[6450-01-PI 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EERE-2007- BT-STD-00101 

RIN: 1904--AA89 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential 

Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of effective date and compliance dates for direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: DOE published a direct final rule to establish amended energy 

conservation standards for residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners in the 

Federal Register on April 21 ,2011. DOE has dctennined that the adverse comments 

received in response to the direct final rule do not provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawing the direct final rule. Therefore, DOE provides this notice confirming 

adoption of the energy conservation standards established in the direct final rule and 

announcing the effective date of those standards. DOE also published a proposed rule to 

amend the compliance dates set forth in the direct final rule on May 9, 2011. Elsewhere 

in today's Federal Register, DOE publishes a final rule which adopts the compliance 

dates set forth in its proposed rule published on May 9,2011. 
DATES: The direct final rule published on April 21 , 2011 (76 FR 22454) was effective 

on August 19, 2011. Pursuant to the document published elsewhere in loday's Federal 

Register. compliance with the standards in the direct final rule will be required on June I, 

2014 for room air conditioners and on January I, 2015 for clothes dryers. 

ADDRESSES: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov, including Federal 

Register notices, framework documents, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 

conuncnts, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are 

listed in the regulations. gOY index. Not all documents listed in the index may be publicly 

available, such as infonnation that is exempt from public disclosure. A link to the docket 

web page can be found at www.rcgu!ations.gov. 

For further information on how to submit or review public comments or view 

hard copies of the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or email: 

Brenda.Edwards@cc.doc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121; telephone: (202) 586-7463; 

e-mail: Stephen. Witkowski@ee.doe.gov. 

2 
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office o f the General Counse~ 

GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121; telephone: 

(202) 586-7796; e-mail: Elizabeth.Kohl@hg.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority and Rulemaking Background 

As amended by Energy Independence and Security Act of2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. 

L. 110-140), the Energy Policy and Conservation Act authorizes DOE to issue a direct 

final rule establishing an energy conservation standard on receipt of a statement 

submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of 

view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and 

efficiency advocates) as detcnnined by the Secretary of Energy (Secretary), that contains 

recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that are in accordance 

with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(0). A notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that 

proposes an identical energy conservation standard must be published simultaneously 

with the final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days 

on the direct final rule. 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). Not later than 120 days after issuance of 

the direct final rule, if one or more adverse comments or an alternative joint 

recommendation are received relating to the direct final rule, the Secretary must 

determine whether the comments or alternative recommendation may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(0) or other applicable law. If the 

Secretary makes such a detennination, DOE must withdraw the direct final rule and 

3 
proceed with the simultaneously published NOPR. DOE must publish in the Federal 

Register the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn. Id. 

During the rulemaking proceeding to consider amending energy conservation 

standards for residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners, DOE received the 

"Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances, Federal 

Incentives and Related Matters for Specified Appliances" (the "Joint Petition" or 

"Consensus Agreement"), a comment submitted by groups representing manufacturers 

(the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), Whirlpool Corporation 

(WhirlJX>0I), General Electric Company (GE), Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), 

BSH Home Appliances (BSH), Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS), Viking Range, SubZero Wolt: Friedrich AlC, V-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, 

AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik, Fisher & 

Paykel, Scotsman Ice, lndesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and DeLongbi); energy and 

environmental advocates (American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NROC), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water Efficiency (A WE), 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), and Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnerships (NEEP»; and consumer groups (Consumer Federation of America (CF A) 

and the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC» (collectively, the "Joint Petitioners"). 

This collective set of comments I recommends specific energy conservation standards for 

residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners that, in the commenters' view, would 

satisfy the EPCA requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6295(0). 

I DOE Docket No. EERE- 2007- BT- STD-OOIO, Comment 35. 

4 
After careful consideration of the Consensus Agreement, the Secretary 

determined that it was submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of 

relevant points of view on this matter. DOE noted in the direct final rule that Congress 

provided some guidance within the statute itselfby 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 

environmenta~ energy efficiency and consumer advocacy organizations. Although States 

were not signatories to the Consensus Agreement, they did not express any opposition to 

it from the time of its submission to DOE through the close ofthe comment period on the 

direct final rule. Moreover, DOE stated in the direct final rule that it does not interpret 

the statute as requiring absolute agreement among all interested parties before DOE may 

proceed with issuance of a direct final rule. By explicit language of the statute, the 

Secretary has discretion to determine when a joint recommendation for an energy or 

water conservation standard has met the requirement for representativeness (i.e .• "as 

determined by the Secretary"). Accordingly, DOE determined that the Consensus 

Agreement was made and submitted by interested persons fairly representative of 

relevant points of view. 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine whether a 

jointly submitted recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard is in 

5 
accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(0) or 42 U.S.c. 63 I 3(a)(6)(B), as applicable. As stated 

in the direct final rule, this detennination is exactly the type of analysis DOE conducts 

whenever it considers potential energy conservation standards pursuant to EPCA. DOE 

applies the same principles to any consensus recommendations it may receive to satisfy 

its statutory obligation to ensure that any energy consenration 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(0). 

Accordingly, the Consensus Agreement levels, included as trial standard level (TSL) 4 

for both clothes dryers and room air conditioners, were adopted as the amended standard 

levels in the direct final rule. 

In sum, as the relevant statutory criteria were satisfied, the Secretary adopted the 

amended energy conservation standards for clothes dryers and room air conditioners set 

forth in the direct final rule. These standards are set forth in Table 1. The standards 

apply to all products listed in Table 1 that are manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States on or after June 1, 201 4 for room air conditioners and on or after January 1, 

2015 for clothes dryers. These compliance dates were set forth in the proposed rule 

issued on May 9, 2011 (76 FR 19913) and arc adopted in a final rule published elsewhere 

in today's Federal Register (see section V of this notice for further details.) For a 

detailed discussion of DOE's analysis of the benefits and burdens of the amended 

6 
standards pursuant to the criteria set forth in EPCA, please see the direct final rule. (76 

FR 22454 (April 21, 2011)) 

As required by EPCA, DOE also simultaneously published a NOPR proposing the 

identical standard levels contained in the direct final rule. As discussed in section Il.AA 

of this notice, DOE considered whether any comment received during the IIO-day 

comment period following the direct final rule was sufficiently "adverse" as to provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule and continuation of this 

rulemaking under the NOPR. As noted in the direct final rule, it is the substance, rather 

than the quantity, of comments that will ultimately detennine whether a direct final rule 

will be withdrawn. To this end, DOE weighs the substance of any adverse comment(s) 

received against the anticipated benefits of the Consensus Agreement and the likelihood 

that further consideration of the comment(s) would change the results of the rulemaking. 

DOE notes that to the extent an adverse comment had been previously raised and 

addressed in the ruiernaking proceeding, such a submission will not typically provide a 

basis for withdrawal ofa direct final rulc. 

7 
Table 1. Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Dryers 

and Room Air Conditioners 

Residential Clothes Dryers 

Minimum 

CEF 

Levels" 

Product Class IblkWh 

I. Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft' or greater caoacity) 3.73 

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

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

4. Vented Gas 3.30 

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

6. VentIess Electric Combination WasherlDr~r 2.08 

Room Air Conditioners 

Minimum 

CEER 

Levels •• 

Product Class BtulWh 

I. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less than 6,000 Btuth 11.0 

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

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

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

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

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

6. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and less than 6,000 Btuth 10.0 

7. Without rcverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 6,000 to 7,999 Btuth 10.0 

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

Btulh 

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

Btulh 

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

Btulh 

10. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 20,000 Btuth or 9.4 

more 

11. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less than 20,000 Btuth 9.8 

12. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and less than 14,000 Btuth 9.3 

13. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides and 20,000 Btulh or more 9.3 

14. With reverse cy~le, without louvered sides, and 14,000 Btuth or morc 8.7 

IS. Casement-only 9.5 

16. Casement-slider 10.4 .. CEF . (Combined Energy Factor) IS calculated as the clothes dryer test load weight In pounds dlVlded by thc 

sum of "active modc" per-cyclc energy use and "inactive mode" per-cycle energy use in kWh . 

"CEER (Combined Energy Efficiency Ratio) is calculated as capacity times active modc hours (equal 10 

750) divided by the swn ofaClive mode annual energy use and inactive mode. 

8 
II. Comments Requesting Withdrawal of the Direct Final Rule 

A. General Conunents 

I. Joint Petition 

Commenters stated that DOE did not consider the views of all relevant parties, 

including appliance installers and energy suppliers. Conunenters also stated that DOE 

did not explain its process for determining whether the Joint Petition was submitted by 

relevant parties, including a detennination of which parties are "not" relevant. (American 

Gas Association (AGA), No. 62 at pp. 4-5;' AGL Resources (AGL), No. 63 at p. 8; 

American Public Gas Association (APGA), No. 61 at p. 2) 

As explained above, EPCA authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule 

establishing an energy conservation standard on receipt of a statement that. in relevant 

part, is submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant 

points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States. 

and efficiency advocates) as detcnnined by the Secretary. While providing some 

guidance by specifying that representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, 

and efficiency advocates are relevant parties to any consensus reconunendation, EPCA 

affords DOE significant discretion in detennining whether this requirement has been met. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A» DOE notes that EPCA docs not require that "all" relevant 

parties be parties to any consensus agreement. EPCA also does not require DOE to 

specify parties that it determines are not relevant to any consensus agreement. 

2 A notation in the form "AGA, No. 62 at pp. 4-5" identifies a written comment (I) made by the American 

Gas Association (AGA). (2) recorded in document number 62 that is filed in the docket ofthis rulemaking. 

and (3) which appears on pages 4--5 of document number 62. 

9 
In the direct final rule, DOE explained how the Consensus Agreement met the 

requirement that it be submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative 

of relevant points of view. DOE noted that the Consensus Agreement was signed and 

submitted by a broad cross-section of the manufacturers who produce the subject 

products, their trade associations, and environmental, energy efficiency and consumer 

advocacy organizations. DOE further noted that although States were not signatories to 

the Consensus Agreement, they did not express any opposition to it. States also did not 

file any adverse comments during the comment period for the direct final rule. 

Moreover, DOE stated in the direct final rule that it does not interpret the statute 

as requiring absolute agreement among all intercsted parties before DOE may proceed 

with issuance of a direct final rule. By explicit language of the statute, the Secretary has 

discretion to detennine when a joint recommendation fur an energy or water conservation 

standard has met the requirement for representativeness (i.e., "as determined by the 

Secretary"). DOE acknowledges that appliance installers and energy suppliers may also 

be relevant parties within the meaning of 42 U.S.c. 6295(p}(4}, but does not believe that 

the existence of other potentially relevant parties indicates that the Consensus Agreement 

was not submitted by jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of 

relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates). In addition, DOE notes that it derived the installation 

costs for the clothes dryers from the 2010 RS Means Residential Cost Data. which is 

commonly used as an installation cost reference source by the installers for estimating the 

10 
labor hours and regional labor cost. DOE also notes that the clothes dryer design that 

meets the new energy conservation standard does not require additional installation cost 

compared to the models that meet the existing energy conservation standard. Energy 

suppliers-Edison Electric Institute and California Utilities (gas and electric}--provided 

technology information that could improve the products' efficiency, and also 

recommended improvements to the existing test procedures in response to the framework 

document for this rulemaking, made available for comment on October 9,2007, and the 

preliminary analysis document, made available for public comment on February 23, 

2010-' 

For the reasons stated above, DOE affirms its conclusion in the direct final rule 

that the Joint Petition satisfies the requirement of 42 U.S.c. 6295(p)(4) that it be a 

statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant 

points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, 

and efficiency advocates) as determined by the Secretary. 

2. Using Experience Curve to Forecast Product Prices 

AGA objected to DOE's use of a learning curve to forecast product prices. (AGA, 

No. 62 at p. 3) APGA stated that learning curve price reductions should not be included 

in this direct final rule because DOE's most recent policy on this topic, set forth in 

DOE's notice of data availability (NODA) on Equipment Price Forecasting in Energy 

3 A nodce of availability (NOA) of the framework document was published in the Federal Register on 

October 9, 2007. (72 FR 57254). A NOA of the preliminary analysis was publi ~hed in the Federal 

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

II 
Conservation Standards Analysis (76 FR 9696, Feb. 22, 201 I), has not been finalized. 

(APGA, No.6 1 at p. 2) 

APGA also presented as relevant to this rulemaking several issues that it had 

raised in its comments in response to the NODA. Summarizing these issues, AGA stated 

that DOE has not justified use of " learning curve" price effects with respect to the 

covered products, and that the price adjustment approach, based on a wide variety of 

products and not specific to the design options under consideration, is inconsistent with 

the approach of using engineering costs. (AGA, No. 62 at p. 3) Laclede Gas Company 

(Laclede Gas) stated that the "learning curve" is onc of many assumptions made by DOE 

leading to a biased outcome. (Laclede Gas, No. 59 at p. 4) 

In the NODA, DOE stated that when data are available to project potential cost 

reductions over time for a particular appliance or type of equipment, DOE plans to use 

these data as part of its analyses. 76 FR 9699 (Feb. 22, 2011). Therefore, use of the 

experience curve approach in the direct final rule, as described below, is appropriate. 

For the direct final rule, DOE examined historical producer price indices for room 

air conditioners and household laundry equipment and found a long-term declining real 

price trend for both products. Consistent with the method proposed in the NODA, DOE 

used experience curve fits with the historical data on prices and cumulative production to 

forecast product costs. The experience curve approach captures a variety of factors that 

together shaped the observed historical trends, and is consistent with the costing approach 

12 
in the engineering analysis, which estimated the incremental costs of considered design 

options in 2010. DOE did not attempt to forecast how those costs may change in the 

future because the available data did not pennit DOE to estimate how only the 

incremental costs of design options may change .. 

3. Measure of Energy Consumption 

Laclede Gas expressed concern that DOE has not implemented the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) conclusions that DOE's measurement of energy use should 

be based on full-fuel cycles, which takes into account the amount of energy consumed 

and lost from the fuel's production through the final point of use. (Laclede Gas, No. 59 at 

p.4) 

As discussed in the direct final rule, Section 1802 ofthe Energy Policy Act of 

2005 directed DOE to contract a study with the National Academy of Science (NAS) to 

examine whether the goals of energy efficiency standards are best served by 

measurement of energy consumed, and efficiency improvements, at the actual point-ofuse 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-ofUse and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards" to 

conduct the study, which was completed in May 2009. The NAS committee noted that 

DOE uses what the committee referred to as '''extended site" energy consumption to 

assess the impact of energy use on the economy, energy security, and environmental 

quality. The extended site measure of energy consumption includes the energy consumed 

13 
during the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity but, unlike the fullfuel-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 thc site. As a result, the NAS committee recommended that DOE consider 

shifting its analytical approach over time to use a full-fuel-cycle measure of energy 

consumption when assessing national and environmental impacts, especially with respect 

to the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions. 

In response to the NAS committee recommendations, DOE issued a Notice of 

Proposed Policy proposing to incorporate a full-fuel cycle analysis into the methods it 

uses to estimate the likely impacts of energy conservation standards on energy usc and 

emissions. 75 FR 51423 (August 20, 2010). Specifically, DOE proposed to use full-fuelcycle (FFC) measures of energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, rather than the 

primary (extended site) energy measures it currently uses. DOE recently published a final 

policy statement on these subjects (76 FR 51281, August 18, 2011) and will take steps to 

begin implementing that policy in future rulemakings and other activities. 

4. Adverse Impacts 

Commenters stated that DOE did not consider the adverse comments consistent 

with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). Specifically, commenters asserted that DOE was required to 

weigh adverse comments independent of other aspects of the direct final rule, except 

where the comments conflict with DOE's analysis in the rule, to avoid what the 

14 
commenters view as ad hoc and administratively inappropriate trade-offs. Commenters 

also asserted that weighing the adverse comments against the benefits of the direct final 

rule was not authorized by EPCA. (AGA, No. 62 at p. 4; APGA, No. 61 at p. 2) 

EPCA, in relevant part, authorizes DOE to adopt in a direct final rule jointly 

recommended energy conservation standards that are in accordance with the provisions 

of42 U.S.c. 6295(0). Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if one 

or more adverse comments or an alternative joint recommendation are received relating 

to the direct final rule, the Secretary is required to determine whether the comments or 

alternative recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 

U.S.c. 6295(0) or other applicable law. 

In the discussion that follows, DOE first explains its rationale for establishing the 

standards set forth in the direct final rule. DOE then explains the process for determining 

whether adverse comments received may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and addresses commentcrs' concerns about that process. 

As stated in the direct final rule, DOE's determination as to whether the standards 

levels in a consensus agreement meet the requirements for adoption set forth in 42 U.S.c. 

6295(0) is exactly the type of analysis DOE conducts whenever it considers potential 

energy conservation standards pursuant to EPCA. DOE applies the same principles to 

any consensus recommendations it may receive to satisfy its statutory obligation to 

ensure that any energy conservation standard that DOE adopts achieves the maximum 

15 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 

justified and will result in significant conservation of energy. This analysis includes a 

determination of whether the benefits of the standard outweigh its burdens, considering, 

to the maximum extent practicable, the seven criteria set forth in EPCA. These factors 

include the economic impact on manufacturers and consumers, operating cost savings 

compared to any increase costs, energy savings, any lessening of utility, the impact of 

any lessening of competition, the need for national energy and water savings, and any 

other factors that the Secretary considers appropriate. For the reasons stated in the direct 

final rule, DOE stated that it considered submission of the Consensus Agreement as 

another such factor. Upon review, and for the reasons set forth in the direct final rule, the 

Secretary determined that the Consensus Agreement submitted for residential clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners comports with the standard-setting criteria set forth 

under 42 U.S.c. 6295(0). Accordingly, the consensus agreement levels, included as TSL 

4 for both clothes dryers and room air conditioners, were adopted a<; the amended 

standard levels in the direct final rule. 

In considering whether any comment received on the direct final rule is 

sufficiently "adverse" such that it may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and continuation of this rulemaking under the NOPR, DOE stated in the 

direct final rule that it is the substance, rather than the quantity, of comments that 

ultimately determines whether a direct final rule will be withdrawn. DOE also stated that 

it weighs the substance of any adverse comment(s) received against the anticipated 

benefits of the Consensus Agreement and the likelihood that further consideration of the 

16 
comrnent(s) would change the results of the rulemaking. DOE noted that to the extent an 

adverse comment had been previously raised and addressed in the rulemaking 

proceeding, such a submission will not typically provide a basis for withdrawal ofa 

direct final rule. DOE docs not agree that adverse comments must be weighed 

independently of the benefits of the standards in the direct final rule. DOE notes that 

EPCA affords the Secretary significant discretion in detennining whether adverse 

comments may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. EPCA 

requires DOE to make its decision whether to withdraw the direct final rule "based on the 

rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule." In addition, DOE believes that 

weighing the substance of any adverse comments against the benefits of the standards 

adopted in the direct final rule is authorized by, and completely consistent with, EPCA 

because EPCA requires DOE to make these same types of detenninations, weighing 

factors as varied as impacts to consumers and manufacturers and the need of the nation 

for energy savings, when deciding whether a standard is economically justified. DOE 

also believes that analysis of the substance of the adverse comments to detennine 

whether further consideration would lead to a change in the results ofthe rulemaking, as 

well as the consideration of comments already addressed as insufficient to justify 

withdrawal, is an appropriate exercise of the Secretary's discretion and use oflimited 

resources. DOE's analysis of the adverse comments received is provided throughout this 

section. 

17 
5. Comment Period 

Commenters also suggested that DOE extend the comment period on the NOPR 

published simultaneous with the direct final rule. In the commenters' view, DOE needs 

to deliberate on the comments advocating withdrawal before closing the comment period 

on the NOPR so that stakeholders are aware of the rulemaking path DOE is pursuing. 

Commenters also noted that there is no requirement for the comment periods to have the 

same end date, and that withdrawal of the direct final rule may generate uniquc 

information for stakeholders to inform their comments on the NOPR. (AGA, No. 62 at p. 

5; APGA, No. 61 at p. 3) 

DOE is required by 42 U.S.c. 6295(p)(4) to publish a NOPR proposing standards 

identical to those set forth in the direct [mal rule simultaneously with the direct final rule. 

DOE published the direct final rule and corresponding NOPR on April 21, 2011. (76 FR 

22324 (NOPR); 76 FR 22454 (direct final rule)) DOE is not required to provide for 

identical commcnts periods on the NOPR and direct final rule. DOE typically provides 

for a 60-day comment period on an energy conservation standards NOPR. For the NOPR 

proposing energy conservation standards for residential clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners, however, DOE provided for a longer comment period to match the 11 O-day 

comment period provided for the direct final rule. DOE believed that an carlier closing 

datc could be confusing to commenters and was not warranted given that the direct final 

rule provided for a II O-day comment period. DOE does not believe that further 

extension of the comment period on the NOPR is necessary. The time provided for DOE 

to deliberate on whether to withdraw the direct final rule is specified in EPCA, which 

18 
states that not later than 120 days after publication of the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register (i.e., 10 days after the close of the comment period), DOE must withdraw the 

direct final rule if it receives one or more adverse comments that may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawaL In addition, the standards proposed in the NOPR are 

identical to those set forth in the direct final rule, and in the event DOE detennines that 

withdrawal is warranted, EPCA requires DOE to proceed with the simultaneously 

published NOPR. DOE's path in the event of withdrawal is therefore known when the 

direct final rule and NOPR are published- DOE considers the comments received and 

determines whether to issue amended standards in a final rule. Because the standards 

proposed in the NOPR, and the analyses by which those standards were developed, are 

identical to those in the direct final rule, DOE would not expect that withdrawal would 

generate unique information to inform stakeholders' comments on the NOPR. 

B. Comments on Standards for Clothes Dryers 

1. Consumer Benefits and Economic Justification 

AGA, APGA, and AGL stated that the results of DOE's consumer impact analysis 

do not provide sufficient economic justification for TSL 4 for gas clothes dryers. They 

stated that the average life-cycle cost (LCC) benefit of$2 is highly questionable as a 

positive economic justification, and that at TSL 4 more consumers would experience a 

net cost than would experience an Lee benefit. They also stated that the mean payback 

period fur TSL 4 is much longer than the median payback period reported in the direct 

fmal rule. (AGA, No. 62 at p. 2; AGL, No. 63 at p. 2; APGA, No. 61 at pp. 1-2) 

19 
DOE reports median payback period because it a better indicator of consumer 

impacts than mean payback period, which can be skewed by a small number of 

consumers with a larger payback period. For gas clothes dryers at TSL 4, the average 

Lee savings are estimated at $2. Sixty-eight percent of consumers will experience either 

a net benefit or no cost (i.e., Lee decrease or no change in Lee) in 2014, while 

approximately one-third of consumers would experience a net cost (i.e., Lee increase) in 

2014. DOE considered these Lee impacts in the direct final rule in its analysis of the 

seven factors that EPCA directs DOE to evaluate in detennining whether a potential 

energy conservation standard is economically justified (42 U.S.c. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i». In 

the direct final rule, DOE concluded that at TSL 4 for residential clothes dryers, the 

benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission reductions and the 

estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions, and positive NPV of 

consumer benefits outweigh the economic burden on some consumers due to the 

increases in product cost and the profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in 

industry net present value for the manufacturers. Thus, the Secretary concluded that TSL 

4 offers the maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result in the significant conservation of energy. 

AGA noted inconsistencies between DOE's Lee analysis and its recalculated 

values using the same analytical tools that would change the LCe savings into a cost. 

AGA stated that without any changes to the user inputs or other variables, it ran the 

simulation with the Crystal Ball software and calculated a $7 average LeC cost for gas 

dryers at TSL 4, making the adopted standard for gas dryers not economically justifiable. 

20 
(AGA, No. 62 at pp. 1- 2) In reviewing the LCC spreadsheet for gas clothes dryers, DOE 

consistently reproduced the results for the gas dryers at TSL 4 as reported in the technical 

support document (TSD) (i.e., an average savings of 52) using MS Excel 2007 and 

Crystal Ball software version 7.3.2. (2009). The different outcome from AGA's 

simulation runs could be due to different software versions, different initial settings for 

Crystal Ball, or other factors, though the information provided by AGA was insufficient 

for DOE to determine the cause of the differences. 

2. Fuel Cho ice and Fuel Switching 

Laclede Gas stated that because the direct final rule presents energy efficiency 

ratings for clothes dryers based on site energy, it misleads consumers into thinking that 

electric resistance heat is more efficient than the direct use of natural gas for clothes 

drying. (Laclede Gas, No. 59 at pp. 2- 3) The units in which DOE expresses energy 

conservation standards for appliances are expressed are based on the definitions of 

"energy efficiency" and "energy use" provided by EPCA. The term "energy efficiency" 

means the ratio of the useful output of services from a consumer product to the energy 

usc of such product, determined in accordance with applicable test procedures, and the 

term "energy use" means the quantity of energy directly consumed by a consumer 

product at JXlint of use, detennined in accordance with test procedures. (42 U.S.c. 

6291(4-5» DOE acknowledges that the energy conservation standards in the direct final 

rule arc higher for standard vented electric dryers than for vented gas dryers (3.73 CEF 

vs. 3.30 CEF, respectively), but DOE does not find it credible that this fact would lead 

consumers to thereby prefer electric dryers. While clothes dryers do not have 

21 
EnergyGuide labels, any such label would feature the estimated annual operating cost, 

not the energy efficiency rating. The estimated average annual operating cost of a gas 

dryer meeting the amended standard is less than the similar cost for an electric dryer 

meeting the amended standard, so it is implausible to expect that the standards would 

lead consumers to prefer electric dryers over gas dryers. 

In a related comment, Laclede Gas stated that DOE ignored the potential for fuel 

switching from gas to electric clothes drying. (Laclede Gas, No. 59 at p. 4) DOE did not 

consider switching between gas and electric clothes dryers as a result of the standards 

because the average incremental cost of the standards for standard-size gas and electric 

clothes dryers is approximately the same ($13). Thus, DOE believes that the standards 

would be unlikely to induce fuel switching, particularly given the additional costs 

a'isociated with such switching ~ the need to install a new dedicated electrical outlet). 

3. Energy Price Forecast 

AGA stated that DOE's use of the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2010 

Reference Case for energy prices under· accounts for the expansion of the U.S. natural 

gas resource base resulting from technological innovations for production of gas from 

tight shales. AGA recommended that DOE conduct its analysis using the AEO Low 

Growth price scenario. (AGA, No. 62 at p. 4) DOE traditionally uses the Reference Case 

forecast from the most recent AEO available at the time of the analysis for its default 

energy price forecast, and conducts sensitivity analysis using the Low Growth and High 

Growth Cases. For this rulemaking, the 2010 AEO was the most recent available forecast. 

22 
4. Employment Impacts 

AGA, APGA, and Laclede Gas stated that DOE's estimated range ofimpaets 

under TSL 4 for direct domestic employment in the manufacture of gas dryers indicates 

that job loss is the more likely outcome of the standards. (AGA, No. 62 at pp. 2- 3; 

APGA, No. 61 at p. 1; Laclede Gas, No. 59 at p. 4) 

The results for clothes dryers under TSL 4 in the direct final rule show impacts 

ranging from a gain of 460 jobs to a potential loss of3,962 jobs. The potential loss 

reflects a scenario in which all existing production would be moved outside of the United 

States. DOE believes that this outcome is unlikely for the reasons stated in the direct final 

rule. Specifically, at TSL 3 through TSL 5, DOE analyzed design options for the most 

common elothes dryer product classes that would add labor content to the final product. 

If manufacturers continue to produce these more complex products in-house, it is likely 

that employment would increase in response to the amended energy conservation 

standards. At TSL 3 through TSL 5, gains in domestic production employment are likely 

because, while requiring more labor, the necessary changes could be made within 

existing product platfonns. The ability to make product changes within existing pJatfonns 

mitigates some of the pressure to find lower labor costs, as relocating manufacturing 

facilities would disrupt production and add significant capital costs. 

23 
5. Scientific Integrity 

Laclede Gas stated that the energy factors established for clothes dryers do not 

fulfill thc scientific integrity objectives established by the President's Memorandum on 

scientific integrity, published on May 9, 2009,4 and that there is no scientific integrity in 

mandating standards that unfairly discriminate against the direct use of natural gas. 

(Laclede Gas, No. 59 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that the President's memo requires the Director of the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to develop recommendations for Presidential 

action designed to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch based on 

the principles enumerated in the memorandum. DOE further notes that OSTP issued a 

memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies on December 17, 2010 

pursuant to the President's May 9,2009 memorandum 

( www . wh it eho use. go vis itesldefau It! files! m icrosit esI 0 st pi scient i fi c-int egrit y-memo121720 I O.pdO. The memorandum provides guidance to agencies to implement the 

Administration's policies on scientific integrity. The OSTP memo stated that agencies 

should develop policies5 that, among other things, strengthen the actual and perceived 

credibility ofGovemment research, which would include ensuring that data and research 

used to support policy decisions undergo independent peer review by qualified experts, 

where feasible and appropriate. Agency policies should also, among other things, 

cstablish principles for conveying scientific and technological information to the public. 

4 www.whilchousc.govlthe press office1Memorandtnn-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-andAgencies-3-9-091. 

S OOE has submitted its draft policy to OSTP. See www.whitehouse.govlblog/201 1I08/ 11 /scientificintegritv-policies-submittcd-ostp. 

24 
As stated in the direct final rule, DOE conducted formal in-progress peer reviews 

of the energy conservation standards development process and analyses and has prepared 

a Peer Review Report pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation ofthis report involved a rigorous, forma~ and documented 

evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a 

judgment as to the technicaVscientificlbusiness merit, the actual or anticipated results, 

and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. The 

"Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report" dated February 2007 

has been disseminated and is available at the following Web site: 

wwwl.eerc.cncrgy.govlbuildings/appliance standards/peer review.htm!. DOE also 

makes its analyses and results available to the public in the TSD developed for its energy 

conservation standards rulemakings. The TSD for the direct final rule to establish energy 

conservation standards for residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners is 

available at: 

wwwI.eere.energy.govlbui Idings/appliance standards/resident iaVresidell! ial clothes dry 

crs room ac direct final rule tsd.htm!. 

DOE further notes that both memoranda state explicitly that they arc not intended 

to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, 

by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, 

employees, agents or any other person. 

25 
Lastly, DOE disagrees with the conunenter's assertion that the amended standards 

for clothes dryers unfairly discriminate against the direct use of natural gas. As discussed 

in section 11.8.2 of this notice, DOE finds no reason to expect that the standards will 

cause consumers to prefer electric dryers over gas clothes dryers. 

Ill. Other Comments on the Direct Final Rule 

A. Standby Power Levels 

AHAM conunented that the energy conservation standards for residential clothes 

dryers adopted in the direct final rule ineoI']Xlrate 0.08 Watts (W) of standby power for 

the vented clothes dryer product classes. AHAM stated that this standby power level is 

low and requested that DOE provide additional infonnation on how that level was 

detennined. AHAM indicated that approximately 1- 2 W of standby power is required to 

power electronic controls and provide consumers with the usability they expect. AHAM 

provided the example of the product's central processing unit (CPU), which it stated must 

run while the product is not in active mode and that the touch pad must remain active. 

AHAM added that without those two clements a hard off switch would be required and, 

as a result, the consumer would be required to wait for the product to fXJwer up at the 

start of use. AHAM stated that consumers are not likely to accept such a wait time to tum 

on the product. (AHAM, No. 60 at p. 2) 

As noted in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD, the standby power levels for 

clothes dryers (including the 0.08 W standby power level) were developed based on DOE 

testing and reversing engineering analysis of pro duets in its test sample. The 0.08 W 

26 
standby power level corresponds to a clothes dryer with electronic controls that uses a 

conventional linear power supply, along with a transfonnerless power supply that enables 

the CPU to remain on at all times while disabling the main linear power supply whenever 

the clothes dryer is "asleep" (after periods of user inactivity). This power supply design, 

incorporated with a "soft" power pushbutton and triac to control power through the 

trans fonner, would provide just enough power through the transfonnerless power supply 

to maintain the microcontroller chip while the clothes dryer is not JXlwered on. The 

control logic monitors the clothes dryer for key-presses, door openings, etc., and when 

user activity is detected, the logic activates the main linear power supply to IX>wer the 

remainder of the control board. DOE notes that this design option and standby power 

level was observed in DOE's sample of units that were tested and reverse-engineered for 

the preliminary analyses. As a result, DOE believes that products incorporating this 

design option are currently available on the market and do not require a hard on/off 

switch. In addition, DOE is unaware of any differences in the time required to power up 

the controls using this power supply design versus a conventional linear power supply or 

switch mode power supply that also IX>wer down the display after a period of user 

inactivity. For these reasons, DOE believes that the standby power level analyzed and 

adopted in the direct final rule for vented dryer product classes is appropriate. 

AHAM also commented that DOE did not indicate what standby power levels 

were incorporated into the energy conservation standards adopted in the direct final rule 

for room air conditioners. As a result, AHAM stated it was unable to comment on the 

appropriateness of the adopted standard levels. (AHAM, No. 60 at p. 2) DOE has 

27 
provided additional information on the standby power levels incorporated into the 

standards adopted in the direct final rule for room air conditioners that can be found on 

the DOE website at: 

www l .eere.energy.govlbuildingslappliance standardsiresidentiaVpdfslroom ac effieicnc 

y level standby table.pdf 

B. Test Procedure 

The same parties that submitted the Joint Petition also submitted a separate 

comment (Joint Comment) which supported the final adoption of the standards in the 

direct final rule, but also noted that DOE's revised clothes dryer test procedure that 

published in January 2011 did not incoflXlrate their recommendations to amend the test 

procedure to better account for the effectiveness of automatic tennination controls. 76 FR 

972 (Jan. 6, 2011) As part of this recommendation, the Joint Comment stated that DOE 

should revise its test procedure to measure the energy use of automatic tennination 

controls so that the procedure includes the entire cycle, including the cool-down period. 

The Joint Comment stated that it intends to submit new data gathered by manufacturers 

along with a petition requesting a revision to the DOE test procedure to account for the 

effectiveness of automatic tennination controls and include the full cycle, including cooldown. The petition will also request a parallel revision to the energy conservation 

standard to reflect the test procedure change, as required by EPCA. The Joint Comment 

added that amending the test procedure to capture the energy use of the entire dryer cycle 

could save significant amounts of energy over 30 years and urged DOE to act upon their 

upcoming petition as soon as possible. (Joint Comment, No. 64 at p. I) 

28 
As noted in the clothes dryer test procedure request for information (RFI) notice 

issued on August 9, 2011 and published in the Federal Register on August 12,2011 (76 

FR 50145--48), DOE has initiated a new test procedure rulemaking for clothes dryers to 

further investigate the effects 0 f automat ic cycle termination on the energy efficiency. In 

the RFI, DOE stated that it seeks infonnation, data, and comments regarding methods for 

more accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle tennination in its clothes dryer 

test procedure. In particular, DOE seeks information, data, and comments on the 

following topics as they relate to automatic cycle termination: test load characteristics, 

accuracy of different automatic cycle termination sensors and controls, conditions of 

water used to wet the dryer test load, and automatic tennination cycle settings to be 

tested. 

C. Equipment Price Forecasting 

AHAM expressed concern regarding the use of experience curves in equipment 

price forecasting. It stated that using experience curves (I) does not make the analysis 

more accurate; (2) gives the appearance, but not the reality, of a more objective analysis; 

(3) hides the subjectivity in the data selection process rather than in the analysis itself; 

and (4) has no material effect on the ordering of the conclusions. (AHAM, No. 60 at p. 2) 

As discussed in section IV.F.I of the direct final rule, DOE evaluated the above concerns 

(and those expressed by other cornrnenters on the NODA) and determined that retaining 

the assumption-based approach ofa constant real price trend was not consistent with the 

historical data for the products covered in this rule. Instead, consistent with the method 

29 
proJX>sed in the NODA, DOE used experience curvc fits to forecast product costs. To 

evaluate the impact of the uncertainty of the price trend estimates, DOE perfonned price 

trend sensitivity calculations in the national impact analysis to examine the dependence 

of the analysis results on different analytical assumptions. DOE found that for the 

selected standard levels the benefits outweighed the burdens under aU scenarios. DOE 

notes that it may modify its price trend forecasting methods as more data and infonnation 

becomes available. 

D. Indirect Environmental Impacts 

AHAM stated that, to understand the total environmental impact, DOE's analysis 

should also consider indirect C~ emissions, such as increased carbon emissions required 

to manufacture a product at a given standard level, increased transportation and related 

emissions, and reduced carbon emissions from peak load reductions. (AHAM, No. 60 at 

p. 2) As discussed in section ILA.3, DOE is evaluating the full-fuel-cycle measure, which 

includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels. 

DOE's current accounting of primary energy savings and the full-fuel-cycle measure are 

directly linked to the energy used by appliances or equipment. DOE believes that energy 

used in the manufacture or transport of appliances or equipment falls outside the 

boundaries of "directly" as intended by EPCA. Thus, DOE did not consider such energy 

usc in the national impact analysis. DOE did not include the emissions associated with 

such energy use for the same reason. 

30 
E. Other comments 

DOE received one comment from a private citizen generally supporting the 

standards in the direet final rule. 

IV. Department of Justice Analysis of Competitive Impacts 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result 

from new or amended standards. It also directs the Attorney General of the United States 

(Attorney General) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely 

to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such detennination to the Secretary 

within 60 days of the publication ofa proposed rule, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.c. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE 

published a NOPR containing energy conservation standards identical to those set forth 

the direct final rule and transmitted a copy of the direct final rule and the accompanying 

TSD to the Attorney General, requesting that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 

provide its detennination on this issue. DOE ha<; published DOJ's comments at the end of 

this notice. 

DO) reviewed the amended standards in the direct final rule and the final TSD 

provided by DOE, and also conducted interviews with industry members. As a result of 

its analysis, DO] concluded that the amended standards issued in the direct final rule are 

unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. DO) further noted that the 

amended standards established in the direct final rule were the same as recommended 

31 
standards submitted in the Joint Petition signed by industry participants who believed 

they could meet the standards (as well as other interested parties). 

v. Amended Compliance Dates 

In the direct final rule and corresponding NOPR published in the Federal Register 

on April 21, 2011, DOE provided for a compliance date for the amended energy 

conservation standards for residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners of3 years 

after the date of publication, or April 21, 2014. The standards set forth in the direct final 

rule and NOPR were consistent with the Consensus Agreement that served as the basis 

for those rulemaking actions. The Consensus Agreement also provided specific 

compliance dates for both products-June 1, 2014 for room air conditioners and January 

1,2015 for clothes dryers. The compliance date of the direct final rule and NOPR did not 

correspond with the compliance dates specified in Consensus Agreement. As a result, 

DOE proposed to amend the compliance dates set forth in the direct final rule and 

corrcsponding NOPR to be consistent with the compliance dates set out in the consensus 

agreement. DOE received comments in support of the amended compliance dates and 

did not receive any comments objecting to those amended dates. In a final rule published 

elsewhere in today's Federal Register, DOE adopts the compliance dates for the 

standards established in the direct final specified in the Consensus Agreement- June I, 

2014 for room air conditioners and January 1,2015 for clothes dryers. 

32 
VI. National Environmental Policy Act 

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the requirements of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI), DOE prepared an environmental assessment (EA) ofthe 

impacts of the standards for clothes dryers and room air conditioners in the direct final 

rule, which was included as chapter 15 of the direct final rule TSD. DOE found that the 

environmental effects associated with the standards for clothes dryers and room air 

conditioners were not significant. Therefore, after consideration of the comments 

received on the direct final rule, DOE issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

pursuant to NEPA, the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 

parts 1500--1508), and DOE's regulations for compliance with NEPA (10 CFR part 

1021). The FONSI is available in the docket for this rulemaking and at: 

www.cere.energy.govlbuildings/apRliance standards/resident iaVpd fsl fo nsi. pd f.' 

6 OOE stated erroneously in the direct final rule published on April 21, 2011 that the FONSI had been 

issued at that time. This document corrects that statement. 

33 
VII. Conclusion 

In summary. based on the discussion above. DOE has detennined that the 

comments received in response to the direct final rule for amended energy conservation 

standards for residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners do not provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. As a result, the amended energy 

conservation standards set forth in the direct final rule were effective on August 19,2011. 

Pursuant to the document published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, compliance 

with these standards is required on June 1, 2014 for room air conditioners and on January 

1, 2015 for clothes dryers. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2011. 

Timothy nruh ~/I/ Pro!:,lfam Manager 

Federal Energy Management Program 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

34