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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

22324 

Vol. 76, No. 77 

Thursday, April 21, 2011 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A. 

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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes 

energy conservation standards for 

various consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including residential clothes dryers and 

room air conditioners. EPCA also 

requires the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) to determine if amended 

standards for these products are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. In this 

proposed rule, DOE proposes energy 

efficiency standards for residential 

clothes dryers and room air conditioners 

identical to those set forth in a direct 

final rule published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register. If DOE 

receives adverse comment and 

determines that such comment may 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawing the direct final rule, DOE 

will publish a notice withdrawing the 

final rule and will proceed with this 

proposed rule. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding the proposed 

standards no later than August 9, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: See section III, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for details. If DOE 

withdraws the direct final rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register, DOE will hold a public 

meeting to allow for additional 

comment on this proposed rule. DOE 

will publish notice of any meeting in 

the Federal Register. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the proposed rule for Energy 

Conservation Standards for Residential 

Clothes Dryers and Room Air 

Conditioners, and provide docket 

number EERE–2007–BT–STD–0010 

and/or regulatory information number 

(RIN) number 1904–AA89. Comments 

may be submitted using any of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: home_

appliance2.rulemaking@ee.doe.gov. 

Include the docket number and/or RIN 

in the subject line of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD. It is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

For detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see section 

III of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: 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 on how to 

submit or review public comments or 

view hard copies of the docket in the 

Resource Room, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or e-mail: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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, (202) 

586–7463, e-mail: stephen.witkowski@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, 

(202) 586–7796, e-mail: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction and Legal Authority 

II. Proposed Standards 

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Clothes Dryers 

B. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Room Air Conditioners 

C. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Standards 

III. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Public Meeting 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Introduction and Legal Authority 

Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety 

of provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency. Part B of title III (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products other than 

Automobiles.1 The program covers 

consumer products and certain 

commercial equipment (referred to 

hereafter as ‘‘covered products’’), 

including clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(2) and 

(8)), and EPCA prescribes energy 

conservation standards for certain 

clothes dryers (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(3)) and 

for room air conditioners (42 U.S.C. 

6295(c)(1)). EPCA further directs DOE to 

conduct two cycles of rulemakings to 

determine whether to amend these 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(2) and 

(g)(4)) This rulemaking represents the 

second round of amendments to both 

the clothes dryer and room air 

conditioner standards. 

DOE notes that this rulemaking is one 

of the required agency actions in the 

consolidated Consent Decree in State of 

New York, et al. v. Bodman et al., 05 

Civ. 7807 (LAP), and Natural Resources 

Defense Council, et al. v. Bodman, et al., 

05 Civ. 7808 (LAP), DOE is required to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 22325 

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

Comment 35. 

complete a final rule for amended 

energy conservation standards for room 

air conditioners and clothes dryers that 

must be sent to the Federal Register by 

June 30, 2011. 

The Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. 

L. 110–140) amended EPCA, in relevant 

part, to grant DOE authority to issue a 

final rule (hereinafter referred to as a 

‘‘direct final rule’’) establishing an 

energy conservation standard for a 

covered product 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, that 

contains recommendations with respect 

to an energy conservation standard that 

are in accordance with the provisions of 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o). EPCA also requires 

that a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR) that proposes an identical 

energy efficiency standard be published 

simultaneously with the direct final 

rule, and DOE must provide a public 

comment period of at least 110 days on 

this proposal. (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 law. If the Secretary 

makes such a determination, DOE must 

withdraw the direct final rule and 

proceed with the simultaneously 

published notice of proposed 

rulemaking. DOE must also publish in 

the Federal Register the reason why the 

direct final rule was withdrawn. Id. 

In response to the preliminary 

analysis conducted during DOE’s 

consideration of amended standards for 

room air conditioners and clothes 

dryers, 75 FR 7987 (Feb. 23, 2010), DOE 

received the ‘‘Agreement on Minimum 

Federal Efficiency Standards, Smart 

Appliances, Federal Incentives and 

Related Matters for Specified 

Appliances’’ (hereinafter, the ‘‘Joint 

Petition’’) 2, 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’’). 

The Joint Petitioners recommended 

specific energy conservation standards 

for residential clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners that they believed 

would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 

DOE has considered the 

recommended energy conservation 

standards and believes that they meet 

the EPCA requirements for issuance of 

a direct final rule. As a result, DOE has 

published a direct final rule establishing 

energy conservation standards for 

clothes dryers and room air conditioners 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. If 

DOE receives adverse comments that 

may provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal and withdraws the direct 

final rule, DOE will consider those 

comments and any other comments 

received in determining how to proceed 

with today’s proposed rule. 

For further background information 

on these proposed standards and the 

supporting analyses, please see the 

direct final rule published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register. That 

document includes additional 

discussion on the EPCA requirements 

for promulgation of energy conservation 

standards, the current standards for 

room air conditioners and clothes 

dryers, and the history of the standards 

rulemakings establishing such 

standards, as well as information on the 

test procedures used to measure the 

energy efficiency of clothes dryers and 

room air conditioners. The document 

also contains an in-depth discussion of 

the analyses conducted in support of 

this rulemaking, the methodologies DOE 

used in conducting those analyses, and 

the analytical results. 

II. Proposed Standards 

When considering proposed 

standards, the new or amended energy 

conservation standard that DOE adopts 

for any type (or class) of covered 

product shall be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, DOE 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens to the 

greatest extent practicable, in light of 

the seven statutory factors set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The 

new or amended standard must also 

result in a significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

The Department considered the 

impacts of standards at each trial 

standard level considered by DOE, 

beginning with maximum 

technologically feasible level, to 

determine whether that level was 

economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not economically 

justified, DOE then considered the next 

most efficient level and undertook the 

same evaluation until it reached the 

highest efficiency level that is both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and burdens of each trial 

standard level, DOE has included tables 

that present a summary of the results of 

DOE’s quantitative analysis for each 

trial standard level (TSL). In addition to 

the quantitative results presented in the 

tables, DOE also considers other 

burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification. These include 

the impacts on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers, such as low-income 

households and seniors, who may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard. Section V.B.1 of the direct 

final rule published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register presents the 

estimated impacts of each TSL for these 

subgroups. 

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Clothes Dryers 

Table II.1 and Table II.2 present a 

summary of the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for clothes 

dryers. The efficiency levels contained 

in each TSL are described in section 

V.A of the direct final rule. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
22326 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CLOTHES DRYER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

National Energy Savings (quads) .......... 0.00 0.062 0.37 0.39 1.45 3.14 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion): 

3% discount rate ............................. 0.00 0.62 3.00 3.01 0.22 (1.53) 

7% discount rate ............................. 0.01 0.25 1.10 1.08 (2.60) (6.72) 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction: 

CO2 (million metric tons) ................ 0.119 2.99 17.75 18.67 70.47 186.6 

NOX (thousand tons) ...................... 0.097 2.41 14.26 15.14 57.26 151.3 

Hg (ton) ........................................... 0.000 0.009 0.053 0.051 0.188 0.569 

Value of Emissions Reduction: 

CO2 (2009$ million) * ...................... 1 to 10 15 to 239 88 to 1,417 93 to 1,490 351 to 5,626 929 to 14,902 

NOX—3% discount rate (2009 million) .............................................. 0.031 to 0.314 0.759 to 7.8 4.49 to 46.2 4.77 to 49.0 18.0 to 185 47.6 to 490 

NOX—7% discount rate (2009$ million) .............................................. 0.013 to 0.136 0.328 to 3.37 1.94 to 20.0 2.06 to 21.2 7.8 to 80.2 20.6 to 212 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) ** 0.002 0.060 0.358 0.345 1.27 2.27 

Employment Impacts: 

Total Potential Change in Domestic 

Production Workers in 2014 

(thousands) ................................. 0.00 to (3.96) 0.00 to (3.96) 0.41 to (3.96) 0.46 to (3.96) 1.08 to (3.96) 2.26 to (3.96) 

Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) ** ... 0.01 0.01 1.82 1.75 4.25 9.30 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

** Changes in 2043. 

TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CLOTHES DRYER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: CONSUMER AND MANUFACTURER

IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV (2009$ million) ................... (2.5) to (2.5) (3.6) to (4.9) (41.1) to (55.5) (64.5) to (80.6) (176.5) to 

(397.4) 

(303.9) to 

(730.0) 

Industry NPV (% change) ........................ (0.3) to (0.3) (0.4) to (0.5) (4.1) to (5.5) (6.4) to (8.0) (17.6) to (39.6) (30.3) to (72.7) 

Consumer Mean LCC Savings * (2009$) 

Electric Standard ...................................... $0 $2 $14 $14 ($30) ($146) 

Compact 120V ......................................... $0 $14 $14 $14 ($99) ($264) 

Compact 240V ......................................... $0 $8 $8 $8 ($99) ($246) 

Gas ........................................................... $0 $2 $2 $2 ($100) ($100) 

Ventless 240V .......................................... $0 $20 $20 $0 ($42) ($177) 

Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer ....... $0 $73 $73 $0 $73 ($166) 

Consumer Median PBP (years) ** 

Electric Standard ...................................... 3.9 0.2 5.3 5.3 19.1 22.1 

Compact 120V ......................................... n/a 0.9 0.9 0.9 36.1 40.1 

Compact 240V ......................................... 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 45.1 38.2 

Gas ........................................................... 2.2 0.5 0.5 11.7 49.5 49.5 

Ventless 240V .......................................... n/a 0.9 0.9 n/a 25.3 26.9 

Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer ....... n/a 5.3 5.3 n/a 5.3 22.4 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts 

Electric Standard: 

Net Cost (%) ..................................... 1% 0% 19% 19% 75% 81% 

No Impact (%) ................................... 98% 79% 25% 25% 1% 0% 

Net Benefit (%) ................................. 2% 21% 56% 56% 24% 19% 

Compact 120V: 

Net Cost (%) ..................................... 0% 4% 4% 4% 95% 95% 

No Impact (%) ................................... 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Net Benefit (%) ................................. 0% 96% 96% 96% 5% 5% 

Compact 240V: 

Net Cost (%) ..................................... 0% 2% 2% 2% 93% 95% 

No Impact (%) ................................... 100% 41% 41% 41% 4% 0% 

Net Benefit (%) ................................. 0% 56% 56% 56% 3% 5% 

Gas: 

Net Cost (%) ..................................... 1% 0% 0% 32% 95% 95% 

No Impact (%) ................................... 93% 85% 85% 42% 1% 1% 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 22327 

TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CLOTHES DRYER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: CONSUMER AND MANUFACTURER

IMPACTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Net Benefit (%) ................................. 7% 15% 15% 26% 4% 4% 

Ventless 240V: 

Net Cost (%) ..................................... 0% 0% 0% 0% 92% 88% 

No Impact (%) ................................... 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 

Net Benefit (%) ................................. 0% 100% 100% 0% 8% 12% 

Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer: 

Net Cost (%) ..................................... 0% 21% 21% 0% 21% 82% 

No Impact (%) ................................... 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 

Net Benefit (%) ................................. 0% 79% 79% 0% 79% 18% 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

** In some cases the standard level is the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and therefore calculation of a 

payback period is not applicable. 

DOE first considered TSL 6, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 6 would save 3.14 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be ¥$6.72 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and ¥$1.53 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 6 are 186.6 Mt of CO2, 151.3 

thousand tons of NOX, and 0.569 ton of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 6 

ranges from $929 million to $14,902 

million. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 2.27 

GW under TSL 6. 

At TSL 6, the average LCC impact is 

a cost (LCC increase) of $146 for electric 

standard clothes dryers, a cost of $264 

for 120V compact clothes dryers, a cost 

of $246 for 240V compact clothes 

dryers, a cost of $100 for gas clothes 

dryers, a cost of $177 for ventless 240V 

clothes dryers, and a cost of $166 for 

combination washer/dryers. The median 

payback period is 22.1 years for electric 

standard clothes dryers, 40.1 years for 

120V compact clothes dryers, 38.2 years 

for 240V compact clothes dryers, 49.5 

years for gas clothes dryers, 26.9 years 

for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 

22.4 years for combination washer/ 

dryers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 19 

percent for electric standard clothes 

dryers, 5 percent for 120V compact 

clothes dryers, 5 percent for 240V 

compact clothes dryers, 4 percent for 

gas clothes dryers, 12 percent for 

ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 18 

percent for combination washer/dryers. 

The fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC cost is 81 percent for electric 

standard clothes dryers, 95 percent for 

120V compact clothes dryers, 95 percent 

for 240V compact clothes dryers, 95 

percent for gas clothes dryers, 88 

percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers, 

and 82 percent for combination washer/ 

dryers. 

At TSL 6, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $303.9 

million to a decrease of $730.0 million. 

TSL 6 would effectively require heat 

pump clothes dryers for all electric 

clothes dryer product classes. Changing 

all electric models to use heat pump 

technology would be extremely 

disruptive to current manufacturing 

facilities and would require substantial 

product and capital conversion costs. In 

addition, the large cost increases would 

greatly harm manufacturer profitability 

if they were unable to earn additional 

operating profit on these additional 

costs. At TSL 6, DOE recognizes the risk 

of very large negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning 

reduced profit margins and large 

conversion costs are realized. If the high 

end of the range of impacts is reached 

as DOE expects, TSL 6 could result in 

a net loss of 72.6 percent in INPV to 

clothes dryer manufacturers. 

DOE concludes that at TSL 6 for 

residential clothes dryers, the benefits of 

energy savings, generating capacity 

reductions, emission reductions, and 

the estimated monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the negative NPV of 

consumer benefits, the economic burden 

on a significant fraction of consumers 

due to the large increases in product 

cost, and the conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

very large reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 6 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE next considered TSL 5. TSL 5 

would save 1.45 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be ¥$2.60 billion, using 

a discount rate of 7 percent, and $0.22 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 70.47 Mt of CO2, 57.26 

thousand tons of NOX, and 0.188 tons of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 5 

ranges from $351 million to $5,626 

million. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.27 

GW under TSL 5. 

At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is 

a cost (LCC increase) of $30 for electric 

standard clothes dryers, a cost of $99 for 

120V compact clothes dryers, a cost of 

$99 for 240V compact clothes dryers, a 

cost of $100 for gas clothes dryers, a cost 

of $42 for ventless 240V clothes dryers, 

and a savings of $73 for combination 

washer/dryers. The median payback 

period is 19.1 years for electric standard 

clothes dryers, 36.1 years for 120V 

compact clothes dryers, 45.1 years for 

240V compact clothes dryers, 49.5 years 

for gas clothes dryers, 25.3 years for 

ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 5.3 

years for combination washer/dryers. 

The fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC benefit is 24 percent for electric 

standard clothes dryers, 5 percent for 

120V compact clothes dryers, 3 percent 

for 240V compact clothes dryers, 4 

percent for gas clothes dryers, 8 percent 

for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 79 

percent for combination washer/dryers. 

The fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC cost is 75 percent for electric 

standard clothes dryers, 95 percent for 

120V compact clothes dryers, 93 percent 

for 240V compact clothes dryers, 95 

percent for gas clothes dryers, 92 

percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers, 

and 21 percent for combination washer/ 

dryers. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $176.5 

million to a decrease of $397.4 million. 

While most changes at TSL 5 could be 

made within existing product design, 

redesigning units to the most efficient 

technologies on the market today would 

take considerable capital and product 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
22328 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3For these product classes, the efficiency level at 

TSL 4 is the same as the baseline efficiency level, 

so no consumers are impacted and therefore 

calculation of a payback period is not applicable. 

conversion costs. At TSL 5, DOE 

recognizes the risk of very large negative 

impacts if manufacturers are not able to 

earn additional operating profit from the 

additional production costs to reach 

TSL 5. If the high end of the range of 

impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 

5 could result in a net loss of 39.6 

percent in INPV to clothes dryer 

manufacturers. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

5 for residential clothes dryers, the 

benefits of energy savings, generating 

capacity reductions, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reductions 

would be outweighed by the negative 

NPV of consumer benefits, the economic 

burden on a significant fraction of 

consumers due to the large increases in 

product cost, and the conversion costs 

and profit margin impacts that could 

result in a large reduction in INPV for 

the manufacturers. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 

would save 0.39 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $1.08 billion, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $3.01 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 18.67 Mt of CO2, 15.14 

thousand tons of NOX, and 0.051 ton of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4 

ranges from $93 million to $1,490 

million. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.345 

GW under TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, DOE projects that the 

average LCC impact is a savings (LCC 

decrease) of $14 for electric standard 

clothes dryers, a savings of $14 for 

120Vcompact clothes dryers, a savings 

of $8 for 240V compact clothes dryers, 

a savings of $2 for gas clothes dryers, 

and no change for ventless 240V clothes 

dryers and combination washer/dryers. 

The median payback period is 5.3 years 

for electric standard clothes dryers, 0.9 

years for 120V compact clothes dryers, 

0.9 years for 240V compact clothes 

dryers, 11.7 years for gas clothes dryers, 

and is not applicable for ventless 240V 

clothes dryers and combination washer/ 

dryers.3 The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 56 

percent for electric standard clothes 

dryers, 96 percent for 120V compact 

clothes dryers, 56 percent for 240V 

compact clothes dryers, 26 percent for 

gas clothes dryers, zero percent for 

ventless 240V clothes dryers, and zero 

percent for combination washer/dryers. 

The fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC cost is 19 percent for electric 

standard clothes dryers, 4 percent for 

120V compact clothes dryers, 2 percent 

for 240V compact clothes dryers, 32 

percent for gas clothes dryers, zero 

percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers, 

and zero percent for combination 

washer/dryers. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $64.5 

million to a decrease of $80.6 million. 

The design changes required at TSL 4 

for the most common standard-size gas 

and electric products are incremental 

improvements that are well known in 

the industry but would still require 

moderate product and capital 

conversion costs to implement. At TSL 

4, DOE recognizes the risk of negative 

impacts if manufacturers’ expectations 

concerning reduced profit margins are 

realized. If the high end of the range of 

impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 

4 could result in a net loss of 8.0 percent 

in INPV to clothes dryer manufacturers. 

DOE concludes 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 INPV for the 

manufacturers. 

In addition, the efficiency levels in 

TSL 4 correspond to the recommended 

levels in the consensus agreement, 

which DOE believes sets forth a 

statement by interested persons that are 

fairly representative of relevant points 

of view (including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates) and 

contains recommendations with respect 

to an energy conservation standard that 

are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged 

the submission of consensus agreements 

as a way to get diverse stakeholders 

together, to develop an independent and 

probative analysis useful in DOE 

standard setting, and to expedite the 

rulemaking process. DOE also believes 

that standard levels recommended in 

the consensus agreement may increase 

the likelihood for regulatory 

compliance, while decreasing the risk of 

litigation. 

After considering the analysis, 

comments on the preliminary TSD, and 

the benefits and burdens of TSL 4, DOE 

concludes that this trial standard level 

will offer the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

will result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE 

today adopts TSL 4 for clothes dryers. 

The proposed energy conservation 

standards for clothes dryers, expressed 

as combined energy factor (CEF) in 

pounds (lb) per kilowatt-hour (kWh), are 

shown in Table II.3. 

TABLE II.3—PROPOSED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CLOTHES DRYERS

Residential clothes dryers 

Product class 

Minimum CEF 

levels 

lb/kWh 

1. Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity) ............................................................................................................ 3.73 

2. Vented Electric, Compact (120 V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) ................................................................................................ 3.61 

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

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

5. Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) .............................................................................................. 2.55 

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


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 22329 

B. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Room Air Conditioners 

Table II.4 and Table II.5 present a 

summary of the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for room air 

conditioners. The efficiency levels 

contained in each TSL are described in 

section V.A of the direct final rule. 

TABLE II.4—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

National Energy Savings (quads) ............ 0.105 0.205 0.218 0.305 0.477 0.665 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion): 

3% discount rate ............................... 0.75 1.30 1.51 1.47 1.46 (5.62) 

7% discount rate ............................... 0.35 0.57 0.71 0.57 0.33 (4.44) 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction: 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................. 9.83 11.9 12.5 17.4 26.9 37.7 

NOX (thousand tons) ........................ 8.02 9.69 10.2 14.2 21.9 30.7 

Hg (ton) ............................................. 0.012 0.015 0.017 0.022 0.032 0.044 

Value of Emissions Reduction: 

CO2 (2009$ million) * ........................ 43 to 648 52 to 790 55 to 826 77 to 1164 118 to 1803 166 to 2541 

NOX—3% discount rate (2009$ million) ................................................ 2.34 to 24.0 2.83 to 29.1 2.99 to 30.7 4.16 to 42.7 6.40 to 65.8 8.96 to 92.1 

NOX—7% discount rate (2009$ million) ................................................ 1.25 to 12.9 1.50 to 15.4 1.61 to 16.6 2.2 to 22.6 3.35 to 34.4 4.64 to 47.7 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) ** .. 0.348 0.429 0.436 0.632 1.01 1.46 

Employment Impacts: 

Total Potential Changes in Domestic 

Production Workers in 2014 

(thousands) ................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Indirect Domestic Jobs 

(thousands) ** ................................ 0.74 0.73 0.74 1.16 1.94 3.07 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

** Changes in 2043. 

TABLE II.5—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: CONSUMER AND

MANUFACTURER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV (2009$ million) ................... (44.2) to (84.9) (65.4) to 

(112.7) 

(65.7) to 

(112.4) 

(111.3) to 

(177.6) 

(86.6) to 

(184.4) 

(80.2) to 

(344.5) 

Industry NPV (% change) ........................ (4.6) to (8.9) (6.8) to (11.8) (6.9) to (11.8) (11.6) to (18.6) (9.1) to (19.3) (8.4) to (36.0) 

Consumer Mean LCC Savings * (2009$) 

< 6,000 Btu/h, with Louvers ..................... $9 $11 $9 $7 $7 ($58) 

8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers ........... 16 16 22 22 22 (38) 

20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers ......... 6 6 0 6 0 (214) 

> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers ................... 1 1 0 1 0 (227) 

8,000–10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers ...... 4 4 13 13 20 (66) 

> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers .............. 5 5 11 11 11 (64) 

Consumer Median PBP (years) ** 

< 6,000 Btu/h, with Louvers ..................... 4.1 5.8 4.1 8.6 8.6 20.9 

8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers ........... 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.8 7.1 14.7 

20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers ......... 4.3 4.3 n/a 4.3 n/a 73.8 

> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers ................... 10.3 10.3 n/a 10.1 n/a 107.7 

8,000–10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers ...... 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.1 4.9 25.2 

> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers .............. 2.6 2.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 25.9 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts 

< 6,000 Btu/h, with Louvers: 

Net Cost (%) ..................................... 21% 33% 21% 65% 65% 90% 

No Impact (%) ................................... 31% 31% 31% 1% 1% 0% 

Net Benefit (%) ................................. 48% 37% 48% 34% 34% 10% 

8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers: 

Net Cost (%) ..................................... 9% 9% 34% 34% 56% 77% 

No Impact (%) ................................... 60% 60% 2% 2% 1% 0% 

Net Benefit (%) ................................. 30% 30% 64% 64% 43% 22% 

20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
22330 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II.5—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: CONSUMER AND

MANUFACTURER IMPACTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Net Cost (%) ..................................... 5% 5% 0% 5% 0% 98% 

No Impact (%) ................................... 85% 85% 0% 85% 0% 2% 

Net Benefit (%) ................................. 10% 10% 0% 10% 0% 0% 

> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers: 

Net Cost (%) ..................................... 11% 11% 0% 9% 0% 100% 

No Impact (%) ................................... 85% 85% 0% 88% 0% 0% 

Net Benefit (%) ................................. 4% 4% 0% 4% 0% 0% 

8,000–10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers: 

Net Cost (%) ..................................... 1% 1% 12% 12% 38% 92% 

No Impact (%) ................................... 90% 90% 25% 25% 6% 2% 

Net Benefit (%) ................................. 9% 9% 62% 62% 56% 6% 

> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers: 

Net Cost (%) ..................................... 2% 2% 23% 23% 23% 93% 

No Impact (%) ................................... 90% 90% 31% 31% 31% 0% 

Net Benefit (%) ................................. 8% 8% 47% 47% 47% 7% 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

** In some cases the standard level is the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and therefore calculation of a 

payback period is not applicable. 

DOE first considered TSL 6, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 6 would save 0.665 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be ¥$4.44 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and ¥$5.62 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 6 are 37.7 Mt of CO2, 30.7 

thousand tons of NOX, and 0.044 tons of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 6 

ranges from $166 million to $2,541 

million. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.46 

GW under TSL 6. 

At TSL 6, the average LCC impact is 

a cost (LCC increase) of $58 for room air 

conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with 

louvers; a cost of $38 for room air 

conditioners 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with 

louvers; a cost of $214 for room air 

conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with 

louvers; a cost of $227 for room air 

conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with 

louvers; a cost of $66 for room air 

conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h, 

without louvers; and a cost of $64 for 

room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, 

without louvers. The median payback 

period is 20.9 years for room air 

conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with 

louvers; 14.7 years for room air 

conditioners 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with 

louvers; 73.8 years for room air 

conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with 

louvers; 107.7 years for room air 

conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with 

louvers; 25.2 years for room air 

conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h, 

without louvers; and 25.9 years for room 

air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without 

louvers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 10 

percent for room air conditioners 

< 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 22 percent 

for room air conditioners 8,000–13,999 

Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for 

room air conditioners 20,000–24,999 

Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for 

room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, 

with louvers; 6 percent for room air 

conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h, 

without louvers; and 7 percent for room 

air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without 

louvers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 90 percent 

for room air conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, 

with louvers; 77 percent for room air 

conditioners 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with 

louvers; 98 percent for room air 

conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with 

louvers; 100 percent for room air 

conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with 

louvers; 92 percent for room air 

conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h, 

without louvers; and 93 percent for 

room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, 

without louvers. 

At TSL 6, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $80.2 

million to a decrease of $344.5 million. 

At TSL 6, DOE recognizes the risk of 

large negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit 

margins are realized. If the high end of 

the range of impacts is reached as DOE 

expects, TSL 6 could result in a net loss 

of 36.0 percent in INPV to room air 

conditioner manufacturers. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

6 for room air conditioners, the benefits 

of energy savings, generating capacity 

reductions, emission reductions, and 

the estimated monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the negative NPV of 

consumer benefits, the economic burden 

on a significant fraction of consumers 

due to the large increases in product 

cost, and the capital conversion costs 

and profit margin impacts that could 

result in a large reduction in INPV for 

the manufacturers. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 6 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE next considered TSL 5. TSL 5 

would save 0.477 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $0.33 billion, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.46 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 26.9 Mt of CO2, 21.9 

thousand tons of NOX, and 0.032 ton of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 5 

ranges from $118 million to $1,803 

million. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.01 

GW under TSL 5. 

At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is 

a savings (LCC decrease) of $7 for room 

air conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with 

louvers; a savings of $22 for room air 

conditioners 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with 

louvers; a savings of $0 for room air 

conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with 

louvers; a savings of $0 for room air 

conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with 

louvers; a savings of $20 for room air 

conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h, 

without louvers; and a savings of $11 for 

room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, 

without louvers. The median payback 

period is 8.6 years for room air 

conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with 

louvers; 7.1 years for room air 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 22331 

4 In these cases the standard level is the same as 

the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are 

impacted and therefore calculation of a payback 

period is not applicable. 

conditioners 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with 

louvers; not applicable for room air 

conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with 

louvers or for room air conditioners 

> 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 4 4.9 years 

for room air conditioners 8,000–10,999 

Btu/h, without louvers; and 3.7 years for 

room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, 

without louvers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 34 percent for room air conditioners 

< 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 43 percent 

for room air conditioners 8,000–13,999 

Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for 

room air conditioners 20,000–24,999 

Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for 

room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, 

with louvers; 56 percent for room air 

conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h, 

without louvers; and 47 percent for 

room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, 

without louvers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 

65 percent for room air conditioners 

< 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 56 percent 

for room air conditioners 8,000–13,999 

Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for 

room air conditioners 20,000–24,999 

Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for 

room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, 

with louvers; 38 percent for room air 

conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h, 

without louvers; and 23 percent for 

room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, 

without louvers. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $86.6 

million to a decrease of $184.4 million. 

At TSL 5, DOE recognizes the risk of 

moderately negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning 

reduced profit margins are realized. If 

the high end of the range of impacts is 

reached as DOE expects, TSL 5 could 

result in a net loss of 19.3 percent in 

INPV to room air conditioner 

manufacturers. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

5 for room air conditioners, the benefits 

of energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, generating capacity 

reductions, emission reductions, and 

the estimated monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the economic burden on 

a significant fraction of consumers in 

some product classes due to the large 

increases in product cost, and the 

capital conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

moderate reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers. In particular, the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 56 percent for room air 

conditioners with 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, 

with louvers, which is the product class 

with the largest market share. Based on 

the above findings, the Secretary has 

concluded that TSL 5 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 

would save 0.305 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $0.57 billion, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.47 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 17.4 Mt of CO2, 14.2 

thousand tons of NOX, and 0.022 ton of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4 

ranges from $77 million to $1,164 

million. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.632 

GW under TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, DOE projects that the 

average LCC impact is a savings (LCC 

decrease) of $7 for room air conditioners 

< 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of 

$22 for room air conditioners 8,000– 

13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of 

$6 for room air conditioners 20,000– 

24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of 

$1 for room air conditioners > 25,000 

Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of $13 for 

room air conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/ 

h, without louvers; and a savings of $11 

for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/ 

h, without louvers. The median payback 

period is 8.6 years for room air 

conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with 

louvers; 2.8 years for room air 

conditioners 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with 

louvers; 4.3 years for room air 

conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with 

louvers; 10.1 years for room air 

conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with 

louvers; 2.1 years for room air 

conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h, 

without louvers; and 3.7 years for room 

air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without 

louvers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 34 

percent for room air conditioners 

< 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 64 percent 

for room air conditioners 8,000–13,999 

Btu/h, with louvers; 10 percent for room 

air conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, 

with louvers; 4 percent for room air 

conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with 

louvers; 62 percent for room air 

conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h, 

without louvers; and 47 percent for 

room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, 

without louvers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 

65 percent for room air conditioners 

< 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 34 percent 

for room air conditioners 8,000–13,999 

Btu/h, with louvers; 5 percent for room 

air conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, 

with louvers; 9 percent for room air 

conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with 

louvers; 12 percent for room air 

conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h, 

without louvers; and 23 percent for 

room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, 

without louvers. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $111.3 

million to a decrease of $177.6 million. 

DOE recognizes the risk of moderately 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit 

margins are realized. If the high end of 

the range of impacts is reached as DOE 

expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss 

of 18.6 percent in INPV to room air 

conditioner manufacturers. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

4 for room air conditioners, the benefits 

of energy savings, generating capacity 

reductions, emission reductions and the 

estimated monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits and positive average 

consumer LCC savings outweigh the 

economic burden on some consumers (a 

significant fraction for one product class 

but small to moderate fractions for the 

other product classes) due to the 

increases in product cost, and the 

capital conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

moderate reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers. 

In addition, the efficiency levels in 

TSL 4 correspond to the recommended 

levels in the consensus agreement, 

which DOE believes sets forth a 

statement by interested persons that are 

fairly representative of relevant points 

of view (including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates) and 

contains recommendations with respect 

to an energy conservation standard that 

are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged 

the submission of consensus agreements 

as a way to get diverse stakeholders 

together, to develop an independent and 

probative analysis useful in DOE 

standard setting, and to expedite the 

rulemaking process. DOE also believes 

that standard levels recommended in 

the consensus agreement may increase 

the likelihood for regulatory 

compliance, while decreasing the risk of 

litigation. 

After considering the analysis, 

comments on the preliminary TSD, and 

the benefits and burdens of TSL 4, DOE 

concludes preliminarily that this trial 

standard level would offer the 

maximum improvement in efficiency 

that is technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in the significant conservation of 

energy. Therefore, DOE proposes to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
22332 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2011, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of three and seven percent for all costs and 

benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For 

the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 

shown in Table II.7. From the present value, DOE 

then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 

30-year period, starting in 2011, that yields the 

same present value. The fixed annual payment is 

the annualized value. Although DOE calculated 

annualized values, this does not imply that the 

time-series of costs and benefits from which the 

annualized values were determined would be a 

steady stream of payments. 

adopt TSL 4 for room air conditioners. 

The proposed energy conservation 

standards for room air conditioners, 

expressed as combined energy 

efficiency ratio (CEER) in Btu per watthour (Wh), are shown in Table II.6. 

TABLE II.6—PROPOSED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

Room air conditioners 

Product class 

Minimum CEER 

levels 

Btu/Wh 

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 

C. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Standards 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value, 

expressed in 2009$, of the benefits from 

operating products that meet the 

proposed standards (consisting 

primarily of operating cost savings from 

using less energy, minus increases in 

equipment purchase costs, which is 

another way of representing consumer 

NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the 

benefits of emission reductions, 

including CO2 emission reductions.5

The value of the CO2 reductions, 

otherwise known as the Social Cost of 

Carbon (SCC), is calculated using a 

range of values per metric ton of CO2

developed by a recent interagency 

process. The monetary costs and 

benefits of cumulative emissions 

reductions are reported in 2009$ to 

permit comparisons with the other costs 

and benefits in the same dollar units. 

Although combining the values of 

operating savings and CO2 reductions 

provides a useful perspective, two 

issues should be considered. First, the 

national operating savings are domestic 

U.S. consumer monetary savings that 

occur as a result of market transactions 

while the value of CO2 reductions is 

based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings 

and CO2 savings are performed with 

different methods that use quite 

different time frames for analysis. The 

national operating cost savings is 

measured for the lifetime of products 

shipped in 2014–2043. The SCC values, 

on the other hand, reflect the present 

value of future climate-related impacts 

resulting from the emission of one ton 

of carbon dioxide in each year. These 

impacts go well beyond 2100. 

Table II.7 and Table II.8 show the 

annualized values for clothes dryers and 

room air conditioners, respectively. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate and the 

SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 

2009$), the cost of the standards for 

clothes dryers in today’s rule is $52.3 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the annualized benefits are 

$139.1 million per year in reduced 

equipment operating costs, $25.0 

million in CO2 reductions, and $0.9 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$112.7 million per year. Using a 

3-percent discount rate and the SCC 

value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$), 

the cost of the standards for clothes 

dryers in today’s rule is $55.4 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the benefits are $209.1 million per 

year in reduced operating costs, $25.0 

million in CO2 reductions, and $1.4 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$180.1 million per year. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate and 

the SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 

2009$), the cost of the standards for 

room air conditioners in today’s rule is 

$107.7 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the annualized 

benefits are $153.7 million per year in 

reduced equipment operating costs, 

$19.5 million in CO2 reductions, and 

$0.999 million in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $66.4 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate and the 

SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 

2009$), the cost of the standards for 

room air conditioners in today’s rule is 

$111.0 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the benefits are 

$186.2 million per year in reduced 

operating costs, $19.5 million in CO2

reductions, and $1.20 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $95.9 million per 

year. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 22333 

TABLE II.7—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS (TSL 4) FOR CLOTHES DRYERS SOLD IN

2014–2043 

Discount rate 

Monetized (million 2009$/year) 

Primary estimate * Low estimate * High estimate * 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................... 7% 139.1 120.6 158.3 

3% 209.1 177.4 241.3 

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t ** ............... 5% 6.0 6.0 6.0 

CO2 Reduction at $22.1/t ** ............. 3% 25.0 25.0 25.0 

CO2 Reduction at $36.3/t ** ............. 2.5% 39.8 39.8 39.8 

CO2 Reduction at $67.1/t ** ............. 3% 76.0 76.0 76.0 

NOX Reduction at $2,519/ton ** ...... 7% 0.9 0.9 0.9 

3% 1.4 1.4 1.4 

Total † ....................................... 7% plus CO2 range 146.1 to 216.1 127.6 to 197.6 165.3 to 235.3 

7% 165.0 146.5 184.3 

3% 235.4 203.7 267.6 

3% plus CO2 range 216.5 to 286.5 184.8 to 254.8 248.7 to 318.7 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs .............. 7% 52.3 48.8 55.9 

3% 55.4 51.2 59.6 

Total Net Benefits 

Total † ....................................... 7% plus CO2 range 93.7 to 163.7 78.7 to 148.7 109.4 to 179.4 

7% 112.7 97.7 128.3 

3% 180.1 152.5 208.1 

3% plus CO2 range 161.1 to 231.1 133.6 to 203.6 189.1 to 259.1 

* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. 

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2009$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, 

$22.1, and $36.3 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.1 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The value for 

NOX (in 2009$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3-percent discount rate, which is 

$22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are 

calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

TABLE II.8—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS (TSL 4) FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS SOLD

IN 2014–2043 

Discount rate 

Monetized (million 2009$/year) 

Primary estimate * Low estimate * High estimate * 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................... 7% 153.7 145.1 161.9 

3% 186.2 174.2 197.3 

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t ** ............... 5% 5.0 5.0 5.0 

CO2 Reduction at $22.1/t ** ............. 3% 19.5 19.5 19.5 

CO2 Reduction at $36.3/t ** ............. 2.5% 30.7 30.7 30.7 

CO2 Reduction at $67.1/t ** ............. 3% 59.4 59.4 59.4 

NOX Reduction at $2,519/ton ** ...... 7% 0.999 0.999 0.999 

3% 1.197 1.197 1.197 

Total † ....................................... 7% plus CO2 range 159.6 to 214.0 151.1 to 205.5 167.9 to 222.3 

7% 174.1 165.5 182.4 

3% 206.8 194.9 218.0 

3% plus CO2 range 192.3 to 246.7 180.4 to 234.8 203.5 to 257.9 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs .............. 7% 107.7 107.7 107.7 

3% 111.0 111.0 111.0 

Total Net Benefits 

Total † ....................................... 7% plus CO2 range 51.9 to 106.3 43.4 to 97.8 60.2 to 114.6 

7% 66.4 57.8 74.7 

3% 95.9 83.9 107.0 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
22334 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II.8—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS (TSL 4) FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS SOLD

IN 2014–2043—Continued 

Discount rate 

Monetized (million 2009$/year) 

Primary estimate * Low estimate * High estimate * 

3% plus CO2 range 81.4 to 135.8 69.4 to 123.8 92.5 to 146.9 

* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. 

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2009$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, 

$22.1, and $36.3 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.1 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The value for 

NOX (in 2009$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3-percent discount rate, which is 

$22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are 

calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

III. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule until the date provided in the DATES

section at the beginning of this proposed 

rule. Interested parties may submit 

comments, data, and other information 

using any of the methods described in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

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 itself 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. 

Otherwise, 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 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 

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 below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through 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 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via e-mail, 

hand delivery/courier, or mail. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email, hand delivery, or mail also 

will be posted to 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 in a 

cover letter. Include your first and last 

names, e-mail address, telephone 

number, and optional mailing address. 

The cover 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. E-mail 

submissions are preferred. If you submit 

via 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, that are written in English, and 

that are 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 e-mail, 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 e-mail 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 22335 

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). 

B. Public Meeting 

As stated previously, if DOE 

withdraws the direct final rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public 

meeting to allow for additional 

comment on this proposed rule. DOE 

will publish notice of any meeting in 

the Federal Register. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

The regulatory reviews conducted for 

this proposed rule are identical to those 

conducted for the direct final rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register. Please see the direct final rule 

for further details. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 

2011. 

Kathleen Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend 

chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 

forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

2. Revise § 430.32 paragraphs (b) and 

(h) to read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(b) Room air conditioners. 

Product class 

Energy efficiency 

ratio, effective 

from Oct. 1, 2000 

to April 20, 2014 

Combined energy 

efficiency ratio, effective as of 

April 21, 2014 

1. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less than 6,000 Btu/h ................................................. 9.7 11.0 

2. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h .................................................. 9.7 11.0 

3. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h ................................................ 9.8 10.9 

4. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h .............................................. 9.7 10.7

5a. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 20,000 to 24,999 Btu/h ............................................ 8.5 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 ............................................ 9.0 10.0

7. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h ............................................. 9.0 10.0

8a. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 8,000 to 10,999 Btu/h ......................................... 8.5 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 ......................................... 8.5 9.3 

10. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h or more .......................................... 8.5 9.4 

11. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less than 20,000 Btu/h .................................................. 9.0 9.8 

12. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and less than 14,000 Btu/h ............................................. 8.5 9.3 

13. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h or more .................................................... 8.5 9.3 

14. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 14,000 Btu/h or more ............................................... 8.0 8.7 

15. Casement-Only ...................................................................................................................................... 8.7 9.5 

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 [DATE 3 

YEARS AFTER FINAL RULE FEDERAL 

REGISTER PUBLICATION], 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 

Product class Energy factor 

(lbs/kWh) 

iii. Electric, Compact 

(240V) (less than 4.4 

ft3 capacity) ................. 2.90 

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

(3) Clothes dryers manufactured on or 

after [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER FINAL 

RULE FEDERAL REGISTER 

PUBLICATION], 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 

Product class 

Combined energy 

factor 

(lbs/kWh) 

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 WasherDryer ........................... 2.08 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–9041 Filed 4–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS