant for this rulemaking.
Issue C.2 DOE seeks information on how the above technologies, and
any other technologies that may improve clothes dryer efficiency: (1)
Apply to the current market; and (2) improve efficiency of clothes
dryers as measured according to the DOE test procedure under appendix
D2.
D. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship
of products at different levels of increased energy efficiency. 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
cost associated with increasing the efficiency of products above the
baseline to the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'')
efficiency level for each product class. The baseline model is used as
a reference point for each product class in the engineering analysis
and the life-cycle cost and payback-period analyses.
Baseline Models
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 just
meets the current minimum energy conservation standards by a small
margin.
In developing the baseline efficiency levels, DOE initially
considered the current standards for residential clothes dryers
manufactured on or after January 1, 2015 presented in Table II.4.
Table II.4--January 1, 2015 Clothes Dryer Energy Conservation Standard
Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class CEF (lb/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented dryers
1. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ or greater capacity). 3.73
2. Electric, Compact (120 v) (less than 4.4 ft\3\ 3.61
capacity)............................................
3. Electric, Compact (240 v) (less than 4.4 ft\3\ 3.27
capacity)............................................
4. Gas................................................ 3.30
Ventless dryers
5. Electric, Compact (240 v) (less than 4.4 ft\3\ 2.55
capacity)............................................
6. Electric, Combination Washer/Dryer................. 2.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the last standards rulemaking, DOE amended the clothes dryer
test procedures as part of the August 2013 TP Final Rule to create a
new appendix D2 that includes testing methods for more accurately
measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination. Because DOE is
proposing to consider energy conservation standards based on the
appendix D2 test method, DOE would have to establish baseline
efficiency levels considering this new test procedure.
As part of the August 2013 TP Final Rule, DOE presented test data
for each product class comparing the efficiencies measured under the
appendix D1 and D2 test procedures. 78 FR 49614-15. In addition, ORNL
and PNNL conducted testing on separate models according to the appendix
D1 and the new appendix D2 test procedures.\6\ Table II.5 presents the
average measured CEF values using appendix D1 and D2 for each product
class using the test data from DOE, ORNL, and PNNL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ORNL/TM-2014/431 Report at 12; PNNL-23621 Report at 2.1-2.3.
Table II.5--Clothes Dryer Test Data Using Appendix D1 and D2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix D1 Appendix D2
Number of test -----------------------------------------------------
Product class units Average CEF (lb/ Average CEF (lb/
kWh) kWh) % Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard................ 12 3.83 3.19 -16.7
Vented Electric Compact (240V).......... 4 3.65 3.06 -16.2
Vented Electric Compact (120V).......... 1 3.75 2.18 -41.9
Vented Gas.............................. 8 3.43 2.87 -16.2
Ventless Electric Compact (240V)........ 1 2.98 2.73 -8.4
Ventless Electric Combination Washer/ 2 2.55 2.45 -3.9
Dryer..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using these data, DOE developed tentative baseline efficiency
levels by applying the percentage difference in efficiency between
appendix D1 and D2, as presented in Table II.5, to the energy
conservation standards for clothes dryers required on January 1, 2015,
presented in Table II.4. The proposed baseline efficiency levels are
presented in Table II.6. DOE did not have sufficient data to
characterize the baseline efficiency level for the newly proposed
product class, ventless electric standard clothes dryers.
Table II.6--Proposed Baseline Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Standard Proposed Baseline
Product class CEF (Appendix D1) CEF (Appendix D2)
(lb/kWh) (lb/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented dryers:
1. Electric, Standard 3.73................ 3.11.
(4.4 ft\3\ or greater
capacity).
2. Electric, Compact 3.61................ 3.03.
(120 v) (less than 4.4
ft\3\ capacity).
3. Electric, Compact 3.27................ 1.90.
(240 v) (less than 4.4
ft\3\ capacity).
[[Page 16314]]
4. Gas.................. 3.30................ 2.77.
Ventless dryers:
5. Electric, Standard Not Applicable...... Not Available.
(4.4 ft\3\ or greater
capacity).
6. Electric, Compact 2.55................ 2.33.
(240 V) (less than 4.4
ft\3\ capacity).
7. Electric, Combination 2.08................ 2.00.
Washer/Dryer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue D.1 DOE requests comment on approaches that it should
consider when determining the baseline efficiency levels for each
product class, including information regarding the merits and/or
limitations of such approaches. DOE also requests additional test data
to characterize the baseline efficiency levels for each product class.
In particular, DOE requests appendix D2 test data broken down by
standby/off mode and active mode energy use for each product class,
including the newly proposed product class for ventless electric
standard dryers. DOE requests additional test data for residential
clothes dryers showing the difference in measured efficiency using the
appendix D1 test procedure and the appendix D2 test procedure.
Higher Efficiency Levels
DOE will analyze each product class to determine the relevant trial
standard levels (TSLs) and to develop incremental manufacturing cost
data at each higher efficiency level. DOE generally selects incremental
efficiency levels based on a review of industry standards and the
efficiency of products available on the market.
For the vented clothes dryer product classes, DOE tentatively plans
to consider an efficiency level associated with the current standard
level nominal values without the adjustment used to develop the
baseline efficiency levels discussed above. Because there is a large
gap between these two efficiency levels, DOE is tentatively planning to
consider evenly spaced gap fill efficiency levels. DOE also plans to
consider efficiency levels corresponding to the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Version 1.0 ENERGY STAR performance
specification requirements \7\ and the ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging
Technology Award criteria for advanced clothes dryers.\8\ Table II.7
shows the proposed efficiency levels for the vented clothes dryer
product classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ENERGY STAR Program Requirements Product Specification for
Clothes Dryers: Eligibility Criteria Version 1.0, (May 19, 2014)
(Available at: https://www.energystar.gov//products/certified-products/detail/17517/partners).
\8\ ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award Criteria for
Advanced Clothes Dryers, (May 13, 2014) (Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/about/awards/energy-star-emerging-technology-award/2014-emerging-technology-award-advanced-clothes-dryers).
Table II.7--Efficiency Levels Under Consideration for Vented Clothes Dryers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated efficiency level (CEF) (lb/kWh)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Efficiency level description Electric compact Electric compact
Electric standard (120V) (240V) Gas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................ DOE Standard w/Adjusted Appendix 3.11 2.10 2.74 2.77
D2 Energy Use.
1....................................... Gap Fill.......................... 3.31 2.60 2.92 2.94
2....................................... Gap Fill.......................... 3.52 3.11 3.09 3.12
3....................................... DOE Standard...................... 3.73 3.61 3.27 3.30
4....................................... ENERGY STAR Performance 3.93 3.80 3.45 3.48
Specification.
5....................................... ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.0
Technology Award.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the ventless electric compact (240V) clothes dryer and ventless
electric combination washer/dryer product classes, DOE is again
proposing an incremental efficiency level associated with the current
standard level nominal values. For ventless electric compact (240V)
clothes dryers, DOE is proposing an additional gap fill level between
the baseline and the current standard level nominal value. DOE also
plans to consider efficiency levels corresponding to the Version 1.0
ENERGY STAR performance specification requirements and the ENERGY STAR
2014 Emerging Technology Award criteria. For ventless electric
combination washer/dryers, because limited data are available regarding
the efficiency of products measured according to the new appendix D2
test procedure, DOE is tentatively proposing to consider efficiency
levels corresponding to the relative increase in efficiency levels
considered for the 2011 Direct Final Rule analysis. For ventless
electric standard clothes dryers, DOE notes that one recently
introduced ventless electric standard clothes dryer qualifies for the
ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award. DOE plans to consider an
efficiency level associated with this unit. However, DOE is unaware of
any data to determine other incremental efficiency levels for ventless
electric standard clothes dryers. The proposed efficiency levels for
the ventless clothes dryer product classes are presented in Table II.8
and Table II.9.
[[Page 16315]]
Table II.8--Efficiency Levels Under Consideration for Ventless Electric Standard and Compact (240V) Clothes
Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated efficiency level (CEF)
(lb/kWh)
Level Efficiency level description ------------------------------------
Electric Electric compact
standard (240V)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline............................... DOE Standard w/Adjusted Appendix N/A 2.33
D2 Energy Use.
1...................................... Gap Fill.......................... N/A 2.44
2...................................... DOE Standard...................... N/A 2.55
3...................................... ENERGY STAR Performance N/A 2.68
Specification.
4...................................... ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging 4.5 4.3
Technology Award.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.9--Efficiency Levels Under Consideration for Ventless Electric
Combination Washer/Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated
efficiency level
(CEF) (lb/kWh)
Level Efficiency level -----------------
description Electric
combination
washer/dryer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................. DOE Standard w/Adjusted 2.00
Appendix D2 Energy Use.
1......................... DOE Standard.............. 2.08
2......................... 2011 Direct Final Rule 2.26
Analysis Gap Fill.
3......................... EL 2 + 1.5 Watt Standby... 2.29
4......................... EL 3 + 0.08 Watt Standby.. 2.36
5......................... Gap Fill.................. 2.46
6......................... Max-Tech (Heat Pump)...... 3.55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue D.3 DOE seeks input concerning the efficiency levels it
tentatively plans to use for each product class for collecting
incremental cost data from manufacturers of residential clothes dryers.
In particular, DOE seeks additional data on the efficiency of products
measured according to the new appendix D2 test procedure to
characterize the range of efficiencies available on the market for each
product class. DOE also seeks input on appropriate maximum
technologically feasible efficiency levels whether any additional
intermediate efficiency levels should be considered and the basis for
why those levels should be selected.
Approach for Determining the Cost-Efficiency Relationship
In order to create the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE intends to
use an efficiency-level approach, supplemented with reverse engineering
(physical teardowns and testing of existing products in the market), to
identify the incremental cost and efficiency improvement associated
with each efficiency level.
DOE will analyze technologies and associated costs representative
of baseline units as part of the reverse-engineering process. DOE
intends to perform reverse engineering for each product class being
analyzed. Whenever possible, DOE will attempt to reverse engineer test
units that share similar platforms to better identify the efficiency
benefits and costs of design options. As units are torn down, all
design options used in them are noted and reviewed. Prior to tear down,
DOE also plans to conduct limited testing to establish what control
strategies are being used by manufacturers in conjunction with design
options and platform design. Unit testing may include the measurement
of disaggregated energy consumption to identify the relationship
between particular components and control strategies taken by
manufacturers to achieve higher efficiency levels. As part of the
reverse-engineering process, DOE will attempt to generate a cost-
efficiency relationship for each efficiency level identified. DOE also
requests incremental cost data for each efficiency level. DOE intends
the data to represent the average industry-wide incremental production
cost for each technology.
To be useful in the manufacturer impact analysis, manufacturer cost
information should reflect the variability in baseline models, design
strategies, and cost structures that can exist among manufacturers.
This information allows DOE to better understand the industry and its
associated cost structure, and helps DOE predict the most likely impact
of new energy efficiency regulations. For example, the reverse-
engineering methodology allows DOE to estimate the ``green-field''
costs of building new facilities, yet the majority of plants in any
given industry are comprised of a mix of assets in different stages of
depreciation. Interviews with manufacturers not only help DOE refine
its capital expenditure estimates, but they also allow DOE to refine
its estimates regarding depreciation and other financial parameters.
DOE will refine the cost-efficiency data it generates through the
reverse-engineering activities with information obtained through
follow-up manufacturer interviews and, as necessary, information
contained in the market and technology assessment and further review of
publicly available cost and performance information.
Issue D.5 DOE requests feedback on using an efficiency-level
approach supplemented with reverse engineering to determine the
relationship between manufacturer cost and energy efficiency for
residential clothes dryers.
Issue D.6 DOE also requests incremental cost data for each clothes
dryer efficiency level as well as information about the design options
associated with each efficiency level. DOE intends the data to
represent the
[[Page 16316]]
average industry-wide incremental production cost for each technology.
EPCA also requires DOE to consider any lessening of the utility or
the performance of a covered product likely to result from the
imposition of a new standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) As part
of its analysis of higher efficiency levels, DOE will consider whether
new standards may impact the utility of residential clothes dryers.
Issue D.7 DOE seeks comment on whether any new standards may impact
the utility of clothes dryers. If such impacts exist, can the effects
be quantified? If so, how?
E. Markups Analysis
To carry out the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP)
calculations, DOE needs to determine the cost to the residential
consumer of baseline products that satisfies the currently applicable
standards, and the cost of the more-efficient unit the consumer would
purchase under potential amended standards. By applying a multiplier
called a ``markup'' to the manufacturer's selling price, DOE is able to
estimate the residential consumer's price.
For the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE used distribution channels,
based on data from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
(AHAM), to characterize how products pass to the consumer. For clothes
dryers, the main actors are manufacturers and retailers. 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. DOE
plans to use the same approach in the current rulemaking.
As was done in the last rulemaking and consistent with the approach
followed for other energy consuming products, DOE will determine an
average manufacturer markup by considering the annual Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded
manufacturers of appliances whose product range includes clothes
dryers. DOE then revises the initial manufacturer markup estimate based
on feedback received during manufacturer interviews. 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 manufacturer and retailer markups, DOE will include
sales tax in its retail price calculations. DOE will use an Internet
source, the Sales Tax Clearinghouse, to calculate applicable sales
taxes.
Issue E.1 DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the
distribution channels described above are still relevant for
residential clothes dryers. DOE also welcomes comments concerning its
proposed approach to developing estimates of markups for clothes
dryers.
F. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy analysis is to assess the energy-savings
potential of different product efficiencies. DOE uses the annual energy
consumption and energy-savings potential in the LCC and PBP analyses to
establish the savings in consumer operating costs at various product
efficiency levels. In contrast to the DOE test procedure, which
provides a measure of the energy use, energy efficiency or annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle, the energy use analysis captures a range of operating conditions
for clothes dryers in U.S. homes.
For the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed distributions of
values for several operating conditions, including number of cycles,
remaining moisture content (RMC), and load weights that reflect its
best estimate of the range of practices found in U.S. homes. 76 FR
22508. DOE also evaluated the indirect impact of a clothes dryer
standard on heating and cooling loads in a household. To calculate this
impact, DOE first characterized the location of the clothes dryers in a
conditioned space based on the Energy Information Administration's
(EIA's) 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), and the 2009
American Housing Survey (AHS). For these installations, DOE utilized
the results from a European Union study about the impacts of clothes
dryers on home heating and cooling loads to determine the appropriate
factor to apply to the total clothes dryer energy use.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ I. R[uuml]denauer and C.O. Gensch, Energy demand of tumble
dryers with respect to differences in technology and ambient
conditions. Report commissioned by European Committee of Domestic
Equipment Manufacturers (CECED) (January 13, 2004) (Available at:
www.oeko.de/oekodoc/202/2004-009-en.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the field energy use of products that would be
required to meet amended standard levels, DOE proposes to use data from
the EIA's 2009 RECS, or the most recent such survey available from
EIA.\10\ 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 clothes
dryer used in each household. As a result, DOE will be able to develop
household samples for each of the considered product classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2009 RECS
Survey Data (2013) (Available at: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment or seeks input from stakeholders on the
following issues pertaining to the energy use analysis:
Issue F.1 Approaches for specifying the typical annual energy
consumption of residential clothes dryers;
Issue F.2 Data sources that DOE can use to characterize the
variability in annual energy consumption of clothes dryers.
Issue F.3 Data sources to characterize the indirect impact of dryer
energy use on heating and cooling loads of a household.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
The purpose of the LCC and PBP analysis is to analyze the effects
of potential amended energy conservation standards on consumers of
residential clothes dryers by determining how a potential amended
standard affects the consumers' operating expenses (usually decreased)
and total installed costs (usually increased).
DOE intends to 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 simulations 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.
Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are categorized as: (1) Inputs
for establishing the purchase expense, otherwise known as the total
installed cost, and (2) inputs for calculating the operating expense.
The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are the
baseline consumer price, standard-level consumer price increases, and
installation costs. Baseline consumer prices and standard-level
consumer price increases will be determined by applying markups to
manufacturer price estimates. The installation cost is added to the
[[Page 16317]]
consumer price to arrive at a total installed cost.
In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE derived the installation costs
from RS Means 2008. 76 FR 22513. DOE plans to use similar data sources
for this rulemaking, with adjustments to reflect current-day labor and
material prices as well as to scale installation cost for higher-
efficiency products based on equipment weight and/or dimensions.
Issue G.1 DOE seeks input on whether clothes dryer installation
costs scale with equipment weight and/or dimensions.
The primary inputs for calculating the operating costs are product
energy consumption, product efficiency, electricity prices and
forecasts, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount
rates.
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components
that have failed in the appliance, whereas maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment. In the 2011
Direct Final Rule, DOE derived annualized maintenance and repair
frequencies based on Consumer Reports data on repair and maintenance
issues for clothes dryers during the first 4 years of ownership. DOE
estimated that on average 1.5 percent of electric and 1.75 percent of
gas clothes dryers are maintained or repaired each year. Based on RS
Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair 2010 Cost Data,\11\ DOE also
estimated that an average service call and any necessary repair or
maintenance takes about 2.5 hours. DOE further estimated that the
average material cost is equal to one-half of the equipment cost. The
values for cost per service call were then annualized by multiplying by
the frequencies and dividing by the average equipment lifetime of 16
years. 76 FR 22514. DOE plans to use similar data sources for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Available at: https://rsmeans.reedconstructiondata.com/60300.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE also assumed that repair costs
vary in direct proportion with the product price at higher efficiency
levels as replacement costs for more-efficient components are likely to
be greater than replacement costs for components in baseline products.
Issue G.2 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the approach for
estimating repair and maintenance costs for more efficient clothes
dryers. DOE also seeks stakeholder comment on the assumption that
repair costs vary in direct proportion to product price as well as
historical repair cost data as a function of efficiency.
DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts of potential standard levels
relative to a base case that reflects the market in the absence of
amended standards. DOE plans to 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 or new standards would be required. By accounting for
consumers who already purchase more efficient products, DOE avoids
overstating the potential benefits from new or amended standards.
Issue G.4 DOE seeks stakeholder input and data on the fraction of
clothes dryers sold that exceed the minimum energy efficiency
standards. DOE also requests information on expected trends in product
efficiency over the next five years.
H. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses shipment projections by product class and efficiency level
in its analysis of the national impacts of potential standards, as well
as in the manufacturer impact analysis.
In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed a shipments model for
clothes dryers driven by historical shipments data. 76 FR 22516. The
key drivers of the shipments model included the new owner and
replacement markets.
Issue H.1 DOE seeks stakeholder input and data showing the
distribution of shipments by product class.
In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE modeled the decision to repair
or replace equipment for existing owners and the impact that decision
would have on the shipments model. DOE estimated how increases in
product purchase price and decreases in product operating costs due to
standards affect product shipments.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ DOE-Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products, Technical Support
Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and
Commercial and Industrial Equipment, Residential Clothes Dryers and
Room Air Conditioners, chapter 9 (2011) (Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0053).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue H.2 DOE seeks input and data on factors that influence a
consumer's decisions to repair or replace failed products.
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 clothes dryers shipped in a 30-year period that
begins with the expected compliance date for new or amended standards.
To develop the NES, DOE calculates annual energy consumption of
clothes dryers in households for the base case and each standards case.
To develop the national NPV of consumer benefits from potential
standards, DOE calculates national annual energy expenditures and
annual product expenditures for the base case and the standards cases.
DOE calculates total annual energy expenditures using data on annual
energy consumption in each case, forecasted average annual energy
prices, and shipment projections. The difference each year between
operating cost savings and increased product expenditures is the net
savings or net costs.
A key component of DOE's estimates of NES and NPV is the product
energy efficiency forecasted over time for the base case and for each
of the standards cases. In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE based
projections of base-case shipment-weighted efficiency (SWEF) for the
clothes dryer product classes on growth rates determined from
historical data provided by AHAM.\13\ For this rulemaking, DOE plans on
considering recent trends in efficiency and input from stakeholders to
update product energy efficiency forecasts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id. chapter 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue I.1 DOE seeks historical SWEF data for residential clothes
dryers by product class and stakeholder input regarding future trends
in efficiency.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) is to
estimate the financial impact of potential energy conservation
standards on manufacturers of residential clothes dryers and to
evaluate the potential impact of such standards on competition,
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 used to estimate a range of potential impacts
on manufacturer profitability. The qualitative part of the MIA
addresses a proposed standard's potential impacts on manufacturing
capacity and industry competition, as well as factors such as product
characteristics, impacts on particular
[[Page 16318]]
subgroups of firms, and key issues from the manufacturers' perspective.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of potential
energy conservation standards on small business manufacturers of
covered products. DOE intends to use the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) small business size standards to determine
whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses. The size standards
are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code and industry description.\14\ Manufacturing of residential clothes
dryers is classified under NAICS 335224, ``Household Laundry Equipment
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,000 employees or less
for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
This 1,000-employee threshold would include all employees in a
business's parent company and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Available at: https://www.sba.gov/content/small-business-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE intends to conduct a market survey using publicly available
information to identify potential small manufacturers using the above-
mentioned size threshold. In identifying potential small businesses,
DOE generally uses its Compliance Certification Management System
(CCMS), industry trade association membership directories (including
AHAM), individual company Web sites, and market research tools (e.g.,
Hoovers reports) to create a list of companies that manufacture or sell
products covered by this rulemaking.
Issue J.1 DOE requests comment on whether there are any small
business manufacturers of residential clothes dryers that it should
consider in its analysis.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by May 11,
2015, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and
on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of new or amended
energy conservations standards for residential clothes dryers. After
the close of the comment period, DOE will collect data, conduct
analyses, and review public comments, as needed. These actions will aid
in the development of a NOPR for residential clothes dryers if DOE
decides to amend the standards for such products.
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation
standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of
the public during the comment period in each stage of 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 rulemaking should
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945, or via email at
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 23, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015-07058 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
