22454 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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: Direct final 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 

direct final rule, DOE adopts amended 

energy conservation standards for 

residential clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners. A notice of proposed 

rulemaking that proposes identical 

energy efficiency standards is 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, this 

final rule will be withdrawn and DOE 

will proceed with the proposed rule. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on 

August 19, 2011 unless adverse 

comment is received by August 9, 2011. 

If adverse comments are received that 

DOE determines may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

final rule, a timely withdrawal of this 

rule will be published in the Federal 

Register. If no such adverse comments 

are received, compliance with the 

standards in this final rule will be 

required on April 21, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the direct final 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 VII 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. Summary of the Direct Final Rule 

A. The Energy Conservation Standard 

Levels 

B. Benefits and Costs to Consumerss 

C. Impact on Manufacturers 

D. National Benefits 

E. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air 

Conditioners 

3. Consensus Agreement for Residential 

Clothes Dryers and Room Air 

Conditioners 

III. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

1. Clothes Dryer Test Procedure 

a. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

b. Automatic Cycle Termination 

c. Ventless Clothes Dryers 

d. Consumer Usage Habits 

e. Drum Capacity Measurement 

f. HVAC Effects 

g. Efficiency Metric 

2. Room Air Conditioner Test Procedure 

a. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

b. Active Mode Referenced Standards 

c. Annual Active Mode Hours 

d. Part-Load Operation 

e. Distribution of Air 

3. Effects of Test Procedure Revisions on 

the Measured Efficiency 

a. Clothes Dryers 

b. Room Air Conditioners 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

a. Clothes Dryers 

b. Room Air Conditioners 

c. Available Max-Tech Products With 

Higher EER Ratings 

d. Consideration of Conversion to R–410A 

Refrigerant in Max-Tech Selections 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. General 

2. Products Included in This Rulemaking 

a. Clothes Dryers 

b. Room Air Conditioners 

3. Product Classes 

a. Clothes Dryers 

b. Room Air Conditioners 

4. Non-Regulatory Programs 

5. Technology Options 

a. Clothes Dryers 

b. Room Air Conditioners 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. Clothes Dryers 

2. Room Air Conditioners 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Technologies Not Analyzed 

a. Clothes Dryers 

b. Room Air Conditioners 

2. Efficiency Levels and Cost-Efficiency 

Results 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22455 

a. Clothes Dryers 

b. Room Air Conditioners 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

1. Clothes Dryers 

2. Room Air Conditioners 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

1. Product Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Energy Price Projections 

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

7. Product Lifetime 

8. Discount Rates 

a. Residential Discount Rates 

b. Commercial Discount Rates 

9. Compliance Date of Amended Standards 

10. Base Case Efficiency Distribution 

11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

G. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. Shipments 

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case 

and Standards Cases 

3. National Energy Savings 

4. Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit 

5. Benefits From Effects of Standards on 

Energy Prices 

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

a. Phase 1, Industry Profile 

b. Phase 2, Industry Cash Flow Analysis 

c. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis 

2. GRIM Analysis 

a. GRIM Key Inputs 

b. GRIM Scenarios 

3. Discussion of Comments 

a. Small Businesses 

b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

c. Employment Impacts 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

a. Clothes Dryer Key Issues 

b. Room Air Conditioner Key Issues 

J. Employment Impact Analysis 

K. Utility Impact Analysis 

L. Environmental Assessment 

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

b. Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Sub-Groups of 

Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

c. Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

C. Proposed Standards 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Clothes Dryers 

2. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Room Air Conditioners 

3. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Standards 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Residential Clothes Dryer Industry 

2. Room Air Conditioner Industry 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

E. Review under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

M. Congressional Notification 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Direct Final Rule 

A. The Energy Conservation Standard 

Levels 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; EPCA or the 

Act), as amended, provides that any 

amended energy conservation standard 

DOE prescribes for covered products, 

such as residential clothes dryers 

(clothes dryers) and room air 

conditioners, must be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the 

amended standard must result in a 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with 

these and other statutory provisions 

discussed in this notice, DOE adopts 

amended energy conservation standards 

for clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners as shown in Table I–1. The 

standards apply to all products listed in 

Table I–1 and manufactured in, or 

imported into, the United States on or 

after April 21, 2014. 

TABLE I–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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22456 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Product class 

Minimum 

CEER 

levels** 

Btu/Wh 

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. 

B. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I–2 presents DOE’s evaluation 

of the economic impacts of today’s 

standards on consumers of clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners, as 

measured by the average life-cycle cost 

(LCC) savings and the median payback 

period. The average LCC savings are 

positive for all product classes of 

clothes dryers and room air conditioners 

for which consumers would be 

impacted by the standards. 

TABLE I–2—IMPACTS OF TODAY’S STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF CLOTHES DRYERS AND ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

Product class 

Average 

LCC savings 

(2009$) 

Median 

payback 

period 

(years) 

Clothes Dryers 

Electric Standard ..................................................................................................................................................... $14 5.3 

Compact 120V ......................................................................................................................................................... 14 0.9 

Compact 240V ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 0.9 

Gas .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 11.7 

Ventless 240V .......................................................................................................................................................... * 0 * n/a 

Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer ...................................................................................................................... * 0 * n/a 

Room Air Conditioners 

< 6,000 Btu/h, with Louvers ..................................................................................................................................... 7 8.6 

8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers ........................................................................................................................... 22 2.8 

20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers ......................................................................................................................... 6 4.3 

> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers ................................................................................................................................... 1 10.1 

8,000–10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.1 

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

* Because the standard level is the same as the baseline efficiency level, no consumers are impacted and therefore calculation of a payback 

period is not applicable. 

C. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value (INPV) 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(2011 to 2043). Using a real discount 

rate of 7.2 percent, DOE estimates that 

the industry net present value (INPV) 

for manufacturers of clothes dryers is 

$1,003.6 million in 2009$. Under 

today’s standards, DOE expects that 

manufacturers may lose 6.4 to 8.0 

percent of their INPV, which is $64.5 to 

¥$80.6 million. Additionally, based on 

DOE’s interviews with the 

manufacturers of clothes dryers, DOE 

does not expect any plant closings or 

significant loss of employment. 

For room air conditioners, DOE 

estimates that the INPV for 

manufacturers of room air conditioners 

is $956 million in 2009$ using a real 

discount rate of 7.2 percent. Under 

today’s standards, DOE expects that 

manufacturers may lose 11.6 to 18.6 

percent of their INPV, which is $111.3 

to $177.6 million. Additionally, based 

on DOE’s interviews with the 

manufacturers of room air conditioners, 

DOE does not expect any plant closings 

or significant loss of employment. 

D. National Benefits 

DOE’s analyses indicate that today’s 

standards would save a significant 

amount of energy over 30 years (2014– 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22457 

1 DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to 

the most recent version of the Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO) Reference case forecast. As noted in 

section 15.2.4 of TSD chapter 15, this forecast 

accounts for regulatory emissions reductions 

through 2008, including the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), but not 

the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR, 70 FR 28606 

(May 18, 2005)). Subsequent regulations, including 

the currently proposed CAIR replacement rule, the 

Clean Air Transport Rule (75 FR 45210 (Aug. 2, 

2010)), do not appear in the forecast. 

2Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short 

tons. One short ton equals 2000 lbs. 

3 DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to 

determine the appropriate range of values used in 

evaluating the potential economic benefits of 

reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await 

further guidance regarding consistent valuation and 

reporting of Hg emissions before it once again 

monetizes Hg emissions reductions in its 

rulemakings. 

4 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 I.3. 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 cost and benefits from which the 

annualized values were determined would be a 

steady stream of payments. 

2043)—an estimated 0.39 quads of 

cumulative energy for clothes dryers 

and 0.31 quads of cumulative energy for 

room air conditioners. The combined 

total, 0.70 quads, is equivalent to threefourths of the estimated amount of 

energy used in 2008 to dry clothes in all 

U.S. homes. In addition, DOE expects 

the energy savings from today’s 

standards to eliminate the need for 

approximately 0.98 gigawatts (GW) of 

generating capacity by 2043. 

The cumulative national net present 

value (NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of today’s standards in 2009$ 

ranges from $1.08 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate) to $3.01 billion (at a 3- 

percent discount rate) for clothes dryers, 

and from $0.57 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate) to $1.47 billion (at a 3- 

percent discount rate) for room air 

conditioners. This NPV expresses the 

estimated total value of future 

operating-cost savings minus the 

estimated increased product costs for 

products purchased in 2014–2043, 

discounted to 2011. 

In addition, today’s standards would 

have significant environmental benefits. 

The energy savings would result in 

cumulative greenhouse gas emission 

reductions of approximately 36.1 

million metric tons (Mt) of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) from 2014 to 2043. During 

this period, the standards would also 

result in emissions reductions 1 of 

approximately 29.3 thousand tons of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 0.073 ton of 

mercury (Hg).2 DOE estimates that the 

net present monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions is between $170 

and $2,654 million, expressed in 2009$ 

and discounted to 2011. DOE also 

estimates that the net present monetary 

value of the NOX emissions reductions, 

expressed in 2009$ and discounted to 

2011, is $4.3 to $43.8 million at a 

7-percent discount rate, and $8.9 to 

$91.7 million at a 3-percent discount 

rate.3

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 the product (consisting 

primarily of operating cost savings from 

using less energy, minus increases in 

equipment purchase costs, which is 

another way of representing consumer 

NPV, plus (2) the monetary value of the 

benefits of emission reductions, 

including CO2 emission reductions.4

The value of the CO2 reductions is 

otherwise known as the Social Cost of 

Carbon (SCC), and is calculated using a 

range of values per metric ton of CO2

developed by a recent interagency 

process. The monetary benefits of 

emissions reductions are reported in 

2009$ so that they can be compared 

with the other costs and benefits in the 

same dollar units. The derivation of the 

SCC values is discussed in section IV.M. 

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

cost 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 the SCC are 

performed with different methods that 

use quite different timeframes 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 climaterelated impacts resulting from the 

emission of one metric ton of carbon 

dioxide in each year. These impacts 

continue well beyond 2100. 

Table I–3 shows the annualized 

values for the clothes dryer standards. 

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. DOE has 

calculated that the annualized increased 

equipment cost can range from $50.5 to 

$66.6 million per year depending on 

assumptions and modeling of 

equipment price trends. The high end of 

this range corresponds to a constant real 

equipment price trend. Using the central 

estimate of energy-related benefits, DOE 

estimates that calculated net benefits 

can range from $98.4 to $114.5 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. 

DOE has calculated that the annualized 

increased equipment cost can range 

from $53.1 to $73.5 million per year 

depending on assumptions and 

modeling of equipment price trends. 

The high end of this range corresponds 

to a constant real equipment price trend. 

Using the central estimate of energyrelated benefits, DOE estimates that 

calculated net benefits can range from 

$162.0 to $182.4 million per year. 

Table I–4 shows the annualized 

values for the room air conditioner 

standards. 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. 

DOE has calculated that the 

annualized increased equipment cost 

can range from $105.7 to $136.6 million 

per year depending on assumptions and 

modeling of equipment price trends. 

The high end of this range corresponds 

to a constant real equipment price trend. 

Using the central estimate of energyrelated benefits, DOE estimates that 

calculated net benefits can range from 

$37.5 to $68.4 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate and 

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

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22458 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 DOE has calculated that the range 

in the annualized increased equipment 

cost can range from $108.0 to $146.0 

million per year depending on 

assumptions and modeling of 

equipment price trends. The high end of 

this range corresponds to a constant real 

equipment price trend. Using the central 

estimate of energy-related benefits, DOE 

estimates that calculated net benefits 

can range from $60.9 to $98.9 million 

per year. 

TABLE I–3—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 66.6 50.5 

3% 55.4 73.5 53.1 

Net Benefits 

Total† ........................................ 7% plus CO2 range 93.7 to 163.7 61.0 to 131.0 114.8 to 184.8 

7% 112.7 79.9 133.8 

3% 180.1 130.2 214.5 

3% plus CO2 range 161.1 to 231.1 111.3 to 181.3 195.6 to 265.6 

* 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. Low estimate corresponds to the low net benefit estimate and uses the zero real 

price trend sensitivity for equipment prices, and the high estimate corresponds to the high net benefit estimate and utilizes the high technological 

learning rate sensitivity for the equipment price trend. 

** 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 metric 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 

$22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2007$). 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 I–4—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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22459 

5For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

TABLE I–4—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 * 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs .............. 7% 107.7 136.6 105.7 

3% 111.0 146.0 108.0 

Net Benefits 

Total† ................................. 7% plus CO2 range 51.9 to 106.3 43.4 to 97.8 62.2 to 116.6 

7% 66.4 28.9 76.7 

3% 95.9 48.9 110.0 

3% plus CO2 range 81.4 to 135.8 34.4 to 88.8 95.5 to 149.9 

* 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. Low estimate corresponds to the low net benefit estimate and uses the zero real 

price trend sensitivity for equipment prices, while the high estimate corresponds to the high net benefit estimate and utilizes the high technological learning rate sensitivity for the equipment price trend. 

** 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 metric 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. 

E. Conclusion 

Based on the analyses culminating in 

this final rule, DOE found the benefits 

to the nation of the standards (energy 

savings, consumer LCC savings, national 

NPV increase, and emission reductions) 

outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and 

LCC increases for some users of these 

products). DOE has concluded that the 

standards represent the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

DOE further notes that clothes dryers 

and room air conditioners achieving 

these standard levels are already 

commercially available. 

II. Introduction 

A. 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.5 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 the Act 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)) As explained in further detail in 

section II.C, ‘‘Background,’’ 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 

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. 

Under the Act, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

products consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. The Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) is responsible for 

labeling, and DOE implements the 

remainder of the program. The Act 

authorizes DOE, subject to certain 

criteria and conditions, to develop test 

procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers 

of covered products must use the DOE 

test procedure as the basis for certifying 

to DOE that their products comply with 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA and for 

representing the efficiency of those 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 

6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these 

test procedures to determine whether 

the products comply with standards 

adopted under EPCA. Id. The test 

procedures for clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners appear at title 10 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, 

subpart B, appendices D and F, 

respectively. 

EPCA provides criteria for prescribing 

amended standards for covered 

products. As indicated above, any 

amended standard for a covered product 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, 

EPCA precludes DOE from adopting any 

standard that would not result in 

significant conservation of energy. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) EPCA also 

provides that, in determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, DOE 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must do so 

after receiving comments on the 

proposed standard and by considering, 

to the greatest extent practicable, the 

following seven factors: 

1. The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22460 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of 

energy savings likely to result directly 

from the imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

5. The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

6. The need for national energy 

conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

The Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Public 

Law 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 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). A notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes an 

identical energy efficiency standard 

must be published simultaneously with 

the 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 

publish in the Federal Register the 

reason why the direct final rule was 

withdrawn. Id. 

The Consent Decree in State of New 

York, et al. v. Bodman et al., described 

above, defines a ‘‘final rule’’ to have the 

same meaning as in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) 

and defines ‘‘final action’’ as a final 

decision by DOE. As this direct final 

rule is issued under authority at 

42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) and constitutes a 

final decision by DOE which becomes 

legally effective 120 days after issuance, 

absent an adverse comment that leads 

the Secretary to withdraw the direct 

final rule, DOE asserts that issuance of 

this direct final rule on or before the 

date required by the court constitutes 

compliance with the Consent Decree in 

State of New York, et al. v. Bodman et 

al. 

Furthermore, EPCA contains what is 

commonly known as an ‘‘antibacksliding’’ provision, which mandates 

that the Secretary not prescribe any 

amended standard that either increases 

the maximum allowable energy use or 

decreases the minimum required energy 

efficiency of a covered product. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the 

Secretary may not prescribe a new 

standard if interested persons have 

established by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the standard is likely to 

result in the unavailability in the United 

States of any covered product type (or 

class) with performance characteristics, 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes 

that are substantially the same as those 

generally available in the United States. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

EPCA also establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the applicable test 

procedure. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) 

EPCA requires DOE to specify a 

different standard level than that which 

applies generally to a type or class of 

products for any group of covered 

products that have the same function or 

intended use if DOE determines that 

products within such group (A) 

consume a different kind of energy from 

that consumed by other covered 

products within such type (or class); or 

(B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies 

such a different standard for a group of 

products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing 

such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements for covered products 

generally supersede state laws or 

regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297 (a)–(c)) DOE 

can, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular state laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions of 

section 327(d) of the Act. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) 

EPCA also requires that energy 

conservation standards address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. 

Specifically, when DOE adopts a 

standard for a covered product after 

July 1, 2010 it must, if justified by the 

criteria for adoption of standards in 

section 325(o) of EPCA, incorporate 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

into the standard, if feasible, or adopt a 

separate standard for such energy use 

for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)) As 

set forth below, the standards for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners at 

10 CFR 430.32 (h) and (b) are minimum 

energy factors (EF) and minimum 

energy efficiency ratios (EER), 

respectively. Neither of these metrics 

incorporates standby or off mode energy 

use, with the limited exception that the 

EF in appendix D addresses the energy 

use of pilot lights in gas clothes dryers. 

(DOE notes that standing pilot lights 

were prohibited by EPCA for products 

manufactured after January 1, 1988. As 

a result, the final amended test 

procedure, published on January 6, 

2011, eliminates measurement of the 

energy use of such pilot lights. 

Similarly, DOE does not incorporate the 

energy use of pilot lights in the metric 

for gas clothes dryers established in this 

final rule.) By contrast, the standard 

levels DOE considered in this direct 

final rule are expressed in terms of the 

‘‘combined energy factor’’ (CEF) for 

clothes dryers and the ‘‘combined 

energy efficiency ratio’’ (CEER) for room 

air conditioners, and each of these 

metrics incorporates energy use in all 

modes, including the standby and off 

modes. DOE uses these metrics in the 

standards it adopts in this direct final 

rule. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, 

Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22461 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

We emphasize as well that Executive 

Order 13563 requires agencies ‘‘to use 

the best available techniques to quantify 

anticipated present and future benefits 

and costs as accurately as possible.’’ In 

its guidance, the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

‘‘identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.’’ For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE believes 

that today’s direct final rule is 

consistent with these principles, 

including that, to the extent permitted 

by law, agencies adopt a regulation only 

upon a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs and select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. 

Consistent with EO 13563, and the 

range of impacts analyzed in this 

rulemaking, the energy efficiency 

standard adopted herein by DOE 

achieves maximum net benefits. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

In a final rule published on May 14, 

1991, DOE prescribed the current 

Federal energy conservation standards 

for clothes dryers manufactured on or 

after May 14, 1994. 56 FR 22250. This 

rule completed the first of the two 

rulemakings required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(4) to consider amending the 

standards for clothes dryers. The current 

standards consist of four minimum EFs, 

expressed in pounds of clothing load 

(lb) per kilowatt-hour (kWh), one for gas 

dryers and one each for three different 

types of electric dryers. 10 CFR 

430.32(h). These standards are set forth 

in Table II.1 below. 

TABLE II.1—RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES DRYER CURRENT ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

Product class EF lb/kWh 

Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (ft3) or greater capacity) .................................................................................................................... 3.01 

Electric, Compact (120 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ............................................................................................................................ 3.13 

Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ............................................................................................................................ 2.90 

Gas .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.67 

In a final rule published on 

September 24, 1997, DOE prescribed the 

current Federal energy conservation 

standards for room air conditioners 

manufactured on or after October 1, 

2000. 62 FR 50122. This rule completed 

the first of the two rulemakings required 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(2) to consider 

amending the standards for room air 

conditioners. The current standards 

consist of minimum EERs, expressed as 

cooling capacity in British thermal units 

(Btu) per hour (h) divided by electrical 

input power in watts (W), that vary 

depending on the size of the room air 

conditioner, whether it has louvered 

sides and a heating cycle, and whether 

it is for casement installations. 10 CFR 

430.32(b). These standards are set forth 

in Table II.2 below. 

TABLE II.2—ROOM AIR CONDITIONER CURRENT ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

Product class EER 

Btu/Wh 

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

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

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

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

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

Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and less than 6,000 Btu/h ............................................................................................ 9.0 

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

Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h ............................................................................................ 8.5 

Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h .......................................................................................... 8.5 

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

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

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

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

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

Casement-Only ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 8.7 

Casement-Slider ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9.5 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22462 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Residential Clothes Dryers and Room 

Air Conditioners 

EPCA prescribes energy conservation 

standards for clothes dryers and for 

room air conditioners, consisting of a 

requirement that gas clothes dryers 

manufactured after January 1, 1988 not 

be equipped with constant burning 

pilots and performance standards 

(minimum EER levels) for room air 

conditioners. (42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(1) and 

(g)(3)) These amendments also required, 

for both products, that DOE conduct two 

cycles of rulemakings to determine 

whether to amend these standards. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(c)(2) and (g)(4)) As 

indicated above, DOE completed the 

first of these rulemaking cycles for 

clothes dryers in 1991, by adopting 

performance standards for gas and 

electric products. DOE completed the 

first of these rulemaking cycles for room 

air conditioners in 1997 by adopting 

amended minimum EER levels. 

DOE initiated this rulemaking on 

October 9, 2007 by publishing a notice 

announcing the availability of the 

framework document, the ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Framework Document for Residential 

Clothes Dryers and Room Air 

Conditioners.’’ In this notice, DOE also 

announced a public meeting and 

requested public comment on the 

matters raised in the framework 

document. 72 FR 57254 (October 9, 

2007). The framework document 

describes the procedural and analytical 

approaches that DOE anticipated using 

to evaluate energy conservation 

standards for clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners, and identified various 

issues to be resolved in conducting this 

rulemaking. The framework document 

is available at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/. 

DOE held the public meeting on 

October 24, 2007 to present the contents 

of the framework document, describe 

the analyses it planned to conduct 

during the rulemaking, seek comments 

from interested parties on these 

subjects, and, in general, inform 

interested parties about, and facilitate 

their involvement in, the rulemaking. 

Interested parties discussed the 

following major issues at the public 

meeting: test procedure revisions; 

product classes; technology options; 

approaches to the engineering, life-cycle 

cost, payback period and national 

impact analyses; efficiency levels 

analyzed in the engineering analysis; 

and the approach for estimating typical 

energy consumption. At the meeting 

and during the period for commenting 

on the framework document, DOE 

received many comments that helped it 

identify and resolve issues involved in 

this rulemaking. 

DOE then gathered additional 

information and performed preliminary 

analyses to help develop potential 

energy conservation standards for 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners. This process culminated 

in DOE’s announcement of the 

availability of its preliminary technical 

support document (preliminary TSD) 

and another public meeting to discuss 

and receive comments on the following 

matters: the product classes DOE 

planned to analyze; the analytical 

framework, models, and tools that DOE 

was using to evaluate standards; the 

results of the preliminary analyses 

performed by DOE; and potential 

standard levels that DOE could 

consider. 75 FR 7987 (Feb. 23, 2010) 

(the February 2010 notice). DOE also 

invited written comments on the 

preliminary analysis. Id. (The 

preliminary TSD is available at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

preliminary_analysis_tsd.html.) DOE 

also stated its interest in receiving views 

concerning other relevant issues that 

participants believe would affect energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers or room air conditioners. Id. at 

7990. 

The preliminary TSD provided an 

overview of the activities DOE 

undertook in developing standards for 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, and discussed the 

comments DOE received in response to 

the framework document. It also 

described the analytical framework that 

DOE uses in this rulemaking, including 

a description of the methodology, the 

analytical tools, and the relationships 

among the various analyses that are part 

of the rulemaking. The preliminary TSD 

presented and described in detail each 

analysis DOE performed, including 

descriptions of inputs, sources, 

methodologies, and results. These 

analyses were as follows: 

• A market and technology 

assessment addressed the scope of this 

rulemaking, identified the potential 

classes for clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, characterized the markets 

for these products, and reviewed 

techniques and approaches for 

improving their efficiency. 

• A screening analysis reviewed 

technology options to improve the 

efficiency of clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, and weighed these options 

against DOE’s four prescribed screening 

criteria. 

• An engineering analysis estimated 

the manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) 

associated with more energy-efficient 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners. 

• An energy use analysis estimated 

the annual energy use of clothes dryers 

and room air conditioners. 

• A markups analysis converted 

estimated MSPs derived from the 

engineering analysis to consumer prices. 

• A life-cycle cost analysis calculated, 

for individual consumers, the 

discounted savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

each product, compared to any increase 

in installed costs likely to result directly 

from the imposition of a given standard. 

• A payback period (PBP) analysis 

estimated the amount of time it takes 

individual consumers to recover the 

higher purchase expense of more energy 

efficient products through lower 

operating costs. 

• A shipments analysis estimated 

shipments of clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners over the time period 

examined in the analysis, and was used 

in performing the national impact 

analysis (NIA). 

• A national impact analysis assessed 

the national energy savings (NES), and 

the national net present value of total 

consumer costs and savings, expected to 

result from specific, potential energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners. and 

• A preliminary manufacturer impact 

analysis (MIA) took the initial steps in 

evaluating the effects on manufacturers 

of new amended energy conservation 

standards. 

The public meeting announced in the 

February 2010 notice took place on 

March 16, 2010. At this meeting, DOE 

presented the methodologies and results 

of the analyses set forth in the 

preliminary TSD. Major topics 

discussed at the meeting included test 

procedure revisions; product classes 

(including ventless clothes dryers); 

integrated efficiency levels; the use of 

alternate refrigerants in room air 

conditioners; engineering analysis tools; 

mark-ups; field energy consumption; 

life-cycle cost inputs; efficiency 

distribution forecasts; national impact 

analysis inputs; and trial standard level 

selection criteria. DOE also discussed 

plans for conducting the NOPR 

analyses. The comments received since 

publication of the February 2010 notice, 

including those received at the March 

2010 public meeting, have contributed 

to DOE’s proposed resolution of the 

issues in this rulemaking. This direct 

final rule responds to the issues raised 

in the comments received. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22463 

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

Comment 35. DOE considered the Joint Petitioners 

comments to supersede earlier comments by the 

listed parties regarding issues subsequently 

discussed in the Joint Petition. 

3. Consensus Agreement for Residential 

Clothes Dryers and Room Air 

Conditioners 

In response to the preliminary 

analysis, DOE received the ‘‘Agreement 

on Minimum Federal Efficiency 

Standards, Smart Appliances, Federal 

Incentives and Related Matters for 

Specified Appliances’’ (the ‘‘Joint 

Petition’’), 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, which 

DOE refers to in this notice as the ‘‘Joint 

Petition’’ 1B6 or ‘‘Consensus Agreement’’ 

recommends specific energy 

conservation standards for residential 

clothes dryers and room air conditioners 

that, in the commenters’ view, would 

satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE has considered the 

recommended energy conservation 

standards in today’s final rule. 

After careful consideration of the joint 

comment containing a consensus 

recommendation for amended energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners, the 

Secretary has determined that this 

‘‘Consensus Agreement’’ has been 

submitted by interested persons who are 

fairly representative of relevant points 

of view on this matter. 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. Moreover, DOE does 

not read the statute as requiring absolute 

agreement among all interested parties 

before the Department 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 

will consider each consensus 

recommendation on a case-by-case basis 

to determine whether the submission 

has been made 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. This determination is 

exactly the type of analysis which 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 standard-setting criteria set forth 

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

the consensus agreement levels were 

included as TSL 4 in today’s rule for 

both clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, the details of which are 

discussed at relevant places throughout 

this document. 

In sum, as the relevant criteria under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) have been satisfied, 

the Secretary has determined that it is 

appropriate to adopt amended energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners 

through this direct final rule 

As required by the same statutory 

provision, DOE is also simultaneously 

publishing a NOPR which proposes the 

identical standard levels contained in 

this direct final rule with a 110-day 

public comment period. DOE will 

consider whether any comment received 

during this comment period is 

sufficiently ‘‘adverse’’ as to provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and continuation of this 

rulemaking under the NOPR. Typical of 

other rulemakings, 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, the substance of any adverse 

comment(s) received will be weighed 

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. 

III. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

As noted above, DOE’s test 

procedures for clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners appear at 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendices D and F, 

respectively. Moreover, EPCA requires 

DOE to amend its test procedures for all 

covered products, including those for 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, to include measurement of 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption, except where current test 

procedures fully address such energy 

consumption or such a procedure is 

technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)) Because the clothes dryer 

and room air conditioner test 

procedures previously covered such 

energy use only as to pilot lights in gas 

dryers (as noted above, the final test 

procedure rule eliminates the 

measurement of this energy use given 

the statutory prohibition), on December 

1, 2008 DOE issued a NOPR in which 

it proposed revisions of these test 

procedures to fully address standby and 

off mode energy use and sought 

comment on those revisions. 73 FR 

74639 (Dec. 9, 2008) (TP NOPR). DOE 

also held a public meeting on December 

17, 2008 to receive oral comments. 

DOE subsequently issued a 

supplemental NOPR (SNOPR) in that 

rulemaking, in which it (1) addressed 

comments received in response to the 

TP NOPR; (2) proposed adoption of 

certain definitions and calculation 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22464 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

7To investigate this, DOE conducted additional 

testing using a test load similar to that specified in 

AHAM Standard HLD–1–2009, which consists of 

cotton bed sheets, towels, and pillow cases. For 

tests using the same automatic cycle termination 

settings as were used in the testing described earlier 

(that is, normal cycle setting and highest 

temperature setting), the alternate test load was 

dried to 1.7 to 2.2 percent final RMC, with an 

average RMC of 2.0 percent. In comparison, the 

same clothes dryer under the same cycle settings 

dried the DOE test load to 0.3 to 1.2 percent RMC, 

with an average RMC of 0.7 percent. Thus, DOE 

concluded that the proposed automatic cycle 

termination control test procedures may not stop at 

an appropriate RMC when used with the current 

test load. 

8A notation in the form ‘‘ACEEE, No. 24 at 

p. 2’’ identifies a written comment (1) made by the 

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 

(ACEEE), (2) recorded in document number 24 that 

is filed in the docket of this rulemaking, and (3) 

which appears on page 2 of document number 24. 

methods for standby and off mode 

energy use; and (3) proposed several 

amendments to the clothes dryer and 

room air conditioner test procedures 

concerning the active modes of these 

products. 75 FR 37594 (June 29, 2010) 

(TP SNOPR). For air conditioners, these 

proposed amendments would update 

references to industry test standards. Id. 

at 37598. For clothes dryers, DOE 

proposed to amend its test procedures 

for the active mode by adopting 

methods that would allow the testing of 

ventless products and would more 

accurately account for automatic cycle 

termination. Id. at 35798, 35799. DOE 

also proposed amendments to reflect the 

current usage and capabilities of 

products (for example, clothes dryer use 

cycles per year, remaining moisture 

content (RMC) of clothes dryer loads, 

and load sizes), and to update test cloth 

preconditioning provisions, eliminate 

reference to an obsolete industry test 

standard, and clarify the required gas 

supply pressure for testing gas clothes 

dryers. Id. DOE sought and received 

written comments on the TP SNOPR 

and also held a public meeting on July 

14, 2010 to receive oral comments. 

On January 6, 2011, DOE published in 

the Federal Register a final rule for the 

test procedure rulemaking (76 FR 972) 

(TP Final Rule), in which it (1) adopted 

the provisions for the measurement of 

standby mode and off mode power use 

for both products proposed in the TP 

NOPR, as modified by the TP SNOPR, 

but required that products be installed 

and set up for standby and off mode 

testing in accordance with 

manufacturers’ instructions (and if no 

instructions are given, then the 

appliance shall be tested at the factory 

or ‘‘default’’ settings); and (2) adopted 

several amendments to the clothes dryer 

and room air conditioner test 

procedures concerning the active mode 

for these products, as proposed in and 

informed by public comment on the TP 

SNOPR. 76 FR 972 (January 6, 2011). 

Specifically for room air conditioners, 

the amendments adopted in the TP 

Final Rule updated the references to 

industry test standards. Specifically for 

clothes dryers, DOE adopted the 

amendments to include provisions for 

the testing of ventless products 

proposed in the TP SNOPR, along with 

additional clarifications regarding the 

testing conditions for ventless clothes 

dryers. 76 FR 976–7. The amendments 

also include the following changes to 

reflect the current usage and capabilities 

of products: (1) Changing the annual 

clothes dryer use cycles from 416 to 283 

cycle per year, (2) changing the initial 

RMC of clothes dryer loads from 70 

percent ± 3.5 percent to 57.5 percent 

±3.5 percent, and (3) changing the 

clothes dryer test load size from 7.00 

pounds (lbs) ± .07 lbs to 8.45 ± .085 lbs 

for standard-size clothes dryers. 76 FR 

977. The TP Final Rule also amends the 

DOE clothes dryer test procedure by 

updating test cloth preconditioning 

provisions; revising the water 

temperature for test load preparation 

from 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) ± 5 °F 

to 60 °F ± 5 °F; updating references to 

industry test standards; eliminating 

reference to an obsolete industry test 

standard; clarifying the required gas 

supply conditions for testing gas clothes 

dryers; clarifying the provisions for 

measuring the drum capacity; clarifying 

the definition of ‘‘automatic termination 

control’’ for clothes dryers; and adding 

the calculations of EF and CEF to 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1. 

76 FR 978. 

DOE did not adopt the amendments to 

more accurately measure automatic 

cycle termination proposed in the TP 

SNOPR. As discussed in the TP Final 

Rule, DOE conducted testing of 

representative clothes dryers using the 

automatic cycle termination test 

procedure proposed in the TP SNOPR. 

The results showed that all of the 

clothes dryers tested significantly overdried the DOE test load to near bone dry 

and, as a result, the measured EF values 

were significantly lower than EF values 

obtained using the existing DOE test 

procedure. The test data also indicated 

that dryers equipped with automatic 

termination controls were less efficient 

than timer dryers. 76 FR 977. 

As noted in the TP Final Rule, DOE 

believes the test procedure amendments 

for automatic cycle termination 

proposed in the TP SNOPR do not 

adequately measure the energy 

consumption of clothes dryers equipped 

with such systems using the test load 

specified in the DOE test procedure. 

DOE believes that clothes dryers with 

automatic termination sensing control 

systems, which infer the RMC of the 

load from the properties of the exhaust 

air such as temperature and humidity, 

may be designed to stop the cycle when 

the consumer load has a higher RMC 

than the RMC obtained using the 

proposed automatic cycle termination 

test procedure in conjunction with the 

existing test load.7 Manufacturers have 

indicated, however, that test load types 

and test cloth materials different than 

those specified in the DOE test 

procedure do not produce results as 

repeatable as those obtained using the 

test load as currenty specified. Id. 

In addition, DOE presented data in 

the test procedure final rule published 

on May 19, 1981 from a field use survey 

conducted by AHAM as well as an 

analysis of field test data on automatic 

termination control dryers conducted by 

the National Bureau of Standards (now 

known as the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST)). 

Analysis of this data showed that 

clothes dryers equipped with an 

automatic cycle termination feature 

consume less energy than timer dryers 

by reducing over-drying. 46 FR 27324 

(May 19, 1981). 

For these reasons, DOE stated in the 

TP Final Rule that the test procedure 

amendments for automatic cycle 

termination proposed in the TP SNOPR 

do not adequately measure the energy 

consumption of clothes dryers equipped 

with such systems. As a result, DOE did 

not adopt the amendments for automatic 

cycle termination proposed in the TP 

SNOPR. 76 FR 972, 977 (January 6, 

2011). 

The following sections discuss the 

comments received in response to the 

preliminary analyses regarding the test 

procedures for clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners. 

1. Clothes Dryer Test Procedure 

ACEEE and Earthjustice (EJ) both 

commented that the DOE test procedure 

inadequately represents field energy 

use, seriously hindering efforts to 

develop effective regulations and sound 

public policy, and produces misleading 

information for consumers and other 

interested parties. (ACEEE, No. 24 at 

p. 2; EJ, No. 28 at p. 1) 8 ACEEE 

provided suggested test procedure 

changes, which are outlined in its 

comments and discussed in the sections 

below. ACEEE stated these suggested 

test procedure changes would improve 

the understanding of the overall 

contribution of clothes dryers to 

national energy consumption, the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22465 

9NRDC, No. 30 at pp. 1–40. 

10 DOE considered IEC Standard 62087 and 

determined that this standard addresses the 

methods of measuring the power consumption of 

audio, video, and related equipment and is 

therefore inapplicable to the products covered in 

this rulemaking. 

11A notation in the form ‘‘AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21.4 at p. 30’’ identifies an oral 

comment that DOE received during the March 16, 

2010 public meeting and which was recorded in the 

public meeting transcript in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket No. EE–2007–BT–STD–0010), 

maintained in the Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program. This particular notation 

refers to a comment (1) made by the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) during the 

public meeting, (2) recorded in document number 

21.4, which is the public meeting transcript that is 

filed in the docket of this rulemaking, and (3) which 

appears on page 30 of document number 21.4. 

12 ‘‘Inactive mode’’ is defined as ‘‘a standby mode 

other than delay start mode or cycle finished mode 

that facilitates the activation of active mode by 

remote switch (including remote control), internal 

sensor, or provides continuous status display.’’ 

‘‘Delay start mode’’ is defined as ‘‘a standby mode 

that facilitates the activation of active mode by 

timer.’’ ‘‘Cycle finished mode’’ is defined as ‘‘a 

standby mode that provides continuous status 

display following operation in active mode.’’ 

relative performance of products 

currently on the market, and 

opportunities to improve clothes dryer 

energy performance (including the 

potential of the design options defined 

in DOE’s analysis). ACEEE stated that its 

suggested test procedure changes would 

provide DOE better data for determining 

the appropriate level for standards that 

yield the maximum cost-effective energy 

savings for consumers. (ACEEE, No. 24 

at p. 2) Earthjustice commented that 

DOE should correct errors in the 

existing test procedure that, according 

to Earthjustice, misstate the actual 

clothes dryer energy consumption, as 

identified in the report by ECOS 

Consulting (ECOS) (prepared for the 

NRDC),9 and recalculate the estimates of 

clothes dryer energy use. (EJ, No. 28 at 

p. 1) As discussed above, DOE recently 

published the TP Final Rule amending 

its clothes dryer test procedure to 

address many of the test procedure 

issues identified by ACEEE and 

Earthjustice. DOE addresses each of 

these issues individually in the sections 

below. 

a. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

Referenced Standards 

EPCA directs DOE to amend its test 

procedures to include measures of 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption. EPCA further directs DOE 

to amend the test procedures to 

integrate such energy consumption into 

a single energy descriptor for that 

product. If that is technically infeasible, 

DOE must prescribe a separate standby 

mode and off mode energy-use test 

procedure, if technically feasible. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Any such 

amendment must consider the most 

current versions of the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

Standard 62301 [‘‘Household electrical 

appliances—Measurement of standby 

power,’’ First Edition 2005–06] and IEC 

Standard 62087 [‘‘Methods of 

measurement for the power 

consumption of audio, video, and 

related equipment,’’ Second Edition 

2008–09].10 Id. 

AHAM supported DOE’s evaluation of 

the most current draft version of IEC 

Standard 62301 Second Edition, which 

at the time of the preliminary analysis 

for the standards rulemaking was 

designated as the Committee Draft for 

Vote (IEC Standard 62301 CDV), for 

potential revisions to address standby 

mode and off mode power in DOE’s 

clothes dryer test procedure. AHAM 

commented that DOE would thus 

harmonize with international standards, 

including those used in Canada and 

Europe. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21.4 at p. 30).11

In the TP NOPR, DOE discussed that 

IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition was 

expected at that time to be published in 

July 2009. For this reason, DOE stated 

in the TP NOPR that IEC Standard 

62301 First Edition would be the 

‘‘current version’’ at the time of 

publication of the final rule, so 

consideration thereof would comply 

with EPCA. DOE incorporated sections 

from IEC Standard 62301 First Edition 

in the proposed amendments to the 

clothes dryer test procedure in the TP 

NOPR. 73 FR 74639, 74644 (Dec. 9, 

2008). DOE did not receive any 

comments in response to the TP NOPR 

objecting to the proposed testing 

methods and procedures referenced in 

IEC Standard 62301 First Edition. 

Therefore, the TP SNOPR did not affect 

DOE’s proposal in the TP NOPR to 

incorporate by reference clauses from 

IEC Standard 62301 First Edition. 75 FR 

37594, 37602 (June 29, 2010). In the TP 

Final Rule, DOE noted that the most 

recent draft of IEC Standard 62301 

Second Edition, designated as the Final 

Draft International Standard (IEC 

Standard 62301 FDIS) had yet to be 

made available on IEC’s public Web site 

and that IEC Standard 62301 Second 

Edition is now projected to be issued in 

April 2011. For the reasons stated in the 

TP Final Rule, DOE amended its test 

procedures for clothes dryers in the 

final rule to incorporate by reference the 

clauses from IEC Standard 62301 First 

Edition proposed in the TP SNOPR. 

DOE also adopted the definitions of 

‘‘active mode,’’ ‘‘standby mode,’’ and ‘‘off 

mode’’ based on the language presented 

in IEC Standard 62301 CDV. 76 FR 972, 

976–977 (January 6, 2011). DOE may 

consider incorporating by reference 

clauses from IEC Standard 62301 

Second Edition when that version has 

been published. 

Testing Procedures 

As discussed in the Referenced 

Standards section, EPCA directs DOE to 

amend the test procedures to integrate 

such energy consumption into a single 

energy descriptor for that product. If 

that is technically infeasible, DOE must 

prescribe a separate standby mode and 

off mode energy-use test procedure, if 

technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)) In the TP NOPR, DOE 

determined that it is technically feasible 

to incorporate measures of standby 

mode and off mode energy use into the 

overall energy use metric. 73 FR 74639, 

74650 (Dec. 9, 2008). In the TP NOPR, 

DOE proposed to adopt the 140 hours 

associated with drying as the active 

mode hours and to associate the 

remaining 8,620 hours of the year with 

standby mode and off mode. 73 FR 

74639, 74647 (Dec. 9, 2008). In the TP 

NOPR, DOE also proposed definitions 

and testing methods for multiple 

standby modes, including ‘‘inactive 

mode,’’ ‘‘delay start mode,’’ and ‘‘cycle 

finished mode.’’ 12 73 FR 74639, 74647– 

48 (Dec. 9, 2008). DOE proposed to 

calculate clothes dryer energy use per 

cycle associated with standby mode and 

off mode by (1) calculating the product 

of wattage and allocated hours for all 

possible standby modes and off modes; 

(2) summing the results; (3) dividing the 

sum by 1,000 to convert from watt-hours 

(Wh) to kWh; and (4) dividing by the 

number of cycles per year. 73 FR 74639, 

74648 (Dec. 9, 2008). In the TP NOPR, 

DOE reported that the comparison of 

annual energy use of different clothes 

dryer modes showed that delay start and 

cycle finished modes represent a 

negligible percentage of total annual 

energy consumption. The comparison 

also showed that the power levels in 

these modes are similar to those for 

inactive mode and off mode. For these 

two reasons, DOE presented an alternate 

approach that would be limited to 

specifying the hours for only inactive 

mode and off mode when calculating 

energy use associated with standby 

mode and off mode. Under this alternate 

approach, all of the non-active mode 

hours (8,620) would be allocated to 

inactive mode and off mode. 73 FR 

74639, 74648 (Dec. 9, 2008). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22466 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

13 DOE proposed to use the term ‘‘Integrated 

Energy Factor’’ (IEF) in the TP NOPR. 73 FR 74639, 

74650 (Dec. 9, 2008). However, in the TP SNOPR, 

DOE proposed to revise the name of the metric to 

‘‘Combined Energy Factor’’ (CEF) to avoid confusion 

with an existing industry standard. 75 FR 37594, 

37612 (June 29, 2010). DOE adopted CEF as the 

measure of clothes dryer energy efficiency in the TP 

Final Rule. 76 FR 972, 992 (January 6, 2011). 

In the TP NOPR, DOE proposed to 

establish the CEF 13 for clothes dryer to 

integrate energy use in the standby 

mode and off mode with the energy use 

of the main functions of the product. 

The CEF would be defined as the 

clothes dryer test load weight in pounds 

divided by the sum of the per-cycle 

standby and off mode energy 

consumption and either the total percycle electric dryer energy consumption 

or the total per-cycle gas dryer energy 

consumption expressed in kWh. 73 FR 

74639, 74650 (December 9, 2008). 

As discussed in chapter 5 of the 

preliminary TSD, for the preliminary 

analyses, DOE analyzed the costefficiency relationship for CEF using the 

alternative approach for this metric in 

the TP NOPR. That approach allocates 

all of the non-active mode hours into 

inactive mode and off mode energy use, 

and then integrates inactive mode and 

off mode energy use with active mode 

energy use. 

BSH commented that, in the formula 

to calculate the CEF in the clothes dryer 

test procedure, ‘‘8620’’ inactive/off mode 

hours should be replaced by (8720—per 

cycle duration (hours) × 416 clothes 

dryer annual cycles), where 8720 = 365 

days × 24 hours per day. According to 

BSH, the standby mode is not valid 

during the active mode and, therefore, 

the duration of the active mode should 

be subtracted from the hours per year 

when calculating the standby energy 

consumption. (BSH, No. 23 at p. 5) DOE 

notes that the estimate for active mode 

hours presented in the TP NOPR was 

fixed based on the number of such 

hours specified in the existing test 

procedure (140 hours). 73 FR 74646–7 

(Dec. 9, 2008). DOE acknowledges that 

its estimate of the number of cycles per 

year has decreased. As discussed in the 

TP Final Rule, DOE notes that changes 

to the initial RMC, test load size, and 

specified water temperature for test load 

preparation may also affect cycle time 

and the number of active mode hours 

per year. DOE is not aware, however, of 

any data indicating that the number of 

active mode hours has changed and, if 

so, what a more accurate number might 

be. Therefore, DOE did not adopt 

amendments to the number of active 

mode hours in the TP Final Rule. 76 FR 

972, 988 (January 6, 2011). For these 

reasons, DOE believes that using the 140 

annual active mode hours, as specified 

in the existing test procedure, to 

determine the number of annual 

inactive mode and off mode hour of 

8,620, as adopted in the TP Final Rule 

(76 FR 990), provides a more 

representative estimate of consumer use 

than the method suggested by BSH. 

b. Automatic Cycle Termination 

In the framework document, DOE 

stated the clothes dryer test procedure 

may not adequately measure the 

benefits of automatic cycle termination, 

in which a sensor monitors either the 

exhaust air temperature or moisture in 

the drum to determine the length of the 

drying cycle. Currently, the test 

procedure provides a single field use 

factor for the enhanced performance of 

clothes dryers equipped with automatic 

termination. This single field use factor 

does not distinguish between the type of 

sensing control system (for example, 

temperature-sensing or moisture-sensing 

controls) and the accuracy of the control 

system. In chapter 2 of the preliminary 

TSD, DOE stated that it agrees that the 

effects of automatic cycle termination 

should be more accurately measured in 

its clothes dryer test procedure, and that 

this effect should properly account for 

any over- or under-drying. Thus, DOE 

noted it was considering clothes dryer 

test procedure amendments to address 

automatic cycle termination in the 

active mode test procedure rulemaking. 

In response, interested parties 

commented on the following topics 

relating to automatic cycle termination. 

Definition of Automatic Termination 

Control 

The Joint Petitioners commented that 

DOE should revise section 1.11 of 10 

CFR 430 subpart B, appendix D to more 

clearly account for electronic controls 

by specifying that a preferred automatic 

termination control setting can also be 

indicated by a visual indicator (in 

addition to the mark or detent). The 

clarification would read ‘‘* * * mark, 

visual indicator or detent which 

indicates a preferred * * *’’ (Joint 

Petitioners, No. 33 at p. 25) As 

discussed in the TP Final Rule, DOE 

agreed that a clarification should be 

added to the definition of ‘‘automatic 

termination control.’’ The clarification 

would be that a mark, detent, or other 

visual indicator which indicates a 

preferred automatic termination control 

setting must be present if the dryer is to 

be classified as having an automatic 

termination control. DOE so revised the 

definition in the TP Final Rule. 76 FR 

972, 978 (January 6, 2011). 

Testing Procedures 

AHAM commented in response to the 

preliminary analyses that it continues to 

support the use of the automatic 

termination field use factor as currently 

specified by the DOE clothes dryer test 

procedure. AHAM stated that clothes 

dryers utilize different algorithms to 

determine when the drying cycle should 

end, and any evaluation of a different 

approach will need to be thoroughly 

investigated and should not be based on 

DOE test results from four sample units. 

AHAM proposed that DOE conduct a 

study that evaluates: (1) The accuracy of 

the DOE field use factor for today’s 

products; and (2) the repeatability and 

reproducibility of a procedure where 

cycle end is determined by a moisture 

or temperature sensor. (AHAM, No. 25 

at p. 13) 

Whirlpool commented that its testing 

showed significant improvement in the 

performance of sensors and automatic 

termination cycles when using systems 

that incorporate sensors that directly 

measure the moisture level of the 

clothes. Based on these test results, 

Whirlpool recommended that an 

additional automatic termination factor 

be included that would be equal to 1.01 

to provide an appropriate field use 

factor for clothes dryers that utilize 

improved moisture sensor systems. 

(Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 5) 

After the publication of the 

preliminary analyses, the Joint 

Petitioners submitted the Joint Petition, 

in which they commented that DOE 

should modify the clothes dryer test 

procedure to address the effectiveness of 

automatic termination controls (for 

example, moisture sensor and 

temperature sensor controls). (Joint 

Petitioners, No. 33 at p. 25) Pacific Gas 

& Electric (PG&E), Southern California 

Gas Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas 

and Electric Company (SDGE), and 

Southern California Edison (SCE) jointly 

(hereafter the ‘‘California Utilities’’). 

NRDC, and NEEP commented that the 

current DOE test procedure does not test 

the effectiveness of control sensors, 

which was found to vary significantly. 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 3; 

NRDC, No. 26 at pp. 1, 2; NRDC, No. 30 

at p. 29; NEEP, No. 27 at p. 3) NRDC, 

NEEP, and the California Utilities stated 

that the DOE test procedure is 

unrealistic and tests only the bulkdrying stage. In addition, by not testing 

the high-heat stage (which contributes 

very little to drying clothes) and instead 

applying a field use factor, the current 

test methods overestimate the efficiency 

of the clothes dryer. The current test 

methods also do not appropriately 

measure the energy use of clothes dryers 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22467 

that use more effective controls to limit 

the energy consumption of the high-heat 

stage. (NRDC, No. 26 at pp. 1, 2; NRDC, 

No. 30 at p. 29; NEEP, No. 27 at p. 3; 

California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 3) NRDC 

added that the ECOS report stated that 

there is not much variation in efficiency 

of the bulk drying stage among different 

clothes dryers. However, there are 

considerable differences in the energy 

consumption of the high-heat stage, 

which is not measured by the DOE test 

procedure. (NRDC, No. 30 at p. 23) The 

ECOS report found that the difference 

between a standard clothes dryer and 

one that is effective at turning itself off 

when clothes are actually dry is about 

0.76 kWh per load (5,000 kWh over 

typical lifetime). (NRDC, No. 26 at pp. 

1, 2) The California Utilities also added 

that according to the ECOS report, 

clothes dryers, even with the same 

sensors, can use very different control 

algorithms that result in substantial 

variations between clothes dryers in the 

length of, and the amount of energy 

consumed during, the high-heat stage. 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 3) 

NRDC commented that DOE should 

change its test procedure to measure at 

dryness levels less than 5-percent RMC 

with logging equipment that provides 

data enabling the lab to calculate when 

5-percent RMC is reached and how long 

the clothes dryer continues to run 

thereafter. (NRDC, No. 26 at pp. 1, 2; 

NRDC, No. 30 at pp. 29–30) The 

California Utilities, ACEEE, and NPCC 

also commented that the test procedure 

should let the clothes dryer run until 

automatic shutoff, allowing the clothes 

dryer’s sensors and termination controls 

to operate as intended, which would: (1) 

Be more representative of actual 

consumer behavior and give a better 

measure of expected energy use for 

consumers; (2) avoid the need for a field 

use factor to account for high-heat stage 

energy use and instead measure energy 

use directly; (3) appropriately measure 

the energy use of clothes dryers with 

better termination controls and 

encourage innovation in these controls; 

and (4) make the test procedure easier 

because the technician does not need to 

keep weighing the clothes. (California 

Utilities, No. 31 at pp. 3–4, 12; ACEEE, 

No. 24 at pp. 1–2; NPCC, No. 32 at pp. 

1–2) 

The California Utilities recommended 

the following amendments to section 

3.3, ‘‘Test cycle’’ of the clothes dryer test 

procedure: 

• Set the clothes dryer for its 

‘‘Normal’’ or ‘‘Cotton’’ cycle. If this in 

turn sets a temperature or dryness 

control, leave those controls at the 

default setting. If a temperature control 

must also be set, set it for ‘‘High heat’’ 

or ‘‘Cotton.’’ If a dryness control must 

also be set, set it for ‘‘Normal dry’’ or 

midway between ‘‘More dry’’ and ‘‘Less 

dry.’’ 

• Allow the clothes dryer to run until 

its cycle is complete. Promptly remove 

and weigh the test load. If it contains 5- 

percent or less RMC, the test cycle is 

complete. 

• If the test load contains more than 

5-percent RMC, return the load to the 

clothes dryer and reset the controls. In 

this case, the dryness control would 

then be set for ‘‘Maximum dry’’ and the 

cycle would be run to completion again 

and the test load weighed. Repeat if 

necessary until the RMC is 5 percent or 

less. 

• Total the amount of electricity (and 

gas if applicable) used during the initial 

default cycle and any subsequent cycles. 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 4) 

The California Utilities also stated 

that section 4 of the DOE test procedure 

would be modified to remove all 

references to the field use factor. That 

factor is no longer needed because the 

test cycle now represents a typical 

consumer use cycle (including both the 

bulk-drying and high-heat stages), and 

would be omitted from all calculations. 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 4) The 

California Utilities stated that the 

clothes dryers tested for the ECOS 

report using the default settings of the 

‘‘Normal’’ or ‘‘Cotton’’ cycles all resulted 

in RMCs between 0 and 3 percent at the 

completion of the clothes dryer cycle. 

Therefore, it may be reasonable to 

assume that the additional cycles will 

rarely be used. The California Utilities 

stated that the additional cycles are 

included in their proposal to prevent a 

manufacturer from creating a default 

cycle that saves energy by not actually 

getting the clothes adequately dry. The 

California Utilities also stated that their 

proposed procedure represents the most 

likely consumer response to clothes that 

did not get dry the first time. (California 

Utilities, No. 31 at p. 4) 

The California Utilities also 

commented that, under their 

recommended test procedure changes 

for automatic cycle termination, there is 

a noticeable difference in energy 

consumption between the best and 

worst clothes dryers. For clothes dryers 

that respond effectively when the 

clothes have reached 5-percent RMC by 

discontinuing the application of heat 

and allowing the residual heat in the 

clothes to evaporate the remaining 

moisture, the energy measured under 

the new test cycle will be very similar 

to the energy measured under the 

current DOE test procedure, as the 

shutoff point will occur near 5-percent 

RMC under either test. The California 

Utilities stated that its proposed test 

procedure would more accurately 

measure the real contribution of 

automatic termination controls and 

mimic consumer behavior. As a result 

there would be no need to use a field 

use factor for clothes dryers with 

automatic termination controls. 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 4) 

BSH commented that DOE should test 

clothes dryers using the automatically 

controlled programs including the cooldown phase. According to BSH, timer 

dryers waste energy because consumers 

will set a longer drying time than 

required to ensure the desired drying 

results, resulting in over-drying. BSH 

commented that a change in the test 

procedure to measure the real final 

moisture content for automatically 

controlled dryers will show the 

differences between competitive clothes 

dryers. BSH also commented that the 

cool-down phase is, in automatically 

controlled dryers, an essential part of 

the process to use the energy in the most 

efficient way, and that the heat 

accumulated in the appliance and the 

laundry may be used to finish drying 

the laundry and increase the efficiency 

of the clothes dryer. (BSH, No. 23 at pp. 

4–5) 

NRDC commented that the ECOS 

report states that newer clothes dryers 

are capable of moisture-sensing drying, 

but that feature can be (and likely 

routinely is being) overridden by 

consumers who continue to operate 

clothes dryers on a time basis as they 

always have. NRDC added that the 

ECOS report states that DOE should 

require manufacturers to incorporate 

moisture sensing into the timed cycle to 

ensure that the heating element shuts off 

and that airflow is greatly reduced once 

the clothes are dry. (NRDC, No. 30 at p. 

29) 

As discussed above in this section, 

DOE proposed amendments to its 

clothes dryer test procedure in the TP 

SNOPR to more accurately account for 

automatic cycle termination. However, 

as discussed in the TP Final Rule, DOE 

conducted testing on a sample of 

representative clothes dryers according 

to the amendments to the test procedure 

for automatic cycle termination 

proposed in the TP SNOPR. The tests 

consisted of running the clothes dryer 

on a ‘‘normal’’ automatic termination 

setting and stopping the clothes dryer 

when the heater switches off for the 

final time (immediately before the cooldown period begins). Three identical 

tests were conducted for each clothes 

dryer unit, and the results were 

averaged. DOE first noted that not all of 

the clothes dryers offered a ‘‘normal’’ 

cycle setting. For those clothes dryers, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22468 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

14The DOE clothes dryer test load is comprised 

of 22 in x 34 in pieces of 50/50 cotton/polyesterblend cloth. 

DOE chose the cycle that would most 

closely match a ‘‘normal’’ cycle. The 

results of this testing, presented below 

in Table III.1, showed that the tested 

clothes dryers had a measured EF of 

between 12.4 percent and 38.8 percent 

lower than the EF measured according 

to the current DOE clothes dryer test 

procedure. DOE also noted that all of 

tested units dried the test load to final 

RMCs well below the target RMC of 5 

percent, ranging from 0.4 percent to 1.4 

percent RMC, with an average of 0.8 

percent. DOE also noted that even if the 

field use factor for a timer dryer is 

applied to the measured EF for a clothes 

dryer equipped with automatic cycle 

termination, using the current DOE 

clothes dryer test procedure (to add the 

fixed estimate of over-drying energy 

consumption associated with time 

termination control dryers), this EF 

would still be less than the EF measured 

under the automatic cycle termination 

test procedure amendments proposed in 

the TP SNOPR. 76 FR 972, 999 (January 

6, 2011). 

TABLE III.1—DOE CLOTHES DRYER AUTOMATIC CYCLE TERMINATION TESTS

Test unit 

Current DOE test 

procedure 

EF lb/kWh 

Current DOE 

test procedure 

w/modified 

field use 

factor * 

EF lb/kWh 

Proposed automatic cycle 

termination test procedure 

EF lb/kWh % Change Final RMC % 

Vented Electric Standard: 

Unit 3 ........................................................ 3.20 2.82 2.59 ¥19.1 1.0 

Unit 4 ........................................................ 3.28 2.89 2.59 ¥21.2 0.6 

Vented Gas: 

Unit 8 ........................................................ 2.83 2.50 2.42 ¥14.5 0.4 

Unit 9 ........................................................ 2.85 2.51 2.38 ¥16.3 0.9 

Unit 11 ...................................................... 2.98 2.63 2.40 ¥19.5 0.9 

Vented Electric Compact 240V: 

Unit 12 ...................................................... 3.19 2.81 2.64 ¥17.3 0.5 

Unit 13 ...................................................... 2.93 2.59 2.27 ¥22.7 1.4 

Vented Electric Compact 120V: 

Unit 14 ...................................................... 3.23 2.85 1.98 ¥38.8 0.7 

Ventless Electric Compact 240V: 

Unit 15 ...................................................... 2.37 2.09 2.07 ¥12.4 1.1 

* Field use factor changed from 1.04 for clothes dryers with automatic termination to 1.18 for timer dryers. 

In the TP Final Rule, DOE stated that 

these test results showed significantly 

higher measured energy use for clothes 

dryers tested under the DOE test 

procedure with the proposed automatic 

cycle termination amendments. DOE 

evaluated possible reasons for this 

difference. DOE concluded that given 

the test load specified in the test 

procedure,14 the proposed automatic 

cycle termination control procedures 

may not adequately measure clothes 

dryer performance. As discussed in the 

previous paragraph, DOE believes that, 

although automatic termination control 

dryers may be measured as having a 

lower efficiency than a comparable 

dryer with only time termination 

control if tested according to the 

proposed test procedure, automatic 

termination control dryers may in fact 

be drying the clothing to approximately 

5-percent RMC in real world use. DOE 

believes that automatic termination 

control dryers reduce energy 

consumption (by reducing over-drying) 

compared to timer dryers based on 

analysis of the AHAM field use survey 

and analysis of field test data conducted 

by NIST. 46 FR 27324 (May 19, 1981). 

For these reasons, DOE stated in the 

TP Final Rule that it believes that the 

test procedure amendments for 

automatic cycle termination proposed in 

the TP SNOPR do not adequately 

measure the energy consumption of 

clothes dryers equipped with such 

systems. As a result, DOE did not adopt 

the amendments for automatic cycle 

termination proposed in the TP SNOPR. 

76 FR 972, 1000 (January 6, 2011). DOE 

noted that if data is made available to 

develop a test procedure that accurately 

measures the energy consumption of 

clothes dryers equipped with automatic 

termination controls, DOE may consider 

revised amendments in a future 

rulemaking. 

With regard to NRDC’s comment that 

DOE should require manufacturers to 

incorporate moisture sensing into the 

timed cycle, DOE notes that EPCA 

defines an energy conservation standard 

as either a performance standard or, for 

certain products including clothes 

dryers, a design requirement. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(6)) EPCA also specifies that DOE 

may set more than one energy 

conservation standard for products that 

serve more than one major function by 

setting one energy conservation 

standard for each major function. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(5)) DOE notes the energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers set forth in this final rule are 

based on drying performance and that 

an additional precriptive standard to 

require manufacturers to incorporate 

moisture sensing into the timed dry 

cycle would address the same major 

function of the drying performance. For 

these reasons, DOE is not adopting an 

additional prescriptive requirement for 

clothes dryers. 

DOE believes that the alternate test 

procedure for automatic cycle 

termination recommended by the 

California Utilities is similar to the test 

cycle proposed by DOE in the TP 

SNOPR. DOE notes that the California 

Utilities’ recommendations would 

clarify the settings to be used in cases 

where a ‘‘Normal’’ cycle or ‘‘High heat’’ 

temperature setting was not clearly 

specified. DOE does not believe that this 

added clarification would resolve the 

issues with the proposed automatic 

cycle termination test procedure 

identified in this section because the 

setting used during DOE testing would 

be the same under the California 

Utilities’ recommendation. In addition, 

DOE notes that the California Utilties’ 

recommendation to specify the ‘‘Normal 

dry’’ setting is generally the default 

setting under the ‘‘Normal’’ cycle. DOE 

also notes that the ‘‘Normal dry’’ setting 

was used during its testing, and as a 

result this clarification would not 

resolve the issues associated with the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22469 

automatic cycle termination test 

procedure identified above. Finally, 

DOE notes the California Utilities’ 

recommendation that if the test load 

contains more than 5-percent RMC, the 

test load would be placed back in the 

clothes dryer and the cycle would be 

run again using the ‘‘Maximum dry’’ 

setting is similar to the proposed 

amendments in the TP SNOPR. 

However, the proposed amendments in 

the TP SNOPR would require the test be 

re-run from the start using the specified 

initial RMC and the ‘‘Maximum dry’’ 

setting. The California Utilities’ 

recommendations would require that 

the test load with the RMC at the end 

of the first test cycle be re-run on a cycle 

with the ‘‘Maximum dry’’ setting and the 

energy would then be accumulated. 

DOE believes that this recommendation 

would not resolve the issue of the 

significant over-drying observed during 

testing because it addresses cases only 

in which the test load under-dries. For 

these reasons, DOE is not adopting the 

alternate test procedure for automatic 

cycle termination recommended by the 

California Utilities. If DOE considers 

adopting test procedure amendments for 

automatic cycle termination in a future 

rulemaking, it may consider these 

recommendations. 

Cycle Settings 

NRDC commented that the testing 

described in the ECOS report showed 

that automatic termination cycles using 

lower heat settings or lower dryness 

level reduce energy consumption and 

increase efficiency because less energy 

is spent heating air, cloth, and metal. 

NRDC commented that the ECOS report 

summarized testing results for one 

clothes dryer that showed that the 

difference in energy consumption 

between the highest and lowest heat 

settings was 13 percent and that the 

drying time increased (from 35 to 49 

minutes), but very similar final RMCs 

were achieved. (NRDC, No. 30 at p. 22) 

NRDC commented that the ECOS report 

found that a ‘‘normal dry’’ setting 

removed practically all of the water 

(producing a final RMC of less than 1 

percent), making the ‘‘more dry’’ setting 

appear to be unnecessary. The ECOS 

report stated that the ‘‘normal dry’’ used 

about 12 percent less energy than the 

‘‘more dry’’ setting, and the ‘‘less dry’’ 

setting saved another 18 percent, but 

did leave residual moisture in the 

clothes. NRDC commented that the 

ECOS report added that in all but the 

highest humidity climates, the ‘‘less dry’’ 

setting may be fully adequate and would 

give considerable energy savings. Id. 

NRDC commented that DOE should 

measure the efficiency of different 

clothes dryer settings, in particular the 

‘‘more dry’’ setting, which the ECOS 

report stated may not be warranted 

because the ‘‘normal dry’’ settings 

remove effectively all of the moisture. 

(NRDC, No. 26 at pp. 1, 3) 

As discussed in the previous section, 

DOE did not adopt amendments to more 

accurately account for automatic cycle 

termination in the TP Final Rule. 

Therefore DOE did not consider 

amendments to the clothes dryer test 

procedure to measure the efficiency of 

different clothes dryer automatic cycle 

termination temperature and dryness 

level settings. 

Effect of Automatic Cycle Termination 

Test Procedure on Measured Energy 

Factor 

The California Utilities stated that 

under their proposed test procedure, the 

4 percent field use factor would not be 

necessary; therefore removing it would 

reduce apparent (reported) energy use 

by 4 percent. Instead of EFs from 3.01 

to 3.4, these clothes dryers would be 

rated at EF from 3.13 to 3.54. According 

to the California Utilities, these higher 

ratings are appropriate because these 

clothes dryers stop quickly and save the 

consumer energy under real world 

operating conditions. (California 

Utilities, No. 31 at pp. 4–5) NRDC 

commented that the ECOS report 

summarized testing results that showed 

that some electronically controlled 

dryers could detect the clothes were 

already dry and shut down after 5 to 15 

minutes, while electromechanically 

controlled dryers needed up to 50 

minutes before shutting down. (NRDC, 

No. 30 at pp. 29–30) The California 

Utilities also noted that one clothes 

dryer tested in the ECOS report ran for 

an additional 30 minutes after reaching 

5 percent RMC because of an inefficient 

control algorithm and would test with 

an EF of about 2.51 under their 

proposed test procedure. According to 

the California Utilities, this lower rating 

would be appropriate, because in real 

practice this dryer would significantly 

increase clothes dryer energy use. 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 5) The 

California Utilities commented that a 

real savings opportunity exists simply 

through an improved test procedure (as 

they proposed), which will better 

characterize the real-world energy 

performance of dryers. The California 

Utilities added that dryers that meet the 

baseline EF under the current test 

procedure but have poor automatic 

termination controls will not meet the 

same EF under a revised test. Thus, 

those dryers will have to improve to 

meet the baseline EF of 3.01. The 

California Utilities added that, if tested 

using their proposed test procedure, the 

least efficient clothes dryers in the 

sample of clothes dryers in the ECOS 

report will need to increase their 

efficiency by 20 percent or more to meet 

the current energy conservation 

standard. (California Utilities, No. 31 at 

p. 5) 

As discussed in the Test Procedures 

section, DOE did not adopt the 

amendments to the clothes dryer test 

procedure to better account for 

automatic cycle termination that were 

proposed in the TP SNOPR. As a result, 

DOE is not considering any revisions to 

the energy conservation standards based 

on the proposed amendments for 

automatic cycle termination in the TP 

SNOPR. If DOE considers potential 

amendments for automatic cycle 

termination in a future rulemaking, it 

would also consider any necessary 

revisions to the energy conservation 

standards. In addition, as discussed 

above, DOE noted that the alternate test 

procedure for automatic cycle 

termination recommended by the 

California Utilities is similar to the test 

cycle proposed by DOE in the TP 

SNOPR. As a result, DOE does not 

believe the measured EF would be 

different between the proposed 

amendments in the TP SNOPR and the 

California Utilities’ recommendations 

except for cases in which the test load 

is not dried to below 5-percent RMC. In 

this case the California Utilities’ 

recommendations would require that 

the measured energy consumption from 

any additional test cycles using the 

‘‘Maximum dry’’ setting be added to the 

energy consumption from the first test 

cycle, whereas the measured efficiency 

under the proposed amendments in the 

TP SNOPR would be based on only the 

re-run test cycle using the ‘‘Maximum 

dry’’ setting. However, for the reasons 

discussed above, DOE believes that the 

California Utilities’ recommendations 

would not resolve the issue of the 

significant over-drying observed during 

DOE testing. As a result, DOE is not 

adopting the alternate test procedure for 

automatic cycle termination 

recommended by the California Utilities 

and therefore is not considering any 

revisions to the energy conservation 

standards based on these 

recommendations. 

c. Ventless Clothes Dryers 

For the reasons discussed in section 

IV.A.3.a of this direct final rule, DOE 

defines two new product classes in this 

rulemaking for ventless clothes dryers. 

The clothes dryer test procedure at 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D is 

unable to test ventless clothes dryers, 

which include condensing clothes 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22470 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

15Whirlpool’s proposed amendments for ventless 

clothes dryers included: (1) Definitions of 

‘‘conventional’’ and ‘‘condensing’’ clothes dryers; (2) 

installation conditions; (3) requirements for clothes 

dryer preconditioning; (4) requirements for 

condensation boxes and condenser units; and (5) 

requirements for test cycle measurements. 

dryers as well as combination washer/ 

dryers. Ventless clothes dryers do not 

vent exhaust air to the outside as a 

conventional, vented dryer does. 

Instead, they typically use ambient air 

in a heat exchanger to cool the hot, 

humid air inside the appliance, thereby 

condensing out the moisture. 

Alternatively, cold water can be used in 

the heat exchanger to condense the 

moisture from the air in the drum. In 

either case, the dry air exiting the drum 

is reheated and recirculated in a closed 

loop. Thus, rather than venting 

moisture-laden exhaust air outside, 

ventless clothes dryers produce a 

wastewater stream that can be either 

collected in an included water container 

or discharged down the household 

drain. The process of condensing out 

the moisture in the recirculated air 

results in higher energy consumption 

than a conventional dryer, and it can 

significantly increase the ambient room 

temperature. 

To address the potential limitation of 

the clothes dryer test procedure for 

ventless dryers, DOE proposed an 

alternate test procedure for ventless 

dryers in the TP SNOPR and adopted 

this procedure in the TP Final Rule. [75 

FR 37594, 37620 (June 29, 2010); 76 FR 

972, 976–977 (January 6, 2011)] The 

alternate test procedure consists of 

adding separate definitions for a 

‘‘conventional clothes dryer’’ (vented) 

and a ‘‘ventless clothes dryer.’’ Further, 

the alternate test procedure qualifies the 

requirement for an exhaust simulator so 

that it would only apply to conventional 

clothes dryers. DOE also adopted 

provisions to clarify the testing 

procedures for ventless clothes dryers, 

including requirements for clothes 

dryers equipped with a condensation 

box, requirements for the condenser 

heat exchanger, and specifications for 

ventless clothes dryer preconditioning. 

DOE also adopted clarifications in the 

TP Final Rule to provide explicit 

instructions as to the procedure for rerunning the test cycle when the 

condensation box is full. DOE also 

revised the requirement for ventless 

clothes dryer preconditioning to remove 

the maximum time limit for achieving a 

steady-state temperature. DOE also 

included additional editorial 

clarifications to the testing procedures 

for ventless clothes dryers. 76 FR 972, 

976–977 (January 6, 2011). 

In chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD, 

prior to adoption of the TP Final Rule, 

DOE stated that it was considering 

amendments to its clothes dryer test 

procedure to allow for the measurement 

of the energy efficiency of ventless 

clothes dryers in its active mode test 

procedure rulemaking. 

The Joint Petitioners commented that 

DOE should create a ventless clothes 

dryer (including ventless combination 

washer/dryer) test procedure to inform 

a baseline energy consumption level for 

this new product category. (Joint 

Petitioners, No. 33 at p. 25) 

AHAM suggested that DOE 

incorporate language from the alternate 

test procedure presented in the LG’s 

Petition for Waiver and Denial of the 

Application for Interim Waiver (71 FR 

49437, 49439 (Aug. 23, 2006)), with the 

additional changes that the term 

‘‘condensing clothes dryer’’ be changed 

to ‘‘ventless clothes dryer’’ and ‘‘HLD–1’’ 

be changed to ‘‘AHAM HLD–1.’’ AHAM 

stated that DOE should validate the 

proposed test procedure approach and 

the resultant energy consumption values 

through a viable statistical method. 

AHAM stated that it is not in a position 

to provide data on ventless products 

due to the small number of products in 

the proposed ‘‘compact ventless’’ 

product class. According to AHAM, 

ventless clothes dryers, when tested 

using the dryer-centric approach 

presented by DOE in the LG Petition for 

Waiver, will appear to have higher 

energy consumption (kWh per year) 

than conventional vented clothes 

dryers. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 4) 

Whirlpool commented that its 

proposal, which provides amendments 

to the DOE test procedure to include 

methods for testing of ventless clothes 

dryers, improves upon the DOE 

proposal for the ventless clothes dryer 

test procedure because it takes into 

account technical differences between 

vented and ventless clothes dryers.15

(Whirlpool, No. 13 at pp. 1–22) 

Whirlpool indicated that their proposal 

was a draft only and they would be 

willing to work with DOE to make 

revisions or enhancements to this 

proposal. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 1) 

In the TP Final Rule, DOE adopted 

testing methods for the testing of 

ventless clothes dryers based on the 

alternate test procedure proposed in the 

TP SNOPR; the amendments suggested 

by Whirlpool; and additional language 

from the internationally accepted test 

standards Australia/New Zealand (AS/ 

NZS) Standard 2442, ‘‘Performance of 

household electrical appliances—Rotary 

clothes dryers’’ and European Standard 

EN 61121, ‘‘Tumble dryers for 

household use—Methods for measuring 

the performance,’’ Edition 3 2005 (EN 

Standard 61121). 76 FR 972, 976 

(January 6, 2011). Also noted in the TP 

Final Rule, DOE used the term 

‘‘ventless’’ instead of ‘‘condensing,’’ as 

suggested by AHAM, to reflect the 

actual consumer utility (that is, no 

external vent required) because it is 

possible that vented dryers that also 

condense may become available on the 

market. Id. DOE also conducted testing 

for the TP Final Rule to evaluate the 

repeatability of the amended test 

procedure for ventless dryers. As 

detailed in the TP Final Rule, ventless 

electric compact 240V dryers and 

ventless electric combination washer/ 

dryers showed less than 1 percent 

variation and less than 3.5 percent 

variation in EF from test to test, 

respectively. DOE stated in the TP Final 

Rule that it believes that the 

amendments for ventless clothes dryers 

produce repeatable measurements of EF. 

76 FR 972, 1009 (January 6, 2011). DOE 

also notes that the measured EF values 

for ventless electric compact (240V) 

dryers and ventless electric combination 

washer/dryers tested according to the 

DOE test procedure at appendix D, 

using only the amendments for ventless 

clothes dryers (2.37 and 2.02, 

respectively), are in close agreement 

with the baseline values proposed in the 

preliminary analyses shown below in 

Table IV.15 and Table IV.16. Therefore, 

DOE did not revise the baseline EF 

levels for the ventless clothes dryer 

product classes. 

In response to AHAM’s comment that 

‘‘HLD–1’’ should be changed to ‘‘AHAM 

HLD–1,’’ DOE has adopted this editorial 

change in the TP Final Rule. 76 FR 972, 

1032 (January 6, 2011). 

BSH commented that DOE should 

consider the condensation rate for 

ventless clothes dryers. BSH added that 

the condensation rate efficiency is an 

important indicator to measure. (BSH, 

No. 23 at p. 4) DOE notes that EN 

Standard 61121 provides for a 

measurement of the condensation rate 

efficiency. However, this measurement 

is not used in the calculation of energy 

use, which considers only the energy 

required to dry the load to a specified 

final RMC. However, DOE also notes 

that the ability of a ventless clothes 

dryer to condense moisture directly 

affects the energy use per-cycle. For 

example, if a ventless clothes dryer has 

a lower condensation efficiency, the air 

recirculated into the drum would 

contain more moisture and thus would 

be able to remove less moisture from the 

test load. As a result, the energy use of 

such a ventless clothes dryer would be 

greater than a ventless clothes dryer 

with a higher condensation efficiency 

because it would need to run for a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22471 

longer time to condense the same 

amount of moisture from the test load. 

Therefore, DOE believes that the 

condensation efficiency of a ventless 

clothes dryer is sufficiently accounted 

for in the measurement of the per-cycle 

energy consumption. For these reasons, 

DOE is not providing for a measurement 

of condensation efficiency of a clothes 

dryer. 

NRDC questioned whether ventless 

electric combination washer/dryers are 

going to be tested in drying mode only 

or as a unit with washing and drying 

capability. NRDC stated that, according 

to the ECOS report, there is a potential 

for energy savings if manufacturers are 

allowed to test units together that work 

together, because it is more efficient to 

manually remove the water than to dry 

it. NRDC supported the ECOS report 

suggestion that DOE consider a testing 

and labeling program based on the total 

energy use, cost, and CO2 emissions for 

washing and drying a standard load of 

clothes. According to the ECOS report 

submitted by NRDC, highly efficient 

clothes washers greatly decrease the 

amount of work that a clothes dryer 

needs to do, but that a clothes dryer is 

less efficient when drying loads with 

lower initial RMCs. (NRDC, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21.4 at p. 22; 

NRDC, No. 30 at pp. 31–32) Whirlpool 

commented that the development of a 

test procedure for ventless electric 

combination washer/dryers is not worth 

the time and resources necessary to 

develop it and suggested that DOE not 

proceed with such an effort. (Whirlpool, 

No. 22 at p. 1) DOE is not aware of 

repeatable and representative test 

methodologies to accurately measure 

the efficiency of a combined wash-dry 

cycle. DOE notes that the clothes washer 

test procedure requires the 

measurement of multiple load sizes 

(minimum, maximum, and average 

values) as well as multiple cycle settings 

and water temperatures, but the clothes 

dryer test procedure requires only a 

single test load size with a single timed 

dry cycle with the highest temperature 

setting. DOE is not aware of how the test 

load sizes and cycle settings would be 

aligned to produce accurate and 

representative test results. DOE also 

notes that the maximum load size for 

the washing portion of the cycle (sized 

according to the capacity of the drum), 

may be larger than the load size 

recommended by manufacturers for the 

drying portion of the cycle, and thus it 

is not clear what size test load should 

be specified for a combined cycle. For 

these reasons, DOE is not adopting a test 

procedure to measure a full combined 

wash-dry cycle. DOE also notes that the 

efficiency of the washer portion of a 

combination washer/dryer is covered 

under the minimum energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

washers, and that the TP Final Rule 

amended the clothes dryer test 

procedure to include methods for 

measuring the energy use of the drying 

portion of a combination washer/dryer. 

d. Consumer Usage Habits 

Annual Cycles 

DOE published a final rule on August 

27, 1997, amending the DOE clothes 

washer test procedure to lower the 

annual clothes washer use cycle value 

from 416 to 392 cycles per year, a value 

DOE determined to be more 

representative of current usage patterns. 

62 FR 45484. Further, the revised DOE 

clothes washer test procedure assumes 

that 84 percent of all clothes washer 

loads are dried in clothes dryers. Thus, 

the annual usage pattern for clothes 

dryers would be 329 cycles per year. In 

addition, in the recently proposed 

amendments to the clothes washer test 

procedure, DOE proposed to amend the 

number of cycles per year to 295. 75 FR 

57556, 57564 (Sept. 21, 2010). In 

contrast, the current DOE residential 

clothes dryer test procedure in appendix 

D assumes an average annual clothes 

dryer use of 416 cycles per year. (10 

CFR 430.23(d)(1)) 

DOE stated in chapter 2 of the 

preliminary TSD that it was reviewing 

available data on the number of annual 

clothes dryer cycles, and would 

consider amendments to its test 

procedure to accurately reflect the 

number of annual clothes dryer cycles 

for the clothes dryer tests. 

The Joint Petitioners and ACEEE 

commented that DOE should update the 

number of clothes dryer cycles per year 

based on the best available data (ideally 

based on a nationally representative 

sample). (Joint Petitioners, No. 33 at 

p. 25; ACEEE, No. 24 at p. 1) The 

California Utilities supported reducing 

the clothes dryer cycles per year from 

416 to 329 to reflect new Energy 

Information Administration (EIA)’s 

‘‘Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey’’ (RECS) survey data on 

household use. (California Utilities, No. 

31 at pp. 2–3, 12) According to AHAM, 

a recent Proctor & Gamble (P&G) 

consumer survey showed that the 

average consumer dries 5.35 loads per 

week, or 278 load per year, which is 

essentially identical to the value 

estimated by RECS (279 cycles per year), 

providing good verification for the RECS 

approach. AHAM commented that DOE 

should ensure that any value used in the 

economic portion of the rulemaking 

analysis (that is, cycles per year) be used 

in the engineering analysis, and that the 

test procedure be modified to reflect this 

value. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 9) 

As discussed in the TP Final Rule, 

DOE amended its clothes dryer test 

procedure to change the number of 

clothes dryer cycles per year from 416 

to 283 based on data from the 2005 

RECS. 76 FR 972, 977 (January 6, 2011). 

DOE notes that this value is in close 

agreement with the estimates provided 

in the P&G data (278 cycles per year). 

DOE also noted in the TP SNOPR that 

data from the 2004 California Statewide 

Residential Appliance Saturation Study 

(RASS), which surveyed appliance 

product usage patterns, including 

clothes dryers, indicated an average of 

4.69 loads per week, or approximately 

244 loads per year, which is in 

agreement with the downward trend of 

the number of clothes dryer cycles per 

year. Because the 2004 California 

Statewide RASS provides only a limited 

dataset, however, DOE stated in the TP 

SNOPR that it did not intend to rely 

only on this data to determine an 

appropriate number of annual use 

cycles for the clothes dryer test 

procedure. 75 FR 37594, 37625 (June 29, 

2010). DOE believes that these data 

sources provide sufficient justification 

for the revised value of 283 cycles per 

year using the RECS-based approach. 

Cycle Time 

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

commented that DOE’s assumption of 

8,620 standby hours leaves 140 active 

mode hours which would correspond to 

20 minutes per drying cycle (if the 

assumption is that there are 416 dryer 

cycles per year). EEI questioned whether 

this was accurate and stated that DOE 

should review those numbers. (EEI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21.4, at 

p. 49) DOE notes that the TP Final Rule 

amends the DOE clothes dryer test 

procedure to lower the initial RMC of 

the clothes load from 70 percent to 57.5 

percent which will result in a decreased 

cycle time. DOE also notes that the 

amendments in the TP Final Rule to 

increase the test load size for standard 

size dryers from 7 lb. to 8.45 lb. as well 

as changing the water temperature for 

test load preparation from 100 °F to 60 

°F will result in an increased cycle time. 

76 FR 972, 988 (January 6, 2011). The 

TP Final Rule also amended the clothes 

dryer test procedure to change the 

number of cycles per year from 416 to 

283. 76 FR 977. Based on the 

amendment to the number of annual use 

cycles, DOE notes that the cycle length 

would be approximately 30 minutes 

(140 annual active mode hours/283 

active mode cycles per year). DOE is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22472 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

unaware, however, of consumer usage 

data indicating that the number of active 

mode hours per year has changed. For 

these reasons, DOE did not change the 

number of clothes dryer active mode 

hours in the TP Final Rule. 

Initial RMC 

The DOE clothes dryer test procedure 

in appendix D specifies that the clothes 

load have an initial RMC of 70 ± 3.5 

percent. DOE stated in the preliminary 

TSD that a review of residential clothes 

washer models in the California Energy 

Commission (CEC) product database 

suggests that the average RMC is less 

than the nominal 70 percent that is 

currently provided for in the DOE 

clothes dryer test procedure. Therefore, 

DOE stated it was considering 

amendments to the clothes dryer test 

procedure to address RMC. 

The Joint Petitioners and ACEEE 

commented that DOE should update the 

initial RMC based on the best available 

data (ideally based on a nationally 

representative sample). (Joint 

Petitioners, No. 33 at p. 25; ACEEE, No. 

24 at p. 1) NRDC commented that DOE’s 

initial RMC assumptions do not reflect 

today’s washing machines and should 

be revised to better reflect current 

washer technology. (NRDC, No. 26 at 

pp. 2, 4) NRDC commented that the 

ECOS report summarized test results for 

a single clothes washer which showed 

that the RMCs after the wash cycle is 

finished are 70-percent RMC for cotton 

bath towels and 40-percent RMC for the 

DOE 50/50 cotton/polyester test cloths. 

(NRDC, No. 30 at pp. 30–31) NRDC also 

stated that the energy consumption of a 

clothes dryer decreases when the initial 

RMC is lower, but not in direct 

proportion to the lowered water content 

because energy is still used to heat and 

move the air, cloth and metal. (NRDC, 

No. 26 at pp. 2, 4) The California 

Utilities and the NPCC both supported 

reducing the initial RMC from the 

current 70 percent to a value nearer to 

56 percent, based on data submitted by 

AHAM, recognizing that today’s 

washers have faster spin speeds and 

typically leave less water in the clothes. 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at pp. 2, 12; 

NPCC, No. 32 at p. 2) However, NPCC 

also commented that even an initial 

RMC of 56 percent may not reflect the 

RMC produced by higher efficiency 

clothes washers that may be required as 

a result of the current DOE rulemaking 

for those products. NPCC commented 

that the average RMC for clothes 

washers in the July 2008 CEC appliance 

product directory was only 46 percent 

(as presented by DOE), which is well 

below its proposed revised value. 

(NPCC, No. 32 at p. 2) 

AHAM and Whirlpool supported 

using the industry shipment-weighted 

average residential clothes washer RMC 

of 47 percent derived from data 

provided by AHAM. They commented 

that DOE should use the 47-percent 

RMC in both the engineering and 

economic analyses; modify the test 

procedure by changing the RMC from 70 

percent to 47 percent; and modify the 

baseline energy factor to reflect the 

change in the test procedure. Whirlpool 

added that failure to do so will result in 

overstating clothes dryer energy use, 

thus rendering all payback and LCC 

calculations erroneous. (AHAM, No. 25 

at p. 10; Whirlpool, No. 22 at pp. 2–3) 

AHAM also stated that data collected by 

industry showed a 22-percent increase 

in EF when the initial RMC is changed 

to 56 percent. AHAM commented that 

they expect EF will increase further as 

RMC is reduced to 47 percent, but that 

the relationship is not expected to be 

linear. (AHAM No. 25 at p. 10) 

BSH also commented that it supports 

reducing the initial RMC for testing 

purposes, and added that the DOE test 

procedure should be defined before any 

energy conservation standard levels are 

established. (BSH, No. 23 at p. 6) BSH 

also commented that it should be 

clarified which energy consumption 

results from each change in the test 

procedure before a suitable 

classification can be done and added 

that a round robin test may be helpful 

to estimate the energy levels. (BSH, No. 

23 at p. 6) 

In the TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to 

change the initial RMC from 70 percent 

to 47 percent based on shipmentweighted clothes washer RMC data 

provided by AHAM. 75 FR 37594, 

37626–31 (June 29, 2010). As discussed 

in the TP Final Rule, DOE received 

comments in response to the TP SNOPR 

that the shipment-weighted average 

RMC value in the AHAM data was 

based on the clothes washer RMC, 

which uses an RMC correction factor to 

normalize testing results from different 

lots of test cloth, but the DOE clothes 

dryer test procedure should instead use 

the uncorrected RMC value. DOE 

determined that an initial clothes dryer 

RMC of 57.5 percent more accurately 

represents the moisture content of 

current laundry loads after a wash cycle 

for the purposes of clothes dryer testing, 

derived from the 47-percent shipmentweighted RMC for clothes washers (that 

was based on analysis of data provided 

by AHAM) without the application of 

the RMC correction factor specified in 

the DOE clothes washer test procedure, 

as discussed above in this paragraph. 

DOE validated this estimate using 

clothes washer uncorrected RMC data 

from testing of a limited sample of 

representative clothes washers for the 

DOE clothes washer energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. As a 

result, the TP Final Rule amended the 

DOE clothes dryer test procedure to 

adopt this value for the initial RMC. 76 

FR 972, 977 (January 6, 2011). As 

discussed in section IV.C.2.a, DOE 

conducted testing for the TP Final Rule 

in order to analyze how the 

amendments to the test procedure, 

including the change to the initial RMC, 

would affect the measured efficiency of 

clothes dryers. 

Load Size 

Currently the DOE test procedure for 

clothes dryers requires a 7.00 lb. ± .07 

lb. test load for standard-size dryers and 

a 3.00 lb. ± .03 lb. test load for compactsize dryers. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix D, section 2.7) DOE stated in 

chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD that it 

was reviewing available data to 

determine the current representative 

clothes dryer load size, and would 

consider amendments to its test 

procedure to accurately reflect the 

current clothes dryer test load size for 

the clothes dryer tests. 

The Joint Petitioners and ACEEE 

commented that DOE should update the 

size of the clothes dryer test load based 

on the best available data (ideally based 

on a nationally representative sample). 

(Joint Petitioners, No. 33 at p. 25; 

ACEEE, No. 24 at p. 1) The California 

Utilities and NPCC both supported 

increasing the test load size from 7 lb. 

to 8.3 lb., or another appropriate value, 

commenting that 8.3 lb. is more typical 

of the size of loads in today’s larger 

clothes dryers, as based on DOE’s 

distribution of tub sizes from models in 

the CEC database. (California Utilities, 

No. 31 at p. 2; NPCC, No. 32 at p. 2) 

NRDC also commented that DOE should 

consider modifying the clothes dryer 

size criteria, stating that test load sizes 

for clothes dryers do not correlate to the 

test load sizes for washers and likely do 

not reflect real life load size. According 

to NRDC, current clothes dryer size 

classes are likely inaccurate given that 

today’s clothes dryers can comfortably 

hold loads of 10 to 17 lb., with more 7 

to 8 cubic foot (ft3) models now on the 

market than models smaller than 7 ft3. 

NRDC commented that DOE should 

reevaluate its clothes dryer size criteria 

and test load size to better reflect the 

clothes dryers available on the market 

today. (NRDC, No. 26 at pp. 2, 4; NRDC, 

No. 30 at p. 30) 

AHAM commented that it prefers that 

DOE utilize industry values for data 

such as clothes dryer load size. AHAM 

stated that the shipment-weighted 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22473 

residential clothes washer drum volume 

for standard-size products in 2008 was 

3.24 ft3, which corresponds to an 

average clothes washer load size of 8.15 

lb. AHAM also stated that for compact 

clothes washers, the shipment-weighted 

average drum volume was 1.5 ft3, which 

corresponds to an average load size of 

4.70 lb. AHAM added that because 

compact products are a separate product 

class, they should be treated as such in 

the analysis. AHAM commented that it 

supports the use of two separate load 

sizes (8.15 lb. for standard-size and 4.70 

lb. for compact-size products), if the 

modified load size is used in both the 

engineering and economic analyses, and 

if the test procedure is modified to be 

consistent with this analysis and the 

baseline EF is modified to reflect the 

change in load size. (AHAM, No. 25 at 

pp. 10–11) 

In the TP Final Rule, DOE amended 

the clothes dryer test procedure to 

change the load size from 7.00 lb ± .07 

lb to 8.45 lb ± .085 lb based on the 

historical trends of the shipmentweighted average tub volume for 

residential clothes washers from 1981 to 

2008 and the corresponding percentage 

increase in clothes washer load sizes (as 

specified in the load size table 5.1 in the 

DOE clothes washer test procedure at 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1), 

which is assumed to proportionally 

impact clothes dryer load size. 76 FR 

972, 977 (January 6, 2011). DOE believes 

that this estimate using the percentage 

increase in load size based on trends in 

clothes washer tub volumes would 

produce a more representative value 

than simply using the nominal load size 

value in the clothes washer test 

procedure, as suggested by AHAM. DOE 

does not have any consumer usage data 

indicating that consumers always 

machine dry the same size load from the 

wash cycle such that the average clothes 

washer load size can be directly applied 

to the clothes dryer test procedure, as 

suggested by AHAM. As discussed in 

section IV.C.2.a, DOE conducted testing 

for the TP Final Rule in order to analyze 

how the amendments to the test 

procedure, including the change to the 

load size, would affect the measured 

efficiency. 

DOE stated in the TP Final Rule that 

it believes that most compact clothes 

dryers are used in conjunction with 

compact-size clothes washers, and DOE 

is not aware of data on the trends of 

compact clothes washer tub volumes 

that would suggest that the tub volume 

for such clothes washers has changed 

significantly. 76 FR 972, 1014 (January 

6, 2011). DOE did not receive any such 

data in response to its requests in the TP 

SNOPR. In addition, as discussed above, 

DOE does not have any consumer usage 

data indicating that consumers always 

machine dry the same size load from the 

wash cycle such that the average clothes 

washer load size can be directly applied 

to the clothes dryer test procedure, as 

suggested by AHAM. For these reasons, 

DOE did not revise the test load size for 

compact clothes dryers in the TP Final 

Rule. Id. 

NRDC also commented that the ECOS 

report states that if DOE were to test 

each model across a wide range of load 

sizes and report multiple values, it 

would help consumers choose the 

appropriate sized clothes dryer and to 

fill it with the recommended amount of 

clothing to dry as efficiently as possible. 

(NRDC, No. 30 at p. 30) DOE is not 

aware of any data indicating what load 

sizes typical consumers use or data on 

the percentage of clothes dryer cycles at 

different load sizes to determine how 

such results would be used to calculate 

an energy use or energy efficiency 

metric. DOE is also unaware of data 

showing how such a change would 

affect the measured EF compared to the 

existing test procedure, as required by 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) DOE notes 

that requiring additional test cycles for 

different size loads would add 

significant testing burden on 

manufacturers. For these reasons, DOE 

did not amend the clothes dryer test 

procedure to require the testing of 

multiple test load sizes in the TP Final 

Rule. 

BSH proposed that tumble clothes 

dryers be tested with a load size relative 

to the drum volume, and that this 

relationship be linear. BSH commented 

that the load size that the consumer uses 

generally matches the drum size of the 

clothes dryer (the larger the drum the 

higher the average load size dried). 

According to BSH, using only two load 

sizes for a wide range of drum volumes 

will cause unfairness in comparison of 

different clothes dryers. For example, a 

standard clothes dryer with a 125-liter 

drum volume but 60 centimeter (cm) 

housing (which is right above the limit 

to be ‘‘compact’’) has an unfair 

advantage when its energy efficiency is 

measured due to the fact that the load 

fills the drum much better than in a 

larger appliance. (BSH, No. 23 at p. 4) 

DOE is not aware of any consumer usage 

data indicating how load size varies 

with clothes dryer drum capacity. In 

addition, DOE is not aware of any data 

indicating how such a change would 

affect the measured efficiency. For these 

reasons, DOE did not amend the clothes 

dryer test procedure to require that the 

load size vary with drum capacity. 

Water Temperature for Test Load 

Preparation 

The current clothes dryer test 

procedure specifies a water temperature 

of 100 °F ± 5 °F for the test load 

preparation. (10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix D, section 2.7) The 

California Utilities, ACEEE, and NPCC 

stated that this initial clothes load 

temperature may have been common 

when most clothes washers used a hot 

water rinse. However, today almost all 

clothes washers now default to a cold 

water final rinse to save water heating 

energy. (California Utilities, No. 31 at 

pp. 3, 12; ACEEE, No. 24 at p. 2; NPCC, 

No. 32 at p. 2) According to ACEEE, 

today’s clothes washers typically have a 

cold rinse default and consumers 

increasingly select cold water wash and 

rinse in response to public information 

campaigns and the introduction of 

special ‘‘cold water wash’’ detergents. 

(ACEEE, No. 24 at p. 2) The California 

Utilities, ACEEE, and NPCC 

recommended that DOE align the 

clothes dryer test method with the 

clothes washer test method by reducing 

the water temperature for clothes dryer 

test load preparation to 60 °F ± 5 °F. 

(ACEEE, No. 24 at p. 2) 

As discussed in the TP Final Rule, 

DOE analyzed 2005 RECS data on the 

rinse water temperatures selected by 

consumers for clothes washer cycles, 

which indicates that for consumers that 

use a clothes washer in the home, 

approximately 80 percent of wash 

cycles per year use a cold rinse. 76 FR 

972, 996 (January 6, 2011). In addition, 

DOE also noted that the clothes washer 

test procedure specifies a warm rinse 

temperature use factor of 27 percent, 

suggesting that for the majority of 

clothes washer cycles, consumers use 

the cold rinse. (10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix J1) DOE also sought 

comment on the warm rinse 

temperature use factor in the recent 

proposal to amend the test procedure for 

residential clothes washers because it 

received consumer usage survey data 

from a manufacturer indicating that, for 

one clothes washer model with no cold 

rinse option on the cycle recommended 

for cotton clothes and a default cold 

rinse on all other cycles, users 

participating in the survey reported 

using warm rinse for 1.6 percent of all 

cycles. 75 FR 57556, 57571 (Sept. 21, 

2010) For these reasons, DOE amended 

the clothes dryer test procedure to 

change the water temperature for 

clothes dryer test load preparation from 

100 °F ± 5 °F to 60 °F ± 5 °F to be more 

representative of the clothes load after a 

cold rinse cycle at the end of the wash 

cycle. 76 FR 972, 996 (January 6, 2011). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22474 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Test Cloth 

The current clothes dryer test 

procedure specifies the use of energy 

test cloth consisting of a pure finished 

bleach cloth, made with a momie or 

granite weave, which is a blended fabric 

of 50-percent cotton and 50-percent 

polyester. Each energy test cloth 

measures 24 inches by 36 inches. 

Additional specifications are provided 

in the test procedure for the weight, 

thread count, and allowable shrinkage. 

(10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 

D, section 2.7) 

The ECOS report stated that DOE 

should test a mix of cotton and 

synthetics of various sizes, including 

large sheets, towels, and jeans, rather 

than only testing small, uniform 

synthetic-blend test cloths to more 

closely approximate real-world 

performance. The ECOS report also 

stated that this would deal more fairly 

with the real-world situation in which 

some fabrics have finished drying before 

others, causing the load to either finish 

before everything is dry or after some of 

the fabrics have been over-dried. NRDC 

also commented that the ECOS report 

presented test results using different 

mixes of test loads which showed that 

clothes dryers often stopped with the 

synthetic quite dry (less than 2-percent 

final RMC) but the cotton still damp 

(greater than 6-percent RMC). According 

to NRDC, if DOE were to test each 

model across a wide range of load types 

and report multiple values, it would 

help consumers choose an appropriately 

sized clothes dryer and to fill it with the 

recommended amount of clothing so 

that it would dry as efficiently as 

possible. (NRDC, No. 30 at pp. 22, 30) 

NRDC added that in this real-world 

scenario, clothes dryers may be less 

effective due to clothing balling up or 

the clothes dryer shutting off early due 

to a variety in cloth blends. NRDC 

added that certain techniques such as 

agitating the drum or reversing the cycle 

may help mitigate these problems and 

potentially increase efficiency in a real 

world scenario. NRDC also added that 

the standard DOE test cloths do not 

constitute a typical load and therefore 

do not accurately test clothes dryers’ 

effectiveness at drying loads that have a 

variety of fabric types or are more likely 

to clump. NRDC suggested a mix of 100- 

percent cotton and 50:50 cotton/ 

polyester as an alternative test load. 

(NRDC, No. 26 at pp. 1, 3; NRDC, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21.4 at p. 43) 

DOE is unaware of data to determine 

the composition of clothing types and 

materials that would be more 

representative of typical consumer 

clothing loads than the existing DOE 

test cloth and still produce accurate and 

repeatable results. Similarly, DOE is 

unaware of data showing the test-to-test 

repeatability of different test loads. 

Based on discussions with 

manufacturers, DOE understands the 

test material specified in the existing 

DOE clothes dryer test procedure 

produces the most repeatable results, 

and other tests loads are less repeatable. 

In addition, DOE also notes that 

requiring additional test cycles for loads 

with different clothes types and 

materials would add significant testing 

burden on manufacturers. For these 

reasons, DOE did not amend the clothes 

dryer test procedure in the TP Final 

Rule to change the DOE test load or to 

require the testing of multiple test loads 

composed of different clothes types and 

materials. 

e. Drum Capacity Measurement 

The Joint Petitioners commented that 

DOE should clarify section 3.1 of the 

clothes dryer test procedure regarding 

the measurement of drum capacity to 

specify that the clothes dryer’s rear 

drum surface be supported on a 

platform scale to ‘‘prevent deflection of 

the drum surface * * *’’ instead of 

‘‘prevent deflection of the dryer.’’ (Joint 

Petitioners, No. 33 at p. 25) As 

discussed in the TP Final Rule, DOE 

agrees with the comments that the 

reference to deflection of the ‘‘dryer’’ is 

unclear and should be clarified to 

specify that the clothes dryer’s rear 

drum surface should be supported on a 

platform scale to prevent deflection of 

the drum surface. For this reason, DOE 

amended the clothes dryer test 

procedure in TP Final Rule to reflect 

this change. 76 FR 972, 1019 (January 6, 

2011). 

f. HVAC Effects 

According to EPCA, any prescribed or 

amended test procedures shall be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure energy 

efficiency, energy use, water use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

NRDC and NPCC commented that 

DOE should analyze the effects of 

clothes dryers on a home’s heating and 

cooling energy use. (NRDC, No. 26 at 

pp. 1, 4; NPCC, No. 32 at p. 2) NRDC 

also commented that the current test 

procedure does not analyze the clothes 

dryer’s effect on the heating and cooling 

of the surrounding room, in particular, 

whether the clothes dryer warms the 

room, cools it, or leaves it unchanged. 

NRDC stated that the test procedure 

does not distinguish between clothes 

dryers that vent their exhaust air outside 

(and require makeup air to be 

conditioned), and those that are 

unvented. (NRDC, No. 26 at pp. 1, 4; 

NRDC, No. 30 at p. 31) NPCC also 

commented that DOE’s analysis of the 

economics of heat recovery clothes 

dryers should incorporate the reduced 

impact on space conditioning of this 

technology option. (NPCC, No. 32 at p. 

2) The California Utilities recommended 

that the DOE clothes dryer test 

procedure be amended to measure the 

total airflow volume during the test 

cycle in order to gather data on heating, 

ventilation, and air conditioning 

(HVAC) loading. (California Utilities, 

No. 31 at pp. 9, 12) 

As discussed above, EPCA requires 

that any prescribed or amended test 

procedures be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use, water use, 

or estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE believes that 

accounting for the effects of clothes 

dryers on HVAC energy use is 

inconsistent with the EPCA requirement 

that a test procedure measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product. As a result, DOE did not revise 

the clothes dryer test procedure to 

account for HVAC energy use in the TP 

Final Rule and does not account for 

HVAC energy use in these standards. 

g. Efficiency Metric 

The energy efficiency metric currently 

used for clothes dryer energy 

conservation standards, EF, is defined 

on the basis of a per-cycle measure of 

the lb. of clothes dried per kWh. (10 

CFR 430.23) 

BSH commented that DOE should 

calculate yearly energy consumption for 

clothes dryers by considering a defined 

amount of laundry dried within a year. 

BSH stated that the energy consumption 

for the yearly load dried in small clothes 

dryer should be correlated to the energy 

consumption when the same yearly load 

is dried in a larger clothes dryer. BSH 

added that if only the number of loads 

is used then for a larger clothes dryer, 

the energy labeled would refer to a 

much larger amount of clothing than for 

a smaller clothes dryer. According to 

BSH, the values would not be 

comparable and it would appear to the 

consumer that the larger clothes dryer 

uses more energy per cycle than the 

smaller. In reality, when using a 

compact size clothes dryer consumers 

would run more cycles per year to dry 

their yearly amount of laundry. (BSH, 

No. 23 at p. 5) DOE is not aware of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22475 

16ANSI standards are available at http:// 

www.ansi.org. 

17ASHRAE standards are available at http:// 

www.ashrae.org. 

18U.S. Department of Energy—Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Technical 

Support Document for Energy Conservation 

Standards for Room Air Conditioners. September 

1997. Chapter 1, section 1.5. Washington, DC, 

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

appliance_standards/residential/room_ac.html 

19U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration. ‘‘Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey,’’ 2005 Public Use Data Files, 2005. 

Washington, DC. Available online at: http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/. 

consumer usage data showing the 

relationship between clothes dryer 

drum capacity and the amount of 

laundry dried by the consumer per year 

that would suggest that consumers 

typically dry the same amount of 

clothing per year, regardless of the drum 

capacity. For these reasons, DOE did not 

amend the clothes dryer test procedure 

in the TP Final Rule to specify a single 

value for the amount of laundry dried 

per year. 

2. Room Air Conditioner Test Procedure 

a. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

Referenced Standards 

As noted above, EPCA directs DOE to 

amend its test procedures to include 

measures of standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption, taking into 

consideration the most current versions 

of IEC Standard 62301 and IEC Standard 

62087. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) For the 

reasons discussed for the clothes dryer 

test procedure, DOE determined that 

only IEC Standard 62301 is relevant to 

the room air conditioner test procedure. 

AHAM supported DOE’s evaluation of 

IEC Standard 62301 CDV for potential 

revisions to address standby mode and 

off mode power in the room air 

conditioner test procedure. AHAM 

commented that DOE would thus 

harmonize with international standards, 

including those developed in Canada 

and Europe. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21.4 at p. 30) As 

discussed for clothes dryers in section 

III.A.1.a, DOE considered the current 

version, IEC Standard 62301 First 

Edition, as required by EPCA. For the 

reasons stated in the TP Final Rule, DOE 

amended its test procedures for room air 

conditioners in the final rule to 

incorporate by reference the clauses 

from IEC Standard 62301 First Edition 

proposed in the TP SNOPR, as well as 

the provisions of IEC Standard 62301 

CDV for the mode definitions. 76 FR 

972, 975–6 (January 6, 2011). DOE may 

consider incorporating by reference 

clauses from IEC Standard 62301 

Second Edition when that version has 

been published. 

Testing Procedures 

EEI commented that the total number 

of standby hours would be 8,010 if a 

product is plugged in all year (8,760 

total hours in a year less the 750 cooling 

mode operating hours), and closer to 

2,000 if unplugged. EEI requested 

clarification on the source of the 5,115 

standby hours. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21.4 at p. 37) DOE notes 

that the estimate of 5,115 total standby 

and off mode hours, explained in greater 

detail in the TP SNOPR (75 FR 37594, 

37610 (June 29, 2010), assumes (1) the 

cooling season length is 90 days or 

2,160 hours; (2) half of the products in 

the field would be unplugged outside of 

the cooling season, while the others 

would be in standby and/or off mode; 

and (3) that the cooling season hours not 

associated with active mode cooling are 

evenly split between off-cycle mode and 

standby mode or off mode. Off-cycle 

mode involves operation of the fan but 

not the compressor. DOE noted in the 

TP NOPR that it is not aware of any 

reliable data for hours spent in different 

standby and off modes for room air 

conditioners. 73 FR 7439, 74648–49 

(Dec. 9, 2008). In the absence of data 

suggesting a different allocation of 

annual hours, DOE adopted the estimate 

of 5,115 annual hours standby and off 

mode hours in the TP Final Rule. 76 FR 

972, 991 (January 6, 2011). 

b. Active Mode Referenced Standards 

The current DOE room air conditioner 

test procedure incorporates by reference 

two industry test standards: (1) 

American National Standard (ANS) 

(since renamed American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI)) Z234.1– 

1972, ‘‘Room Air Conditioners;’’ 16 and 

(2) American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 16–69, 

‘‘Method of Testing for Rating Room Air 

Conditioners.’’ 17 (10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix F, section 1) 

AHAM commented that its current 

room air conditioner standard is 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI)/AHAM RAC–1–2008. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21.4 at 

p. 35; AHAM, No. 25 at p. 13) As 

discussed in the TP Final Rule, DOE 

adopted the amendments to reference 

the relevant sections of the current 

industry test standards for room air 

conditioners, which are designated as: 

(1) ANSI/AHAM RAC–1–R2008, ‘‘Room 

Air Conditioners;’’ and (2) ANSI/ 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 16–1983 

(RA 2009), ‘‘Method of Testing for 

Rating Room Air Conditioners and 

Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners’’ 

(ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16–1983 (RA 

2009)). 76 FR 972, 978 (January 6, 2011) 

c. Annual Active Mode Hours 

The current DOE room air conditioner 

test procedure assumes that room air 

conditioners have an average annual use 

of 750 hours. (10 CFR part 430.23(f)) 

DOE noted in chapter 3 of the 

preliminary TSD that DOE’s TSD from 

September 1997, issued in support of 

the 1997 room air conditioner 

rulemaking, provides estimates for 

average annual operating hours closer to 

500.18 DOE noted in the preliminary 

TSD developed in support of today’s 

final rule, however, that a similar 

assessment of room air conditioner 

hours of operation developed in support 

of the June 2010 TP SNOPR suggests 

that the annual hours of operation have 

since increased and are now in fact 

close to 750. 75 FR 37594, 37633 (June 

29, 2010). 

EEI commented that the active mode 

hours for room air conditioners may be 

more than the 750 hours currently 

specified in the DOE room air 

conditioner test procedure and 

questioned whether the 750 hours 

reflect both residential and commercial 

applications. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21.4 at p. 36) As 

discussed in the TP Final Rule, DOE 

noted that estimates using data from the 

EIA’s 2005 RECS 19 support maintaining 

the 750 annual operating hours 

specification. As a result, DOE did not 

amend the room air conditioner test 

procedure to change the number of 

annual operating hours. 76 FR 972, 978 

(January 6, 2011). 

d. Part-Load Operation 

DOE noted in the preliminary TSD 

(chapter 5, ‘‘Engineering Analysis’’) that 

the DOE room air conditioner test 

procedure at appendix F measures fullload performance but is not able to 

assess energy savings associated with 

technologies which improve part-load 

performance. 

DOE considered amendments to its 

room air conditioner test procedure to 

measure part-load performance, but did 

not propose such changes, as explained 

in the June 2010 TP SNOPR and the TP 

final rule. 75 FR 37594, 37634 (June 29, 

2010); 76 FR 972, 1016 (January 6, 

2011). DOE concluded that developing 

an additional test for part load, or 

switching to a seasonal metric to 

integrate part-load performance is not 

warranted. DOE noted that (1) sufficient 

information is not available at this time 

regarding use of room air conditioner 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22476 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

features that prevent over-cooling; (2) 

widespread use of part-load technology 

in room air conditioners is not likely to 

be stimulated by the development of a 

part-load or seasonal metric at this time, 

and therefore, the significant effort 

required to develop an accurate partload metric is not likely to be justified 

by the expected minimal energy savings; 

and (3) key design changes that improve 

full-load efficiency also improve partload efficiency, so the existing EER 

metric is already a strong indication of 

product efficiency over a wide range of 

conditions. 

DOE stated in the preliminary TSD 

that it did not consider technologies 

such as variable speed compressors and 

thermostatic expansion valves as design 

options during the engineering analysis 

because these design options save 

energy only during part-load operation. 

DOE expects, based on available data 

and the considerations discussed in the 

test procedure SNOPR and reiterated 

above, that such technologies will not 

save enough energy to be cost effective. 

DOE requested comments regarding 

additional design options that it should 

consider in the engineering analysis. 

(See the preliminary TSD Executive 

Summary, section ES.4). 

NRDC commented that DOE should 

further analyze the efficiency of partload operation. NRDC stated that DOE 

assumed that room air conditioners are 

generally undersized and run at full 

capacity and, therefore, did not take into 

consideration the potential to improve 

part-load efficiency. NRDC 

recommended that DOE further 

investigate the underlying assumption 

that room air conditioners are almost 

always run at full capacity and analyze 

the potential to improve part-load 

operation efficiency. (NRDC, No. 26 at 

p. 5) The comment does not provide any 

new information regarding room air 

conditioner operation that would allow 

development of an appropriate seasonal 

efficiency metric. As discussed in the 

TP Final Rule, development of such a 

metric that would take part load 

operation into account would require 

knowledge of the distribution of hours 

spent by room air conditioners at 

different load levels and at different 

outdoor and indoor temperature and 

humidity conditions. 76 FR 972, 1016 

(January 6, 2011). Because such data is 

not available, DOE cannot establish an 

appropriate efficiency metric and 

cannot properly evaluate part-load 

technologies. DOE may amend the test 

procedure to account for part-load 

performance in a future rulemaking if 

sufficient information becomes 

available. 

DOE also notes that the existing EER 

metric, which represents most of the 

CEER metric that is the basis of the 

energy standard prescribed in today’s 

rule, is already a strong indicator of 

product efficiency over a wide range of 

conditions. Most of the design options 

that improve efficiency measured using 

EER would also improve efficiency 

measured using a part-load metric. For 

these reasons, DOE did not amend its 

room air conditioner test procedure to 

measure part-load performance. 76 FR 

972, 1016 (January 6, 2011). 

e. Distribution of Air 

NRDC commented that DOE should 

consider how effectively room air 

conditioners distribute air throughout 

the room, adding that if all the cooling 

is provided by convection into the 

space, the effectiveness of delivering 

that cooling by the fan and integral 

diffuser may have a significant impact 

on energy use. NRDC stated that the 

DOE test procedure should take into 

account how far into the room the 

airflow travels and whether the unit 

allows for adjustments to the airflow 

pattern. NRDC also commented that 

many units will be placed at sill height, 

but buildings with wall sleeves will 

likely have units that are installed 

below the sill, which could pose 

different concerns with room air 

distribution to provide adequate mixing 

to avoid drafts. (NRDC, No. 26 at p. 6) 

DOE notes that the DOE test 

procedure measures the cooling 

delivered by the room air conditioner 

regardless of the distribution of the 

cooling air within the test chamber. 

Thus, design options that optimize 

distribution of the cooling air would not 

improve the measurement. 

DOE agrees with the comment’s 

premise that the energy use of a room 

air conditioner used by a consumer may 

be affected by the air circulation 

patterns it establishes in a room. For 

example, a consumer located in a room 

far from the unit and not in line with 

the product’s discharge air outlet may 

keep the unit operating longer to 

achieve comfortable local room 

conditions. This influence has as much 

to do with installation and use as it does 

with product characteristics. The 

relationship between room air 

circulation and room air conditioner 

energy use is not sufficiently well 

understood to allow any consideration 

of integration of such factors into the 

energy use metric. DOE is not aware of 

data evaluating the impact a product’s 

air distribution patterns have on 

product energy use by consumers. As a 

result, this issue is not addressed by 

today’s rule. 

3. Effects of Test Procedure Revisions on 

the Measured Efficiency 

In any rulemaking to amend a test 

procedure, DOE must determine to what 

extent, if any, the proposed test 

procedure would alter the measured 

energy efficiency of any covered 

product as determined under the 

existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the 

amended test procedure would alter the 

measured efficiency of a covered 

product, DOE must amend the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

accordingly. In determining the 

amended energy conservation standard, 

the DOE must measure, pursuant to the 

amended test procedure, the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or water use of a 

representative sample of covered 

products that minimally comply with 

the existing standard. The average of 

such energy efficiency, energy use, or 

water use levels determined under the 

amended test procedure shall constitute 

the amended energy conservation 

standard for the applicable covered 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) EPCA 

also states that models of covered 

products in use before the date on 

which the amended energy conservation 

standard becomes effective (or revisions 

of such models that come into use after 

such date and have the same energy 

efficiency, energy use, or water use 

characteristics) that comply with the 

energy conservation standard applicable 

to such covered products on the day 

before such date shall be deemed to 

comply with the amended energy 

conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(3)) 

EPCA also provides that amendments 

to the test procedures to include 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption will not determine 

compliance with previously established 

standards. (U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(C)) 

Because the amended test procedures 

for standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption would not alter existing 

measures of energy consumption or 

efficiency, these amendments would not 

affect a manufacturer’s ability to 

demonstrate compliance with 

previously established standards. 

For the TP Final Rule, DOE 

investigated how the amended test 

procedures would affect the measured 

efficiency as compared to the existing 

DOE test procedures. The following 

sections discuss these effects for each 

product. 

a. Clothes Dryers 

The Joint Petitioners proposed that 

the final rule amending the clothes 

dryer test procedure also amend the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22477 

standards in the Joint Petition according 

to the procedures in section 323(e)(2) of 

EPCA, except that for the purposes of 

establishing a representative sample of 

products, DOE should choose a sample 

of minimally compliant dryers which 

automatically terminate the drying cycle 

at no less than 4-percent RMC. (Joint 

Petitioners, No. 33 at p. 17) 

As discussed above, DOE did not 

adopt amendments to the clothes dryer 

test procedure to better account for 

automatic cycle termination. As a result, 

DOE did not consider any revisions to 

the energy conservation standards based 

on amendments for automatic cycle 

termination. However, DOE notes that 

EPCA does not include any exceptions 

that would allow for the measurement 

of only dryers that automatically 

terminate the drying cycle at no less 

than 4-percent RMC. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(1)–(3)) 

As part of the TP Final Rule, DOE 

conducted testing on a sample of 17 

representative clothes dryers to evaluate 

the effects of the amendments to the 

clothes dryer test procedure on the 

measured EF. 76 FR 972, 1026–27 

(January 6, 2011). DOE tested these 

units according to the amended clothes 

dryer test procedure in the TP Final 

Rule, conducting up to three tests for 

each test unit and averaging the results. 

The results from this testing are shown 

below in Table III.2. DOE noted in its 

testing that the amendments to the 

initial RMC, water temperature for test 

load preparation, and load size had an 

effect on the measured EF as compared 

to the existing test procedure. For 

vented electric-standard size clothes 

dryers tested using the amended test 

procedure, the measured EF increases 

by an average of about 20.1 percent. For 

vented gas clothes dryers, the measured 

EF increased by an average of about 19.8 

percent. For vented electric compact 

120V and 240V clothes dryers, the 

measured EF increased by an average of 

about 15.6 and 12.8 percent, 

respectively. For ventless electric 

compact 240V clothes dryers and 

ventless electric combination washer/ 

dryers, the measured EF increased by an 

average of about 13.6 and 11.4 percent, 

respectively, as compared to the 

measured EF using the existing test 

procedure with only the amendments 

for ventless clothes dryers. (That is, 

without the changes to the initial RMC, 

water temperature for test load 

preparation, or other changes) DOE 

noted that the increase in measured EF 

is greater for the standard-size products 

(that is, vented electric standard and 

vented gas clothes dryers) than for 

compact-size products due to the 

additional amendments to increase the 

test load size for standard-size products. 

76 FR 972, 1027 (January 6, 2011). As 

discussed in section IV.C.2.a, DOE 

applied these percentage increases in 

the measured EF based on the test 

procedure amendments for each product 

class to the efficiency levels proposed in 

the preliminary analysis. 

TABLE III.2—DOE TEST RESULTS TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTS OF THE CLOTHES DRYER TEST PROCEDURE AMENDMENTS

ON MEASURED EF 

Test unit 

Average EF lb/kWh 

Change 

Current test (percent) 

procedure 

Amended test 

procedure 

Vented Electric Standard: 

Unit 1 .................................................................................................................................... 3.07 3.69 20.4 

Unit 2 .................................................................................................................................... 3.14 3.77 19.5 

Unit 3 .................................................................................................................................... 3.20 3.83 19.6 

Unit 4 .................................................................................................................................... 3.28 3.92 19.4 

Unit 5 .................................................................................................................................... 3.24 3.96 22.5 

Unit 6 .................................................................................................................................... 3.12 3.72 19.1 

Vented Gas: 

Unit 7 .................................................................................................................................... 2.78 3.36 20.6 

Unit 8 .................................................................................................................................... 2.83 3.40 19.9 

Unit 9 .................................................................................................................................... 2.85 3.42 20.2 

Unit 10 .................................................................................................................................. 2.80 3.37 20.5 

Unit 11 .................................................................................................................................. 2.98 3.50 17.6 

Vented Electric Compact (240V): 

Unit 12 .................................................................................................................................. 3.19 3.56 11.4 

Unit 13 .................................................................................................................................. 2.93 3.35 14.2 

Vented Electric Compact (120V): 

Unit 14 .................................................................................................................................. 3.23 3.74 15.6 

Ventless Electric Compact (240V): 

Unit 15 .................................................................................................................................. 2.37 2.69 13.6 

Ventless Electric Combo Washer/Dryer: 

Unit 16 .................................................................................................................................. 2.01 2.27 12.5 

Unit 17 .................................................................................................................................. 2.50 2.76 10.3 

Table III.3 shows how the current 

energy conservation standards are 

affected by the amendments to the DOE 

clothes dryer test procedure. 

TABLE III.3—ENERGY FACTOR OF A MINIMALLY COMPLIANT CLOTHES DRYER WITH THE CURRENT AND AMENDED TEST

PROCEDURE

Product class 

EF lb/kWh 

Existing test 

procedure 

Amended test 

procedure 

1. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ................................................................................................... 3.01 3.62 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22478 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE III.3—ENERGY FACTOR OF A MINIMALLY COMPLIANT CLOTHES DRYER WITH THE CURRENT AND AMENDED TEST

PROCEDURE—Continued 

Product class 

EF lb/kWh 

Existing test 

procedure 

Amended test 

procedure 

2. Electric, Compact (120 v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ........................................................................................ 3.13 3.62 

3. Electric, Compact (240 v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ........................................................................................ 2.90 3.27 

4. Gas ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2.67 3.20 

b. Room Air Conditioners 

The Joint Petitioners proposed that 

the final rule amending the room air 

conditioner test procedure amend the 

standards in the consensus agreement 

according to the procedures in section 

323(e)(2) of EPCA. (Joint Petitioners, 

No. 33 at p. 18) These are the provisions 

that require DOE to adjust the efficiency 

standard if DOE determines that 

changes in the energy test procedure 

alter the measured energy use of 

covered products. While the measured 

efficiency of room air conditioners is 

altered by the incorporation of standby 

and off mode energy use in the new 

efficiency metric. However, DOE 

determined in the TP Final Rule that the 

amendments to the room air conditioner 

test procedure do not impact the 

measurement of EER while providing 

more accurate and repeatable 

measurements of capacity and greater 

flexibility to manufacturers in selecting 

equipment and facilities. 76 FR 972, 

1028 (January 6, 2011). For this reason, 

DOE believes that revisions to the 

energy conservation standards for room 

air conditioners because of the 

amendments to the test procedure 

would not be warranted. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each standards rulemaking, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis based on 

information it has gathered on all 

current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the products or 

equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. As the first step in such 

analysis, DOE develops a list of 

technology options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of these 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

a technology option to be 

technologically feasible if it is 

incorporated into commercially 

available products or working 

prototypes. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i). 

Once DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each of these technology 

options in light of the following 

additional screening criteria: 

(1) Practicability to manufacture, install, 

or service; (2) adverse impacts on 

product utility or availability; and (3) 

adverse impacts on health or safety. 

Section IV.B of this notice discusses the 

results of the screening analysis for 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, particularly the designs 

DOE considered, those it screened out, 

and those that are the basis for the trial 

standard levels (TSLs) in this 

rulemaking. For further details on the 

screening analysis for this rulemaking, 

see chapter 4 of the technical support 

document accompanying today’s direct 

final rule (direct final rule TSD). 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, it must ‘‘determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible’’ for such product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, DOE 

determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficiency for 

clothes dryers and room air conditioners 

in the engineering analysis, using the 

design options used in the most efficient 

products available on the market or in 

working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of 

the direct final rule TSD.) Table III.4 

lists the max-tech levels that DOE 

determined for this rulemaking. 

TABLE III.4—MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES DRYERS AND ROOM

AIR CONDITIONERS

Residential clothes dryers 

Product class Max-tech 

CEF lb/kWh 

1. Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ....................................................................................................................... 5.42 

2. Vented Electric, Compact (120 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ........................................................................................................... 5.41 

3. Vented Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ........................................................................................................... 4.89 

4. Vented Gas .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.61 

5. Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ......................................................................................................... 4.03 

6. Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer ..................................................................................................................................... 3.69 

Room air conditioners 

Product class 

Max-tech 

CEER Btu/ 

Wh 

1. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less than 6,000 Btu/h ............................................................................................. 11.67 

2. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h .............................................................................................. 11.96 

3. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h ............................................................................................ 11.96 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22479 

Room air conditioners 

Product class 

Max-tech 

CEER Btu/ 

Wh 

4. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h .......................................................................................... 11.96 

5A. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 20,000 to 27,999 Btu/h ........................................................................................ 10.15 

5B. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 28,000 Btu/h or more ........................................................................................... 9.80 

6. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and less than 6,000 Btu/h ........................................................................................ 10.35 

7. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h ......................................................................................... 10.35 

8A. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 8,000 to 10,999 Btu/h ..................................................................................... 10.35 

8B. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 11,000 to 13,999 Btu/h ................................................................................... 10.02 

9. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h ..................................................................................... 10.02 

10. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h or more ...................................................................................... 9.80 

11. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less than 20,000 Btu/h .............................................................................................. 11.96 

12. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and less than 14,000 Btu/h ......................................................................................... 10.15 

13. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h or more ................................................................................................ 10.35 

14. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 14,000 Btu/h or more ........................................................................................... 10.02 

15. Casement-Only .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10.35 

16. Casement-Slider ................................................................................................................................................................................ 10.35 

a. Clothes Dryers 

For electric vented and vent-less 

clothes dryers, the max-tech level 

corresponds to the efficiency 

improvement associated with 

incorporating heat pump technology, 

according to information from 

manufacturer interviews and available 

research on heat pump dryers. For 

vented gas clothes dryers, the max-tech 

level is the value proposed in the 

framework document was based on data 

contained in the CEC product database. 

AHAM submitted aggregated 

incremental manufacturing cost data in 

support of this max-tech efficiency level 

for vented gas clothes dryers. As 

discussed in chapter 5 of the 

preliminary TSD, multiple 

manufacturers stated during interviews 

that the current maximum efficiency 

listed for vented gas clothes dryers in a 

more recent version of the CEC product 

database is not achievable. Also, as 

discussed in chapter 5 of the 

preliminary TSD, DOE testing of the 

‘‘maximum-available’’ vented gas clothes 

dryer in this more recent version of the 

CEC product database determined that 

this unit did not achieve the rated 

efficiency. For these reasons, DOE 

considered the vented gas clothes dryer 

max-tech value for which AHAM 

submitted aggregated incremental 

manufacturing costs. This max-tech 

level was supported by multiple 

manufacturers during interviews. 

b. Room Air Conditioners 

As described in the direct final rule 

TSD (chapter 5, ‘‘Engineering Analysis’’), 

DOE conducted a full engineering 

analysis for seven room air conditioner 

product classes, which comprise a large 

percentage of identified products on the 

market. DOE’s approach for extending 

the analysis of the proposed standard 

levels to the non-analyzed product 

classes is described in chapter 5, 

‘‘Engineering Analysis’’, of the direct 

final rule TSD. This section of this 

notice reports specifically on the maxtech efficiency levels for the product 

classes directly analyzed in the 

engineering analysis. 

DOE used the full set of design 

options considered applicable to these 

product classes to determine the maxtech efficiency levels. (See chapter 5 of 

the direct final rule TSD.) Table III.5, 

below, lists the max-tech levels that 

DOE determined for this rulemaking— 

the table shows the levels for the 

directly analyzed product classes (see 

section IV.C regarding discussion of the 

product classes that were directly 

analyzed). The max-tech levels that DOE 

determined for this rulemaking are 

based on design options that are used in 

commercially-available products. 

TABLE III.5—MAX-TECH EERS FOR THE ROOM AIR CONDITIONER PRODUCTS RULEMAKING

Analyzed product class Description 

Combined energy efficiency 

ratio (EER) 

level 

DOE final rule 

max-tech 

1 ................................................................ Less than 6,000 Btu/h, without reverse cycle and with louvered sides ...................... 11.7 

2 ................................................................ 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h, without reverse cycle and with louvered sides ......................... *N/A 

3 ................................................................ 8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h, without reverse cycle and with louvered sides ....................... 12.0 

4 ................................................................ 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h, without reverse cycle and with louvered sides ..................... *N/A 

5A .............................................................. 20,000 Btu/h to 27,999 Btu/h, without reverse cycle and with louvered sides ........... 10.2 

5B .............................................................. 28,000 Btu/h or more, without reverse cycle and with louvered sides ....................... 9.8 

8A .............................................................. 8,000 to 10,999 Btu/h, without reverse cycle and without louvered sides .................. 10.4 

8B .............................................................. 11,000 to 13,999 Btu/h, without reverse cycle and without louvered sides ................ 10.0 

The DOE max-tech levels differ from 

those presented in the preliminary TSD. 

They are higher for three of the analyzed 

product classes, and lower for three (one 

product class was not analyzed during 

the preliminary analysis). The 

engineering analysis revisions are 

discussed in section IV.C.2.b below. 

DOE determined that max-tech levels 

for most room air conditioner product 

classes higher than the commercially 

available max-tech were technologically 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22480 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

feasible. Although the commercially 

available products generally do not use 

all the energy efficient design options 

considered in the DOE max-tech 

analyses, the design options are all used 

in commercially available products, 

some of which combine nearly all of the 

design options used in the DOE maxtech configurations. 

DOE determined the max-tech levels 

of each analyzed product class as part 

of its engineering analysis. The maxtech levels represent the most efficient 

design option combinations applicable 

for the analyzed products. Details of this 

analysis are described in the direct final 

rule TSD in chapter 5. DOE used 

different design option groups for each 

analyzed product class’s max-tech 

design, as indicated in Table III.6. 

Stakeholder comments and questions 

regarding the preliminary analysis maxtech levels primarily addressed the maxtech levels that DOE selected for the 

analyses. Some stakeholders argued that 

max available products exist at higher 

levels, while others argued that the 

conversion to R–410A refrigerant 

requires a re-examination of max-tech 

levels. 

c. Available Max-Tech Products With 

Higher EER Ratings 

Numerous stakeholders commented 

that DOE should update its analysis to 

include all current ENERGY STAR® and 

max-tech units on the market. The 

California Utilities suggested that DOE 

consider the current best R–410A 

products on the ENERGY STAR list 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at pp. 16– 

17). The California Utilities also pointed 

out that the ENERGY STAR Database 

listed products with a 13.5 EER, and 

that the CEC Database listed four 

products with a 13.8 EER (California 

Utilities, No. 31 at p. 13). The Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council 

(NPCC) and ACEEE also commented 

that there were higher efficiency 

products available than had been 

assumed by DOE (NPCC, No. 32 at p. 4; 

ACEEE, No. 24 at p. 4). 

DOE is aware that the ENERGY–STAR 

and CEC databases list products that 

exceed the max-tech EER of 12.0 that 

DOE identified in the preliminary 

analysis. Table III.7 lists products listed 

at 12.0 EER or higher in one or both of 

these databases. 

TABLE III.7—ROOM AIR CONDITIONER MODELS OF INTEREST FOR MAX-TECH ANALYSIS, AS LISTED IN THE ENERGY 

STAR AND CEC DATABASES

Brand Model Listed 

EER 

Source 

CEC ENERGY 

STAR 

Climette ....................................................................... CH1826A .................................................................... 13.8 ✔ ................

Comfort-Aire ............................................................... REC–183 .................................................................... 13.8 ✔ ................

Fedders ....................................................................... AED18E7DG ............................................................... 13.8 ✔ ................

Maytag ........................................................................ MED18E7A ................................................................. 13.8 ✔ ................

Fedders ....................................................................... A7Q06F2A .................................................................. 13.4 ✔ ................

Turbo Air ..................................................................... TAS–09EH .................................................................. 13.5 ................ ✔ 

Turbo Air ..................................................................... TAS–12EH .................................................................. 13.0 ................ ✔ 

Turbo Air ..................................................................... TAS–18EH .................................................................. 13.0 ................ ✔ 

Friedrich ...................................................................... SS10M10 .................................................................... 12.0 ✔ ✔ 

Friedrich ...................................................................... YS09L10 ..................................................................... 12.0 ✔ ✔ 

Friedrich ...................................................................... SS10L10 ..................................................................... 12.0 ✔ ✔ 

Friedrich ...................................................................... XQ06M10 .................................................................... 12.0 ✔ ✔ 

Friedrich ...................................................................... SS12M10 .................................................................... 12.0 ✔ ................

Haier ........................................................................... ESAD4066 .................................................................. 12.0 ................ ✔ 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2ER21AP11.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22481 

20 (1) Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy 

Efficiency. EnerGuide for Equipment—EnerGuide 

Room Air Conditioner Directory 2002. 2002; (2) 

Room Air Conditioner Model Listing. ‘‘EnerGuide 

Room Air Conditioner Directory 2004’’ http:// 

oee.nrcan.gc.ca/. 

21Product Specifications and Descriptions for 

Turbo Air Products TAS–09EH, TAS–12EH, TAS– 

18EH. http://www.turboairinc.net/productspecs/ 

productspecs.html. 

22Friedrich product specifications. Specifications 

for SS12M10. http://kuhl.friedrich.com/modelspecifications/. 

23 ‘‘Energy Star has lost some luster.’’ Consumer 

Reports. October 2008. Pg. 24 Vol. 73 No. 10. 

Copyright 2008 Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. 

24The GE comment identified Friedrich model 

AQ06M10, but the listing on the Friedrich Web site 

is XQ06M10 for a product matching the GE 

description (same capacity, EER, weight, and other 

relevant attributes). 

DOE searched product databases and 

manufacturer Web sites to gather 

information about these products and to 

determine whether these products 

represented valid room air conditioner 

ratings. DOE’s investigation indicates 

that none of the products listed with 

EER higher than 12.0 represent valid 

room air conditioner ratings, and that 

some of the products rated at an EER of 

12.0 are also invalid representations. 

The first five products in the table are 

listed with much lower EER ratings in 

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) 

database.20 The three Turbo-Air 

products are ductless mini-split 

products (as identified by the 

manufacturer’s Web site 21), not room 

air conditioners. The Friedrich 

SS12M10 has been re-rated at lower 

than 12.0 EER 22, and the validity of the 

12.0 rating of the Haier ESAD4066 is 

likely also incorrect, as discussed in 

greater detail below. Consequently, DOE 

concludes that its identification of a 

max-tech available level no higher than 

12.0 EER is valid. 

The California Utilities stated that the 

analysis for room air conditioners was 

quite favorable in terms of costeffectiveness, and that many of the 

analyzed efficiency levels had LCC 

savings relative to the baseline levels. 

They indicated that, if DOE’s selected 

efficiency levels are as cost-effective as 

the analysis suggests, that there may be 

additional design options or higher 

efficiency levels that also merit DOE’s 

analysis. (California Utilities, No. 31 at 

p. 13) PG&E asked whether DOE would 

consider higher max-tech levels that 

might result in more stringent standards 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21.4 at 

p. 130). 

DOE is required to establish energy 

conservation standards that achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)). DOE developed maxtech levels in the preliminary analysis 

and made adjustments in the 

engineering analysis based on new 

information, as mentioned above, 

particularly regarding compressors 

designed for R–410A refrigerant. The 

engineering analysis adjustments are 

discussed in more detail in section 

IV.C.2.b below. DOE determined that 

the products cited by the commenters 

that appeared to have higher efficiencies 

than the max-tech levels either were not 

room air conditioners or did not have 

valid ratings. The max-tech levels 

incorporate all applicable design 

options for each of the product classes, 

and based on DOE’s research and 

engineering analysis, DOE does not 

believe that products with higher 

efficiency than DOE’s max-tech are 

technologically feasible. 

d. Consideration of Conversion to 

R–410A Refrigerant in Max-Tech 

Selections 

As detailed in the direct final rule 

TSD (chapter 5), the use of HCFC–22 

refrigerant in room air conditioners was 

phased out starting January 1, 2010. The 

industry has switched to R–410A 

refrigerant, which has required 

significant design modification. 

Although DOE based its preliminary 

analyses on use of R–410A refrigerant 

because HCFC–22 can no longer be 

used, few R–410A products were 

available for reverse engineering when 

DOE conducted the preliminary 

analyses. Also, there was limited 

information regarding compressors 

designed for the new refrigerant, or 

regarding manufacturers’ experiences 

developing product designs for the new 

refrigerant. 

GE Consumer & Industrial (GE) asked 

during the March 2010 public meeting 

whether any of the models considered 

for the engineering analysis (specifically 

the max-tech levels) were R–410A 

products (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21.4 at pp. 72–73). DOE 

responded that it based the max-tech 

analysis of product class 1 on a 12 EER 

R–410A product that was available at 

the time of the analysis. GE commented 

that Consumer Reports published an 

article in October 2008 23 in which it 

reported on test results indicating that 

this product’s efficiency was not 12 EER 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21.4 at 

72–73). GE indicated that DOE should 

not consider this model to be 

representative of the technologies or 

costs required to achieve 12 EER. GE 

recommended that DOE instead use an 

alternative model to represent this 

efficiency level: the Friedrich model 

XQ06M10,24 which has a 6,000 Btu/h 

capacity and 12.0 EER, with a retail 

price of over $600 and a weight of 72 

lbs. 

The California Utilities requested 

clarification on DOE’s decision to not 

pursue a full teardown of the single R– 

410A unit identified in the preliminary 

analysis (California Utilities, No. 31 at 

p. 17). In response, DOE notes that it 

had obtained sufficient information 

about this unit to allow development of 

both an energy model and 

manufacturing cost model through close 

examination of heat exchanger details, 

identification of the compressor and fan 

motor model number, and measurement 

of fan power input. 

DOE considered the Consumer 

Reports article regarding the product 

identified in the preliminary analysis, 

which was initially considered to 

represent 12.0 EER using R–410A. 

Matching this performance level with 

the energy model required making some 

input assumptions that DOE considers 

unlikely, particularly for the condenser 

air flow rate. Given the information 

available, DOE agrees with GE’s 

suggestion to instead use the Friedrich 

12.0 EER product as a representation of 

this performance level. The revised 

analysis for product class 1 is based on 

calibration of the energy model to match 

the performance of the Friedrich 

product. DOE conducted a teardown of 

this product to verify its design details. 

The analysis shows that the product 

class 1 max-tech level is 11.8, slightly 

lower than 12. This reflects 

(1) reduction of the capacity from the 

6,000 Btu/h of the Friedrich unit to the 

5,000 Btu/h considered representative 

for the product class, and (2) adopting 

a 50 lb. product weight limit, as 

suggested by AHAM (AHAM, No. 25 at 

p. 6) AHAM commented that OSHA 

recommends that articles heavier than 

50 lbs. should be lifted by two rather 

than one person. Id. DOE considers this 

limit to be an appropriate demarcation 

for product class 1, since most of these 

products currently weigh less than 50 

lb. Increase in weight beyond 50 lbs., 

requiring additional personnel for 

installation, represents a distinct 

reduction in consumer utility 

(specifically, the ability to remove the 

unit from the window during the offseason, relocate it to other windows 

without calling an installer, or both). 

Size limits for room air conditioners are 

discussed in greater detail in section 

IV.C.2.b, below. 

During the final rule analysis, DOE 

also considered new products of other 

product classes that use R–410A 

refrigerant and adjusted its analysis 

accordingly based on new information 

regarding designs and efficiency levels 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22482 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

25The NIA spreadsheet model is described in 

section IV.G of this notice. 

of these products. Adjustments DOE 

made to the engineering analysis during 

the final rule phase are detailed in 

section IV.C.2.b below, and in chapter 5 

of the TSD. 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model 

to estimate energy savings from 

amended standards for the products that 

are the subject of this rulemaking.25 For 

each TSL, DOE forecasted energy 

savings beginning in 2014, the year that 

manufacturers would be required to 

comply with amended standards, and 

ending in 2043. DOE quantified the 

energy savings attributable to each TSL 

as the difference in energy consumption 

between the standards case and the base 

case. The base case represents the 

forecast of energy consumption in the 

absence of amended mandatory 

efficiency standards, and considers 

market demand for more-efficient 

products. 

The NIA spreadsheet model calculates 

the electricity savings in ‘‘site energy’’ 

expressed in kWh. Site energy is the 

energy directly consumed by appliances 

at the locations where they are used. 

DOE reports national energy savings on 

an annual basis in terms of the 

aggregated source (primary) energy 

savings, the savings in the energy used 

to generate and transmit the site energy. 

(See direct final rule TSD chapter 10.) 

To convert site energy to source energy, 

DOE derived annual conversion factors 

from the model used to prepare the EIA 

Annual Energy Outlook 2010 

(AEO2010). 

2. Significance of Savings 

As noted above, DOE cannot adopt a 

standard for a covered product if such 

standard would not result in 

‘‘significant’’ energy savings. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) While the term 

‘‘significant’’ is not defined in the Act, 

the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. 

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (DC 

Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress 

intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings in 

this context to be savings that were not 

‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ The energy savings 

for all of the TSLs considered in this 

rulemaking are nontrivial, and, 

therefore, DOE considers them 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 

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

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted in section II.B, EPCA 

provides seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy 

conservation standard is economically 

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

following sections discuss how DOE has 

addressed each of those seven factors in 

this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of an 

amended standard on manufacturers, 

DOE first determines the quantitative 

impacts using an annual cash-flow 

approach. This step includes both a 

short-term assessment—based on the 

cost and capital requirements during the 

period between the issuance of a 

regulation and when entities must 

comply with the regulation—and a longterm assessment over a 30-year analysis 

period. The industry-wide impacts 

analyzed include INPV (which values 

the industry on the basis of expected 

future cash flows), cash flows by year, 

changes in revenue and income, and 

other measures of impact, as 

appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and 

reports the impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including analysis of 

impacts on small manufacturers. Third, 

DOE considers the impact of standards 

on domestic manufacturer employment 

and manufacturing capacity, as well as 

the potential for standards to result in 

plant closures and loss of capital 

investment. Finally, DOE takes into 

account cumulative impacts of different 

DOE regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and the PBP associated with new 

or amended standards. The LCC, 

specified separately in EPCA as one of 

the seven factors to be considered in 

determining the economic justification 

for a new or amended standard, 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), is discussed 

in the following section. For consumers 

in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the 

national net present value of the 

economic impacts on consumers over 

the forecast period used in a particular 

rulemaking. 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy and maintenance and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

savings for the considered efficiency 

levels are calculated relative to a base 

case that reflects likely trends in the 

absence of amended standards. The LCC 

analysis requires a variety of inputs, 

such as product prices, product energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and consumer discount rates. 

DOE assumed in its analysis that 

consumers will purchase the considered 

products in 2014. 

To account for uncertainty and 

variability in specific inputs, such as 

product lifetime and discount rate, DOE 

uses a distribution of values with 

probabilities attached to each value. A 

distinct advantage of this approach is 

that DOE can identify the percentage of 

consumers estimated to receive LCC 

savings or experience an LCC increase, 

in addition to the average LCC savings 

associated with a particular standard 

level. In addition to identifying ranges 

of impacts, DOE evaluates the LCC 

impacts of potential standards on 

identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be disproportionately affected 

by a national standard. 

c. Energy Savings 

While significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for imposing an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings 

expected to result directly from the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) 

DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet results in 

its consideration of total projected 

energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing classes of products, 

and in evaluating design options and 

the impact of potential standard levels, 

DOE sought to develop standards for 

clothes dryers and room air conditioners 

that would not lessen the utility or 

performance of these products. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) None of the 

TSLs considered in this notice would 

reduce the utility or performance of the 

clothes dryers under consideration in 

this rulemaking. DOE considered the 

possibility that room air conditioners 

size increases (and related weight 

increases) may reduce utility. DOE 

requested comments from stakeholders 

during the preliminary analysis phase 

addressing this issue. In response, DOE 

received comments from AHAM 

recommending limits to product 

weights and from NRDC recommending 

limits to product dimensions. These 

comments and DOE’s response to them 

are discussed in section IV.C.2.b. DOE 

adjusted its analysis so that analyzed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22483 

26EIA approves the use of the name ‘‘NEMS’’ to 

describe only an AEO version of the model without 

any modification to code or data. Because the 

present analysis entails some minor code 

modifications and runs the model under various 

policy scenarios that deviate from AEO 

Continued 

TSLs are within the weigh and 

dimension limits suggested by 

stakeholders. These adjustments 

included: (1) Use of a 50 lbs. limit for 

the product class 1 analysis, and (2) use 

of maximum height and width 

dimensions (for all product classes with 

louvered sides) consistent with maxtech available products. DOE made 

these adjustments to its analysis 

specifically to avoid the possible 

reduction in consumer utility that could 

result from increases in size and weight. 

Further discussion of this analysis can 

be found in the direct final rule TSD in 

chapter 5. Furthermore, the energy 

conservation standards are performance 

standards rather than design standards, 

so they do not specify the design 

options that manufacturers must use to 

achieve the required efficiency levels. 

Manufacturers may use design options 

other than those selected by DOE in its 

analyses to achieve the required levels. 

Consequently, DOE believes that the 

TSLs considered and the TSLs adopted 

for the energy conservation standard do 

not represent any such consumer utility 

reductions, notwithstanding increases 

in size and weight that DOE considered 

in the analyses for some of the product 

classes. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from 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 in today’s direct final 

rule and transmitted a copy of today’s 

direct final rule and the accompanying 

TSD to the Attorney General, requesting 

that the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

provide its determination on this issue. 

DOE will consider DOJ’s comments on 

the rule in determining whether to 

proceed with the direct final rule. DOE 

will also publish and respond to DOJ’s 

comments in the Federal Register in a 

separate notice. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

The energy savings from new or 

amended standards are likely to 

improve the security and reliability of 

the nation’s energy system. Reduced 

demand for electricity may also result in 

reduced costs for maintaining the 

reliability of the nation’s electricity 

system. DOE conducts a utility impact 

analysis to estimate how standards may 

affect the nation’s needed power 

generation capacity. 

Energy savings from the proposed 

standards are also likely to result in 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with energy 

production. DOE reports the 

environmental effects from the proposed 

standards, and from each TSL it 

considered, in the environmental 

assessment contained in chapter 15 in 

the direct final rule TSD. DOE also 

reports estimates of the economic value 

of emissions reductions resulting from 

the considered TSLs. 

g. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, 

in determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any 

other factors that the Secretary deems to 

be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) In developing the 

direct final rule, DOE has also 

considered the submission of the Joint 

Petition, 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). DOE 

has encouraged the submission of 

consensus agreements as a way to bring 

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. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

consumer of a product that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first-year of energy savings 

resulting from the standard, as 

calculated under the applicable DOE 

test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the payback period for 

consumers of potential amended energy 

conservation standards. These analyses 

include, but are not limited to, the 3- 

year payback period contemplated 

under the rebuttable presumption test. 

DOE routinely conducts, however, an 

economic analysis that considers the 

full range of impacts to the consumer, 

manufacturer, nation, and environment, 

as required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

definitively evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level (thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic 

justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section IV.F.12 of this 

direct final rule and chapter 8 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion 

DOE used two spreadsheet tools to 

estimate the impact of today’s proposed 

standards. The first spreadsheet 

calculates LCCs and payback periods of 

potential new energy conservation 

standards. The second provides 

shipments forecasts and then calculates 

national energy savings and net present 

value impacts of potential energy 

conservation standards. The two 

spreadsheets are available online at 

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

appliance_standards/. 

The Department also assessed 

manufacturer impacts, largely through 

use of the Government Regulatory 

Impact Model (GRIM). 

Additionally, DOE estimated the 

impacts on utilities and the 

environment of energy efficiency 

standards for clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners. DOE used a version of 

EIA’s National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS) for the utility and 

environmental analyses. The NEMS 

model simulates the energy sector of the 

U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to 

prepare its Annual Energy Outlook 

(AEO), a widely known baseline energy 

forecast for the United States. For more 

information on NEMS, refer to ‘‘The 

National Energy Modeling System: An 

Overview,’’ DOE/EIA–0581 (98) (Feb. 

1998), available at: http:// 

tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/ 

forecasting/058198.pdf. 

The version of NEMS used for 

appliance standards analysis is called 

NEMS–BT, and is based on the AEO 

version with minor modifications.26

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22484 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

assumptions, the name ‘‘NEMS–BT’’ refers to the 

model as used here. (BT stands for DOE’s Building 

Technologies Program.) 

NEMS–BT offers a sophisticated picture 

of the effect of standards, because it 

accounts for the interactions between 

the various energy supply and demand 

sectors and the economy as a whole. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. General 

When beginning an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE develops information that provides 

an overall picture of the market for the 

products concerned, including the 

purpose of the products, the industry 

structure, and market characteristics. 

This activity includes both 

quantitative and qualitative assessments 

based on publicly available information. 

The subjects addressed in the market 

and technology assessment for this 

rulemaking include quantities and types 

of products sold and offered for sale; 

retail market trends; products covered 

by the rulemaking; product classes and 

manufacturers; regulatory and nonregulatory programs; and technology 

options that could improve the energy 

efficiency of the product(s) under 

examination. See chapter 3 of the direct 

final rule TSD for further discussion of 

the market and technology assessment. 

2. Products Included in This 

Rulemaking 

This subsection addresses the scope 

of coverage for today’s direct final rule, 

discussing whether certain products are 

subject to the amended standards and 

whether certain technologies provide a 

viable means of improving energy 

efficiency. In the sections that follow, 

DOE discusses the comments received 

on the scope of coverage set forth in the 

preliminary analysis. 

a. Clothes Dryers 

Hydromatic Technologies Corporation 

(HTC) suggested that DOE consider 

‘‘solar’’ clothes dryers in this 

rulemaking. (HTC, No. FDMS DRAFT 

0068 at p. 3) Under EPCA, any standard 

for clothes dryers must establish either 

a maximum amount of energy use or a 

minimum level of efficiency based on 

energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6291(5)–(6)) 

EPCA defines ‘‘energy use,’’ in part, as 

‘‘the quantity of energy’’ that the product 

consumes. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) EPCA 

defines ‘‘energy’’ as meaning ‘‘electricity, 

or fossil fuels,’’ or other fuels that DOE 

adds to the definition, by rule, upon 

determining ‘‘that such inclusion is 

necessary or appropriate to carry out the 

purposes’’ of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6291(3)) 

DOE has not added solar energy (or any 

other type of fuel) to EPCA’s definition 

of ‘‘energy.’’ Thus, DOE currently lacks 

authority to prescribe standards for 

clothes dryers when they use the sun’s 

energy instead of fossil fuels or 

electricity. DOE also notes that it is 

unaware of any existing clothes dryers 

that are solar-powered. 

DOE has also considered in this 

rulemaking standards based on 

microwave or heat pump technology. 

EPCA does not define ‘‘clothes dryer,’’ 

but DOE’s regulations under EPCA 

provide separate definitions for electric 

and gas products. Because the types of 

clothes dryers just mentioned are or 

would be electric products, DOE’s 

definition of ‘‘electric clothes dryer’’ is 

relevant in considering them. DOE 

defines electric clothes dryer as a 

cabinet-like appliance designed to dry 

fabrics in a tumble-type drum with 

forced air circulation. The heat source is 

electricity and the drum and blower(s) 

are driven by an electric motor(s). 10 

CFR 430.2. 

As to microwave technology, in this 

rulemaking DOE has considered 

whether microwave drying would be a 

viable option for improving clothes 

dryer efficiency. DOE determined, 

however, that this technology did not 

merit further consideration for reasons 

discussed in section IV.B.1. In addition, 

DOE is unaware of any microwave 

dryers that are currently commercially 

available for sale in the United States or 

elsewhere. Therefore, in this rulemaking 

DOE did not consider clothes dryer 

standards based on microwave 

technology. 

DOE also identified heat pump 

technology as a possible option for 

improving the energy efficiency of 

electric clothes dryers. Unlike 

microwave technology, DOE did not 

screen out this technology from further 

consideration in this rulemaking. 

Furthermore, DOE determined that heat 

pump clothes dryers are commercially 

available in Europe and Japan. 

Accordingly, DOE has fully evaluated in 

this rulemaking whether standards 

based on heat pump technology are 

warranted for clothes dryers. 

DOE also considered non-tumbling 

(that is, cabinet) clothes dryers. DOE 

notes that, because they do not use a 

tumbling-type drum, they are not 

currently within DOE’s definition of 

‘‘electric clothes dryer.’’ 10 CFR 430.2. In 

analyzing non-tumbling dryers, DOE 

determined that although these clothes 

dryers are currently on the market in the 

United States, DOE understands that 

they have a very limited market share. 

Based on a survey of cabinet clothes 

dryer models available on the U.S. 

market, DOE is aware of only three 

cabinet clothes dryer models from two 

clothes dryer manufacturers that have 

very low market share (i.e., less than 1 

percent) in the conventional tumblingtype clothes dryer market. For these 

reasons, DOE is not considering 

standards for these clothes dryers in this 

rulemaking. 

DOE also considered centrifugal 

spinners. DOE notes that, although 

centrifugal spinners remove a certain 

quantity of moisture from a clothes load, 

they are not within DOE’s definition of 

‘‘electric clothes dryer’’ as a product 

designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type 

drum with forced air circulation, where 

the heat source is electricity and the 

drum and blower(s) are driven by an 

electric motor(s). 10 CFR 430.2. Such 

products extract moisture from a clothes 

load by means of centrifugal force at 

high spin speeds, without the 

application of additional heat. The 

ECOS report submitted to DOE by NRDC 

states that centrifugal spinners remove 

5–14 lbs. of water per kWh of electricity, 

depending on the size and type of load, 

making them at least two to seven times 

as efficient as a typical electric dryer. 

The ECOS report further cites multiple 

sources suggesting that mechanical 

extraction of water is 19–70 times more 

efficient than evaporating it in a typical 

drying process. According to the ECOS 

report, a centrifugal spinner can reduce 

initial RMC in a clothes load to be dried 

in a conventional clothes dryer from 60– 

70 percent down to 45 percent. Sources 

cited in the ECOS report variously 

ascribe to this decrease in initial RMC 

a 25-percent reduction in clothes dryer 

electricity use, or 209 kWh annual 

energy savings for a typical clothes 

dryer. (NRDC, No. 30 at pp. 10–11) 

Although such centrifugal spinners are 

currently on the market in the United 

States, DOE understands that they have 

a very limited market share. DOE also 

notes that it is not aware of any 

centrifugal spinners that can remove 

moisture from the test load down to 2.5– 

5 percent RMC, as required by the DOE 

clothes dryer test procedure. In 

addition, DOE is not aware of any 

clothes dryers currently available on the 

market or prototype designs that 

incorporate centrifugal spinning and are 

capable of drying the test load to 2.5– 

5 percent RMC. For these reasons, DOE 

is not considering standards for these 

clothes dryers in this rulemaking 

b. Room Air Conditioners 

DOE defines ‘‘room air conditioner’’ 

under EPCA, in part, as a ‘‘consumer 

product * * * which is an encased 

assembly designed as a unit for 

mounting in a window or through the 

wall for the purpose of providing 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22485 

27EPCA also authorizes the classification of 

additional consumer products as covered products 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(b) provided that certain 

criteria are met. 

28Previously, DOE has described ventless dryers 

as condensing dryers. The new designation reflects 

the actual consumer utility (that is, no external vent 

required) and the market availability of vented 

dryers that also condense. 

delivery of conditioned air to an 

enclosed space. It includes a prime 

source of refrigeration and may include 

a means for ventilating and heating.’’ 

10 CFR 430.2. A product known as a 

‘‘portable air conditioner’’ has most of 

these characteristics. However, it rests 

on the floor, often on wheels, with a 

short ducted connection to a window or 

other access to the outside to vent warm 

condenser air and, for some of these 

products, to provide condenser cooling 

air from the outside. DOE notes that 

portable air conditioners are not within 

the current DOE definition of ‘‘room air 

conditioner’’ because they are not 

designed ‘‘for mounting in a window or 

through the wall.’’ 10 CFR 430.2 

DOE notes that EPCA authorizes the 

prescription of standards for room air 

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

that portable air conditioners do not fall 

within DOE’s regulatory definition of 

room air conditioner at 10 CFR 430.2, as 

stated above, or the definitions found in 

the current industry standards ANSI/ 

AHAM RAC–1–2008 and ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 16–1983 (RA 

2009).27 DOE also notes that portable air 

conditioners cannot be tested in the 

window configuration used in the 

referenced standard ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 16–1983 (RA 2009), in the 

amended test procedure. 76 FR 972, 978 

(January 6, 2011). DOE believes that a 

separate test procedure analysis would 

need to be considered for these 

products; as an example, DOE notes that 

the ANSI/ASHRAE test procedure 

standard for portable air conditioners 

(ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 128–2001, 

‘‘Method of Rating Unitary Spot Air 

Conditioners’’) references the ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 37–2005 ‘‘Methods of 

Testing for Rating Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment’’ for testing, and excludes 

equipment covered by ANSI/AHAM 

RAC–1 2008. Thus, DOE is not 

considering standards for portable air 

conditioners in this rulemaking. DOE 

may, however, consider standard for 

portable air conditioners in a future 

rulemaking. 

3. Product Classes 

In evaluating and establishing energy 

conservation standards, DOE divides 

covered products into classes by the 

type of energy used, or by capacity or 

other performance-related feature that 

justifies a different standard for 

products having such feature. (See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)) In determining whether 

a feature justifies a different standard, 

DOE must consider factors such as the 

utility of the feature to users. Id. DOE is 

required to establish different energy 

conservation standards for different 

product classes based on these criteria. 

a. Clothes Dryers 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

proposed to analyze six product classes 

for residential clothes dryers (for details 

on these product classes, see chapter 3 

of the preliminary TSD). In particular, 

DOE considered four product classes for 

vented clothes dryers and two product 

classes for ventless clothes dryers, 

ventless electric compact (240 V) and 

combination washer/dryers, recognizing 

the unique utility that ventless clothes 

dryers offer to consumers.28

AHAM, BSH, and Whirlpool 

suggested that DOE consider an 

additional product class for electric 

standard-size ventless clothes dryers, 

even though such products are not 

currently on the market in the United 

States, to prepare for likely market 

entry. AHAM stated that a standard-size 

ventless product class would decrease 

the request for waivers that DOE may 

receive in the near future. AHAM 

further commented that the analysis for 

a standard-size ventless product class 

could be extrapolated from the analysis 

for compact-size ventless clothes dryers. 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

21.4 at pp. 19–20; AHAM, No. 25 at pp. 

4–5; BSH, No. 23 at p. 3; Whirlpool, No. 

22 at p. 1) 

Because DOE is unaware of any 

standard-size ventless clothes dryers 

currently on the market, as discussed in 

section IV.A.2.a, and because DOE does 

not have information on the 

performance of standard-size ventless 

clothes dryers that would warrant the 

definition of a separate product class, 

DOE is not establishing a product class 

for standard-size ventless clothes dryers 

in today’s direct final rule. 

According to BSH, clothes dryers 

should be classified as vented, ventless, 

and gas product classes, without 

differentiation by drum size. (BSH, No. 

23 at p. 4) EPCA requires DOE to specify 

a level of energy use or efficiency 

different from that which applies to the 

type of covered product for any group 

of such products that have a capacity or 

other performance-related feature that 

justifies a different standard. DOE has 

previously determined, and has verified 

in recent testing, that compact-size 

clothes dryers have inherently different 

energy consumption than standard-size 

clothes dryers. DOE also notes that 

compact-size clothes dryers provide 

utility to consumers by allowing for 

installation in space-constrained 

environments. Therefore, DOE has 

determined that the capacity and utility 

of compact clothes dryers justifies a 

different standard and establishes 

separate product classes for compact 

clothes washers under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)) 

b. Room Air Conditioners 

The 1997 final rule for room air 

conditioners established standards for 

16 product classes based on the 

following characteristics: Capacity, 

presence or absence of louvered-sides 

(louvered-side products are intended for 

installation in windows, while products 

without louvered sides are for throughthe-wall installation), type of cabinet 

(casement-only, casement-slider, and 

other), and presence or absence of heat 

pump mode for heating. 72 FR 50122 

(Sept. 24, 1997). 

In its preliminary analysis, DOE 

proposed no changes to the existing 

product class structure. DOE received 

two comments addressing product 

classes, as discussed below. 

AHAM recommended that DOE 

consider splitting the following two 

product classes: Product class 5 (room 

air conditioners without reverse cycle, 

with louvered sides, and capacity 

20,000 Btu/h or more) and product class 

8 (room air conditioners without reverse 

cycle, without louvered sides, and 

capacity 8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h) (AHAM, 

No. 25 at p. 6). AHAM recommended 

that product class 5 be split into two 

product classes, (1) from 20,000 Btu/h to 

24,999 Btu/h, and (2) greater than 

25,000 Btu/h. AHAM also 

recommended that product class 8 be 

split into two product classes, (1) 8,000 

Btu/h to 10,999 Btu/h, and (2) 11,000 

Btu/h to 13,999 Btu/h. AHAM stated 

that manufacturers are reaching the 

limit of achievable efficiency levels for 

higher-capacity room air conditioners. 

Id. 

The Joint Comment also proposed 

splitting both product classes 5 and 8, 

but recommended a different capacity at 

which to split product class 5. The Joint 

Comment proposed that the new 

product classes derived from the current 

product class 5 be (1) from 20,000 

Btu/h to 27,999 Btu/h, and (2) 28,000 

Btu/h and greater. The Joint Comment 

proposed the same two separated 

product classes for product class 8 that 

AHAM proposed. (Joint Comment, No. 

31 at pp. 7–8) 

DOE agrees with the 

recommendations of AHAM and the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22486 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Joint Comment that the new product 

classes are needed to ensure 

establishment of meaningful efficiency 

levels over the full range of capacities. 

This is discussed in detail in the 

following sections which separately 

address each of the product class splits. 

Splitting of Product Class 5 

DOE splits current product class 5 

(room air conditioners without reverse 

cycle, with louvered sides, and capacity 

20,000 Btu/h or more) into two new 

product classes: 5A (room air 

conditioners without reverse cycle, with 

louvered sides, and capacity from 

20,000 Btu/h to 27,999 Btu/h) and 5B 

(room air conditioners without reverse 

cycle, with louvered sides, and capacity 

28,000 Btu/h or more). This step is 

consistent with the recommendations of 

AHAM and the Joint Comment 

recommendations to split the product 

class, but uses the split recommended 

by the Joint Comment. 

DOE made this decision based on the 

following input: 

• Discussions with individual 

manufacturers of the efficiency options 

available to large room air conditioners. 

• Research on available product sizes 

and available product efficiencies. 

• Reverse engineering of two product 

class 5 units, including a 28,500 Btu/h 

unit. 

• Engineering analysis of R–410A 

product class 5 baseline products at two 

capacity levels (24,000 Btu/h and 28,000 

Btu/h). 

Max-tech available EER for product 

classes 1 through 5 (room air 

conditioners without reverse cycle, with 

louvered sides, covering the full 

capacity range of available products) for 

products using R–410A refrigerant are 

shown in Table IV.1 below. The maxtech EER drops gradually as capacity 

increases above 6,000 Btu/h, but drops 

significantly above 28,000 Btu/h. 

TABLE IV.1—MAX-TECH LOUVERED R– 

410A ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

Room air conditioner R–410A louvered products (market max available levels) 

Product class Capacity Max available EER 

1 ........................ 5,200 11.0 

1 ........................ 5,500 11.2 

2 ........................ 6,000 12.0 

2 ........................ 7,900 11.7 

3 ........................ 11,700 11.4 

4 ........................ 18,000 10.7 

5 ........................ 20,800 10.0 

5 ........................ 27,800 9.7 

5 ........................ 36,000 8.5 

DOE produced cost-efficiency curves 

for product class 5 products at both 

24,000 Btu/h and 28,000 Btu/h capacity 

levels. Table IV.2 shows the results of 

these analyses, which clearly show 

(1) much steeper increase in cost as the 

CEER increases and (2) significantly 

lower max-tech for the larger capacity 

products. This analysis demonstrates 

the much greater potential for efficiency 

improvement for the lower-capacity 

products. 

TABLE IV.2—COMPARISON OF 24,000 Btu/h AND 28,000 Btu/h ROOM AIR CONDITIONER INCREMENTAL COSTS

Efficiency level 

PC5A—24,000 Btu/h PC5B—28,000 Btu/h 

CEER Incremental 

cost CEER Incremental cost 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 8.47 $0.00 8.48 $0.00 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 9.0 8.85 9.0 23.52 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 9.4 19.04 9.4 50.27 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 9.8 50.66 9.8 229.01 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 10.15 204.62 ........................ ........................

The cost-efficiency analysis and the 

market analysis demonstrate that 

limitations in the max-tech levels for 

product class 5 units occur at the 28,000 

Btu/h capacity, rather than the 24,000 

Btu/h capacity. DOE used these analyses 

to determine that the 28,000 Btu/h 

capacity split was more appropriate 

than the 24,000 Btu/h split. 

DOE’s decision to establish the new 

product classes 5A and 5B that take the 

place of the current product class 5, and 

split the product class at the 28,000 Btu/ 

h capacity level, is based on the 

stakeholder comments and DOE’s 

analysis. Additional details of the 

analysis can be found in chapter 3 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

Splitting of Product Class 8 

DOE splits product class 8 (room air 

conditioners without reverse cycle, 

without louvered sides, and capacity 

8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h) to establish two 

new product classes: 8A (room air 

conditioners without reverse cycle, 

without louvered sides, and capacity 

8,000 to 10,999 Btu/h) and 8B (room air 

conditioners without reverse cycle, 

without louvered sides, and capacity 

11,000 to 13,999 Btu/h). 

DOE based this split on information 

similar to that of the decision to split 

product class 5, as discussed above. 

DOE focused its reverse engineering and 

engineering for these product classes on 

capacities of 8,000 Btu/h and 12,000 

Btu/h. 

The max-tech EERs of available room 

air conditioners without louvered sides 

using R–410A refrigerant are dependent 

on capacity range. These products are 

designed to fit in sleeves installed in the 

building wall. Due to the dependence of 

this market on replacement sales, as 

reported by manufacturers during 

interviews for the final rule analysis, 

there is little opportunity to adjust the 

physical size of the product. (This is in 

contrast to products with louvered 

sides, designed to fit in windows, which 

allows more flexibility for size increase 

to improve efficiency.) Non-louvered 

products with capacity greater than 

12,600 Btu/h are unable to meet the 

current ENERGY STAR EER level. DOE 

further notes that non-louvered 

ENERGY STAR products in the capacity 

range 11,500 to 12,800 Btu/h require 

oversized sleeves. At a slightly higher 

capacity level, these products cannot be 

designed to meet the DOE energy 

standard—the available data show that 

there are currently no available nonlouvered products having greater than 

13,999 Btu/h capacity. 

DOE produced cost-efficiency curves 

for non-louvered R–410A room air 

conditioners at 8,000 Btu/h and 12,000 

Btu/h capacities, shown in Table IV.3 

below. As for the product class 5 

analyses, the results show the 

significantly steeper increase in cost as 

efficiency level is raised above the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22487 

29For more information, please visit http:// 

www.energystar.gov. 

baseline and the reduced max-tech level 

for the higher-capacity product. 

TABLE IV.3—COMPARISON OF 8,000 Btu/h AND 12,000 Btu/h ROOM AIR CONDITIONER INCREMENTAL COSTS

Efficiency level 

PC8A—8,000 Btu/h PC8B—12,000 Btu/h 

CEER Incremental 

cost CEER Incremental cost 

1 ................................................................................................................... 8 .41 $0.00 8 .44 $0.00 

2 ................................................................................................................... 9 .3 4.61 9 .3 11.72 

3 ................................................................................................................... 9 .6 6.68 9 .5 15.39 

4 ................................................................................................................... 10 .0 16.63 9 .8 26.06 

5 ................................................................................................................... 10 .4 88.45 10 .0 93.36 

DOE’s decision to establish the new 

product classes 8A and 8B that take the 

place of the current product class 8 is 

based on the stakeholder comments and 

DOE’s analysis. DOE has decided to 

split the product class at the 11,000 

Btu/h capacity level recommended by 

both AHAM and the Joint Comment. 

Additional details of the analysis can be 

found in chapter 3 of the direct final 

rule TSD. 

Product Class Summary 

Table IV.4 below presents the product 

classes established in this rulemaking, 

including both current and classes 

established in this rulemaking. 

TABLE IV.4—PROPOSED ROOM AIR CONDITIONER PRODUCT CLASSES

Number Product class 

Classes Listed in the CFR 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 ................................ Casement-Only. 

16 ................................ Casement-Slider. 

Product Classes Established in This Rulemaking 

5A ................................ Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h to 27,999 Btu/h. 

5B ................................ Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 28,000 Btu/h or more. 

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

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

EPCA requires that the establishment 

of separate product classes be based on 

either (A) consumption of a different 

kind of energy from that consumed by 

other covered products within such type 

(or class); or (B) a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have, where such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard from that 

which applies to other products within 

such type (or class). (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)). 

The second of these criteria is 

applicable to the new product classes 

proposed in this rulemaking, because 

the new product classes are based on 

product capacity. The justification of 

different standards for the new product 

classes of different capacities is 

discussed above in this section. 

4. Non-Regulatory Programs 

DOE’s market assessment provides a 

profile of the residential clothes dryer 

and room air conditioner industries in 

the United States. As part of the market 

and technology assessment, DOE 

reviews non-regulatory programs 

promoting energy-efficient residential 

appliances in the United States. Nonregulatory programs that DOE considers 

in its market and technology assessment 

include ENERGY STAR, a voluntary 

labeling program jointly administered 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and DOE. ENERGY STAR 

identifies energy efficient products 

through a qualification process.29 To 

qualify, a product must exceed Federal 

minimum standards by a specified 

amount, or if no Federal standard exists, 

exhibit select energy-saving features. 

ENERGY STAR specifications currently 

exist for room air conditioners, but not 

for residential clothes dryers. 

BSH commented that it would 

support ENERGY STAR qualification for 

clothes dryers, as well as an energy label 

system that would help consumers 

purchase the most efficient models on 

the market. According to BSH, the 

European labeling system for clothes 

dryers has resulted in benefits to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22488 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

30The European energy label system uses a letter 

scale from ‘‘A’’ to ‘‘G’’ to rate the efficiency and 

performance of certain appliance products. A rating 

of ‘‘A’’ denotes the highest efficiency unit, whereas 

a rating of ‘‘G’’ denotes the lowest efficiency unit. 

consumers, manufacturers, and the 

environment. (BSH, No. 23 at pp. 2, 6) 

The California Utilities commented that 

a revised test procedure could better 

differentiate clothes dryer models in 

terms of energy performance, facilitating 

an ENERGY STAR program. According 

to the California Utilities, there is 

currently no ENERGY STAR program 

because clothes dryers do not differ in 

apparent energy use as measured by the 

existing clothes dryer test procedure. 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 6). 

DOE notes that, according to the joint 

program between the EPA and DOE, the 

EPA determines whether to add 

qualification specifications for newly 

covered products within ENERGY 

STAR. DOE encourages the 

implementation of ENERGY STAR 

specifications and labeling as a means to 

achieve national energy savings, and 

would assist the EPA in applying the 

DOE clothes dryer test procedure to 

evaluate qualifying products in any 

future ENERGY STAR ratings for clothes 

dryers. 

Energy labeling for clothes dryers 

under the EnergyGuide program is 

regulated by the FTC. (10 CFR 305) 

Although DOE does not have the 

authority under EPCA to revise the 

regulations for energy labeling to 

include clothes dryers, DOE would 

provide technical information to the 

FTC to support any new EnergyGuide 

labeling requirement for these products. 

5. Technology Options 

As part of the market and technology 

assessment, DOE develops a list of 

technologies for consideration for 

improving the efficiency of clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners. 

Initially, these technologies encompass 

all those DOE believes are 

technologically feasible (the first of the 

four criteria in the screening analysis). 

Chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD 

includes the detailed list of all 

technology options identified for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners. DOE 

received several comments in response 

to the technologies proposed in the 

preliminary analysis to be analyzed for 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners. 

a. Clothes Dryers 

Heat Pump Clothes Dryers 

DOE notes that heat pump clothes 

dryers function by recirculating the 

exhaust air back to the dryer while 

moisture is removed by a refrigerationdehumidification system. The warm and 

damp exhaust air of the dryer enters the 

evaporation coil of the dehumidifier 

where it cools down below the dew 

point, and sensible and latent heat are 

extracted. The heat is transferred to the 

condenser coil by the refrigerant and 

reabsorbed by the air, which is moving 

in a closed air cycle. DOE notes that 

there are no heat pump dryers currently 

available on the U.S. market, but that 

heat pump clothes dryers are available 

on the market in Europe. 

BSH commented that it foresees the 

heat pump clothes dryer as an 

innovative technology breakthrough for 

improved efficiency in the next few 

years in North America. BSH noted that 

in Europe in the last 2 years the market 

share for heat pump clothes dryers has 

increased from 3 to 11 percent, and that 

this success is based on four key factors: 

(1) European energy consumption 

values are comparable for all sizes of 

clothes dryers because they are 

independent of drum size; (2) the 

percent range between energy classes in 

Europe (A = best, B, C * * *) 30 remains 

constant, so one energy classification is 

not proportionally larger than another; 

(3) realistic load quantities are used for 

testing; and (4) automatic termination 

control dryers are standard and are 

given preferential treatment over timer 

dryers (which tend to over dry and use 

more energy). (BSH, No. 23 at p. 2) 

In the context of the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE conducts its analysis to determine 

an economically justified minimum 

efficiency standard. DOE notes that the 

efficiency levels proposed in the 

preliminary analyses are not used for 

product marketing classification as they 

are in the European energy label system. 

As a result, DOE does not intend to 

create an energy class system as part of 

the energy conservation standard 

rulemaking. As discussed in section 

III.A.1.d, DOE also notes that its clothes 

dryer test procedure specifies a single 

test load size for standard-size clothes 

dryers and a single test load size for 

compact-size clothes dryers. In response 

to BSH’s comments regarding realistic 

load quantities, DOE also notes that it 

amended the clothes dryer test 

procedure to revise the test load size for 

standard-size clothes dryers to be more 

representative of current consumer 

usage habits, as discussed in the TP 

Final Rule. 76 FR 972, 977 (January 6, 

2011). Also, as discussed above in 

section III.A.1.b, DOE did not amend the 

test procedure in the TP Final Rule to 

better account for automatic cycle 

termination. DOE notes that the clothes 

dryer test procedure provides a field use 

factor for automatic termination control 

dryers and a different field use factor for 

timer dryers. As discussed above, DOE 

notes that heat pump clothes dryers are 

available on the market in Europe. DOE 

also notes that multiple clothes dryer 

manufacturers that manufacture heat 

pump clothes dryers for the 

international markets also manufacture 

clothes dryers for the United States. For 

these reasons, DOE believes that heat 

pump technology is technologically 

feasible and therefore considered heat 

pump clothes dryers for the engineering 

analysis. 

Heat Recovery 

For this technology option, a heat 

exchanger is used to recover exhaust 

heat energy and to preheat inlet air. 

Based on research of this technology 

and discussions with manufacturers, 

this system is feasible for both gas and 

electric dryers because none of the 

exhaust air re-enters the dryer. Energy 

savings are achieved either by using the 

additional recovered heat to increase the 

temperature of the air entering the drum 

and thus reduce the drying time or by 

using the additional recovered heat to 

reduce the required heater input power, 

depending on how the system is 

implemented. As reported in chapter 3 

of the preliminary TSD, estimated 

energy savings from several researchers 

range from 2 to 6 percent in noncondensing mode. 

The California Utilities and NRDC 

commented that the energy savings 

associated with heat recovery would be 

significantly higher. According to the 

California Utilities, 80-percent efficient 

counter-flow heat exchangers are widely 

available, while 90-percent efficient 

heat exchangers are technically feasible. 

The California Utilities estimate energy 

savings for heat recovery to be about 30 

percent for electric clothes dryers and 

20 percent for gas clothes dryers. The 

California Utilities noted that ventless 

dryers are available in the United States 

and are common in Europe, suggesting 

that heat recovery is both technically 

feasible and practical to manufacture 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at pp. 6–7, 

12, 21) The California Utilities stated 

that the technologies behind heat 

recovery and ventless clothes dryers 

differ only in where the air from the 

heat exchanger is routed. In ventless 

clothes dryers, cooled exhaust air is 

channeled to the heater to be reused and 

the warmed room air is vented back to 

the room. For heat recovery, these are 

reversed, such that cooled exhaust air is 

vented (usually outside) and the 

warmed room air is channeled into the 

heater. (California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 

6) The California Utilities provided a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22489 

specific example of a dryer with an EF 

of 3.10, or 2.26 kWh per cycle, which 

is stopped at the end of the bulk drying 

stage. The clothes dryer in this example 

is assumed to have an average exhaust 

temperature of 110 °F, or 40 °F above 

ambient temperature. According to the 

California Utilities, a 90-percent 

efficient counter-flow heat exchanger 

would preheat the incoming air by 36 

°F, which would result in 0.684 kWh 

directly replacing heat that would 

otherwise be supplied by the electric 

resistance heater. The replaced heat 

would correspond to 1.58 kWh per cycle 

to dry the 7-lb. test load and an EF of 

4.43. This would result in a 30-percent 

energy savings due to heat recovery. Id. 

According to NRDC, as stated in the 

ECOS report, 40-percent energy savings 

(1.348 kWh of heater energy savings per 

cycle) can be achieved for a load of 

cotton towels with a 90-percent efficient 

air-to-air cross-flow heat exchanger 

between the exhaust and intake of the 

clothes dryer. (NRDC, No. 30 at p. 27) 

DOE is not aware of any data 

indicating that a cross-flow heat 

exchanger may be used in a clothes 

dryer application and achieve 80- 

percent or 90-percent efficiency. DOE 

notes that an air-to-air heat exchanger 

used in a clothes dryer must have 

sufficient fin spacing to prevent lint 

fouling of the heat exchanger. DOE also 

notes that the ECOS report does not 

provide details of how the potential 

energy savings associated with heat 

recovery were calculated (that is, data 

for airflow, temperature, specific heat, 

and similar items). DOE notes that the 

California Utilities comment stated that, 

for an exhaust temperature of 110 °F 

and a 90-percent efficient cross-flow 

heat exchanger, the energy savings 

would be approximately 0.684 kWh per 

cycle. However, the ECOS report 

estimated that the energy savings would 

be 1.348 kWh for what appear to be the 

same conditions. Because the details of 

how these estimates were calculated 

were not provided, DOE is unable to 

verify the energy savings suggested by 

the commenters would occur. 

DOE also notes that it is unclear 

whether the estimates provided by the 

California Utilities and the ECOS report 

for heat recovery considered 

condensation in the exhaust air stream. 

Manufacturers indicated that such heat 

recovery systems must be designed to 

prevent condensation in the exhaust 

ducting, and as a result, there is a limit 

to the amount of heat that can be 

recovered. 

DOE notes that it has revised the costefficiency analysis from the preliminary 

analyses based on its analysis and 

discussions with manufacturers. As 

discussed in section IV.C.2, inlet air 

preheating (that is, heat recovery) is 

considered applicable to the maximumavailable efficiency levels for vented 

clothes dryer product classes, and DOE 

estimates this technology option would 

provide roughly a 6–7 percent 

improvement in efficiency. 

Manufacturers confirmed during 

interviews with DOE that this efficiency 

improvement accurately estimates the 

energy savings potential associated with 

inlet-air preheating in real-world 

applications, considering such factors as 

condensation in the exhaust airstream 

and lint accumulation in the heat 

exchanger. 

Hydronic Heating 

HTC requested that DOE consider its 

‘‘hydronically heated’’ clothes dryer, 

which uses a self-contained hydronic 

heating system, as a technology option. 

According to HTC, this technology 

currently exists, but products 

incorporating such a design are not yet 

being sold pending HTC’s resolution of 

licensing and private labeling 

considerations. (HTC, No. FDMS 

DRAFT 0068 at p. 3) DOE is also aware 

of HTC’s stand-alone hydronic heater 

that could be implemented as a clothes 

dryer heat source, utilizing water or 

other heat transfer fluids and an 

immersion element similar to a water 

heater. The heated fluid would then 

pass through a heat exchanger, where 

the heat would be transferred to the air 

entering the drum and then pumped 

back to the hydronic heater. Because 

DOE has not been able to identify any 

clothes dryers with such hydronic 

heating systems currently on the market, 

however, DOE is unable to evaluate the 

energy consumption associated with a 

clothes dryer equipped with a standalone hydronic heating device and thus 

has not included it as a design option 

in today’s direct final rule. 

Improved Cycle Termination 

According to NRDC, the test results in 

the ECOS report show that a clothes 

dryer equipped with improved 

automatic cycle termination saves 0.76 

kWh per load compared to a clothes 

dryer with electromechanical controls. 

(NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

21.4 at p. 42) The California Utilities 

noted that ‘‘high performance’’ 

automatic cycle termination controls are 

already available in dryers on the 

market that produce energy savings on 

the order of 10-percent or more above 

current energy use, although DOE’s 

clothes dryer test procedure must be 

amended to measure this improvement. 

The California Utilities strongly urged 

DOE to analyze this technology option. 

For the reasons described in section 

III.A.1.b, DOE did not adopt in the TP 

Final Rule the amendments for 

measuring automatic cycle termination 

proposed in the TP SNOPR. Therefore, 

DOE did not analyze this technology 

option further. 

Modulating Heat 

The NRDC/ECOS report stated that if 

a conventional gas clothes dryer is 

improved with modulating burner 

technology, the performance of the 

clothes dryer would be roughly 

equivalent to or superior to many heat 

pump clothes dryers in terms of CO2

emissions, source energy use, and 

energy cost. This performance would be 

achieved while also offering faster 

drying times and lower initial purchase 

price. (NRDC, No. 30 at pp. 37–38) DOE 

notes that heat pump technology is 

applicable only to electric clothes 

dryers, for which DOE maintains a 

product class distinction from gas 

clothes dryers. DOE analyzed 

technologies currently available on the 

market and concluded that two-stage gas 

burner modulation is necessary to 

achieve max-tech performance. Because 

DOE is not aware of any gas clothes 

dryers with fully modulating burner 

systems currently on the market, DOE 

did not consider this technology further 

in developing the standards set forth in 

today’s direct final rule. DOE does 

include this technology as a longer-term 

means to achieve energy efficiency 

improvements in a sensitivity analysis 

described in chapter 16 of the direct 

final rule TSD. 

Outdoor Intake Air 

The California Utilities and NRDC 

suggested that DOE consider as a 

technology option those technologies 

that draw intake air for the clothes dryer 

from outside the residence, thereby 

reducing space conditioning loads in 

the home. (California Utilities, No. 31 at 

p. 8; NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 21.4 at p. 44) The California 

Utilities further suggest that such a 

technology option may be necessitated 

by the trend in residential new 

construction towards tighter building 

envelopes. Tighter envelopes result in 

reduced exhaust airflow from the 

clothes dryer and greater 

depressurization impacts, which can 

potentially result in indoor air quality 

problems. According to the California 

Utilities, the HVAC load is proportional 

to the amount of air vented from the 

clothes dryer, but this load can be 

reduced or eliminated by reducing the 

total air drawn through the dryer or by 

having a separate outside air intake and 

vent. The California Utilities estimate 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22490 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

31See the SNAP program Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/. 

energy savings due to reductions in 

HVAC load on the order of 10 percent 

or more. (California Utilities, No. 31 at 

pp. 2, 8–9) The NRDC/ECOS report 

states that outdoor intake air could save 

about 1 kWh per load, but that without 

heat recovery this technology option 

would only be advantageous in the 

summer. The NRDC/ECOS report adds 

that with heat recovery outdoor intake 

air is advantageous year-round. (NRDC, 

No. 30 at pp. 27–28). 

As discussed in section III.A.1.f, 

EPCA requires that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section shall be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use, water use, 

or estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE believes that 

accounting for the effects of clothes 

dryers on HVAC energy use is 

inconsistent with this requirement. 

Therefore, DOE did not revise the 

clothes dryer test procedure to account 

for HVAC energy use in the TP Final 

Rule, and does not consider outdoor 

intake air as an additional technology 

option. 

Reverse Tumble 

NRDC commented that the use of 

synthetic mixed fabric in the DOE 

clothes dryer test procedure may be 

underestimating the efficiency 

improvement associated with reverse 

tumble. NRDC stated that cotton and 

other natural fabrics tend to ball up 

when rotated continuously in one 

direction, and therefore the test 

procedure is underestimating the 

potential benefit of reverse tumble. 

(NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

21.4 at pp. 42–43) As discussed in 

section III.A.1.d, DOE is unaware of data 

to determine the composition of 

clothing types and materials that would 

produce results as repeatable as those 

resulting from use of the current test 

cloth. Therefore, DOE did not amend 

the clothes dryer test procedure in the 

TP Final Rule to change the test load 

composition. In the absence of 

comments providing information on the 

efficacy of reverse tumble for the 

existing DOE test cloth, DOE continues 

to believe that no measurable energy 

savings are associated with this 

technology option. 

Switch Mode Power Supply 

ACEEE stated that the technology to 

reduce standby power consumption to 

less than 1 W, via switch mode power 

supply controllers, is widely available at 

low cost. (ACEEE, No. 24 at p. 2) NRDC 

stated that the ECOS report found 

standby power levels in the range of 

0.03 to 0.05 W with switch mode power 

supply controllers, corresponding to 

energy consumption of 4–6 kWh over 

the lifetime of the clothes dryer. (NRDC, 

No. 26 at p. 3; NRDC, No. 30 at p. 5) 

DOE has observed that switching power 

supplies offer the highest conversion 

efficiencies (up to 75 percent) and 

lowest no-load standby losses (0.2 W or 

less), though at a higher cost, higher part 

count, and greater complexity than 

conventional linear power supplies. 

DOE noted, however, that switch mode 

power supplies are incorporated in 

many clothes dryers currently on the 

market, and thus has included switch 

mode power supplies in its analysis for 

today’s direct final rule. 

Vent Selector Switch 

The NRDC/ECOS report suggested as 

an additional technology option the 

incorporation of a ‘‘summer/winter’’ 

selector so that the waste heat would be 

delivered to the building during the 

winter instead of being vented outside. 

According to the ECOS report, 60 

percent of the energy used by the 

clothes dryer evaporates water from the 

clothes load and the other 40 percent is 

available as waste heat to the room. 

(NRDC, No. 30 at p. 28) For the reasons 

discussed in section III.A.1.f, DOE did 

not consider the energy impacts on the 

space conditioning requirements in 

amending its clothes dryer test 

procedure, and thus did not evaluate 

this technology further. 

b. Room Air Conditioners 

DOE received comments from several 

interested parties recommending that 

DOE also consider the following 

technologies: Alternative refrigerants, 

suction line heat exchangers (SLHX), 

flooded evaporator coils, and automatic 

timers. 

AHAM commented that it had no 

additional design option suggestions for 

room air conditioners, and that many of 

the design options proposed and 

initially evaluated by DOE are already 

employed by a number of manufacturers 

to increase the efficiency of today’s 

products (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 4). 

Alternative Refrigerants 

DOE notes that HCFC–22 was 

traditionally the refrigerant used in 

room air conditioners. On December 15, 

2009, the EPA issued a final rule 

banning the sale and distribution of airconditioning and refrigeration 

appliances containing HCFC–22, 

applying to appliances and components 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2010. 74 FR 66412, 66418. 

During individual manufacturer 

interviews conducted for the 

preliminary analysis, manufacturers 

revealed that the room air conditioning 

industry was transitioning to using 

R–410A refrigerant. DOE also discussed 

the transition with compressor 

manufacturers, who were developing 

and manufacturing R–410A rotary 

compressors for use in room air 

conditioners. 

Because of the phaseout of HCFC–22 

and the transition to R–410A, DOE 

conducted the analysis for today’s direct 

final rule based on use of R–410A 

refrigerant. DOE’s analysis of R–410A 

room air conditioners is presented in 

chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD. 

A number of commenters urged DOE 

to consider alternative refrigerants as a 

technology option in the screening 

process. Both ACEEE and the California 

Utilities suggested that DOE consider 

hydrocarbon refrigerants possible 

alternatives to R–410A. (ACEEE, No. 24 

at p. 4; California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 

16) The California Utilities also 

suggested that DOE consider R–407C. 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 16) 

NPCC supported consideration of 

alternative refrigerants as well. (NPCC, 

No. 32 at p. 4) 

DOE notes that no hydrocarbon 

refrigerants are currently included as 

acceptable for use in air-conditioning 

applications by the EPA Significant 

New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 

Program list. This program was 

established to identify acceptable 

alternatives to ozone-depleting 

substances used in a variety of 

applications.31 The list identifies 

allowed applications for use of the 

alternative substances. Since there have 

been no hydrocarbons included on the 

SNAP list as acceptable for use in air 

conditioning appliances, DOE did not 

consider these alternative refrigerants in 

its analysis. 

R–407C, on the other hand, is 

approved as an acceptable substitute for 

use in air-conditioning equipment, 

which includes room air conditioners. 

DOE analyzed R–407C to determine 

whether it offers efficiency 

improvement over R–410A, using the 

energy model developed and used 

throughout the engineering analysis. 

The results indicate that the efficiency 

of R–407C is less than that of R–410A 

for room air conditioners operating at 

rating conditions. As a result, DOE 

determined that use of R–407C 

refrigerant is not a viable design option. 

Additional details of this analysis are 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22491 

32This efficiency increase was described in the 

source as reduction of an EER loss of 6.5 percent 

(when comparing R–410A performance to HCFC– 

22, at 131 °F outdoor temperature) to 3.2 percent. 

33National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. Performance of R–22 and its 

Alternatives Working at High Outdoor 

Temperatures. In Eighth International Refrigeration 

Conference at Purdue University, 2000. West 

Lafayette, IN—July 25–28, 2000, pp. 47–54. 

34Again, expressed as reduction of an EER loss 

of 2.5 percent (when comparing R–410A 

performance to HCFC–22, at a 95 °F outdoor 

temperature) to 1.5 percent. 

35 V.C. Mei and F.C. Chen, et al. Experimental 

Analysis of a Window Air Conditioner with R–22 

and Zeotropic Mixture of R–32/125/134a. Energy 

Renewable and Research Section, Energy Division, 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN. 

August 1995. 

presented in chapter 3 of the direct final 

rule TSD. 

DOE also performed research to 

identify other potential alternative 

refrigerants during the preliminary 

analysis, but was unable to identify 

viable alternative refrigerants to 

R–410A. The research included a review 

of air-conditioning products, academic 

articles, industry publications, and 

interviews with component vendors. 

DOE sought to include refrigerants that 

were approved by the EPA for use in 

room air conditioners. For more detail, 

see chapter 3 of the direct final rule 

TSD. 

Suction Line Heat Exchangers 

An SLHX transfers heat between the 

high-temperature liquid refrigerant 

leaving the condenser and the lowtemperature vaporized refrigerant 

leaving the evaporator. The heat 

exchanger lowers the outgoing 

temperature of the liquid refrigerant and 

raises the temperature of the outgoing 

vapor refrigerant. This heat transfer 

allows for the liquid refrigerant to be 

subcooled before entering the expansion 

device and offers the potential to 

increase the vapor-compression cycle’s 

cooling capacity. 

The California Utilities and NPCC 

argued that DOE should consider SLHXs 

based on possible performance 

improvements (California Utilities, No. 

31 at pp. 14–15; NPCC, No. 32 at p. 4). 

The California Utilities comment cited 

the 1997 room air conditioner 

rulemaking, which cited a study by 

Allied-Signal demonstrating a 4 percent 

increase in system performance with the 

addition of a SLHX in a 2.5 ton split 

system AC application, and simulations 

by NIST for split-system air 

conditioning applications showing EER 

improvement of 3.5 percent 32 for 

R–410A systems using SLHX. 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at pp. 14– 

15). 

DOE reviewed the room air 

conditioner rulemaking cited by the 

California Utilities and noted that the 

improvement was based on a 

comparison to a non-optimized system. 

DOE also considered the NIST 

simulation study referenced by the 

California Utilities.33 In this study, the 

EER improvement of 3.5 percent 

occurred for an outdoor temperature of 

131 °F. The paper includes performance 

data for an outdoor temperature 

condition of 95 °F (which is used in the 

DOE Test Procedure), for which the EER 

improvement was 1.0 percent 34 using a 

SLHX. These results were simulated for 

systems using reciprocating-type 

compressors, and the analyzed systems 

were not optimized to maximize 

performance of individual fluids. There 

is no indication in the paper that the 

simulations address room air 

conditioners because it does not 

mention outdoor air moisture content, 

which would be an important parameter 

affecting performance of room air 

conditioners. While the simulations 

show a potential for slight performance 

improvement, it is not clear that the 

simulations are applicable for room air 

conditioners, and the results were not 

validated experimentally. DOE therefore 

concludes that the cited studies do not 

support the conclusion that SLHXs will 

significantly improve room air 

conditioner efficiency. 

During interviews conducted during 

the preliminary and final rule analysis, 

manufacturers did not indicate that 

SLHX could be used to improve system 

performance. Furthermore, use of 

SLHX’s may be inconsistent with the 

operating temperature limits for 

compressors. The technology 

significantly raises the temperature of 

the suction gas entering the compressor. 

Because hermetic compressors are 

cooled by the suction gas, the 

compressor will overheat if the suction 

gas temperature exceeds limits specified 

by the compressor manufacturer. DOE 

notes that 65 °F is typically the highest 

allowable suction temperature for R– 

410A rotary compressors. DOE noted 

that a SLHX operating at close to 50% 

effectiveness (as analyzed in the NIST 

study) would raise suction temperature 

roughly 20 °F, thus significantly 

exceeding the specified limit. For 

additional details of this analysis, see 

chapter 3 of the TSD. Use of this 

technology would adversely affect the 

reliability of the compressor, and 

consequently, DOE cannot consider 

SLHX as a design option. 

Flooded Evaporator Coils 

Flooded evaporator coils are 

evaporators for which refrigerant flow is 

higher than the amount that can be 

evaporated. As a result, a portion of the 

refrigerant leaves such an evaporator 

unevaporated (that is, still in the liquid 

phase). Such a design assures that liquid 

is available for boiling heat transfer 

throughout the evaporator. Because 

boiling heat transfer is much more 

effective than vapor phase heat transfer, 

the evaporator’s heat transfer 

characteristics can be improved. 

However, the liquid refrigerant leaving 

the evaporator cannot be routed to the 

compressor, because (1) compressors 

cannot tolerate significant amounts of 

liquid without damage; and (2) this 

would represent lost cooling and lost 

efficiency. The liquid refrigerant returns 

to a reservoir from which it can be 

redirected to the evaporator. The 

reservoir inventory is controlled to 

allow low pressure vapor to exit to the 

compressor, while ‘‘fresh’’ refrigerant 

from the condenser enters through an 

expansion valve that may vary flow 

based on the reservoir liquid level. 

The California Utilities stated that 

DOE should consider flooded 

evaporator coils as a design option, as 

this technology is used in some 

refrigerant systems (California Utilities, 

No. 31 at p. 14). Oak Ridge National 

Laboratories (ORNL) tests on window 

air conditioners found that a flooded 

evaporator coil setup using R–22 

increased cooling capacity by 8 

percent.35

DOE considered the ORNL study 

referenced by the California Utilities. 

The article describes work in which a 

room air conditioner was tested, 

modified to have a flooded evaporator, 

and then retested. Data provided in the 

article shows that the evaporator of the 

unmodified unit was very poorly 

controlled. A plot graph of heat 

exchanger tube temperature versus 

evaporator length shows the tube 

temperature rising after the refrigerant 

liquid had traveled 60 percent of the 

heat exchanger tube length, indicating 

that the refrigerant liquid has 

evaporated. Air conditioner designs that 

incorporate flooded evaporator coils are 

not optimized, and the performance of 

such designs could have improved 

significantly with much less costly 

changes than converting to a flooded 

evaporator. As a result, DOE does not 

believe that the cited ORNL study 

supports analyzing flooded evaporator 

coils as a technology option in the room 

air conditioner engineering analysis. 

Automatic Timers 

The California Utilities stated that 

DOE should consider automatic timers 

as a design option in its analysis, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22492 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

arguing that many room air conditioner 

models currently feature an automatic 

timer that shuts off operation after a predetermined amount of time, thus 

avoiding unnecessary cooling 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 14). 

The California Utilities argued that this 

is a simple and inexpensive option that 

can be implemented to improve 

consumer utility and provide potential 

energy savings. 

DOE notes that automatic timers may 

save energy by preventing cooling of the 

space when occupants have left. 

However, the benefits of automatic 

timers would not be measured by the 

current or amended test procedures, 

unless the test procedure allocation of 

hours to full-load and standby or off 

mode were adjusted based on presence 

of the automatic timer. Information to 

allow proper allocation of the hours in 

this fashion is not available, thus the 

test procedure rulemaking did not 

establish adjustment of hours to address 

this technology. DOE acknowledges the 

importance of conducting appropriate 

test programs to provide a basis for 

crediting technologies such as automatic 

timers. DOE will consider supporting 

such work to assist in a future test 

procedure rulemaking. At this time, 

however, DOE cannot consider 

automatic timers in the engineering 

analysis. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following four screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in a standards 

rulemaking: 

1. Technological feasibility. DOE will 

consider technologies incorporated in 

commercial products or in working 

prototypes to be technologically 

feasible. (The technological feasibility of 

options was discussed in the preceding 

section as part of the market and 

technology assessment.) 

2. Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If mass production 

and reliable installation and servicing of 

a technology in commercial products 

could be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time the standard comes into effect, 

then DOE will consider that technology 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service. 

3. Adverse impacts on product utility 

or product availability. If DOE 

determines a technology would have 

significant adverse impact on the utility 

of the product to significant subgroups 

of consumers, or would result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not consider this 

technology further. 

4. Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If DOE determines that a 

technology will have significant adverse 

impacts on health or safety, it will not 

consider this technology further. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

(4)(a)(4) and (5)(b). 

Technologies that pass through the 

screening analysis are referred to as 

‘‘design options’’ in the engineering 

analysis. Details of the screening 

analysis are in chapter 4 of the direct 

final rule TSD. 

1. Clothes Dryers 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

identified the following technology 

options that could improve the 

efficiency of clothes dryers, as shown in 

Table IV.5. 

TABLE IV.5—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES DRYERS

Dryer Control or Drum Upgrades: 

Improved termination. 

Increased insulation. 

Modified operating conditions. 

Improved air circulation. 

Reverse tumble. 

Improved drum design. 

Methods of Exhaust Heat Recovery (vented 

models only): 

Recycle exhaust heat. 

Inlet air preheat. 

Inlet air preheat, condensing mode. 

Heat Generation Options: 

Heat pump, electric only. 

Microwave, electric only. 

Modulating, gas only. 

Water-cooling, ventless electric only. 

Indirect heating. 

Component Improvements: 

Improved motor efficiency. 

Improved fan efficiency. 

Standby Power Improvements: 

Switching power supply. 

Transformerless power supply with autopowerdown. 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered eliminating the following 

clothes dryer technology options from 

consideration: 

Microwave, Electric Only 

DOE’s research suggested that 

significant technical and safety issues 

would be introduced with microwave 

drying by the potential arcing from 

metallic objects in the fabric load, 

including zippers, buttons, or ‘‘stray’’ 

items such as coins. While DOE noted 

that efforts have been made to mitigate 

the conditions that are favorable to 

arcing, or to detect incipient arcing and 

terminate the cycle, the possibility of 

fabric damage could not be completely 

eliminated. Thus, for these reasons of 

consumer utility and adverse impacts 

on safety, microwave drying was not 

considered further for analysis. 

Water-Cooling, Ventless Electric Only 

DOE noted that water-cooling for 

ventless electric clothes dryers, which 

uses water as a cooling fluid to 

condense the moisture in the air exiting 

the drum, would require significant 

plumbing to circulate water through a 

heat exchanger in the dryer and add to 

the complexity of maintenance. Such 

home renovations would require 

installing a water hook-up and drain in 

the laundry area, which is not typically 

done for clothes dryers. Therefore, DOE 

determined in the preliminary analysis 

that the water-cooling for ventless 

electric dryers technology option does 

not meet the criterion of practicability to 

install and service on a scale necessary 

to serve the relevant market at the time 

of the compliance date of a new 

standard and proposed screening it out 

of the analysis. DOE did not receive any 

comments objecting to this 

determination. For these reasons, DOE 

is continuing to screen out watercooling for ventless electric clothes 

dryers in today’s final rule. 

Indirect Heating 

DOE tentatively concluded in the 

preliminary analysis that indirect 

heating would be viable only in 

residences which use a hydronic 

heating system. An energy conservation 

standard that required indirect heating 

would require homes without a 

hydronic heating system to have such a 

system installed. DOE also notes that 

there would be added maintenance 

requirements because the home’s 

hydronic heating system because it 

would be used more frequently (that is, 

year-round). Also, to derive dryer heat 

energy from the home’s heating system, 

significant plumbing work would be 

required to circulate heated water 

through a heat exchanger in the dryer. 

Therefore, DOE determined that this 

technology option does not meet the 

criterion of practicability to install on a 

scale necessary to serve the relevant 

market at the time of the compliance 

date of a new standard and did not 

consider it further in the preliminary 

analysis. 

In response, ACEEE commented that 

DOE should reconsider its decision to 

leave water-cooled clothes dryers 

unregulated because these products are 

very water-intensive. ACEEE stated that, 

although water-cooled clothes dryers are 

currently of very limited use in the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22493 

United States, this technology is used 

overseas and could find a larger market 

niche in the United States if left 

unregulated. (ACEEE, No. 24 at 

pp. 2–3) DOE believes that the current 

unavailability of such products in the 

Unites States, along with the reasons 

noted above, confirms its initial 

conclusion regarding the failure of this 

technology to meet the screening criteria 

of practicability to install and service on 

the scale necessary to serve the relevant 

market at the time of the effective date 

of a new standard. In addition, EPCA 

does not authorize DOE to set waterefficiency standards for clothes dryers. 

(42 U.S.C. 6291(6), 6295(g)) Therefore, 

DOE continues to screen out this 

technology option. 

No other comments were received 

objecting to the technology options 

which were screened out in the 

preliminary analysis, or to the initial 

determination that the remaining design 

options met all of the screening criteria 

listed above. Therefore, DOE considered 

the same design options in the final rule 

as those evaluated in the preliminary 

analysis (see Table IV.6). 

TABLE IV.6—RETAINED DESIGN OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES

DRYERS

Dryer Control or Drum Upgrades: 

Improved termination. 

Increased insulation. 

Modified operating conditions. 

Improved air circulation. 

Reverse tumble. 

Improved drum design. 

Methods of Exhaust Heat Recovery (vented 

models only): 

Recycle exhaust heat. 

Inlet air preheat. 

Inlet air preheat, condensing mode. 

Heat Generation Options: 

Heat pump, electric only. 

Modulating, gas only. 

Component Improvements: 

Improved motor efficiency. 

Improved fan efficiency. 

Standby Power Improvements: 

Switching power supply. 

Transformerless power supply with autopowerdown. 

2. Room Air Conditioners 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

identified the following technology 

options that could improve the 

efficiency of room air conditioners, as 

shown in Table IV.7. 

TABLE IV.7—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

Increased Heat Transfer Surface Area: 

Increased frontal coil area. 

Increased depth of coil (add tube rows). 

TABLE IV.7—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS— 

Continued 

Increased fin density. 

Add subcooler to condenser coil. 

Increased Heat Transfer Coefficients: 

Improved fin design. 

Improved tube design. 

Hydrophilic film coating on fins. 

Spray condensate onto condenser coil. 

Microchannel heat exchangers. 

Component Improvements: 

Improved indoor blower and outdoor fan 

efficiency. 

Improved blower/fan motor efficiency. 

Improved compressor efficiency. 

Part-Load Technology Improvements: 

Two-speed, variable-speed, or modulatingcapacity compressors. 

Thermostatic or electronic expansion 

valves. 

Thermostatic cyclic controls. 

Standby Power Improvements: 

Switching power supply. 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE 

tentatively concluded that all room air 

conditioner technology options met the 

screening criteria listed above and did 

not propose to eliminate any of these 

technology options from consideration. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

objecting to this list of technology 

options and, therefore, retained all of 

the technologies in Table IV.7 as room 

air conditioner design options. As 

described and explained below in 

section IV.C.1.b below, however, some 

of the technologies were not considered 

in the engineering analysis. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The engineering analysis develops 

cost-efficiency relationships to show the 

manufacturing costs of achieving 

increased efficiency. DOE has identified 

the following three methodologies to 

generate the manufacturing costs 

needed for the engineering analysis: 

(1) The design-option approach, which 

provides the incremental costs of adding 

to a baseline model design options that 

will improve its efficiency; (2) the 

efficiency-level approach, which 

provides the relative costs of achieving 

increases in energy efficiency levels, 

without regard to the particular design 

options used to achieve such increases; 

and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse 

engineering) approach, which provides 

‘‘bottom-up’’ manufacturing cost 

assessments for achieving various levels 

of increased efficiency, based on 

detailed data as to costs for parts and 

material, labor, shipping/packaging, and 

investment for models that operate at 

particular efficiency levels. 

DOE conducted the engineering 

analyses for this rulemaking using the 

efficiency-level approach for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners. For 

this analysis, DOE relied upon 

efficiency data published in multiple 

databases, including those published by 

CEC, the Consortium for Energy 

Efficiency (CEE), and ENERGY STAR, 

which were supplemented with 

laboratory testing, data gained through 

engineering analysis, and primary and 

secondary research. Details of the 

engineering analysis are in chapter 5 of 

the direct final rule TSD. 

1. Technologies Not Analyzed 

In performing the engineering 

analysis, DOE did not consider for 

analysis certain technologies that were 

not evaluated for one or more of the 

following reasons: (1) Data are not 

available to evaluate the energy 

efficiency characteristics of the 

technology; (2) available data suggest 

that the efficiency benefits of the 

technology are negligible; and (3) for the 

reasons stated in the TP Final Rule, DOE 

did not amend the test procedure to 

measure the energy impact of these 

technologies. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE did 

not include the following design 

options: 

a. Clothes Dryers 

Reverse Tumble 

As discussed in section IV.A.5.a, 

NRDC commented that the DOE clothes 

dryer test procedure may be 

underestimating the efficiency 

improvement associated with reverse 

tumble due to the composition of the 

test cloth. (NRDC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21.4 at pp. 42–43) 

Because DOE did not amend the 

specifications for the test cloth 

composition in the TP Final Rule (as 

discussed in section III.A.1.d), and in 

the absence of comments providing 

information on the efficacy of reverse 

tumble for the existing DOE test cloth, 

DOE continues to conclude that no 

measurable energy savings are 

associated with this design option. 

Thus, this design option was not 

considered further in the analysis for 

today’s final rule. 

Improved Termination 

For the reasons noted in section 

III.A.1.b, DOE did not adopt 

amendments to its clothes dryer test 

procedure to better account for 

automatic cycle termination. Therefore, 

energy savings due to improved 

termination technologies cannot be 

measured according to the test 

procedure, and this design option was 

not considered further in the analysis 

for today’s direct final rule. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22494 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

b. Room Air Conditioners 

DOE eliminated the following 

technologies from further consideration 

due to the three criteria mentioned 

above. 

1. Improved fin design 

2. Improved tube design 

3. Hydrophilic-film coating on fins 

4. Spray condenser onto condenser coil 

5. Improved indoor blower and outdoor 

fan efficiency 

6. Variable speed compressors 

7. Thermostatic or electronic expansion 

valves 

8. Thermostatic cyclic controls 

Of these technologies, numbers 

1 through 4 are used in baseline 

products. Information indicating 

efficiency improvement potential is not 

available for number 5. Any potential 

energy savings of technologies 6 through 

8 cannot be measured with the 

established energy use metric because 

those technologies are associated with 

part-load performance. As discussed in 

Section III.A.2.d above, DOE did not 

amend the test procedure to measure 

part-load performance of room air 

conditioners. Chapter 5 of the direct 

final rule TSD discusses these reasons 

in greater detail. 

2. Efficiency Levels and Cost-Efficiency 

Results 

a. Clothes Dryers 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

analyzed active mode and standby mode 

separately to develop integrated costefficiency results. For vented clothes 

dryer product classes, DOE proposed 

the active mode efficiency levels shown 

in Table IV.8, which were based on EF 

values measured using the previous 

clothes dryer test procedure. For 

ventless clothes dryer product classes, 

DOE proposed the active mode 

efficiency levels shown in Table IV.9, 

which were based on EF values 

measured using the previous clothes 

dryer test procedure without the 

requirement to install an exhaust 

simulator. DOE proposed the standby 

power levels shown in Table IV.10 for 

all clothes dryer product classes. 

TABLE IV.8—CLOTHES DRYER ACTIVE MODE EFFICIENCY LEVELS (EF)—VENTED PRODUCT CLASSES

Level Efficiency level 

description 

Efficiency level (EF) lb/kWh 

Electric 

standard 

Electric 

compact 

(120V) 

Electric 

compact 

(240V) 

Gas 

Baseline ....................... DOE Standard ....................................................................... 3.01 3.13 2.90 2.67 

1 ................................... Gap Fill .................................................................................. 3.10 3.22 2.98 2.75 

2 ................................... Gap Fill .................................................................................. 3.16 3.29 3.09 2.85 

3 ................................... Gap Fill/Maximum Available .................................................. 3.4 3.54 3.2 3.02 

4 ................................... Max-Tech ............................................................................... 4.51 4.70 4.35 ....................

TABLE IV.9—CLOTHES DRYER ACTIVE MODE EFFICIENCY LEVELS (EF)—VENTLESS PRODUCT CLASSES

Level Efficiency level description 

Efficiency level (EF) 

lb/kWh 

Electric 

compact 

(240V) 

Electric 

combination 

washer/ 

dryer 

Baseline ....................... DOE Test Data ...................................................................................................................... 2.37 1.95 

1 ................................... Gap Fill .................................................................................................................................. 2.39 2.21 

2 ................................... Gap Fill .................................................................................................................................. 2.59 2.42 

3 ................................... Max-Tech .............................................................................................................................. 3.55 3.32 

TABLE IV.10—CLOTHES DRYER STANDBY POWER LEVELS

Level Standby power source Power Input 

W 

Baseline ....................... DOE Test Data and Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 2 .0 

1 ................................... DOE Test Data ............................................................................................................................................ 1 .5 

2 ................................... DOE Test Data (Max-Tech) ......................................................................................................................... 0 .08 

In the preliminary analyses, DOE 

developed integrated efficiency levels 

based on the integrated EF (IEF) metric 

proposed as an alternative option in the 

TP NOPR. The IEF is calculated as the 

clothes dryer test load weight in lb 

divided by the sum of active mode percycle energy use and standby/off mode 

per-cycle energy use in kWh. Table 

IV.11 through Table IV.13 show the 

integrated efficiency levels proposed in 

the preliminary analyses. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22495 

TABLE IV.11—CLOTHES DRYER INTEGRATED EFFICIENCY LEVELS (IEF)—VENTED PRODUCT CLASSES

Level Efficiency level description 

Integrated efficiency level (IEF) lb/kWh 

Electric 

standard 

Electric 

compact 

(120V) 

Electric 

compact 

(240V) 

Gas 

Baseline ....................... DOE Standard + 2.0 W Standby ........................................... 2.96 3.00 2.79 2.63 

1 ................................... Gap Fill + 2.0 W Standby ...................................................... 3.04 3.08 2.86 2.71 

2 ................................... Gap Fill + 2.0 W Standby ...................................................... 3.10 3.15 2.96 2.80 

3 ................................... Gap Fill/Maximum Available + 2.0 W Standby ..................... 3.33 3.37 3.06 2.97 

4 ................................... Maximum Available + 1.5 W Standby ................................... 3.35 3.41 3.10 2.98 

5 ................................... Maximum Available + 0.08 W Standby ................................. 3.40 3.53 3.19 3.02 

6 ................................... Heat Pump (Max-Tech) + 0.08 W Standby .......................... 4.52 4.69 4.34 ....................

TABLE IV.12—CLOTHES DRYER INTEGRATED EFFICIENCY LEVELS (IEF)—VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) 

Level Efficiency level description 

Integrated 

efficiency 

level (IEF) 

lb/kWh 

Electric compact (240 V) 

Baseline ....................... Baseline + 2.0 W Standby ......................................................................................................................... 2.29 

1 .................................. Baseline + 1.5 W Standby ......................................................................................................................... 2.31 

2 .................................. Baseline + 0.08 W Standby ....................................................................................................................... 2.37 

3 .................................. Gap Fill + 0.08 W Standby ........................................................................................................................ 2.39 

4 .................................. Gap Fill + 0.08 W Standby ........................................................................................................................ 2.59 

5 .................................. Heat Pump (Max-Tech) + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................................... 3.54 

TABLE IV.13—CLOTHES DRYER INTEGRATED EFFICIENCY LEVELS (IEF)—VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMBINATION WASHER/ 

DRYERS

Level Efficiency level description 

Integrated 

efficiency level 

(IEF) lb/kWh 

Electric 

combination 

washer/dryer 

Baseline ................................................... Baseline + 2.0 W Standby ....................................................................................... 1.90 

1 ............................................................... Gap Fill + 2.0 W Standby ........................................................................................ 2.15 

2 ............................................................... Gap Fill + 2.0 W Standby ........................................................................................ 2.34 

3 ............................................................... Gap Fill + 1.5 W Standby ........................................................................................ 2.36 

4 ............................................................... Gap Fill + 0.08 W Standby ...................................................................................... 2.42 

5 ............................................................... Heat Pump (Max-Tech) + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................. 3.31 

DOE also noted that it was 

considering revisions to the clothes 

dryer test procedure for active mode, 

standby mode, and off mode, and that 

those potential amendments would 

affect the calculated IEF. (IEF has since 

been renamed CEF for this direct final 

rule to avoid confusion with an existing 

industry standard.) AHAM commented 

that, to ensure a rigorous analysis and 

to mitigate confusion, DOE should 

modify the baseline efficiency level to 

account for a revised initial RMC in the 

clothes dryer test procedure. (AHAM, 

No. 25 at p. 10) The TP Final Rule was 

published on January 6, 2011, and DOE 

has adjusted the efficiency levels, 

including the baseline level, as 

discussed later in this section to account 

for the impacts of all test procedure 

revisions, including those pertaining to 

initial RMC. 

Integrated Efficiency Metric 

DOE received comments from 

interested parties on the adequacy of 

IEF as the energy efficiency metric for 

clothes dryer energy conservation 

standards. AHAM supported the 

incorporation of standby mode and off 

mode power into the total energy use of 

clothes dryers, and commented that the 

integrated metric is appropriate. 

(AHAM, No. 25 at p. 2) 

Whirlpool commented that standby 

power technologies should not be 

considered as separate design options 

associated with specific TSLs, and that 

doing so would avoid the requirement 

that standby power be incorporated into 

the total energy use of the clothes dryer. 

Whirlpool also stated that standby 

levels should not vary by TSL. 

(Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 5) DOE notes 

that the CEF metric at each TSL 

incorporates a measure of standby 

power as a contributor to energy use 

along with energy use in active mode, 

as required by EPCA. Because CEF does 

not preferentially weigh the energy use 

contributions attributable to either 

active or standby mode, improvements 

in CEF due to standby power reductions 

are considered equally to those due to 

active mode design options. For these 

reasons, DOE believes that technologies 

associated with standby power 

reductions should be considered in the 

definition of efficiency levels and thus 

TSLs. In today’s direct final rule, DOE 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22496 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

analyzes some TSLs that would require 

standby power reductions only, and 

some that would require reductions to 

both standby power and active mode 

power, as shown later in this section. 

The NRDC/ECOS report stated that 

the fact that natural gas clothes dryers 

tend to have lower average energy 

factors than electric clothes dryers could 

lead consumers to believe that electric 

dryers are generally more efficient. 

NRDC/ECOS report stated that 

conventional gas clothes dryers that 

have been available for 30 years have 

significantly less source energy use and 

environmental impact than today’s 

efficient electric clothes dryers. The 

NRDC/ECOS report added that heat 

pump clothes dryers that may reach the 

U.S. market in the future have only 

slightly lower impacts than 

conventional gas clothes dryers. (NRDC, 

No. 30 at pp. 17–18) The NRDC/ECOS 

report further stated that the current EF 

metric is not intuitive and fails to 

capture meaningful differences between 

electric and natural gas models. 

According to the NRDC/ECOS report, 

converting natural gas consumption into 

equivalent electrical consumption on a 

site basis ignores all of the losses that 

occur in the electrical generation and 

transmission process. The NRDC/ECOS 

report stated that this draws attention 

from the substantial advantage of most 

gas clothes dryers—that they convert 

their fuel directly into heat at the site 

where it is needed, avoiding upstream 

losses. According to the NRDC/ECOS 

report, there are three ways to compare 

gas and electric clothes dryers more 

fairly: (1) Source Btu basis, (2) total CO2

emissions basis, and (3) energy cost 

basis. The NRDC/ECOS report presented 

test results which showed that the 

standard natural gas clothes dryer uses 

less source energy, costs less, and emits 

less CO2 per lb of water removed than 

any other option except (in some cases) 

a heat pump clothes dryer. (NRDC, No. 

30 at pp. 32–33) NRDC commented that 

DOE should consider reporting actual 

kWh and Btu consumption rather than 

converting to site equivalent kWh. 

NRDC stated that it would be more 

useful to consumers to have information 

on actual kWh of electricity and Btu of 

gas consumed. According to NRDC, 

organizations such as EnergyGuide, 

ENERGY STAR, and Top Ten could use 

this information to more accurately 

inform prospective buyers on CO2

emitted or operating costs of a given 

clothes dryer. (NRDC, No. 26 at pp. 1, 

3) 

In response, DOE notes that EPCA 

defines ‘‘energy conservation standard’’ 

in relevant part as either: (1) A 

performance standard which prescribes 

a minimum level of energy efficiency or 

a maximum quantity of energy use; or 

(2) for certain products, including 

clothes dryers but not including room 

air conditioners, a design requirement; 

the term also includes any other 

requirements that DOE may prescribe 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(r). (42 U.S.C. 

6291(6)) EPCA also provides definitions 

for the terms ‘‘energy use’’ and ‘‘energy 

efficiency’’. Specifically, ‘‘energy use’’ 

refers to the quantity of energy directly 

consumed by a consumer product at the 

point of use, and ‘‘energy efficiency’’ 

means the ratio of the useful output of 

services from a consumer product to the 

energy use of such product. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(4)–(5)) Therefore, an energy 

conservation standard metric based on 

source energy use, emissions, or annual 

energy cost would be inconsistent with 

the definitions set forth in EPCA. In 

addition, DOE promulgates test 

procedures for all product classes of 

clothes dryers that calculate energy use 

or energy efficiency on a consistent 

basis, regardless of the type of energy 

used. The energy content of either the 

electricity or fossil fuels used at the site 

of the clothes dryer may be equally and 

interchangeably expressed in any unit of 

energy measurement, including kWh 

and Btu. DOE notes that, for other 

covered products which may consume 

gas as well as electricity, such as 

cooking products, DOE defines an 

energy efficiency metric (EF) in which 

any contributory site gas energy use is 

expressed in equivalent kWh. DOE 

continues to believe that the measure of 

CEF in terms of lb of clothes load per 

kWh is meaningful and representative of 

the performance for both electric and 

gas clothes dryers, and thus is not 

adopting alternative measures of energy 

use or energy efficiency. 

NRDC and the California Utilities 

recommended that the metric be based 

on the water removed in the clothes 

load per kWh. The NRDC/ECOS report 

stated that the efficiency using this 

approach would be measured by 

converting the lbs. of water removed 

into kWh with a conversion factor of 

0.308 (the kWh necessary to evaporate 

a 1 lb. of water,) then dividing by the 

measured energy consumption. 

According to the NRDC/ECOS report, 

this metric would be more meaningful 

because it would measure the work 

actually being performed by the clothes 

dryer. The NRDC/ECOS report provided 

as an example the case in which a 

clothes dryer removed 3 lbs. of water 

from either a heavily saturated small 

load of absorbent fabrics such as cotton 

or a lightly saturated larger load of 

synthetics. According to the NRDC/ 

ECOS report, testing and reporting the 

results for both situations would help 

consumers choose the most efficient 

clothes dryers. The California Utilities 

stated that the metric should be based 

on lbs. of water removed per kWh, and 

that this metric would correct for small 

variations in actual test load or moisture 

content. The California Utilities also 

stated that this approach would 

eliminate the need for the 0.66 

correction factor (in sections 4.1–4.3 of 

the current clothes dryer test 

procedure), which corrects for the RMC 

change during the test. (California 

Utilities, No. 31 at pp. 11–12; NRDC, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21.4 at 

pp. 49–50; NRDC, No. 26 at pp. 1–3; 

NRDC, No. 30 at pp. 8, 32) 

As noted above, DOE did not amend 

the clothes dryer test procedure to allow 

for testing materials other than the 

current 50–50 cotton-polyester test 

cloth. In addition, test conditions that 

would allow the test load size or initial 

RMC to vary would only be allowable if 

the resulting measured energy efficiency 

metric was independent of such 

variations, implying that the metric 

would need to be a linear function of 

these test conditions. DOE testing 

indicates that the efficacy of moisture 

removal becomes significantly nonlinear as the RMC in the clothes load 

approaches low values, particularly near 

the 5-percent maximum allowable RMC 

for the conclusion of the test cycle 

according to the clothes dryer test 

procedure. Therefore, test loads with 

different initial RMC that are allowed to 

dry to a range of final RMCs, or 

differences in test load size, would not 

produce repeatable and consistent 

measures of energy efficiency 

performance due to this non-linearity of 

efficiency through the drying process. In 

order for testing results to be 

comparable, the test procedure would 

need to be amended to specific an exact 

starting and ending RMC, which would 

likely represent a significant testing 

burden. In addition, DOE does not 

believe that a metric based on lbs. of 

water removed per kWh, as commented 

by NRDC/ECOS, would be more 

meaningful to consumers, who may not 

be aware of how much water is 

contained in their test load. For these 

reasons, and because DOE has 

insufficient data to suggest that a metric 

based on lbs. of water removed per kWh 

instead of lb of test cloth per kWh is a 

more accurate or representative measure 

of clothes dryer energy use, DOE is not 

amending the clothes dryer energy 

conservation standards as suggested by 

NRDC and the California Utilities. 

The California Utilities recommended 

that DOE consider a prescriptive design 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22497 

requirement that all vented clothes 

dryers have a standard 4-inch round 

port for air intake, which would be the 

same diameter as the exhaust duct. 

According to the California Utilities, 

there would be negligible cost 

associated with this design, and would 

allow consumers the option to install 

outdoor intake air in the future. 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at pp. 8, 12) 

As noted in section IV.A.5.a, DOE 

concluded that consideration of HVAC 

energy use associated with outdoor 

intake air was inconsistent with EPCA’s 

requirement that a test procedure 

measure the energy use or energy 

efficiency of a covered product. As a 

result, DOE did not consider this 

technology in its analysis and is not 

adopting a prescriptive design standard 

addressing the potential implementation 

of outdoor intake air. 

PG&E inquired whether DOE would 

consider a performance metric that 

would include the non-energy benefit of 

clothing life if such data were available. 

(PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

21.4 at p. 129) DOE is not aware of such 

data and notes that EPCA provides that 

any test procedures prescribed or 

amended under this section shall be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure energy 

efficiency, energy use, water use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE believes that a 

clothes dryer metric incorporating the 

non-energy benefit of clothing life 

would be inconsistent with this 

requirement. Therefore, DOE did not 

consider such a metric in the TP Final 

Rule. DOE is required, however, to 

consider any lessening of utility or 

performance in establishing energy 

conservation standards. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV). 

The NRDC/ECOS report stated that, 

due to the complexity of the current 

DOE clothes washer test procedure and 

energy use calculations, it might be 

simpler for manufacturers to report total 

energy used to wash and dry one load. 

(NRDC, No. 30 at p. 32) EPCA provides 

separate standards for clothes dryers 

and clothes washers, and directs DOE to 

consider amended energy conservation 

standards for each product separately. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(g)) Therefore, DOE is 

unable to adopt a single standard based 

on overall energy use of the wash and 

dry cycles in total. 

Comments on Preliminary Analysis 

Integrated Efficiency Levels 

DOE also received comments from 

interested parties on the efficiency 

levels proposed in the preliminary 

analysis. The California Utilities stated 

that, with the low or negative 

incremental costs of the standby power 

design options, such design options 

should be implemented at lower 

efficiency levels. According to the 

California Utilities, this implementation 

would not affect clothes dryers with 

electromechanical controls, which have 

zero standby and are thus receiving a 

‘‘free’’ benefit of 2.0 W. (California 

Utilities, No. 31 at pp. 11–12) DOE 

agrees that the low cost of the standby 

power design options should result in 

these technologies being included in the 

initial efficiency levels above the 

baseline. Thus, the clothes dryer 

efficiency levels analyzed in this direct 

final rule implement the standby power 

design options at the efficiency levels 

where they are most cost-effective. As 

noted by the California Utilities, these 

changes would impact only those 

clothes dryers that consume standby 

power, that is, those products with 

electronic controls. 

Earthjustice commented that EPCA 

contains an ‘‘anti-backsliding provision’’ 

that constrains DOE’s authority in 

revising energy efficiency standards. 

According to Earthjustice, some of the 

clothes dryer efficiency levels that DOE 

is considering would violate the antibacksliding requirement. Earthjustice 

commented that adding standby power 

consumption factors into the existing 

metrics reduces the stringency of each 

metric. Earthjustice provided an 

example for vented electric compact 

(120 V) clothes dryers in which the 

addition of the 2 W of standby power 

lowers the EF rating of the baseline 

efficiency level from 3.13 to 3.00. If DOE 

adopts efficiency level 1, with an IEF of 

3.08, such a standard would violate 

EPCA’s anti-backsliding provision. 

NRDC commented that if an existing 

vented electric compact (120V) clothes 

dryer model with electromechanical 

controls (which DOE has shown to 

consume no power in standby mode) 

has an EF of 3.10, it would be barred 

from the U.S. market by the existing 

standard. However, it would meet an 

IEF standard set at 3.08 (which DOE 

proposed as efficiency level 1 in the 

preliminary TSD). Earthjustice 

commented that implementing an IEF 

standard set at 3.08 would have the 

effect of decreasing the minimum 

required energy efficiency as is 

prohibited by the anti-backsliding 

provisions. (EJ, No. 28 at pp. 1–2; EJ, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21.4 at 

p. 58) Earthjustice also commented that 

DOE’s proposed approach to the 

integration of standby and off mode 

energy consumption into the 

performance standards for clothes 

dryers would require DOE to adopt 

standards that increase EF sufficiently 

to avoid violating EPCA’s antibacksliding provision. (EJ, No. 28 at 

p. 1) 

EPCA contains what is commonly 

known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision. This provision prohibits DOE 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

a covered product or equipment. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Congress also 

directed DOE to incorporate standby 

and off mode energy use in a single 

amended or new standard, or to 

prescribe a separate standard if such 

incorporation is not feasible, pursuant 

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

6295(gg)(3)) Today’s final rule 

incorporates additional measures of 

energy consumption in the energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers (that is, standby and off mode 

energy use). DOE notes that clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners that 

consume energy in standby and off 

modes have always used energy in these 

modes, and that today’s final rule now 

accounts for that energy as directed by 

42 U.S.C. 6295(gg). Given the 

Congressional directive to account for 

standby and off mode energy use, DOE 

does not believe that accounting for 

energy use in these modes could result 

in backsliding under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1). In addition, DOE evaluated 

the clothes dryer TSLs to ensure that no 

product currently on the market could 

be determined compliant with the new 

energy conservation standards while 

consuming more energy in active mode 

than was allowable under the previous 

standards. 

NPCC commented that the clothes 

dryer test procedure does not measure 

the efficiency improvement associated 

with improved automatic termination 

controls such as moisture sensing. 

NPCC stated that because moisture 

sensing would require switching from 

electromechanical controls to electronic 

controls, part of the incremental 

manufacturing cost associated with 

electronic controls would be accounted 

for in the improved automatic cycle 

termination design option. However, 

NPCC also stated that all clothes dryers 

have some form of automatic cycle 

termination for which the current test 

procedure uses a fixed field use factor. 

NPCC commented that because moisture 

sensing requires electronic controls and 

thus consumes standby power, the cost 

of the implementing electronic controls 

is inappropriately accounted for only in 

the standby power design options 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22498 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

because the test procedure does not 

measure the efficiency improvement 

associated with moisture sensing. NPCC 

stated that part of the costs for 

implementing electronic controls 

should be accounted for in the costs 

associated with improved automatic 

cycle termination with moisture 

sensing. (NPCC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21.4 at pp. 58–60, 61– 

62) NPCC commented that if a product 

is receiving the 1.04 field use factor for 

automatic cycle termination, then the 

cost of that type of device (that is, the 

cost of electronic controls) needs to be 

in the baseline cost analysis. (NPCC, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21.4 at 

p. 60) 

DOE first notes that electronic 

controls are not required to implement 

automatic cycle termination. Clothes 

dryers are currently available on the 

market that use inputs from exhaust air 

temperature sensors to control or 

modify the length of the drying cycle 

without the use of electronic controls. 

For this reason, DOE did not include the 

cost of electronic controls in the 

baseline cost, unless the baseline 

product already incorporated electronic 

controls (such as, ventless electronic 

compact (240V) and ventless electric 

combination washer/dryers). As 

discussed below, DOE noted that 

baseline efficiency clothes dryers 

implement both electromechanical 

controls and electronic controls. As a 

result, DOE analyzed baseline efficiency 

products available on the market, and 

weighted the contribution of the 2 W 

baseline standby power as well as the 

efficiency improvement and 

incremental manufacturing cost for 

standby power design changes based on 

the percentage of baseline efficiency 

products that used electronic controls. 

BSH commented that DOE should 

analyze and implement evenly 

distributed efficiency levels to help 

consumers make purchasing decisions. 

BSH also commented that the 

implementation of the proposed 

efficiency levels in the preliminary 

analyses would cause confusion to 

consumers. According to BSH, with a 

relatively small improvement in 

efficiency in the lower efficiency levels, 

a better rating can be achieved, and at 

the high end of the efficiency levels, 

much more effort must be taken to 

improve the rating. In addition, 

according to BSH, consumers will not 

support the higher efficiency level 

because they cannot see the advantage 

of paying a significantly higher price for 

a small change in product efficiency. 

(BSH, No. 23 at pp. 3–4) BSH also 

commented that DOE should use the 

same efficiency scale to analyze ventless 

and vented clothes dryers. According to 

BSH, ventless clothes dryers, especially 

those with heat pump technology, will 

be penalized by keeping a lower number 

of efficiency levels. (BSH, No. 23 at 

p. 4) 

DOE notes that the efficiency levels 

analyzed for the preliminary analyses 

were derived from the distribution of 

efficiencies for products available on the 

market from data provided in the CEC 

and NRCan product databases. DOE also 

notes that the efficiency levels for the 

ventless clothes dryer product classes 

were based on product testing as well as 

scaling of the efficiency improvements 

associated with vented clothes dryer 

product classes. The efficiency levels 

analyzed are not being established for a 

product marketing classification system 

for consumers to make purchasing 

decisions (as is done in the European 

energy class system). As a result, DOE 

does not intend to create an energy class 

system for product marketing based on 

evenly distributed efficiency levels. 

BSH commented that a separate 

classification of heat pump clothes 

dryers will not be possible because the 

European market shows large variation 

within this class of clothes dryers. 

According to BSH, heat pump clothes 

dryers in Europe differ by up to 40 

percent in energy efficiency. (BSH, No. 

23 at pp. 3–4) DOE notes that the 

efficiency levels established by DOE for 

the max-tech heat pump design are 

based on research and discussions with 

manufacturers. In addition, DOE does 

not intend to create a marketing 

classification system that would create a 

‘‘heat pump’’ label from which 

consumers may perceive that all heat 

pump clothes dryers have the same 

efficiency. For these reasons, DOE 

continued to analyze the efficiency 

levels associated with heat pump 

clothes dryers presented in the 

preliminary analyses for today’s direct 

final rule. 

BSH commented that the gap between 

conventional and heat pump dryers is 

not filled with intermediate levels to 

show consumers the large improvement 

in efficiency they would be paying for 

when making purchasing decisions. 

(BSH, No. 23 at p. 6) DOE is not aware 

of products available on the market at 

efficiency levels between the maximumavailable (on the U.S. market) efficiency 

levels and the max-tech heat pump 

efficiency level. In addition, DOE does 

not have any information indicating that 

design options are available that may be 

implemented to achieve efficiencies 

between the maximum-available and 

max-tech heat pump efficiency levels. 

As discussed above, DOE is not creating 

a marketing classification system for 

consumers to make purchasing 

decisions. As a result, DOE did not 

analyze additional intermediate 

efficiency levels between those 

associated with conventional and heat 

pump dryers. 

Integrated Efficiency Levels—Final Rule 

As discussed in section III.A, DOE 

recently published the TP Final Rule 

amending the clothes dryer test 

procedure. DOE conducted testing on a 

sample of representative clothes dryers 

to evaluate the effects of the 

amendments to the clothes dryer test 

procedure on the measured EF. As 

discussed in section III.A.3.a, DOE test 

results showed that the measured EF 

according to the amended test 

procedure resulted in an average 

increase of about 20.1 percent for vented 

electric standard clothes dryers. For 

vented gas clothes dryers, the measured 

EF increased by an average of about 19.8 

percent. For vented electric compactsize 120V and 240V clothes dryers, the 

measured EF increased by an average of 

about 15.6 and 12.8 percent, 

respectively. For the ventless clothes 

dryer product classes, the preliminary 

analyses were based on the DOE test 

procedure with only the proposed 

amendments to for ventless clothes 

dryers. DOE also conducted testing 

according to the final amended test 

procedure (that is, including changes to 

the initial RMC, water temperature for 

test load preparation, etc.). Test results 

showed that for ventless electric 

compact 240V clothes dryers and 

ventless electric combination washer/ 

dryers, the measured EF increased by an 

average of about 13.6 and 11.4 percent, 

respectively. DOE applied these results 

for each product class to adjust the 

active mode efficiency levels to account 

for the amendments to the DOE clothes 

dryer test procedure in the TP Final 

Rule. In addition, DOE revised the 

active mode efficiency level 1 for vented 

electric standard clothes dryers and 

vented gas clothes dryers from 3.10 EF 

to 3.11 EF and from 2.75 to 2.76 EF, 

respectively. The revisions were based 

on discussions with manufacturers and 

the efficiency improvement associated 

with the design options modeled by 

DOE. See chapter 5 of the direct final 

rule TSD for more details. DOE 

subsequently integrated the standby 

power efficiency levels to convert these 

EF values to CEF. For the preliminary 

analyses, DOE only incorporated 

incremental standby power levels into 

IEF efficiency levels above which 

electronic controls would be required as 

part of the active mode design option 

changes. At that point, DOE 

incorporated the incremental standby 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22499 

power levels where it determined them 

to be most cost effective. Chapter 5 of 

the direct final rule TSD provides 

details of the active mode and standby 

mode efficiency levels for each product 

class. The revised CEF efficiency levels 

for each product class are shown below 

in Table IV.14 through Table IV.16. 

TABLE IV.14—CLOTHES DRYER INTEGRATED EFFICIENCY LEVELS (CEF)—VENTED PRODUCT CLASSES

Level Efficiency level description 

Integrated efficiency level 

(CEF) lb/kWh 

Electric 

standard 

Electric 

compact 

(120V) 

Electric 

compact 

(240V) 

Gas 

Baseline ....................... DOE Standard + 2.0 W Standby ........................................... 3.55 3.43 3.12 3.14 

1 ................................... DOE Standard + 1.5 W Standby ........................................... 3.56 3.48 3.16 3.16 

2 ................................... DOE Standard + 0.08 W Standby ......................................... 3.61 3.61 3.27 3.20 

3 ................................... Gap Fill + 0.08 W Standby .................................................... 3.73 3.72 3.36 3.30 

4 ................................... Gap Fill + 0.08 W Standby .................................................... 3.81 3.80 3.48 3.42 

5 ................................... Gap Fill/Maximum Available + 0.08 W Standby ................... 4.08 4.08 3.60 3.61 

6 ................................... Heat Pump (Max-Tech) + 0.08 W Standby .......................... 5.42 5.41 4.89 ....................

TABLE IV.15—CLOTHES DRYER INTEGRATED EFFICIENCY LEVELS (CEF)—VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) 

Level Efficiency level description 

Integrated 

efficiency 

level 

(CEF) 

lb/kWh 

Electric 

compact 

(240 V) 

Baseline ...................................................... Baseline + 2.0 W Standby .............................................................................................. 2.55 

1 ................................................................. Baseline + 1.5 W Standby .............................................................................................. 2.59 

2 ................................................................. Baseline + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................................ 2.69 

3 ................................................................. Gap Fill + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................................. 2.71 

4 ................................................................. Gap Fill + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................................. 2.80 

5 ................................................................. Heat Pump (Max-Tech) + 0.08 W Standby .................................................................... 4.03 

TABLE IV.16—CLOTHES DRYER INTEGRATED EFFICIENCY LEVELS (CEF)—VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMBINATION WASHER/ 

DRYERS

Level Efficiency level description 

Integrated 

efficiency 

level 

(CEF) 

lb/kWh 

Electric 

combination 

washer/ 

dryer 

Baseline ...................................................... Baseline + 2.0 W Standby .............................................................................................. 2.08 

1 ................................................................. Gap Fill + 2.0 W Standby ............................................................................................... 2.35 

2 ................................................................. Gap Fill + 1.5 W Standby ............................................................................................... 2.38 

3 ................................................................. Gap Fill + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................................. 2.46 

4 ................................................................. Gap Fill + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................................. 2.56 

5 ................................................................. Heat Pump (Max-Tech) + 0.08 W Standby .................................................................... 3.69 

Cost-Efficiency Results—Preliminary 

Analysis 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE 

first analyzed design options separately 

for active mode and standby mode and 

developed the cost-efficiency 

relationships based on product 

teardowns and cost modeling. Details of 

the active mode and standby mode costefficiency relationships for each product 

class are presented in chapter 5 of the 

preliminary TSD. DOE then developed 

overall cost-efficiency relationships for 

the IEF efficiency levels presented in 

the preliminary analyses. Table IV.17 

through Table IV.22 shows DOE’s 

estimates of incremental manufacturing 

cost for improvement of clothes dryer 

IEF above the baseline. Also shown 

below are the technologies DOE 

analyzed for each efficiency level to 

develop incremental manufacturing 

costs. Detailed descriptions of the 

design options associated with each 

efficiency level are also presented in 

chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD. DOE 

used an efficiency level approach, 

noting that different manufacturers may 

implement different design changes to 

achieve certain efficiency levels. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22500 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.17—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS: COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR VENTED ELECTRIC STANDARD CLOTHES

DRYERS

Integrated efficiency level (IEF), lb/kWh Technology 

Incremental 

manufacturing 

cost 

Baseline (2.96) ........................................ DOE Standard + 2.0 W Standby ............................................................................... $0 

1 (3.04) .................................................... DOE Standard + Change in Airflow Patterns, Dedicated Heater Duct, Open-Cylinder Drum.11.89 

2 (3.10) .................................................... IEL 2 + Inlet Air Pre-Heating ..................................................................................... 63.56 

3 (3.33) .................................................... IEL 2 + Modulating Heat ........................................................................................... 97.48 

4 (3.35) .................................................... IEL 3 + 1.5 W Standby .............................................................................................. 98.78 

5 (3.40) .................................................... IEL 3 + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................................ 98.14 

6 (4.52) .................................................... Heat Pump + 0.08 W Standby .................................................................................. 259.13 

TABLE IV.18—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS: COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR VENTED ELECTRIC COMPACT (120V) 

CLOTHES DRYERS

Integrated efficiency level (IEF), lb/kWh Technology 

Incremental 

manufacturing 

cost 

Baseline (3.00) ........................................ DOE Standard + 2.0 W Standby ............................................................................... $0 

1 (3.08) .................................................... DOE Standard + Change in Airflow Patterns, Dedicated Heater Duct, Open-Cylinder Drum.10.95 

2 (3.15) .................................................... IEL 2 + Inlet Air Pre-Heating ..................................................................................... 63.37 

3 (3.37) .................................................... IEL 2 + Modulating Heat ........................................................................................... 96.45 

4 (3.41) .................................................... IEL 3 + 1.5 W Standby .............................................................................................. 97.75 

5 (3.53) .................................................... IEL 3 + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................................ 97.11 

6 (4.69) .................................................... Heat Pump + 0.08 W Standby .................................................................................. 246.35 

TABLE IV.19—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS: COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR VENTED ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) 

CLOTHES DRYERS

Integrated efficiency level (IEF), lb/kWh Technology 

Incremental 

manufacturing 

cost 

Baseline (2.79) ........................................ DOE Standard + 2.0 W Standby ............................................................................... $0 

1 (2.86) .................................................... DOE Standard + Change in Airflow Patterns, Dedicated Heater Duct, Open-Cylinder Drum.10.95 

2 (2.96) .................................................... IEL 2 + Inlet Air Pre-Heating ..................................................................................... 63.37 

3 (3.06) .................................................... IEL 2 + Modulating Heat ........................................................................................... 96.45 

4 (3.10) .................................................... IEL 3 + 1.5 W Standby .............................................................................................. 97.75 

5 (3.19) .................................................... IEL 3 + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................................ 97.11 

6 (4.34) .................................................... Heat Pump + 0.08 W Standby .................................................................................. 246.35 

TABLE IV.20—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS: COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR VENTED GAS CLOTHES DRYERS

Integrated efficiency level (IEF), lb/kWh Technology 

Incremental 

manufacturing 

cost 

Baseline (2.63) ........................................ DOE Standard + 2.0 W Standby ............................................................................... $0 

1 (2.71) .................................................... DOE Standard + Change in Airflow Patterns, Dedicated Heater Duct, Open-Cylinder Drum.14.79 

2 (2.80) .................................................... IEL 2 + Inlet Air Pre-Heating ..................................................................................... 65.36 

3 (2.97) .................................................... IEL 2 + Modulating Heat ........................................................................................... 156.01 

4 (2.98) .................................................... IEL 3 + 1.5 W Standby .............................................................................................. 157.31 

5 (3.02) .................................................... IEL 3 + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................................ 156.67 

TABLE IV.21—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS: COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) 

CLOTHES DRYERS

Integrated efficiency level (IEF), lb/kWh Technology 

Incremental 

manufacturing 

cost 

Baseline (2.29) ........................................ Baseline + 2.0 W Standby ........................................................................................ $0 

1 (2.31) .................................................... Baseline + 1.5 W Standby ........................................................................................ 1.30 

2 (2.37) .................................................... Baseline + 0.08 W Standby ...................................................................................... 0.66 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22501 

TABLE IV.21—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS: COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) 

CLOTHES DRYERS—Continued 

Integrated efficiency level (IEF), lb/kWh Technology 

Incremental 

manufacturing 

cost 

3 (2.39) .................................................... IEL 2 + Change in Airflow Patterns, Open-Cylinder Drum ....................................... 13.01 

4 (2.59) .................................................... IEL 3 + Modulating Heat ........................................................................................... 69.02 

5 (3.54) .................................................... Heat Pump + 0.08 W Standby .................................................................................. 216.37 

TABLE IV.22—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS: COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMBINATION

WASHER/DRYERS

Integrated efficiency level (IEF), lb/kWh Technology 

Incremental 

manufacturing 

cost 

Baseline (1.90) ........................................ Baseline + 2.0 W Standby ........................................................................................ $0 

1 (2.15) .................................................... Baseline + 2.0 W Standby + Baseline Automatic Termination ................................. 0.81 

2 (2.34) .................................................... IEL 1 + Modulating Heat ........................................................................................... 54.04 

3 (2.36) .................................................... IEL 2 + 1.5 W Standby .............................................................................................. 55.34 

4 (2.42) .................................................... IEL 2 + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................................ 54.70 

5 (3.31) .................................................... Heat Pump + 0.08 W Standby .................................................................................. 230.83 

DOE received comments from 

interested parties on the whether the 

baseline clothes dryer manufacturing 

costs should be adjusted to reflect the 

cost of complying with the Underwriters 

Laboratory (UL) Standard 2158 ‘‘Electric 

Clothes Dryers’’ (UL 2158) fire 

containment requirements. AHAM 

commented that it would need to look 

into and understand how the fire 

containment regulation in UL 2158 

would affect the cost similar to the 

refrigerant change from R–22 to R–410a 

for room air conditioners. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21.4 at 

p. 153) AHAM commented that when 

manufacturers submitted incremental 

clothes dyer manufacturing cost 

estimates to DOE in late 2008, costs to 

comply with UL 2158 were not 

included. According to AHAM, while 

the new UL requirements may not 

directly impact energy efficiency, the 

requirements place significant 

cumulative regulatory burden on clothes 

dryer manufacturers. AHAM 

commented that DOE should evaluate 

an additional step for clothes dryers, 

where the costs to implement the UL 

fire containment requirements are 

incorporated into the baseline analysis, 

similar to the approach used to evaluate 

the phase-out of R–22 to R–410A for 

room air conditioners. AHAM 

commented that DOE should evaluate 

these costs through manufacturer 

interviews and determine how this cost 

affects the incremental costs to reach 

higher efficiency. (AHAM, No. 25 at 

p. 5) DOE notes that it attempted to 

obtain data on the incremental 

manufacturing cost associated with 

complying with the fire containment 

requirements in UL 2158 during 

manufacturing interviews. While 

manufacturers noted that different 

manufacturers will be required to make 

different changes to their product design 

to meet the fire containment 

requirements, DOE did not receive 

sufficient data to determine the 

incremental manufacturing costs to 

baseline clothes dryers to comply with 

the fire containment requirements of UL 

2158. In addition, DOE did not receive 

sufficient information to indicate that 

the cost associated with complying with 

UL 2158 would vary at efficiency levels 

above the baseline. As a result, DOE did 

not include additional cost to comply 

with UL 2158 in the baseline 

manufacturing production cost. As 

discussed below in section IV.I.3.b, DOE 

has investigated the costs of complying 

with the fire containment requirements 

in UL 2158 in the cumulative regulatory 

burden for the MIA. 

Cost-Efficiency Results—Final Rule 

For today’s final rule, DOE updated 

the cost-efficiency analysis from the 

preliminary analyses by updating the 

costs of raw materials and purchased 

components, as well as updating costs 

for manufacturing equipment, labor, and 

depreciation. 

In addition, based on discussions 

with clothes dryer manufacturers, DOE 

revised the design options analyzed for 

each integrated efficiency level in the 

preliminary analyses. Based on these 

discussions, DOE believes that 

manufacturers would apply a two-stage 

modulating heater design (which would 

also require moisture sensing and multispeed airflow) to achieve integrated 

efficiency level 4 for all clothes dryer 

product classes. In addition, based on 

discussions with manufacturers, DOE 

believes that inlet-air preheating (which 

would require better airflow control and 

more advanced control systems), along 

with the design options for the lower 

efficiency levels (that is, changes in 

airflow patterns, open cylinder drum, 

dedicated heater duct, two-stage 

modulating heat, and standby power 

changes), would be applied to achieve 

integrated efficiency level 5 (maximumavailable) for vented clothes dryer 

product classes. As a result, the maxtech efficiency level for vented gas 

clothes dryers would correspond to inlet 

air pre-heating. 

As discussed above, DOE also 

believes that the low cost of the standby 

power design options should result in 

these technologies being included in the 

initial efficiency levels above the 

baseline. As a result, DOE revised the 

order of the design options and 

efficiency levels presented in the 

preliminary analyses. As discussed 

above in this section, DOE previously 

incorporated incremental standby 

power levels into integrated efficiency 

levels above which electronic controls 

would be required as part of the active 

mode design option changes. At that 

point, DOE incorporated the 

incremental standby power levels where 

it determined them to be most cost 

effective. For today’s final rule, DOE 

applied the standby power levels 

immediately above the baseline level 

because they were determined to be the 

most cost-effective design option. The 

revised order of design options are 

shown below in Table IV.23 through 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22502 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

36 DOE’s review of currently available models 

with baseline efficiency showed that roughly 

74 percent of models have electronic controls. 

Table IV.28. DOE also noted that for the 

integrated efficiency levels where 

electronic controls are not required for 

the design changes, the standby power 

level changes would impact only those 

clothes dryers that consume standby 

power, that is, those products with 

electronic controls. As a result, DOE 

analyzed baseline efficiency products 

available on the market, and weighted 

the efficiency improvement and 

incremental manufacturing cost based 

on the percentage of baseline efficiency 

products that have electronic controls.36

For the integrated efficiency levels for 

which electronic controls would be 

required as part of the active mode 

design changes, DOE assumed that the 

standby power levels and incremental 

manufacturing costs affected 100 

percent of clothes dryer models. 

Table IV.23 through Table IV.28 

shows the cost-efficiency results, along 

with the technologies DOE analyzed for 

each efficiency level to develop 

incremental manufacturing costs. 

Details of the cost-efficiency analysis 

and descriptions of the technologies 

associated with each design change are 

presented in chapter 5 of the direct final 

rule TSD. 

TABLE IV.23—COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR VENTED ELECTRIC STANDARD CLOTHES DRYERS

Integrated efficiency level (CEF), lb/kWh Technology 

Incremental 

manufacturing 

cost 

Baseline (3.55) ........................................ DOE Standard + 2.0 W Standby ............................................................................... $0 

1 (3.56) .................................................... DOE Standard + 1.5 W Standby ............................................................................... 0.68 

2 (3.61) .................................................... DOE Standard + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................. 0.82 

3 (3.73) .................................................... IEL 2 + Change in Airflow Patterns, Dedicated Heater Duct, Open-Cylinder Drum 8.74 

4 (3.81) .................................................... IEL 3 + 2-Stage Modulating Heat ............................................................................. 50.67 

5 (4.08) .................................................... IEL 4 + Inlet Air Pre-Heating ..................................................................................... 88.89 

6 (5.42) .................................................... Heat Pump + 0.08 W Standby .................................................................................. 280.54 

TABLE IV.24—COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR VENTED ELECTRIC COMPACT (120V) CLOTHES DRYERS

Integrated efficiency level (CEF), lb/kWh Technology 

Incremental 

manufacturing 

cost 

Baseline (3.43) ........................................ DOE Standard + 2.0 W Standby ............................................................................... $0 

1 (3.48) .................................................... DOE Standard + 1.5 W Standby ............................................................................... 0.68 

2 (3.61) .................................................... DOE Standard + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................. 0.82 

3 (3.72) .................................................... IEL 2 + Change in Airflow Patterns, Dedicated Heater Duct, Open-Cylinder Drum 21.46 

4 (3.80) .................................................... IEL 3 + 2-Stage Modulating Heat ............................................................................. 62.76 

5 (4.08) .................................................... IEL 4 + Inlet Air Pre-Heating ..................................................................................... 109.31 

6 (5.41) .................................................... Heat Pump + 0.08 W Standby .................................................................................. 267.48 

TABLE IV.25—COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR VENTED ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) CLOTHES DRYERS

Integrated efficiency level (CEF), lb/kWh Technology 

Incremental 

manufacturing 

cost 

Baseline (3.12) ........................................ DOE Standard + 2.0 W Standby ............................................................................... $0 

1 (3.16) .................................................... DOE Standard + 1.5 W Standby ............................................................................... 0.68 

2 (3.27) .................................................... DOE Standard + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................. 0.82 

3 (3.36) .................................................... IEL 2 + Change in Airflow Patterns, Dedicated Heater Duct, Open-Cylinder Drum 21.46 

4 (3.48) .................................................... IEL 3 + 2-Stage Modulating Heat ............................................................................. 62.76 

5 (3.60) .................................................... IEL 4 + Inlet Air Pre-Heating ..................................................................................... 109.31 

6 (4.89) .................................................... Heat Pump + 0.08 W Standby .................................................................................. 267.48 

TABLE IV.26—COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR VENTED GAS CLOTHES DRYERS

Integrated efficiency level (CEF), lb/kWh Technology 

Incremental 

manufacturing 

cost 

Baseline (3.14) ........................................ DOE Standard + 2.0 W Standby ............................................................................... $0 

1 (3.16) .................................................... DOE Standard + 1.5 W Standby ............................................................................... 0.68 

2 (3.20) .................................................... DOE Standard + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................. 0.82 

3 (3.30) .................................................... IEL 2 + Change in Airflow Patterns, Dedicated Heater Duct, Open-Cylinder Drum 9.12 

4 (3.42) .................................................... IEL 3 + 2-Stage Modulating Heat ............................................................................. 72.32 

5 (3.61) .................................................... IEL 4 + Inlet Air Pre-Heating ..................................................................................... 109.98 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22503 

TABLE IV.27—COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) CLOTHES DRYERS

Integrated efficiency level (CEF), lb/kWh Technology 

Incremental 

manufacturing 

cost 

Baseline (2.55) ........................................ Baseline + 2.0 W Standby ........................................................................................ $0 

1 (2.59) .................................................... Baseline + 1.5 W Standby ........................................................................................ 0.93 

2 (2.69) .................................................... Baseline + 0.08 W Standby ...................................................................................... 1.11 

3 (2.71) .................................................... IEL 2 + Change in Airflow Patterns, Open-Cylinder Drum ....................................... 26.42 

4 (2.80) .................................................... IEL 3 + 2-Stage Modulating Heat ............................................................................. 57.80 

5 (4.03) .................................................... Heat Pump + 0.08 W Standby .................................................................................. 242.36 

TABLE IV.28—COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMBINATION WASHER/DRYERS

Integrated efficiency level (CEF), lb/kWh Technology 

Incremental 

manufacturing 

cost 

Baseline (2.08) ........................................ Baseline + 2.0 W Standby ........................................................................................ $0 

1 (2.35) .................................................... Baseline + 2.0 W Standby + Baseline Automatic Termination ................................. 1.51 

2 (2.38) .................................................... IEL 1 + 1.5 W Standby .............................................................................................. 2.44 

3 (2.46) .................................................... IEL 2 + 0.08 W Standby ............................................................................................ 2.62 

4 (2.56) .................................................... IEL 3 + 2-Stage Modulating Heat ............................................................................. 31.69 

5 (3.69) .................................................... Heat Pump + 0.08 W Standby .................................................................................. 297.54 

b. Room Air Conditioners 

During the preliminary analysis, DOE 

performed the room air conditioner 

engineering analysis as follows: 

• Reverse engineering and teardown 

for 21 room air conditioners across 6 

product classes. 

• Interviews with room air 

conditioner manufacturers to obtain 

greater insight into design strategies and 

their associated costs to improve 

efficiency, including designs 

incorporating R–410A refrigerant. 

• Energy modeling for room air 

conditioner designs using R–410A 

refrigerant. 

DOE selected teardown products 

covering the range of available 

efficiency levels at a group of selected 

capacities. The products selected for 

teardown were designed for HCFC–22 

refrigerant because DOE conducted this 

work before the January 1, 2010 

phaseout of this refrigerant for new 

products was required. 74 FR 66450 

(Dec. 19, 2009) DOE modeled the 21 

HCFC–22 teardown units to calibrate 

the model before modeling the R–410A 

efficiency levels. DOE also identified 

one R–410A room air conditioner 

during the preliminary analysis and 

analyzed it in the reverse engineering 

analysis. 

From these analyses, DOE produced 

R–410A cost-efficiency curves for each 

of the analyzed product classes. Details 

of the engineering analysis are provided 

in the direct final rule TSD chapter 5. 

DOE received several comments from 

interested parties on its approach to the 

engineering analysis, as described 

below. Stakeholders commented on 

(1) the availability of R–410A products 

and data for incorporation into the 

engineering analysis, and (2) limitations 

on the maximum size of room air 

conditioners. 

Conversion to R–410a 

During the preliminary analysis 

public meeting, DOE requested 

comments on the approach for the 

engineering analysis for room air 

conditioners, specifically on the use of 

both energy modeling and manufacturer 

cost modeling. DOE explained that this 

was the best approach for the 

preliminary engineering analysis. An 

efficiency level analysis based on only 

teardowns of specific products at 

different efficiency levels would have 

been based on HCFC–22 and would not 

have been representative of the R–410A 

products that would be available on the 

compliance date for the rule. 

ACEEE suggested that DOE’s analysis 

should be updated due to the transition 

from HCFC–22 refrigerant (ACEEE, No. 

24 at p. 4). ACEEE and the California 

Utilities recommended that DOE revise 

its analysis using current R–410A 

models for product teardowns, as it 

would enable DOE to more accurately 

determine the energy use of new room 

air conditioners (ACEEE, No. 24 at p. 4; 

California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 17). In 

addition, the California Utilities 

recommended that DOE conduct testing 

of products that contain R–410A 

refrigerant. (California Utilities, No. 31 

at p. 17) 

During the preliminary analysis phase 

of this rulemaking, DOE indicated that 

there was only one R–410A product 

available on the market for analysis. 

Subsequently, however, DOE examined 

information associated with 

commercialized R–410A products and 

made appropriate adjustments based on 

the new information, as described 

below. 

In the engineering analysis supporting 

today’s final rule, DOE purchased and 

conducted teardowns on four R–410A 

products to update and validate the 

analysis performed during the 

preliminary analysis. Table IV.29 lists 

the R–410A products used. DOE focused 

this effort on the largest and most 

efficient units. 

TABLE IV.29—R–410A ROOM AIR

CONDITIONERS SELECTED FOR

TEARDOWN

Product class Capacity 

Btu/hr EER 

1 ................................ 5000 9.7 

2 ................................ 6,000 12.0 

3 ................................ 12,000 10.8 

5B ............................. 28,500 8.5 

The new information obtained from 

the four R–410A product teardowns, 

and examination of product information 

of available R–410A products, 

confirmed that the baseline product 

designs, design option costs, and design 

pathways chosen during the preliminary 

analysis, developed based on teardowns 

of HCFC–22 units, provided accurate 

results for calculating the cost-efficiency 

curves for R–410A designs. 

SCE noted that a study conducted by 

NIST for split systems indicated that R– 

410A dropped in efficiency compared 

with R–22 only in systems with 

condensing temperatures above 95 °F. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22504 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(SCE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

21.4 at p. 69) 

DOE notes that its modeling of room 

air conditioners indicates that they 

operate with condensing temperatures 

between 110 °F and 130 °F under DOE 

test conditions, depending on the sizes 

of the heat exchangers. DOE’s analysis 

confirms that the impact of the switch 

to R–410A is more severe as condensing 

temperatures increase above 95 °F, and 

that additional improvements in 

efficiency (larger heat exchangers, more 

efficient components, and similar 

improvements) are required to reach 

comparable efficiencies to HCFC–22. 

Energy modeling of R–410A and HCFC– 

22 room air conditioners shows that a 

system modeled with HCFC–22 

experiences an efficiency reduction if a 

‘‘drop-in’’ of R–410A is considered (that 

is, switch refrigerant and make no other 

system changes). 

As discussed previously, DOE 

conducted the engineering analysis 

based on use of R–410A refrigerant. 

DOE sought information on the 

performance of R–410A rotary 

compressors of varying efficiency levels 

for all of the products under analysis. In 

many cases, the range of efficiency for 

which compressor vendors were able to 

provide performance data was limited. 

Because conducting the analysis 

generally required knowledge not just of 

design point capacity and EER, DOE 

requested performance data for a 

representative range of evaporating and 

condensing conditions. In some cases, 

the trends of compressor performance as 

a function of operating conditions were 

extrapolated from the trends exhibited 

by a compressor of the same refrigerant 

of nearly the same capacity. During the 

preliminary analysis, DOE considered 

the available performance data for 

R–410A rotary compressors, noting that 

discussions with compressor vendors 

revealed that many vendors were still 

developing their R–410A compressor 

lines and could only provide 

preliminary data. The compressors for 

which performance data was available 

varied significantly in EER, depending 

on their capacity. DOE did not consider 

increases in compressor efficiency as a 

design option, because no higherefficiency compressor data was 

available. 

The California Utilities commented 

that concern over the cost and 

availability of R–410A compressors may 

be mitigated as designs and efficiency of 

these compressors improve, and as the 

market grows and availability of 

compressors increases. (California 

Utilities, No. 31 at p. 17) EEI asked 

whether DOE conducted testing on 

R–410A compressors during its analysis. 

(EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

21.4 at pp. 67–68) 

DOE did not conduct tests on R–410A 

compressors during the engineering 

analysis, but has no reason to believe 

that the manufacturers’ performance 

data is incorrect. During the final rule 

analyses, however, DOE obtained 

additional data regarding R–410A 

compressor performance and did 

consider EER improvement, as 

described below. 

During interviews conducted during 

the final rule phase of today’s final rule, 

individual manufacturers reported that 

vendor selections of R–410A rotary 

compressors were still limited, and that 

compressor vendors, where they had 

once offered up to three different 

efficiency tiers of compressors, now 

only offered one or two tiers. One 

manufacturer reported a need to source 

from many different vendors to achieve 

performance goals. Individual 

manufacturers identified 10 EER as the 

maximum available efficiency for 

R–410A compressors, but reported 

testing of higher efficiency compressors. 

DOE also reviewed R–410A 

compressor options available on 

compressor vendors’ Web sites, and also 

contacted compressor vendors to 

discuss their current R–410A 

compressor options. 

In the analysis for today’s final rule, 

DOE added a design option to its 

engineering analysis for increasing 

compressor efficiency to the identified 

maximum compressor EER level. 

During the preliminary analysis, DOE 

sought information on the performance 

of R–410A rotary compressors of 

varying efficiency levels for all of the 

products under analysis. In many cases, 

the range of efficiency for which 

vendors provided performance data for 

R–410A compressors was limited. In 

most cases, compressor vendors had 

developed sufficiently for use in 

products compressors at only one 

efficiency level at each of the relevant 

capacities that DOE examined. These 

efficiency levels varied widely, 

depending on the available 

compressors. Due to the lack of maturity 

of the R–410A rotary compressor market 

at that time, DOE could not confidently 

project that higher efficiency levels 

would be made available. 

During the final rule analysis, DOE 

again reviewed the R–410A compressor 

market and the available compressors 

and found that many more R–410A 

rotary compressor options at varying 

efficiency levels had been developed. 

The highest available nominal EER for 

R–410A rotary compressors with 

capacities less than 18,000 Btu/h is 10 

EER, while the highest available EER for 

compressors with capacities greater than 

18,000 Btu/h is 10.3 EER. Interviews 

with individual manufacturers 

supported these observations. 

Consequently, DOE has concluded 

that 10 EER is a reasonable maximum 

available EER for rotary R–410A 

compressors in capacities suitable for 

product classes 1 (room air conditioners 

without reverse cycle, with louvered 

sides, and capacity less than 6,000 

Btu/h); 3 (room air conditioners without 

reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 

capacities 8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h); 8A 

(room air conditioners without reverse 

cycle, without louvered sides, and 

capacities 8,000 to 10,999 Btu/h); and 

8B (room air conditioners without 

reverse cycle, without louvered sides, 

and capacities 11,000 to 13,999 Btu/h). 

Also, DOE concluded that 10.3 EER is 

a reasonable maximum available EER 

for rotary R–410A compressors in 

capacities suitable for product classes 

5A (room air conditioners without 

reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 

capacities 20,000 to 27,999 Btu/h) and 

5B (room air conditioners without 

reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 

capacity 28,000 Btu/h or more). 

Thereby, DOE selected 10.0 EER as the 

maximum EER compressor level for the 

analysis of product classes 1, 3, 8A, and 

8B; and 10.3 EER as the maximum 

compressor level for the analysis of 

product classes 5A and 5B. 

During the analysis for today’s final 

rule, in cases where compressor data 

was unavailable for the two maximum 

EER levels selected by DOE (as 

discussed above), the trends of 

compressor performance as a function of 

operating conditions were extrapolated. 

Compressor performance was 

extrapolated from the trends exhibited 

by a compressor currently offered on the 

market that used the same refrigerant of 

nearly the same capacity. DOE 

extrapolated compressor data for 10 EER 

compressors from similar compressors 

with ratings ranging from 9.4 EER to 9.7 

EER, and compressor data for 10.3 EER 

compressor from similar compressor 

with 10 EER ratings. DOE noted the 

rapid pace of development of R–410A 

compressors (over the course of this 

rulemaking); manufacturer interviews 

suggested that this rapid development is 

on-going and is likely to continue. Thus, 

the data suggests that manufacturers 

will be able to incorporate R–410A 

rotary compressors of capacities for 

which data was not available into air 

conditioners by the new energy 

standard’s compliance date in 2014. 

DOE notes that compressors at the 

selected max-tech EER levels (for some 

capacity levels analyzed) are already 

available on the market, and some 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22505 

37http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2007-131/. 

38http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/ 

electricalcontractors/materials/heavy.html. 

products may already use these 

compressors. DOE has determined that 

such compressors are currently 

manufactured at many more capacity 

levels than were observed during the 

preliminary analysis. Additional details 

of this analysis are available in chapter 

5 of the direct final rule TSD. 

The greater availability of rotary 

compressors also caused DOE to 

eliminate consideration of scroll 

compressors. DOE had used scroll 

compressors as a design option during 

the preliminary analysis. However, the 

higher EER of high-capacity rotary 

compressors that are now available 

shifts the economic attractiveness of 

scroll compressor technology such that 

it is no longer cost effective. 

Size Increases 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered chassis size increases to 

increase the efficiency of window units, 

which corresponded to product classes 

1, 3, and 5. DOE believes increases in 

coil frontal area and package size are 

among the primary factors contributing 

to EER improvements in the higherefficiency teardown units for product 

classes 1, 3, and 5. 

DOE selected baseline, medium, and 

large chassis sizes based on the range of 

sizes of available room air conditioners. 

DOE did not consider chassis size 

increases beyond the range of available 

products, and considered both the 

physical volume and the weight of the 

unit. DOE performed cost modeling and 

energy modeling of these larger chassis 

sizes to calculate cost and efficiency 

impacts due to chassis size increases, 

based on product teardowns. 

During the preliminary analysis 

public meeting, DOE requested 

comment on the approach for 

determining appropriate maximum sizes 

for different product classes and 

capacities. DOE received stakeholder 

comments on both non-louvered room 

air conditioner sizes and louvered room 

air conditioner sizes. 

Non-Louvered Room Air Conditioner 

Sizes 

PG&E commented that the size of 

through-the-wall room air conditioners 

(products without louvers) would not 

necessarily be constrained if allowed to 

project into the outdoor space. (PG&E, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21.4 at p. 

77) In response, GE stated that existing 

wall sleeves do not allow for additional 

growth in depth, and through-the-wall 

units are typically slid into an existing 

wall sleeve. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21.4 at p. 77) To achieve 

additional depth, the existing wall 

sleeve would need to be replaced. 

AHAM also noted that while additional 

heat exchanger coils may increase 

efficiency, placing these coils too deep 

within the unit will actually decrease 

the heat transfer efficiency. (AHAM, 

No. 25 at p. 7) 

DOE did not consider chassis size 

growths as a design option for product 

class 8 (room air conditioners without 

reverse cycle, without louvered sides, 

and capacities 8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h) in 

the preliminary analysis. According to 

manufacturer interviews, the majority of 

non-louvered products are replacement 

products that must fit into existing 

building sleeves. Building sleeves are 

often built into the existing structure 

and are fixed components. Replacing 

them would require altering the size of 

the opening, which would generally be 

cost-prohibitive. Due to these 

constraints, replacement products must 

fit into existing sleeves, which clearly 

limit product height and width. 

Increases in product depth can be 

limited by the design of the sleeve, and 

consumers may be unwilling to accept 

products that extend further into the 

interior. DOE also notes that any 

increases in product depth would 

present very limited potential in 

improvement, because it would not 

allow for the unit’s heat exchangers to 

grow in width or height. 

For these reasons, DOE has chosen to 

retain the preliminary analysis 

assumption for non-louvered products 

that size increase cannot be used to 

increase efficiency. 

Louvered Room Air Conditioner Sizes 

DOE received the following comments 

from stakeholders on room air 

conditioner sizes for louvered products. 

AHAM commented that there are a 

range of product depths and weights, 

which may suggest that increased 

depths and weights may be feasible. 

(AHAM, No. 25 at pp. 6–7) AHAM 

noted, however, that UL requirements 

are an issue when considering increases 

in room air conditioner depth, as the 

units require that mounting brackets be 

designed to ensure that the room air 

conditioner remains in the window. 

Ensuring that these brackets are used in 

each installation can be a potential 

safety concern, in particular for smaller 

units installed by consumers. Id. AHAM 

also noted that smaller products 

(especially those in product classes 1 

(room air conditioners without reverse 

cycle, with louvered sides, and 

capacities less than 6,000 Btu/h) and 2 

(room air conditioners without reverse 

cycle, with louvered sides, and 

capacities 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h)) would 

be most negatively impacted by an 

increase in weight. AHAM indicated 

that the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) recommends an 

additional person for lifting and 

installing products weighing over 50 

lbs. AHAM stated that the 50-lb. limit is 

expected to influence consumer 

acceptance of these products. Id. 

NPCC recommended that DOE 

compare the maximum unit dimensions 

in each analyzed product class to the 

dimensions of the highest efficiency 

model available on the market. (NPCC, 

No. 32 at pp. 4–5) NPCC recommended 

that, if these two product dimensions 

are similar, DOE assume that all units 

can be equally as large. NPCC also 

recommended that, if the market unit is 

smaller than the unit proposed by DOE, 

that DOE determine whether a redesign 

of the proposed unit would eliminate 

the size constraint. (Id.) DOE received 

no additional stakeholder comments 

addressing maximum acceptable 

product sizes for louvered products. 

DOE has chosen to use the 50-lb. 

weight limitation for product class 1 

(room air conditioners without reverse 

cycle, without louvered sides, and 

capacities less than 6,000 Btu/h). The 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) and OSHA 

guidance recommends against handling 

loads greater than 50 lbs. for a single 

person. NIOSH lists among its hazard 

evaluation checklist the handling of 

loads exceeding 50 lbs. as a risk factor 

used to identify potential problems.37

OSHA, in its ‘‘Ergonomics eTool: 

Solutions for Electrical Contractors,’’ 

states that lifting loads heavier than 

50 lbs will increase the risk of injury, 

and recommends use of more than one 

person to lift weights larger than 50 

lbs.38 These guidelines calling for 

additional personnel for product lifting 

represent distinct changes in consumer 

utility for products that currently weigh 

less than 50 lbs. This would not be true 

for products that already exceed this 

limit. DOE notes that all but the smallest 

room air conditioners weigh more than 

50 lbs. The baseline R–410A designs of 

the analyses were all determined to 

have weights greater than this limit, 

except for product class 1 (room air 

conditioners without reverse cycle, with 

louvered sides, and capacities less than 

6,000 Btu/h). DOE adjusted the analysis 

for product class 1 to limit its weight to 

50 lbs., but did not make similar 

adjustments for any of the other product 

classes. Additional details regarding 

these adjustments for the product class 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22506 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1 analysis is presented in chapter 5 of 

the direct final rule TSD. 

For the other product classes with 

louvered sides, the maximum height 

and width considered is consistent with 

these dimensions for max-tech available 

products. These are the dimensions that 

determine that available size for heat 

exchangers; DOE’s analysis of product 

classes with louvered sides contains 

heat exchangers with the same 

dimensions as max-tech available units. 

DOE observed that all max-tech 

products for room air conditioners are 

produced primarily by one 

manufacturer, and that the depth of 

these max-tech available products was 

much greater in proportion to other 

dimensions than the depths observed in 

other manufacturers’ products. DOE’s 

analysis indicated that depths 

consistent with the proportions 

observed in these other manufacturers’ 

non-max-tech products are sufficient to 

provide max-tech performance. In 

particular, DOE’s analysis indicated that 

the smaller depth was enough to 

achieve the requisite condenser airflow, 

enabling appropriate heat transfer by the 

larger heat exchangers. Thus, DOE’s 

analyses did not use the larger product 

depths observed in the max-tech 

available products. Instead, DOE used 

smaller product depths, consistent with 

the proportions observed in other 

products. This approach was adopted 

for product classes 3 (room air 

conditioners without reverse cycle, with 

louvered sides, and capacities 8,000 to 

13,999 Btu/h); 5A (room air 

conditioners without reverse cycle, with 

louvered sides, and capacities 20,000 to 

27,999 Btu/h); and 5B (room air 

conditioners without reverse cycle, with 

louvered sides, and capacities 28,000 

Btu/h or more). Additional details of 

this analysis are available in chapter 5 

of the direct final rule TSD. 

Engineering Analysis Adjustments 

A summary table of the key 

adjustments made to the product class 

structure and the engineering analysis 

during the final rule phase of the 

rulemaking is presented in Table IV.30. 

TABLE IV.30—SUMMARY OF KEY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

Parameter Preliminary Changes for the direct final rule 

Product Classes ................................................. No changes considered ................................... Split of product classes 5 and 8 into two product classes each (5A, 5B, 8A, 8B) based on 

stakeholder comments. 

Compressor Efficiency ........................................ Based on available compressor data during 

preliminary analysis.

Max-efficiency increased to 10 EER for product classes 1, 3, 8A, and 8B, and 10.3 EER 

for product classes 5A and 5B. 

50 lbs Limit ......................................................... Not considered ................................................. Introduced a 50 lb weight limit for the analysis 

of design options for product class 1. 

Chassis Sizes for Louvered Products ................ Based on analysis of HCFC–22 units ............. Adjusted based on additional market research 

and teardowns of R–410A units. 

Scroll Compressors ............................................ Considered for product class 5 analysis ......... Not considered, since they provide no additional improvement over 10.3 EER rotary 

compressors, and are much more expensive. This design option is less cost-effective than the design options selected by 

DOE for analysis, so it was not considered. 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups in the distribution 

chain to convert the estimates of 

manufacturer cost derived in the 

engineering analysis to consumer prices. 

At each step in the distribution channel, 

companies mark up the price of the 

product to cover business costs and 

profit margin. DOE estimated the 

markups associated with the main 

parties in the distribution channel. For 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, these are manufacturers 

and retailers. 

DOE developed an average 

manufacturer markup by examining the 

annual Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC) 10–K reports filed by 

four publicly traded manufacturers 

primarily engaged in appliance 

manufacturing and whose combined 

product range includes residential 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners. 

For retailers, DOE developed separate 

markups for baseline products (baseline 

markups) and for the incremental cost of 

more-efficient products (incremental 

markups). Incremental markups are 

coefficients that relate the change in the 

manufacturer sales price of higherefficiency models to the change in the 

retailer sales price. 

Commenting on the preliminary TSD, 

AHAM filed comments that criticized 

DOE’s application of ‘‘incremental’’ 

markups to the incremental 

manufacturer selling price of products 

more efficient than the baseline 

products. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 3) In 

Exhibit B accompanying this comment, 

AHAM stated that (1) DOE provides no 

empirical evidence to validate that 

retailers obtain only incremental 

markups on products with greater 

features and costs; and (2) DOE is 

asserting a normative approach without 

any support showing that its model 

reflects actual retail practices. These 

comments criticized two of the key 

assumptions in DOE’s theoretical 

construct: (1) That the costs incurred by 

appliance retailers can be divided into 

costs that vary in proportion to the MSP 

(variable costs), and costs that do not 

vary with the MSP (fixed costs); (2) that 

retailer prices vary in proportion to 

retailer costs included in the balance 

sheets. 

Regarding the first assumption, 

AHAM stated that DOE has offered no 

evidence that the fixed/variable cost 

mix of a retailer has anything to do in 

practice with the markups that will be 

earned by a retailer on products that 

meet a new energy conservation 

standard. It added that DOE uses an 

incorrect analogy to HVAC contractors 

as a basis for considering the costs of a 

retailer, and that DOE did not analyze 

the actual drivers of retail costs. The 

retail cost structure has considerably 

different characteristics than those of an 

HVAC contractor. AHAM stated that 

DOE has not presented any data or 

analysis that would yield a fixed versus 

variable cost allocation applicable to 

retailers. Regarding DOE’s second 

assumption, AHAM stated that DOE’s 

approach depends on the presence of a 

relatively high level of competition in 

the retail industry. AHAM presented 

data showing that the four firm 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22507 

39The FFCR represents the market share of the 

four largest firms in the relevant sector. Generally, 

an FFCR of less than 40 percent indicates that a 

sector is not concentrated and an FFCR of more 

than 70 percent indicates that a sector is highly 

concentrated. 

40The channels for which AHAM provided gross 

margin data for 1993–2007 are electronics and 

appliance stores, general merchandise stores, and 

building material and supplies dealers. According 

to AHAM, these channels accounted for 43 percent, 

31 percent and 17 percent of major appliance sales 

in 2007, respectively. 

concentration ratio (FFCR) of the sectors 

that sell major appliances ranges from 

42 to 65 percent, which does not 

support DOE’s assumption of a high 

level of competition in the retail 

industry.39

In conclusion, AHAM viewed DOE’s 

incremental markup approach as 

lacking a credible theoretical 

underpinning and demonstrated 

reliability and asserted that the data 

required for the approach are not 

available. AHAM stated that DOE 

should return to its traditional practice 

of using average markups for both the 

baseline products and for the added 

costs of efficiency improvements. In 

AHAM’s view, the stability of markups 

in the retailing sectors leads to the 

reasonable inference that such markups 

will continue and apply to higherefficiency products in the future when 

they become the bulk of sales under 

amended standards. (AHAM, No. 34, 

Exhibit B, p. 12) 

In response to the above comments, 

DOE extensively reviewed its 

incremental markup approach. DOE 

assembled and analyzed relevant data 

from other retail sectors and found that 

empirical evidence is lacking with 

respect to appliance retailer markup 

practices when a product increases in 

cost due to increased efficiency or other 

factors. DOE understands that realworld retailer markup practices vary 

depending on market conditions and on 

the magnitude of the change in cost of 

goods sold (CGS) associated with an 

increase in appliance efficiency. 

Given this uncertainty with respect to 

actual markup practices in appliance 

retailing, DOE uses an approach that 

reflects two key concepts. First, changes 

in the efficiency of the appliances sold 

are not expected to increase retailers’ 

economic profits. Thus, DOE calculates 

markups/gross margins to allow cost 

recovery for retailers (including changes 

in the cost of capital) without changes 

in company profits. Second, efficiency 

improvements only impact some 

distribution costs. DOE sets markups to 

cover only the variable costs expected to 

change with efficiency. 

Market competition is another reason 

why DOE believes that profit margins 

would not change in a significant way. 

Regarding AHAM’s assertion that the 

degree of competition in appliance 

retailing is not sufficient to support 

DOE’s model, DOE believes that 

AHAM’s measure of competition is 

inaccurate. AHAM measured the FFCR 

of three retail channels: Electronics and 

appliance stores, building material and 

supplies dealers, and general 

merchandise stores. These values 

represent competitiveness within each 

sector, but clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners are sold across all three 

sectors, preventing major retailers in 

each sector from exercising significant 

market power. To properly measure the 

competitiveness within appliance 

retailing, DOE believes that one should 

measure the FFCR for only the 

appliance subsector within the above 

channels and accordingly estimated the 

‘‘appliance sales’’ FFCR as equal to the 

sector FFCR times the percent of 

appliance sales within each sector. DOE 

estimated that these sub-sector FFCRs 

are under the 40 percent threshold. 

Furthermore, ‘‘Household Appliance 

Stores,’’ a subsector of the electronics 

and appliance stores sector that 

specifically represents appliance 

retailers, rather than computer or other 

electronics stores, has an FFCR of 17 

percent, signifying an unconcentrated 

sector. 

DOE’s separation of operating 

expenses into fixed and variable 

components to estimate an incremental 

markup follows from the above 

concepts. In separating retailer costs, 

DOE did not directly use information 

from the HVAC contractor industry. 

Instead, DOE defined fixed expenses as 

including labor and occupancy 

expenses because these costs are not 

likely to increase as a result of a rise in 

CGS due to amended efficiency 

standards. All other expenses, as well as 

the net profit, are assumed to vary in 

proportion to the change in CGS. DOE’s 

method results in an outcome in which 

retailers are assumed to cover their costs 

while maintaining their profit margins 

when the CGS of appliances changes. 

DOE seeks additional information from 

interested parties to help refine its 

allocation approach. 

Regarding AHAM’s observation about 

the relative stability of average markups 

for the major retail channels that sell 

home appliances, DOE believes that the 

usefulness of this information for 

estimating markups on specific product 

lines is limited. The markups implied 

by gross margin at the level of major 

retail channels 40 are averaged over 

multiple product lines and many 

different store types. The empirical data 

at this level do not provide useful 

guidance for estimating what happens to 

the markup on specific products when 

their costs change. Applying the same 

markup as CGS increases, as AHAM 

recommends, would mean that the 

increase in CGS associated with higherefficiency products would translate into 

higher retail gross margins for that 

product line. Because the majority of 

operating expenses would not be 

affected by the increase in CGS, the 

result would be an increase in net profit 

as a share of sales. While such an 

outcome could occur in the short run, 

DOE believes that competitive forces in 

the market would tend to decrease the 

profit margin over time. 

Based on the above considerations, 

DOE has decided to continue to apply 

an incremental markup to the 

incremental MSP of products with 

higher efficiency than the baseline 

products. As part of its review, DOE 

developed a new breakdown into fixed 

and variable components using the 

latest expense data provided by the U.S. 

Census for Electronics and Appliance 

Stores, which cover 2002. The newlyderived incremental markup, which 

would be applied to an incremental 

change in CGS, is 1.17, which is slightly 

higher than the value of 1.15 that DOE 

used in the preliminary analysis. 

Chapter 6 of the direct final rule TSD 

provides a description of both the 

method and its current application 

using the aforementioned data. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

DOE’s analysis of the energy use of 

clothes dryers and room air conditioners 

estimated the energy use of these 

products in the field, that is, as they are 

actually used by consumers. The energy 

use analysis provided the basis for other 

analyses DOE performed, particularly 

assessments of the energy savings and 

the savings in consumer operating costs 

that could result from DOE’s adoption of 

amended standards. In contrast to the 

DOE test procedure, which provides a 

measure of the energy use, energy 

efficiency or annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use, the 

energy use analysis seeks to capture the 

range of operating conditions for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners in U.S. 

homes. 

To determine the field energy use of 

products that would meet possible 

amended standard levels, DOE used 

data from the EIA’s 2005 RECS, which 

was the most recent such survey 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22508 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

41For information on RECS, see http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/. 

42California Energy Commission. Appliance 

Efficiency Database: Clothes Washers. July 2010. 

URL: http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/. 

available at the time of DOE’s analysis.41

RECS is a national sample survey of 

housing units that collects statistical 

information on the consumption of and 

expenditures for energy in housing units 

along with data on energy-related 

characteristics of the housing units and 

occupants. RECS provides sufficient 

information to establish the type 

(product class) of clothes dryer or room 

air conditioner used in each household. 

As a result, DOE was able to develop 

household samples for each of the 

considered product classes. DOE 

developed a separate building sample 

for commercial-sector use of room air 

conditioners and accounted for the 

distinct features of room air conditioner 

utilization in commercial buildings. 

A more detailed description of DOE’s 

energy use analysis for clothes dryers 

and room air conditioners is contained 

in chapter 7 of the direct final rule TSD. 

1. Clothes Dryers 

For clothes dryers with a specific 

efficiency, the annual energy 

consumption depends on the annual 

number of cycles. In the preliminary 

analysis, DOE used a distribution of 

values with an average of 283 cycles/ 

year based on RECS data. Whirlpool 

stated that a range of 278–300 annual 

dryer cycles is reasonable, based on P&G 

data which indicate 278 annual dryer 

cycles, and internal data which indicate 

288 annual dryer cycles. (Whirlpool, 

No. 22 at p. 3) AHAM stated that P&G 

data indicate 278 annual dryer loads, 

which verifies the RECS data. (AHAM, 

No. 25 at p. 9) DOE acknowledges the 

above comments and has retained the 

approach used in the preliminary 

analysis, which resulted in an average of 

283 cycles/year, for its final rule 

analysis. This average value matches the 

number of cycles/yr in the most current 

DOE clothes dryers test procedure and 

is within the range of the values 

submitted by the commenters. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

estimated that clothes dryers take on 

average 60 minutes to complete a cycle. 

EEI stated that DOE should consider 

manufacturer data, consumer reports, or 

data from other third parties to 

determine typical cycle time for clothes 

dryers. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 21.4 at pp. 106–107) ALS stated that 

cycle time should be derived based on 

RMC, assuming that a sensor will be 

included in all future models. (ALS, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21.4 at 

pp. 110–111) NRDC stated that there is 

a 20-minute variation in cycle time, 

based on whether the sensors work 

accurately. (NRDC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21.4 at p. 106) The 

NRDC/ECOS report stated that a typical 

drying cycle is much different than the 

constant drying cycle duration fixed at 

60 minutes that is used in the LCC. 

(NRDC, No. 30 at p. 11) 

DOE acknowledges that there is 

variation in cycle time and that it is 

dependent on the RMC and the sensors’ 

accuracy. In the final rule analysis, DOE 

revised the cycle time to match the most 

current DOE test procedure average 

value of 30 minutes. Overall, the cycle 

time has very little impact on the 

calculation of energy use because it is 

only used for the determination of 

standby energy use. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

assigned an RMC value to each sample 

unit using a distribution of clothes 

washer RMC values from the CEC 

directory 42 ranging from 30 percent to 

61 percent, with an average of 46 

percent. In response, AHAM suggested 

DOE use a RMC value of 47 percent 

because it is representative of products 

likely to be sold in the 2015 timeframe. 

(AHAM, No. 25 at pp. 9–10) Whirlpool 

stated that they support the use of 

AHAM data, which indicate a shipmentweighted average RMC of 47 percent. 

(Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) 

In its analysis for the final rule, DOE 

incorporated new information about the 

RMC value developed during DOE’s 

recent clothes dryers test procedure 

rulemaking. In response to comments on 

the clothes dryers test procedure NOPR, 

DOE issued an SNOPR in which it 

proposed a revision of the average RMC 

value. FR 75 37594 (June 29, 2010). The 

revision addresses the fact that the RMC 

values listed in the CEC directory are 

multiplied by a correction factor and 

therefore do not represent the actual 

cloth moisture content at the end of the 

clothes washer spin cycle. In keeping 

with this revision, for the final rule 

analysis DOE used a distribution of 

clothes washer RMC values from the 

CEC directory multiplied by a correction 

factor to match the average RMC value 

of 57.5 percent assumed in the proposed 

test procedure. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

assigned load weights to each sample 

household by developing a distribution 

based on the CEC directory. The average 

load weights for standard-size units 

ranged from 5.1 lbs. to 10 lbs., with a 

mean value of 8.1 lbs. 

AHAM stated that the shipmentweighted residential clothes washer 

drum volume for standard size products 

in 2008 was 3.24 ft3, which corresponds 

to an average load size of 8.15 lbs., 

which is consistent with the value 

proposed by DOE, using the alternative 

CEC approach. AHAM also stated that 

the load size should be 4.70 lbs. for 

compact clothes dryers, based on the 

shipment-weighted drum volume of 1.5 

ft3. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 10) BSH stated 

that load size should increase linearly 

with drum size. (BSH, No. 23 at p. 5) 

The NRDC/ECOS Report suggested that 

the values used in the preliminary 

analysis may be too low. It stated that 

today’s dryers can comfortably 

accommodate loads between 10 and 17 

lbs., and that there are more dryer 

models on the market today between 7 

and 8 ft3 than there are models smaller 

than 7 ft3. (NRDC, No. 30 at p. 35) 

In its analysis for the final rule, DOE 

used the average load size value of 8.45 

lbs. from the TP Final Rule. To 

represent a range of load size values in 

the field, DOE used a distribution of 

load sizes ranging from 3.80 to 13.7 lbs., 

with a mean value of 8.45 lbs. Chapter 

7 of the TSD presents the details of the 

DOE’s load size analysis. 

DOE received several comments 

recommending that it use the same 

values for number of cycles, RMC, and 

load weights in both the engineering 

analysis and the LCC and PBP analysis, 

and that it revise the test procedure to 

reflect the values used in its analysis. 

(AHAM, No. 25 at pp. 9–10; Whirlpool, 

No. 22 at pp. 3–4) The California 

Utilities stated that DOE should 

consider all changes in the test 

procedure in additional analysis of 

clothes dryer energy use. (California 

Utilities, No. 31 at p. 13) 

For its LCC and payback period 

analysis DOE developed distributions of 

values for number of cycles, RMC, and 

load weights that reflect its best estimate 

of the range of practices found in U.S. 

homes. In the engineering analysis, DOE 

uses the test procedure to evaluate the 

relative improvement in energy 

efficiency provided by different design 

options. As discussed in section III.A, 

DOE has modified the clothes dryer test 

procedure to reflect current field 

conditions, and these changes are also 

incorporated in the analysis for the final 

rule. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

estimated an average energy use of 519 

kWh per year for the baseline vented 

electric standard clothes dryer. ACEEE 

stated that DOE should revisit the 

approach to determining annual energy 

consumption, and it noted that the 

baseline average unit energy 

consumption (UEC) of 519 kWh/year in 

DOE’s analysis is much lower than the 

values found in field studies and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22509 

43Ru ̈denauer, Ina and Gensch, Carl-Otto. Energy 

demand of tumble dryers with respect to differences 

in technology and ambient conditions. Report 

commissioned by European Committee of Domestic 

Equipment Manufacturers (CECED). January 13, 

2004. 

metered evaluations of clothes dryer 

models. (ACEEE, No. 24 at p. 2) The 

California Utilities stated that a Florida 

Solar Energy Center survey found that 

field-average UEC for electric standard 

clothes dryers was around 900 kWh/ 

year, the 2001 RECS lists 1079 kWh/ 

year, and a 1999 Progress Energy Florida 

study shows 885 kWh/year. They noted 

that these numbers are significantly 

higher than DOE’s average UEC. 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 12) 

As described above, DOE made 

several changes to its approach for 

estimating clothes dryer energy use for 

the final rule (increased initial RMC 

value and clothes dryer load size). As a 

result, the average annual energy use for 

the baseline vented electric clothes 

dryer derived for the final rule is 718 

kWh. This value is lower than those 

found in the surveys mentioned above 

primarily because it reflects more recent 

clothes washer technology and clothes 

dryer utilization than the surveys 

discussed in the comment. In particular, 

this value reflects the lower initial RMC 

associated with newer clothes washers 

and the lower number of clothes dryer 

cycles per year seen in recent P&G data 

and 2005 RECS data. The value from 

2001 RECS was derived using 

conditional demand analysis that 

utilized assumptions based on the 

previous clothes dryer test procedure. 

The Florida surveys date from 1999, 

when initial RMC and annual number of 

dryer cycles were higher significantly 

higher than the values used in the final 

rule analysis. In addition, the sample 

size of these surveys is small and not 

necessarily representative of the nation. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered the impact of clothes dryer 

operation on home heating and cooling 

loads. A clothes dryer releases heat to 

the surrounding environment. If the 

dryer is located indoors, its use will 

tend to slightly reduce the heating load 

during the heating season and slightly 

increase the cooling load during the 

cooling season. DOE believed that the 

effect is the same for all of the 

considered efficiency levels because the 

amount of air passing through the 

clothes dryer does not vary, and thus it 

did not include this factor in its 

preliminary analysis. 

ACEEE, NRDC, NEEP and NPCC and 

the California Utilities stated that DOE 

should consider the impact on space 

conditioning loads from clothes dryer 

use. (ACEEE, No. 24 at p. 2; NRDC, No. 

26 at p. 2; NEEP, No. 27 at p. 3; NPCC, 

No. 32 at p. 3; California Utilities, No. 

31 at p. 9) The California Utilities stated 

that the HVAC load created by dryers 

can amount to as much as 3 kWh/cycle. 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 9) 

As discussed in section III.A.1, DOE 

believes that accounting for the effects 

of clothes dryers on HVAC energy use 

in a DOE test procedure is inconsistent 

with the EPCA requirement that a test 

procedure measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product. As a result, DOE did not 

consider the impact of standards on 

HVAC energy use, is permissible under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o) in developing the 

energy conservation standards 

established in today’s direct final rule. 

To calculate this impact, DOE first 

estimated whether the clothes dryer in 

a RECS sample home is located in 

conditioned space (referred to as 

indoors) or in unconditioned space 

(such as garages, unconditioned 

basements, outdoor utility closets, or 

attics). Based on the 2005 RECS and the 

2009 American Housing Survey (AHS), 

DOE assumed that 50 percent of vented 

standard electric and gas dryers are 

located indoors, while 100 percent of 

compact and ventless clothes dryers are 

located indoors. For these installations, 

DOE utilized the results from a 

European Union study about the 

impacts of clothes dryers on home 

heating and cooling loads to determine 

a the appropriate factor to apply to the 

total clothes dryer energy use.43 This 

study reported that for vented dryers 

there is a factor of negative 3 to 9 

percent (average 6 percent) and for 

ventless dryers there is a factor of 

positive 7 to 15 percent (average 11 

percent). For the reasons stated earlier, 

DOE assumed that the effect is the same 

for all considered efficiency levels. 

2. Room Air Conditioners 

For room air conditioners with a 

specific size and EER, the annual energy 

use depends on the annual hours of 

operation. In the preliminary analysis, 

for units in the residential sector, DOE 

calculated the number of operating 

hours for each room air conditioner in 

the residential sample using the 

reported energy use for room air 

conditioning in the 2005 RECS, along 

with estimates of the EER of the room 

air conditioner(s) in each sample home. 

DOE based the latter on the reported age 

of the unit and historical data on 

shipment-weighted average EER. 

For units used in the commercial 

sector, DOE calculated the number of 

operating hours for each room air 

conditioner in the commercial sample 

by establishing a relationship between 

cooling degree-days and operating hours 

for a number of building types and 

building schedule combinations. DOE 

assumed that a room air conditioner is 

operated when the outdoor air 

conditions are above the comfort zone 

described by ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

55–2004 Thermal Environmental 

Conditions for Human Occupancy. For 

a given location, the number of annual 

hours above the ASHRAE Standard 55 

comfort zone varies by building 

operating schedule, which refers to the 

time that a building is in operation. 

AHAM stated that it opposes the use 

of RECS and CBECS data to estimate 

energy consumption of room air 

conditioners in the LCC and payback 

period calculations, and it requested 

confirmation that DOE’s estimates for 

both residential and commercial room 

air conditioner use are realistic. 

(AHAM, No. 25 at pp. 8–9) AHAM 

questioned the validity of DOE’s 

analysis for residential use of room air 

conditioners. AHAM stated that RECS 

data do not provide information on 

room air conditioner capacity or a direct 

measurement of room air conditioner 

energy use. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 2) 

AHAM also questioned DOE’s estimate 

of the capacity of the unit (or units) 

based on the reported total cooled area, 

as well as the approach DOE used to 

distribute the capacity sizes among the 

various product classes evaluated. 

(AHAM, No. 25 at pp. 8–9) 

Regarding the use of RECS data to 

estimate the capacity of the unit (or 

units), DOE believes that the reported 

total cooled area is an important 

indicator of the capacity of the unit (or 

units). The reason is that for room air 

conditioners this is the primary sizing 

criteria used by manufacturers, 

contractors, and programs such as 

ENERGY STAR. Therefore, DOE 

continued to use reported total cooled 

area to estimate the room air conditioner 

capacity. To improve the accuracy of the 

estimate, for the final rule DOE also 

considered additional factors that are 

likely to influence the capacity 

selection: The number of occupants, 

local weather, and building 

characteristics such as envelope 

insulation and shading. In addition, for 

the final rule analysis DOE revised its 

criteria for assigning room air 

conditioner units for the RECS 

household sample associated with each 

product class. DOE took into 

consideration AHAM’s suggestion and 

did not assign smaller-size units in the 

sample for the largest product class. 

In addition to the above changes, DOE 

applied an adjustment to the values for 

annual operating hours derived from the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22510 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

2005 RECS to account for the warmerthan-average weather in 2005. (DOE 

used long-term national average cooling 

degree-day values as a basis for the 

adjustment). DOE also adjusted the 

values to account for the fact that the 

stock of homes in 2014 is likely to have 

slightly more floor area and have better 

insulation than homes in 2005. DOE 

based the adjustment on projections in 

AEO2010. These modifications are 

described in chapter 7 of the direct final 

rule TSD. 

Regarding DOE’s use of CBECS for 

estimating the commercial use of room 

air conditioners, AHAM stated that (1) 

DOE made substantial assumptions 

regarding the number of room air 

conditioners per commercial 

application and the room air 

conditioner capacities employed at 

these locations; and (2) it appears that 

DOE, to obtain enough data for 

statistical analysis, overlapped the units 

in each product class. (That is, units 

calculated as having > 20,000 Btu/hr 

capacity have also been included in the 

analysis of the < 6,000 Btu/hr and 

8,000–13,999 Btu/hr product classes.) It 

stated that the latter approach is 

misleading and unacceptable. (AHAM, 

No. 25 at p. 3) 

DOE believes that the assumptions 

made in the preliminary analysis are 

consistent with the CBECS and AHAM 

shipments data that are available for 

evaluating commercial use of room air 

conditioners. Therefore, DOE retained 

the approach used in the preliminary 

analysis for the final rule analysis. 

Regarding the overlapping of units 

among product classes, DOE believes 

that its approach is reasonable given 

that there is no information available on 

the number of air conditioner units in 

a building, so a building could have one 

or more units in any of the considered 

product classes. 

AHAM stated that DOE’s approach for 

estimating room air conditioner energy 

use is not consistent with the law, 

which requires that the test procedure 

be used to determine energy use and 

energy savings. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 2) 

AHAM elaborated on this statement and 

made arguments that can be 

summarized as follows (AHAM, No. 25 

at pp. 7–8): 

1. While use of RECS data has proven 

useful over the years to provide general 

guidance to DOE on residential energy 

use, this is the first time that DOE 

proposes to use it to estimate actual 

energy consumption in the field and to 

justify a new energy efficiency standard; 

2. It is inconsistent for DOE to use 

RECS data and statistical regression 

techniques to estimate energy use for 

determining the life cycle cost and 

payback period used to justify an 

appliance standard, while it uses the 

applicable test procedure as the sole 

source of energy use data for purposes 

of determining compliance with the 

standard. 

3. Reliance on the test procedure for 

the energy data used in LCC and 

payback period calculations to set new 

appliance standards is the tried and true 

method that has a clear statutory basis. 

4. The law on labeling prohibits 

manufacturers, distributors, and 

retailers from making energy use 

representations about their products 

based on anything other than the results 

of a test procedure, so it is irrational if 

DOE’s analysis makes energy claims that 

sellers cannot make. 

AHAM also stated that DOE should 

use 750 annual operating hours (the 

value in the current test procedure) to 

maintain consistency while additional 

surveys or testing are completed to 

determine a representative number of 

annual operating hours. (AHAM, No. 25 

at p. 9) 

In response, DOE notes that EPCA 

specifies particular uses of the 

applicable test procedure, such as when 

DOE ascertains whether the consumer 

costs associated with the purchase of a 

product that complies with the 

proposed standard level is less than 

three times the value of the energy 

savings the consumer will receive 

during the first year of ownership. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) This 

calculation is separate from the payback 

periods calculated in the LCC and 

payback period analysis. The latter 

analysis helps DOE to evaluate two of 

the factors that EPCA directs DOE to 

consider in determining whether an 

energy conservation standard for a 

particular covered product is 

economically justified. The first of these 

is the economic impact of potential 

standards on the manufacturers and the 

consumers of the covered products. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) The second 

factor is the savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered product in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price of, or in the initial charges for, or 

maintenance expenses of, the covered 

products which are likely to result from 

the imposition of the standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) 

To evaluate economic impacts on 

consumers and the savings in operating 

costs as accurately as possible, DOE 

needs to determine the energy savings 

that are likely to result from a given 

standard. Such a determination requires 

knowledge of the range of actual use of 

covered products by consumers. 

Because it is a recent nationallyrepresentative survey of U.S. 

households, RECS provides information 

that helps DOE to determine such use. 

In addition, DOE uses RECS data 

because it is consistent with the 

guidance contained in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A—‘‘Procedures, 

Interpretations and Policies for 

Consideration of New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Products.’’ Specifically, section 11 of 

appendix A lists variation in consumer 

impacts as one of the principles for the 

analysis of impacts on consumers. 

Because RECS provides considerable 

information about each household in 

the sample, it allows DOE to evaluate 

factors that contribute to variation in the 

energy use of covered products. In turn, 

this allows DOE to estimate the fraction 

of consumers that will benefit from 

standards at various efficiency levels. 

Consistent with the EPCA and DOE’s 

regulatory guidance, DOE has used 

RECS data in a variety of ways over the 

past decade. In most cases, DOE has 

used the relevant DOE test procedure or 

a similar procedure as the basis for the 

energy use calculation, and used RECS 

data to provide a range for key input 

variables concerning the operation of 

covered products. Examples include the 

standards rulemaking for water heaters 

concluded in 2001 (66 FR 4474 (Jan. 17, 

2001)), and the recently-concluded 

rulemaking that amended standards for 

water heaters. 75 FR 20112, 20112– 

20236 (Apr. 16, 2010). In both 

rulemakings, DOE used data for each of 

the households in the RECS sample to 

estimate the amount of household daily 

hot water use, and to specify certain 

factors that affect water heater operating 

conditions. Additionally, DOE’s 2001 

final rule for central air conditioners 

and heat pumps relied on annual energy 

use based on the annual end-use energy 

consumption values in RECS. 66 FR 

7070, 7170–7200 (Jan. 22, 2001). DOE 

determined that basing the energy use 

on RECS household data provided an 

accurate measure of the savings possible 

from more-efficient equipment, and 

accounted for variability due to climatic 

conditions and consumer behavior. 

Regarding AHAM’s suggestion that 

DOE should use the test procedure only 

to estimate energy use for the purposes 

of its analysis of standards, DOE notes 

that test procedures must be designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) For the purposes of 

evaluating two of the factors that EPCA 

directs DOE to consider in determining 

whether an energy conservation 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22511 

44S. Sorrell, J. Dimitropoulos, and M. 

Sommerville Empirical estimates of the direct 

rebound effect: A review Energy Policy, 2009 37, 

pp. 1356–71. 

standard for covered products is 

economically justified, determining 

energy use based on only a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use does not provide an 

accurate measure of the range of 

possible energy savings. Thus, doing so 

would not be consistent with EPCA and 

the above-cited guidance of appendix A 

to subpart C of part 430. 

In addition, EPCA requires that 

manufacturers and DOE use the DOE 

test procedures prescribed pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. 6293 in determining 

compliance. Determining compliance 

requires a metric that provides 

repeatable and consistent results for 

appliances in a given product class, a 

purpose best served by the test 

procedure. Similarly, energy labeling of 

appliances is designed to provide 

consumers with information that allows 

comparison of the technical 

performance of different products with 

respect to energy efficiency. 

Measurement of such performance is 

best conducted with a standard metric 

such as the applicable test procedure. 

The LCC and PBP analysis, in contrast, 

seeks to estimate the impact of 

alternative standard levels on 

consumers. This requires an evaluation 

of variation in energy use in the field, 

which is provided by analysis of the 

RECS data. 

DOE included a ‘‘rebound effect’’ in its 

analysis of room air conditioner energy 

use. A rebound effect could occur when 

a piece of equipment that is more 

efficient is used more intensively, so 

that the expected energy savings from 

the efficiency improvement may not 

fully materialize. A rebound effect of 10 

percent implies that 90 percent of the 

expected energy savings from more 

efficient equipment will actually occur. 

Based on the data available,44 DOE 

incorporated a rebound effect of 15 

percent for room air conditioners in the 

analysis for the final rule. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

DOE conducts LCC and PBP analyses 

to evaluate the economic impacts on 

individual consumers of potential 

energy conservation standards for 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners. The LCC is the total 

consumer expense over the life of a 

product, consisting of purchase and 

installation costs plus operating costs 

(expenses for energy use, maintenance, 

and repair). To compute the operating 

costs, DOE discounts future operating 

costs to the time of purchase and sums 

them over the lifetime of the product. 

The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a more 

efficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

(normally higher) due to a more 

stringent standard by the change in 

average annual operating cost (normally 

lower) that results from the standard. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the PBP and the change in 

LCC relative to an estimate of the basecase appliance efficiency levels. The 

base-case estimate reflects the market in 

the absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards, including the 

market for products that exceed the 

current energy conservation standards. 

For each considered efficiency level 

in each product class, DOE calculated 

the LCC and PBP for a nationally 

representative set of housing units. For 

the preliminary analysis and the 

analysis for today’s rule, DOE developed 

household samples from the 2005 RECS. 

For each sample household, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

the clothes dryer or room air 

conditioner and the appropriate 

electricity or natural gas price. By 

developing a representative sample of 

households, the analysis captured the 

variability in energy consumption and 

energy prices associated with the use of 

residential clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners. DOE developed a separate 

building sample for commercial-sector 

use of room air conditioners and 

accounted for the distinct features of 

room air conditioner utilization in 

commercial buildings. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes manufacturer 

costs, manufacturer markups, retailer 

and distributor markups, and sales 

taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to 

the calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy consumption, 

energy prices and price projections, 

repair and maintenance costs, product 

lifetimes, discount rates, and the year 

that compliance with standards is 

required. DOE created distributions of 

values for some inputs, with 

probabilities attached to each value, to 

account for their uncertainty and 

variability. DOE used probability 

distributions to characterize product 

lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC and PBP, which 

incorporates Crystal Ball (a 

commercially available software 

program) relies on a Monte Carlo 

simulation to incorporate uncertainty 

and variability into the analysis. The 

Monte Carlo simulations randomly 

sample input values from the 

probability distributions and clothes 

dryer and room air conditioner user 

samples. The model calculated the LCC 

and PBP for products at each efficiency 

level for 10,000 housing units per 

simulation run. Details of the 

spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs 

to the LCC and PBP analyses, are 

contained in chapter 8 of the direct final 

rule TSD and its appendices. 

Table IV.31 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The table 

provides the data and approach DOE 

used for the preliminary TSD, as well as 

the changes made for today’s direct final 

rule. The subsections that follow 

discuss the initial inputs and methods 

and the changes DOE made for the final 

rule. 

TABLE IV.31—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 

Inputs Preliminary TSD Changes for the final rule 

Installed Costs 

Product Cost ............................................ Derived by multiplying manufacturer cost by 

manufacturer and retailer markups and sales 

tax, as appropriate.

Used a product-specific price/cost adjustment 

factor based on experience curves that forecasts changes in price relative to inflation in 

the over-all economy. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22512 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.31—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *—Continued 

Inputs Preliminary TSD Changes for the final rule 

Installation Costs ...................................... Based on RS Means, assumed no change with 

efficiency level.

Based on RS Means; included additional installation cost for heat pump dryers and higher-efficiency room air conditioners due to their larger 

dimensions and weight. 

Operating Costs 

Annual Energy Use .................................. Clothes Dryers: Used DOE test procedure with 

data on cycles from the 2005 RECS, market 

data on RMC, and load weights from test procedure.

Clothes Dryers: Same approach, but RMC and 

load weight revised to account for proposed 

changes in DOE test procedure. 

Room Air Conditioners: Based on calculation of 

operating hours for each 2005 RECS sample 

unit.

Room Air Conditioners: No change. 

Energy Prices ........................................... Electricity (clothes dryers): Based on EIA’s Form 

861 data for 2007.

Electricity (clothes dryers): Updated using Form 

861 data for 2008. 

Electricity (room air conditioners): Used utility tariff data to develop monthly marginal electricity 

prices for each sample household.

Electricity (room air conditioners): No change. 

Natural gas: Based on EIA’s Natural Gas Monthly data for 2007.Natural gas: Updated using Natural Gas Monthly 

data for 2009. 

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 

13 regions for clothes dryers; tariffs determined 

for sample households for room air conditioners.

Variability: No change. 

Energy Price Trends ................................ Forecasted using AEO2009 price forecasts ......... Forecasts updated using AEO2010. 

Repair and Maintenance Costs ............... Not included .......................................................... Derived annualized maintenance and repair frequencies and costs per service call based on 

RS Means and equipment cost. 

Present Value of Operating Cost Savings 

Product Lifetime ....................................... Estimated using survey results from RECS 

(1990, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005) and the U.S. 

Census American Housing Survey (2005, 

2007), along with historic data on appliance 

shipments.

No change. 

Variability: Characterized using Weibull probability distributions.

Discount Rates ......................................... Identified all possible debt or asset classes that 

might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve 

Board’s SCF ** for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 

2001, 2004 and 2007.

No change. 

Compliance Date ...................................... 2014 ...................................................................... No change. 

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the direct final rule 

TSD. 

** Survey of Consumer Finances. 

As discussed in section IV.E, DOE 

takes into account the rebound effect 

associated with more efficient room air 

conditioners. The take-back in energy 

consumption associated with the 

rebound effect provides consumers with 

increased value (for example, a cooler or 

warmer indoor environment). The net 

impact on consumers is thus the sum of 

the change in the cost of owning the 

room air conditioner (that is, life-cycle 

cost) and the increased value for the 

more comfortable indoor environment. 

The consumer effectively pays for the 

increased value of a more comfortable 

environment in his or her utility bill. 

Because the monetary cost of this added 

value is equivalent to the value of the 

foregone energy savings, the economic 

impacts on consumers measured in the 

LCC analysis are the same regardless of 

the rebound effect. 

1. Product Cost 

To calculate consumer product costs, 

DOE multiplied the manufacturer 

selling prices developed in the 

engineering analysis by the supplychain markups described above (along 

with sales taxes). DOE used different 

markups for baseline products and 

higher-efficiency products because, as 

discussed previously, DOE applies an 

incremental markup to the MSP 

increase associated with higher 

efficiency products. 

On February 22, 2011, DOE published 

a Notice of Data Availability (NODA, 76 

FR 9696) stating that DOE may consider 

improving regulatory analysis by 

addressing equipment price trends. 

Consistent with the NODA, DOE 

examined historical producer price 

indices (PPI) for room air conditioners 

and household laundry equipment and 

found a consistent, long-term declining 

real price trend for both products. 

Consistent with the method proposed in 

the NODA, DOE used experience curve 

fits to forecast a price scaling index to 

forecast product costs into the future for 

this rulemaking. DOE also considered 

the public comments that were received 

in response to the NODA and refined 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22513 

45Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ 

electricity/page/eia861.html. 

46Available at: http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/ 

natural_gas/data_publications/ 

natural_gas_monthly/ngm.html. 

47The spreadsheet tool that DOE used to conduct 

the LCC and PBP analyses allows users to select 

price forecasts from either AEO’s High Economic 

Growth or Low Economic Growth Cases. Users can 

thereby estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and PBP 

results to different energy price forecasts. 

48U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

Annual Energy Outlook 2010. Washington, DC. 

April 2010. 

the evaluation of its experience curve 

trend forecasting estimates. Many 

commenters were supportive of DOE 

moving from an assumption-based 

equipment price trend forecasting 

method to a data-driven methodology 

for forecasting price trends. Other 

commenters were skeptical that DOE 

could accurately forecast price trends 

given the many variables and factors 

that can complicate both the estimation 

and the interpretation of the numerical 

price trend results and the relationship 

between price and cost. DOE evaluated 

these concerns 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 though this scenario does represent 

a reasonable upper bound on the future 

equipment price trend. DOE also 

performed an initial evaluation of the 

possibility of other factors complicating 

the estimation of the long-term price 

trend, and developed a range of 

potential price trend values that were 

consistent with the available data and 

justified by the amount of data available 

to DOE. DOE recognizes that its price 

trend forecasting methods are likely to 

be modified as more data and 

information becomes available to 

enhance the statistical certainty of the 

trend estimate and the completeness of 

the model. Additional data should 

enable an improved evaluation of the 

potential impacts of more of the factors 

that can influence equipment price 

trends over time. 

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—specifically 

annualized net national benefits—on 

different analytical assumptions. DOE 

also included a zero real price trend 

assumption as a sensitivity scenario 

representing an upper bound on the 

forecast price trend DOE found that for 

the selected standard levels the benefits 

outweighed the burdens under all 

scenarios. 

A more detailed discussion of price 

trend modeling and calculations is 

provided in Appendix 8–J of the TSD. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

equipment. For the preliminary 

analysis, DOE derived baseline 

installation costs for clothes dryers and 

room air conditioners from data in the 

RS Means 2008. DOE found no evidence 

that installation costs would be 

impacted with increased efficiency 

levels. Commenting on DOE’s 

assumption, Whirlpool stated that heat 

pump dryers would be considerably 

heavier than conventional dryers, 

leading to increased installation costs. 

(Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) AHAM made 

a similar comment. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21.4 at pp. 

89–90) 

For the final rule analysis, DOE 

included an additional installation cost 

for heat pump dryers due to their larger 

dimensions and weight. DOE added 0.5 

hour of additional labor (or about $20) 

to the installation cost. For room air 

conditioners, DOE also added additional 

labor hours for higher efficiency 

equipment with significant larger 

dimensions and/or weight based on RS 

Means labor hour estimates for room air 

conditioners with different capacities. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each sampled household, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

a clothes dryer or room air conditioner 

at different efficiency levels using the 

approach described above in section 

IV.E. 

4. Energy Prices 

For clothes dryers, DOE derived 

average annual energy prices for 13 

geographic areas consisting of the nine 

U.S. Census divisions, with four large 

states (New York, Florida, Texas, and 

California) treated separately. For 

Census divisions containing one of 

these large states, DOE calculated the 

regional average excluding the data for 

the large state. 

DOE calculated average residential 

electricity prices for each of the 13 

geographic areas using data from EIA’s 

Form EIA–861 Database (based on 

‘‘Annual Electric Power Industry 

Report’’).45 DOE calculated an average 

annual regional residential price by: (1) 

Estimating an average residential price 

for each utility (by dividing the 

residential revenues by residential 

sales); and (2) weighting each utility by 

the number of residential consumers it 

served in that region. For the 

preliminary TSD, DOE used the data for 

2007. The final rule analysis updated 

the data for 2008, the most recent data 

available. 

DOE calculated average residential 

natural gas prices for each of the 13 

geographic areas using data from EIA’s 

‘‘Natural Gas Monthly.’’ 46 DOE 

calculated average annual regional 

residential prices by: (1) Estimating an 

average residential price for each state; 

and (2) weighting each state by the 

number of residential consumers. For 

the preliminary TSD, DOE used EIA 

data for 2007. The final rule analysis 

updated the data for 2009, the most 

recent data available. 

For the preliminary analysis, for room 

air conditioners DOE used utility tariff 

data to develop monthly marginal 

electricity prices for each sample 

household used in the LCC analysis. 

The marginal prices were calculated by 

taking account of the difference between 

the household’s electricity expenditures 

for the base case electricity use and for 

a candidate standard level, in 

combination with the associated change 

in energy use expected as a result of a 

particular standard level. The price used 

was based on the default (non-TOU) 

tariffs, because TOU tariffs are optional 

and very few customers opt for such 

rates. DOE then applied the monthly 

prices to the estimated electricity use by 

the room air conditioner in each 

corresponding month. This approach 

applies summer rates to the estimated 

consumption in summer months. DOE 

also used tariff data to develop marginal 

electricity prices for each commercial 

building in the LCC sample. DOE used 

the same approach for today’s final rule. 

5. Energy Price Projections 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years for the preliminary TSD, DOE 

multiplied the above average regional 

energy prices by the forecast of annual 

average residential energy price changes 

in the Reference Case from 

AEO2009.47 AEO2009 forecasted prices 

through 2030. For today’s proposed 

rule, DOE updated its energy price 

forecasts using AEO2010, which has an 

end year of 2035.48 To estimate the price 

trends after 2035, DOE used the average 

annual rate of change in prices from 

2020 to 2035. 

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing components that 

have failed in the appliance, whereas 

maintenance costs are associated with 

maintaining the operation of the 

equipment. In its preliminary analysis, 

DOE did not have information 

suggesting that these costs would 

change with higher efficiency levels. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22514 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

49Available at: http:// 

rsmeans.reedconstructiondata.com/60300.aspx. 

Commenting on DOE’s approach, 

AHAM stated that repair costs are 

typically estimated using a 1:1 ratio 

with part costs, so if component costs 

increase by 10 percent, repair costs are 

expected to also increase by 10 percent. 

AHAM stated that DOE should 

incorporate these higher repair costs 

into its analysis of clothes dryers and 

room air conditioners to provide a more 

representative evaluation of total 

consumer cost for higher efficiency 

products. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 12) 

For clothes dryers, Whirlpool stated 

that the repair and maintenance costs 

generally do not vary by efficiency, but 

for heat pump dryers, this assumption is 

not valid. Whirlpool stated that new 

technologies such as these would cost 

two to three times more to repair than 

conventional dryers due to their 

complex nature and the cost of 

disconnecting and reconnecting water 

sources. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) 

AHAM stated that maintenance costs 

generally will not vary by efficiency 

level, but a heat pump clothes dryer is 

expected to have higher maintenance 

costs because of the heat pump and the 

addition of refrigerant. AHAM stated 

that maintenance for these units would 

be similar to that for standard air 

conditioning equipment or heat pump 

water heaters. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 11) 

For the final rule analysis, DOE 

modified the maintenance and repair 

costs for both clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners. For clothes dryers, 

DOE derived annualized maintenance 

and repair frequencies based on 

Consumer Reports data on repair and 

maintenance issues for clothes dryers 

during the first 4 years of ownership. 

DOE estimated that on average 1.5 

percent of electric and 1.75 percent of 

gas clothes dryers are maintained or 

repaired each year. Based on RS Means 

Facilities Maintenance & Repair 2010 

Cost Data,49 DOE also estimated that an 

average service call and any necessary 

repair or maintenance takes about 2.5 

hours. DOE further estimated that the 

average material cost is equal to one-half 

of the equipment cost. The values for 

cost per service call were then 

annualized by multiplying by the 

frequencies and dividing by the average 

equipment lifetime of 16 years. 

For room air conditioners, based on 

data on repair frequencies for central air 

conditioners, DOE assumed that repair 

frequencies are low and increase for the 

higher-capacity units due to their more 

expensive equipment cost. DOE 

assumed that 1 percent of small sized 

units (below 6,000 Btu/hr), 2.5 percent 

of medium sized units (8,000 to 14,000 

Btu/hr), and 5 percent of large sized 

units (above 20,000 Btu/hr) are 

maintained or repaired each year. Based 

on the above-cited RS Means data, DOE 

also estimated that an average service 

call and any necessary repair or 

maintenance takes about 1 hour for 

small and medium-sized units and 2 

hours for large units. DOE further 

estimated that the average material cost 

is equal to one-half of the incremental 

equipment cost. The values for cost per 

service call were then annualized by 

multiplying by the frequencies and 

dividing by the average equipment 

lifetime of 10.5 years. 

7. Product Lifetime 

Because the lifetime of appliances 

varies depending on utilization and 

other factors, DOE develops a 

distribution of lifetimes from which 

specific values are assigned to the 

appliances in the samples. In the 

preliminary analysis, DOE conducted an 

analysis of actual lifetime in the field 

using a combination of shipments data, 

the stock of the considered appliances, 

and responses in RECS on the age of the 

appliances in the homes. The data 

allowed DOE to estimate a survival 

function, which provides a distribution 

of lifetimes. This analysis yielded an 

average lifetime of approximately 16 

years for clothes dryers and 

approximately 10.5 years for room air 

conditioners. 

For clothes dryers, the ECOS report 

(prepared for NRDC) stated that the 

typical lifetime of a clothes dryer is 

about 12 years. (NRDC, No. 30 at p. 8) 

AHAM stated that DOE should modify 

average clothes dryer lifetime to 13 

years because both Appliance Magazine 

and confidential industry data support 

that value. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 11) 

Whirlpool stated that Appliance 

Magazine shows 12 years as the 

expected lifetime for clothes dryers, 

which is largely consistent with their 

internal estimates. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at 

p. 5) 

For the final rule analysis, DOE 

retained the approach used to estimate 

clothes dryer lifetime in the preliminary 

analysis because it relies on field data, 

and because the sources used by 

Appliance Magazine and the 

confidential industry data were 

unavailable for analysis by DOE. 

For room air conditioners, AHAM 

stated that the average lifetime of 10.5 

years from the preliminary analysis 

appears reasonable, and is consistent 

with the value of 10 years reported by 

Appliance Magazine. (AHAM, No. 25 at 

p. 11) AHAM stated, however, that there 

could be a very large difference in room 

air conditioner lifetime between product 

classes. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21.4 at p. 126) While 

DOE acknowledges that there may be 

differences in room air conditioner 

lifetime among the product classes, DOE 

continued to use the same lifetime 

distribution for all room air conditioner 

product classes because it is not aware 

of any data that would provide a basis 

for using different lifetimes. 

See chapter 8 of the direct final rule 

TSD for further details on the method 

and sources DOE used to develop 

product lifetimes. 

8. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates to estimate the 

present value of future operating costs. 

DOE estimated a distribution of 

residential discount rates for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners, and 

also estimated a distribution of 

commercial discount rates for 

commercial users of room air 

conditioners. See chapter 8 in the direct 

final rule TSD for further details on the 

development of consumer discount 

rates. 

a. Residential Discount Rates 

In its preliminary analysis, to 

establish residential discount rates for 

the LCC analysis, DOE identified all 

debt or asset classes that might be used 

to purchase refrigeration products, 

including household assets that might 

be affected indirectly. It estimated the 

average percentage shares of the various 

debt or asset classes for the average U.S. 

household using data from the Federal 

Reserve Board’s ‘‘Survey of Consumer 

Finances’’ (SCF) for 1989, 1992, 1995, 

1998, 2001, 2004, and 2007. Using the 

SCF and other sources, DOE then 

developed a distribution of rates for 

each type of debt and asset to represent 

the rates that may apply in the year in 

which amended standards would take 

effect. DOE assigned each sample 

household a specific discount rate 

drawn from one of the distributions. 

The average rate across all types of 

household debt and equity, weighted by 

the shares of each class, is 5.1 percent. 

DOE used the same approach for today’s 

final rule. 

b. Commercial Discount Rates 

In its preliminary analysis, DOE 

derived discount rates for commercialsector customers from the cost of capital 

of publicly-traded firms in the sectors 

that purchase room air conditioners. 

The firms typically finance equipment 

purchases through debt, equity capital, 

or both. DOE estimated the cost of the 

firms’ capital as the weighted average of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22515 

the cost of equity financing and the cost 

of debt financing for recent years for 

which data were available (2001 

through 2008). The estimated average 

discount rate for companies that 

purchase room air conditioners is 5.7 

percent. DOE used the same approach 

for today’s final rule. 

9. Compliance Date of Amended 

Standards 

DOE is required by consent decree to 

publish a final rule establishing any 

amended energy conservation standards 

by June 30, 2011. In the absence of any 

adverse comment on today’s direct final 

rule that may provide a reasonable basis 

for withdrawing the rule, compliance 

with amended standards for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners will be 

required on April 21, 2014. DOE 

calculated the LCC and PBP for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners as if 

consumers would purchase new 

products in the year compliance with 

the standard is required. If adverse 

comment that may provide a reasonable 

basis for withdrawing the rule is 

received, DOE will proceed with the 

NOPR published elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register, and compliance with 

any amended standards would be 

required 3 years after the date of 

publication of any final standards. As 

noted above, DOE is required by consent 

decree to publish a final rule 

establishing any amended standards by 

June 30, 2011. 

10. Base Case Efficiency Distribution 

To accurately estimate the share of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

standard at a particular efficiency level, 

DOE’s LCC analysis considered the 

projected distribution of product 

efficiencies that consumers purchase 

under the base case (that is, the case 

without new energy efficiency 

standards). DOE refers to this 

distribution of product of efficiencies as 

a base-case efficiency distribution. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

primarily relied on data submitted by 

AHAM to estimate the efficiency 

distributions in recent years for each of 

the product classes that were analyzed 

in the LCC and PBP analysis. DOE 

assumed that these market shares would 

remain constant through 2014. 

Whirlpool supported DOE’s approach to 

forecast base-case market shares. 

(Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 5) 

For the final rule analysis, DOE 

retained the approach used in the 

preliminary analysis for clothes dryers. 

For room air conditioners, however, 

DOE modified its approach for 

estimating base-case efficiency 

distributions for the final rule analysis 

based on historical trends of penetration 

of ENERGY STAR models. DOE believes 

that this data support a constant growth 

rate of energy efficiency of 0.25 percent 

per year. For further information on 

DOE’s estimate of base-case efficiency 

distributions, see chapter 8 of the direct 

final rule TSD. 

11. Inputs To Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time it takes the consumer to recover the 

additional installed cost of more 

efficient products, compared to baseline 

products, through energy cost savings. 

The simple payback period does not 

account for changes in operating 

expense over time or the time value of 

money. Payback periods are expressed 

in years. Payback periods that exceed 

the life of the product mean that the 

increased total installed cost is not 

recovered in reduced operating 

expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation are 

the total installed cost of the equipment 

to the customer for each efficiency level 

and the average annual operating 

expenditures for each efficiency level. 

The PBP calculation uses the same 

inputs as the LCC analysis, except that 

discount rates are not used. 

12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

As noted above, EPCA, as amended, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

(and, as applicable, water) savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the test procedure 

in place for that standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered 

efficiency level, DOE determined the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

by calculating the quantity of those 

savings in accordance with the 

applicable DOE test procedure, and 

multiplying that amount by the average 

energy price forecast for the year in 

which compliance with the amended 

standard would be required. The results 

of the rebuttable payback period 

analysis are summarized in section 

V.B.1.c of this notice. 

G. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

The NIA assesses the national energy 

savings (NES) and the NPV of total 

consumer costs and savings that would 

be expected to result from new or 

amended standards at specific efficiency 

levels. (‘‘Consumer’’ in this context 

refers to consumers of the product being 

regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and 

NPV based on projections of annual 

appliance shipments, along with the 

annual energy consumption and total 

installed cost data from the energy use 

and LCC analyses. For the final rule 

analysis, DOE forecasted the energy 

savings, operating cost savings, product 

costs, and NPV of consumer benefits for 

products sold from 2014 through 2043. 

DOE evaluates the impacts of new and 

amended standards by comparing basecase projections with standards-case 

projections. The base-case projections 

characterize energy use and consumer 

costs for each product class in the 

absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE compares 

these projections with projections 

characterizing the market for each 

product class if DOE adopted new or 

amended standards at specific energy 

efficiency levels (that is, the TSLs or 

standards cases) for that class. For the 

base case forecast, DOE considers 

historical trends in efficiency and 

various forces that are likely to affect the 

mix of efficiencies over time. For the 

standards cases, DOE also considers 

how a given standard would likely 

affect the market shares of efficiencies 

greater than the standard. 

DOE uses an MS Excel spreadsheet 

model to calculate the energy savings 

and the national consumer costs and 

savings from each TSL. The direct final 

rule TSD and other documentation that 

DOE provides during the rulemaking 

help explain the models and how to use 

them, and interested parties can review 

DOE’s analyses by changing various 

input quantities within the spreadsheet. 

The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical 

values as inputs (as opposed to 

probability distributions). 

For the current analysis, the NIA used 

projections of energy prices and housing 

starts from the AEO2010 Reference case. 

In addition, DOE analyzed scenarios 

that used inputs from the AEO2010 Low 

Economic Growth and High Economic 

Growth cases. These cases have higher 

and lower energy price trends compared 

to the Reference case, as well as higher 

and lower housing starts, which result 

in higher and lower appliance 

shipments to new homes. NIA results 

based on these cases are presented in 

appendix 10–A of the direct final rule 

TSD. 

Table IV–32 summarizes the inputs 

and key assumptions DOE used for the 

NIA analysis for the preliminary 

analysis and the changes to the analyses 

for the direct final rule. Discussion of 

these inputs and changes follows the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22516 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

table. See chapter 10 of the direct final 

rule TSD for further details. 

TABLE IV.32—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs Preliminary TSD Changes for the proposed rule 

Shipments ........................................................... Annual shipments from shipments model ....... No change in approach. 

Compliance Date of Standard ............................ 2014 ................................................................. No change. 

Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies ................... For clothes dryers and room air conditioners, 

efficiency distributions are maintained unchanged during the forecast period.

For clothes dryers, no change in basic approach; modified efficiency distributions 

based on new information. For room air 

conditioners, used an efficiency trend based 

on historical market data. 

Standards-Case Forecasted Efficiencies ........... For clothes dryers and air conditioners, used 

a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario.

For clothes dryers, no change in basic approach; modified efficiency distributions 

based on new information. For room air 

conditioners, used a ‘‘roll-up + shift’’ scenario to establish the distribution of efficiencies. 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ................ Annual weighted-average values as a function 

of CEF * (clothes dryers) and SWCEER * * 

(room air conditioners).

No change. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit ............................... Annual weighted-average values as a function 

of CEF * (clothes dryers) and SWCEER * * 

(room air conditioners).

No change. 

Annual Energy Cost per Unit ............................. Annual weighted-average values as a function 

of the annual energy consumption per unit 

and energy prices.

No change. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit .............. Annual values as a function of efficiency level No change. 

Energy Prices ..................................................... AEO2009 forecasts (to 2035) and extrapolation through 2043.Updated using AEO2010 forecasts. 

Energy Site-to-Source Conversion Factor ......... Varies yearly and is generated by NEMS–BT No change. 

Discount Rate ..................................................... Three and seven percent real ......................... No change. 

Present Year ...................................................... Future expenses discounted to 2011, when 

the final rule is published.

No change. 

* Combined Energy Factor 

* * Shipments-Weighted (stand by) Combined Energy Efficiency Ratio. 

1. Shipments 

Forecasts of product shipments are 

needed to calculate the national impacts 

of standards on energy use, NPV, and 

future manufacturer cash flows. DOE 

develops shipment forecasts based on 

an analysis of key market drivers for 

each considered product. In DOE’s 

shipments model, shipments of 

products are driven by new 

construction, stock replacements, and 

other types of purchases. The shipments 

models take an accounting approach, 

tracking market shares of each product 

class and the vintage of units in the 

existing stock. Stock accounting uses 

product shipments as inputs to estimate 

the age distribution of in-service 

product stocks for all years. The age 

distribution of in-service product stocks 

is a key input to calculations of both the 

NES and NPV, because operating costs 

for any year depend on the age 

distribution of the stock. DOE also 

considers the impacts on shipments 

from changes in product purchase price 

and operating cost associated with 

higher energy efficiency levels. 

Commenting on the preliminary 

analysis, Whirlpool stated that clothes 

dryer base case shipments will not grow 

linearly as DOE assumes. Clothes dryers 

are a highly saturated product today, 

and homes without dryers are generally 

multi-family units that lack sufficient 

space for these products. Whirlpool 

stated that saturation of clothes dryers 

will not change. Hence, growth in this 

product category cannot exceed the 

growth of the housing stock. (Whirlpool, 

No. 22 at p. 7) 

For the final rule analysis, DOE 

reviewed its approach for forecasting 

dryer purchases for first-time owners, 

which include consumers that currently 

do not have a dryer and consumers in 

new homes who purchase a dryer. To 

better account for constraints on 

purchase, such as those mentioned by 

Whirlpool, DOE reduced its estimate of 

the number of purchases by first-time 

owners. As a result, its forecast for the 

final rule analysis shows shipments 

growing more slowly over the forecast 

period (an average of 0.8 percent per 

year) than in the forecast in the 

preliminary analysis. The average 

growth rate of 0.8 percent is slightly less 

than the average annual growth rate in 

the number of households projected in 

AEO2010 (1.0 percent in 2008–2035). 

To estimate the effects on product 

shipments from increases in product 

price projected to accompany amended 

standards at higher efficiency levels, 

DOE applied a price elasticity 

parameter. It estimated this parameter 

with a regression analysis that used 

purchase price and efficiency data 

specific to residential refrigerators, 

clothes washers, and dishwashers over 

the period 1980–2002. The estimated 

‘‘relative price elasticity’’ incorporates 

the impacts from purchase price, 

operating cost, and household income, 

and it also declines over time. DOE 

estimated shipments in each standards 

case using the relative price elasticity 

along with the change in the relative 

price between a standards case and the 

base case. 

For details on the shipments analysis, 

see chapter 9 of the direct final rule 

TSD. 

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case 

and Standards Cases 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency forecasted for 

the base case (without new or amended 

standards) and each of the standards 

cases. Section IV.F.10 described how 

DOE developed a base-case energy 

efficiency distribution (which yields a 

shipment-weighted average efficiency) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22517 

50The National Academies, Board on Energy and 

Environmental Systems, Letter to Dr. John Mizroch, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, U.S. DOE, Office of 

EERE from James W. Dally, Chair, Committee on 

Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement 

Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards, May 

15, 2009. 

for each of the considered product 

classes for the first year of the forecast 

period. To project the trend in efficiency 

over the entire forecast period, DOE 

considered recent trends and programs 

such as ENERGY STAR. For clothes 

dryers, DOE assumed no improvement 

of energy efficiency in the base case and 

held the base-case energy efficiency 

distribution constant throughout the 

forecast period. For room air 

conditioners, DOE applied a constant 

growth rate of energy efficiency of 0.25 

percent per year, based on historical 

trends of penetration of ENERGY STAR 

products. 

To estimate efficiency trends in the 

standards cases, DOE has used ‘‘roll-up’’ 

and/or ‘‘shift’’ scenarios in its standards 

rulemakings. Under the roll-up scenario, 

DOE assumes: (1) Product efficiencies in 

the base case that do not meet the 

standard level under consideration 

would roll-up to meet the new standard 

level; and (2) product efficiencies above 

the standard level under consideration 

would not be affected. Under the shift 

scenario, DOE re-orients the distribution 

above the new minimum energy 

conservation standard. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE used 

a roll-up scenario in developing its 

forecasts of efficiency trends in the 

standards cases. The California Utilities 

stated that DOE should consider a ‘‘rollup and market shift’’ scenario for room 

air conditioners in standards cases 

because, if the ENERGY STAR level is 

revised above the new standard, it may 

create a market incentive that increases 

the share of higher efficiency products. 

(California Utilities, No. 31 at p. 19) 

DOE agrees that amended standards 

for room air conditioners would likely 

result in changes to ENERGY STAR 

levels that would increase the share of 

products with energy efficiency above 

the standard based on the historical data 

reviewed for room air conditioners. 

Therefore, for the final rule analysis, 

DOE applied a ‘‘roll-up and shift’’ 

scenario that accounts for such increase 

in share. For clothes dryers, DOE 

retained the approach used in the 

preliminary analysis for the final rule. 

For further details about the forecasted 

efficiency distributions, see chapter 10 

of the direct final rule TSD. 

3. National Energy Savings 

For each year in the forecast period, 

DOE calculates the NES for each 

standard level by multiplying the stock 

of equipment affected by the energy 

conservation standards by the per-unit 

annual energy savings. As discussed in 

section IV.E, DOE incorporated the 

rebound effect utilized in the energy use 

analysis into its calculation of national 

energy savings for room air 

conditioners. 

To estimate the national energy 

savings expected from appliance 

standards, DOE uses a multiplicative 

factor to convert site energy 

consumption (at the home or 

commercial building) into primary or 

source energy consumption (the energy 

required to convert and deliver the site 

energy). These conversion factors 

account for the energy used at power 

plants to generate electricity and losses 

in transmission and distribution, as well 

as for natural gas losses from pipeline 

leakage and energy used for pumping. 

For electricity, the conversion factors 

vary over time due to projected changes 

in generation sources (that is, the power 

plant types projected to provide 

electricity to the country). The factors 

that DOE developed are marginal 

values, which represent the response of 

the system to an incremental decrease in 

consumption associated with appliance 

standards. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE used 

annual site-to-source conversion factors 

based on the version of NEMS that 

corresponds to AEO2009. For today’s 

rule, DOE updated its conversion factors 

based on the NEMS that corresponds to 

AEO2010, which provides energy 

forecasts through 2035. For 2036–2043, 

DOE used conversion factors that 

remain constant at the 2035 values. 

Section 1802 of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 (EPACT 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 FullFuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to 

Energy Efficiency Standards’’ to conduct 

the study, which was completed in May 

2009. The NAS committee defined fullfuel-cycle energy consumption as 

including, in addition to site energy use, 

the following: energy consumed in the 

extraction, processing, and transport of 

primary fuels such as coal, oil, and 

natural gas; energy losses in thermal 

combustion in power generation plants; 

and energy losses in transmission and 

distribution to homes and commercial 

buildings.50

In evaluating the merits of using 

point-of-use and full-fuel-cycle 

measures, 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. 

The NAS committee also recommended 

that DOE provide more comprehensive 

information to the public through labels 

and other means, such as an enhanced 

Web site. For those appliances that use 

multiple fuels (such as water heaters), 

the NAS committee indicated that 

measuring full-fuel-cycle energy 

consumption would provide a more 

complete picture of energy consumed 

and permit comparisons across many 

different appliances, as well as an 

improved assessment of impacts. 

In response to the NAS committee 

recommendations, DOE issued, on 

August 20, 2010 a Notice of Proposed 

Policy proposing to incorporate a fullfuel cycle analysis into the methods it 

uses to estimate the likely impacts of 

energy conservation standards on 

energy use and emissions. FR 75 51423. 

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. 

Additionally, DOE proposed to work 

collaboratively with the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) to make FFC energy 

and GHG emissions data available to the 

public to enable consumers to make 

cross-class comparisons. On October 

7th, DOE held an informal public 

meeting to discuss and receive 

comments on its planned approach. The 

Notice, a transcript of the public 

meeting and all public comments 

received by DOE are available at: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22518 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

51OMB Circular A–4 (Sept. 17, 2003), section E, 

‘‘Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs. 

Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

memoranda/m03-21.html. 

http://www.regulations.gov/search/ 

Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=EERE2010-BT-NOA-0028. DOE intends to 

develop a final policy statement on 

these subjects and then take steps to 

begin implementing that policy in 

future rulemakings and other activities. 

4. Net Present Value of Consumer 

Benefit 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers of the 

considered appliances are: (1) Total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

savings in operating costs, and (3) a 

discount factor. DOE calculates net 

savings each year as the difference 

between the base case and each 

standards case in total savings in 

operating costs and total increases in 

installed costs. DOE calculates operating 

cost savings over the life of each 

product shipped in the forecast period. 

DOE multiplies the net savings in 

future years by a discount factor to 

determine their present value. For the 

preliminary analysis and today’s final 

rule, DOE estimated the NPV of 

appliance consumer benefits using both 

a 3-percent and a 7-percent real 

discount rate. DOE uses these discount 

rates in accordance with guidance 

provided by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies 

on the development of regulatory 

analysis.51 The 7-percent real value is 

an estimate of the average before-tax rate 

of return to private capital in the U.S. 

economy. The 3-percent real value 

represents the ‘‘societal rate of time 

preference,’’ which is the rate at which 

society discounts future consumption 

flows to their present value. 

As noted above, DOE is accounting for 

the rebound effect associated with more 

efficient room air conditioners in its 

determination of national energy 

savings. The take-back in energy 

consumption associated with the 

rebound effect provides consumers with 

increased value (that is, a cooler or 

warmer indoor environment). The net 

impact on consumers is thus the sum of 

the change in the cost of owning the 

room air conditioner (that is, life-cycle 

cost) and the increased value for the 

more comfortable indoor environment. 

The consumer effectively pays for the 

increased value of a more comfortable 

environment in his or her utility bill. 

Because the monetary cost of this added 

value is equivalent to the value of the 

foregone energy savings, the economic 

impacts on consumers, as measured in 

the NPV are the same regardless of the 

rebound effect. 

5. Benefits From Effects of Standards on 

Energy Prices 

Reduction in electricity consumption 

associated with amended standards for 

clothes dryers and room air conditioners 

could reduce the electricity prices 

charged to consumers in all sectors of 

the economy and thereby reduce their 

electricity expenditures. In chapter 2 of 

the preliminary TSD, DOE explained 

that, because the power industry is a 

complex mix of fuel and equipment 

suppliers, electricity producers and 

distributors, it did not plan to estimate 

the value of potentially reduced 

electricity costs for all consumers 

associated with amended standards for 

refrigeration products. In response, 

NEEP urged DOE to quantify electricity 

demand reductions achieved by these 

updated standards in financial terms. 

(NEEP, No. 27 at p. 1) 

For this rule, DOE used NEMS–BT to 

assess the impacts of the reduced need 

for new electric power plants and 

infrastructure projected to result from 

standards. In NEMS–BT, changes in 

power generation infrastructure affect 

utility revenue requirements, which in 

turn affect electricity prices. DOE 

estimated the impact on electricity 

prices associated with each considered 

TSL. Although the aggregate benefits for 

electricity users are potentially large, 

there may be negative effects on some of 

the actors involved in electricity supply, 

particularly power plant providers and 

fuel suppliers. Because there is 

uncertainty about the extent to which 

the benefits for electricity users from 

reduced electricity prices would be a 

transfer from actors involved in 

electricity supply to electricity 

consumers, DOE has concluded that, at 

present, it should not give a heavy 

weight to this factor in its consideration 

of the economic justification of new or 

amended standards. DOE is continuing 

to investigate the extent to which 

electricity price changes projected to 

result from standards represent a net 

gain to society. 

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended standards on 

consumers, DOE evaluates the impact 

on identifiable subgroups of consumers 

(such as low-income households) that 

may be disproportionately affected by a 

national standard. DOE evaluates 

impacts on particular subgroups of 

consumers primarily by analyzing the 

LCC impacts and PBP for those 

particular consumers from alternative 

standard levels. For this rule, DOE 

analyzed the impacts of the considered 

standard levels on low-income 

consumers and senior citizens. Section 

V.B.1.b summarizes the results of the 

consumer subgroup analysis, and 

chapter 11 in the direct final rule TSD 

describes the analysis method. 

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

The following sections address the 

various steps taken to analyze the 

impacts of the amended standards on 

manufacturers. These steps include 

conducting a series of analyses, 

interviewing manufacturers, and 

evaluating the comments received from 

interested parties during this 

rulemaking. 

1. Overview 

In determining whether an amended 

energy conservation standard for 

residential clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners subject to this rulemaking 

is economically justified, DOE is 

required to consider ‘‘the economic 

impact of the standard on the 

manufacturers and on the consumers of 

the products subject to such standard.’’ 

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

also calls for an assessment of the 

impact of any lessening of competition 

as determined by the Attorney General 

that is likely to result from the adoption 

of a standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) DOE conducted the 

MIA to estimate the financial impact of 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of clothes dryers and 

room air conditioners, and to assess the 

impacts of such standards on 

employment and manufacturing 

capacity. 

The MIA is both a quantitative and 

qualitative analysis. The quantitative 

part of the MIA relies on the 

Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(GRIM), an industry cash-flow model 

customized for the clothes dryer and 

room air conditioners covered in this 

rulemaking. See section IV.I.2 below, for 

details on the GRIM analysis. The 

qualitative part of the MIA addresses 

factors such as product characteristics, 

characteristics of particular firms, and 

market trends. The qualitative 

discussion also includes an assessment 

of the impacts of standards on 

manufacturer subgroups. The complete 

MIA is discussed in chapter 12 of the 

direct final rule TSD. DOE conducted 

the MIA in the three phases described 

below. 

a. Phase 1, Industry Profile 

In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a profile of the clothes dryers and room 

air conditioner industries based on the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22519 

52Available online at http://www.sec.gov. 

53Available online at http:// 

www2.standardandpoors.com. 

market and technology assessment 

prepared for this rulemaking. Before 

initiating the detailed impact studies, 

DOE collected information on the 

present and past structure and market 

characteristics of each industry. This 

information included market share data, 

product shipments, manufacturer 

markups, and the cost structure for 

various manufacturers. The industry 

profile includes: (1) Further detail on 

the overall market and product 

characteristics; (2) estimated 

manufacturer market shares; 

(3) financial parameters such as net 

plant, property, and equipment; selling, 

general and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses; cost of goods sold, and other 

similar information; and (4) trends in 

the number of firms, market, and 

product characteristics. The industry 

profile included a top-down cost 

analysis of manufacturers in each 

industry that DOE used to derive 

preliminary financial inputs for the 

GRIM (such as revenues, depreciation, 

SG&A, and research and development 

(R&D) expenses). DOE also used public 

sources of information to further 

calibrate its initial characterization of 

each industry, including Security and 

Exchange Commission 10–K filings,52

Standard & Poor’s stock reports,53 and 

corporate annual reports. DOE 

supplemented this public information 

with data released by privately held 

companies. 

b. Phase 2, Industry Cash Flow Analysis 

Phase 2 focused on the financial 

impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on each industry 

as a whole. Amended energy 

conservation standards can affect 

manufacturer cash flows in three 

distinct ways: (1) By creating a need for 

increased investment, (2) by raising 

production costs per unit, and (3) by 

altering revenue due to higher per-unit 

prices and/or possible changes in sales 

volumes. DOE used the GRIMs to 

perform two cash-flow analyses: One for 

the clothes dryers industry and one for 

room air conditioners. In performing 

these analyses, DOE used the financial 

values derived during Phase 1 and the 

shipment assumptions from the NIA. 

c. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop an industry-cash-flow estimate 

may not adequately assess differential 

impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards among 

manufacturer subgroups. For example, 

small manufacturers, niche players, or 

manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure that differs significantly from 

the industry average could be more 

negatively affected. To address this 

possible impact, DOE used the results of 

the industry characterization analysis in 

Phase 1 to group manufacturers that 

exhibit similar production and cost 

structure characteristics. During the 

manufacturer interviews, DOE 

discussed financial topics specific to 

each manufacturer and obtained each 

manufacturer’s view of the industry as 

a whole. 

DOE reports the MIA impacts of 

amended energy conservation standards 

by grouping together the impacts on 

manufacturers of certain product 

classes. While DOE did not identify any 

other subgroup of manufacturers of 

clothes dryers or room air conditioners 

that would warrant a separate analysis, 

DOE specifically investigated impacts 

on small business manufacturers. See 

section VI.B for more information. 

2. GRIM Analysis 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flow that result in a 

higher or lower industry value. The 

GRIM analysis is a standard, annual 

cash-flow analysis that incorporates 

manufacturer costs, manufacturer 

selling prices, shipments, and industry 

financial information as inputs, and 

models changes in costs, distribution of 

shipments, investments, and 

manufacturer margins that would result 

from amended energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM spreadsheet uses 

the inputs to arrive at a series of annual 

cash flows, beginning with the base year 

of the analysis, 2011 (which accounts 

for the investments needed to bring 

products into compliance by 2014), and 

continuing to 2043. DOE calculated 

INPVs by summing the stream of annual 

discounted cash flows during this 

period. For clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, DOE uses a real discount 

rate of 7.2 percent for all products. 

DOE used the GRIM to calculate cash 

flows using standard accounting 

principles and to compare changes in 

INPV between a base case and various 

TSLs (the standards cases). The 

difference in INPV between the base and 

standards cases represents the financial 

impact of the amended standard on 

manufacturers. DOE collected this 

information from a number of sources, 

including publicly available data and 

interviews with a number of 

manufacturers (described in the next 

section). Additional details about the 

GRIM can be found in chapter 12 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

a. GRIM Key Inputs 

Manufacturer Production Costs 

DOE used the manufacturer 

production costs (MPCs) calculated in 

the engineering analysis for each 

efficiency level for the year 2009, as 

described in section IV.C above, and 

further detailed in chapter 5 of the 

direct final rule TSD. For both clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners, DOE 

calculated the 2009 MPCs using cost 

models based on product tear downs. 

The cost models also provide a 

breakdown of MPCs into material, labor, 

overhead, and depreciation. 

Manufacturing a higher-efficiency 

product is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing a baseline product 

due to the use of more complex 

components and higher-cost raw 

materials. The changes in the MPCs of 

the analyzed products can affect 

revenues, gross margins, and cash flow 

of the industry, making these product 

cost data key GRIM inputs for DOE’s 

analysis. 

Base-Case Shipments Forecast 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues based on total unit shipment 

forecasts and the distribution of these 

values by efficiency level. Changes in 

the efficiency mix at each standard level 

affect manufacturer finances. For this 

analysis, the GRIM uses the NIA 

shipments forecasts from 2011 to 2043, 

the end of the analysis period. 

In the shipments analysis, DOE also 

estimated the distribution of efficiencies 

in the base case for all product classes. 

For clothes dryers, DOE held the basecase energy efficiency distribution 

constant throughout the forecast period. 

For the room air conditioner industry, 

DOE assumed a migration of the market 

toward higher efficiency over time. See 

section IV.G.1, above, for additional 

details. 

Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

Amended energy conservation 

standards will cause manufacturers to 

incur conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and product 

designs into compliance. For the MIA, 

DOE classified these costs into two 

major groups: (1) Product conversion 

costs and (2) capital conversion costs. 

Product conversion costs are 

investments in research, development, 

testing, marketing, and other noncapitalized costs focused on making 

product designs comply with the 

amended energy conservation standard. 

Capital conversion costs are investments 

in property, plant, and equipment to 

adapt or change existing production 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22520 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

facilities so that new product designs 

can be fabricated and assembled. 

For both clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, DOE based its conversion 

cost estimates that would be required to 

meet each TSL on information obtained 

from manufacturer interviews, the 

design pathways analyzed in the 

engineering analysis, and market 

information about the number of 

products that would require 

modification at each efficiency level. 

Because no energy label is currently 

prescribed for clothes dryers, and 

because clothes dryers are not part of 

the ENERGY STAR program, the best 

source of clothes dryer efficiency 

information is the CEC product 

database. DOE segmented each product 

on the CEC Web site into its appropriate 

product class using energy source, drum 

capacity, voltage, and combination unit 

information. DOE then searched 

manufacturer Web sites and numerous 

retail Web sites to determine which 

clothes dryers were current products. 

DOE assigned each product currently 

produced into efficiency levels using 

the reported energy factor. Finally, DOE 

assigned each of these products into 

product lines, classifying each group of 

products made by same manufacturer 

with identical drum capacities and 

energy factors into the same product 

line. 

DOE calculated the product and 

capital conversion costs at each 

efficiency level for every product class 

by multiplying the total number of 

product lines that fell below the 

required efficiency by an estimate of the 

conversion costs to reach that efficiency 

level. DOE calculated the total product 

development required at each efficiency 

level by estimating the necessary 

engineering resources required to 

implement the design options in the 

engineering analysis at the efficiency 

level across a product line. DOE 

calculated the total capital conversion 

costs required at each efficiency level by 

estimating the additional equipment 

and changes to existing equipment that 

would be required to implement the 

design option in the engineering 

analysis at that efficiency level across a 

product line. 

While DOE’s calculation of 

conversion costs for room air 

conditioners was similar to the 

calculation of conversion costs for 

clothes dryers, DOE used a slightly 

different approach to determine the 

number of product lines at each 

efficiency level. DOE used the CEC 

appliance database to determine what 

models currently exist on the market for 

room air conditioners and verified these 

current products through manufacturer 

and retail Web sites. DOE eliminated 

products in the database that were 

discontinued due to the recent 

refrigerant switch to R–410A. DOE 

segmented each product from the CEC 

database into its appropriate product 

class using cooling capacity, the 

existence of louvers, and type of room 

air conditioner. DOE assigned each 

product currently produced into 

efficiency levels using the reported EER. 

Finally, DOE determined a 

representative distribution of the 

industry by extrapolating the 

information for manufacturers for which 

it had complete efficiency information 

to account for the product lines of all 

manufacturers. 

Like its method for clothes dryers, 

DOE calculated the industry wide 

conversion costs by multiplying the 

number of product lines in each product 

class that fell below the required 

efficiency by its estimate of the product 

and capital conversion costs. DOE’s 

estimate was based on the design 

options at each efficiency level in the 

engineering analysis. DOE’s per line 

product conversion costs were 

calculated by estimating the product 

development time required to make the 

design change across a product family. 

For component switch outs, DOE 

assumed that design changes for 

components that interacted with other 

parts of the room air conditioner would 

be more costly than one-for-one switch 

outs because these components would 

require greater engineering effort to be 

adapted into new product designs. For 

capital conversion costs, DOE assumed 

based on manufacturer feedback that the 

only design changes that would require 

changes to existing equipment were 

larger chassis volumes, evaporator 

changes, and condenser changes. 

DOE’s estimates of the total capital 

conversion and production conversion 

costs for clothes dryer and room air 

conditioners by TSL can be found in 

section V.B.2 of today’s direct final rule. 

The estimates of the total capital 

conversion and product conversion 

costs by product class and efficiency 

level can be found in chapter 12 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

b. GRIM Scenarios 

Clothes Dryer Standards-Case Shipment 

Forecasts 

The GRIM used the shipments 

developed in the NIA for clothes dryers. 

To determine efficiency distributions for 

the standards case, DOE used a roll-up 

scenario. In this scenario, products that 

fall below the amended energy 

conservation standard are assumed to 

‘‘roll-up’’ to the new standard in 2014. 

DOE also assumed there was a relative 

price elasticity in the clothes dryers 

market, meaning amended energy 

conservation standards that increase the 

first cost of clothes dryers would result 

in lower total shipments. See section 

IV.G.1 of this direct final rule, and 

chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD 

for more information on the clothes 

dryer standards-case shipment 

scenarios. 

Room Air Conditioner Standards-Case 

Shipment Forecasts 

The GRIM used the shipments 

developed in the NIA for room air 

conditioners. As stated in IV.I.2.a, the 

base case shipments assume that there 

is a migration over time to more 

efficient products based on historical 

trends of penetration of ENERGY STAR 

products. In the standards case, DOE 

used a ‘‘roll-up + shift’’ scenario. In this 

scenario, DOE assumed that amended 

standards for room air conditioners 

would likely result in changes to 

ENERGY STAR levels that would 

increase the share of products with 

energy efficiency above the standard. 

DOE also assumed there was a relative 

price elasticity in the room air 

conditioner market, meaning that 

amended energy conservation standards 

that increase the first cost of room air 

conditioners would result in lower total 

shipments. See section IV.G.1 of this 

direct final rule and chapter 10 of the 

direct final rule TSD for more 

information on the room air conditioner 

standards-case shipment scenarios. 

Markup Scenarios 

In the GRIM, DOE used the MSPs 

calculated in the engineering analysis 

for each product class and efficiency 

level. MSPs include direct 

manufacturing production costs (that is, 

labor, material, and overhead estimated 

in DOE’s MPCs) and all non-production 

costs (that is, SG&A, R&D, and interest), 

along with profit. For clothes dryers, 

DOE did not separate shipping costs 

from the manufacturer markup because 

shipping costs are not a function of the 

design options analyzed. The MSP for 

clothes dryers is equal to the MPC times 

the manufacturer markup. For room air 

conditioners, DOE separated the 

shipping costs from the markup 

multiplier for the analysis to explicitly 

account for the design options that 

would result in higher shipping costs 

due to weight increases. DOE calculated 

the MSP for room air conditioners by 

multiplying the MPC by the 

manufacturer markup and adding 

shipping costs. 

For the MIA, DOE modeled two 

standards-case markup scenarios to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22521 

represent the uncertainty regarding the 

potential impacts on prices and 

profitability for manufacturers following 

the implementation of amended energy 

conservation standards: (1) A flat 

markup scenario, and (2) a preservation 

of operation profit scenario. Modifying 

these markups from the base case to the 

standards cases yields different sets of 

impacts on manufacturers’ changing 

industry revenue and cash flow. 

The flat markup scenario assumes that 

the cost of goods sold for each product 

is marked up by a flat percentage to 

cover standard SG&A expenses, R&D 

expenses, and profit. The flat markup 

scenario uses the baseline manufacturer 

markup (discussed in chapter 6 of the 

direct final rule TSD) for all products in 

both the base case and the standards 

case. To derive this percentage, DOE 

evaluated publicly available financial 

information for manufacturers of major 

household appliances whose product 

offerings include clothes dryers and 

room air conditioners. DOE also 

requested feedback on this value during 

manufacturer interviews. This scenario 

represents the upper bound of industry 

profitability in the standards case 

because under this scenario, 

manufacturers are able to fully pass 

through additional costs due to 

standards to their customers. 

DOE also modeled a lower bound 

profitability scenario. In this scenario, 

the manufacturer markups are lowered 

such that, in the standards case, 

manufacturers are able to maintain only 

the base-case total operating profit in 

absolute dollars, despite higher product 

costs and investment. DOE 

implemented this scenario in GRIM by 

lowering the manufacturer markups at 

each TSL to yield approximately the 

same earnings before interest and taxes 

in the standards case in the year after 

the compliance date of the amended 

standards as in the base case. For 

clothes dryers in the preservation of 

operating profit scenario, DOE assumed 

that the industry wide impacts would 

occur under the new minimum 

efficiency levels. DOE altered the 

markups only for the minimally 

compliant products in this scenario, 

with margin impacts not occurring for 

products that already exceed the 

amended energy conservation standard. 

For room air conditioners, DOE 

assumed that the margin impacts would 

affect the minimally compliant products 

at the amended energy conservation 

standards and the next highest 

efficiency level. The NIA analyzed an 

efficiency migration in both the base 

case and the standards case due to the 

assumption that manufacturers will 

produce increasingly more efficient 

room air conditioners as ENERGY STAR 

levels for these products change over 

time. Therefore, under amended energy 

conservation standards the shipment 

weighted average efficiency increases 

from the new minimum standard to 

higher efficiency levels. DOE assumed 

this market shift caused by standards 

would impact margins on products that 

also become the de facto minimally 

efficient product over time. For both 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, the preservation of 

operating profit represents the lower 

bound of industry profitability 

following amended energy conservation 

standards because under this scenario, 

higher production costs and the 

investments required to comply with 

the amended energy conservation 

standard do not yield additional 

operating profit. 

While DOE used the same markup 

scenarios for clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners, DOE captured different 

concerns for each industry by modeling 

the preservation of operating profit 

scenario. For clothes dryers, 

manufacturers were particularly 

concerned about the inability to markup 

the full cost of production. Because 

there is currently no energy label 

requirement or ENERGY STAR program 

for clothes dryers, the lack of consumer 

information makes it more difficult for 

customers to calculate individual 

payback and energy savings. 

Consequently, the manufacturing cost 

for more efficient clothes dryers could 

not be fully marked up because energy 

efficiency, unlike price and other 

features, is not a factor in the 

purchasing decision of most consumers. 

Manufacturers also cited the highly 

competitive market, the concentrated 

retail market that represents the 

majority of sales, and price points that 

are fixed partly by paired washing 

machines as other reasons that 

additional production costs would not 

yield higher profits in the standards 

case. For room air conditioners, 

manufacturers stated that higher 

production costs could severely harm 

profitability. Manufacturers already earn 

very little profit on the small, highvolume window units due to the 

enormous price pressure retailers exert 

because of their purchasing power, and 

due to fierce competition within the 

room air conditioner industry. 

Manufacturers accept lower absolute 

profit on these units with the 

expectation of making a larger per unit 

profit on other more costly products. 

They also do so because maintaining 

high production volumes of these units 

allows manufacturers to keep factories 

utilized and to achieve purchasing 

economies. In addition, because many 

purchases are impulse buys during 

periods of atypically warm weather for 

products that are used sparingly, any 

increase in first cost could impact these 

types of sales. Therefore, manufacturers 

were skeptical that customers would 

accept the full additional cost of 

production. 

3. Discussion of Comments 

During the March 2010 public 

meeting, interested parties commented 

on the assumptions and results of the 

manufacturer impacts presented in the 

preliminary analysis. Oral and written 

comments discussed several topics, 

including the classification of small 

business manufacturers, the cumulative 

regulatory burden on manufacturers, the 

impact of R–410A conversion, and 

direct employment impacts. DOE 

addresses these comments below. 

a. Small Businesses 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

stated it did not identify any small 

business manufacturers of residential 

clothes dryers but that it did identify at 

least one room air conditioner 

manufacturer that was designated as a 

small business by the U.S. Small 

Business Administration criteria. DOE 

requested comment on this assertion. 

AHAM stated that it agreed with DOE’s 

assessment regarding the number of 

small businesses for room air 

conditioners and clothes dryers. 

(AHAM, No. 25 at p. 12) Whirlpool 

similarly stated that it did not know of 

any qualifying small businesses for 

residential clothes dryers. (Whirlpool, 

No. 22 at p. 4) HTC, however, stated that 

it is a small business registered under 

the Central Contracting Registration and 

the appropriate NAICS code for the 

residential clothes dryers covered by 

this rulemaking (335224—household 

laundry equipment manufacturers). 

HTC requested consideration by DOE as 

a small business and asserted that it 

would be negatively impacted if DOE 

decided not to include its technologies 

in the standards for residential clothes 

dryers (HTC, No. FDMS DRAFT 0068 at 

pp. 6, 10) 

For clothes dryers, DOE notes that it 

could not locate HTC as a small 

business on the SBA Web site (http:// 

dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm) 

or under the Central Contracting 

Registration (https://www.bpn.gov/ 

CCRSearch/Search.aspx). DOE does not 

question HTC’s assertion that it is a 

small business, but DOE does not 

believe that HTC would be directly 

impacted by this rule. HTC has 

developed a technology that can be 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22522 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

incorporated into clothes dryers. DOE 

acknowledges in section IV.A.5.a that 

HTC’s technology is a potential design 

option but also notes this technology is 

not commercially available. DOE does 

not believe this rulemaking would affect 

HTC’s ability to commercialize or sell 

its technology. Therefore, DOE does not 

believe HTC will be impacted by this 

rulemaking. 

For room air conditioners, DOE 

amends its conclusion of the number of 

small manufacturers in today’s direct 

final rule. The one manufacturer 

previously identified by DOE as a small 

business was since acquired by a 

company and exceeds the 750-employee 

threshold under NAICS code 333415 

(air conditioning and warm air heating 

equipment manufacturers and 

commercial and industrial refrigeration 

equipment manufacturers). As such, 

DOE believes there are no qualifying 

small business manufacturers in the 

room air conditioner industry. 

For more information on the potential 

impact on small business 

manufacturers, see section VI.B. 

b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

Several interested parties responded 

to DOE’s request for comment during 

the preliminary analysis period on 

regulations that could impose a burden 

on manufacturers of clothes dryers and 

room air conditioners. BSH stated that 

DOE should consider potential 

greenhouse gas regulations and the EPA 

ban on hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) 

refrigerants in new products since these 

regulations are relevant for heat pump 

clothes dryers. (BSH, No. 23 at p. 5) In 

contrast, NPCC stated that DOE should 

not include the cost of converting to 

alternative refrigerants such as R–410A 

in its manufacturer impact analysis for 

room air conditioners since the HCFC 

ban has already taken effect. (NPCC, No. 

32 at p. 4) 

DOE acknowledges that the phase-out 

of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) or similar 

refrigerants could necessitate changes to 

heat pump clothes dryers if current 

products offered on the market have to 

be redesigned. DOE also notes that the 

most efficient electric clothes dryers on 

the U.S. market today do not use heat 

pump technology, so a change in the 

available refrigerants would not 

currently impact products on the U.S. 

market. Because heat pump technology 

passed the screening criteria, it is 

analyzed as in technology that could 

increase the efficiency of residential 

clothes dryers. DOE has analyzed heat 

pump clothes dryers as the max-tech 

units for electric clothes dryer product 

classes. In its engineering analysis for 

these relevant product classes, DOE 

assumed that these products would 

utilize refrigerants that are currently 

available on the market. However, DOE 

does not include the impacts of a 

potential change in available refrigerant 

for heat pump clothes dryers because it 

would be speculative to predict the 

passage of legislation or the outcome of 

future rulemakings that would alter 

available refrigerants. 

In response to the inclusion of the ban 

on HCFC refrigerants, DOE notes that 

the ban is relevant to both heat pump 

clothes dryer manufactures and room air 

conditioner manufacturers. The ban on 

R–22 became effective on January 1, 

2010, so all products currently 

produced must comply with this 

regulation. This ban, which required 

manufacturers to cease using virgin 

R–22 in new equipment, necessitated 

substantial product design changes and 

capital investments. DOE accounts for 

these design changes in its engineering 

analysis by basing its analysis for room 

air conditioners on the use of R–410A 

refrigerant, as described in section 

IV.C.2.b. This allows DOE to capture the 

impacts of the refrigerant change on 

product cost and efficiency. 

The ban also caused manufacturers to 

incur significant product and capital 

conversion costs. Manufacturers had to 

redesign units for new compressors and 

other new components and conduct 

extensive testing, and in some cases 

manufacturers devoted full-time 

engineering resources to this conversion 

for up to 2 years. Additionally, 

manufacturers had to purchase new heat 

exchanger equipment and make other 

capital investments. DOE did not 

include the costs of converting to 

alternative refrigerants in the GRIM 

because these changes were not driven 

by the standards established in today’s 

final rule. DOE describes the HCFC ban 

in further detail as part of the 

cumulative regulatory burden in chapter 

12 of the direct final rule TSD. 

Several manufacturers also responded 

to DOE’s request for comment on the UL 

fire safety regulation for clothes dryers. 

Whirlpool stated that this regulation has 

no effect on energy efficiency, but added 

that DOE should include it as a 

regulatory burden. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at 

p. 2) BSH noted that the regulation takes 

effect in 2013. (BSH, No. 23 at p. 6) ALS 

speculated that each clothes dryer 

manufacturer will have its own 

concerns about this regulation and its 

impacts. (ALS, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21.4 at p. 154) HTC 

stated that it has successfully passed UL 

2158 safety guidelines for electric 

clothes dryers and requested 

consideration of this compliance. (HTC, 

No. FDMS DRAFT 0068 at p. 7) 

DOE appreciates this input on the UL 

fire safety regulations for clothes dryers. 

While DOE did not receive enough 

information to calculate the cost of 

changes to baseline clothes dryers to 

comply with UL 2158 in the engineering 

analysis, DOE agrees with Whirlpool 

that this regulation would not impact 

energy efficiency and consequently 

would not change the incremental costs 

calculated in the engineering analysis. 

While the UL 2158 is not a Federal 

regulation, UL certification is a de facto 

requirement for selling products in the 

U.S. because of local building codes 

requiring all installed products meet 

safety regulations and to avoid 

litigation. DOE included the conversion 

costs for manufacturers to comply with 

UL 2158 as part of the cumulative 

regulatory burden. 

Additional information on the 

cumulative regulatory burden on clothes 

dryer and room air conditioner 

manufacturers is included in chapter 12 

of the direct final rule TSD, including 

details on how DOE treated the 

conversion costs for the UL 2158 

regulation. 

c. Employment Impacts 

Two interested parties commented on 

DOE’s characterization of the domestic 

employment impacts for room air 

conditioner manufacturers. EEI stated 

that if DOE concluded no room air 

conditioner production remains in the 

United States, there should be no 

domestic impacts on employment. EEI 

stated that further analysis may be 

necessary to capture impacts on these 

manufacturers. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21.4 at pp. 31–34) To 

follow up on this issue, GE stated that 

revenue from non-domestic 

manufacturing helps fund the R&D and 

domestic production of other products 

that room air conditioner manufacturers 

produce. Therefore, the effects of room 

air conditioner manufacturing spill over 

into other industries. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21.4 at pp. 33– 

34) 

DOE’s direct employment impact 

assessment focuses on domestic 

employment impacts. These 

employment impacts are calculated in 

the GRIM based on the domestic 

expenditures and labor content of room 

air conditioner production. Because all 

room air conditioners are manufactured 

abroad, any change in labor content 

resulting from amended standards 

would impact labor requirements in 

non-domestic facilities and would not 

be quantified in DOE’s direct 

employment impact assessment. While 

many room air conditioner 

manufacturers produce other products 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22523 

and a company’s revenues in one 

industry may impact its overall 

revenues and operations, DOE does not 

analyze spillover effects among different 

business segments in its direct 

employment impact assessment. DOE 

does analyze indirect employment 

impacts in the domestic economy in 

section IV.J. 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE interviewed manufacturers 

representing more than 90 percent of 

clothes dryer sales and approximately 

50 percent of room air conditioner sales. 

These interviews were in addition to 

those DOE conducted as part of the 

engineering analysis. DOE used these 

interviews to tailor the GRIM to 

incorporate unique financial 

characteristics for each industry. All 

interviews provided information that 

DOE used to evaluate the impacts of 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards on manufacturer cash flows, 

manufacturing capacities, and 

employment levels. See appendix 12–A 

of the direct final rule TSD for 

additional information on the MIA 

interviews. 

The following sections describe the 

most significant issues identified by 

manufacturers. 

a. Clothes Dryer Key Issues 

Test Procedure 

Manufacturers indicated that a key 

concern for this rulemaking was 

ensuring that the test procedure 

accurately measured actual energy use. 

In particular, manufacturers indicated 

that proposed changes to the RMC value 

and the average number of annual 

cycles needed to be updated. 

Manufacturers indicated that without 

these changes, consumers could be 

negatively impacted by amended energy 

conservation standards because clothes 

dryers have a limited number of 

improvements that would be cost 

effective for most consumers. 

UL Fire Containment Standard 

Most manufacturers indicated that 

they had not fully investigated the exact 

technical changes that will be required 

to meet the UL fire containment 

regulation (UL 2158). However, 

manufacturers were concerned that this 

regulation would require changes to all 

their products around the same time 

that they would be required to meet the 

amended energy conservation standard. 

Most manufacturers agreed that even if 

the exact approach of meeting UL 2158 

is different or unknown by individual 

manufactures, DOE should still treat the 

regulation as an overall burden. 

Heat Pump Technology 

Manufacturers indicated that the high 

capital conversion and product 

conversion costs for clothes dryers at 

the second gap fill levels or the 

maximum available units were 

significant and would represent a 

substantial burden. Manufacturers also 

indicated that the pathways to meeting 

those levels, while potentially costly, 

were well-defined, proven in the 

market, and could be made within their 

existing production facilities. 

Manufacturers also indicated, however, 

that heat pump technology at the maxtech levels for electric product classes 

would represent a significant departure 

from current products and add 

significantly to the product and capital 

conversion costs. A heat pump standard 

would require a total renovation of 

existing facilities. The changes required 

to manufacture heat pumps would 

require revamping most existing 

production equipment and redesigning 

a new platform. The capital conversion 

costs would include equipment for new 

drum lines, assembly line testing 

equipment, stamping equipment for 

cabinets, and other production 

equipment to manufacturer the sealed 

systems. In addition to the large 

development costs to develop new 

platforms, manufacturers would have 

the additional expense of developing 

the sealed system. Other increases to the 

product development costs for heat 

pump clothes dryers that concerned 

manufacturers were the significant 

retraining costs for their servicers and 

the marketing costs to educate 

consumers and ensure they accept the 

new technology. With the substantial 

change that would be required to 

develop, manufacture, and educate 

consumers about heat pump clothes 

dryers, manufacturers were concerned 

they might not be able to make all the 

required changes with a 3-year lead time 

between the announcement of the final 

rule and the compliance date of the 

amended energy conservation. 

Manufacturers also indicated that an 

energy conservation standard at a level 

that effectively required a heat pump 

clothes dryer would force them to 

consider off-shoring any remaining 

production in the United States. Besides 

the significant capital and product 

conversion costs, manufacturers 

indicated that the much higher labor 

content of a heat pump clothes dryer 

would put additional pressure on 

moving production out of the United 

States. Finally, manufacturers believed 

that repair and maintenance costs 

would increase if an energy 

conservation standard effectively 

required heat pump clothes dryers. 

Repair and maintenance costs would 

increase due to the more expensive 

components, potential lint management 

problems, and some manufacturers’ 

inexperience with the technology. 

Impacts on Profitability 

Manufacturers indicated that an 

amended energy conservation standard 

would likely impact profits in the 

clothes dryer market. Because there is 

currently no energy label requirement 

and no ENERGY STAR program for 

clothes dryers, manufacturers indicated 

that, unlike clothes washers, efficiency 

does not command any premium in the 

market (either in percentage or absolute 

terms). Because it is difficult to 

communicate any energy benefit to 

consumers, it is very unlikely that they 

could benefit from higher production 

costs caused by amended energy 

conservation standards. 

In addition, manufacturers indicated 

that the large incremental cost jumps at 

some of the higher efficiency levels, 

including heat pump clothes dryers, 

were unlikely to be fully passed on to 

their customers. Beside the inability to 

show the energy benefit of the products, 

manufacturers indicated that the 

concentrated number of players in the 

retail market would put pressure on all 

manufacturers to keep costs down in 

response to amended energy 

conservation standards. Manufacturers 

also indicated that many of their sales 

are from pairs of clothes washers and 

dryers that have similar price points. If 

the cost of clothes dryers increased, 

manufacturers felt that retailers would 

not accept any price increase to keep the 

retail prices of the matched pair similar. 

b. Room Air Conditioner Key Issues 

Impact on Manufacturer Profitability 

Several manufacturers stated that they 

expect amended energy conservation 

standards to negatively impact the 

profitability of room air conditioners. 

Higher component, tooling, and 

development costs for more efficient 

products would increase MPCs, but 

manufacturers believed these higher 

costs could not necessarily be passed on 

to consumers due to the nature of the 

industry. A few large retailers dominate 

the industry and exert downward 

pressure on prices. Retailers demand 

low prices because consumers have 

come to expect room air conditioners at 

particular price points. For example, 

consumers expect many product 

offerings of product class 1 for under 

$100, and retailers have successfully 

maintained that price point through 

competitive bidding. This has resulted 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22524 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

in price pressure on the most popular 

units as manufacturers accept lower 

absolute profit on those units in the 

hopes of making a larger per unit profit 

on other more costly products. Many 

room air conditioner purchases are 

weather-dependent, so consumers could 

easily forgo the purchase of a room air 

conditioner unit altogether if prices 

increased. Consequently, manufacturers 

believed that cost increases would be at 

least partly absorbed by manufacturers 

to keep retail prices from rising sharply. 

If amended energy conservation 

standards led to a significant reduction 

in profitability, some manufacturers 

could exit the market (as a number of 

large players have in recent years). 

Many manufacturers source room air 

conditioner lines from overseas and do 

not own the production equipment. 

This arrangement would allow 

manufacturers to exit the industry 

without stranded assets. 

Impact on Product Utility 

Manufacturers believed a negative 

profitability impact could also 

indirectly affect product utility. Several 

manufacturers indicated that other 

features that do not affect efficiency 

could be removed or component quality 

could be sacrificed to meet amended 

standard levels and maintain product 

prices at levels that would be acceptable 

to consumers. 

Manufacturers also expressed concern 

that the energy savings from more 

stringent energy conservation standards 

would not be great enough to justify 

passing through the added costs to 

consumers. Currently, manufacturers 

bundle higher efficiency with other 

desirable features to justify higher prices 

for ENERGY STAR models. According 

to manufacturers, if amended standards 

caused prices to increase, the lower 

operating costs would not justify higher 

prices because the energy savings would 

be low compared to the initial price of 

the unit. Therefore, the increased cost of 

meeting the amended efficiency 

requirements may cause manufacturers 

to reduce the number of features to 

retain a reasonable price point. 

The value of future ENERGY STAR 

levels is also a concern for 

manufacturers. Many retailers and other 

distribution channels require ENERGY 

STAR products. Because the features 

bundled with ENERGY STAR products 

are the selling point to consumers, 

manufacturers were concerned that a 

higher ENERGY STAR level after 

amended standards would result in 

products with fewer features. 

Manufacturers also stated that the 

financial burden of developing products 

to meet amended energy conservation 

standards has an opportunity cost due 

to limited capital and R&D dollars. 

Investments incurred to meet amended 

energy conservation standards reflect 

foregone investments in innovation and 

the development of new features that 

consumers value and on which 

manufacturers earn higher absolute 

profit. 

Component Availability 

Several manufacturers stated they 

were concerned about component 

availability. Compressor availability 

since the conversion to R–410A was the 

main problem cited by manufacturers. 

Some manufacturers stated that 

component suppliers do not give 

priority to room air conditioning 

because the market is exclusive to North 

America and smaller than some of the 

other markets they supply. Since the 

conversion R–410A, manufacturers 

noted the total production capacity of 

compressor suppliers has not fully 

rebounded. In addition, compressor 

suppliers have yet to offer the same 

range of compressor capacities and 

efficiency tiers. 

Size Constraints 

A number of manufacturers expressed 

concerns about physical limitations of 

how large room air conditioners could 

grow. Most residential buildings have 

standardized window openings. 

Because a large portion of air 

conditioners are installed in these 

standardized openings, products must 

still fit in these typical windows after 

they have been redesigned. 

Manufacturers were largely concerned 

that the limited opportunity for growth 

also limited opportunities for efficiency 

improvements. Increasing the size of 

units also presents a problem for smaller 

air conditioners, which typically 

operate at under 10,000 Btu/hr. Much of 

the appeal of these units is that they can 

be lifted and installed by one person. 

Increasing the size of these units would 

greatly alter the market and may cause 

consumers to purchase less efficient 

portable air-conditioning units. 

Manufacturers mentioned refrigerant 

charge as another reason why room air 

conditioners are constrained by size. If 

manufacturers used increased coil size 

and a smaller compressor capacity to 

improve efficiency, the larger heat 

exchangers combined with the reduced 

nominal compressor capacity could lead 

to a system refrigerant charge amount 

that exceeds the recommended level. 

Exceeding recommended charge levels 

could damage the compressor, thereby 

limiting the extent of efficiency 

improvements associated with coil size 

growth. To counteract the increase in 

charge levels, some manufacturers have 

used smaller tubing in their heat 

exchangers. However, North American 

suppliers are not currently properly 

equipped to support smaller tube sizes 

and might not be willing to make the 

investment required to do so. 

Several manufacturers stated that size 

is also a concern because moving from 

a smaller chassis to larger chassis would 

cause material costs to increase 

dramatically due to more costly 

components and the potential capital 

costs required for development. If the 

adopted standards required significant 

rather than incremental increases in 

efficiency, the largest units in each 

capacity range would likely have to 

move to the next largest or a new 

chassis in order to meet the required 

efficiency levels. This is a notable 

concern for capacities above 28,000 Btu/ 

hr because manufacturers could choose 

to no longer offer these product lines 

due to the conversion cost. 

Numerous manufacturers stated that 

size constraints pose a problem for nonlouvered units in particular. Nonlouvered units inherently have less 

room for efficiency improvement 

because they need to fit into the existing 

sleeves in buildings. They are also 

constrained by air flow, increasing the 

depth does not result in significant 

efficiency gains because air on the 

condenser side must still flow through 

the rear face. Additionally, increasing 

depth creates a product that is less 

aesthetically pleasing and could 

decrease the available space in the 

room. 

Product Switching 

Some manufacturers noted that higher 

consumer prices after an amended 

energy conservation standard could 

result in product switching along the 

upper capacity boundaries of a product 

class if efficiency requirements are not 

implemented proportionally across 

product classes. For example, if after 

energy conservation standards are 

amended the first cost of units in 

product class 1 is not proportionally 

lower than units in product class 3, 

consumers who would have purchased 

product class 1 units are likely to 

purchase less efficient, slightly higher 

capacity units in product class 3. 

Without a significant price differential 

between product classes, consumers 

would be more likely to buy units with 

higher capacity, potentially lowering the 

calculated energy savings. 

J. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a proposed standard. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22525 

54 Data on industry employment, hours, labor 

compensation, value of production, and the implicit 

price deflator for output for these industries are 

available upon request by calling the Division of 

Industry Productivity Studies (202–691–5618) or by 

sending a request by e-mail to dipsweb@bls.gov. 

Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/

prin1.nr0.htm. 

55See: Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional 

Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional 

Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). 1192. U.S. 

Department of Commerce: Washington, DC. 

56 J.M. Roop, M.J. Scott, and R.W. Schultz. ImSET 

3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies. 2009. 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: Richland, 

WA. PNNL–18412. Available at: http://

www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical

_reports/PNNL-18412.pdf. 

Employment impacts consist of direct 

and indirect impacts. Direct 

employment impacts are any changes in 

the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the appliance products 

that are the subject of this rulemaking, 

their suppliers, and related service 

firms. Indirect employment impacts are 

changes in national employment that 

occur due to the shift in expenditures 

and capital investment caused by the 

purchase and operation of more efficient 

appliances. The MIA discussed above in 

Section IV.I. addresses the direct 

employment impacts that concern 

manufacturers of clothes dryers and 

room air conditioners. The employment 

impact analysis addresses the indirect 

employment impacts. 

Indirect employment impacts from 

standards consist of the net jobs created 

or eliminated in the national economy, 

other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, due to: (1) Reduced 

spending by end users on energy; (2) 

reduced spending on new energy supply 

by the utility industry; (3) increased 

spending on new products to which the 

new standards apply; and (4) the effects 

of those three factors throughout the 

economy. DOE expects the net monetary 

savings from standards to be redirected 

to other forms of economic activity. 

DOE also expects these shifts in 

spending and economic activity to affect 

the demand for labor in the short term, 

as explained below. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sectoral employment statistics 

developed by the Labor Department’s 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).54 The 

BLS regularly publishes its estimates of 

the number of jobs per million dollars 

of economic activity in different sectors 

of the economy, as well as the jobs 

created elsewhere in the economy by 

this same economic activity. Data from 

BLS indicate that expenditures in the 

utility sector generally create fewer jobs 

(both directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy. There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital intensive and less 

labor intensive than other sectors.55

Energy conservation standards have 

the effect of reducing consumer utility 

bills. Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and service sectors). Thus, based on the 

BLS data alone, DOE believes net 

national employment will increase due 

to shifts in economic activity resulting 

from amended standards for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners. 

For the standard levels considered in 

today’s direct final rule, DOE estimated 

indirect national employment impacts 

using an input/output model of the U.S. 

economy called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies (ImSET). ImSET is a 

spreadsheet model of the U.S. economy 

that focuses on 187 sectors most 

relevant to industrial, commercial, and 

residential building energy use.56

ImSET is a special purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (I–O) model, which has been 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model with structural coefficients to 

characterize economic flows among the 

187 sectors. ImSET’s national economic 

I–O structure is based on a 2002 U.S. 

benchmark table, specially aggregated to 

the 187 sectors. DOE estimated changes 

in expenditures using the NIA 

spreadsheet. Using ImSET, DOE then 

estimated the net national, indirect 

employment impacts by sector of 

potential amended efficiency standards 

for clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners. 

For more details on the employment 

impact analysis and the results of this 

analysis, see direct final rule TSD 

chapter 13. 

K. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

several important effects on the utility 

industry of the adoption of new or 

amended standards. For this analysis, 

DOE used the NEMS–BT model to 

generate forecasts of electricity 

consumption, electricity generation by 

plant type, and electric generating 

capacity by plant type, that would result 

from each TSL. DOE obtained the 

energy savings inputs associated with 

efficiency improvements to considered 

products from the NIA. DOE conducts 

the utility impact analysis as a scenario 

that departs from the latest AEO 

Reference case. In the analysis for 

today’s rule, the estimated impacts of 

standards are the differences between 

values forecasted by NEMS–BT and the 

values in the AEO2010 Reference case. 

As part of the utility impact analysis, 

DOE used NEMS–BT to assess the 

impacts on electricity prices of the 

reduced need for new electric power 

plants and infrastructure projected to 

result from the considered standards. In 

NEMS–BT, changes in power generation 

infrastructure affect utility revenue 

requirements, which in turn affect 

electricity prices. DOE estimated the 

change in electricity prices projected to 

result over time from each TSL. For 

further discussion, see section IV.G.5. 

For more details on the utility impact 

analysis and the results of this analysis, 

see chapter 14 of the direct final rule 

TSD. 

L. Environmental Assessment 

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 

today’s direct final rule, which it has 

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, 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. 

In the EA, DOE estimated the 

reduction in power sector emissions of 

CO2, NOX, and Hg using the NEMS–BT 

computer model. In the EA, NEMS–BT 

is run similarly to the AEO NEMS, 

except that clothes dryer and room air 

conditioner energy use is reduced by the 

amount of energy saved (by fuel type) 

due to each TSL. The inputs of national 

energy savings come from the NIA 

spreadsheet model, while the output is 

the forecasted physical emissions. The 

net benefit of each TSL in today’s direct 

final rule is the difference between the 

forecasted emissions estimated by 

NEMS–BT at each TSL and the AEO 

2010 Reference Case. NEMS–BT tracks 

CO2 emissions using a detailed module 

that provides results with broad 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22526 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

coverage of all sectors and inclusion of 

interactive effects. Because the on-site 

operation of gas clothes dryers requires 

use of fossil fuels and results in 

emissions of CO2, NOX and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), DOE also accounted for 

the reduction in these emissions due to 

standards at the sites where these 

appliances are used. 

DOE has determined that SO2

emissions from affected fossil fuel fired 

combustion devices (also known as 

Electric Generating Units (EGUs)) are 

subject to nationwide and regional 

emissions cap and trading programs that 

create uncertainty about the standards’ 

impact on SO2 emissions. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q, 

sets an annual emissions cap on SO2 for 

affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous 

states and the District of Columbia (DC). 

SO2 emissions from 28 eastern States 

and DC are also limited under the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 

(May 12, 2005)), which created an 

allowance-based trading program. 

Although CAIR has been remanded to 

the EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia (DC Circuit), 

see North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 

1176 (DC Cir. 2008), it remains in effect 

temporarily, consistent with the DC 

Circuit’s earlier opinion in North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 

2008). On July 6, 2010, EPA issued the 

Transport Rule proposal, a replacement 

for CAIR, which would limit emissions 

from EGUs in 32 states, potentially 

through the interstate trading of 

allowances, among other options. 75 FR 

45210 (Aug. 2, 2010). 

The attainment of the emissions caps 

is typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. Under 

existing EPA regulations, and under the 

Transport Rule if it is finalized, any 

excess SO2 emission allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand caused by the imposition of an 

efficiency standard could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by any regulated EGU. 

However, if the standard resulted in a 

permanent increase in the quantity of 

unused emission allowances, there 

would be an overall reduction in SO2

emissions from the standards. While 

there remains some uncertainty about 

the ultimate effects of efficiency 

standards on SO2 emissions covered by 

the existing cap and trade system, the 

NEMS–BT modeling system that DOE 

uses to forecast emissions reductions 

currently indicates that no physical 

reductions in power sector emissions 

would occur for SO2. 

A cap on NOX emissions, affecting 

electric generating units in the CAIR 

region, means that standards on clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners may 

have little or no physical effect on NOX

emissions in the 28 eastern States and 

the DC covered by CAIR, or any states 

covered by the proposed Transport Rule 

if the Transport Rule is finalized. The 

standards would, however, reduce NOX

emissions in those 22 States not affected 

by the CAIR. As a result, DOE used 

NEMS–BT to forecast emission 

reductions from the standards 

considered for today’s direct final rule. 

Similar to emissions of SO2 and NOX, 

future emissions of Hg would have been 

subject to emissions caps. In May 2005, 

EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule 

(CAMR). 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). 

CAMR would have permanently capped 

emissions of mercury for new and 

existing coal-fired power plants in all 

States by 2010. However, on February 8, 

2008, the DC Circuit issued its decision 

in New Jersey v. Environmental 

Protection Agency, in which it vacated 

CAMR. 517 F.3d 574 (DC Cir. 2008). 

EPA has decided to develop emissions 

standards for power plants under the 

Clean Air Act (Section 112), consistent 

with the DC Circuit’s opinion on the 

CAMR. See http://www.epa.gov/air/

mercuryrule/pdfs/certpetition_

withdrawal.pdf. Pending EPA’s 

forthcoming revisions to the rule, DOE 

is excluding CAMR from its 

environmental assessment. In the 

absence of CAMR, a DOE standard 

would likely reduce Hg emissions and 

DOE plans to use NEMS–BT to estimate 

these emission reductions. However, 

DOE continues to review the impact of 

rules that reduce energy consumption 

on Hg emissions, and may revise its 

assessment of Hg emission reductions in 

future rulemakings. 

The operation of gas clothes dryers 

requires use of fossil fuels and results in 

emissions of CO2, NOX, and SO2 at the 

sites where these appliances are used. 

NEMS–BT provides no means for 

estimating such emissions. DOE 

calculated the effect of the standards in 

today’s rule on the above site emissions 

based on emissions factors derived from 

the literature. 

Commenting on the preliminary TSD, 

AHAM stated that if DOE includes 

values for CO2 reductions, it should also 

include CO2 emissions that result 

indirectly from changes in a standard, 

including increased manufacturing 

emissions, increased transportation 

emissions, and reduced carbon 

emissions from peak load reductions. 

(AHAM, No. 25 at p. 12) In response, 

DOE notes that the inputs to the EA for 

national energy savings come from the 

NIA. In the NIA, DOE accounts for only 

the primary energy savings associated 

with considered standards. In so doing, 

EPCA directs DOE to consider (when 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified) ‘‘the total 

projected amount of energy * * * 

savings likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) DOE interprets 

‘‘directly from the imposition of the 

standard’’ to include energy used in the 

generation, transmission, and 

distribution of fuels used by appliances. 

In addition, DOE is evaluating the fullfuel-cycle measure, which includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

fuels (see section IV.G.3). Both DOE’s 

current accounting of primary energy 

savings and the full-fuel-cycle measure 

are directly linked to the energy used by 

appliances. In contrast, energy used in 

manufacturing and transporting 

appliances is a step removed from the 

energy used by appliances. Thus, DOE 

did not consider such energy use in 

either the NIA or the EA. DOE did 

include CO2 emissions reductions 

resulting from projected impacts of 

revised standards on electricity demand. 

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and 

Other Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

direct final rule, DOE considered the 

estimated monetary benefits likely to 

result from the reduced emissions of 

CO2 NOX that are expected to result 

from each of the TSLs considered. In 

order to make this calculation similar to 

the calculation of the NPV of consumer 

benefit, DOE considered the reduced 

emissions expected to result over the 

lifetime of products shipped in the 

forecast period for each TSL. This 

section summarizes the basis for the 

monetary values used for each of these 

emissions and presents the benefits 

estimates considered. 

For today’s direct final rule, DOE is 

relying on a set of values for the social 

cost of carbon (SCC) that was developed 

by an interagency process. A summary 

of the basis for these values is provided 

below, and a more detailed description 

of the methodologies used is provided 

in appendix 15–A of the direct final rule 

TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

agencies must, to the extent permitted 

by law, ‘‘assess both the costs and the 

benefits of the intended regulation and, 

recognizing that some costs and benefits 

are difficult to quantify, propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs.’’ 

The purpose of the SCC estimates 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22527 

57National Research Council. Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use. National Academies Press: 

Washington, DC. 2009. 

58 It is recognized that this calculation for 

domestic values is approximate, provisional, and 

highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why 

domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 

net global damages over time. 

59 Values per ton of CO2 given in this section refer 

to metric tons. 

presented here is to allow agencies to 

incorporate the monetized social 

benefits of reducing CO2 emissions into 

cost-benefit analyses of regulatory 

actions that have small, or ‘‘marginal,’’ 

impacts on cumulative global emissions. 

The estimates are presented with an 

acknowledgement of the many 

uncertainties involved and with a clear 

understanding that they should be 

updated over time to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

As part of the interagency process that 

developed these SCC estimates, 

technical experts from numerous 

agencies met on a regular basis to 

consider public comments, explore the 

technical literature in relevant fields, 

and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. The main objective of this 

process was to develop a range of SCC 

values using a defensible set of input 

assumptions grounded in the existing 

scientific and economic literatures. In 

this way, key uncertainties and model 

differences transparently and 

consistently inform the range of SCC 

estimates used in the rulemaking 

process. 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

The SCC is an estimate of the 

monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 

to include (but is not limited to) changes 

in net agricultural productivity, human 

health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services. Estimates of the 

SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of carbon dioxide. 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of carbon 

dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a 

number of serious challenges. A recent 

report from the National Research 

Council 57 points out that any 

assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 

speculation, and lack of information 

about (1) future emissions of greenhouse 

gases, (2) the effects of past and future 

emissions on the climate system, (3) the 

impact of changes in climate on the 

physical and biological environment, 

and (4) the translation of these 

environmental impacts into economic 

damages. As a result, any effort to 

quantify and monetize the harms 

associated with climate change will 

raise serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be 

viewed as provisional. 

Despite the serious limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing carbon 

dioxide emissions. Consistent with the 

directive quoted above, the purpose of 

the SCC estimates presented here is to 

make it possible for agencies to 

incorporate the social benefits from 

reducing carbon dioxide emissions into 

cost-benefit analyses of regulatory 

actions that have small, or ‘‘marginal,’’ 

impacts on cumulative global emissions. 

Most Federal regulatory actions can be 

expected to have marginal impacts on 

global emissions. 

For such policies, the agency can 

estimate the benefits from reduced (or 

costs from increased) emissions in any 

future year by multiplying the change in 

emissions in that year by the SCC value 

appropriate for that year. The net 

present value of the benefits can then be 

calculated by multiplying each of these 

future benefits by an appropriate 

discount factor and summing across all 

affected years. This approach assumes 

that the marginal damages from 

increased emissions are constant for 

small departures from the baseline 

emissions path, an approximation that 

is reasonable for policies that have 

effects on emissions that are small 

relative to cumulative global carbon 

dioxide emissions. For policies that 

have a large (non-marginal) impact on 

global cumulative emissions, there is a 

separate question of whether the SCC is 

an appropriate tool for calculating the 

benefits of reduced emissions. DOE does 

not attempt to answer that question 

here. 

At the time of the preparation of this 

notice, the most recent interagency 

estimates of the potential global benefits 

resulting from reduced CO2 emissions in 

2010, expressed in 2009$, were $4.9, 

$22.1, $36.3, and $67.1 per metric ton 

avoided. For emission reductions that 

occur in later years, these values grow 

in real terms over time. Additionally, 

the interagency group determined that a 

range of values from 7 percent to 23 

percent should be used to adjust the 

global SCC to calculate domestic 

effects,58 although preference is given to 

consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science 

and economic understanding of climate 

change and its impacts on society 

improves over time. Specifically, the 

interagency group has set a preliminary 

goal of revisiting the SCC values within 

2 years or at such time as substantially 

updated models become available, and 

to continue to support research in this 

area. In the meantime, the interagency 

group will continue to explore the 

issues raised by this analysis and 

consider public comments as part of the 

ongoing interagency process. 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

To date, economic analyses for 

Federal regulations have used a wide 

range of values to estimate the benefits 

associated with reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. In the final model year 2011 

CAFE rule, the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) used both a 

‘‘domestic’’ SCC value of $2 per ton of 

CO2 and a ‘‘global’’ SCC value of $33 per 

ton of CO2 for 2007 emission reductions 

(in 2007 dollars), increasing both values 

at 2.4 percent per year.59 See Average 

Fuel Economy Standards Passenger 

Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 2011, 

74 FR 14196 (March 30, 2009); Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards, Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks, Model Years 2011–2015 at 3–90 

(Oct. 2008) (Available at: http://

www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). It also 

included a sensitivity analysis at $80 

per ton of CO2. A domestic SCC value 

is meant to reflect the value of damages 

in the United States resulting from a 

unit change in carbon dioxide 

emissions, while a global SCC value is 

meant to reflect the value of damages 

worldwide. 

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT 

assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per 

ton of CO2 (in 2006 dollars) for 2011 

emission reductions (with a range of 

$0–$14 for sensitivity analysis), also 

increasing at 2.4 percent per year. See 

Average Fuel Economy Standards, 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model 

Years 2011–2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 

2008); Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and 

Light Trucks, Model Years 2011–2015 at 

3–58 (June 2008) (Available at: http://

www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A 

regulation for packaged terminal air 

conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps finalized by DOE in October 

of 2008 used a domestic SCC range of 

$0 to $20 per ton CO2 for 2007 emission 

reductions (in 2007 dollars). 73 FR 

58772, 58814 (Oct. 7, 2008) In addition, 

EPA’s 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gases 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22528 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

60The models are described in appendix 15–A of 

the final rule TSD. 

identified what it described as ‘‘very 

preliminary’’ SCC estimates subject to 

revision. See Regulating Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act, 

73 FR 44354 (July 30, 2008). EPA’s 

global mean values were $68 and $40 

per ton CO2 for discount rates of 

approximately 2 percent and 3 percent, 

respectively (in 2006 dollars for 2007 

emissions). 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. To ensure consistency in 

how benefits are evaluated across 

agencies, the Administration sought to 

develop a transparent and defensible 

method, specifically designed for the 

rulemaking process, to quantify avoided 

climate change damages from reduced 

CO2 emissions. The interagency group 

did not undertake any original analysis. 

Instead, it combined SCC estimates from 

the existing literature to use as interim 

values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The 

outcome of the preliminary assessment 

by the interagency group was a set of 

five interim values: Global SCC 

estimates for 2007 (in 2006 dollars) of 

$55, $33, $19, $10, and $5 per ton of 

CO2. 

These interim values represent the 

first sustained interagency effort within 

the U.S. government to develop an SCC 

for use in regulatory analysis. The 

results of this preliminary effort were 

presented in several proposed and final 

rules and were offered for public 

comment in connection with proposed 

rules, including the joint EPA–DOT fuel 

economy and CO2 tailpipe emission 

proposed rules. See CAFE Rule for 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Draft 

EIS and Final EIS, cited above. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

Since the release of the interim 

values, the interagency group 

reconvened on a regular basis to 

generate improved SCC estimates, 

which were used in this direct final 

rule. Specifically, the group considered 

public comments and further explored 

the technical literature in relevant 

fields. 

The interagency group relied on three 

integrated assessment models (IAMs) 

commonly used to estimate the SCC: 

The FUND, DICE, and PAGE models.60

These models are frequently cited in the 

peer-reviewed literature and were used 

in the last assessment of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Each model was given equal 

weight in the SCC values that were 

developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different 

approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic 

damages. A key objective of the 

interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three 

models while respecting the different 

approaches to quantifying damages 

taken by the key modelers in the field. 

An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of 

input parameters for these models: 

Climate sensitivity, socio-economic and 

emissions trajectories, and discount 

rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an 

input into all three models. In addition, 

the interagency group used a range of 

scenarios for the socio-economic 

parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features 

were left unchanged, relying on the 

model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments. 

The interagency group selected four 

SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three values are based on the 

average SCC from three integrated 

assessment models, at discount rates of 

2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth value, 

which represents the 95th percentile 

SCC estimate across all three models at 

a 3-percent discount rate, is included to 

represent higher-than-expected impacts 

from temperature change further out in 

the tails of the SCC distribution. For 

emissions (or emission reductions) that 

occur in later years, these values grow 

in real terms over time, as depicted in 

Table IV–33. 

TABLE IV–33—SOCIAL COST OF CO2, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton] 

Discount rate 

5% 

Avg 

3% 

Avg 

2.5% 

Avg 

3% 

95th 

2010 ................................................................................................................................. 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 

2015 ................................................................................................................................. 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8 

2020 ................................................................................................................................. 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 

2025 ................................................................................................................................. 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4 

2030 ................................................................................................................................. 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 

2035 ................................................................................................................................. 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7 

2040 ................................................................................................................................. 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3 

2045 ................................................................................................................................. 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8 

2050 ................................................................................................................................. 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

since they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned above points 

out that there is tension between the 

goal of producing quantified estimates 

of the economic damages from an 

incremental ton of carbon and the limits 

of existing efforts to model these effects. 

There are a number of concerns and 

problems that should be addressed by 

the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of 

the agencies participating in the 

interagency process to estimate the SCC. 

The U.S. government intends to 

periodically review and reconsider 

estimates of the SCC used for costbenefit analyses to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. In this 

context, statements recognizing the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22529 

61Table A1 presents SCC values through 2050. 

For DOE’s calculation, it derived values after 2050 

using the 3-percent per year escalation rate used by 

the interagency group. 

62For additional information, refer to U.S. Office 

of Management and Budget, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs. 2006 Report to Congress on 

the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and 

Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 

Entities. 2006. Washington, DC. 

63OMB, Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 

17, 2003). 

limitations of the analysis and calling 

for further research take on exceptional 

significance. The interagency group 

offers the new SCC values with all due 

humility about the uncertainties 

embedded in them and with a sincere 

promise to continue work to improve 

them. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

most recent values identified by the 

interagency process, adjusted to 2009$ 

using the GDP price deflator values for 

2008 and 2009. For each of the four 

cases specified, the values used for 

emissions in 2010 were $4.9, $22.1, 

$36.3, and $67.1 per metric ton avoided 

(values expressed in 2009$). To 

monetize the CO2 emissions reductions 

expected to result from amended 

standards for clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners in 2014–2043, DOE 

used the values identified in Table A1 

of the ‘‘Social Cost of Carbon for 

Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866,’’ which is 

reprinted in appendix 16–A of the direct 

final rule TSD, appropriately adjusted to 

2009$.61 To calculate a present value of 

the stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

four cases using the specific discount 

rate that had been used to obtain the 

SCC values in each case. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

DOE investigated the potential 

monetary benefit of reduced NOX

emissions from the TSLs it considered. 

As noted above, amended energy 

conservation standards would reduce 

NOX emissions in those 22 States that 

are not affected by the CAIR, in addition 

to the reduction in site NOX emissions 

nationwide. DOE estimated the 

monetized value of NOX emissions 

reductions resulting from each of the 

TSLs considered for today’s direct final 

rule based on environmental damage 

estimates from the literature. Available 

estimates suggest a very wide range of 

monetary values, ranging from $370 per 

ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX from 

stationary sources, measured in 2001$ 

(equivalent to a range of $447 to $4,591 

per ton in 2009$).62 In accordance with 

OMB guidance, DOE conducted two 

calculations of the monetary benefits 

derived using each of the economic 

values used for NOX, one using a real 

discount rate of 3 percent and another 

using a real discount rate of 7 percent.63

DOE is aware of multiple agency 

efforts to determine the appropriate 

range of values used in evaluating the 

potential economic benefits of reduced 

Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await 

further guidance regarding consistent 

valuation and reporting of Hg emissions 

before it once again monetizes Hg in its 

rulemakings. 

Commenting on the preliminary TSD, 

Whirlpool stated that CO2 emissions 

should not be monetized because the 

market value cannot be readily 

determined, the impact is negligible, 

and it is already included in energy 

savings. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 6) DOE 

acknowledges that the market value of 

future CO2 emissions reductions is 

uncertain, and for this reason it uses a 

wide range of potential values, as 

described above. The impact of revised 

standards for room air conditioners and 

clothes dryers on future CO2 emissions, 

described in section V.6 of this notice, 

is not negligible. In addition, the value 

of CO2 emissions reductions is not 

included in energy cost savings because 

the energy prices that DOE used to 

calculate those savings do not include 

any taxes or other charges to account for 

the CO2 emissions associated with the 

use of electricity or natural gas by the 

considered appliances. 

V. Analytical Results 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to potential energy conservation 

standards for the products examined as 

part of this rulemaking. It addresses the 

TSLs examined by DOE, the projected 

impacts of each of these levels if 

adopted as energy conservation 

standards for clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners, and the standards 

levels that DOE sets forth in today’s 

direct final rule. Additional details 

regarding the analyses conducted by the 

agency are contained in the publicly 

available direct final rule TSD 

supporting this notice. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of a number of TSLs for the 

products that are the subject of today’s 

direct final rule. A description of each 

TSL DOE analyzed is provided below. 

DOE attempted to limit the number of 

TSLs considered for the final rule by 

excluding efficiency levels that do not 

exhibit significantly different economic 

or engineering characteristics from the 

efficiency levels already selected as a 

TSL. While DOE presents the results for 

only those efficiency levels in TSL 

combinations, DOE presents the results 

for all efficiency levels that it analyzed 

in chapter 10 of the direct final rule 

TSD. 

Table V–1 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding product class efficiency 

levels for clothes dryers. TSL 1 consists 

of the efficiency levels with the largest 

market share with a positive NPV (at a 

3-percent discount rate). TSL 2 consists 

of the efficiency levels with the highest 

NPV (at a 3-percent discount rate). TSL 

3 consists of the efficiency levels with 

the highest energy savings and a 

positive NPV (at a 3-percent discount 

rate). TSL 4 consists of the efficiency 

levels that reflect 5-percent efficiency 

increase above the baseline. TSL 4 also 

corresponds to the standards 

recommended by the Joint Petitioners. 

TSL 5 consists of non heat pump design 

efficiency levels with the highest energy 

savings. TSL 6 consists of the max-tech 

efficiency levels. 

TABLE V–1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CLOTHES DRYERS

Product class 

CEF 

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

Vented Electric Standard ..................................................................................... 3.56 3.61 3.73 3.73 4.08 5.42 

Vented Electric Compact 120V ............................................................................ 3.43 3.61 3.61 3.61 4.08 5.41 

Vented Electric Compact 240V ............................................................................ 3.12 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.60 4.89 

Vented Gas .......................................................................................................... 3.16 3.20 3.20 3.30 3.61 3.61 

Ventless Electric Compact 240V ......................................................................... 2.55 2.69 2.69 2.55 2.80 4.03 

Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer ...................................................... 2.08 2.56 2.56 2.08 2.56 3.69 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22530 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Table V–2 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding product class efficiency 

levels for room air conditioners. TSL 1 

consists of the efficiency levels with the 

largest market share with a positive NPV 

(at a 3-percent discount rate). TSL 2 

consists of the ENERGY STAR levels for 

each product class. TSL 3 consists of the 

efficiency levels with the highest NPV 

(at a 3-percent discount rate). TSL 4 

consists of the efficiency levels set forth 

in the Joint Petition presented to DOE. 

TSL 5 consists of the efficiency levels 

with the highest energy savings and a 

positive NPV (at a 7-percent discount 

rate). TSL 6 consists of the max-tech 

efficiency levels. 

TABLE V–2—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

Product class 

CEER 

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

Group 1—includes PC 1 ...................................................................................... 10.10 10.60 10.10 11.10 11.10 11.67 

Group 2—includes PC 2, 3, 4, 11 ....................................................................... 10.70 10.70 10.90 10.90 11.50 11.96 

Group 3—includes PC 5A, 9, 13 ......................................................................... 9.40 9.40 8.47 9.40 8.47 10.15 

Group 4—includes PC 5B, 10 ............................................................................. 9.40 9.40 8.48 9.00 8.48 9.80 

Group 5—includes PC 6, 7, 8A, 12 ..................................................................... 9.30 9.30 9.60 9.60 10.00 10.35 

Group 6—includes PC 8B, 14, 15, 16 ................................................................. 9.30 9.30 9.50 9.50 9.50 10.02 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Consumers affected by new or 

amended standards usually experience 

higher purchase prices and lower 

operating costs. Generally, these 

impacts on individual consumers are 

best captured by changes in life-cycle 

costs and by the payback period. 

Therefore, DOE calculated the LCC and 

PBP analyses for the potential standard 

levels considered in this rulemaking. 

DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses provided 

key outputs for each TSL, which are 

reported by clothes dryer product class 

in Table V–3 through Table V–8, and by 

room air conditioner product class in 

Table V–9 through Table V–14. Each 

table includes the average total LCC and 

the average LCC savings, as well as the 

fraction of product consumers for which 

the LCC will either decrease (net 

benefit), or increase (net cost), or exhibit 

no change (no impact) relative to the 

base-case forecast. The last output in the 

tables is the median PBP for the 

consumer purchasing a design that 

complies with the TSL. DOE presents 

the median PBP because it is the most 

statistically robust measure of the PBP. 

The results for each potential standard 

level are relative to the efficiency 

distribution in the base case (no 

amended standards). DOE based the 

LCC and PBP analyses on the range of 

energy consumption under conditions 

of actual product use. 

TABLE V–3—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC STANDARD DRYERS

TSL CEF 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ LCC savings Payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of households that 

experience 

Median Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

1 ......................................................... 3.56 $455 $867 $1,323 $0 0.7 97.6 1.7 3.9 

2 ......................................................... 3.61 456 856 1,311 2 0.3 78.7 21.0 0.2 

3, 4 ..................................................... 3.73 467 829 1,296 14 19.0 24.8 56.3 5.3 

5 ......................................................... 4.08 583 761 1,343 ¥30 75.3 1.0 23.7 19.1 

6 ......................................................... 5.42 879 580 1,459 ¥146 81.0 0.0 19.0 22.1 

TABLE V–4—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC COMPACT 120V DRYERS

TSL CEF 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ LCC savings Payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of households that 

experience 

Median Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

1 ......................................................... 3.43 $470 $384 $854 n/a 0 100 0 n/a 

2, 3, 4 ................................................. 3.61 471 369 840 $14 4.0 0.0 96.0 0.9 

5 ......................................................... 4.08 627 325 953 ¥99 95.5 0.0 4.5 36.1 

6 ......................................................... 5.41 875 243 1,118 ¥264 95.4 0.0 4.6 40.1 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22531 

TABLE V–5—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC COMPACT 240V DRYERS

TSL CEF 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ LCC savings Payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of households that 

experience 

Median Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

1 ......................................................... 3.12 $470 $427 $896 n/a 0 100 0 n/a 

2, 3, 4 ................................................. 3.27 471 411 882 $8 2.3 41.4 56.3 0.9 

5 ......................................................... 3.60 627 373 1,000 ¥99 93.3 4.2 2.5 45.1 

6 ......................................................... 4.89 875 272 1,147 ¥246 94.5 0.0 5.5 38.2 

TABLE V–6—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR GAS DRYERS

TSL CEF 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ LCC savings Payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of households that 

experience 

Median Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

1 ......................................................... 3.16 $554 $445 $999 n/a 0 100 0 n/a 

2, 3 ..................................................... 3.20 555 440 995 $0 0.5 92.9 6.6 2.2 

4 ......................................................... 3.30 555 427 983 2 0.3 84.5 15.2 0.5 

5, 6 ..................................................... 3.61 658 404 1,062 ¥69 87.7 10.5 1.8 73.3 

TABLE V–7—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR VENTLESS 240V DRYERS

TSL CEF 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ LCC savings Payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of households that 

experience 

Median Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

1, 4 ..................................................... 2.55 $1,093 $452 $1,545 n/a 0 100 0 n/a 

2, 3 ..................................................... 2.69 1,094 431 1,525 $20 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.9 

5 ......................................................... 2.80 1,176 411 1,587 ¥42 92.5 0.0 7.5 25.3 

6 ......................................................... 4.03 1,462 261 1,722 ¥177 88.5 0.0 11.5 26.9 

TABLE V–8—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR VENTLESS COMBINATION WASHER/DRYERS

TSL CEF 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ LCC savings Payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of households that 

experience 

Median Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

1, 4 ..................................................... 2.08 $1,533 $565 $2,098 n/a 0 100 0 n/a 

2, 3, 5 ................................................. 2.56 1,579 446 2,025 $73 20.6 0.0 79.4 5.3 

6 ......................................................... 3.69 1,981 282 2,263 ¥166 82.4 0.0 17.6 22.4 

TABLE V–9—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, < 6,000 Btu/h, WITH LOUVERS

TSL CEER 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ LCC savings Payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of households that 

experience 

Median Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

1, 3 ..................................................... 10.10 $361 $357 $718 $9 21.2 30.7 48.1 4.1 

2 ......................................................... 10.60 374 341 715 11 32.8 30.7 36.6 5.8 

4, 5 ..................................................... 11.10 393 326 719 7 64.6 1.2 34.2 8.6 

6 ......................................................... 11.67 472 311 784 ¥58 90.4 0.0 9.6 20.9 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22532 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V–10—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, WITH LOUVERS

TSL CEER 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ LCC savings Payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of households that 

experience 

Median Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

1, 2 ..................................................... 10.70 $493 $557 $1,050 $16 9.3 60.5 30.2 0.0 

3, 4 ..................................................... 10.90 497 547 1,045 22 33.6 2.2 64.1 2.8 

5 ......................................................... 11.50 525 519 1,044 22 55.7 0.8 43.4 7.1 

6 ......................................................... 11.96 605 500 1,104 ¥38 77.3 0.5 22.2 14.7 

TABLE V–11—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, WITH

LOUVERS

TSL CEER 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ LCC savings Payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of households that 

experience 

Median Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

3, 5 ..................................................... 8.47 $857 $750 $1,607 n/a 0 100 0 n/a 

1, 2, 4 ................................................. 9.40 887 672 1,559 $6 5.1 85.3 9.6 4.3 

6 ......................................................... 10.15 1,159 626 1,785 ¥214 97.6 2.1 0.3 73.8 

TABLE V–12—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, > 25,000 Btu/h, WITH LOUVERS

TSL CEER 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ LCC savings Payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of households that 

experience 

Median Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

3, 5 ..................................................... 8.48 $979 $823 $1,802 n/a 0 100 0 n/a 

4 ......................................................... 9.00 1,019 777 1,796 $1 8.9 87.6 3.5 10.1 

1, 2 ..................................................... 9.40 1,058 739 1,797 1 11.0 85.3 3.7 10.3 

6 ......................................................... 9.80 1,313 712 2,025 ¥227 99.8 0.0 0.2 107.7 

TABLE V–13—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, 8,000–10,999 Btu/h, WITHOUT

LOUVERS

TSL CEER 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ LCC savings Payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of households that 

experience 

Median Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

1, 2 ..................................................... 9.30 %495 $490 $986 $4 0.9 89.9 9.2 1.5 

3, 4 ..................................................... 9.60 498 476 974 13 12.3 25.2 62.5 2.1 

5 ......................................................... 10.00 512 454 966 20 38.0 5.6 56.3 4.9 

6 ......................................................... 10.35 615 440 1,055 ¥66 91.8 1.9 6.2 25.2 

TABLE V–14—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, > 11,000 Btu/h, WITHOUT LOUVERS

TSL CEER 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ LCC savings Payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of households that 

experience 

Median Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

1, 2 ..................................................... 9.30 $590 $698 $1,288 $5 2.2 89.9 7.9 2.6 

3, 4, 5 ................................................. 9.50 596 684 1,279 11 22.7 30.6 46.6 3.7 

9.80 611 660 1,271 18 36.0 17.3 46.6 5.3 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22533 

TABLE V–14—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, > 11,000 Btu/h, WITHOUT

LOUVERS—Continued 

TSL CEER 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ LCC savings Payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of households that 

experience 

Median Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

6 ......................................................... 10.02 707 647 1,354 ¥64 92.6 0.0 7.3 25.9 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

As described in section IV.H, DOE 

determined the impact of the considered 

TSLs on low-income households and 

senior-only households. 

Table V–15 and Table V–16 compare 

the average LCC savings at each 

efficiency level for the two consumer 

subgroups with the average LCC savings 

for the entire sample for each product 

class for clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, respectively. DOE found 

that the average LCC savings for lowincome households and senior-only 

households at the considered efficiency 

levels are not substantially different 

from the average for all households. 

Chapter 11 of the direct final rule TSD 

presents the complete LCC and PBP 

results for the two subgroups. 

TABLE V–15—CLOTHES DRYERS: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL

HOUSEHOLDS

Electric standard Vented 120V Vented 240V 

CEF Senior Low-income All CEF Senior Low-income All CEF Senior Low-income All 

3.56 ....... $0 $0 $0 3.48 $3 $3 $4 3.16 $2 $2 $2 

3.61 ....... 2 2 2 3.61 14 13 14 3.27 9 8 8 

3.73 ....... 7 12 14 3.72 ¥8 ¥5 ¥5 3.36 ¥8 ¥6 ¥5 

3.81 ....... ¥40 ¥30 ¥27 3.80 ¥63 ¥57 ¥56 3.48 ¥54 ¥47 ¥47 

4.08 ....... ¥62 ¥38 ¥30 4.08 ¥113 ¥99 ¥99 3.60 ¥110 ¥99 ¥99 

5.42 ....... ¥245 ¥170 ¥146 5.41 ¥306 ¥262 ¥264 4.89 ¥291 ¥243 ¥246 

Gas Ventless 240V Ventless Combination 

CEF Senior Low-income All CEF Senior Low-income All CEF Senior Low-income All 

3.16 ....... $0 $0 $0 2.59 $5 $5 $5 2.35 $49 $76 $75 

3.20 ....... 2 2 2 2.69 20 19 20 2.38 54 80 79 

3.30 ....... ¥1 2 2 2.71 ¥14 ¥14 ¥13 2.46 68 93 93 

3.41 ....... ¥76 ¥69 ¥69 2.80 ¥49 ¥42 ¥42 2.56 41 73 73 

3.61 ....... ¥115 ¥100 ¥100 4.03 ¥234 ¥175 ¥177 3.69 ¥253 ¥162 ¥166 

TABLE V–16—ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND

ALL HOUSEHOLDS

< 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with louvers 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with louvers 

CEER Senior Low-income All CEER Senior Low-income All CEER Senior Low-income All 

10.10 ..... $5 $12 $9 10.20 $8 $10 $9 9.00 $1 $7 $3 

10.60 ..... 4 17 11 10.70 13 18 16 9.40 3 13 6 

11.10 ..... ¥5 17 7 10.90 17 24 22 9.80 ¥17 8 ¥10 

11.38 ..... ¥17 9 ¥3 11.50 14 27 22 10.15 ¥223 ¥187 ¥214 

11.67 ..... ¥75 ¥44 ¥58 11.96 ¥49 ¥31 ¥38 ................. ................. ....................... .................

> 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers 8,000–10,999 Btu/h, without louvers > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers 

CEER Senior Low-income All CEER Senior Low-income All CEER Senior Low-income All 

9.00 ....... $0 $4 $1 9.30 $4 $5 $4 9.30 $4 $6 $5 

9.40 ....... ¥1 7 1 9.60 11 15 13 9.50 9 13 11 

9.80 ....... ¥234 ¥209 ¥227 10.00 16 23 20 9.80 13 21 18 

............... ................. ....................... ................. 10.35 ¥73 ¥62 ¥66 10.02 ¥71 ¥60 ¥64 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed above, EPCA provides a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the increased purchase cost 

for a product that meets the standard is 

less than three times the value of the 

first-year energy savings resulting from 

the standard. In calculating a rebuttable 

presumption payback period for the 

considered standard levels, DOE used 

discrete values rather than distributions 

for input values, and, as required by 

EPCA, based the energy use calculation 

on the DOE test procedures for the 

considered products. As a result, DOE 

calculated a single rebuttable 

presumption payback value, and not a 

distribution of payback periods, for each 

efficiency level. Table V–17 and Table 

V–18 present the average rebuttable 

presumption payback periods for those 

efficiency levels where the increased 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22534 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

purchase cost for a product that meets 

a standard at that level is less than three 

times the value of the first-year energy 

savings resulting from the standard. 

TABLE V–17—CLOTHES DRYERS: EFFICIENCY LEVELS WITH REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD LESS THAN THREE YEARS

Product class CEF PBP 

(years) 

Electric standard .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3.61 0.95 

Electric compact 120V ................................................................................................................................................................. 3.48 2.49 

3.61 0.86 

Electric compact 240V ................................................................................................................................................................. 3.16 2.57 

3.27 0.85 

Gas .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3.20 1.81 

Ventless compact 240V ............................................................................................................................................................... 2.59 2.33 

2.69 0.83 

Ventless combination washer/dryers ........................................................................................................................................... 2.46 0.42 

2.46 0.68 

2.46 0.74 

TABLE V–18—ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS: EFFICIENCY LEVELS WITH REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD LESS THAN THREE

YEARS

Product class CEER PBP 

(years) 

Room Air Conditioners (8000–13,999 Btu/h), with Louvers ........................................................................................................ 10.2 1.1 

10.7 1.6 

10.9 1.8 

Room Air Conditioners (20,000–24,999 Btu/h), with Louvers ..................................................................................................... 9.0 0.9 

9.4 1.1 

9.8 1.9 

Room Air Conditioners (> 25,000 Btu/h), with Louvers ............................................................................................................... 9.0 2.1 

9.4 2.4 

Room Air Conditioners (8000–10,999 Btu/h), without Louvers ................................................................................................... 9.3 0.6 

9.6 0.7 

10.0 1.3 

Room Air Conditioners (> 11,000 Btu/h), without Louvers .......................................................................................................... 9.3 1.3 

9.5 1.4 

9.8 1.9 

While DOE examined the rebuttablepresumption criterion, it considered 

whether the standard levels considered 

for today’s rule are economically 

justified through a more detailed 

analysis of the economic impacts of 

these levels pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

definitively evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level (thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic 

justification). 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of clothes dryers and 

room air conditioners. The section 

below describes the expected impacts 

on manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 

12 of the direct final rule TSD explains 

the analysis in further detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

The tables below depict the financial 

impacts on manufacturers (represented 

by changes in INPV) and the conversion 

costs DOE estimates manufacturers 

would incur at each TSL. Each set of 

results below shows two tables of 

INPV impacts: The first table reflects the 

lower (less severe) bound of impacts 

and the second represents the upper 

bound. To evaluate this range of cashflow impacts on each industry, DOE 

modeled two different scenarios using 

different markup assumptions. These 

assumptions correspond to the bounds 

of a range of market responses that DOE 

anticipates could occur in the standards 

case. Each scenario results in a unique 

set of cash flows and corresponding 

industry value at each TSL. 

The INPV results refer to the 

difference in industry value between the 

base case and the standards case, which 

DOE calculated by summing the 

discounted industry cash flows from the 

base year (2011) through the end of the 

analysis period. The discussion also 

notes the difference in cash flow 

between the base case and the standards 

case in the year before the compliance 

date of potential amended energy 

conservation standards. This figure 

provides a proxy for the magnitude of 

the required conversion costs, relative to 

the cash flow generated by the industry 

in the base case. 

Cash Flow Analysis Results for Clothes 

Dryers 

To assess the lower (less severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts on the 

residential clothes dryer industry, DOE 

modeled the flat markup scenario. The 

flat markup scenario assumes that in the 

standards case manufacturers would be 

able to pass the higher productions costs 

required for more efficient products on 

to their customers. Specifically, the 

industry would be able to maintain its 

average base-case gross margin, as a 

percentage of revenue, despite higher 

product costs. In general, the larger the 

product price increases, the less likely 

manufacturers are to achieve the cash 

flow from operations calculated in this 

scenario because the less likely it is that 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22535 

manufacturers would be able to fully 

markup these larger cost increases. 

To assess the higher (more severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts on the 

residential clothes dryer industry, DOE 

modeled the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario. The scenario 

represents the upper end of the range of 

potential impacts on manufacturers 

because no additional operating profit is 

earned on the higher production costs, 

eroding profit margins as a percentage of 

total revenue. 

DOE used the main NIA shipment 

scenario for the both the lower- and 

higher-bound MIA scenarios that were 

used to characterize the potential INPV 

impacts. The shipment forecast is an 

important driver of the INPV results 

below (Table V–19 and Table V–20). 

The main NIA shipment scenario 

includes a price elasticity effect, 

meaning higher prices in the standards 

case result in lower shipments. Lower 

shipments also reduce industry revenue, 

and, in turn, INPV. 

TABLE V–19—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CLOTHES DRYERS—FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

INPV ............................................................................. 2009$ millions 1,003.6 1,001.1 1,000.0 962.5 939.2 827.1 699.7 

Change in INPV ........................................................... 2009$ millions .................. ¥2.6 ¥3.6 ¥41.13 ¥64.46 ¥176.5 ¥303.9 

% .................. ¥0.3% ¥0.4% ¥4.1% ¥6.4% ¥17.6% ¥30.3% 

Product Conversion Costs ........................................... 2009$ millions .................. 4 5 18 24 166 383 

Capital Conversion Costs ............................................ 2009$ millions .................. 0 2 48 71 328 536 

Total Conversion Costs ........................................ 2009$ millions .................. 4 7 66 95 494 919 

TABLE V–20—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CLOTHES DRYERS—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING PROFIT

MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

INPV ........................................................................... 2009$ millions 1,003.6 1,001.0 998.7 948.2 923.0 606.2 273.6 

Change in INPV ......................................................... 2009$ millions .................. ¥2.6 ¥4 ¥55.46 ¥80.63 ¥397.4 ¥730.0 

% .................. ¥0.3% ¥0.5% ¥5.5% ¥8.0% ¥39.6% ¥72.7% 

Product Conversion Costs .......................................... 2009$ millions .................. 4 5 18 24 166 383 

Capital Conversion Costs ........................................... 2009$ millions .................. 0 2 48 71 328 536 

Total Conversion Costs ....................................... 2009$ millions .................. 4 7 66 95 494 919 

TSL 1 represents the baseline CEF for 

120V electric compact clothes dryers 

(product class 2), 240V electric compact 

clothes dryers (product class 3), 240V 

compact ventless clothes dryers 

(product class 5), and electric 

combination ventless clothes dryers 

(product class 6). TSL 1 represents a 

CEF of 3.56 for standard-size vented 

electric clothes dryers (product class 1) 

and a CEF of 3.16 for gas vented clothes 

dryers (product class 4). At TSL 1, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

¥$2.55 million to ¥$2.62 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥0.3 percent. At this 

proposed level, industry free cash flow 

is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 1.6 percent to $68.6 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $69.7 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

The design options DOE analyzed for 

product class 1 and 4 include lowering 

standby power consumption only. 

Standby power changes would result in 

only minor changes to baseline products 

and would take a minimal effort by 

manufacturers to comply with the 

amended energy conservation 

standards. The standby power changes 

at TSL 1 would require relatively small 

product development efforts to reach 

the CEF levels and would not change 

the assembly of currently products, 

greatly limiting the necessary capital 

conversion costs. In addition, the design 

options for standby power do not add 

significant costs to existing products. 

Therefore, the impact on manufacturers 

is very small at TSL 1. 

TSL 2 represents a CEF of 3.61 for 

product class 1, a CEF of 3.61 for 

product class 2, a CEF of 3.27 for 

product class 3, a CEF of 3.20 for 

product class 4, a CEF of 2.69 for 

product class 5, and a CEF of 2.56 for 

product class 6. At TSL 2, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

¥$3.6 million to ¥$4.9 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥0.4 percent to ¥0.5 

percent. At this proposed level, industry 

free cash flow is estimated to decrease 

by approximately 3.0 percent to $67.6 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $69.7 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

The design options analyzed at TSL 2 

for product classes 1 through 5 

represent improvements to standby 

power consumption only. The changes 

required at TSL 2 would not greatly 

alter baseline products for these product 

classes because these analyzed design 

options are small component changes 

for standby power for product classes 1 

through 5. The design options analyzed 

for product class 6 include changes to 

active mode power consumption. 

However, these active mode changes for 

product class 6 are also relatively minor 

and would take a minimal effort by 

manufacturers to comply with the 

amended energy conservation 

standards. For product class 6, the 

analyzed design option for active mode 

is automatic cycle termination 

technology which adds very little cost to 

the product and takes minimal capital 

and product conversion costs to 

implement. Because the changes for 

product class 1 through 5 only include 

standby power changes and the active 

mode changes for product class 6 are 

minor, the impact on manufacturers is 

very small at TSL 2. 

The efficiency requirements for 

product classes 2 to 6 are the same at 

TSL 3 as at TSL 2. TSL 3, however, 

represents a further improvement to a 

CEF of 3.73 for product class 1. At TSL 

3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to 

range from ¥$41.1 million to ¥$55.5 

million, or a change in INPV of ¥4.1 

percent to ¥5.5 percent. At this 

proposed level, industry free cash flow 

is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 34.2 percent to $45.9 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22536 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $69.7 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

The design options DOE analyzed for 

product class 1 include improvements 

to standby and active power 

consumption (airflow improvements, a 

dedicated heater duct, and an open 

cylinder drum). While the actual design 

path taken by manufacturers could vary 

at TSL 3, these technologies represent 

incremental improvements and are well 

known in the industry. The changes for 

design options analyzed for product 

class 1 would require both changes to 

production equipment and product 

development costs. These design 

options would not greatly alter the 

production process for product class 1 

and could be made within most existing 

products. The conversion costs to 

implement these changes are also 

relatively low compared to the total 

value of the industry. The industry 

impacts would increase at TSL 3, 

however, because for product class 1, 

manufacturers would have to make 

changes for a large volume of the 

common standard-size electric models. 

TSL 4 represents the baseline 

efficiency for product classes 5 and 6. 

TSL 4 also represents the same 

efficiency requirements for product 

classes 2 and 3 as TSL 2 and TSL 3. 

TSL 4 also has the same efficiency 

requirements for product class 1 as 

TSL 3, but represents a 3.30 CEF for 

product class 4. At TSL 4, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

¥$64.5 million to ¥$80.6 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥6.4 percent to ¥8.0 

percent. At this proposed level, industry 

free cash flow is estimated to decrease 

by approximately 49.8 percent to $35.0 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $69.7 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

The impacts at TSL 4 are due 

primarily to the efficiency requirements 

for product classes 1 and 4 because all 

other product classes are at baseline 

efficiency or could be met with changes 

to standby power consumption. For 

both product classes 1 and 4, DOE 

analyzed changes to standby power 

consumption and the same 

improvements to active mode power 

consumption for both gas and electric 

units (airflow improvements, a 

dedicated heater duct, and an open 

cylinder drum). As with TSL 3, while 

the actual design path taken by 

manufacturers could vary at TSL 4, 

these technologies represent 

incremental improvements to most 

products and are well known in the 

industry. Industry impacts would 

increase at TSL 4, however, because for 

both product classes 1 and 4, the 

changes would require improvements in 

the most common standard-size gas and 

electric products on the market today. 

The changes for design options analyzed 

for product class 1 and 4 would require 

both changes to production equipment 

and product development costs. These 

design options would not greatly alter 

the production processes for either 

product class and could be made within 

most existing products. The conversion 

costs to implement these changes for 

both product class 1 and 4 are still 

relatively low compared to the total 

value of the industry. 

TSL 5 represents a CEF of 4.08 for 

product class 1, a CEF of 4.08 for 

product class 2, a CEF of 3.60 for 

product class 3, a CEF of 3.61 for 

product class 4, a CEF of 2.80 for 

product class 5, and a CEF of 2.56 for 

product class 6. At TSL 5, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

¥$176.5 million to ¥$397.4 million, or 

a change in INPV of ¥17.6 percent to 

¥39.6 percent. At this proposed level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 249.7 

percent to ¥$104.4 million, compared 

to the base-case value of $69.7 million 

in the year leading up to the proposed 

energy conservation standards. 

Most of the impacts on INPV at TSL 

5 are due to the efficiency requirements 

for product classes 1 through 4. Very 

few products on the market today meet 

the efficiency requirements at TSL 5, 

and for product classes 1 through 4, TSL 

5 represents the most efficient units 

currently on the market. The design 

options DOE analyzed for these product 

classes included similar design options 

for all product classes as for product 

classes 1 and 4 at TSL 4 (airflow 

improvements, a dedicated heater duct, 

and an open cylinder drum) plus 

additional changes. In addition to 

airflow improvements, a dedicated 

heater duct, and an open cylinder drum, 

the design options analyzed by DOE 

also include modulating heat, inlet air 

preheating, and a more efficient fan 

motor. Out of all these design options 

used the reach the required efficiencies 

at TSL 5, inlet air preheating would 

require the most substantial changes to 

existing products because it would 

change the ducting system. This change 

would impact drum stamping 

equipment and, possibly, the fabrication 

of the cabinets for some product lines. 

The impacts also increase dramatically 

at TSL 5 due to the large increase in 

production costs for the additional 

design options beyond those needed to 

reach the required efficiencies at TSL 4. 

The large incremental costs result in 

lower shipments due to the price 

elasticity. These additional costs also 

cause a greater impact on INPV if 

manufactures are unable to earn 

additional profit on these added costs 

(under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario). 

TSL 6 represents the max-tech level 

for all product classes. The max-tech 

level corresponds to a CEF of 5.42 for 

product class 1, a CEF of 5.41 for 

product class 2, a CEF of 4.89 for 

product class 3, a CEF of 3.61 for 

product class 4, a CEF of 4.03 for 

product class 5, and a CEF of 3.69 for 

product class 6. At TSL 6, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

¥$303.9 million to ¥$730.0 million, or 

a change in INPV of ¥30.3 percent to 

¥72.7 percent. At this proposed level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 467.5 

percent to ¥$256.2 million, compared 

to the base-case value of $69.7 million 

in the year leading up to the proposed 

energy conservation standards. 

At TSL 6, the efficiency requirements 

for all electric clothes dryers would 

effectively require a heat pump clothes 

dryer. Currently, there are no heat pump 

clothes dryers on the market in the 

United States. Manufacturing 

exclusively heat pump clothes dryers 

would be extremely disruptive to 

existing manufacturing facilities. A heat 

pump standard would require a total 

renovation of existing facilities and 

would force the industry to design 

completely new clothes dryer platforms. 

The capital conversion costs for these 

changes are extremely large—more than 

double the capital conversion costs 

calculated for these products to meet 

TSL 5. The product development costs 

to manufacturer heat pump clothes 

dryers also increase substantially 

because manufacturers must not only 

redesign clothes washer platforms, but 

also design the heat pump system. 

Manufacturers also indicated that 

training their service and installation 

network to use a completely different 

technology would be extremely costly, 

as would the cost to educate consumers. 

Finally, the impacts on INPV are also 

great at TSL 6 because the cost of a heat 

pump clothes dryer is more than double 

a minimally compliant clothes dryer in 

the market today. If manufactures are 

unable to earn additional profit on these 

production costs, profitability is 

severely impacted. 

Cash Flow Analysis Results for Room 

Air Conditioners 

To assess the lower (less severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts on the 

room air conditioner industry, DOE 

modeled the flat markup scenario. The 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22537 

flat markup scenario assumes that in the 

standards case manufacturers would be 

able to pass the higher productions costs 

required for more efficient products on 

to their customers. Specifically, the 

industry would be able to maintain its 

average base-case gross margin, as a 

percentage of revenue, despite higher 

product costs. In general, the larger the 

product price increases, the less likely 

manufacturers are to achieve the cash 

flow from operations calculated in this 

scenario because the less likely it is that 

manufacturers would be able to fully 

markup these larger cost increases. 

To assess the higher (more severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts on the 

room air conditioner industry, DOE 

modeled the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario. Through its 

discussion with manufacturers, DOE 

found that manufacturers are faced with 

significant market pressure to keep 

prices low. Consumers are accustomed 

to certain price points for room air 

conditioners, and they could forgo their 

purchases if prices increased 

significantly because many purchases 

are weather-dependent impulse buys. 

As a result, several key retailers exert 

their purchasing power to pressure 

manufacturers to offer product lines at 

low prices. Higher efficiency units that 

earn a premium in the base case are 

bundled with additional features that 

drive higher prices. Thus, 

manufacturers are skeptical that 

customers would accept higher prices 

for increased energy efficiency because 

it does not command higher margins in 

the current market. Under such a 

scenario, it follows that the large 

retailers that compose the relatively 

concentrated customer base of the 

industry would not accept 

manufacturers fully passing through the 

additional cost of improved efficiency 

because consumers would be wary of 

higher prices. Therefore, to assess the 

higher (more severe) end of the range of 

potential impacts, DOE modeled the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario in which higher energy 

conservation standards result in lower 

manufacturer markups. This markup is 

applied to both the minimum standard 

level and the de facto minimally 

efficient products due to the modeled 

efficiency migration over time. This 

scenario models manufacturers’ 

concerns that the higher costs of more 

efficient technology would harm 

profitability if the full cost increases 

cannot be passed on. The scenario 

represents the upper end of the range of 

potential impacts on manufacturers 

because no additional operating profit is 

earned on the investments required to 

meet the proposed amended energy 

conservation standards, while higher 

production costs erode profit margins 

and result in lower cash flows from 

operations. 

DOE used the main NIA shipment 

scenario for the both the lower- and 

higher-bound MIA scenarios that were 

used to characterize the potential INPV 

impacts. The shipment forecast is an 

important driver of the INPV results 

below (Table V–21 and Table V–22). 

The main NIA shipment scenario 

includes a price elasticity effect, 

meaning higher prices in the standards 

case result in lower shipments. Lower 

shipments also reduce industry revenue, 

and, in turn, INPV. 

TABLE V–21—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS—FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

INPV ..................................... 2009$ millions ....................... 956.0 .. 911.8 890.6 890.3 844.7 869.5 875.9 

Change in INPV .................... 2009$ millions ....................... ............ (44.2) (65.4) (65.7) (111.3) (86.6) (80.2) 

% ........................................... ............ ¥4.6% ¥6.8% ¥6.9% ¥11.6% ¥9.1% ¥8.4% 

Product Conversion Costs .... 2009$ millions ....................... ............ 22 29 41 61 74 117 

Capital Conversion Costs ..... 2009$ millions ....................... ............ 46 69 61 109 101 193 

Total Conversion Costs ........ 2009$ millions ....................... ............ 68 98 102 171 176 310 

TABLE V–22—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING PROFIT

MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

INPV ..................................... 2009$ millions ....................... 956.0 .. 871.1 843.3 843.6 778.4 771.6 611.5 

Change in INPV .................... 2009$ millions ....................... ............ (84.9) (112.7) (112.4) (177.6) (184.4) (344.5) 

% ........................................... ............ ¥8.9% ¥11.8% ¥11.8% ¥18.6% ¥19.3% ¥36.0% 

Product Conversion Costs .... 2009$ millions ....................... ............ 22 29 41 61 74 117 

Capital Conversion Costs ..... 2009$ millions ....................... ............ 46 69 61 109 101 193 

Total Conversion Costs ........ 2009$ millions ....................... ............ 68 98 102 171 176 310 

TSL 1 represents a CEER of 9.30 for 

product class 8A (without reverse cycle 

and without louvered sides—8,000 to 

10,999 Btu/h) and product class 8B 

(without reverse cycle and without 

louvered sides—11,000 to 13,999 Btu/ 

h); 9.40 for product class 5A (without 

reverse cycle and with louvered sides— 

20,000 to 24,999 Btu/h) and product 

class 5B (without reverse cycle and with 

louvered sides—25,000 Btu/h and 

more); 10.10 for product class 1 

(without reverse cycle and with 

louvered sides—less than 6,000 Btu/h); 

and 10.70 for product class 3 (without 

reverse cycle and with louvered sides— 

8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h). At TSL 1, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

from ¥$44.2 million to ¥$84.9 million, 

or a change in INPV of ¥4.6 percent to 

¥8.9 percent. At this proposed level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 27.7 percent 

to $62.4 million, compared to the basecase value of $86.3 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

The INPV impacts at TSL 1 are 

relatively minor, in part because the 

vast majority of manufacturers produce 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22538 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

units that exceed this level (such as, 

ENERGY STAR and other high 

efficiency units) in significant volumes. 

Approximately 60 percent of product 

class 3 shipments, 85 percent of product 

class 5A and 5B shipments, and 90 

percent of product class 8A and 8B 

shipments currently meet this TSL. By 

contrast, the vast majority of product 

class 1 shipments are baseline units. 

Although most of the design options 

DOE analyzed at this proposed level are 

one-for-one component swaps, some 

more complex design options that 

would be required at TSL 1 necessitate 

more substantial changes. These design 

options that have a significant impact 

on conversion costs at TSL 1 are heat 

exchanger changes and increased 

chassis volumes. Changes to the 

condenser or evaporator require 

machinery for new dies for every 

product line and require greater design 

effort than component swaps. Increased 

chassis volumes require a complete 

redesign of the product and substantial 

tooling to make the unit larger. 

Although some room air conditioners, 

particularly those in product class 1, 

will require these changes at TSL 1, 

these changes would not be required 

across the entire industry because the 

majority of units in most product classes 

already meet TSL 1. As such, DOE 

estimated total product conversion costs 

of $22 million and capital conversion 

costs of $46 million, which is relatively 

low compared to the industry value of 

$956 million. 

The efficiency requirements for 

product class 3, product class 5A, 

product class 5B, product class 8A, and 

product class 8B are the same at TSL 2 

as TSL 1. Thus, the only change from 

TSL 1 occurs for product class 1, which 

requires a CEER of 10.60 at TSL 2. DOE 

estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 2 

range from ¥$65.4 million to ¥$112.7 

million, or a change in INPV of ¥6.8 

percent to ¥11.8 percent. At this 

proposed level, the industry cash flow 

is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 40.5 percent to $51.4 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $86.3 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy 

conservation standard. 

The additional impacts at TSL 2 

relative to TSL 1 result from the further 

improvements manufacturers must 

make to meet a CEER of 10.6 for product 

class 1. Most units in product class 1 

would need to increase their chassis 

size even further than at TSL 1 in order 

to meet TSL 2, resulting in estimated 

product and capital conversion costs of 

$29 million and $69 million, 

respectively. 

TSL 3 represents different efficiency 

levels for every product class compared 

to TSL 2. TSL 3 represents the baseline 

CEERs of 8.47 and 8.48 for product 

classes 5A and 5B, respectively, 

meaning that no amended standards 

would be set and no impacts on INPV 

would occur. TSL 3 represents a CEER 

of 9.50 for product class 8B, 9.60 for 

product class 8A, 10.10 for product 

class 1, and 10.90 for product class 3. 

DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 

3 to range from ¥$65.7 million to 

¥$112.4 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥6.9 percent to ¥11.8 percent. At 

this proposed level, the industry cash 

flow is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 40.5 percent to $51.4 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $86.3 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. 

At TSL 3, several product classes 

require design options that increase 

conversion costs. For product class 1, 

some units would require increased 

chassis volumes, though not as 

substantially as at TSL 2. For product 

class 3, all smaller units would require 

chassis changes, driving the majority of 

the conversion costs at TSL 3. For 

product classes 8A and 8B, some 

changes to the heat exchangers would 

be required. However, no conversion 

costs would be applied to product 

classes 5A and 5B, resulting in total 

product and capital conversion costs at 

TSL 3 of $41 million and $61 million, 

respectively. 

TSL 4 represents the same efficiency 

requirements as TSL 3 for product 

classes 3, 8A, and 8B. For product class 

5B, TSL 4 represents a CEER of 9.00. For 

product class 5A, TSL 4 represents a 

CEER of 9.40, and for product class 1, 

TSL 4 represents a CEER of 11.10. DOE 

estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 4 to 

range from ¥$111.3 million to ¥$177.6 

million, or a change in INPV of ¥11.6 

percent to ¥18.6 percent. At this 

proposed level, the industry cash flow 

is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 69.1 percent to $26.7 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $86.3 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

At TSL 4, significant changes to the 

manufacturing process would be 

required. Product classes 1, 5A, and 5B 

would all require increased chassis 

volumes, and product classes 1 and 5A 

would also require heat exchanger 

changes. These design options drive 

increases of $20 million in product 

conversion costs and $48 million in 

capital conversion costs compared to 

TSL 3. 

TSL 5 represents the same efficiency 

requirements as TSL 4 for product 

classes 1 and 8B. For product classes 5A 

and 5B, TSL 5 represents the baseline 

CEERs of 8.47 and 8.48, respectively, so 

all impacts of TSL 4 on these product 

classes, such as chassis changes, would 

not be required. For product class 8A, 

TSL 5 represents a CEER of 10.00, and 

for product class 3, TSL 5 represents a 

CEER of 11.50. DOE estimates the INPV 

impacts at TSL 5 to range from ¥$86.6 

million to ¥$184.4 million, or a change 

in INPV of ¥9.1 percent to ¥19.3 

percent. At this proposed level, the 

industry cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 69.3 percent 

to $26.5 million, compared to the basecase value of $86.3 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

At TSL 5, impacts are negative under 

both scenarios due to the high 

conversion costs that exist at TSL 5. 

Although capital conversion costs 

would be $8 million lower at TSL 5 than 

at TSL 4 due to the removal of any 

capital costs associated with product 

classes 5A and 5B (despite higher 

capital costs for product class 3), 

product conversion costs are $13 

million higher at TSL 5 compared to 

TSL 4 because a greater number of 

product lines would need to be 

redesigned at this level. 

TSL 6 represents max-tech for all 

room air conditioners. The max-tech 

level corresponds to CEERs of 9.80, 

10.02, 10.15, 10.35, 11.67, and 11.96 for 

product classes 5B, 8B, 5A, 8A, 1, and 

3, respectively. DOE estimates the INPV 

impacts at TSL 6 to range from ¥$80.2 

million to ¥$344.5 million, or a change 

in INPV of ¥8.4 percent to ¥36.0 

percent. At this proposed level, the 

industry cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by 124.8 percent to ¥$21.4 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $86.3 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

At TSL 6, all products would need to 

be fully redesigned, resulting in large 

product and capital conversion costs of 

$117 million and $193 million, 

respectively. These conversion costs are 

mostly driven by the high-volume 

product classes 1 and 3 and their 

associated chassis and heat exchanger 

changes. 

b. Impacts on Employment 

Clothes Dryer Employment Impacts 

For clothes dryers, DOE used the 

GRIM to estimate the domestic labor 

expenditures and number of domestic 

production workers in the base case and 

at each TSL from 2011 to 2043. DOE 

used statistical data from the most 

recent U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22539 

‘‘Annual Survey of Manufacturers,’’ the 

results of the engineering analysis, and 

interviews with manufacturers to 

determine the inputs necessary to 

calculate industry-wide labor 

expenditures and domestic employment 

levels. Labor expenditures for the 

manufacture of a product are a function 

of the labor intensity of the product, the 

sales volume, and an assumption that 

wages in real terms remain constant. 

In the GRIM, DOE used the labor 

content of each product and the 

manufacturing production costs from 

the engineering analysis to estimate the 

annual labor expenditures in the clothes 

dryers and room air conditioner 

industries. DOE used Census data and 

interviews with manufacturers to 

estimate the portion of the total labor 

expenditures that is attributable to 

domestic labor. 

The production worker estimates in 

this section only cover workers up to 

the line-supervisor level who are 

directly involved in fabricating and 

assembling a product within an Original 

Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) facility. 

Workers performing services that are 

closely associated with production 

operations, such as material handing 

with a forklift, are also included as 

production labor. DOE’s estimates 

account only for production workers 

who manufacture the specific products 

covered by this rulemaking. 

The employment impacts shown in 

Table V–23 represent the potential 

production employment that could 

result following amended energy 

conservation standards. The upper end 

of the results in this table estimates the 

total potential increase in the number of 

production workers after amended 

energy conservation standards. To 

calculate the total potential increase, 

DOE assumed that manufacturers 

continue to produce the same scope of 

covered products in domestic 

production facilities and domestic 

production is not shifted to lower-laborcost countries. Because there is a real 

risk of manufacturers evaluating 

sourcing decisions in response to 

amended energy conservation 

standards, the lower end of the range of 

employment results in Table V–23 

includes the estimated total number of 

U.S. production workers in the industry 

who could lose their jobs if all existing 

production were moved outside of the 

United States. While the results present 

a range of employment impacts 

following the compliance date of 

amended energy conservation 

standards, the discussion below also 

includes a qualitative discussion of the 

likelihood of negative employment 

impacts at the various TSLs. Finally, the 

employment impacts shown are 

independent of the employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, which 

are documented in chapter 13 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that 

in the absence of amended energy 

conservation standards, there would be 

4,426 domestic production workers 

involved in manufacturing residential 

clothes dryers in 2014. Using 2008 

Census Bureau data and interviews with 

manufacturers, DOE estimates that 

approximately three-quarters of clothes 

dryers sold in the United States are 

manufactured domestically. Table V–23 

shows the range of the impacts of 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards on U.S. production workers in 

the clothes dryer industry. 

TABLE V–23—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC CLOTHES DRYER PRODUCTION WORKERS IN

2014 

Base case 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2014 (without changes in production locations) ......................................... 3,962 3,962 3,965 4,370 4,420 5,040 6,218 

Potential Changes in Domestic 

Production Workers in 2014 * ... .................... 0–(3,962) 3–(3,962) 408–(3,962) 458–(3,962) 1,078–(3,962) 2,256–(3,962) 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers. 

All examined TSLs show relatively 

minor impacts on domestic employment 

levels at the lower end of the range. In 

particular, the design options used in 

the engineering analysis for TSL 1 and 

TSL 2 almost exclusively involve 

changes to standby power. These TSLs 

would not measurably impact domestic 

employment levels. 

At TSL 3 through TSL 5, DOE 

analyzed design options for the most 

common 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 

increase in response to the energy 

conservation standards. At TSL 3 

through 5, greater levels of domestic 

production employment are also likely 

because, while requiring more labor, the 

product changes could be made within 

existing platforms. The ability to make 

product changes within existing 

platforms mitigates some of the pressure 

to find lower labor costs because this 

decision would add disruptions with 

suppliers and add capital costs. 

However, TSL 6 would effectively 

require heat pump clothes dryers for all 

electric units. Manufacturers indicated 

that such a drastic change to existing 

products could force them to consider 

moving domestic production to 

countries with lower labor costs. 

Besides the large capital conversion 

costs, the much higher labor content in 

heat pump clothes dryers would also 

put pressure on manufacturers to 

consider a lower-labor-cost country. 

Room Air Conditioner Employment 

Impacts 

DOE’s research suggests that currently 

no room air conditioners are made 

domestically. All manufacturers or their 

domestic distributors do maintain 

offices in the United States to handle 

design, technical support, training, 

certification, and other requirements. As 

amended energy conservation standards 

for room air conditioners are 

implemented, however, DOE does not 

anticipate any changes in domestic 

employment levels. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

Clothes Dryers 

At TSL 1 through TSL 5, 

manufacturers could maintain capacity 

levels and continue to meet market 

demand under amended energy 

conservation standards. While the 

changes required at these TSLs would 

require changes that could be made 

within most existing designs, TSL 6, 

which would effectively require heat 

pump technology, could result in shortterm capacity constraints. Significant 

changes to production facilities would 

be required if amended energy 

conservation standards effectively 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22540 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

mandated heat pump clothes dryers at 

TSL 6. Several manufacturers stated that 

they could move all or part of their 

production if they were required to 

exclusively manufacture heat pump 

clothes dryers. Because of these drastic 

changes, a 3-year time period between 

the announcement of the final rule and 

the compliance date of the amended 

energy conservation standard might not 

be sufficient to design and manufacture 

products that have yet to be introduced 

in the United States and which would 

require new dryer designs from each 

manufacturer that continued to offer 

electric clothes dryers for the United 

States market. 

Room Air Conditioners 

DOE anticipates that amended energy 

conservation standards would not 

significantly affect the production 

capacity of room air conditioner 

manufacturers. Manufacturers 

mentioned two issues that could 

potentially constrain capacity. One is 

the availability of high efficiency 

compressors, which are currently 

difficult to obtain. Because amended 

energy conservation standards would 

cause the demand for high efficiency 

compressors to increase, manufacturers 

worried that they would not be able to 

obtain the quantities they need to 

maintain desired production levels. 

DOE understands that compressor 

availability is a concern at present. DOE 

does not believe this shortage will 

continue when amended standards take 

effect in 2014 because the number of R– 

410A compressors available for the 

room air conditioner industry has 

already greatly expanded since the ban 

on R–22 took effect. Because there is a 

3-year delay between the announcement 

of the final rule and the compliance date 

of the amended energy conservation 

standard, DOE believes suppliers will 

have sufficient time to anticipate 

demand and ramp up production of 

high efficiency compressors for room air 

conditioners. 

The second potential capacity 

constraint involves changes to existing 

chassis sizes, which could be required 

by amended energy conservation 

standards. Manufacturers stated that 

increasing chassis volume requires 

significant product development and 

capital investments, which could 

severely disrupt production at their 

facilities. DOE understands that 

increasing chassis volume causes 

substantial conversion costs, which are 

quantified in the GRIM. DOE does not 

believe, however, that the proposed 

standards would significantly affect 

production capacity. Even though 

chassis size increases require large 

capital and product conversion costs, 

this design option is not required across 

all analyzed product classes. In 

addition, manufacturers were more 

concerned about the capital and product 

conversion costs to make these changes 

than having a three year implementation 

period to do so, and DOE has accounted 

for these costs in the establishment of 

the room air conditioner standards. DOE 

believes that room air conditioner 

manufacturers will be able to increase 

chassis volumes by 2014 while 

maintaining production capacity levels 

and continuing to meet market demand 

for all room air conditioner standard 

levels. 

d. Impacts on Sub-Groups of 

Manufacturers 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop an industry cash-flow estimate 

is not adequate for assessing differential 

impacts among manufacturer subgroups. 

Small manufacturers, niche equipment 

manufacturers, and manufacturers 

exhibiting a cost structure substantially 

different from the industry average 

could be affected disproportionately. 

While DOE analyzed the impacts to 

small business in section VI.B, DOE did 

not identify any other subgroups for 

clothes dryers or room air conditioners 

for this rulemaking based on the results 

of the industry characterization. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

While any one regulation may not 

impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

several impending regulations may have 

serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and can 

lead companies to abandon product 

lines or markets with lower expected 

future returns than competing products. 

For these reasons, DOE conducts an 

analysis of cumulative regulatory 

burden as part of its rulemakings 

pertaining to appliance efficiency. 

During previous stages of this 

rulemaking DOE identified a number of 

requirements, in addition to amended 

energy conservation standards for 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, with which manufacturers 

of these products will be required to 

comply. Manufacturers provided 

comment on some of these regulations 

during the preliminary analysis period, 

including UL 2158, which deals with 

fire containment in electric clothes 

dryers, and the Montreal Protocol, 

which banned R–22 refrigerant in new 

room air conditioners. DOE summarizes 

and addresses these comments in 

section IV.I.3.b and provides additional 

details of the cumulative regulatory 

burden analysis in chapter 12 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

through 2043 attributable to potential 

standards for clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners, DOE compared the 

energy consumption of these products 

under the base case to their anticipated 

energy consumption under each TSL. 

As discussed in section IV.E, the results 

account for a rebound effect of 15 

percent for room air conditioners (that 

is, 15 percent of the total savings from 

higher product efficiency are ‘‘taken 

back’’ by consumers through more 

intensive use of the product). 

Table V–24 and Table V–25 present 

DOE’s forecasts of the national energy 

savings for each TSL for clothes dryers 

and room air conditioners, respectively. 

The savings were calculated using the 

approach described in section IV.G. 

Chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD 

presents tables that also show the 

magnitude of the energy savings if the 

savings are discounted at rates of 7 and 

3 percent. Discounted energy savings 

represent a policy perspective in which 

energy savings realized farther in the 

future are less significant than energy 

savings realized in the nearer term. 

TABLE V–24—CLOTHES DRYERS: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS IN QUADS

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Vented Electric Standard ......................................................... 0 .000 0.038 0 .347 0.347 1.268 2.923 

Vented Electric Compact 120V ................................................ 0 .000 0.000 0 .000 0.000 0.002 0.003 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22541 

TABLE V–24—CLOTHES DRYERS: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS IN QUADS—Continued 

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Vented Electric Compact 240V ................................................ 0 .000 0.001 0 .001 0.001 0.006 0.016 

Vented Gas .............................................................................. 0 .000 0.009 0 .009 0.038 0.164 0.164 

Ventless Electric Compact 240V ............................................. 0 .000 0.002 0 .002 0.000 0.004 0.016 

Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer .......................... 0 .000 0.011 0 .011 0.000 0.011 0.023 

Total .................................................................................. 0 .00 0.062 0 .37 0.386 1.455 3.145 

TABLE V–25—ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS IN QUADS

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Group 1—includes PC 1 .......................................................... 0 .046 0.083 0 .046 0.133 0.133 0.171 

Group 2—includes PC 2, 3, 4, 11 ........................................... 0 .051 0.115 0 .161 0.161 0.327 0.445 

Group 3—includes PC 5A, 9, 13 ............................................. 0 .001 0.001 0 .000 0.001 0.000 0.008 

Group 4—includes PC 5B, 10 ................................................. 0 .000 0.000 0 .000 0.000 0.000 0.003 

Group 5—includes PC 6, 7, 8A, 12 ......................................... 0 .004 0.004 0 .006 0.006 0.014 0.021 

Group 6—includes PC 8B, 14, 15, 16 ..................................... 0 .002 0.002 0 .004 0.004 0.004 0.016 

Total .................................................................................. 0 .105 0.205 0 .218 0.305 0.477 0.665 

DOE also performed a sensitivity to 

investigate the impact of adding the 

rebound effect on the NES for the six 

energy efficiency TSLs for clothes 

dryers in appendix 10–C of the TSD. As 

described in more detail in the TSD, at 

least one study estimated a potential 

rebound effective of 5 percent for 

clothes dryers. The NES results for this 

sensitively show a consistent, small 

decrease in potential energy savings 

from a standard. (Refer to section IV.E 

for a discussion of the rebound effect.) 

DOE recognizes that there may be 

forms of direct consumer rebound that 

have not been measured in previous 

studies. For example, if automatic 

termination of clothes dryer cycles 

leaves clothes feeling humid or damp, 

then consumers may change to longer 

timed drying cycles. DOE is addressing 

this type of rebound effect in updates of 

its clothes dryer test procedure which 

provides for a field use factor that 

relates tested clothes dryer energy use to 

in-field energy use. If DOE detects a 

significant rebound effect from changing 

characteristics of clothes dryers, DOE 

will consider such effects in updates of 

its test procedure regulations and in 

future amendments to the energy 

conservation standards, as appropriate. 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to 

the nation of the total costs and savings 

for consumers that would result from 

particular standard levels for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners. In 

accordance with the OMB’s guidelines 

on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular 

A–4, section E, September 17, 2003), 

DOE calculated NPV using both a 

7-percent and a 3-percent real discount 

rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of 

the average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy, and 

reflects the returns to real estate and 

small business capital as well as 

corporate capital. DOE used this 

discount rate to approximate the 

opportunity cost of capital in the private 

sector, since recent OMB analysis has 

found the average rate of return to 

capital to be near this rate. In addition, 

DOE used the 3-percent rate to capture 

the potential effects of standards on 

private consumption (for example, 

through higher prices for products and 

the purchase of reduced amounts of 

energy). This rate represents the rate at 

which society discounts future 

consumption flows to their present 

value. This rate can be approximated by 

the real rate of return on long-term 

government debt (that is, yield on 

Treasury notes minus annual rate of 

change in the Consumer Price Index), 

which has averaged about 3 percent on 

a pre-tax basis for the last 30 years. 

Table V–26 through Table V–29 show 

the consumer NPV results for each TSL 

DOE considered for clothes dryers and 

room air conditioners, using both a 

7-percent and a 3-percent discount rate. 

In each case, the impacts cover the 

lifetime of products purchased in 2014– 

2043. See chapter 10 of the direct final 

rule TSD for more detailed NPV results. 

TABLE V–26—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR CLOTHES DRYERS, 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT

RATE

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Billion 2009$ 

Vented Electric Standard ......................................................... 0 .00 0.40 2 .779 2.779 2.125 0.563 

Vented Electric Compact 120V ................................................ 0 .00 0.005 0 .005 0.005 ¥0.013 ¥0.029 

Vented Electric Compact 240V ................................................ 0 .00 0.014 0 .014 0.014 ¥0.066 ¥0.12 

Vented Gas .............................................................................. 0 .00 0.094 0 .094 0.215 ¥1.906 ¥1.906 

Ventless Electric Compact 240V ............................................. 0 .00 0.019 0 .019 0.00 ¥0.010 ¥0.036 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22542 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V–26—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR CLOTHES DRYERS, 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT

RATE—Continued 

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Billion 2009$ 

Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer .......................... 0 .00 0.086 0 .086 0.00 0.086 0.00 

Total .................................................................................. 0 .00 0.619 2 .998 3.013 0.216 ¥1.528 

TABLE V–27—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR CLOTHES DRYERS, 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT

RATE

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Billion 2009$ 

Vented Electric Standard ......................................................... 0 .00 0.168 1 .017 1.017 ¥1.079 ¥5.025 

Vented Electric Compact 120V ................................................ 0 .00 0.002 0 .002 0.002 ¥0.011 ¥0.024 

Vented Electric Compact 240V ................................................ 0 .00 0.006 0 .006 0.006 ¥0.051 ¥0.101 

Vented Gas .............................................................................. 0 .00 0.039 0 .039 0.051 ¥1.474 ¥1.474 

Ventless Electric Compact 240V ............................................. 0 .00 0.008 0 .008 0.00 ¥0.013 ¥0.050 

Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer .......................... 0 .00 0.031 0 .031 0.00 0.031 ¥0.043 

Total .................................................................................. 0 .00 0.254 1 .104 1.076 ¥2.596 ¥6.716 

TABLE V–28—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, 3-PERCENT

DISCOUNT RATE

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Billion 2009$ 

Group 1—includes PC 1 .......................................................... 0 .276 0.362 0 .276 0.245 0.245 ¥1.838 

Group 2—includes PC 2, 3, 4, 11 ........................................... 0 .427 0.902 1 .162 1.162 1.121 ¥2.374 

Group 3—includes PC 5A, 9, 13 ............................................. ¥0 .001 ¥0.003 0 .00 ¥0.003 0.00 ¥0.481 

Group 4—includes PC 5B, 10 ................................................. ¥0 .002 ¥0.008 0 .00 ¥0.002 0.00 ¥0.229 

Group 5—includes PC 6, 7, 8A, 12 ......................................... 0 .036 0.036 0 .049 0.049 0.066 ¥0.379 

Group 6—includes PC 8B, 14, 15, 16 ..................................... 0 .011 0.011 0 .024 0.024 0.024 ¥0.314 

Total .................................................................................. 0 .747 1.30 1 .511 1.474 1.456 ¥5.616 

TABLE V–29—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, 7-PERCENT

DISCOUNT RATE

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Billion 2009$ 

Group 1—includes PC 1 .......................................................... 0 .117 0.12 0 .117 ¥0.02 ¥0.02 ¥1.386 

Group 2—includes PC 2, 3, 4, 11 ........................................... 0 .21 0.438 0 .558 0.558 0.307 ¥2.084 

Group 3—includes PC 5A, 9, 13 ............................................. ¥0 .002 ¥0.003 0 .00 ¥0.003 0.00 ¥0.317 

Group 4—includes PC 5B, 10 ................................................. ¥0 .002 ¥0.006 0 .00 ¥0.002 0.00 ¥0.169 

Group 5—includes PC 6, 7, 8A, 12 ......................................... 0 .019 0.019 0 .025 0.025 0.029 ¥0.262 

Group 6—includes PC 8B, 14, 15, 16 ..................................... 0 .006 0.006 0 .012 0.012 0.012 ¥0.223 

Total .................................................................................. 0 .349 0.575 0 .712 0.57 0.328 ¥4.441 

DOE investigated the impact of 

different learning rates on the NPV for 

the six energy efficiency TSLs for room 

air conditioners and clothes dryers. The 

NPV results presented above in Table 

V.26 to Table V.29 are based on learning 

rates of 38.9% for room air conditioners 

and 41.6% for clothes dryers, both of 

which are referred to as the ‘‘default’’ 

learning rates. DOE considered three 

learning rate sensitivities: (1) A ‘‘high 

learning’’ rate; (2) a ‘‘low learning’’ rate; 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22543 

and (3) a ‘‘no learning’’ rate. In addition, 

for clothes dryers there is a fourth 

sensitivity: ‘‘Clothes Dryers Only’’. The 

‘‘high learning’’ rates are 41.4-percent for 

room air conditioners and 42.9-percent 

for clothes dryers. The ‘‘low learning’ 

rates are 31.0-percent for room air 

conditioners and 33.9-percent for 

clothes dryers. The ‘‘no learning’’ rate 

sensitivity, which is zero-percent for all 

products, assumes constant real prices 

over the entire forecast period. For 

clothes dryers, ‘‘clothes dryers only’’ is 

based on limited set of historical price 

data specifically for clothes dryers and 

the learning rate is 52.2-percent. Refer to 

section IV.F.1 for details on the 

development of the above learning rates. 

For room air conditioners, Table V.31 

provides the annualized NPV of 

consumer benefits at a 7-percent 

discount rate for each of the six energy 

efficiency TSLs for the ‘‘default’’ 

learning rate and the three sensitivity 

cases. Table V.32 provides the same 

annualized NPVs but at a 3-percent 

discount rate. For clothes dryers, Table 

V.33 provides the annualized NPV of 

consumer benefits at a 7-percent 

discount rate for each of the six energy 

efficiency TSLs for the ‘‘default’’ 

learning rate and the four sensitivity 

cases. Table V.34 provides the same 

annualized NPVs but at a 3-percent 

discount rate. Included as part of the 

annualized NPV in Table V.31 through 

Table V.34 is the annualized present 

value of monetized benefits from CO2

and NOX emissions reductions. Section 

V.B.6 below provides a complete 

description and summary of the 

monetized benefits from CO2 and NOX

emissions reductions. For details on the 

development of the learning rate 

sensitivities and the corresponding NPV 

results, see appendix 10–C of the final 

rule TSD. 

TABLE V–30—ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS: ANNUALIZED NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS INCLUDING

ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR ENERGY

EFFICIENCY TSLS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2014–2043 

[3 Percent discount rate] 

Trial standard level Learning rate (LR) 

Default: 

LRRoomAC = 38.9% 

Low sensitivity: 

LRRoomAC = 31.0% 

High sensitivity: 

LRRoomAC = 41.4% 

No learning: 

LR = 0% 

(constant real 

prices) 

Billion 2009$ 

1 ............................................................................................... 0.079 0.075 0.081 0.059 

2 ............................................................................................... 0.080 0.076 0.082 0.061 

3 ............................................................................................... 0.092 0.088 0.093 0.072 

4 ............................................................................................... 0.096 0.088 0.098 0.061 

5 ............................................................................................... 0.106 0.091 0.111 0.037 

6 ............................................................................................... (0.241) (0.289) (0.226) (0.463)

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

TABLE V–31—ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS: ANNUALIZED NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS INCLUDING

ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR ENERGY

EFFICIENCY TSLS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2014–2043 

[7 Percent discount rate] 

Trial standard level Learning rate (LR) 

Default: 

LRRoomAC = 38.9% 

Low sensitivity: 

LRRoomAC = 31.0% 

High sensitivity: 

LRRoomAC = 41.4% 

No learning: 

LR = 0% 

(constant real 

prices) 

Billion 2009$ 

1 ............................................................................................... 0.059 0.055 0.060 0.041 

2 ............................................................................................... 0.060 0.057 0.061 0.043 

3 ............................................................................................... 0.072 0.068 0.073 0.056 

4 ............................................................................................... 0.066 0.060 0.069 0.037 

5 ............................................................................................... 0.058 0.045 0.062 (0.000) 

6 ............................................................................................... (0.313) (0.355) (0.300) (0.502)

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22544 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V–32—CLOTHES DRYER: ANNUALIZED NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS INCLUDING ANNUALIZED

PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY

TSLS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2014–2043 

[3 Percent discount rate] 

Trial standard level Learning rate (LR) 

Default: 

LRCD = 41.6% 

Low sensitivity: 

LRCD = 33.9% 

High sensitivity: 

LRCD = 42.9% 

No learning: LR = 

0% 

(constant real 

prices) 

Sensitivity 

(Clothes dryers 

only): 

LR = 52.2% 

Billion 2009$ 

1 ............................................................. 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 

2 ............................................................. 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.035 0.036 

3 ............................................................. 0.178 0.173 0.179 0.158 0.183 

4 ............................................................. 0.180 0.175 0.181 0.156 0.186 

5 ............................................................. 0.110 0.033 0.121 (0.220) 0.199 

6 ............................................................. 0.185 0.018 0.209 (0.531) 0.378 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

TABLE V–33—CLOTHES DRYER: ANNUALIZED NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS INCLUDING ANNUALIZED

PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY

TSLS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2014–2043 

[7 Percent discount rate] 

Trial standard level Learning rate (LR) 

Default: 

LRCD = 41.6% 

Low Sensitivity: 

LRCD = 33.9% 

High Sensitivity: 

LRCD = 42.9% 

No Learning: 

LR = 0% 

(constant real 

prices) 

Sensitivity 

(Clothes Dryers 

Only): 

LR = 52.2% 

Billion 2009$ 

1 ............................................................. 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 

2 ............................................................. 0.025 0.024 0.025 0.024 0.025 

3 ............................................................. 0.114 0.110 0.114 0.098 0.118 

4 ............................................................. 0.113 0.108 0.113 0.094 0.118 

5 ............................................................. (0.111) (0.176) (0.103) (0.375) (0.041) 

6 ............................................................. (0.282) (0.421) (0.263) (0.853) (0.130) 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

c. Impacts on Employment 

DOE develops estimates of the 

indirect employment impacts of 

potential standards on the economy in 

general. As discussed above, DOE 

expects energy conservation standards 

for clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners to reduce energy bills for 

consumers of these products, and the 

resulting net savings to be redirected to 

other forms of economic activity. These 

expected shifts in spending and 

economic activity could affect the 

demand for labor. As described in 

section IV.J, to estimate these effects 

DOE used an input/output model of the 

U.S. economy. Table V–34 presents the 

estimated net indirect employment 

impacts in 2020 and 2043 for the TSLs 

that DOE considered in this rulemaking. 

Chapter 13 of the direct final rule TSD 

presents more detailed results. 

TABLE V–34—NET INCREASE IN JOBS FROM INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS UNDER CLOTHES DRYER AND ROOM AIR

CONDITIONER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

Thousands 

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

Residential Clothes Dryers: 

2020 .................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.36 ¥1.37 ¥3.16 

2043 .................................................. 0.01 0.01 1.82 1.75 4.25 9.30 

Room Air Conditioners: 

2020 .................................................. 0.90 0.88 0.97 1.34 2.04 3.22 

2043 .................................................. 0.74 0.73 0.74 1.16 1.94 3.07 

The input/output model suggests that 

today’s proposed standards are likely to 

increase the net demand for labor in the 

economy. The projected gains are very 

small, however, relative to total national 

employment (currently approximately 

120 million). Moreover, neither the BLS 

data nor the input/output model DOE 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22545 

uses includes the quality or wage level 

of the jobs. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

As presented in section III.D.1.d of 

this notice, DOE concluded that none of 

the TSLs considered in this notice 

would reduce the utility or performance 

of the clothes dryers or room air 

conditioners under consideration in this 

rulemaking. DOE also notes that 

manufacturers of these products 

currently offer clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners that meet or exceed 

today’s standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE has also considered any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from amended standards. The 

Attorney General determines the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard, and transmits such 

determination to DOE, together with an 

analysis of the nature and extent of such 

impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) 

and (B)(ii)) 

DOE published an NOPR containing 

energy conservation standards identical 

to those set forth in today’s direct final 

rule and transmitted a copy of today’s 

direct final rule and the accompanying 

TSD to the Attorney General, requesting 

that the DOJ provide its determination 

on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ’s 

comments on the rule in determining 

whether to proceed with the direct final 

rule. DOE will also publish and respond 

to DOJ’s comments in the Federal 

Register in a separate notice. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

An improvement in the energy 

efficiency of the products subject to 

today’s rule is likely to improve the 

security of the nation’s energy system by 

reducing overall demand for energy. 

Reduced electricity demand may also 

improve the reliability of the electricity 

system. As a measure of this reduced 

demand, Table V–35 presents the 

estimated reduction in electricity 

generating capacity in 2043 for the TSLs 

that DOE considered in this rulemaking. 

TABLE V–35—REDUCTION IN ELECTRIC GENERATING CAPACITY IN 2043 UNDER CLOTHES DRYER AND ROOM AIR

CONDITIONER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

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

Gigawatts 

Clothes Dryers ......................................... 0.002 0.060 0.358 0.345 1.27 2.27 

Room Air Conditioners ............................. 0.348 0.429 0.436 0.632 1.01 1.46 

Energy savings from amended 

standards for clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners are expected to produce 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with 

electricity production. Table V–36 

provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative 

CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions 

that would be expected to result from 

the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. 

In the environmental assessment 

(chapter 15 of the direct final rule TSD), 

DOE reports annual CO2, NOX, and Hg 

emissions reductions for each TSL. 

As discussed in section IV.L, DOE has 

not reported SO2 emissions reductions 

from power plants because there is 

uncertainty about the effect of energy 

conservation standards on the overall 

level of SO2 emissions in the United 

States due to SO2 emissions caps. DOE 

also did not include NOX emissions 

reduction from power plants in States 

subject to CAIR because an energy 

conservation standard would not affect 

the overall level of NOX emissions in 

those States due to the emissions caps 

mandated by CAIR. 

TABLE V–36—EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR CLOTHES DRYER AND ROOM AIR CONDITIONER TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS

[Cumulative for 2014 through 2043] 

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

Clothes Dryers: 

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 tons ................................. 0 .000 0 .009 0 .053 0 .051 0 .188 0 .569 

Room Air Conditioners: 

CO2 million metric tons ......... 9 .83 11 .88 12 .49 17 .4 26 .89 37 .68 

NOX thousand tons ............... 8 .02 9 .69 10 .2 14 .2 21 .91 30 .69 

Hg tons ................................. 0 .012 0 .015 0 .017 0 .022 0 .032 0 .044 

DOE also estimated monetary benefits 

likely to result from the reduced 

emissions of CO2 and NOX that DOE 

estimated for each of the TSLs 

considered for clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners. In order to make this 

calculation similar to the calculation of 

the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE 

considered the reduced emissions 

expected to result over the lifetime of 

products shipped in 2014–2043. Thus, 

the emissions reductions extend past 

2043. 

As discussed in section IV.M, DOE 

used values for the SCC developed by 

an interagency process. The four values 

for CO2 emissions reductions resulting 

from that process (expressed in 2009$) 

are $4.9/ton (the average value from a 

distribution that uses a 5-percent 

discount rate), $22.1/ton (the average 

value from a distribution that uses a 3- 

percent discount rate), $36.3/ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and 

$67.1/ton (the 95th-percentile value 

from a distribution that uses a 3-percent 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22546 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

discount rate). These values correspond 

to the value of emission reductions in 

2010; the values for later years are 

higher due to increasing damages as the 

magnitude of climate change increases. 

For each of the four cases, DOE 

calculated a present value of the stream 

of annual values using the same 

discount rate as was used in the studies 

upon which the dollar-per-ton values 

are based. Table V–37 and Table V–38 

present the global values of CO2

emissions reductions at each TSL. DOE 

calculated domestic values as a range 

from 7 percent to 23 percent of the 

global values, and these results are 

presented in Table V–39 and Table 

V–40. 

TABLE V–37—CLOTHES DRYERS: ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Million 2009$ 

5% discount rate, 

average * 

3% discount rate, 

average * 

2.5% discount 

rate, average * 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile * 

1 ............................................................................................... 1 3 5 10 

2 ............................................................................................... 15 79 134 239 

3 ............................................................................................... 88 465 793 1417 

4 ............................................................................................... 93 489 834 1490 

5 ............................................................................................... 351 1848 3148 5626 

6 ............................................................................................... 929 4894 8339 14902 

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the 

distribution. Values presented in the table incorporate the escalation of the SCC over time. 

TABLE V–38—ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS: ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION

UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Million 2009$ 

5% discount rate, 

average * 

3% discount rate, 

average * 

2.5% discount 

rate, average * 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile * 

1 ............................................................................................... 43 212 357 648 

2 ............................................................................................... 52 259 436 790 

3 ............................................................................................... 55 271 455 826 

4 ............................................................................................... 77 382 642 1164 

5 ............................................................................................... 118 591 996 1803 

6 ............................................................................................... 166 833 1404 2541 

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the 

distribution. Values presented in the table incorporate the escalation of the SCC over time. 

TABLE V–39—CLOTHES DRYERS: ESTIMATES OF DOMESTIC PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER

TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Million 2009$ * 

5% discount 

rate, average ** 

3% discount 

rate, average ** 

2.5% discount 

rate, average ** 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile ** 

1 ........................................................................................................... 0.042 to 0.14 .... 0.22 to 0.72 ...... 0.37 to 1.22 ...... 0.67 to 2.19. 

2 ........................................................................................................... 1.04 to 3.43 ...... 5.50 to 18.1 ...... 9.37 to 30.8 ...... 16.7 to 55.0. 

3 ........................................................................................................... 6.19 to 20.3 ...... 32.6 to 107 ....... 55.5 to 182 ....... 99.2 to 326. 

4 ........................................................................................................... 6.51 to 21.4 ...... 34.3 to 113 ....... 58.4 to 192 ....... 104 to 343. 

5 ........................................................................................................... 24.6 to 80.7 ...... 129 to 425 ........ 220 to 724 ........ 394 to 1294. 

6 ........................................................................................................... 65.1 to 214 ....... 343 to 1126 ...... 584 to 1918 ...... 1043 to 3428. 

* Domestic values are presented as a range between 7 percent and 23 percent of the global values. 

** Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the 

distribution. Values presented in the table incorporate the escalation of the SCC over time. 

TABLE V–40—ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS: ESTIMATES OF DOMESTIC PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION

UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Million 2009$ * 

5% discount 

rate, average ** 

3% discount 

rate, average ** 

2.5% discount 

rate, average ** 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile ** 

1 ........................................................................................................... 3.00 to 9.85 ...... 14.9 to 48.8 ...... 25.0 to 82.1 ...... 45.4 to 149. 

2 ........................................................................................................... 3.64 to 12.0 ...... 18.1 to 59.6 ...... 30.5 to 100 ....... 55.3 to 182. 

3 ........................................................................................................... 3.83 to 12.6 ...... 18.9 to 62.3 ...... 31.9 to 105 ....... 57.8 to 190. 

4 ........................................................................................................... 5.36 to 17.6 ...... 26.7 to 87.8 ...... 45.0 to 148 ....... 81.5 to 268. 

5 ........................................................................................................... 8.29 to 27.2 ...... 41.4 to 136 ....... 69.7 to 229 ....... 126 to 415. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22547 

TABLE V–40—ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS: ESTIMATES OF DOMESTIC PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION

UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS—Continued 

TSL 

Million 2009$ * 

5% discount 

rate, average ** 

3% discount 

rate, average ** 

2.5% discount 

rate, average ** 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile ** 

6 ........................................................................................................... 11.6 to 38.3 ...... 58.3 to 192 ....... 98.3 to 323 ....... 178 to 584. 

* Domestic values are presented as a range between 7 percent and 23 percent of the global values. 

** Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the 

distribution. Values presented in the table incorporate the escalation of the SCC over time. 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed in this rulemaking on 

reducing CO2 emissions is subject to 

change. DOE, together with other 

Federal agencies, will continue to 

review various methodologies for 

estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other GHG 

emissions. This ongoing review will 

consider the comments on this subject 

that are part of the public record for this 

and other rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues. 

However, consistent with DOE’s legal 

obligations, and taking into account the 

uncertainty involved with this 

particular issue, DOE has included in 

this final rule the most recent values 

and analyses resulting from the ongoing 

interagency review process. 

DOE also estimated a range for the 

cumulative monetary value of the 

economic benefits associated with NOX

emissions reductions anticipated to 

result from amended standards for 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners. The dollar-per-ton values 

that DOE used are discussed in section 

IV.M. Table V–41 and Table V–42 

present the cumulative present values 

for each TSL calculated using sevenpercent and three-percent discount 

rates. 

TABLE V–41—CLOTHES DRYERS: ESTIMATES OF PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 3% discount rate 

Million 2009$ 

7% discount rate 

Million 2009$ 

1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.031 to 0.314 .. 0.013 to 0.136. 

2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.759 to 7.8 ...... 0.328 to 3.37. 

3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4.49 to 46.2 ...... 1.94 to 19.98. 

4 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4.77 to 49.02 .... 2.06 to 21.2. 

5 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 18.0 to 185 ....... 7.8 to 80.2. 

6 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 47.6 to 490 ....... 20.6 to 212. 

TABLE V–42—ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS: ESTIMATES OF PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 3% discount rate 

Million 2009$ 

7% discount rate 

Million 2009$ 

1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2.34 to 24.0 ...... 1.25 to 12.9. 

2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2.83 to 29.1 ...... 1.50 to 15.4. 

3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2.99 to 30.7 ...... 1.61 to 16.6. 

4 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4.16 to 42.7 ...... 2.2 to 22.6. 

5 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6.40 to 65.8 ...... 3.35 to 34.4. 

6 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8.96 to 92.1 ...... 4.64 to 47.7. 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. Table V–43 shows an 

example of the calculation of the 

combined NPV including benefits from 

emissions reductions for the case of TSL 

4 for clothes dryers. Table V–44 through 

Table V–47 present the NPV values that 

result from adding the estimates of the 

potential economic benefits resulting 

from reduced CO2 and NOX emissions 

in each of four valuation scenarios to 

the NPV of consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking, at both a 7-percent and 3- 

percent discount rate. The CO2 values 

used in the columns of each table 

correspond to the four scenarios for the 

valuation of CO2 emission reductions 

presented in section IV.M. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22548 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V–43—ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS TO PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT TSL 4 FOR CLOTHES DRYERS

Category Present value 

billion 2009$ 

Discount rate 

(percent) 

Benefits: 

Operating Cost Savings ..................................................................................................................... 1 .726 7% 

4 .099 3% 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $4.9/metric ton) * ...................................................................... 0 .093 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $22.1/metric ton) * .................................................................... 0 .489 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $36.3/metric ton) * .................................................................... 0 .834 2.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $67.1/metric ton) * .................................................................... 1 .49 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,519/ton) * ............................................................................ 0 .012 7 

0 .027 3 

Total Monetary Benefits ** .................................................................................................................. 2 .227 7 

4 .615 3 

Costs: 

Total Incremental Installed Costs ....................................................................................................... 0 .65 7 

1 .086 3 

Net Benefits/Costs: 

Including CO2 and NOX** ................................................................................................................... 1 .58 7 

3 .53 3 

* These values represent global values (in 2009$) of the SCC 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. See section IV.M for details. The value for 

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

** Total Monetary Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of CO2 emissions calculated at 

a 3% discount rate, which is equal to $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$). 

TABLE V–44—RESULTS OF ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS (AT 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) TO

NET PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CLOTHES DRYERS

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with: 

SCC Value of 

$4.9/metric ton 

CO2* and Low 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$22.1/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$36.3/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$67.1/metric ton 

CO2* and High 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

1 ....................................................................................... 0 .00061 0 .00320 0 .00540 0 .00965 

2 ....................................................................................... 0 .0152 0 .0804 0 .136 0 .243 

3 ....................................................................................... 0 .0903 0 .476 0 .804 1 .437 

4 ....................................................................................... 0 .0950 0 .501 0 .846 1 .512 

5 ....................................................................................... 0 .359 1 .892 3 .192 5 .707 

6 ....................................................................................... 0 .950 5 .010 8 .455 15 .114 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2010, in 2009$. Their present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent discount 

rates. See section IV.M for a discussion of the derivation of these values. 

** Low Value corresponds to $447 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,519 per ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,591 per ton of NOX emissions. 

TABLE V–45—RESULTS OF ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS (AT 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) TO

NET PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CLOTHES DRYERS

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

SCC Value of 

$4.9/metric ton 

CO2* and Low 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$22.1/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$36.3/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$67.1/metric ton 

CO2* and High 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

1 ....................................................................................... 0 .00062 0 .00330 0 .00550 0 .00983 

2 ....................................................................................... 0 .0157 0 .0829 0 .138 0 .247 

3 ....................................................................................... 0 .0929 0 .491 0 .818 1 .463 

4 ....................................................................................... 0 .0977 0 .516 0 .861 1 .539 

5 ....................................................................................... 0 .369 1 .949 3 .250 5 .812 

6 ....................................................................................... 0 .977 5 .163 8 .608 15 .392 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2010, in 2009$. Their present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent discount 

rates. See section IV.M for a discussion of the derivation of these values. 

** Low Value corresponds to $447 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,519 per ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,591 per ton of NOX emissions. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22549 

TABLE V–46—RESULTS OF ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS (AT 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) TO

NET PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with: 

SCC Value of 

$4.9/metric ton 

CO2* and Low 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$22.1/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$36.3/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$67.1/metric ton 

CO2* and High 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

1 ............................................................................................. 0 .044 0.219 0.364 0.661 

2 ............................................................................................. 0 .054 0.267 0.444 0.805 

3 ............................................................................................. 0 .0563 0.280 0.464 0.843 

4 ............................................................................................. 0 .0788 0.394 0.655 1.187 

5 ............................................................................................. 0 .122 0.610 1.015 1.838 

6 ............................................................................................. 0 .171 0.859 1.430 2.588 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2010, in 2009$. Their present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent discount 

rates. See section IV.M for a discussion of the derivation of these values. 

** Low Value corresponds to $447 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,519 per ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,591 per ton of NOX emissions. 

TABLE V–47—RESULTS OF ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS (AT 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) TO

NET PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

SCC Value of 

$4.9/metric ton 

CO2* and Low 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$22.1/metric ton 

CO2*and Medium 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$36.3/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$67.1/metric ton 

CO2* and High 

Value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

1 ............................................................................................. 0 .045 0.226 0.370 0.672 

2 ............................................................................................. 0 .055 0.275 0.452 0.819 

3 ............................................................................................. 0 .0576 0.288 0.472 0.857 

4 ............................................................................................. 0 .0807 0.405 0.666 1.207 

5 ............................................................................................. 0 .125 0.627 1.032 1.869 

6 ............................................................................................. 0 .175 0.884 1.454 2.633 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2010, in 2009$. Their present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent discount 

rates. See section IV.M for a discussion of the derivation of these values. 

** Low Value corresponds to $447 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,519 per ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,591 per ton of NOX emissions. 

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

cost 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 the SCC 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 climaterelated impacts resulting from the 

emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in 

each year. These impacts continue well 

beyond 2100. 

7. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, may consider 

any other factors that the Secretary 

deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI))) In developing the 

direct final rule, DOE has also 

considered the Joint Petition submitted 

to DOE. DOE recognizes the value of 

consensus agreements submitted by 

parties in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4) and has weighed the value of 

such consensus in establishing the 

standards set forth in today’s final rule. 

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. 

C. 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 discussed 

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

The new or amended standard must also 

‘‘result in significant conservation of 

energy.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

The Department considered the 

impacts of standards at each trial 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

standard level, 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 

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 lowincome households and seniors, who 

may be disproportionately affected by a 

national standard. Section V.B.1 

presents the estimated impacts of each 

TSL for these subgroups. 

DOE also notes that the economics 

literature provides a wide-ranging 

discussion of how consumers trade off 

upfront costs and energy savings in the 

absence of government intervention. 

Much of this literature attempts to 

explain why consumers appear to 

undervalue energy efficiency 

improvements. This undervaluation 

suggests that regulation that promotes 

energy efficiency can produce 

significant net private gains (as well as 

producing social gains by, for example, 

reducing pollution). There is evidence 

that consumers undervalue future 

energy savings as a result of (1) a lack 

of information; (2) a lack of sufficient 

salience of the long-term or aggregate 

benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings 

to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases (for example, an inefficient 

ventilation fan in a new building or the 

delayed replacement of a water pump); 

(4) excessive focus on the short term, in 

the form of inconsistent weighting of 

future energy cost savings relative to 

available returns on other investments; 

(5) computational or other difficulties 

associated with the evaluation of 

relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence 

in incentives (that is, renter versus 

owner; builder vs. purchaser). Other 

literature indicates that with less than 

perfect foresight and a high degree of 

uncertainty about the future, consumers 

may trade off these types of investments 

at a higher than expected rate between 

current consumption and uncertain 

future energy cost savings. 

In its current regulatory analysis, 

potential changes in the benefits and 

costs of a regulation due to changes in 

consumer purchase decisions are 

included in two ways: (1) If consumers 

forego a purchase of a product in the 

standards case, this decreases sales for 

product manufacturers and the cost to 

manufacturers is included in the MIA, 

and (2) DOE accounts for energy savings 

attributable only to products actually 

used by consumers in the standards 

case; if a regulatory option decreases the 

number of products used by consumers, 

this decreases the potential energy 

savings from an energy conservation 

standard. DOE provides detailed 

estimates of shipments and changes in 

the volume of product purchases in 

chapter 9 of the TSD. However, DOE’s 

current analysis does not explicitly 

control for heterogeneity in consumer 

preferences, preferences across 

subcategories of products or specific 

features, or consumer price sensitivity 

variation according to household 

income (Reiss and White 2004). 

While DOE is not prepared at present 

to provide a fuller quantifiable 

framework for estimating the benefits 

and costs of changes in consumer 

purchase decisions due to an energy 

conservation standard, DOE seeks 

comments on how to more fully assess 

the potential impact of energy 

conservation standards on consumer 

choice and how to quantify this impact 

in its regulatory analysis in future 

rulemakings. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Clothes Dryers 

Table V–48 and Table V–49 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. 

TABLE V–48—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 1417 ...... 93 to 1490 ...... 351 to 5626 .... 929 to 14902. 

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). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22551 

TABLE V–48—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CLOTHES DRYER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: NATIONAL IMPACTS—Continued 

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

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 V–49—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%. 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22552 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

64For 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. 

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 

120Vcompact 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 

120Vcompact 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 

120Vcompact 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 

120Vcompact 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 

120Vcompact 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 

120Vcompact 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 

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 120V 

compact 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.64 The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 56 

percent for electric standard clothes 

dryers, 96 percent for 120V compact 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22553 

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 to the preliminary TSD, and 

the benefits and burdens of TSL 4, the 

Secretary 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 residential clothes dryers. The 

amended energy conservation standards 

for clothes dryers, expressed as CEF, are 

shown in Table V–50 . 

TABLE V–50—AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CLOTHES DRYERS

Residential clothes dryers 

Product class 

Minimum CEF 

levels 

lb/kWh 

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 

2. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Room Air Conditioners 

Table V–51 and Table V–52 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. 

TABLE V–51—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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22554 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V–51—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: NATIONAL IMPACTS— 

Continued 

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

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 V–52—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%. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22555 

TABLE V–52—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 

20,000–24,999 Btu/h, 

with Louvers: 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22556 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

65 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. 

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 

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; 65 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22557 

66 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 V.50. 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 cost and benefits from which the 

annualized values were determined would be a 

steady stream of payments. 

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 room air 

conditioners. The amended energy 

conservation standards for room air 

conditioners, expressed as CEER, are 

shown in Table V–53. 

TABLE V–53—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 

3. 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.66

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 V–54 and Table V–55 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. DOE has 

calculated that the annualized increased 

equipment cost can range from $50.5 to 

$66.6 million per year depending on 

assumptions and modeling of 

equipment price trends. The high end of 

this range corresponds to a constant real 

equipment price trend. Using the central 

estimate of energy-related benefits, DOE 

estimates that calculated net benefits 

can range from $98.4 to $114.5 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. 

DOE has calculated that the range in the 

annualized increased equipment cost 

can range from $53.1 to $73.5 million 

per year depending on assumptions and 

modeling of equipment price trends. 

The high end of this range corresponds 

to a constant real equipment price trend. 

Using the central estimate of energymstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22558 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

related benefits, DOE estimates that 

calculated net benefits can range from 

$162.0 to $182.4 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. DOE 

has calculated that the annualized 

increased equipment cost can range 

from $105.7 to $136.6 million per year 

depending on assumptions and 

modeling of equipment price trends. 

The high end of this range corresponds 

to a constant real equipment price trend. 

Using the central estimate of energyrelated benefits, DOE estimates that 

calculated net benefits can range from 

$37.5 to $68.4 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. DOE 

has calculated that the range in the 

annualized increased equipment cost 

can range from $108.0 to $146.0 million 

per year depending on assumptions and 

modeling of equipment price trends. 

The high end of this range corresponds 

to a constant real equipment price trend. 

Using the central estimate of energyrelated benefits, DOE estimates that 

calculated net benefits can range from 

$60.9 to $98.9 million per year. 

TABLE V–54—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 66.6 50.5 

3% 55.4 73.5 53.1 

Total Net Benefits 

Total † ....................................... 7% plus CO2 range 93.7 to 163.7 61.0 to 131.0 114.8 to 184.8 

7% 112.7 79.9 133.8 

3% 180.1 130.2 214.5 

3% plus CO2 range 161.1 to 231.1 111.3 to 181.3 195.6 to 265.6 

* 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. Low estimate corresponds to the low net benefit estimate and uses the zero 

real price trend sensitivity for equipment prices, and the high estimate corresponds to the high net benefit estimate and utilizes the high technological learning rate sensitivity for the equipment price trend. 

** 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 V–55—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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22559 

TABLE V–55—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 * 

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% 107.7 136.6 105.7 

3% 111.0 146.0 108.0 

Total Net Benefits 

Total † ....................................... 7% plus CO2 range 51.9 to 106.3 43.4 to 97.8 62.2 to 116.6 

7% 66.4 28.9 76.7 

3% 95.9 48.9 110.0 

3% plus CO2 range 81.4 to 135.8 34.4 to 88.8 95.5 to 149.9 

* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and Low Economic Growth case, respectively. Low estimate corresponds to the low net benefit estimate and uses the zero 

real price trend sensitivity for equipment prices, and the high estimate corresponds to the high net benefit estimate and utilizes the high technological learning rate sensitivity for the equipment price trend. 

** 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. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

requires each agency to identify the 

problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that today’s 

standards address are as follows: 

(1) There is a lack of consumer 

information and/or information 

processing capability about energy 

efficiency opportunities in clothes dryer 

and room air conditioner market. 

(2) There is asymmetric information 

(one party to a transaction has more and 

better information than the other) and/ 

or high transactions costs (costs of 

gathering information and effecting 

exchanges of goods and services). 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners that are not captured by 

the users of such equipment. These 

benefits include externalities related to 

environmental protection and energy 

security that are not reflected in energy 

prices, such as reduced emissions of 

greenhouse gases. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

today’s regulatory action is an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order 

requires that DOE prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) on today’s rule 

and that the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

review this rule. DOE presented to OIRA 

for review the draft rule and other 

documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including the RIA, and has 

included these documents in the 

rulemaking record. The assessments 

prepared pursuant to Executive Order 

12866 can be found in the technical 

support document for this rulemaking. 

They are available for public review in 

the Resource Room of DOE’s Building 

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, 

Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22560 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

We emphasize as well that Executive 

Order 13563 requires agencies ‘‘to use 

the best available techniques to quantify 

anticipated present and future benefits 

and costs as accurately as possible.’’ In 

its guidance, the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

‘‘identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.’’ For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE believes 

that today’s direct final rule is 

consistent with these principles, 

including that, to the extent permitted 

by law, agencies adopt a regulation only 

upon a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs and select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) for any rule that by law must be 

proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking’’ 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 

16, 2002), DOE published procedures 

and policies on February 19, 2003, to 

ensure that the potential impacts of its 

rules on small entities are properly 

considered during the rulemaking 

process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 

procedures and policies available on the 

Office of the General Counsel’s Web site 

(http://www.gc.doe.gov). 

For the manufacturers of residential 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) has set a size 

threshold, which defines those entities 

classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the 

purposes of the statute. DOE used the 

SBA’s small business size standards to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be subject to the requirements of 

the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30850 (May 15, 

2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 

53545 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 

CFR part 121. The size standards are 

listed by NAICS code and industry 

description and are available at http:// 

www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/ 

documents/sba_homepage/ 

serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. Residential 

clothes dryer manufacturing is classified 

under NAICS Code 335224, ‘‘Household 

Laundry Equipment Manufacturing’’ and 

room air conditioner manufacturing is 

classified under NAICS Code 333415, 

‘‘Air-Conditioning and Warm Air 

Heating Equipment and Commercial 

and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 1,000 employees or less 

and 750 employees or less, respectively, 

for these categories in order for an entity 

to be considered as a small business, as 

shown in Table VI–1. 

TABLE VI–1—SBA CLASSIFICATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS RULE

Industry description Revenue 

limit 

Employee 

limit NAICS 

Household Laundry Equipment Manufacturing ..................................................................................................... N/A ....... 1,000 335224 

Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.

N/A ....... 750 333415 

DOE reviewed the potential standard 

levels considered in today’s notice 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. To estimate the number of small 

businesses that could be impacted by 

the amended energy conservation 

standards, DOE conducted a market 

survey using all available public 

information to identify potential small 

manufacturers. DOE’s research included 

the AHAM membership directory, 

product databases (the AHRI, AHAM, 

CEC, and ENERGY STAR databases), 

individual company Web sites, and the 

SBA dynamic small business search to 

find potential small business 

manufacturers. DOE also asked 

stakeholders and industry 

representatives if they were aware of 

any other small business manufacturers 

during manufacturer interviews and at 

previous DOE public meetings. DOE 

reviewed all publicly available data and 

contacted various companies, as 

necessary, to determine whether they 

met the SBA’s definition of a small 

business manufacturer of covered 

residential clothes dryers or room air 

conditioners. DOE screened out 

companies that did not offer products 

covered by this rulemaking, did not 

meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign owned and 

operated. 

1. Residential Clothes Dryer Industry 

The majority of residential clothes 

dryers are currently manufactured in the 

United States by one corporation that 

accounts for over 70 percent of the 

market. Two additional large 

manufacturers with foreign and 

domestic production hold much of the 

remaining share of the market. The 

small portion of the remaining 

residential clothes dryer market is 

supplied by a combination of 

international and domestic companies, 

all of which have small market shares. 

Based on its review of the dynamic 

small business search on the SBA Web 

site (http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/ 

dsp_dsbs.cfm), the Central Contracting 

Registration (https://www.bpn.gov/ 

CCRSearch/Search.aspx), and input 

from commenters, DOE identified only 

one manufacturer who could potentially 

be considered a small business under 

NAICS Code 335224, ‘‘Household 

Laundry Equipment Manufacturing.’’ 

DOE does not believe, however, that this 

company would be directly impacted by 

the standards established for clothes 

dryers in today’s final rule. DOE notes 

that while the potential small business 

manufacturer has developed a highly 

efficient technology that could be used 

by other manufacturers to increase the 

efficiency of clothes dryers, the 

company does not produce clothes 

dryers and the technology is not yet 

commercially available. DOE 

acknowledges that the technology 

developed by this small business is a 

potential design option for clothes 

dryers, but DOE does not believe this 

rulemaking would in any way affect the 

ability of this company to 

commercialize or sell its technology. 

2. Room Air Conditioner Industry 

No room air conditioners are 

manufactured in the United States. Most 

manufacturing takes place in Asia, 

primarily China, with limited 

production in Mexico. In recent years at 

least two major manufacturers have 

exited the market. At least three major 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22561 

corporations supply a majority of the 

market. The remaining market share is 

held by several large companies. DOE 

did not identify any small business 

manufacturers of room air conditioners. 

For room air conditioners, DOE 

initially identified at least 11 distinct 

manufacturers of room air conditioners 

sold in the United States. DOE initially 

determined that 10 of these were large 

or foreign-owned and operated. DOE 

determined that the one room air 

conditioner manufacturer that was 

previously designated as a small 

business manufacturer was acquired by 

another company and now exceeds 

SBA’s employment threshold for 

consideration as a small business under 

the appropriate NAICS code. As such, 

DOE did not identify any small business 

manufacturers of room air conditioners. 

Based on the discussion above, DOE 

certifies that the standards for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners set 

forth in today’s rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE will transmit this 

certification to SBA as required by 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of clothes dryers and 

room air conditioners must certify to 

DOE that their products comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their products 

according to the DOE test procedures for 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, including any 

amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has proposed 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners. 75 FR 56796 (Sept. 16, 

2010). The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been submitted to OMB for 

approval. Public reporting burden for 

the certification is estimated to average 

20 hours per response, including the 

time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

DOE has prepared an environmental 

assessment (EA) of the impacts of the 

direct final rule pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

(40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and DOE’s 

regulations for compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (10 

CFR part 1021). This assessment 

includes an examination of the potential 

effects of emission reductions likely to 

result from the rule in the context of 

global climate change, as well as other 

types of environmental impacts. The EA 

has been incorporated into the direct 

final rule TSD as chapter 15. DOE found 

that the environmental effects 

associated with the standards for clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners were 

not significant. Therefore, DOE is 

issuing 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. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of 

policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. EPCA governs and prescribes 

Federal preemption of State regulations 

as to energy conservation for the 

products that are the subject of today’s 

direct final rule. States can petition DOE 

for exemption from such preemption to 

the extent, and based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform’’ imposes on Federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 

(February 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this direct 

final rule meets the relevant standards 

of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law. 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22562 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

http://www.gc.doe.gov. 

Although today’s rule does not 

contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may impose expenditures of 

$100 million or more on the private 

sector. Specifically, the final rule could 

impose expenditures of $100 million or 

more. Such expenditures may include 

(1) investment in research and 

development and in capital 

expenditures by home appliance 

manufacturers in the years between the 

final rule and the compliance date for 

the new standard, and (2) incremental 

additional expenditures by consumers 

to purchase higher efficiency home 

appliances. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an 

agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The 

content requirements of section 202(b) 

of UMRA relevant to a private sector 

mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

Supplementary Information section of 

this notice and the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis’’ section of the direct final rule 

TSD for this rule respond to those 

requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule unless DOE publishes an 

explanation for doing otherwise or the 

selection of such an alternative is 

inconsistent with law. As required by 42 

U.S.C. 6295(h) and (o), 6313(e), and 

6316(a), today’s rule would establish 

energy conservation standards for 

clothes dryers and room air conditioners 

that are designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE has determined to 

be both technologically feasible and 

economically justified. A full discussion 

of the alternatives considered by DOE is 

presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis’’ section of the direct final rule 

TSD. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings which 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s notice under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

order; and (2) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is 

designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that today’s 

regulatory action, which sets forth 

energy conservation standards for 

clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, is not a significant energy 

action because the proposed standards 

are not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on the direct final rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology (OSTP), issued its Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 

14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that 

certain scientific information shall be 

peer reviewed by qualified specialists 

before it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22563 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this direct final 

rule no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this rule. Interested parties may submit 

comments 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 or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to 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 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through 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 email, hand 

delivery, 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 on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

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. Email 

submissions are preferred. If you submit 

via mail or hand delivery, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It 

is not necessary to submit printed 

copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and 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 email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery two well-marked copies: 

one copy of the document marked 

confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s direct final 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 amends 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: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

22564 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 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 ............................................... 8.5 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 ....................................... 8.5 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 April 21, 

2014, 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 April 21, 2014, 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. 2011–9040 Filed 4–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2