52854 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Product class 

Energy efficiency 

ratio, effective from 

Oct. 1, 2000 to 

May 31, 2014 

Combined energy efficiency ratio, 

effective as of 

June 1, 2014 

16. Casement-Slider ............................................................................................................................ 9.5 10.4 

* * * * * 

(h) Clothes dryers. (1) Gas clothes 

dryers manufactured after January 1, 

1988 shall not be equipped with a 

constant burning pilot. 

(2) Clothes dryers manufactured on or 

after May 14, 1994 and before January 

1, 2015, shall have an energy factor no 

less than: 

Product class 

Energy 

factor 

(lbs/kWh) 

i. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or 

greater capacity) ................... 3.01 

ii. Electric, Compact (120V) 

(less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) .... 3.13 

iii. Electric, Compact (240V) 

(less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) .... 2.90 

iv. Gas ...................................... 2.67 

(3) Clothes dryers manufactured on or 

after January 1, 2015, shall have a 

combined energy factor no less than: 

Product class 

Combined 

energy 

factor 

(lbs/kWh) 

i. Vented Electric, Standard 

(4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ... 3.73 

ii. Vented Electric, Compact 

(120V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) .................................... 3.61 

iii. Vented Electric, Compact 

(240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) .................................... 3.27 

iv. Vented Gas .......................... 3.30 

v. Ventless Electric, Compact 

(240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) .................................... 2.55 

vi. Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer ................. 2.08 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–21639 Filed 8–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EERE–2007–BT–STD– 

0010] 

RIN 1904–AA89 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Residential Clothes Dryers and Room 

Air Conditioners 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of effective date and 

compliance dates for direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: DOE published a direct final 

rule to establish amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

clothes dryers and room air conditioners 

in the Federal Register on April 21, 

2011. DOE has determined that the 

adverse comments received in response 

to the direct final rule do not provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawing the 

direct final rule. Therefore, DOE 

provides this document confirming 

adoption of the energy conservation 

standards established in the direct final 

rule and announcing the effective date 

of those standards. DOE also published 

a proposed rule to amend the 

compliance dates set forth in the direct 

final rule on May 9, 2011. Elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register, DOE publishes 

a final rule which adopts the 

compliance dates set forth in its 

proposed rule published on May 9, 

2011. 

DATES: The direct final rule published 

on April 21, 2011 (76 FR 22454) was 

effective on August 19, 2011. Pursuant 

to the document published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register, compliance 

with the standards in the direct final 

rule will be required on June 1, 2014 for 

room air conditioners and on January 1, 

2015 for clothes dryers. 

ADDRESSES: The docket is available for 

review at regulations.gov, including 

Federal Register notices, framework 

documents, public meeting attendee 

lists and transcripts, comments, and 

other supporting documents/materials. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the regulations.gov index. Not all 

documents listed in the index may be 

publicly available, such as information 

that is exempt from public disclosure. A 

link to the docket Web page can be 

found at http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121; telephone: 

(202) 586–7463; e-mail: 

Stephen.Witkowski@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121; 

telephone: (202) 586–7796; e-mail: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit or review public comments or 

view hard copies of the docket, contact 

Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 

or e-mail: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority and Rulemaking 

Background 

As amended by Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; 

Pub. L. 110–140), the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act authorizes DOE to 

issue a direct final rule establishing an 

energy conservation standard on receipt 

of a statement submitted jointly by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

(including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates) as 

determined by the Secretary of Energy 

(Secretary), that contains 

recommendations with respect to an 

energy conservation standard that are in 

accordance with the provisions of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). A notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes an 

identical energy conservation standard 

must be published simultaneously with 

the final rule, and DOE must provide a 

public comment period of at least 110 

days on the direct final rule. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4). Not later than 120 days after 

issuance of the direct final rule, if one 

or more adverse comments or an 

alternative joint recommendation are 

received relating to the direct final rule, 

the Secretary must determine whether 

the comments or alternative 

recommendation may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52855 

1 DOE Docket No. EERE–2007–BT–STD–0010, 

Comment 35. 

law. If the Secretary makes such a 

determination, DOE must withdraw the 

direct final rule and proceed with the 

simultaneously published NOPR. DOE 

must publish in the Federal Register the 

reasons why the direct final rule was 

withdrawn. Id. 

During the rulemaking proceeding to 

consider amending energy conservation 

standards for residential clothes dryers 

and room air conditioners, DOE 

received the ‘‘Agreement on Minimum 

Federal Efficiency Standards, Smart 

Appliances, Federal Incentives and 

Related Matters for Specified 

Appliances’’ (the ‘‘Joint Petition’’ or 

‘‘Consensus Agreement’’), a comment 

submitted by groups representing 

manufacturers (the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), 

Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), 

General Electric Company (GE), 

Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), 

BSH Home Appliances (BSH), Alliance 

Laundry Systems (ALS), Viking Range, 

Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U–Line, 

Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat 

Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, 

Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, 

Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, 

Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and 

DeLonghi); energy and environmental 

advocates (American Council for an 

Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

(ASAP), Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC), Alliance to Save 

Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water 

Efficiency (AWE), Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council (NPCC), and 

Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnerships (NEEP)); and consumer 

groups (Consumer Federation of 

America (CFA) and the National 

Consumer Law Center (NCLC)) 

(collectively, the ‘‘Joint Petitioners’’). 

This collective set of comments 1

recommends specific energy 

conservation standards for residential 

clothes dryers and room air conditioners 

that, in the commenters’ view, would 

satisfy the EPCA requirements at 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). 

After careful consideration of the 

Consensus Agreement, the Secretary 

determined that it was submitted by 

interested persons who are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

on this matter. DOE noted in the direct 

final rule that Congress provided some 

guidance within the statute itself by 

specifying that representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates are 

relevant parties to any consensus 

recommendation. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)) As delineated above, the 

Consensus Agreement was signed and 

submitted by a broad cross-section of 

the manufacturers who produce the 

subject products, their trade 

associations, and environmental, energy 

efficiency and consumer advocacy 

organizations. Although States were not 

signatories to the Consensus Agreement, 

they did not express any opposition to 

it from the time of its submission to 

DOE through the close of the comment 

period on the direct final rule. 

Moreover, DOE stated in the direct final 

rule that it does not interpret the statute 

as requiring absolute agreement among 

all interested parties before DOE may 

proceed with issuance of a direct final 

rule. By explicit language of the statute, 

the Secretary has discretion to 

determine when a joint 

recommendation for an energy or water 

conservation standard has met the 

requirement for representativeness (i.e., 

‘‘as determined by the Secretary’’). 

Accordingly, DOE determined that the 

Consensus Agreement was made and 

submitted by interested persons fairly 

representative of relevant points of 

view. 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the 

Secretary must also determine whether 

a jointly submitted recommendation for 

an energy or water conservation 

standard is in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as 

applicable. As stated in the direct final 

rule, this determination is exactly the 

type of analysis DOE conducts 

whenever it considers potential energy 

conservation standards pursuant to 

EPCA. DOE applies the same principles 

to any consensus recommendations it 

may receive to satisfy its statutory 

obligation to ensure that any energy 

conservation standard that it adopts 

achieves the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified and 

will result in significant conservation of 

energy. Upon review, the Secretary 

determined that the Consensus 

Agreement submitted in the instant 

rulemaking comports with the standardsetting criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). Accordingly, the Consensus 

Agreement levels, included as trial 

standard level (TSL) 4 for both clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners, were 

adopted as the amended standard levels 

in the direct final rule. 

In sum, as the relevant statutory 

criteria were satisfied, the Secretary 

adopted the amended energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners set 

forth in the direct final rule. These 

standards are set forth in Table 1. The 

standards apply to all products listed in 

Table 1 that are manufactured in, or 

imported into, the United States on or 

after June 1, 2014 for room air 

conditioners and on or after January 1, 

2015 for clothes dryers. These 

compliance dates were set forth in the 

proposed rule issued on May 9, 2011 (76 

FR 19913) and are adopted in a final 

rule published elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register (see section V of this 

notice for further details.) For a detailed 

discussion of DOE’s analysis of the 

benefits and burdens of the amended 

standards pursuant to the criteria set 

forth in EPCA, please see the direct final 

rule. (76 FR 22454 (April 21, 2011)) 

As required by EPCA, DOE also 

simultaneously published a NOPR 

proposing the identical standard levels 

contained in the direct final rule. As 

discussed in section II.A.4 of this notice, 

DOE considered whether any comment 

received during the 110-day comment 

period following the direct final rule 

was sufficiently ‘‘adverse’’ as to provide 

a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and continuation of this 

rulemaking under the NOPR. As noted 

in the direct final rule, it is the 

substance, rather than the quantity, of 

comments that will ultimately 

determine whether a direct final rule 

will be withdrawn. To this end, DOE 

weighs the substance of any adverse 

comment(s) received against the 

anticipated benefits of the Consensus 

Agreement and the likelihood that 

further consideration of the comment(s) 

would change the results of the 

rulemaking. DOE notes that to the extent 

an adverse comment had been 

previously raised and addressed in the 

rulemaking proceeding, such a 

submission will not typically provide a 

basis for withdrawal of a direct final 

rule. 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
52856 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

2A notation in the form ‘‘AGA, No. 62 at pp. 4– 

5’’ identifies a written comment (1) Made by the 

American Gas Association (AGA), (2) recorded in 

document number 62 that is filed in the docket of 

this rulemaking, and (3) which appears on pages 4– 

5 of document number 62. 

TABLE 1—AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES DRYERS AND ROOM AIR

CONDITIONERS

Product class 

Minimum 

CEF 

levels *

lb/kWh 

Residential Clothes Dryers 

1. Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ........................................................................................................................... 3.73 

2. Vented Electric, Compact (120 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ............................................................................................................... 3.61 

3. Vented Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ............................................................................................................... 3.27 

4. Vented Gas .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3.30 

5. Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ............................................................................................................. 2.55 

6. Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer ......................................................................................................................................... 2.08 

Product class 

Minimum CEER levels **

Btu/Wh 

Room Air Conditioners 

1. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less than 6,000 Btu/h ............................................................................... 11.0 

2. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h ................................................................................ 11.0 

3. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h .............................................................................. 10.9 

4. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h ............................................................................ 10.7 

5a. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 20,000 to 24,999 Btu/h .......................................................................... 9.4 

5b. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 25,000 Btu/h or more ............................................................................. 9.0 

6. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and less than 6,000 Btu/h .......................................................................... 10.0 

7. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h ........................................................................... 10.0 

8a. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 8,000 to 10,999 Btu/h ....................................................................... 9.6 

8b. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 11,000 to 13,999 Btu/h ..................................................................... 9.5 

9. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h ....................................................................... 9.3 

10. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h or more ........................................................................ 9.4 

11. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less than 20,000 Btu/h ................................................................................ 9.8 

12. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and less than 14,000 Btu/h ........................................................................... 9.3 

13. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h or more .................................................................................. 9.3 

14. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 14,000 Btu/h or more ............................................................................. 8.7 

15. Casement-only ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9.5 

16. Casement-slider ................................................................................................................................................................... 10.4 

* CEF (Combined Energy Factor) is calculated as the clothes dryer test load weight in pounds divided by the sum of ‘‘active mode’’ per-cycle 

energy use and ‘‘inactive mode’’ per-cycle energy use in kWh. ** CEER (Combined Energy Efficiency Ratio) is calculated as capacity times active mode hours (equal to 750) divided by the sum of active 

mode annual energy use and inactive mode. 

II. Comments Requesting Withdrawal of 

the Direct Final Rule 

A. General Comments 

1. Joint Petition 

Commenters stated that DOE did not 

consider the views of all relevant 

parties, including appliance installers 

and energy suppliers. Commenters also 

stated that DOE did not explain its 

process for determining whether the 

Joint Petition was submitted by relevant 

parties, including a determination of 

which parties are ‘‘not’’ relevant. 

(American Gas Association (AGA), No. 

62 at pp. 4–5; 2 AGL Resources (AGL), 

No. 63 at p. 8; American Public Gas 

Association (APGA), No. 61 at p. 2) 

As explained above, EPCA authorizes 

DOE to issue a direct final rule 

establishing an energy conservation 

standard on receipt of a statement that, 

in relevant part, is submitted jointly by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

(including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates) as 

determined by the Secretary. While 

providing some guidance by specifying 

that representatives of manufacturers of 

covered products, States, and efficiency 

advocates are relevant parties to any 

consensus recommendation, EPCA 

affords DOE significant discretion in 

determining whether this requirement 

has been met. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) 

DOE notes that EPCA does not require 

that ‘‘all’’ relevant parties be parties to 

any consensus agreement. EPCA also 

does not require DOE to specify parties 

that it determines are not relevant to any 

consensus agreement. 

In the direct final rule, DOE explained 

how the Consensus Agreement met the 

requirement that it be submitted jointly 

by interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of 

view. DOE noted that the Consensus 

Agreement was signed and submitted by 

a broad cross-section of the 

manufacturers who produce the subject 

products, their trade associations, and 

environmental, energy efficiency and 

consumer advocacy organizations. DOE 

further noted that although States were 

not signatories to the Consensus 

Agreement, they did not express any 

opposition to it. States also did not file 

any adverse comments during the 

comment period for the direct final rule. 

Moreover, DOE stated in the direct 

final rule that it does not interpret the 

statute as requiring absolute agreement 

among all interested parties before DOE 

may proceed with issuance of a direct 

final rule. By explicit language of the 

statute, the Secretary has discretion to 

determine when a joint 

recommendation for an energy or water 

conservation standard has met the 

requirement for representativeness (i.e., 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52857 

3A notice of availability (NOA) of the framework 

document was published in the Federal Register on 

October 9, 2007. (72 FR 57254). A NOA of the 

preliminary analysis was published in the Federal 

Register on Feb. 23, 2010. (75 FR 7987). 

‘‘as determined by the Secretary’’). DOE 

acknowledges that appliance installers 

and energy suppliers may also be 

relevant parties within the meaning of 

42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), but does not 

believe that the existence of other 

potentially relevant parties indicates 

that the Consensus Agreement was not 

submitted jointly by interested persons 

that are fairly representative of relevant 

points of view (including 

representatives of manufacturers of 

covered products, States, and efficiency 

advocates). In addition, DOE notes that 

it derived the installation costs for the 

clothes dryers from the 2010 RS Means 

Residential Cost Data, which is 

commonly used as an installation cost 

reference source by the installers for 

estimating the labor hours and regional 

labor cost. DOE also notes that the 

clothes dryer design that meets the new 

energy conservation standard does not 

require additional installation cost 

compared to the models that meet the 

existing energy conservation standard. 

Energy suppliers—Edison Electric 

Institute and California Utilities (gas 

and electric)—provided technology 

information that could improve the 

products’ efficiency, and also 

recommended improvements to the 

existing test procedures in response to 

the framework document for this 

rulemaking, made available for 

comment on October 9, 2007, and the 

preliminary analysis document, made 

available for public comment on 

February 23, 2010.3

For the reasons stated above, DOE 

affirms its conclusion in the direct final 

rule that the Joint Petition satisfies the 

requirement of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) that 

it be a statement submitted jointly by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

(including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates) as 

determined by the Secretary. 

2. Using Experience Curve To Forecast 

Product Prices 

AGA objected to DOE’s use of a 

learning curve to forecast product 

prices. (AGA, No. 62 at p. 3) APGA 

stated that learning curve price 

reductions should not be included in 

this direct final rule because DOE’s most 

recent policy on this topic, set forth in 

DOE’s notice of data availability 

(NODA) on Equipment Price Forecasting 

in Energy Conservation Standards 

Analysis (76 FR 9696, Feb. 22, 2011), 

has not been finalized. (APGA, No. 61 

at p. 2) 

APGA also presented as relevant to 

this rulemaking several issues that it 

had raised in its comments in response 

to the NODA. Summarizing these issues, 

AGA stated that DOE has not justified 

use of ‘‘learning curve’’ price effects 

with respect to the covered products, 

and that the price adjustment approach, 

based on a wide variety of products and 

not specific to the design options under 

consideration, is inconsistent with the 

approach of using engineering costs. 

(AGA, No. 62 at p. 3) Laclede Gas 

Company (Laclede Gas) stated that the 

‘‘learning curve’’ is one of many 

assumptions made by DOE leading to a 

biased outcome. (Laclede Gas, No. 59 at 

p. 4) 

In the NODA, DOE stated that when 

data are available to project potential 

cost reductions over time for a 

particular appliance or type of 

equipment, DOE plans to use these data 

as part of its analyses. 76 FR 9699 (Feb. 

22, 2011). Therefore, use of the 

experience curve approach in the direct 

final rule, as described below, is 

appropriate. 

For the direct final rule, DOE 

examined historical producer price 

indices for room air conditioners and 

household laundry equipment and 

found a long-term declining real price 

trend for both products. Consistent with 

the method proposed in the NODA, 

DOE used experience curve fits with the 

historical data on prices and cumulative 

production to forecast product costs. 

The experience curve approach captures 

a variety of factors that together shaped 

the observed historical trends, and is 

consistent with the costing approach in 

the engineering analysis, which 

estimated the incremental costs of 

considered design options in 2010. DOE 

did not attempt to forecast how those 

costs may change in the future because 

the available data did not permit DOE 

to estimate how only the incremental 

costs of design options may change. 

3. Measure of Energy Consumption 

Laclede Gas expressed concern that 

DOE has not implemented the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) conclusions 

that DOE’s measurement of energy use 

should be based on full-fuel cycles, 

which takes into account the amount of 

energy consumed and lost from the 

fuel’s production through the final point 

of use. (Laclede Gas, No. 59 at p. 4) 

As discussed in the direct final rule, 

Section 1802 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 directed DOE to contract a study 

with the National Academy of Science 

(NAS) to examine whether the goals of 

energy efficiency standards are best 

served by measurement of energy 

consumed, and efficiency 

improvements, at the actual point-of-use 

or through the use of the full-fuel-cycle, 

beginning at the source of energy 

production. (Pub. L. 109–58 (August 8, 

2005)). NAS appointed a committee on 

‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Measurement Approaches to Energy 

Efficiency Standards’’ to conduct the 

study, which was completed in May 

2009. The NAS committee noted that 

DOE uses what the committee referred 

to as ‘‘extended site’’ energy 

consumption to assess the impact of 

energy use on the economy, energy 

security, and environmental quality. 

The extended site measure of energy 

consumption includes the energy 

consumed during the generation, 

transmission, and distribution of 

electricity but, unlike the full-fuel-cycle 

measure, does not include the energy 

consumed in extracting, processing, and 

transporting primary fuels. A majority of 

the NAS committee concluded that 

extended site energy consumption 

understates the total energy consumed 

to make an appliance operational at the 

site. As a result, the NAS committee 

recommended that DOE consider 

shifting its analytical approach over 

time to use a full-fuel-cycle measure of 

energy consumption when assessing 

national and environmental impacts, 

especially with respect to the 

calculation of greenhouse gas emissions. 

In response to the NAS committee 

recommendations, DOE issued a Notice 

of Proposed Policy proposing to 

incorporate a full-fuel cycle analysis 

into the methods it uses to estimate the 

likely impacts of energy conservation 

standards on energy use and emissions. 

75 FR 51423 (August 20, 2010). 

Specifically, DOE proposed to use fullfuel-cycle (FFC) measures of energy and 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, rather 

than the primary (extended site) energy 

measures it currently uses. DOE recently 

published a final policy statement on 

these subjects (76 FR 51281, August 18, 

2011) and will take steps to begin 

implementing that policy in future 

rulemakings and other activities. 

4. Adverse Impacts 

Commenters stated that DOE did not 

consider the adverse comments 

consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). 

Specifically, commenters asserted that 

DOE was required to weigh adverse 

comments independent of other aspects 

of the direct final rule, except where the 

comments conflict with DOE’s analysis 

in the rule, to avoid what the 

commenters view as ad hoc and 

administratively inappropriate tradeoffs. Commenters also asserted that 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
52858 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

weighing the adverse comments against 

the benefits of the direct final rule was 

not authorized by EPCA. (AGA, No. 62 

at p. 4; APGA, No. 61 at p. 2) 

EPCA, in relevant part, authorizes 

DOE to adopt in a direct final rule 

jointly recommended energy 

conservation standards that are in 

accordance with the provisions of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). Not later than 120 days 

after issuance of the direct final rule, if 

one or more adverse comments or an 

alternative joint recommendation are 

received relating to the direct final rule, 

the Secretary is required to determine 

whether the comments or alternative 

recommendation may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable 

law. 

In the discussion that follows, DOE 

first explains its rationale for 

establishing the standards set forth in 

the direct final rule. DOE then explains 

the process for determining whether 

adverse comments received may 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal of the direct final rule and 

addresses commenters’ concerns about 

that process. 

As stated in the direct final rule, 

DOE’s determination as to whether the 

standards levels in a consensus 

agreement meet the requirements for 

adoption set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) 

is exactly the type of analysis DOE 

conducts whenever it considers 

potential energy conservation standards 

pursuant to EPCA. DOE applies the 

same principles to any consensus 

recommendations it may receive to 

satisfy its statutory obligation to ensure 

that any energy conservation standard 

that DOE adopts achieves the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and will result in 

significant conservation of energy. This 

analysis includes a determination of 

whether the benefits of the standard 

outweigh its burdens, considering, to 

the maximum extent practicable, the 

seven criteria set forth in EPCA. These 

factors include the economic impact on 

manufacturers and consumers, 

operating cost savings compared to any 

increase costs, energy savings, any 

lessening of utility, the impact of any 

lessening of competition, the need for 

national energy and water savings, and 

any other factors that the Secretary 

considers appropriate. For the reasons 

stated in the direct final rule, DOE 

stated that it considered submission of 

the Consensus Agreement as another 

such factor. Upon review, and for the 

reasons set forth in the direct final rule, 

the Secretary determined that the 

Consensus Agreement submitted for 

residential clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners comports with the 

standard-setting criteria set forth under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Accordingly, the 

consensus agreement levels, included as 

TSL 4 for both clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners, were adopted as the 

amended standard levels in the direct 

final rule. 

In considering whether any comment 

received on the direct final rule is 

sufficiently ‘‘adverse’’ such that it may 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal of the direct final rule and 

continuation of this rulemaking under 

the NOPR, DOE stated in the direct final 

rule that it is the substance, rather than 

the quantity, of comments that 

ultimately determines whether a direct 

final rule will be withdrawn. DOE also 

stated that it weighs the substance of 

any adverse comment(s) received 

against the anticipated benefits of the 

Consensus Agreement and the 

likelihood that further consideration of 

the comment(s) would change the 

results of the rulemaking. DOE noted 

that to the extent an adverse comment 

had been previously raised and 

addressed in the rulemaking 

proceeding, such a submission will not 

typically provide a basis for withdrawal 

of a direct final rule. DOE does not agree 

that adverse comments must be weighed 

independently of the benefits of the 

standards in the direct final rule. DOE 

notes that EPCA affords the Secretary 

significant discretion in determining 

whether adverse comments may provide 

a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

direct final rule. EPCA requires DOE to 

make its decision whether to withdraw 

the direct final rule ‘‘based on the 

rulemaking record relating to the direct 

final rule.’’ In addition, DOE believes 

that weighing the substance of any 

adverse comments against the benefits 

of the standards adopted in the direct 

final rule is authorized by, and 

completely consistent with, EPCA 

because EPCA requires DOE to make 

these same types of determinations, 

weighing factors as varied as impacts to 

consumers and manufacturers and the 

need of the nation for energy savings, 

when deciding whether a standard is 

economically justified. DOE also 

believes that analysis of the substance of 

the adverse comments to determine 

whether further consideration would 

lead to a change in the results of the 

rulemaking, as well as the consideration 

of comments already addressed as 

insufficient to justify withdrawal, is an 

appropriate exercise of the Secretary’s 

discretion and use of limited resources. 

DOE’s analysis of the adverse comments 

received is provided throughout this 

section. 

5. Comment Period 

Commenters also suggested that DOE 

extend the comment period on the 

NOPR published simultaneous with the 

direct final rule. In the commenters’ 

view, DOE needs to deliberate on the 

comments advocating withdrawal before 

closing the comment period on the 

NOPR so that stakeholders are aware of 

the rulemaking path DOE is pursuing. 

Commenters also noted that there is no 

requirement for the comment periods to 

have the same end date, and that 

withdrawal of the direct final rule may 

generate unique information for 

stakeholders to inform their comments 

on the NOPR. (AGA, No. 62 at p. 5; 

APGA, No. 61 at p. 3) 

DOE is required by 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4) to publish a NOPR proposing 

standards identical to those set forth in 

the direct final rule simultaneously with 

the direct final rule. DOE published the 

direct final rule and corresponding 

NOPR on April 21, 2011. (76 FR 22324 

(NOPR); 76 FR 22454 (direct final rule)) 

DOE is not required to provide for 

identical comments periods on the 

NOPR and direct final rule. DOE 

typically provides for a 60-day comment 

period on an energy conservation 

standards NOPR. For the NOPR 

proposing energy conservation 

standards for residential clothes dryers 

and room air conditioners, however, 

DOE provided for a longer comment 

period to match the 110-day comment 

period provided for the direct final rule. 

DOE believed that an earlier closing 

date could be confusing to commenters 

and was not warranted given that the 

direct final rule provided for a 110-day 

comment period. DOE does not believe 

that further extension of the comment 

period on the NOPR is necessary. The 

time provided for DOE to deliberate on 

whether to withdraw the direct final 

rule is specified in EPCA, which states 

that not later than 120 days after 

publication of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register (i.e., 10 days after the 

close of the comment period), DOE must 

withdraw the direct final rule if it 

receives one or more adverse comments 

that may provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal. In addition, the standards 

proposed in the NOPR are identical to 

those set forth in the direct final rule, 

and in the event DOE determines that 

withdrawal is warranted, EPCA requires 

DOE to proceed with the simultaneously 

published NOPR. DOE’s path in the 

event of withdrawal is therefore known 

when the direct final rule and NOPR are 

published—DOE considers the 

comments received and determines 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52859 

whether to issue amended standards in 

a final rule. Because the standards 

proposed in the NOPR, and the analyses 

by which those standards were 

developed, are identical to those in the 

direct final rule, DOE would not expect 

that withdrawal would generate unique 

information to inform stakeholders’ 

comments on the NOPR. 

B. Comments on Standards for Clothes 

Dryers 

1. Consumer Benefits and Economic 

Justification 

AGA, APGA, and AGL stated that the 

results of DOE’s consumer impact 

analysis do not provide sufficient 

economic justification for TSL 4 for gas 

clothes dryers. They stated that the 

average life-cycle cost (LCC) benefit of 

$2 is highly questionable as a positive 

economic justification, and that at TSL 

4 more consumers would experience a 

net cost than would experience an LCC 

benefit. They also stated that the mean 

payback period for TSL 4 is much 

longer than the median payback period 

reported in the direct final rule. (AGA, 

No. 62 at p. 2; AGL, No. 63 at p. 2; 

APGA, No. 61 at pp. 1–2) 

DOE reports median payback period 

because it is a better indicator of 

consumer impacts than mean payback 

period, which can be skewed by a small 

number of consumers with a larger 

payback period. For gas clothes dryers 

at TSL 4, the average LCC savings are 

estimated at $2. Sixty-eight percent of 

consumers will experience either a net 

benefit or no cost (i.e., LCC decrease or 

no change in LCC) in 2014, while 

approximately one-third of consumers 

would experience a net cost (i.e., LCC 

increase) in 2014. DOE considered these 

LCC impacts in the direct final rule in 

its analysis of the seven factors that 

EPCA directs DOE to evaluate in 

determining whether a potential energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). In 

the direct final rule, DOE concluded 

that at TSL 4 for residential clothes 

dryers, the benefits of energy savings, 

generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions, and positive NPV of 

consumer benefits outweigh the 

economic burden on some consumers 

due to the increases in product cost and 

the profit margin impacts that could 

result in a reduction in industry net 

present value for the manufacturers. 

Thus, the Secretary concluded that TSL 

4 offers the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

will result in the significant 

conservation of energy. 

AGA noted inconsistencies between 

DOE’s LCC analysis and its recalculated 

values using the same analytical tools 

that would change the LCC savings into 

a cost. AGA stated that without any 

changes to the user inputs or other 

variables, it ran the simulation with the 

Crystal Ball software and calculated a $7 

average LCC cost for gas dryers at TSL 

4, making the adopted standard for gas 

dryers not economically justifiable. 

(AGA, No. 62 at pp. 1–2) In reviewing 

the LCC spreadsheet for gas clothes 

dryers, DOE consistently reproduced the 

results for the gas dryers at TSL 4 as 

reported in the technical support 

document (TSD) (i.e., an average savings 

of $2) using MS Excel 2007 and Crystal 

Ball software version 7.3.2. (2009). The 

different outcome from AGA’s 

simulation runs could be due to 

different software versions, different 

initial settings for Crystal Ball, or other 

factors, though the information 

provided by AGA was insufficient for 

DOE to determine the cause of the 

differences. 

2. Fuel Choice and Fuel Switching 

Laclede Gas stated that because the 

direct final rule presents energy 

efficiency ratings for clothes dryers 

based on site energy, it misleads 

consumers into thinking that electric 

resistance heat is more efficient than the 

direct use of natural gas for clothes 

drying. (Laclede Gas, No. 59 at pp. 2– 

3) The units in which DOE expresses 

energy conservation standards for 

appliances are based on the definitions 

of ‘‘energy efficiency’’ and ‘‘energy use’’ 

provided by EPCA. The term ‘‘energy 

efficiency’’ means the ratio of the useful 

output of services from a consumer 

product to the energy use of such 

product, determined in accordance with 

applicable test procedures, and the term 

‘‘energy use’’ means the quantity of 

energy directly consumed by a 

consumer product at point of use, 

determined in accordance with test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4–5)) DOE 

acknowledges that the energy 

conservation standards in the direct 

final rule are higher for standard vented 

electric dryers than for vented gas 

dryers (3.73 CEF vs. 3.30 CEF, 

respectively), but DOE does not find it 

credible that this fact would lead 

consumers to thereby prefer electric 

dryers. While clothes dryers do not have 

EnergyGuide labels, any such label 

would feature the estimated annual 

operating cost, not the energy efficiency 

rating. The estimated average annual 

operating cost of a gas dryer meeting the 

amended standard is less than the 

similar cost for an electric dryer meeting 

the amended standard, so it is 

implausible to expect that the standards 

would lead consumers to prefer electric 

dryers over gas dryers. 

In a related comment, Laclede Gas 

stated that DOE ignored the potential for 

fuel switching from gas to electric 

clothes drying. (Laclede Gas, No. 59 at 

p. 4) DOE did not consider switching 

between gas and electric clothes dryers 

as a result of the standards because the 

average incremental cost of the 

standards for standard-size gas and 

electric clothes dryers is approximately 

the same ($13). Thus, DOE believes that 

the standards would be unlikely to 

induce fuel switching, particularly 

given the additional costs associated 

with such switching (e.g., the need to 

install a new dedicated electrical 

outlet). 

3. Energy Price Forecast 

AGA stated that DOE’s use of the 

Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2010 

Reference Case for energy prices underaccounts for the expansion of the U.S. 

natural gas resource base resulting from 

technological innovations for 

production of gas from tight shales. 

AGA recommended that DOE conduct 

its analysis using the AEO Low Growth 

price scenario. (AGA, No. 62 at p. 4) 

DOE traditionally uses the Reference 

Case forecast from the most recent AEO 

available at the time of the analysis for 

its default energy price forecast, and 

conducts sensitivity analysis using the 

Low Growth and High Growth Cases. 

For this rulemaking, the 2010 AEO was 

the most recent available forecast. 

4. Employment Impacts 

AGA, APGA, and Laclede Gas stated 

that DOE’s estimated range of impacts 

under TSL 4 for direct domestic 

employment in the manufacture of gas 

dryers indicates that job loss is the more 

likely outcome of the standards. (AGA, 

No. 62 at pp. 2–3; APGA, No. 61 at p. 

1; Laclede Gas, No. 59 at p. 4) 

The results for clothes dryers under 

TSL 4 in the direct final rule show 

impacts ranging from a gain of 460 jobs 

to a potential loss of 3,962 jobs. The 

potential loss reflects a scenario in 

which all existing production would be 

moved outside of the United States. 

DOE believes that this outcome is 

unlikely for the reasons stated in the 

direct final rule. Specifically, at TSL 3 

through TSL 5, DOE analyzed design 

options for the most common clothes 

dryer product classes that would add 

labor content to the final product. If 

manufacturers continue to produce 

these more complex products in-house, 

it is likely that employment would 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
52860 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

4http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ 

Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-ExecutiveDepartments-and-Agencies-3-9-09/. 

5 DOE has submitted its draft policy to OSTP. See 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/11/

scientific-integrity-policies-submitted-ostp. 

increase in response to the amended 

energy conservation standards. At TSL 3 

through TSL 5, gains in domestic 

production employment are likely 

because, while requiring more labor, the 

necessary changes could be made 

within existing product platforms. The 

ability to make product changes within 

existing platforms mitigates some of the 

pressure to find lower labor costs, as 

relocating manufacturing facilities 

would disrupt production and add 

significant capital costs. 

5. Scientific Integrity 

Laclede Gas stated that the energy 

factors established for clothes dryers do 

not fulfill the scientific integrity 

objectives established by the President’s 

Memorandum on scientific integrity, 

published on May 9, 2009,4 and that 

there is no scientific integrity in 

mandating standards that unfairly 

discriminate against the direct use of 

natural gas. (Laclede Gas, No. 59 at 

p. 2) 

DOE notes that the President’s memo 

requires the Director of the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) 

to develop recommendations for 

Presidential action designed to 

guarantee scientific integrity throughout 

the executive branch based on the 

principles enumerated in the 

memorandum. DOE further notes that 

OSTP issued a memorandum to the 

heads of executive departments and 

agencies on December 17, 2010 

pursuant to the President’s May 9, 2009 

memorandum (http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ 

microsites/ostp/scientific-integritymemo-12172010.pdf). The 

memorandum provides guidance to 

agencies to implement the 

Administration’s policies on scientific 

integrity. The OSTP memo stated that 

agencies should develop policies 5 that, 

among other things, strengthen the 

actual and perceived credibility of 

Government research, which would 

include ensuring that data and research 

used to support policy decisions 

undergo independent peer review by 

qualified experts, where feasible and 

appropriate. Agency policies should 

also, among other things, establish 

principles for conveying scientific and 

technological information to the public. 

As stated in the direct final rule, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

DOE also makes its analyses and results 

available to the public in the TSD 

developed for its energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. The TSD for the 

direct final rule to establish energy 

conservation standards for residential 

clothes dryers and room air conditioners 

is available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

residential_clothes_dryers_room_

ac_direct_final_rule_tsd.html. 

DOE further notes that both 

memoranda state explicitly that they are 

not intended to create any right or 

benefit, substantive or procedural, 

enforceable at law or in equity, by any 

party against the United States, its 

departments, agencies, or entities, its 

officers, employees, agents or any other 

person. 

Lastly, DOE disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that the amended 

standards for clothes dryers unfairly 

discriminate against the direct use of 

natural gas. As discussed in section 

II.B.2 of this notice, DOE finds no 

reason to expect that the standards will 

cause consumers to prefer electric 

dryers over gas clothes dryers. 

III. Other Comments on the Direct Final 

Rule 

A. Standby Power Levels 

AHAM commented that the energy 

conservation standards for residential 

clothes dryers adopted in the direct 

final rule incorporate 0.08 Watts (W) of 

standby power for the vented clothes 

dryer product classes. AHAM stated that 

this standby power level is low and 

requested that DOE provide additional 

information on how that level was 

determined. AHAM indicated that 

approximately 1–2 W of standby power 

is required to power electronic controls 

and provide consumers with the 

usability they expect. AHAM provided 

the example of the product’s central 

processing unit (CPU), which it stated 

must run while the product is not in 

active mode and that the touch pad 

must remain active. AHAM added that 

without those two elements a hard off 

switch would be required and, as a 

result, the consumer would be required 

to wait for the product to power up at 

the start of use. AHAM stated that 

consumers are not likely to accept such 

a wait time to turn on the product. 

(AHAM, No. 60 at p. 2) 

As noted in chapter 5 of the direct 

final rule TSD, the standby power levels 

for clothes dryers (including the 0.08 W 

standby power level) were developed 

based on DOE testing and reversing 

engineering analysis of products in its 

test sample. The 0.08 W standby power 

level corresponds to a clothes dryer 

with electronic controls that uses a 

conventional linear power supply, along 

with a transformerless power supply 

that enables the CPU to remain on at all 

times while disabling the main linear 

power supply whenever the clothes 

dryer is ‘‘asleep’’ (after periods of user 

inactivity). This power supply design, 

incorporated with a ‘‘soft’’ power 

pushbutton and triac to control power 

through the transformer, would provide 

just enough power through the 

transformerless power supply to 

maintain the microcontroller chip while 

the clothes dryer is not powered on. The 

control logic monitors the clothes dryer 

for key-presses, door openings, etc., and 

when user activity is detected, the logic 

activates the main linear power supply 

to power the remainder of the control 

board. DOE notes that this design option 

and standby power level was observed 

in DOE’s sample of units that were 

tested and reverse-engineered for the 

preliminary analyses. As a result, DOE 

believes that products incorporating this 

design option are currently available on 

the market and do not require a hard on/ 

off switch. In addition, DOE is unaware 

of any differences in the time required 

to power up the controls using this 

power supply design versus a 

conventional linear power supply or 

switch mode power supply that also 

power down the display after a period 

of user inactivity. For these reasons, 

DOE believes that the standby power 

level analyzed and adopted in the direct 

final rule for vented dryer product 

classes is appropriate. 

AHAM also commented that DOE did 

not indicate what standby power levels 

were incorporated into the energy 

conservation standards adopted in the 

direct final rule for room air 

conditioners. As a result, AHAM stated 

it was unable to comment on the 

appropriateness of the adopted standard 

levels. (AHAM, No. 60 at p. 2) DOE has 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52861 

provided additional information on the 

standby power levels incorporated into 

the standards adopted in the direct final 

rule for room air conditioners that can 

be found on the DOE Web site at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/

room_ac_efficiency_level_

standby_table.pdf. 

B. Test Procedure 

The same parties that submitted the 

Joint Petition also submitted a separate 

comment (Joint Comment) which 

supported the final adoption of the 

standards in the direct final rule, but 

also noted that DOE’s revised clothes 

dryer test procedure that published in 

January 2011 did not incorporate their 

recommendations to amend the test 

procedure to better account for the 

effectiveness of automatic termination 

controls. 76 FR 972 (Jan. 6, 2011) As 

part of this recommendation, the Joint 

Comment stated that DOE should revise 

its test procedure to measure the energy 

use of automatic termination controls so 

that the procedure includes the entire 

cycle, including the cool-down period. 

The Joint Comment stated that it intends 

to submit new data gathered by 

manufacturers along with a petition 

requesting a revision to the DOE test 

procedure to account for the 

effectiveness of automatic termination 

controls and include the full cycle, 

including cool-down. The petition will 

also request a parallel revision to the 

energy conservation standard to reflect 

the test procedure change, as required 

by EPCA. The Joint Comment added 

that amending the test procedure to 

capture the energy use of the entire 

dryer cycle could save significant 

amounts of energy over 30 years and 

urged DOE to act upon their upcoming 

petition as soon as possible. (Joint 

Comment, No. 64 at p. 1) 

As noted in the clothes dryer test 

procedure request for information (RFI) 

notice issued on August 9, 2011 and 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 12, 2011 (76 FR 50145–48), DOE 

has initiated a new test procedure 

rulemaking for clothes dryers to further 

investigate the effects of automatic cycle 

termination on the energy efficiency. In 

the RFI, DOE stated that it seeks 

information, data, and comments 

regarding methods for more accurately 

measuring the effects of automatic cycle 

termination in its clothes dryer test 

procedure. In particular, DOE seeks 

information, data, and comments on the 

following topics as they relate to 

automatic cycle termination: test load 

characteristics, accuracy of different 

automatic cycle termination sensors and 

controls, conditions of water used to 

wet the dryer test load, and automatic 

termination cycle settings to be tested. 

C. Equipment Price Forecasting 

AHAM expressed concern regarding 

the use of experience curves in 

equipment price forecasting. It stated 

that using experience curves (1) Does 

not make the analysis more accurate; (2) 

gives the appearance, but not the reality, 

of a more objective analysis; (3) hides 

the subjectivity in the data selection 

process rather than in the analysis itself; 

and (4) has no material effect on the 

ordering of the conclusions. (AHAM, 

No. 60 at p. 2) As discussed in section 

IV.F.1 of the direct final rule, DOE 

evaluated the above concerns (and those 

expressed by other commenters on the 

NODA) and determined that retaining 

the assumption-based approach of a 

constant real price trend was not 

consistent with the historical data for 

the products covered in this rule. 

Instead, consistent with the method 

proposed in the NODA, DOE used 

experience curve fits to forecast product 

costs. To evaluate the impact of the 

uncertainty of the price trend estimates, 

DOE performed price trend sensitivity 

calculations in the national impact 

analysis to examine the dependence of 

the analysis results on different 

analytical assumptions. DOE found that 

for the selected standard levels the 

benefits outweighed the burdens under 

all scenarios. DOE notes that it may 

modify its price trend forecasting 

methods as more data and information 

becomes available. 

D. Indirect Environmental Impacts 

AHAM stated that, to understand the 

total environmental impact, DOE’s 

analysis should also consider indirect 

CO2 emissions, such as increased carbon 

emissions required to manufacture a 

product at a given standard level, 

increased transportation and related 

emissions, and reduced carbon 

emissions from peak load reductions. 

(AHAM, No. 60 at p. 2) As discussed in 

section II.A.3, DOE is evaluating the 

full-fuel-cycle measure, which includes 

the energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

fuels. DOE’s current accounting of 

primary energy savings and the fullfuel-cycle measure are directly linked to 

the energy used by appliances or 

equipment. DOE believes that energy 

used in the manufacture or transport of 

appliances or equipment falls outside 

the boundaries of ‘‘directly’’ as intended 

by EPCA. Thus, DOE did not consider 

such energy use in the national impact 

analysis. DOE did not include the 

emissions associated with such energy 

use for the same reason. 

E. Other Comments 

DOE received one comment from a 

private citizen generally supporting the 

standards in the direct final rule. 

IV. Department of Justice Analysis of 

Competitive Impacts 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from new or amended standards. 

It also directs the Attorney General of 

the United States (Attorney General) to 

determine the impact, if any, of any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard and to 

transmit such determination to the 

Secretary within 60 days of the 

publication of a proposed rule, together 

with an analysis of the nature and 

extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE 

published a NOPR containing energy 

conservation standards identical to 

those set forth the direct final rule and 

transmitted a copy of the direct final 

rule and the accompanying TSD to the 

Attorney General, requesting that the 

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 

provide its determination on this issue. 

DOE has published DOJ’s comments at 

the end of this notice. 

DOJ reviewed the amended standards 

in the direct final rule and the final TSD 

provided by DOE, and also conducted 

interviews with industry members. As a 

result of its analysis, DOJ concluded 

that the amended standards issued in 

the direct final rule are unlikely to have 

a significant adverse impact on 

competition. DOJ further noted that the 

amended standards established in the 

direct final rule were the same as 

recommended standards submitted in 

the Joint Petition signed by industry 

participants who believed they could 

meet the standards (as well as other 

interested parties). 

V. Amended Compliance Dates 

In the direct final rule and 

corresponding NOPR published in the 

Federal Register on April 21, 2011, DOE 

provided for a compliance date for the 

amended energy conservation standards 

for residential clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners of 3 years after the date 

of publication, or April 21, 2014. The 

standards set forth in the direct final 

rule and NOPR were consistent with the 

Consensus Agreement that served as the 

basis for those rulemaking actions. The 

Consensus Agreement also provided 

specific compliance dates for both 

products—June 1, 2014 for room air 

conditioners and January 1, 2015 for 

clothes dryers. The compliance date of 

the direct final rule and NOPR did not 

correspond with the compliance dates 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
52862 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

6 DOE stated erroneously in the direct final rule 

published on April 21, 2011 that the FONSI had 

been issued at that time. This document corrects 

that statement. 

specified in Consensus Agreement. As a 

result, DOE proposed to amend the 

compliance dates set forth in the direct 

final rule and corresponding NOPR to 

be consistent with the compliance dates 

set out in the consensus agreement. DOE 

received comments in support of the 

amended compliance dates and did not 

receive any comments objecting to those 

amended dates. In a final rule published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

DOE adopts the compliance dates for 

the standards established in the direct 

final specified in the Consensus 

Agreement—June 1, 2014 for room air 

conditioners and January 1, 2015 for 

clothes dryers. 

VI. National Environmental Policy Act 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the 

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI), DOE prepared an 

environmental assessment (EA) of the 

impacts of the standards for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners in the 

direct final rule, which was included as 

chapter 15 of the direct final rule TSD. 

DOE found that the environmental 

effects associated with the standards for 

clothes dryers and room air conditioners 

were not significant. Therefore, after 

consideration of the comments received 

on the direct final rule, DOE issued a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) pursuant to NEPA, the 

regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for 

compliance with NEPA (10 CFR part 

1021). The FONSI is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking and at: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

fonsi.pdf.6

VII. Conclusion 

In summary, based on the discussion 

above, DOE has determined that the 

comments received in response to the 

direct final rule for amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

clothes dryers and room air conditioners 

do not provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal of the direct final rule. As 

a result, the amended energy 

conservation standards set forth in the 

direct final rule were effective on 

August 19, 2011. Pursuant to the 

document published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register, compliance 

with these standards is required on June 

1, 2014 for room air conditioners and on 

January 1, 2015 for clothes dryers. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, 

2011. 

Timothy Unruh, 

Program Manager, Federal Energy 

Management Program, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21640 Filed 8–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

19 CFR Part 159 

[USCBP–2010–0008;–CBP Dec. 11—17] 

RIN 1515–AD67 (formerly RIN 1505–AC21) 

Courtesy Notice of Liquidation; 

Correction 

AGENCIES: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security; Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) published in the 

Federal Register of August 17, 2011, a 

final rule concerning the 

discontinuation of electronic courtesy 

notices of liquidation to importers of 

record whose entry summaries are filed 

in the Automated Broker Interface 

(‘‘ABI’’). In the preamble of the final 

rule document, CBP made a 

misstatement in a comment response 

regarding the availability to an importer 

of an Importer Trade Activity (ITRAC) 

report—a historical report on all of an 

importer’s importation activity over a 

set time period. CBP incorrectly stated 

that C–TPAT members may receive 

ITRAC reports for free. This document 

corrects the August 17, 2011 document 

to reflect that the Importer SelfAssessment (‘‘ISA’’) members, rather 

than C–TPAT members, receive free 

ITRAC reports. 

DATES: This correction is effective 

August 24, 2011. The final rule is 

effective September 30, 2011. The 

implementation date will be the first 

day on or after September 30, 2011, that 

CBP can provide importers with 

complete liquidation reports, including 

liquidation dates, electronically through 

the ACE Portal. CBP will confirm the 

date of implementation through 

electronic notification (see CBP.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurie Dempsey, Trade Policy and 

Programs, Office of International Trade, 

Customs and Border Protection, 202– 

863–6509. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 

In the Federal Register issue of 

Wednesday, August 17, 2011, in FR 

Doc. 2011–20957, please make the 

following two corrections: 

1. On page 50883, in the third 

column, please remove in the heading of 

the document ‘‘[USCBP–2010–0008; BP 

Dec. 11–17]’’ and add in its place 

‘‘[USCBP–2010–0008; CBP Dec. 11– 

17]’’; 

2. On page 50886, in the second 

column, the last sentence of the second 

full paragraph, please remove the term 

‘‘a C–TPAT member’’ and add in its 

place the term ‘‘an Importer SelfAssessment (‘‘ISA’’) member’’. 

Dated: August 19, 2011. 

Joanne Roman Stump, 

Acting Director, Regulations and Disclosure 

Law Division, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection. 

Heidi Cohen, 

Senior Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Office 

of the Assistant General Counsel for General 

Law, Ethics & Regulation, U.S. Department 

of the Treasury. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21620 Filed 8–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Parts 24, 25, 26, 40, 41, and 70 

[Docket No. TTB–2011–0001; T.D. TTB–94; 

Re: T.D. TTB–89; Notice No. 115; T.D. TTB– 

41; TTB Notice No. 56; T.D. ATF–365; and 

ATF Notice No. 813] 

RIN 1513–AB43 

Time for Payment of Certain Excise 

Taxes, and Quarterly Excise Tax 

Payments for Small Alcohol Excise 

Taxpayers 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau (TTB) is adopting, as 

a final rule, regulations contained in a 

temporary rule pertaining to the 

semimonthly payments of excise tax on 

distilled spirits, wine, beer, tobacco 

products, and cigarette papers and 

tubes, and pertaining to the quarterly 

payment of alcohol excise tax by small 

taxpayers. This final rule action does 

not include those regulations contained 

in the temporary rule pertaining to part 

19 of the TTB regulations, which were 

adopted as a final rule in a separate 

regulatory initiative. 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES