Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32381 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

2 DOE Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0019, 

Comment 32. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[Docket Number EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0019] 

RIN 1904–AB90 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Residential Clothes Washers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including residential clothes washers. 

EPCA also requires the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) to determine whether 

amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. In this 

proposed rule, DOE proposes amended 

energy conservation standards for 

residential clothes washers identical to 

those set forth in a direct final rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register. If DOE receives adverse 

comment and determines that such 

comment may provide a reasonable 

basis for withdrawing the direct final 

rule, DOE will publish a notice 

withdrawing the final rule and will 

proceed with this proposed rule. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding the proposed 

standards no later than September 18, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: See section III, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for details. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the proposed rule for Energy 

Conservation Standards for Residential 

Clothes Washers, and provide docket 

number EERE–2008–BT–STD–0019 

and/or regulatory information number 

(RIN) number 1904–AB90. Comments 

may be submitted using any of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: RCW–2008–STD– 

0019@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. 

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. 

A link to the docket web page can be 

found at: www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD0019. 

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 email: 

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, email: 

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, email: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction and Legal Authority 

II. Proposed Standards 

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Clothes Washers 

B. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Standards 

III. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Public Meeting 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Introduction and Legal Authority 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309, as codified) established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles,1 a program covering most 

major household appliances 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘covered 

products’’), which includes the 

residential clothes washers that are the 

subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(7)) EPCA, as amended by the 

Energy Information and Security Act of 

2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110–140), 

prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for residential 

clothes washers (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9), 

and directed DOE to publish a final rule 

no later than December 31, 2011, to 

determine whether to amend the 

standards in effect for clothes washers 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2015. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B)(i)) 

EISA 2007 also amended EPCA, in 

relevant part, to grant DOE authority 

DOE to issue a final rule (hereinafter 

referred to as a ‘‘direct final rule’’) 

establishing an energy conservation 

standard for a covered product on 

receipt of a statement submitted jointly 

by interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

(including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates) as 

determined by the Secretary, that 

contains recommendations with respect 

to an energy conservation standard that 

are in accordance with the provisions of 

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

that a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR) that proposes an identical 

energy conservation standard be 

published simultaneously with the 

direct final rule, and DOE must provide 

a public comment period of at least 110 

days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 

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

issuance of the direct final rule, if one 

or more adverse comments or an 

alternative joint recommendation are 

received relating to the direct final rule, 

the Secretary must determine whether 

the comments or alternative 

recommendation may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal under 

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

law. If the Secretary makes such a 

determination, DOE must withdraw the 

direct final rule and proceed with the 

simultaneously published notice of 

proposed rulemaking. DOE must also 

publish in the Federal Register the 

reason why the direct final rule was 

withdrawn. Id. 

On July 30, 2010, DOE received the 

‘‘Agreement on Minimum Federal 

Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances, 

Federal Incentives and Related Matters 

for Specified Appliances’’ (hereinafter, 

the ‘‘Joint Petition’’),2 a comment 

submitted by groups representing 

manufacturers (the Association of Home 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

32382 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3 DOE Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0019, 

Comment 38. 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), 

Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), 

General Electric Company (GE), 

Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), 

BSH Home Appliances (BSH), Alliance 

Laundry Systems (ALS), Viking Range, 

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

Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat 

Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, 

Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, 

Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, 

Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and 

DeLonghi); energy and environmental 

advocates (American Council for an 

Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

(ASAP), Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC), Alliance to Save 

Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water 

Efficiency (AWE), Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council (NPCC), and 

Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnerships (NEEP)); and consumer 

groups (Consumer Federation of 

America (CFA) and the National 

Consumer Law Center (NCLC)) 

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

The Joint Petitioners recommended 

specific energy conservation standards 

for residential clothes washers that they 

believed would satisfy the EPCA 

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

Earthjustice submitted a comment 

affirming its support for the joint 

petition.3

DOE has considered the 

recommended energy conservation 

standards and believes that they meet 

the EPCA requirements for issuance of 

a direct final rule. As a result, DOE has 

published a direct final rule establishing 

energy conservation standards for 

clothes washers elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register. If DOE receives 

adverse comments that may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal and 

withdraws the direct final rule, DOE 

will consider those comments and any 

other comments received in determining 

how to proceed with today’s proposed 

rule. 

For further background information 

on these proposed standards and the 

supporting analyses, please see the 

direct final rule published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register. That 

document includes additional 

discussion on the EPCA requirements 

for promulgation of energy conservation 

standards, the current standards for 

residential clothes washers, and the 

history of the standards rulemakings 

establishing such standards, as well as 

information on the test procedures used 

to measure the energy efficiency of 

clothes washers. The document also 

contains an in-depth discussion of the 

analyses conducted in support of this 

rulemaking, the methodologies DOE 

used in conducting those analyses, and 

the analytical results. 

II. Proposed Standards 

When considering proposed 

standards, the new or amended energy 

conservation standard that DOE adopts 

for any type (or class) of covered 

product shall be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

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

standard is economically justified, DOE 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens to the 

greatest extent practicable, in light of 

the seven statutory factors set forth in 

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

new or amended standard must also 

result in a significant conservation of 

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

The Department considered the 

impacts of standards at each trial 

standard level (TSL) considered by 

DOE, beginning with maximum 

technologically feasible level, to 

determine whether that level was 

economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not economically 

justified, DOE then considered the next 

most efficient level and undertook the 

same evaluation until it reached the 

highest efficiency level that is both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and burdens of each TSL, 

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 of the 

direct final rule published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register presents the 

estimated impacts of each TSL for these 

subgroups. 

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Clothes Washers 

Table II.1 and Table II.2 present a 

summary of the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for clothes 

washers. The efficiency levels contained 

in each TSL are described in section 

V.A of the direct final rule. 

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

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

National Energy Savings (quads) ......................... 1.56 .................. 1.46 .................. 2.04 .................. 2.87 .................. 3.32. 

National Water Savings (trillion gal.) .................... 1.11 .................. 1.05 .................. 3.03 .................. 5.33 .................. 6.89. 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2010$ billion) 

3% discount rate ............................................ 20.2 .................. 18.5 .................. 31.29 ................ 41.60 ................ 50.48. 

7% discount rate ............................................ 8.7 .................... 7.77 .................. 13.01 ................ 16.42 ................ 19.92. 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................... 87.65 ................ 81.96 ................ 112.90 .............. 155.51 .............. 178.82. 

NOX (thousand tons) ..................................... 73.46 ................ 68.07 ................ 94.16 ................ 130.10 .............. 149.70. 

Hg (tons) ........................................................ 0.198 ................ 0.226 ................ 0.269 ................ 0.364 ................ 0.413. 

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (2010$ million)* ...................................... 410 to 6527 ...... 384 to 6112 ...... 530 to 8457 ...... 729 to 11613 .... 838 to 13357. 

NOX—3% discount rate (2010$ million) ........ 22 to 224 .......... 20 to 207 .......... 28 to 286 .......... 39 to 396 .......... 44 to 456. 

NOX—7% discount rate (2010$ million) ........ 9 to 97 .............. 9 to 90 .............. 12 to 122 .......... 17 to 171 .......... 19 to 197. 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) ** ........ 0.882 ................ 1.01 .................. 1.30 .................. 1.64 .................. 1.86. 

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 2044. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32383 

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

IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3* TSL 4 TSL 5 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV (2010$ million) ........................... (56.3)–(64.0) (14.3)–(490.3) 96.4–(858.8) 205.0–(1,256.4) 255.5–(1,335.3) 

Industry NPV (% change) ................................ (2.2)–(2.5) (0.6)–(19.0) 3.7–(33.2) 7.9–(48.6) 9.9–(51.6) 

Consumer Mean LCC Savings (2010$) 

Top-Loading Standard Clothes Washer .......... 268 243 268/366 491 524 

Front-Loading Standard Clothes Washer ........ **NA 2.2 37 35 102 

Top-Loading Compact Clothes Washer .......... 159 159 159/312 312 312 

Front-Loading Compact Clothes Washer ........ 54 54 54 54 54 

Consumer Median PBP (years) 

Top-Loading Standard Clothes Washer .......... 0.4 0.7 0.4/0.9 1.8 1.9 

Front-Loading Standard Clothes Washer ........ **NA 0.9 1.3 9.2 5.2 

Top-Loading Compact Clothes Washer .......... 0.5 0.5 0.5/2.1 2.1 2.1 

Front-Loading Compact Clothes Washer ........ 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts 

Top-Loading Standard Clothes Washer 

Net Cost (%) ............................................. 0.7 5.6 0.7/3.4 8.1 9.5 

No Impact (%) ........................................... 19.5 15.1 19.5/14.1 4.6 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) ......................................... 79.8 79.3 79.8/82.5 87.4 90.5 

Front-Loading Standard Clothes Washer 

Net Cost (%) ............................................. 0.0 0.1 1.5 45.1 29.6 

No Impact (%) ........................................... 100.0 96.0 72.4 11.6 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) ......................................... 0.0 3.9 26.1 43.3 70.4 

Top-Loading Compact Clothes Washer 

Net Cost (%) ............................................. 1.5 1.5 1.5/12.6 12.6 12.6 

No Impact (%) ........................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) ......................................... 98.5 98.5 98.5/87.4 87.4 87.4 

Front-Loading Compact Clothes Washer 

Net Cost (%) ............................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

No Impact (%) ........................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) ......................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* For top-loading clothes washers under TSL 3, the first number for consumer impacts refers to the standard in 2015, and the second number 

refers to the standard in 2018. 

** 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 5, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 5 would save 3.32 quads of 

energy and 6.89 trillion gallons of water, 

amounts DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $19.92 billion, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $50.48 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 179 Mt of CO2, 150 

thousand tons of NOX, and 0.413 ton of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 5 

ranges from $838 million to $13,357 

million. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.86 

GW under TSL 5. 

At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is 

a savings (LCC decrease) of $524 for toploading standard clothes washers, a 

savings of $102 for front-loading 

standard clothes washers, a savings of 

$312 for top-loading compact clothes 

washers, and a savings of $54 for frontloading compact clothes washers. The 

median payback period is 1.9 years for 

top-loading standard clothes washers, 

5.2 years for front-loading standard 

clothes washers, 2.1 years for toploading compact clothes washers, and 

0.8 years for front-loading compact 

clothes washers. A significant fraction 

of consumers, however, experience an 

LCC increase or net cost under TSL 5 for 

all product classes except front-loading 

compact: 9.5 percent for top-loading 

standard clothes washers, 30 percent for 

front-loading standard clothes washers, 

and 13 percent for top-loading compact 

clothes washers. In addition, because 

TSL 5 significantly raises the first cost 

of both top-loading and front-loading 

clothes washers, DOE is concerned 

some low-income consumers may be 

compelled to delay or forgo new 

purchases, using commercial coin 

laundries or repairing their existing 

clothes washers instead. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from an increase of $255.5 

million to a decrease of $1,335.3 

million. At this TSL, manufacturers 

would have to overhaul both their frontloading and top-loading platforms by 

the 2015 compliance date to meet 

demand. Redesigning all units to meet 

the current max-tech efficiency levels 

would require considerable capital and 

product conversion expenditures. DOE 

believes that the scope of the redesigns 

necessary to meet TSL 5 by 2015 also 

heightens concerns over supply chain 

and operational risk. DOE estimates that 

complete platform redesigns would cost 

the industry over $700 million in 

product and capital conversion costs. 

These costs alone represent a substantial 

portion of the total value of the 

industry. In addition, manufacturers 

could face a substantial impact on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

32384 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

profitability at TSL 5. Because 

manufacturers earn a premium for 

ENERGY STAR products and additional 

profit for products that exceed the 

ENERGY STAR level, collapsing the 

market to one commodity product 

makes it unlikely that manufacturers 

could maintain their base-case 

profitability on these products after 

compliance with the standards is 

required. As a result, DOE expects that 

TSL 5 would yield impacts closer to the 

high end of the range of INPV impacts. 

If the high end of the range of impacts 

is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 5 could 

result in a net loss of 51.6 percent in 

INPV to clothes washer manufacturers. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

5 for residential clothes washers, the 

benefits of energy savings, water 

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 

significant fraction of consumers that 

experience an increase in life-cycle cost 

and the impacts on manufacturers, 

including the conversion costs and 

profit margin impacts that could result 

in a very large reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers and the risk of 

manufacturer capacity constraints 

resulting from the necessary changes by 

2015. Consequently, the Secretary has 

concluded that TSL 5 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE next considered TSL 4. TSL 4 

would save 2.87 quads of energy and 

5.33 trillion gallons of water, amounts 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, 

the NPV of consumer benefit would be 

16.42 billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $41.60 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 156 Mt of CO2, 130 

thousand tons of NOX, and 0.364 tons of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4 

ranges from $729 million to $11,613 

million. Total generating capacity in 

2044 is estimated to decrease by 1.64 

GW under TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $491 for top-loading 

standard clothes washers, a savings of 

$35 for front-loading standard clothes 

washers, a savings of $312 for toploading compact clothes washers, and a 

savings of $54 for front-loading compact 

clothes washers. The median payback 

period is 1.8 years for top-loading 

standard clothes washers, 9.2 years for 

front-loading standard clothes washers, 

2.1 years for top-loading compact 

clothes washers, and 0.8 years for frontloading compact clothes washers. A 

significant fraction of consumers, 

however, experience an LCC net cost for 

all product classes except for frontloading compact: 8 percent for toploading standard clothes washers, 45 

percent for front-loading standard 

clothes washers, and 13 percent for toploading compact clothes washers. In 

addition, TSL 4 significantly raises the 

first cost of both top-loading and frontloading clothes washers, and DOE is 

concerned some low-income consumers 

may be compelled to delay or forgo new 

purchases. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from an increase of $205.0 

million to a decrease of $1,256.4 

million. At this TSL, manufacturers 

would be required to overhaul both 

front-loading and top-loading platforms 

by the 2015 compliance date to meet 

demand. DOE estimates that it would 

cost the industry approximately $692 

million in product and capital 

conversion costs at TSL 4. These costs 

reflect substantial platform changes to 

both top-loading and front-loading 

clothes washers by 2015, represent a 

significant portion of the total value of 

the industry, and trigger capacity 

concerns in light of the magnitude and 

timing of the necessary changes. In 

addition, manufacturers could face a 

substantial impact on profitability at 

TSL 4. Because manufacturers earn a 

premium for ENERGY STAR products 

and additional profit for products that 

exceed the ENERGY STAR level, 

collapsing the market to a few 

commodity products without efficiency 

differentiators makes it unlikely that 

manufactures could maintain their basecase profitability on these products after 

standards. Because of the effect, DOE 

expects that TSL 4 would yield impacts 

closer to the high end of the range of 

INPV impacts. If the high end of the 

range of impacts is reached, as DOE 

expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss 

of 48.6 percent in INPV to clothes 

washer manufacturers. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

4 for residential clothes washers, the 

benefits of energy savings, water 

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 due to the large 

increase in product cost and the impacts 

on manufacturers, including the 

conversion costs and profit margin 

impacts that could result in a very large 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers 

and the risk of manufacturer capacity 

constraints resulting from the necessary 

changes by 2015. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 4 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 

would save 2.04 quads of energy and 

3.03 trillion gallons of water, amounts 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, 

the NPV of consumer benefit would be 

$13.01 billion, using a discount rate of 

7 percent, and $31.29 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 113 Mt of CO2, 94.2 

thousand tons of NOX, and 0.269 ton of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 3 

ranges from $530 million to $8,457 

million. Total generating capacity in 

2045 is estimated to decrease by 1.30 

GW under TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $268 in 2015 and $366 in 

2018 for top-loading standard clothes 

washers, a savings of $37 for frontloading standard clothes washers, a 

savings of $159 in 2015 and $312 in 

2018 for top-loading compact clothes 

washers, and a savings of $54 for frontloading compact clothes washers. The 

median payback period is 0.4 years in 

2015 and 0.9 years in 2018 for toploading standard clothes washers, 1.3 

years for front-loading standard clothes 

washers, 0.5 years in 2015 and 2.1 years 

in 2018 for top-loading compact clothes 

washers, and 0.8 years for front-loading 

compact clothes washers. The fraction 

of consumers experiencing an LCC cost 

is small—less than 1 percent in 2015 

and 3 percent in 2018 for top-loading 

standard clothes washers, 1.5 percent 

for front-loading standard clothes 

washers, and 1.5 percent in 2015 and 13 

percent in 2018 for top-loading compact 

clothes washers. No consumers 

experience an LCC cost for front-loading 

compact clothes washers. The much 

lower first cost of washers meeting TSL 

3, combined with the fact that the vast 

majority of consumers experience either 

net LCC benefits or no impacts at TSL 

3, mitigates DOE’s concern that some 

low-income consumers would be 

compelled to delay or forgo new 

purchases. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from an increase of $96.4 

million to a decrease of $858.8 million. 

For most manufacturers, the efficiency 

levels for top-loading clothes washers at 

TSL 3 correspond to incremental 

product conversion by 2015 and a 

platform redesign by 2018. These 

compliance dates mitigate capacity risk 

to manufacturers and their supply 

chains and afford manufacturers the 

flexibility to spread capital 

requirements, engineering resources, 

and other conversion activities over a 

longer period of time depending on the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32385 

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 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits 

except for the value of CO2 reductions. For the 

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

in Table II.4. From the present value, DOE then 

calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year 

period 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. 

individual needs of each manufacturer. 

These factors at TSL 3 mitigate DOE’s 

concerns about manufacturers’ ability to 

match production capacity to market 

demand. At TSL 3, DOE recognizes the 

risk of negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning 

reduced profit margins are realized. 

However, the additional flexibility of 

the compliance dates and range of 

efficiency levels above TSL 3 afford 

manufacturers room to maintain higher 

value products. Therefore, DOE expects 

impacts to be closer to the low end of 

the range of impacts. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

3 for residential clothes washers, the 

benefits of energy savings, water 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions, and favorable consumer LCC 

savings and payback period for more 

than 97 percent of consumers outweigh 

the LCC costs for less than 3 percent of 

consumers and the conversion costs and 

profit margin impacts that could result 

in a reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. 

In addition, the efficiency levels in 

TSL 3 correspond to the recommended 

levels in 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). Moreover, DOE has encouraged 

the submission of consensus agreements 

as a way for diverse interested parties to 

develop an independent and probative 

analysis useful in DOE standard setting 

and to expedite the rulemaking process. 

DOE also believes that the standard 

levels recommended in the consensus 

agreement may increase the likelihood 

for regulatory compliance, while 

decreasing the risk of litigation. 

After considering the analysis, 

comments on the framework document, 

and the benefits and burdens of TSL 3, 

the Secretary concludes that this TSL 

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 

proposes to adopt TSL 3 for residential 

clothes washers. The proposed amended 

energy conservation standards for 

residential clothes washers, which are a 

minimum allowable integrated modified 

energy factor (IMEF) and maximum 

allowable integrated water factor (IWF), 

are shown in Table II.3. 

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

Product class 

Effective March 7, 2015 Effective January 1, 2018 

Minimum 

IMEF * 

Maximum 

IWF † 

Minimum 

IMEF * 

Maximum 

IWF † 

1. Top-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft 3 capacity) ..................................... 0.86 14.4 1.15 12.0 

2. Top-loading, Standard ................................................................................. 1.29 8.4 1.57 6.5 

3. Front-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft 3 capacity) ................................... 1.13 8.3 N/A 

4. Front-loading, Standard ............................................................................... 1.84 4.7 N/A 

* IMEF (integrated modified energy factor) is calculated as the clothes container capacity in cubic feet divided by the sum, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh), of: (1) the total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption; (2) the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy 

consumption; (3) the per-cycle energy consumption for removing moisture from a test load; and (4) the per-cycle standby and off mode energy 

consumption. 

† IWF (integrated water consumption factor is calculated as the sum, expressed in gallons per cycle, of the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles divided by the clothes container capacity in cubic feet. 

B. 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 2010$, of the benefits from 

operating products that meet the 

proposed standards (consisting 

primarily of operating cost savings from 

using less energy and water, minus 

increases in product 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.4 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. 

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 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 

2015–2044. The SCC values, on the 

other hand, reflect the present value of 

all future climate-related impacts 

resulting from the emission of one ton 

of carbon dioxide in each year. These 

impacts continue well beyond 2100. 

Table II.4 shows the annualized 

values for clothes washers. Using a 7- 

percent discount rate for benefits and 

costs other than CO2 reductions, for 

which DOE used a 3-percent discount 

rate along with the SCC series 

corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 

2010, the cost of the standards for 

clothes washers in today’s rule is $185 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the annualized benefits are 

$1,234 million per year in reduced 

equipment operating costs, $141.7 

million in CO2 reductions, and $5.4 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$1.20 billion per year. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate and for all benefits and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

32386 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

costs and the SCC series corresponding 

to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost 

of the standards for clothes washers in 

today’s rule is $212 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $1,808 million per year in 

reduced operating costs, $141.7 million 

in CO2 reductions, and $8.0 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $1.75 billion per 

year. 

TABLE II.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED AMENDED STANDARDS (TSL 3) FOR RESIDENTIAL

CLOTHES WASHERS

Discount rate 

Monetized 

(million 2010$/year) 

Primary estimate* Low net benefits 

estimate* 

High net benefits 

estimate* 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................. 7% .................................. 1234 ............................... 1101 ............................... 1379. 

3% .................................. 1808 ............................... 1587 ............................... 2042. 

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t** .............. 5% .................................. 34.5 ................................ 31.7 ................................ 37.4. 

CO2 Reduction at $22.3/t** ............ 3% .................................. 142 ................................. 130 ................................. 154. 

CO2 Reduction at $36.5/t** ............ 2.5% ............................... 226 ................................. 207 ................................. 246. 

CO2 Reduction at $67.6/t** ............ 3% .................................. 431 ................................. 396 ................................. 469. 

NOX Reduction at $2,537/t** ......... 7% .................................. 5.40 ................................ 5.03 ................................ 5.82. 

3% .................................. 8.01 ................................ 7.39 ................................ 8.68. 

Total† ............................................. 7% plus CO2 range ........ 1274 to 1671 .................. 1137 to 1502 .................. 1423 to 1854. 

7% .................................. 1381 ............................... 1236 ............................... 1539. 

3% plus CO2 range ........ 1851 to 2248 .................. 1626 to 1991 .................. 2089 to 2520. 

3% .................................. 1958 ............................... 1725 ............................... 2205. 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs ............ 7% .................................. 185 ................................. 258 ................................. 200. 

3% .................................. 212 ................................. 309 ................................. 230. 

Total Net Benefits 

Total† ............................................. 7% plus CO2 range ........ 1088 to 1485 .................. 880 to 1244 .................... 1223 to 1654. 

7% .................................. 1196 ............................... 978 ................................. 1339. 

3% plus CO2 range ........ 1639 to 2036 .................. 1317 to 1682 .................. 1859 to 2291. 

3% .................................. 1746 ............................... 1416 ............................... 1976. 

* The Primary, Low Benefit, and High Benefit Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts (which affect product shipments) 

from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental product 

costs reflect a declining trend using the default product price trend in the Primary Estimate and High Benefits Estimate, and constant product 

prices in the Low Benefits Estimate. Because product prices are constant in the Low Benefits Estimate, the incremental product costs are higher 

than in the other two estimates. Although the price trends in the Primary Estimate and the High Benefits Estimate are the same, the incremental 

product costs are higher in the High Benefits Estimate because this case assumes High Economic Growth and thus has more product shipments. The approach used for forecasting product prices is explained in section IV.F.1. 

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

$22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of 

$67.6 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $22.3/ton in 2010 

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

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

III. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule until the date provided in the DATES

section at the beginning of this proposed 

rule. Interested parties may submit 

comments, data, and other information 

using any of the methods described in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this proposed rule. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32387 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, 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/courier, 

please provide all items on a CD, if 

feasible. It is not necessary to submit 

printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential business information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email 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). 

B. Public Meeting 

If DOE withdraws the direct final rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

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

meeting to allow for additional 

comment on this proposed rule. DOE 

will publish notice of any meeting in 

the Federal Register. 

C. Issues on which DOE seeks Comment 

As stated previously, pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE promulgated a 

direct final rule establishing standards 

for residential clothes washers 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

The standards established in the direct 

final rule are the same standards 

proposed in today’s NOPR. In 

promulgating the direct final rule, DOE 

carefully considered the Joint Petition 

submitted to DOE, which contained a 

consensus recommendation for 

amended energy conservation standards 

for residential clothes washers. For the 

reasons stated in the direct final rule, 

the Secretary determined that the 

‘‘Consensus Agreement’’ was submitted 

by interested persons who are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

on this matter. The Secretary also 

determined, for the reasons set forth in 

the direct final rule, that the standards 

contained in the Consensus Agreement 

comport with the standard-setting 

criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). Therefore, the Secretary 

promulgated the direct final rule 

establishing the amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

clothes washers. 

(1) As required by the same statutory 

provision, DOE is also simultaneously 

publishing this NOPR and providing for 

a 110-day public comment period. 

Should DOE determine to proceed with 

this NOPR, or to gather additional data 

for future energy conservation standards 

activities for residential clothes 

washers, DOE will consider any 

comments and data received on these 

proposed standards. Although 

comments are welcome on all aspects of 

this rulemaking, DOE is particularly 

interested in comments on the 

following: 

(1) Impacts of the standards that may 

lessen or improve the utility or 

performance of the covered products. 

These impacts may include increased 

cycle times to wash clothes, ability to 

achieve good wash performance (e.g., 

cleaning and rinsing), increased 

longevity of clothing, improved 

ergonomics of washer use, increase in 

noise, and other potential impacts. 

(2) The 2015 and 2018 compliance 

dates for the proposed standards and 

whether these compliance dates 

adequately consider the typical clothes 

washer model design cycle for 

manufacturers. 

(3) Whether repair costs for 

residential clothes washers would 

increase at the efficiency levels 

indicated in today’s rule due to any 

changes in the design and materials and 

components used in order to comply 

with the new efficiency standards. 

(4) Where there would be any 

anticipated changes in the consumption 

of complementary goods (e.g., laundry 

detergent, stain removers, fabric 

softeners) that may result from the 

proposed standards. 

(5) Whether DOE should incorporate 

the cost of risers or storage drawers (also 

referred to as pedestals) into the 

baseline installation costs for frontloading machines. 

Changes in the Utility of the Products 

DOE has prepared a technical support 

document (TSD) that analyzed the effect 

of this rule on, among other things, life 

cycle costs, payback periods and other 

consumer-related impacts. However, 

there are other facets of consumer 

welfare that are not explicitly captured 

in this analysis, including washing 

performance, increased longevity of 

clothing, and noise. While information 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

32388 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

gathered in the course of this 

rulemaking did not demonstrate a 

linkage between these topics and 

efficiency standards, DOE is seeking 

comment and information on how 

consumers value changes in these 

attributes and if those values should be 

incorporated into DOE analysis. 

Also, although it is outside the scope 

of this rule, DOE may consider seeking 

information on whether to account for 

wash performance and fabric care in test 

procedures for clothes washers. 

2015 and 2018 Compliance Dates 

DOE is seeking comment on redesign 

timelines anticipated by the 

manufacturers and how the 2015 and 

2018 compliance dates may affect those 

timelines. DOE’s manufacturer impact 

analysis is based on information 

provided by the manufacturer and 

supports the positions that 

manufacturers will need to make only 

minor redesign to comply with the 2015 

standards, though the 2018 standards 

could require more substantial 

redesigns. Accepting that manufacturers 

fully considered their cost implications 

prior to entering voluntarily the 

consensus agreement, DOE assumes that 

manufacturers would not have agreed to 

compliance dates they could not meet or 

that imposed prohibitive costs. 

However, depending on how the 

redesign timeline and the compliance 

dates coincide, the cost estimates may 

be affected, for example, due to sunk 

cost, as well as the anticipated market 

shares of front-loading versus toploading clothes washers. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

The regulatory reviews conducted for 

this proposed rule are identical to those 

conducted for the direct final rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register. Please see the direct final rule 

for further details. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, and Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, and Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 11, 

2012. 

David Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 

429 and 430 of title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

2. In § 429.20 revise paragraph (b)(2) 

to read as follows: 

§ 429.20 Residential clothes washers. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report shall include the 

following public product-specific 

information: 

(i) For residential clothes washers 

manufactured before March 7, 2015: The 

modified energy factor (MEF) in cubic 

feet per kilowatt hour per cycle (cu ft/ 

kWh/cycle) and the capacity in cubic 

feet (cu ft). For standard-size residential 

clothes washers, a water factor (WF) in 

gallons per cycle per cubic feet (gal/ 

cycle/cu ft). 

(ii) For residential clothes washers 

manufactured on or after March 7, 2015: 

The integrated modified energy factor 

(IMEF) in cu ft/kWh/cycle, the 

integrated water factor (IWF) in gal/ 

cycle/cu ft, the capacity in cu ft and the 

type of loading (top-loading or frontloading). 

* * * * * 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

3. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

4. In § 430.32 revise paragraph (g) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(g) Clothes washers. (1) Clothes 

washers manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2007 shall have a Modified 

Energy Factor no less than: 

Product class 

Modified energy 

factor 

(cu.ft./kWh/cycle) 

i. Top-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ..................................................................................................................... 0.65. 

ii. Top-loading, Standard (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ................................................................................................................... 1.26. 

iii. Top-Loading, Semi-Automatic ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Not Applicable. 

iv. Front-loading ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1.26. 

v. Suds-saving ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Not Applicable. 

1 Must have an unheated rinse water option. 

(2) All top-loading or front-loading 

standard-size residential clothes 

washers manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2011, and before March 7, 

2015, shall meet the following 

standard— 

(i) A Modified Energy Factor of at 

least 1.26; and 

(ii) A Water Factor of not more than 

9.5. 

(3) Clothes washers manufactured on 

or after March 7, 2015, and before 

January 1, 2018, shall have an Integrated 

Modified Energy Factor no less than, 

and an Integrated Water Factor no 

greater than: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32389 

Product class 

Integrated modified energy factor 

(cu.ft./kWh/cycle) 

Integrated water 

factor 

(gal/cycle/cu.ft.) 

i. Top-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ................................................................................... 0.86 14.4 

ii. Top-loading, Standard (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ................................................................................. 1.29 8.4 

iii. Front-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ............................................................................... 1.13 8.3 

iv. Front-loading, Standard (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ............................................................................. 1.84 4.7 

(4) Clothes washers manufactured on 

or after January 1, 2018 shall have an 

Integrated Modified Energy Factor no 

less than, and an Integrated Water 

Factor no greater than: 

Product class 

Integrated modified energy factor 

(cu.ft./kWh/cycle) 

Integrated water 

factor 

(gal/cycle/cu.ft.) 

i. Top-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ................................................................................... 1.15 12.0 

ii. Top-loading, Standard (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ................................................................................. 1.57 6.5 

iii. Front-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ............................................................................... 1.13 8.3 

iv. Front-loading, Standard (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ............................................................................. 1.84 4.7 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–12319 Filed 5–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2