Energy Efficiency Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers, 37794-37804 [2019-16564]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37794
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 84, No. 149
Friday, August 2, 2019
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0014]
Energy Efficiency Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Washers
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
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 washers (‘‘RCWs’’).
This request for information (‘‘RFI’’)
solicits information from the public to
help DOE determine whether amended
standards for RCWs would result in
significant amount of additional energy
savings and whether such standards
would be technologically feasible and
economically justified. As part of this
RFI, DOE seeks comment on whether
there have been sufficient technological
or market changes since the most recent
standards update that may justify a new
rulemaking to consider more stringent
standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data
and information that could enable the
agency to determine whether DOE
should propose a ‘‘no new standard’’
determination because a more stringent
standard: Would not result in a
significant savings of energy; is not
technologically feasible; is not
economically justified; or any
combination of foregoing. DOE
welcomes written comments from the
public on any subject within the scope
of this document (including topics not
raised in this RFI).
DATES: Written comments and
information will be accepted on or
before September 3, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Aug 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0014, by
any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: ConsumerClothesWasher
2017STD0014@ee.doe.gov. Include the
docket number EERE–2017–BT–STD–
0014 in the subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact
disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at https://
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at:
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docket
Detail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014. The
docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents,
including public comments, in the
docket. See section III of this document
for information on how to submit
comments through https://
www.regulations.gov.
Mr.
Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
0371. Email: ApplianceStandards
Questions@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–7796. Email:
Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket contact
the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or by email: ApplianceStandards
Questions@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Products Covered by This Rulemaking
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
2. Technology Assessment
C. Screening Analysis
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
2. Maximum Available and Maximum
Technology Levels
3. Intermediate Efficiency Levels
4. Other Efficiency Level Considerations
5. Manufacturer Production Costs and
Manufacturing Selling Price
E. Markups Analysis
F. Energy and Water Use Analysis
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
H. Shipments Analysis
I. National Impact Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
K. Other Energy Conservation Standards
Topics
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act of 1975, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1
among other things, authorizes DOE to
regulate the energy efficiency of a
number of consumer products and
certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6291–6317) Title III, Part B 2 of EPCA
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through America’s Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–270
(Oct. 23, 2018).
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Than Automobiles. These products
include RCWs, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))
Under EPCA, DOE’s energy
conservation program consists
essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2)
labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and
enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295),
and the authority to require information
and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant
waivers of Federal preemption in
limited instances for particular State
laws or regulations, in accordance with
the procedures and other provisions set
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).
EPCA required that all rinse cycles of
clothes washers manufactured after
January 1, 1988 include an unheated
water option, but stated that such
clothes washers may have a heated
water rinse option. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2)
EPCA directed DOE to conduct two
cycles of rulemakings to determine
whether to amend these standards. (42
U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)(A) and (B)) DOE
completed the first rulemaking cycle for
RCWs in 1991 by establishing
performance-based energy conservation
standards for top-loading compact and
top-loading standard-size RCWs
manufactured on or after May 14, 1994.
56 FR 22249 (May 14, 1991). DOE
completed a second rulemaking cycle by
publishing a final rule on January 12,
2001 (‘‘January 2001 Final Rule’’),
which amended the standards for toploading compact and standard-size
RCWs and established performancebased standards for front-loading RCWs.
66 FR 3314. These amended standards
were based on a joint proposal
submitted to DOE by clothes washer
manufacturers and energy conservation
advocates. Id.
EPCA further amended the energy
conservation standards for top-loading
and front-loading standard-size RCWs
manufactured on or after January 1,
2011.3 (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(A)) EPCA
further directed DOE to conduct a
rulemaking to determine whether to
amend the standards in effect for RCWs
manufactured on or after January 1,
2015. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B)(i))
Most recently, DOE completed a third
rulemaking cycle to amend the
standards for RCWs by publishing a
direct final rule on May 31, 2012 (‘‘May
2012 Direct Final Rule’’). 77 FR 32307.
These amended standards were based
on a joint proposal submitted to DOE by
interested parties representing
manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, and consumer
groups.
The current energy conservation
standards are located in title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’)
part 430, section 32(g). The currently
applicable DOE test procedures for
RCWs appear at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix J2 (‘‘Appendix J2’’).
EPCA also requires that, not later than
6 years after the issuance of any final
rule establishing or amending a
standard, DOE evaluate the energy
conservation standards for each type of
covered product and publish either a
notice of determination that the
standards do not need to be amended or
a notice of proposed rulemaking
(‘‘NOPR’’) that includes new proposed
energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect
data and information to inform its
decision consistent with its obligations
under EPCA.
37795
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered products. EPCA
requires that any new or amended
energy conservation standard be
designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy or water
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) To determine
whether a standard is economically
justified, EPCA requires that DOE
determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens by
considering, to the greatest extent
practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the
standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the product compared to any increase in
the initial cost or maintenance
expenses;
(3) The total projected amount of
energy and water (if applicable) savings
likely to result directly from the
standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the products likely to
result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and
water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of
Energy (Secretary) considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII))
DOE fulfills these and other
applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the
rulemaking process. Table I–1 shows the
individual analyses that are performed
to satisfy each of the requirements
within EPCA.
TABLE I–1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS
EPCA requirement
Corresponding DOE analysis
Significant Energy Savings .......................................................................
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Technological Feasibility ..........................................................................
Economic Justification:
1. Economic impact on manufacturers and consumers ...................
3 EPCA required that a top-loading or frontloading standard-size RCW manufactured on or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Aug 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
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.
after January 1, 2011, must have a Modified Energy
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Factor of at least 1.26, and a water factor of not
more than 9.5.
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
37796
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I–1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS—Continued
EPCA requirement
Corresponding DOE analysis
2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared to increased cost for
the product.
3. Total projected energy and water savings ....................................
4. Impact on utility or performance ...................................................
5. Impact of any lessening of competition ........................................
6. Need for national energy and water conservation ........................
7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant ............................
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE
is publishing this document seeking
input and data from interested parties to
aid in the development of the technical
analyses on which DOE will ultimately
rely to determine whether (and if so,
how) to amend the standards for RCWs.
II. Request for Information and
Comments
In the following sections, DOE has
identified a variety of issues on which
it seeks input to aid in the development
of the technical and economic analyses
regarding whether amended standards
for RCWs may be warranted.
As an initial matter, DOE seeks
comment on whether there have been
sufficient technological or market
changes since the most recent standards
update that may justify a new
rulemaking to consider more stringent
standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data
and information that could enable the
agency to determine whether DOE
should propose a ‘‘no new standard’’
determination because a more stringent
standard: (1) Would not result in a
significant savings of energy; (2) is not
technologically feasible; (3) is not
economically justified; or (4) any
combination of foregoing.
Additionally, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this rulemaking that may
not specifically be identified in this
document. In particular, DOE notes that
under Executive Order 13771,
‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,’’ Executive Branch
agencies such as DOE are directed to
manage the costs associated with the
imposition of expenditures required to
comply with Federal regulations. See 82
FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with
that Executive Order, DOE encourages
the public to provide input on measures
DOE could take to lower the cost of its
energy conservation standards
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Aug 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Employment Impact Analysis.
Utility Impact Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of Emissions Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
rulemakings, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, and compliance
and certification requirements
applicable to RCWs, while remaining
consistent with the requirements of
EPCA.
automatic or semi-automatic clothes
washer. Id.
Issue II.A.1. DOE requests comment
on whether the definitions for RCWs
require any revisions—and if so, how
those definitions should be revised.
A. Products Covered by This
Rulemaking
This RFI covers those products that
meet the definitions for RCWs, as
codified at 10 CFR 430.2:
EPCA does not define the term
‘‘clothes washer’’. DOE has defined a
‘‘clothes washer’’ as a consumer product
designed to clean clothes, utilizing a
water solution of soap and/or detergent
and mechanical agitation or other
movement, that must be one of the
following classes: automatic clothes
washers, semi-automatic clothes
washers, and other clothes washers. 10
CFR 430.2
An ‘‘automatic clothes washer’’ is a
class of clothes washer that has a
control system that is capable of
scheduling a preselected combination of
operations, such as regulation of water
temperature, regulation of the water fill
level, and performance of wash, rinse,
drain, and spin functions without the
need for user intervention subsequent to
the initiation of machine operation.
Some models may require user
intervention to initiate these different
segments of the cycle after the machine
has begun operation, but they do not
require the user to intervene to regulate
the water temperature by adjusting the
external water faucet valves. Id.
A ‘‘semi-automatic clothes washer’’ is
a class of clothes washer that is the
same as an automatic clothes washer
except that user intervention is required
to regulate the water temperature by
adjusting the external water faucet
valves. Id.
‘‘Other clothes washer’’ means a class
of clothes washer that is not an
B. Market and Technology Assessment
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The market and technology
assessment that DOE routinely conducts
when analyzing the impacts of a
potential new or amended energy
conservation standard provides
information about the RCW industry
that will be used throughout the
rulemaking process. DOE uses
qualitative and quantitative information
to characterize the structure of the
industry and market. DOE identifies
manufacturers, estimates market shares
and trends, addresses regulatory and
non-regulatory initiatives intended to
improve energy efficiency or reduce
energy consumption, and explores the
potential for efficiency improvements in
the design and manufacturing of RCWs.
DOE also reviews product literature,
industry publications, and company
websites. Additionally, DOE conducts
interviews with manufacturers to
improve its assessment of the market
and available technologies for RCWs.
1. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered products into
product classes by the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other
performance-related features that justify
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
In making a determination whether
capacity or another performance-related
feature justifies a different standard,
DOE must consider such factors as the
utility of the feature to the consumer
and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. Id.
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules
For RCWs, the current energy
conservation standards specified in 10
CFR 403.32(g) are based on four product
classes, differentiated by capacity and
method of loading clothes (i.e., axis of
loading):
• Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6
cubic feet (cu.ft.) capacity);
• Top-loading, standard (1.6 cu.ft. or
greater capacity);
• Front-loading, compact (less than
1.6 cu.ft. capacity); and
• Front-loading, standard (1.6 cu.ft. or
greater capacity).
10 CFR 430.32(g)(3).
In a previous rulemaking to amend
standards applicable to commercial
clothes washers, DOE determined
specifically that the ‘‘axis of loading’’
constituted a feature that justified
separate product classes for top loading
and front loading clothes washers, and
that ‘‘the longer average cycle time of
front-loading machines warrants
consideration of separate [product]
classes.’’ 79 FR 74492, 74498 (Sept. 15,
2014). DOE stated that a split in
preference between top loaders and
front loaders would not indicate
consumer indifference to the axis of
loading, but rather that a certain
percentage of the market expresses a
preference for (i.e., derives utility from)
the top-loading configuration. DOE
further noted that separation of clothes
washer equipment classes by location of
access is similar in nature to the
equipment classes for residential
refrigerator-freezers, which include
separate product classes based on the
access of location of the freezer
compartment (e.g., top-mounted, sidemounted, and bottom-mounted). The
location of the freezer compartment on
these products provides no additional
performance-related utility other than
consumer preference. In other words,
the location of access itself provides
distinct consumer utility. Id. 79 FR
74499. DOE also reasoned that toploading residential clothes washers are
available with the same efficiency
levels, control panel features, and price
points as front-loading residential
clothes washers, and that given these
equivalencies, purchase of top loaders
indicates a preference among certain
consumers for the top-loading
configuration, i.e., the top-loading
configuration provides utility to those
customers preferring one configuration
over another, with all other product
attributes being equal. Id.
Issue II.B.1. DOE requests feedback on
the current RCW product classes and
whether changes to these individual
product classes and their descriptions
should be made.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Aug 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
DOE is also aware that new
configurations and features are available
for RCWs that may not have been
available at the time of the last energy
conservation standards analysis. For
example, DOE is aware of auxiliary or
supplementary clothes washers
designed to accompany a standard-size
RCW from the same manufacturer,
which may be integrated as a single
product; RCWs that contain a built-in
basin that can be used to pre-treat and
soak clothing before the start of a wash
cycle; and RCWs that provide drying
functionality as an optional feature that
can be added to the end of a wash cycle.
Issue II.B.2. DOE seeks to ensure that
it does not inhibit the development of
features, or eliminate from the market
existing features, that provide utility to
the consumer. DOE therefore requests
information regarding such new
configurations and features, including
how prevalent they are in the market,
the consumer utility of such features,
and data detailing the corresponding
impacts on energy use.
DOE recently granted a petition for
rulemaking to propose a new product
class for dishwashers with a normal
cycle of 60 minutes or fewer.4 DOE
determined that under the product-class
provision in EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)),
cycle time is a performance-related
feature for dishwashers that justifies a
separate product class subject to a
higher or lower standard than that
currently applicable to dishwashers. In
the context of dishwashers, DOE found
that there is consumer utility in shorter
cycle times to clean a normally-soiled
load of dishes.
Issue II.B.3. DOE requests comment
on the extent to which shorter cycles for
RCWs could likewise affect consumer
utility and whether creation of a
separate product class would enable the
availability of such products.
Additionally, as noted, EPCA
identifies product capacity as a
performance-related feature that may
justify the establishment of a higher or
lower standard than that which applies
(or would apply) for such type or class
for any group of covered products. 42
U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). For clothes
washers, products with a larger capacity
are inherently able to achieve higher
efficiency levels; conversely, products
with smaller capacity are inherently
unable to achieve as high efficiency
levels, for two main reasons. First, a
larger tub capacity can contribute to
improved efficiency because a larger
4A
pre-publication version of the notice granting
the petition is available at: https://www.energy.gov/
sites/prod/files/2019/07/f64/dishwasher-petitionnopr.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37797
amount of clothing can be washed using
an incremental increase in the quantity
of water that is less than the incremental
increase in capacity, therefore reducing
the amount of water and energy per
pound of clothing. Second, a larger
drum diameter can exert a higher g-force
on the clothing during the final-spin
portion of the cycle, thus removing
more water and reducing the drying
energy component of the integrated
modified energy factor (‘‘IMEF’’) metric
(resulting in a better IMEF rating).
DOE notes that the front-loading
clothes washer market is segmented
based on product width (which
inherently affects clothes washer
capacity). A significant majority of
front-loading RCWs currently on the
market in the United States have a
nominal cabinet width of 27 inches or
greater. However, the front-loading
market also includes narrower products
with a nominal cabinet width of 24
inches. These products are designed to
be installed in confined spaces such as
small closets and under-counter
installations. At the time of the
rulemaking culminating in the May
2012 Direct Final Rule, the efficiency
levels of both 27-inch and 24-inch
RCWs overlapped sufficiently such that
both types of products were available at
the efficiency levels considered for the
rulemaking analysis and at the amended
standard level. However, in the current
market, almost no overlap in efficiency
exists between 24-inch and 27-inch
RCWs (specifically, the 24-inch
products have lower efficiency ratings
than the 27-inch products, which may
be due to the limitation on drum
diameter and volume, as described
above).
Similarly, while a significant majority
of top-loading RCWs currently on the
market have a nominal cabinet width of
27 inches or greater, the standard-size
product class also includes smaller
products that typically have clothes
container capacities less than 3 cu.ft.
and are designed to be portable. Due to
size and installation limitations, such
products may be less able to incorporate
certain efficiency-related technologies
such as larger drum volume or higher
spin speeds compared to 27-inch
stationary products.
Issue II.B.4. DOE requests information
and data on the installation
environments and consumer use of
smaller-size front-loading and toploading RCWs such as those designed
for confined spaces and/or portable use.
2. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of
potential new or amended energy
conservation standards, DOE uses
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
37798
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules
information about existing technology
options and prototype designs to help
identify technologies that manufacturers
could use to meet and/or exceed a given
set of energy conservation standards
under consideration. In consultation
with interested parties, DOE intends to
develop a list of technologies to
consider in its analysis. That analysis
will likely include a number of the
technology options DOE considered
during its most recent rulemaking for
RCWs. A complete list of those options
appears in Table II–1.
TABLE II–1—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS CONSIDERED IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAY
2012 DIRECT FINAL RULE
Adaptive control systems.
Added insulation.
Advanced agitation concepts for vertical-axis machines.
Automatic fill control.
Bubble action.
Capacity increase.
Direct-drive motor.
Electrolytic disassociation of water.
Horizontal-axis design.
Horizontal-axis design with recirculation.
Hot water circulation loop.
Improved fill control.
Improved horizontal-axis-washer drum design.
Improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture content.
Increased motor efficiency.
Low standby-power design.
Ozonated laundering.
Plastic particle cleaning.
Reduced thermal mass.
Silver ion injection.
Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology.
Thermostatically-controlled mixing valves.
Tighter tub tolerance.
Ultrasonic washing.
products generally available in the
United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.5
(4) Adverse impacts on health or
safety. If it is determined that a
technology will have significant adverse
impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
C. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis
is to evaluate the technologies that
improve equipment efficiency to
determine which technologies will be
eliminated from further consideration
and which will be passed to the
engineering analysis for further
consideration.
DOE determines whether to eliminate
certain technology options from further
consideration based on the following
criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility.
Technologies that are not incorporated
in commercial products or in working
prototypes will not be considered
further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service. If it is determined
that mass production of a technology in
commercial products and reliable
installation and servicing of the
technology could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the effective date
of the standard, then that technology
will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or
product availability. If a technology is
determined to have significant adverse
impact on the utility of the product to
significant subgroups of consumers, or
result in the unavailability of any
covered product type with performance
characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes
that are substantially the same as
5 For example, in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule,
ultrasonic washing technology was screened out on
the basis of adverse impacts on product utility. As
described in Chapter 4 of the Technical Support
Document accompanying the May 2012 Direct Final
Rule, DOE concluded that ultrasonic washing
technology would not adequately remove soil from
clothing and would therefore reduce consumer
utility. In addition, bubble cavitations caused by
standing ultrasonic waves could potentially damage
some fragile clothing or clothing fasteners, further
reducing consumer utility.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Issue II.B.5. DOE seeks information on
the technologies listed in Table II–1
regarding their applicability to the
current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency
of RCWs as measured according to the
DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks
information on how these technologies
may have changed since they were
considered in the May 2012 Direct Final
Rule analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks
information on the range of efficiencies
or performance characteristics currently
available for each technology option.
Issue II.B.6. DOE seeks comment on
other technology options that it should
consider for inclusion in its analysis
and if these technologies may impact
product features or consumer utility.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Aug 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
4(a)(4) and 5(b).
Technology options identified in the
technology assessment are evaluated
against these criteria using DOE
analyses and inputs from interested
parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade
organizations, and energy efficiency
advocates). Technologies that pass
through the screening analysis are
referred to as ‘‘design options’’ in the
engineering analysis. Technology
options that fail to meet one or more of
the four criteria are eliminated from
consideration.
Table II–2 summarizes the screenedout technology options, and the
applicable screening criteria, from the
May 2012 Direct Final Rule.
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules
37799
TABLE II–2—PREVIOUSLY SCREENED OUT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FROM THE MAY 2012 DIRECT FINAL RULE
EPCA criteria
(X = basis for screening out)
Screened technology option
Added insulation ......................................................................
Bubble action ...........................................................................
Electrolytic disassociation of water ..........................................
Ozonated laundering ...............................................................
Plastic particle cleaning ...........................................................
Ultrasonic washing ...................................................................
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Issue II.C.1. DOE requests feedback on
what impact, if any, the four screening
criteria described in this section would
have on each of the technology options
listed in Table II–1 with respect to
RCWs. Similarly, DOE seeks
information regarding how these same
criteria would affect any other
technology options not already
identified in this document with respect
to their potential use in RCWs.
Issue II.C.2. With respect to the
screened out technology options listed
in Table II–2, DOE seeks information on
whether these options would, based on
current and projected assessments
regarding each of them, remain screened
out under the four screening criteria
described in this section. With respect
to each of these technology options,
DOE requests comment on what steps,
if any, could be (or have already been)
taken to facilitate the introduction of
each option as a means to improve the
energy performance of RCWs and the
potential to impact consumer utility of
RCWs. DOE also requests comment on
whether any of the remaining
technology options (i.e., those not
screened out) should be screened out
under the four screening criteria.
D. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates
the cost-efficiency relationship of
products at different levels of increased
energy efficiency (‘‘efficiency levels’’).
This relationship serves as the basis for
the cost-benefit calculations for
consumers, manufacturers, and the
Nation. In determining the costefficiency relationship, DOE estimates
the increase in manufacturer production
cost (‘‘MPC’’) associated with increasing
the efficiency of products above the
baseline, up to the maximum
technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’)
efficiency level for each product class.
DOE has historically used the
following three methodologies to
generate incremental manufacturing
costs and establish efficiency levels
(‘‘ELs’’) for analysis: (1) The design-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Aug 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
Technological
feasibility
Practicability to
manufacture, install, and service
Adverse impact on
product utility
X
..............................
X
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
X
X
X
X
..............................
X
option approach, which provides the
incremental costs of adding to a baseline
model design options that will improve
its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level
approach, which provides the relative
costs of achieving increases in energy
efficiency levels, without regard to the
particular design options used to
achieve such increases; and (3) the costassessment (or reverse-engineering)
approach, which provides ‘‘bottom-up’’
manufacturing cost assessments for
achieving various levels of increased
efficiency, based on detailed data as to
costs for parts and material, labor,
shipping/packaging, and investment for
models that operate at particular
efficiency levels.
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each established product class,
DOE selects a baseline model as a
reference point against which any
changes resulting from energy
conservation standards can be
measured. The baseline model in each
product class represents the
characteristics of common or typical
products in that class. Typically, a
baseline model is one that meets the
current minimum energy conservation
standards and provides basic consumer
utility. If DOE determines that a
rulemaking is necessary, consistent with
this analytical approach, for each
product class, DOE tentatively plans to
consider the current standard levels as
the baseline efficiency levels.
The current standards for all four
product classes are based on two
metrics:
(1) IMEF, expressed as cu.ft. per kilowatthour per cycle (cu.ft/kWh/cycle), and
calculated as the clothes container capacity
in cu.ft. divided by the sum, expressed in
kWh, of: (1) The total weighted per-cycle hot
water energy consumption; (2) the total
weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy
consumption; (3) the per-cycle energy
consumption for removing moisture from a
test load; and (4) the per-cycle standby and
off mode energy consumption; and
(2) Integrated Water Factor (‘‘IWF’’),
expressed in gallons per cycle per cu.ft. (gal/
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Adverse impacts
on health and
safety
cycle/cu.ft.), and calculated as the total
weighted per-cycle water consumption for all
wash cycles, expressed in gallons per cycle,
divided by the clothes container capacity in
cu.ft.
The current standards for RCWs are
found in 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4).
Issue II.D.1. DOE requests feedback on
whether using the potential baseline
efficiency levels identified above for
each product class would be appropriate
for DOE to apply to each product class
in evaluating whether to amend the
current energy conservation standards
for these products. DOE requests data
and information to determine baseline
efficiency levels to better evaluate
amending energy conservation
standards for these products.
2. Maximum Available and Maximum
Technology Levels
As part of DOE’s analysis, the
maximum available efficiency level is
the highest efficiency unit currently
available on the market. Table II–3 in
the next section shows the current
maximum available IMEF efficiency
levels for each existing RCW product
class, based on information in DOE’s
Compliance Certification Database.6
DOE defines a max-tech efficiency
level to represent the maximum possible
efficiency for a given product. In the
May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE
determined that the maximum available
efficiency levels for RCWs corresponded
to the max-tech efficiency levels.
Issue II.D.2. DOE seeks input on
whether the maximum available
efficiency levels are appropriate and
technologically feasible for
consideration as possible energy
conservation standards for the products
at issue.
Issue II.D.3. DOE seeks input on
whether the maximum available
efficiency levels correspond to the maxtech efficiency levels, given the current
6 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is
available at https://www.regulations.doe.gov/
compliance-certification-database. Last accessed
April 2, 2019.
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
37800
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules
state of technology, or whether DOE
should consider max-tech efficiency
levels different than the current
maximum available efficiency levels.
Issue II.D.4. DOE seeks feedback on
what design options would be
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency
level, and the efficiencies associated
with those levels. As part of this
request, DOE also seeks information as
to whether there are limitations on the
use of certain combinations of design
options.
3. Intermediate Efficiency Levels
DOE may also define intermediate
efficiency levels in between the baseline
and max-tech efficiency levels.
Typically, DOE identifies intermediate
efficiency levels, where appropriate,
based on a variety of sources including,
but not limited to: (1) Clusters of models
currently on the market at intermediate
efficiency levels; (2) efficiency levels
defined by programs such as ENERGY
STAR or the Consortium for Energy
Efficiency’s (‘‘CEE’’) Super-Efficient
Home Appliances Initiative; or (3) ‘‘gapfill’’ levels to bridge large divides
between existing clusters in the market.
Table II–3 indicates potential
intermediate efficiency levels, along
with baseline and maximum available
levels, that DOE could consider for each
existing RCW product class, based on a
preliminary review of the current
market according to models listed in
DOE’s Compliance Certification
Database.
TABLE II–3—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR EXISTING PRODUCT CLASSES
Efficiency level
Efficiency level description
Top-Loading, Compact .....
Baseline ...........................
Max Available ..................
Baseline ...........................
Intermediate .....................
Intermediate .....................
Max Available ..................
2018 DOE standard ...................................................
Maximum currently certified to DOE ..........................
2018 DOE standard ...................................................
2018 ENERGY STAR ................................................
2015 CEE Tier 1 ........................................................
2018 CEE Tier 1 (>2.5 cu.ft.), maximum currently
certified to DOE.
2018 DOE standard ...................................................
Maximum currently certified to DOE ..........................
2018 DOE standard ...................................................
2015 ENERGY STAR (>2.5 cu.ft.) .............................
2018 ENERGY STAR (>2.5 cu.ft.) .............................
2018 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient (>2.5 cu.ft.) ......
Maximum currently certified to DOE ..........................
Top-Loading, Standard .....
Front-Loading, Compact ...
Front-Loading, Standard ..
Baseline ...........................
Max Available ..................
Baseline ...........................
Intermediate .....................
Intermediate .....................
Intermediate .....................
Max Available ..................
Issue II.D.5. DOE seeks input on
whether the potential efficiency level
definitions shown in Table II–3 are
appropriate for each product class. DOE
also seeks input on whether DOE should
consider any additional ‘‘gap fill’’
efficiency levels between any of the
potential efficiency levels shown in the
table.
4. Other Efficiency Level Considerations
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
IMEF
(cu.ft./kWh/
cycle)
Product class
As an alternative to the current RCW
standards based on IMEF and IWF, DOE
could consider defining an IMEF and/or
IWF standard as an equation based on
capacity. Such an approach would be
consistent with the approach used by
DOE for consumer refrigerator-freezer
standards, for example. If DOE were to
adopt such an approach, the efficiency
levels considered in the analysis would
represent variations from a baseline
equation that DOE would establish. For
example, if such an approach used a
linear equation to define the standard,
the higher efficiency levels considered
in the analysis could represent
equations with the same slope as the
baseline equation but with a different yintercept, or vice-versa, or some
combination of both.
Issue II.D.6. DOE requests feedback on
whether it should consider an IMEF
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Aug 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
and/or IWF standard as an equation
based on capacity.
5. Manufacturer Production Costs and
Manufacturing Selling Price
As described at the beginning of this
section, the main outputs of the
engineering analysis are cost-efficiency
relationships that describe the estimated
increases in MPC associated with
higher-efficiency products for the
analyzed product classes. For the May
2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed
the cost-efficiency relationships for the
top-loading standard and front-loading
standard product classes using a
combination of the reverse-engineering
approach and the efficiency-level
approach. DOE used the design-option
approach to develop the cost-efficiency
relationships for the top-loading
compact and front-loading compact
product classes, because less data was
available for these product classes.
Issue II.D.7. DOE requests feedback on
how manufacturers would incorporate
any of the technology options listed in
Table II–1 to increase energy efficiency
in RCWs beyond the baseline within
each product class. This includes
information on the order in which
manufacturers would incorporate the
different technologies to incrementally
improve the efficiencies of products.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
IWF
(gal/cycle/
cu.ft.)
1.15
1.24
1.57
2.06
2.38
2.76
12.0
11.3
6.5
4.3
3.7
3.2
1.13
1.17
1.84
2.38
2.76
2.92
3.10
8.3
6.8
4.7
3.7
3.2
3.2
2.7
DOE also requests feedback on whether
the increased energy efficiency would
lead to other design changes that would
not occur otherwise. DOE is also
interested in information regarding any
potential impact of design options on a
manufacturer’s ability to incorporate
additional functions or attributes in
response to consumer demand.
Issue II.D.8. DOE also seeks input on
the increase in MPC associated with
incorporating each particular design
option. Specifically, DOE is interested
in whether and how the costs estimated
for design options in the May 2012
Direct Final Rule have changed since
the time of that analysis. DOE also
requests information on the investments
necessary to incorporate specific design
options, including, but not limited to,
costs related to new or modified tooling
(if any), materials, engineering and
development efforts to implement each
design option, and manufacturing/
production impacts.
Issue II.D.9. DOE requests comment
on whether certain design options may
not be applicable to (or may be
incompatible with) specific product
classes.
To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE
applies a non-production cost multiplier
(the manufacturer markup) to the MPC.
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules
The resulting manufacturer selling price
(‘‘MSP’’) is the price at which the
manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce. For the May 2012 Direct
Final Rule, DOE used a baseline
manufacturer markup of 1.22 for all
product classes to convert MPC to MSP.
Issue II.D.10. DOE requests feedback
on whether a baseline manufacturer
markup of 1.22 remains appropriate for
RCWs.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Markups Analysis
For a potential new analysis, DOE
would determine an average
manufacturer markup by examining the
annual Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘SEC’’) 10–K reports filed
by publicly traded manufacturers of
appliances whose product range
includes RCWs. DOE will determine an
average retailer markup by analyzing
both economic census data from the
U.S. Census Bureau and the annual SEC
10–K reports filed by publicly traded
retailers.
In addition to developing
manufacturer and retailer markups, DOE
would develop and include sales taxes
to calculate appliance retail prices. DOE
would use an internet source, the Sales
Tax Clearinghouse, to calculate
applicable sales taxes.
Issue II.E.1. DOE requests information
on the existence of any distribution
channels other than the retail outlet
distribution channel that should be
included in a future analysis. DOE also
requests data on the fraction of RCW
sales that go through both, a wholesaler/
retailer and a contractor, as well as the
fraction of sales through any other
identified channels.
To carry out the life-cycle cost
(‘‘LCC’’) and payback period (‘‘PBP’’)
calculations, DOE would need to
determine the cost to the residential
consumer of baseline products, and the
cost of more-efficient units the
consumer would purchase under
potential amended standards. By
applying a multiplier called a ‘‘markup’’
to the MSP, DOE is able to estimate the
residential consumer’s price. In
generating end-user price inputs, DOE
must identify distribution channels (i.e.,
how the products are distributed from
the manufacturer to the consumer) and
estimate relative sales volumes through
each channel. In the May 2012 Direct
Final Rule, DOE only accounted for the
retail outlets distribution channel
because data from the Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers
(‘‘AHAM’’) 2005 Fact Book indicated
that the overwhelming majority of
residential appliances were sold
through retail outlets, as described in
chapter 6 of the technical support
document accompanying the May 2012
Direct Final Rule. The main actors
included were manufacturers and
retailers.7 The AHAM 2009 Fact Book
indicated a similar share for the
products sold. Thus, DOE analyzed a
manufacturer-to-consumer distribution
channel consisting of three parties: (1)
The manufacturers producing the
products, (2) the retailers purchasing the
products from manufacturers and
selling them to consumers, and (3) the
consumers who purchase the products.
In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE
did not include a separate distribution
channel for RCWs included as part of a
new home because DOE did not have
enough information to characterize
which of these products come preinstalled by builders in the new homes.
Should sufficient information become
available, DOE may consider including
a separate distribution channel that
includes a contractor in addition to the
existing retail outlets distribution
channel.
F. Energy and Water Use Analysis
As part of the rulemaking process,
DOE conducts an energy and water use
analysis to identify how products are
used by consumers, and thereby
determine the energy and water savings
potential of efficiency improvements.
The energy and water use analysis seeks
to capture the range of operating
conditions for RCWs in U.S. homes. The
energy and water use analysis is meant
to represent typical energy and water
consumption in the field.
To determine the field energy and
water use of products that would meet
possible standard levels, DOE would
use data from the Energy Information
Administration’s (‘‘EIA’s’’) 2015
Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(‘‘RECS’’), the most recent survey
available from EIA.8 RECS is a national
sample survey of housing units that
collects statistical information on the
consumption of and expenditures for
energy in housing units along with data
on energy-related characteristics of the
housing units and occupants. RECS
provides sufficient information to
establish the type (product class) of
RCW used in each household. As a
result, DOE would be able to develop
household samples for each of the
considered product classes. RECS
specifies the use cycles of RCWs,
thereby allowing DOE to determine the
7 Available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0047.
8 For information on RECS, see https://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Aug 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37801
RCW’s annual energy and water
consumption.
For each sample household, DOE
would estimate the field-based annual
energy and water use of front- and toploading standard-capacity RCWs by
multiplying the annual number of RCW
cycles for each household by the percycle energy and water use values
established by the engineering analysis
(using the DOE test procedure) for each
considered efficiency level. Per-cycle
energy use is calculated in the test
procedure as the sum of per-cycle
machine energy use (including the
energy used to heat water and remove
moisture from clothing), and standby
mode and off-mode energy use.
Issue II.F.1. DOE requests input from
interested parties on approaches for
specifying the typical values and
variability in the annual energy
consumption of RCWs.
For the purpose of its analysis, DOE
would account for any rebound effect in
its determination of annual energy and
water consumption. The rebound effect
occurs when a piece of equipment,
made more efficient and used more
intensively, does not yield the expected
energy savings from the efficiency
improvement. In the case of more
efficient RCWs, research to date
indicates no conclusive causality
between increased efficiency and
increased use.
Issue II.F.2. DOE seeks comments on
any rebound effect associated with more
efficient RCWs. In other words, DOE
seeks input on what portion of the
energy savings resulting from more
efficient models may be offset due to
increased usage of RCWs.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
The effects of more stringent energy
conservation standards on a consumer
of RCWs include changes in operating
expenses (usually decreased) and
changes in purchase prices (usually
increased). DOE would analyze data
input variability and uncertainty by
performing the LCC and PBP
calculations on a representative sample
of households from RECS for the
considered product classes using Monte
Carlo simulation and probability
distributions. The analysis results are a
distribution of results showing the range
of LCC savings and PBPs for a given
efficiency level relative to the baseline
level.
DOE would analyze the net effect on
consumers by calculating the LCC and
PBP using engineering performance data
(section II.D of this document), energy
and water consumption data (section
II.F of this document), and equipment
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
37802
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules
retail prices (section II.E of this
document). Inputs to the LCC and PBP
calculation include the total installed
cost to the consumer (purchase price
plus installation cost) and operating cost
(energy and water expenses, repair
costs, and maintenance costs).
Additional inputs to the LCC
calculation include energy price
forecasts, the lifetime of the RCW or
other defined period of analysis, and
discount rates.
To derive the installation costs, DOE
would use the 2017 RSMeans
Residential Cost Data on labor
requirements to estimate installation
costs for RCWs.9 DOE would make
adjustments to the costs if needed to
account for changes in weight and/or
dimensions of higher-efficiency
products.
Issue II.G.1. DOE seeks input on
whether RCW installation costs scale
with equipment weight and/or
dimensions.
In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule,
DOE did not have any data to support
increases in maintenance and repair
costs associated with increases in
efficiency levels within each of the
product classes considered in the
analysis. Therefore, DOE did not assume
that more efficient RCWs in each
product class would have greater repair
or maintenance costs. 77 FR 32308,
32342.
Issue II.G.2. DOE requests feedback
and data on whether or not maintenance
costs differ by technology option for any
of the options listed in Table II–1.
Issue II.G.3. DOE requests information
and data on the frequency of repair and
repair costs by product class.
DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts
of potential standard levels relative to a
no-standards case that reflects the
market in the absence of amended
standards. DOE would develop marketshare efficiency data (i.e., the
distribution of product shipments by
efficiency) for the product classes DOE
is considering, for the year in which
compliance with any amended
standards would be required. By
accounting for consumers who already
purchase more efficient products, DOE
would avoid overstating the potential
benefits from potential standards.
Issue II.G.4. DOE seeks input and data
on the fraction of RCWs currently sold
with efficiencies greater than the
minimum energy conservation
standards, including the January 1,
2018, standards. DOE also requests
9 Residential Costs with RSMeans Data 2017
available at https://www.rsmeans.com/products/
books.aspx.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Aug 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
information on expected trends in
product efficiency over the next 5 years.
units is expected to continue or level
off.
H. Shipments Analysis
I. National Impact Analysis
The purpose of the national impact
analysis (‘‘NIA’’) is to estimate aggregate
impacts of potential efficiency standards
at the national level. Impacts reported
by DOE include the national energy
savings (‘‘NES’’) from potential
standards and the national net present
value (‘‘NPV’’) of the total consumer
benefits. The NIA considers lifetime
impacts of potential standards on RCWs
shipped in a 30-year period that begins
with the expected compliance date for
new or amended standards.
Analyzing impacts of potential
amended energy conservation standards
for RCWs requires a comparison of
projected U.S. energy consumption with
and without the amended standards.
The forecasts contain projections of
annual appliance shipments (section
II.H of this document), the annual
energy and water consumption of new
RCWs (section II.F of this document),
and the purchase price of new RCWs
(section II.E of this document).
A key component of DOE’s estimates
of NES and NPV would be the RCW
energy efficiency forecasted over time
for the no-standards case and each of
the potential standards cases. In the
May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE based
projections of no-standards-case
shipment-weighted efficiency (‘‘SWEF’’)
for the RCW product classes on growth
rates determined from historical data
provided by AHAM. 77 FR 32308,
32342. For a potential future
rulemaking, DOE would expect to
consider recent trends in efficiency and
input from interested parties to update
product energy efficiency forecasts.
Issue II.I.1. DOE seeks historical
SWEF (IMEF and IWF) data for RCWs
by product class. DOE also seeks
historical market share data showing the
percentage of product shipments by
efficiency level for as many product
classes as possible.
DOE develops shipments forecasts of
RCWs to calculate the national impacts
of potential amended energy
conservation standards on energy
consumption, net present value
(‘‘NPV’’), and future manufacturer cash
flows. Typically, DOE shipments
projections utilize available historical
data broken out by product class,
capacity, and efficiency. In the May
2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed
a shipments model for RCWs driven by
historical shipments data, which were
used to build up a product stock and
calibrate the shipments model. 77 FR
32308, 32344. The key drivers of the
shipments model included the new
owner and replacement markets.
Current sales estimates would allow for
a more accurate model that captures
recent trends in the market.
Issue II.H.1. DOE requests annual
sales data (i.e., number of shipments) for
top-loading standard, front-loading
standard, top-loading compact, and
front-loading compact RCW units. For
each category, DOE also requests the
fraction of sales that are ENERGY STAR
qualified.
Table II–4 provides a summary table
of the data requested in Issue II.H.1:
TABLE II–4—SUMMARY TABLE OF
SHIPMENTS-RELATED DATA REQUESTS
Product class
Top-loading, compact ..................
Top-loading,
standard ...........
Front-loading,
compact ...........
Front-loading,
standard (all):
24-inch
products ...........
27-inch
products ...........
Annual sales *
(number sold)
Fraction of
ENERGY
STAR-rated
annual sales
(%)
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
* Sales for last 5 years, if available.
Issue II.H.2. DOE requests data and
information on any trends in the RCW
market that could be used to forecast
expected trends in product class market
share.
An initial analysis of market data
indicates that consumers are purchasing
more top-loading units in recent years,
showing an upswing in the market share
for this product class.
Issue II.H.3. DOE seeks data and
information on whether the trend
towards increased sales of top-loading
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer
impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) is to estimate
the financial impact of any amended
energy conservation standards on
manufacturers of RCWs, and to evaluate
the potential impact of such standards
on direct employment and
manufacturing capacity. The MIA
includes both quantitative and
qualitative aspects. The quantitative
part of the MIA primarily relies on the
Government Regulatory Impact Model
(‘‘GRIM’’), an industry cash-flow model
adapted for covered RCW product
classes, with the key output of industry
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules
net present value (‘‘INPV’’). The
qualitative part of the MIA addresses the
potential impacts of energy conservation
standards on manufacturing capacity
and industry competition, as well as
factors such as product characteristics,
impacts on particular subgroups of
firms, and important market and
product trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to
analyze the impacts of potential
amended energy conservation standards
on subgroups of manufacturers of
RCWs, including small business
manufacturers. DOE uses the Small
Business Administration’s (‘‘SBA’’)
small business size standards to
determine whether manufacturers
qualify as small businesses, which are
listed by the North American Industry
Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’).10
Manufacturing of RCWs is classified
under NAICS 335220, ‘‘Major
Household Appliance Manufacturing,’’
and the SBA sets a threshold of 1,500
employees of less for a domestic entity
to be considered as a small business.
This employee threshold includes all
employees in the parent company and
any other subsidiaries.
One aspect of assessing manufacturer
burden involves looking at the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE
standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal
agencies that affect the manufacturers of
a covered product or equipment. While
any one regulation may not impose a
significant burden on manufacturers,
the combined effects of several existing
or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some
manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the
impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory
burden. In addition to energy
conservation standards, including
previous standards affecting the same
product, other regulations can
significantly affect manufacturers’
financial operations. Multiple
regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can strain profits and lead
companies to abandon product lines or
markets with lower expected future
returns than competing products. For
these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis
of cumulative regulatory burden as part
of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency.
Issue II.J.1. To the extent feasible,
DOE seeks the names and contact
information of any domestic or foreignbased manufacturers that distribute
RCWs in the United States.
10 Available online at: https://www.sba.gov/
document/support--table-size-standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Aug 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
Issue II.J.2. DOE has identified small
businesses as a subgroup of
manufacturers that could be
disproportionally impacted by future
amended energy conservation
standards. DOE requests the names and
contact information of small business
manufacturers, as defined by the SBA’s
size threshold for RCW manufacturers,
that distribute products in the United
States. In addition, DOE requests
comment on any other manufacturer
subgroups that potentially could be
disproportionally impacted by amended
energy conservation standards. DOE
requests feedback on any potential
approaches that could be considered to
address impacts on manufacturers,
including small businesses.
Issue II.J.3. DOE requests information
regarding the impact of cumulative
regulatory burden on manufacturers of
RCWs associated with (1) other DOE
standards applying to different products
that these manufacturers may also make
and import and (2) product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal
agencies. DOE also requests comment
on its methodology for computing
cumulative regulatory burden and how
DOE could reduce this burden while
complying with the requirements of
EPCA.
K. Other Energy Conservation Standards
Topics
In the field of economics, a market
failure is a situation in which the
market outcome does not maximize
societal welfare. Such an outcome
would result in unrealized potential
welfare. DOE welcomes comment on
any aspect of market failures, especially
those in the context of amended energy
conservation standards for RCWs.
In addition to the issues identified
earlier in this document, DOE welcomes
comment on any other aspect of energy
conservation standards for RCWs not
already addressed by the specific areas
identified in this document.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to
submit in writing by September 3, 2019,
comments and information on matters
addressed in this notice and on other
matters relevant to DOE’s consideration
of amended energy conservation
standards for RCWs. After the close of
the comment period, DOE will review
the public comments received and may
begin collecting data, conducting the
analyses discussed in this RFI.
Submitting comments via https://
www.regulations.gov. The https://
www.regulations.gov web page requires
you to provide your name and contact
information. Your contact information
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37803
will be viewable to DOE Building
Technologies Office staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment or in any documents
attached to your comment. Any
information that you do not want to be
publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Persons viewing comments will see only
first and last names, organization
names, correspondence containing
comments, and any documents
submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to https://
www.regulations.gov information for
which disclosure is restricted by statute,
such as trade secrets and commercial or
financial information (hereinafter
referred to as Confidential Business
Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments
submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments
will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large
volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your
comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment
tracking number that https://
www.regulations.gov provides after you
have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or postal mail.
Comments and documents submitted
via email, hand delivery/courier, or
postal mail also will be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information on a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
37804
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via postal mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to
submit printed copies. No facsimiles
(faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, written in English and free of
any defects or viruses. Documents
should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible,
they should carry the electronic
signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he
or she believes to be confidential and
exempt by law from public disclosure
should submit via email, postal mail, or
hand delivery/courier two well-marked
copies: One copy of the document
marked confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email to
Consumer ClothesWasher2017
STD0014@ee.doe.gov or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include (1) a
description of the items, (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry, (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from
other sources, (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligation
concerning its confidentiality, (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting person which would
result from public disclosure, (6) when
such information might lose its
confidential character due to the
passage of time, and (7) why disclosure
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Aug 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
of the information would be contrary to
the public interest.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to
be a very important part of the process
for developing energy conservation
standards. DOE actively encourages the
participation and interaction of the
public during the comment period in
each stage of the rulemaking process.
Interactions with and between members
of the public provide a balanced
discussion of the issues and assist DOE
in the rulemaking process. Anyone who
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing
list to receive future notices and
information about this process or would
like to request a public meeting should
contact Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or via email at
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 23,
2019.
Alexander N. Fitzsimmons,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2019–16564 Filed 8–1–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION
12 CFR Part 1003
[Docket No. CFPB–2019–0021]
RIN 3170–AA76
Home Mortgage Disclosure
(Regulation C); Reopening of
Comment Period
Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection.
ACTION: Reopening of comment period
with request for public comment.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection (Bureau) is
reopening the comment period for
specific aspects of the proposed rule
published by the Bureau in the Federal
Register on May 13, 2019 (May 2019
Proposal). The May 2019 Proposal
proposed amendments to Regulation C
relating to the coverage thresholds for
reporting data on closed-end mortgage
loans and open-end lines of credit and
partial exemptions under the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). To
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
facilitate the potential revisions of the
thresholds that the Bureau proposed to
take effect on January 1, 2020, the
Bureau used a 30-day comment period,
which ended on June 12, 2019. Later
this summer, the national loan level
dataset for 2018 and the Bureau’s
annual overview of residential mortgage
lending based on that data (collectively,
the 2018 HMDA Data) will be released.
Stakeholders have asked to submit
comments on the May 2019 Proposal
that reflect the 2018 HMDA Data. To
allow for the submission of such
comments, the Bureau now reopens the
comment period on certain aspects of
the proposal until October 15, 2019.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published May 13, 2019,
at 84 FR 20972, is reopened with respect
to the proposed changes relating to the
permanent coverage thresholds for
closed-end mortgage loans and openend lines of credit in §§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)
and (g)(2)(ii) and 1003.3(c)(11) and
(c)(12) and related commentary.
Comments must be received by October
15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit responsive
information and other comments,
identified by Docket No. CFPB–2019–
0021 or RIN 3170–AA76, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: 2019-NPRMHMDAThresholds@cfpb.gov. Include
Docket No. CFPB–2019–0021 or RIN
3170–AA76 in the subject line of the
message.
• Mail: Comment Intake, Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G
Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Comment
Intake, Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection, 1700 G Street NW,
Washington, DC 20552.
Instructions: The Bureau encourages
the early submission of comments. All
submissions should include the agency
name and docket number or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Because paper mail in the
Washington, DC area and at the Bureau
is subject to delay, commenters are
encouraged to submit comments
electronically. In general, all comments
received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov. In
addition, comments will be available for
public inspection and copying at 1700
G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552, on
official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time. You can make an appointment to
inspect the documents by telephoning
202–435–7275.
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37794-37804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16564]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37794]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014]
Energy Efficiency Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Washers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an
effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation
standards for residential clothes washers (``RCWs''). This request for
information (``RFI'') solicits information from the public to help DOE
determine whether amended standards for RCWs would result in
significant amount of additional energy savings and whether such
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified.
As part of this RFI, DOE seeks comment on whether there have been
sufficient technological or market changes since the most recent
standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more
stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that
could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no
new standard'' determination because a more stringent standard: Would
not result in a significant savings of energy; is not technologically
feasible; is not economically justified; or any combination of
foregoing. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject
within the scope of this document (including topics not raised in this
RFI).
DATES: Written comments and information will be accepted on or before
September 3, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-
STD-0014, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: Consumer[email protected]. Include the
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014 in the subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section III of this document for information on how
to submit comments through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
[email protected].
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Products Covered by This Rulemaking
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
2. Technology Assessment
C. Screening Analysis
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technology Levels
3. Intermediate Efficiency Levels
4. Other Efficiency Level Considerations
5. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
E. Markups Analysis
F. Energy and Water Use Analysis
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
H. Shipments Analysis
I. National Impact Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
K. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended
(``EPCA''),\1\ among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of
EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
Other
[[Page 37795]]
Than Automobiles. These products include RCWs, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (Oct. 23, 2018).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).
EPCA required that all rinse cycles of clothes washers manufactured
after January 1, 1988 include an unheated water option, but stated that
such clothes washers may have a heated water rinse option. (42 U.S.C.
6295(g)(2) EPCA directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)(A)
and (B)) DOE completed the first rulemaking cycle for RCWs in 1991 by
establishing performance-based energy conservation standards for top-
loading compact and top-loading standard-size RCWs manufactured on or
after May 14, 1994. 56 FR 22249 (May 14, 1991). DOE completed a second
rulemaking cycle by publishing a final rule on January 12, 2001
(``January 2001 Final Rule''), which amended the standards for top-
loading compact and standard-size RCWs and established performance-
based standards for front-loading RCWs. 66 FR 3314. These amended
standards were based on a joint proposal submitted to DOE by clothes
washer manufacturers and energy conservation advocates. Id.
EPCA further amended the energy conservation standards for top-
loading and front-loading standard-size RCWs manufactured on or after
January 1, 2011.\3\ (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(A)) EPCA further directed DOE
to conduct a rulemaking to determine whether to amend the standards in
effect for RCWs manufactured on or after January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C.
6295(g)(9)(B)(i))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPCA required that a top-loading or front-loading standard-
size RCW manufactured on or after January 1, 2011, must have a
Modified Energy Factor of at least 1.26, and a water factor of not
more than 9.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, DOE completed a third rulemaking cycle to amend the
standards for RCWs by publishing a direct final rule on May 31, 2012
(``May 2012 Direct Final Rule''). 77 FR 32307. These amended standards
were based on a joint proposal submitted to DOE by interested parties
representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and
consumer groups.
The current energy conservation standards are located in title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, section 32(g).
The currently applicable DOE test procedures for RCWs appear at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix J2 (``Appendix J2'').
EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the
energy conservation standards for each type of covered product and
publish either a notice of determination that the standards do not need
to be amended or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that
includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to
inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or
amended energy conservation standard be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy or water efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) To
determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires
that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the product compared to any increase in the initial cost or
maintenance expenses;
(3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I-1 shows
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the
requirements within EPCA.
Table I-1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings............. Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Technological Feasibility.............. Market and Technology
Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic impact on manufacturers Manufacturer Impact
and consumers. Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost
Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
[[Page 37796]]
2. Lifetime operating cost savings Markups for Product
compared to increased cost for the Price Determination.
product. Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total projected energy and water Shipments Analysis.
savings.
National Impact
Analysis.
4. Impact on utility or performance Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of any lessening of Manufacturer Impact
competition. Analysis.
6. Need for national energy and Shipments Analysis.
water conservation.
National Impact
Analysis.
7. Other factors the Secretary Employment Impact
considers relevant. Analysis.
Utility Impact
Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of
Emissions Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely
to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for RCWs.
II. Request for Information and Comments
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and
economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for RCWs may be
warranted.
As an initial matter, DOE seeks comment on whether there have been
sufficient technological or market changes since the most recent
standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more
stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that
could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no
new standard'' determination because a more stringent standard: (1)
Would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not
technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any
combination of foregoing.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in
this document. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,''
Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs
associated with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with
Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with
that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on
measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its energy conservation
standards rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and
compliance and certification requirements applicable to RCWs, while
remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
A. Products Covered by This Rulemaking
This RFI covers those products that meet the definitions for RCWs,
as codified at 10 CFR 430.2:
EPCA does not define the term ``clothes washer''. DOE has defined a
``clothes washer'' as a consumer product designed to clean clothes,
utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical
agitation or other movement, that must be one of the following classes:
automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes washers, and other
clothes washers. 10 CFR 430.2
An ``automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer that
has a control system that is capable of scheduling a preselected
combination of operations, such as regulation of water temperature,
regulation of the water fill level, and performance of wash, rinse,
drain, and spin functions without the need for user intervention
subsequent to the initiation of machine operation. Some models may
require user intervention to initiate these different segments of the
cycle after the machine has begun operation, but they do not require
the user to intervene to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. Id.
A ``semi-automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer
that is the same as an automatic clothes washer except that user
intervention is required to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. Id.
``Other clothes washer'' means a class of clothes washer that is
not an automatic or semi-automatic clothes washer. Id.
Issue II.A.1. DOE requests comment on whether the definitions for
RCWs require any revisions--and if so, how those definitions should be
revised.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy
conservation standard provides information about the RCW industry that
will be used throughout the rulemaking process. DOE uses qualitative
and quantitative information to characterize the structure of the
industry and market. DOE identifies manufacturers, estimates market
shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives
intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and
explores the potential for efficiency improvements in the design and
manufacturing of RCWs. DOE also reviews product literature, industry
publications, and company websites. Additionally, DOE conducts
interviews with manufacturers to improve its assessment of the market
and available technologies for RCWs.
1. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination
whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of
the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
Id.
[[Page 37797]]
For RCWs, the current energy conservation standards specified in 10
CFR 403.32(g) are based on four product classes, differentiated by
capacity and method of loading clothes (i.e., axis of loading):
Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet (cu.ft.)
capacity);
Top-loading, standard (1.6 cu.ft. or greater capacity);
Front-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cu.ft. capacity);
and
Front-loading, standard (1.6 cu.ft. or greater capacity).
10 CFR 430.32(g)(3).
In a previous rulemaking to amend standards applicable to
commercial clothes washers, DOE determined specifically that the ``axis
of loading'' constituted a feature that justified separate product
classes for top loading and front loading clothes washers, and that
``the longer average cycle time of front-loading machines warrants
consideration of separate [product] classes.'' 79 FR 74492, 74498
(Sept. 15, 2014). DOE stated that a split in preference between top
loaders and front loaders would not indicate consumer indifference to
the axis of loading, but rather that a certain percentage of the market
expresses a preference for (i.e., derives utility from) the top-loading
configuration. DOE further noted that separation of clothes washer
equipment classes by location of access is similar in nature to the
equipment classes for residential refrigerator-freezers, which include
separate product classes based on the access of location of the freezer
compartment (e.g., top-mounted, side-mounted, and bottom-mounted). The
location of the freezer compartment on these products provides no
additional performance-related utility other than consumer preference.
In other words, the location of access itself provides distinct
consumer utility. Id. 79 FR 74499. DOE also reasoned that top-loading
residential clothes washers are available with the same efficiency
levels, control panel features, and price points as front-loading
residential clothes washers, and that given these equivalencies,
purchase of top loaders indicates a preference among certain consumers
for the top-loading configuration, i.e., the top-loading configuration
provides utility to those customers preferring one configuration over
another, with all other product attributes being equal. Id.
Issue II.B.1. DOE requests feedback on the current RCW product
classes and whether changes to these individual product classes and
their descriptions should be made.
DOE is also aware that new configurations and features are
available for RCWs that may not have been available at the time of the
last energy conservation standards analysis. For example, DOE is aware
of auxiliary or supplementary clothes washers designed to accompany a
standard-size RCW from the same manufacturer, which may be integrated
as a single product; RCWs that contain a built-in basin that can be
used to pre-treat and soak clothing before the start of a wash cycle;
and RCWs that provide drying functionality as an optional feature that
can be added to the end of a wash cycle.
Issue II.B.2. DOE seeks to ensure that it does not inhibit the
development of features, or eliminate from the market existing
features, that provide utility to the consumer. DOE therefore requests
information regarding such new configurations and features, including
how prevalent they are in the market, the consumer utility of such
features, and data detailing the corresponding impacts on energy use.
DOE recently granted a petition for rulemaking to propose a new
product class for dishwashers with a normal cycle of 60 minutes or
fewer.\4\ DOE determined that under the product-class provision in EPCA
(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)), cycle time is a performance-related feature for
dishwashers that justifies a separate product class subject to a higher
or lower standard than that currently applicable to dishwashers. In the
context of dishwashers, DOE found that there is consumer utility in
shorter cycle times to clean a normally-soiled load of dishes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A pre-publication version of the notice granting the
petition is available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/07/f64/dishwasher-petition-nopr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue II.B.3. DOE requests comment on the extent to which shorter
cycles for RCWs could likewise affect consumer utility and whether
creation of a separate product class would enable the availability of
such products.
Additionally, as noted, EPCA identifies product capacity as a
performance-related feature that may justify the establishment of a
higher or lower standard than that which applies (or would apply) for
such type or class for any group of covered products. 42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)(B). For clothes washers, products with a larger capacity are
inherently able to achieve higher efficiency levels; conversely,
products with smaller capacity are inherently unable to achieve as high
efficiency levels, for two main reasons. First, a larger tub capacity
can contribute to improved efficiency because a larger amount of
clothing can be washed using an incremental increase in the quantity of
water that is less than the incremental increase in capacity, therefore
reducing the amount of water and energy per pound of clothing. Second,
a larger drum diameter can exert a higher g-force on the clothing
during the final-spin portion of the cycle, thus removing more water
and reducing the drying energy component of the integrated modified
energy factor (``IMEF'') metric (resulting in a better IMEF rating).
DOE notes that the front-loading clothes washer market is segmented
based on product width (which inherently affects clothes washer
capacity). A significant majority of front-loading RCWs currently on
the market in the United States have a nominal cabinet width of 27
inches or greater. However, the front-loading market also includes
narrower products with a nominal cabinet width of 24 inches. These
products are designed to be installed in confined spaces such as small
closets and under-counter installations. At the time of the rulemaking
culminating in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, the efficiency levels of
both 27-inch and 24-inch RCWs overlapped sufficiently such that both
types of products were available at the efficiency levels considered
for the rulemaking analysis and at the amended standard level. However,
in the current market, almost no overlap in efficiency exists between
24-inch and 27-inch RCWs (specifically, the 24-inch products have lower
efficiency ratings than the 27-inch products, which may be due to the
limitation on drum diameter and volume, as described above).
Similarly, while a significant majority of top-loading RCWs
currently on the market have a nominal cabinet width of 27 inches or
greater, the standard-size product class also includes smaller products
that typically have clothes container capacities less than 3 cu.ft. and
are designed to be portable. Due to size and installation limitations,
such products may be less able to incorporate certain efficiency-
related technologies such as larger drum volume or higher spin speeds
compared to 27-inch stationary products.
Issue II.B.4. DOE requests information and data on the installation
environments and consumer use of smaller-size front-loading and top-
loading RCWs such as those designed for confined spaces and/or portable
use.
2. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy
conservation standards, DOE uses
[[Page 37798]]
information about existing technology options and prototype designs to
help identify technologies that manufacturers could use to meet and/or
exceed a given set of energy conservation standards under
consideration. In consultation with interested parties, DOE intends to
develop a list of technologies to consider in its analysis. That
analysis will likely include a number of the technology options DOE
considered during its most recent rulemaking for RCWs. A complete list
of those options appears in Table II-1.
Table II-1--Technology Options for Residential Clothes Washers
Considered in Development of the May 2012 Direct Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptive control systems.
Added insulation.
Advanced agitation concepts for vertical-axis machines.
Automatic fill control.
Bubble action.
Capacity increase.
Direct-drive motor.
Electrolytic disassociation of water.
Horizontal-axis design.
Horizontal-axis design with recirculation.
Hot water circulation loop.
Improved fill control.
Improved horizontal-axis-washer drum design.
Improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture content.
Increased motor efficiency.
Low standby-power design.
Ozonated laundering.
Plastic particle cleaning.
Reduced thermal mass.
Silver ion injection.
Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology.
Thermostatically-controlled mixing valves.
Tighter tub tolerance.
Ultrasonic washing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue II.B.5. DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in
Table II-1 regarding their applicability to the current market and how
these technologies may impact the efficiency of RCWs as measured
according to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how
these technologies may have changed since they were considered in the
May 2012 Direct Final Rule analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks
information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics
currently available for each technology option.
Issue II.B.6. DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies
may impact product features or consumer utility.
C. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from
further consideration based on the following criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the effective date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If a
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the
utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or result
in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance
characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally
available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered
further.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For example, in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, ultrasonic
washing technology was screened out on the basis of adverse impacts
on product utility. As described in Chapter 4 of the Technical
Support Document accompanying the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE
concluded that ultrasonic washing technology would not adequately
remove soil from clothing and would therefore reduce consumer
utility. In addition, bubble cavitations caused by standing
ultrasonic waves could potentially damage some fragile clothing or
clothing fasteners, further reducing consumer utility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b).
Technology options identified in the technology assessment are
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more
of the four criteria are eliminated from consideration.
Table II-2 summarizes the screened-out technology options, and the
applicable screening criteria, from the May 2012 Direct Final Rule.
[[Page 37799]]
Table II-2--Previously Screened Out Technology Options From the May 2012 Direct Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA criteria (X = basis for screening out)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practicability to
Screened technology option Technological manufacture, Adverse impact on Adverse impacts on
feasibility install, and product utility health and safety
service
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added insulation................ X ..................
Bubble action................... .................. X
Electrolytic disassociation of X X
water..........................
Ozonated laundering............. .................. X
Plastic particle cleaning....... .................. X
Ultrasonic washing.............. .................. .................. X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue II.C.1. DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the
four screening criteria described in this section would have on each of
the technology options listed in Table II-1 with respect to RCWs.
Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same criteria
would affect any other technology options not already identified in
this document with respect to their potential use in RCWs.
Issue II.C.2. With respect to the screened out technology options
listed in Table II-2, DOE seeks information on whether these options
would, based on current and projected assessments regarding each of
them, remain screened out under the four screening criteria described
in this section. With respect to each of these technology options, DOE
requests comment on what steps, if any, could be (or have already been)
taken to facilitate the introduction of each option as a means to
improve the energy performance of RCWs and the potential to impact
consumer utility of RCWs. DOE also requests comment on whether any of
the remaining technology options (i.e., those not screened out) should
be screened out under the four screening criteria.
D. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship
of products at different levels of increased energy efficiency
(``efficiency levels''). This relationship serves as the basis for the
cost-benefit calculations for consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation.
In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the
increase in manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') associated with
increasing the efficiency of products above the baseline, up to the
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level for
each product class.
DOE has historically used the following three methodologies to
generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency
levels (``ELs'') for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which
provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design
options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level
approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in
energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design
options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or
reverse-engineering) approach, which provides ``bottom-up''
manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of
increased efficiency, based on detailed data as to costs for parts and
material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that
operate at particular efficiency levels.
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each established product class, DOE selects a baseline model as
a reference point against which any changes resulting from energy
conservation standards can be measured. The baseline model in each
product class represents the characteristics of common or typical
products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that meets
the current minimum energy conservation standards and provides basic
consumer utility. If DOE determines that a rulemaking is necessary,
consistent with this analytical approach, for each product class, DOE
tentatively plans to consider the current standard levels as the
baseline efficiency levels.
The current standards for all four product classes are based on two
metrics:
(1) IMEF, expressed as cu.ft. per kilowatt-hour per cycle
(cu.ft/kWh/cycle), and calculated as the clothes container capacity
in cu.ft. divided by the sum, expressed in kWh, of: (1) The total
weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption; (2) the total
weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption; (3) the
per-cycle energy consumption for removing moisture from a test load;
and (4) the per-cycle standby and off mode energy consumption; and
(2) Integrated Water Factor (``IWF''), expressed in gallons per
cycle per cu.ft. (gal/cycle/cu.ft.), and calculated as the total
weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles, expressed
in gallons per cycle, divided by the clothes container capacity in
cu.ft.
The current standards for RCWs are found in 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4).
Issue II.D.1. DOE requests feedback on whether using the potential
baseline efficiency levels identified above for each product class
would be appropriate for DOE to apply to each product class in
evaluating whether to amend the current energy conservation standards
for these products. DOE requests data and information to determine
baseline efficiency levels to better evaluate amending energy
conservation standards for these products.
2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technology Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. Table
II-3 in the next section shows the current maximum available IMEF
efficiency levels for each existing RCW product class, based on
information in DOE's Compliance Certification Database.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available at
https://www.regulations.doe.gov/compliance-certification-database.
Last accessed April 2, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the maximum
possible efficiency for a given product. In the May 2012 Direct Final
Rule, DOE determined that the maximum available efficiency levels for
RCWs corresponded to the max-tech efficiency levels.
Issue II.D.2. DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available
efficiency levels are appropriate and technologically feasible for
consideration as possible energy conservation standards for the
products at issue.
Issue II.D.3. DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available
efficiency levels correspond to the max-tech efficiency levels, given
the current
[[Page 37800]]
state of technology, or whether DOE should consider max-tech efficiency
levels different than the current maximum available efficiency levels.
Issue II.D.4. DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies
associated with those levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks
information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain
combinations of design options.
3. Intermediate Efficiency Levels
DOE may also define intermediate efficiency levels in between the
baseline and max-tech efficiency levels. Typically, DOE identifies
intermediate efficiency levels, where appropriate, based on a variety
of sources including, but not limited to: (1) Clusters of models
currently on the market at intermediate efficiency levels; (2)
efficiency levels defined by programs such as ENERGY STAR or the
Consortium for Energy Efficiency's (``CEE'') Super-Efficient Home
Appliances Initiative; or (3) ``gap-fill'' levels to bridge large
divides between existing clusters in the market.
Table II-3 indicates potential intermediate efficiency levels,
along with baseline and maximum available levels, that DOE could
consider for each existing RCW product class, based on a preliminary
review of the current market according to models listed in DOE's
Compliance Certification Database.
Table II-3--Efficiency Levels for Existing Product Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level IMEF (cu.ft./ IWF (gal/cycle/
Product class Efficiency level description kWh/ cycle) cu.ft.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading, Compact.............. Baseline............. 2018 DOE standard.... 1.15 12.0
Max Available........ Maximum currently 1.24 11.3
certified to DOE.
Top-Loading, Standard............. Baseline............. 2018 DOE standard.... 1.57 6.5
Intermediate......... 2018 ENERGY STAR..... 2.06 4.3
Intermediate......... 2015 CEE Tier 1...... 2.38 3.7
Max Available........ 2018 CEE Tier 1 (>2.5 2.76 3.2
cu.ft.), maximum
currently certified
to DOE.
Front-Loading, Compact............ Baseline............. 2018 DOE standard.... 1.13 8.3
Max Available........ Maximum currently 1.17 6.8
certified to DOE.
Front-Loading, Standard........... Baseline............. 2018 DOE standard.... 1.84 4.7
Intermediate......... 2015 ENERGY STAR 2.38 3.7
(>2.5 cu.ft.).
Intermediate......... 2018 ENERGY STAR 2.76 3.2
(>2.5 cu.ft.).
Intermediate......... 2018 ENERGY STAR Most 2.92 3.2
Efficient (>2.5
cu.ft.).
Max Available........ Maximum currently 3.10 2.7
certified to DOE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue II.D.5. DOE seeks input on whether the potential efficiency
level definitions shown in Table II-3 are appropriate for each product
class. DOE also seeks input on whether DOE should consider any
additional ``gap fill'' efficiency levels between any of the potential
efficiency levels shown in the table.
4. Other Efficiency Level Considerations
As an alternative to the current RCW standards based on IMEF and
IWF, DOE could consider defining an IMEF and/or IWF standard as an
equation based on capacity. Such an approach would be consistent with
the approach used by DOE for consumer refrigerator-freezer standards,
for example. If DOE were to adopt such an approach, the efficiency
levels considered in the analysis would represent variations from a
baseline equation that DOE would establish. For example, if such an
approach used a linear equation to define the standard, the higher
efficiency levels considered in the analysis could represent equations
with the same slope as the baseline equation but with a different y-
intercept, or vice-versa, or some combination of both.
Issue II.D.6. DOE requests feedback on whether it should consider
an IMEF and/or IWF standard as an equation based on capacity.
5. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that
describe the estimated increases in MPC associated with higher-
efficiency products for the analyzed product classes. For the May 2012
Direct Final Rule, DOE developed the cost-efficiency relationships for
the top-loading standard and front-loading standard product classes
using a combination of the reverse-engineering approach and the
efficiency-level approach. DOE used the design-option approach to
develop the cost-efficiency relationships for the top-loading compact
and front-loading compact product classes, because less data was
available for these product classes.
Issue II.D.7. DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would
incorporate any of the technology options listed in Table II-1 to
increase energy efficiency in RCWs beyond the baseline within each
product class. This includes information on the order in which
manufacturers would incorporate the different technologies to
incrementally improve the efficiencies of products. DOE also requests
feedback on whether the increased energy efficiency would lead to other
design changes that would not occur otherwise. DOE is also interested
in information regarding any potential impact of design options on a
manufacturer's ability to incorporate additional functions or
attributes in response to consumer demand.
Issue II.D.8. DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC
associated with incorporating each particular design option.
Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how the costs estimated
for design options in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule have changed since
the time of that analysis. DOE also requests information on the
investments necessary to incorporate specific design options,
including, but not limited to, costs related to new or modified tooling
(if any), materials, engineering and development efforts to implement
each design option, and manufacturing/production impacts.
Issue II.D.9. DOE requests comment on whether certain design
options may not be applicable to (or may be incompatible with) specific
product classes.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC.
[[Page 37801]]
The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') is the price at
which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. For the May
2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE used a baseline manufacturer markup of 1.22
for all product classes to convert MPC to MSP.
Issue II.D.10. DOE requests feedback on whether a baseline
manufacturer markup of 1.22 remains appropriate for RCWs.
E. Markups Analysis
To carry out the life-cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period
(``PBP'') calculations, DOE would need to determine the cost to the
residential consumer of baseline products, and the cost of more-
efficient units the consumer would purchase under potential amended
standards. By applying a multiplier called a ``markup'' to the MSP, DOE
is able to estimate the residential consumer's price. In generating
end-user price inputs, DOE must identify distribution channels (i.e.,
how the products are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer)
and estimate relative sales volumes through each channel. In the May
2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE only accounted for the retail outlets
distribution channel because data from the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') 2005 Fact Book indicated that the
overwhelming majority of residential appliances were sold through
retail outlets, as described in chapter 6 of the technical support
document accompanying the May 2012 Direct Final Rule. The main actors
included were manufacturers and retailers.\7\ The AHAM 2009 Fact Book
indicated a similar share for the products sold. Thus, DOE analyzed a
manufacturer-to-consumer distribution channel consisting of three
parties: (1) The manufacturers producing the products, (2) the
retailers purchasing the products from manufacturers and selling them
to consumers, and (3) the consumers who purchase the products. In the
May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE did not include a separate distribution
channel for RCWs included as part of a new home because DOE did not
have enough information to characterize which of these products come
pre-installed by builders in the new homes. Should sufficient
information become available, DOE may consider including a separate
distribution channel that includes a contractor in addition to the
existing retail outlets distribution channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a potential new analysis, DOE would determine an average
manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'') 10-K reports filed by publicly traded
manufacturers of appliances whose product range includes RCWs. DOE will
determine an average retailer markup by analyzing both economic census
data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the annual SEC 10-K reports filed
by publicly traded retailers.
In addition to developing manufacturer and retailer markups, DOE
would develop and include sales taxes to calculate appliance retail
prices. DOE would use an internet source, the Sales Tax Clearinghouse,
to calculate applicable sales taxes.
Issue II.E.1. DOE requests information on the existence of any
distribution channels other than the retail outlet distribution channel
that should be included in a future analysis. DOE also requests data on
the fraction of RCW sales that go through both, a wholesaler/retailer
and a contractor, as well as the fraction of sales through any other
identified channels.
F. Energy and Water Use Analysis
As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy and water
use analysis to identify how products are used by consumers, and
thereby determine the energy and water savings potential of efficiency
improvements. The energy and water use analysis seeks to capture the
range of operating conditions for RCWs in U.S. homes. The energy and
water use analysis is meant to represent typical energy and water
consumption in the field.
To determine the field energy and water use of products that would
meet possible standard levels, DOE would use data from the Energy
Information Administration's (``EIA's'') 2015 Residential Energy
Consumption Survey (``RECS''), the most recent survey available from
EIA.\8\ RECS is a national sample survey of housing units that collects
statistical information on the consumption of and expenditures for
energy in housing units along with data on energy-related
characteristics of the housing units and occupants. RECS provides
sufficient information to establish the type (product class) of RCW
used in each household. As a result, DOE would be able to develop
household samples for each of the considered product classes. RECS
specifies the use cycles of RCWs, thereby allowing DOE to determine the
RCW's annual energy and water consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For information on RECS, see https://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each sample household, DOE would estimate the field-based
annual energy and water use of front- and top-loading standard-capacity
RCWs by multiplying the annual number of RCW cycles for each household
by the per-cycle energy and water use values established by the
engineering analysis (using the DOE test procedure) for each considered
efficiency level. Per-cycle energy use is calculated in the test
procedure as the sum of per-cycle machine energy use (including the
energy used to heat water and remove moisture from clothing), and
standby mode and off-mode energy use.
Issue II.F.1. DOE requests input from interested parties on
approaches for specifying the typical values and variability in the
annual energy consumption of RCWs.
For the purpose of its analysis, DOE would account for any rebound
effect in its determination of annual energy and water consumption. The
rebound effect occurs when a piece of equipment, made more efficient
and used more intensively, does not yield the expected energy savings
from the efficiency improvement. In the case of more efficient RCWs,
research to date indicates no conclusive causality between increased
efficiency and increased use.
Issue II.F.2. DOE seeks comments on any rebound effect associated
with more efficient RCWs. In other words, DOE seeks input on what
portion of the energy savings resulting from more efficient models may
be offset due to increased usage of RCWs.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
The effects of more stringent energy conservation standards on a
consumer of RCWs include changes in operating expenses (usually
decreased) and changes in purchase prices (usually increased). DOE
would analyze data input variability and uncertainty by performing the
LCC and PBP calculations on a representative sample of households from
RECS for the considered product classes using Monte Carlo simulation
and probability distributions. The analysis results are a distribution
of results showing the range of LCC savings and PBPs for a given
efficiency level relative to the baseline level.
DOE would analyze the net effect on consumers by calculating the
LCC and PBP using engineering performance data (section II.D of this
document), energy and water consumption data (section II.F of this
document), and equipment
[[Page 37802]]
retail prices (section II.E of this document). Inputs to the LCC and
PBP calculation include the total installed cost to the consumer
(purchase price plus installation cost) and operating cost (energy and
water expenses, repair costs, and maintenance costs). Additional inputs
to the LCC calculation include energy price forecasts, the lifetime of
the RCW or other defined period of analysis, and discount rates.
To derive the installation costs, DOE would use the 2017 RSMeans
Residential Cost Data on labor requirements to estimate installation
costs for RCWs.\9\ DOE would make adjustments to the costs if needed to
account for changes in weight and/or dimensions of higher-efficiency
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Residential Costs with RSMeans Data 2017 available at https://www.rsmeans.com/products/books.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue II.G.1. DOE seeks input on whether RCW installation costs
scale with equipment weight and/or dimensions.
In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE did not have any data to
support increases in maintenance and repair costs associated with
increases in efficiency levels within each of the product classes
considered in the analysis. Therefore, DOE did not assume that more
efficient RCWs in each product class would have greater repair or
maintenance costs. 77 FR 32308, 32342.
Issue II.G.2. DOE requests feedback and data on whether or not
maintenance costs differ by technology option for any of the options
listed in Table II-1.
Issue II.G.3. DOE requests information and data on the frequency of
repair and repair costs by product class.
DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts of potential standard levels
relative to a no-standards case that reflects the market in the absence
of amended standards. DOE would develop market-share efficiency data
(i.e., the distribution of product shipments by efficiency) for the
product classes DOE is considering, for the year in which compliance
with any amended standards would be required. By accounting for
consumers who already purchase more efficient products, DOE would avoid
overstating the potential benefits from potential standards.
Issue II.G.4. DOE seeks input and data on the fraction of RCWs
currently sold with efficiencies greater than the minimum energy
conservation standards, including the January 1, 2018, standards. DOE
also requests information on expected trends in product efficiency over
the next 5 years.
H. Shipments Analysis
DOE develops shipments forecasts of RCWs to calculate the national
impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy
consumption, net present value (``NPV''), and future manufacturer cash
flows. Typically, DOE shipments projections utilize available
historical data broken out by product class, capacity, and efficiency.
In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed a shipments model for
RCWs driven by historical shipments data, which were used to build up a
product stock and calibrate the shipments model. 77 FR 32308, 32344.
The key drivers of the shipments model included the new owner and
replacement markets. Current sales estimates would allow for a more
accurate model that captures recent trends in the market.
Issue II.H.1. DOE requests annual sales data (i.e., number of
shipments) for top-loading standard, front-loading standard, top-
loading compact, and front-loading compact RCW units. For each
category, DOE also requests the fraction of sales that are ENERGY STAR
qualified.
Table II-4 provides a summary table of the data requested in Issue
II.H.1:
Table II-4--Summary Table of Shipments-Related Data Requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraction of
Annual sales * ENERGY STAR-
Product class (number sold) rated annual
sales (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-loading, compact.................... .............. ..............
Top-loading, standard................... .............. ..............
Front-loading, compact.................. .............. ..............
Front-loading, standard (all):
24-inch .............. ..............
products..............................
27-inch .............. ..............
products..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Sales for last 5 years, if available.
Issue II.H.2. DOE requests data and information on any trends in
the RCW market that could be used to forecast expected trends in
product class market share.
An initial analysis of market data indicates that consumers are
purchasing more top-loading units in recent years, showing an upswing
in the market share for this product class.
Issue II.H.3. DOE seeks data and information on whether the trend
towards increased sales of top-loading units is expected to continue or
level off.
I. National Impact Analysis
The purpose of the national impact analysis (``NIA'') is to
estimate aggregate impacts of potential efficiency standards at the
national level. Impacts reported by DOE include the national energy
savings (``NES'') from potential standards and the national net present
value (``NPV'') of the total consumer benefits. The NIA considers
lifetime impacts of potential standards on RCWs shipped in a 30-year
period that begins with the expected compliance date for new or amended
standards.
Analyzing impacts of potential amended energy conservation
standards for RCWs requires a comparison of projected U.S. energy
consumption with and without the amended standards. The forecasts
contain projections of annual appliance shipments (section II.H of this
document), the annual energy and water consumption of new RCWs (section
II.F of this document), and the purchase price of new RCWs (section
II.E of this document).
A key component of DOE's estimates of NES and NPV would be the RCW
energy efficiency forecasted over time for the no-standards case and
each of the potential standards cases. In the May 2012 Direct Final
Rule, DOE based projections of no-standards-case shipment-weighted
efficiency (``SWEF'') for the RCW product classes on growth rates
determined from historical data provided by AHAM. 77 FR 32308, 32342.
For a potential future rulemaking, DOE would expect to consider recent
trends in efficiency and input from interested parties to update
product energy efficiency forecasts.
Issue II.I.1. DOE seeks historical SWEF (IMEF and IWF) data for
RCWs by product class. DOE also seeks historical market share data
showing the percentage of product shipments by efficiency level for as
many product classes as possible.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to
estimate the financial impact of any amended energy conservation
standards on manufacturers of RCWs, and to evaluate the potential
impact of such standards on direct employment and manufacturing
capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects.
The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-flow model adapted
for covered RCW product classes, with the key output of industry
[[Page 37803]]
net present value (``INPV''). The qualitative part of the MIA addresses
the potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturing
capacity and industry competition, as well as factors such as product
characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and
important market and product trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze the impacts of potential
amended energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of
RCWs, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small
Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are
listed by the North American Industry Classification System
(``NAICS'').\10\ Manufacturing of RCWs is classified under NAICS
335220, ``Major Household Appliance Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a
threshold of 1,500 employees of less for a domestic entity to be
considered as a small business. This employee threshold includes all
employees in the parent company and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Available online at: https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy
conservation standards, including previous standards affecting the same
product, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers'
financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product
lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing
products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative
regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance
efficiency.
Issue II.J.1. To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and
contact information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that
distribute RCWs in the United States.
Issue II.J.2. DOE has identified small businesses as a subgroup of
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by future
amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests the names and
contact information of small business manufacturers, as defined by the
SBA's size threshold for RCW manufacturers, that distribute products in
the United States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any other
manufacturer subgroups that potentially could be disproportionally
impacted by amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests
feedback on any potential approaches that could be considered to
address impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses.
Issue II.J.3. DOE requests information regarding the impact of
cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers of RCWs associated with
(1) other DOE standards applying to different products that these
manufacturers may also make and import and (2) product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment
on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory burden and how
DOE could reduce this burden while complying with the requirements of
EPCA.
K. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of
amended energy conservation standards for RCWs.
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE
welcomes comment on any other aspect of energy conservation standards
for RCWs not already addressed by the specific areas identified in this
document.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by
September 3, 2019, comments and information on matters addressed in
this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of
amended energy conservation standards for RCWs. After the close of the
comment period, DOE will review the public comments received and may
begin collecting data, conducting the analyses discussed in this RFI.
Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will
not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names,
organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your
comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to https://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
[[Page 37804]]
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles
(faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
One copy of the document marked confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email to Consumer
[email protected] or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will
make its own determination about the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the
items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the
comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions
with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of
the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes
to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and
information about this process or would like to request a public
meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff
at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 23, 2019.
Alexander N. Fitzsimmons,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2019-16564 Filed 8-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
