```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22324-22335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9041]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 22324]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010]
RIN 1904-AA89

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners

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

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes 
energy conservation standards for various consumer products and 
commercial and industrial equipment, including residential clothes 
dryers and room air conditioners. EPCA also requires the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE) to determine if amended standards for these 
products are technologically feasible and economically justified, and 
would save a significant amount of energy. In this proposed rule, DOE 
proposes energy efficiency standards for residential clothes dryers and 
room air conditioners identical to those set forth in a direct final 
rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. If DOE receives 
adverse comment and determines that such comment may provide a 
reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule, DOE will 
publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and will proceed with this 
proposed rule.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the 
proposed standards no later than August 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: See section III, ``Public Participation,'' for details. If 
DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for 
additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of 
any meeting in the Federal Register.
    Any comments submitted must identify the proposed rule for Energy 
Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air 
Conditioners, and provide docket number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010 and/or 
regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AA89. Comments may be 
submitted using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: home_appliance2.rulemaking@ee.doe.gov. Include the 
docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed 
copies.

For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section III of this document 
(Public Participation).
    Docket: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov, 
including Federal Register notices, framework documents, public meeting 
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
regulations.gov index. Not all documents listed in the index may be 
publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public 
disclosure. A link to the docket Web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov.
    For further information on how to submit or review public comments 
or view hard copies of the docket in the Resource Room, contact Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or e-mail: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-
7463, e-mail: stephen.witkowski@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121, (202) 586-7796, e-mail: Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Legal Authority
II. Proposed Standards
    A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Clothes Dryers
    B. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Room Air 
Conditioners
    C. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards
III. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Public Meeting
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction and Legal Authority

    Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to 
improve energy efficiency. Part B of title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) 
provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 
other than Automobiles.\1\ The program covers consumer products and 
certain commercial equipment (referred to hereafter as ``covered 
products''), including clothes dryers and room air conditioners (42 
U.S.C. 6292(a)(2) and (8)), and EPCA prescribes energy conservation 
standards for certain clothes dryers (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(3)) and for 
room air conditioners (42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(1)). EPCA further directs DOE 
to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend 
these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(2) and (g)(4)) This rulemaking 
represents the second round of amendments to both the clothes dryer and 
room air conditioner standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was re-designated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that this rulemaking is one of the required agency 
actions in the consolidated Consent Decree in State of New York, et al. 
v. Bodman et al., 05 Civ. 7807 (LAP), and Natural Resources Defense 
Council, et al. v. Bodman, et al., 05 Civ. 7808 (LAP), DOE is required 
to

[[Page 22325]]

complete a final rule for amended energy conservation standards for 
room air conditioners and clothes dryers that must be sent to the 
Federal Register by June 30, 2011.
    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. 
L. 110-140) amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to 
issue a final rule (hereinafter referred to as a ``direct final rule'') 
establishing an energy conservation standard for a covered product on 
receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are 
fairly representative of relevant points of view (including 
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and 
efficiency advocates) as determined by the Secretary, that contains 
recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that 
are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). EPCA also 
requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes an 
identical energy efficiency standard be published simultaneously with 
the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of 
at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Not later 
than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if one or more 
adverse comments or an alternative joint recommendation are received 
relating to the direct final rule, the Secretary must determine whether 
the comments or alternative recommendation may provide a reasonable 
basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law. 
If the Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the 
direct final rule and proceed with the simultaneously published notice 
of proposed rulemaking. DOE must also publish in the Federal Register 
the reason why the direct final rule was withdrawn. Id.
    In response to the preliminary analysis conducted during DOE's 
consideration of amended standards for room air conditioners and 
clothes dryers, 75 FR 7987 (Feb. 23, 2010), DOE received the 
``Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances, 
Federal Incentives and Related Matters for Specified Appliances'' 
(hereinafter, the ``Joint Petition'') \2\, a comment submitted by 
groups representing manufacturers (the Association of Home Appliance 
Manufacturers (AHAM), Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), General 
Electric Company (GE), Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), BSH Home 
Appliances (BSH), Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS), Viking Range, Sub-
Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, 
Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell 
Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, 
Kelon, and DeLonghi); energy and environmental advocates (American 
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards 
Awareness Project (ASAP), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 
Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE), 
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), and Northeast Energy 
Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)); and consumer groups (Consumer 
Federation of America (CFA) and the National Consumer Law Center 
(NCLC)) (collectively, the ``Joint Petitioners''). The Joint 
Petitioners recommended specific energy conservation standards for 
residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners that they believed 
would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010, Comment 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has considered the recommended energy conservation standards 
and believes that they meet the EPCA requirements for issuance of a 
direct final rule. As a result, DOE has published a direct final rule 
establishing energy conservation standards for clothes dryers and room 
air conditioners elsewhere in today's Federal Register. If DOE receives 
adverse comments that may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal and 
withdraws the direct final rule, DOE will consider those comments and 
any other comments received in determining how to proceed with today's 
proposed rule.
    For further background information on these proposed standards and 
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. That document includes 
additional discussion on the EPCA requirements for promulgation of 
energy conservation standards, the current standards for room air 
conditioners and clothes dryers, and the history of the standards 
rulemakings establishing such standards, as well as information on the 
test procedures used to measure the energy efficiency of clothes dryers 
and room air conditioners. The document also contains an in-depth 
discussion of the analyses conducted in support of this rulemaking, the 
methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses, and the analytical 
results.

II. Proposed Standards

    When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy 
conservation standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of 
covered product shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, DOE must determine 
whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens to the greatest 
extent practicable, in light of the seven statutory factors set forth 
in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard must 
also result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B))
    The Department considered the impacts of standards at each trial 
standard level considered by DOE, beginning with maximum 
technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was 
economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not economically 
justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and 
undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency 
level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified 
and saves a significant amount of energy.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and burdens of each 
trial standard level, DOE has included tables that present a summary of 
the results of DOE's quantitative analysis for each trial standard 
level (TSL). In addition to the quantitative results presented in the 
tables, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits that affect 
economic justification. These include the impacts on identifiable 
subgroups of consumers, such as low-income households and seniors, who 
may be disproportionately affected by a national standard. Section 
V.B.1 of the direct final rule published elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register presents the estimated impacts of each TSL for these 
subgroups.

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Clothes Dryers

    Table II.1 and Table II.2 present a summary of the quantitative 
impacts estimated for each TSL for clothes dryers. The efficiency 
levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of the direct 
final rule.

[[Page 22326]]

                                Table II.1--Summary of Results for Clothes Dryer Trial Standard Levels: National Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Category                           TSL 1            TSL 2            TSL 3            TSL 4            TSL 5             TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Energy Savings (quads)..................            0.00            0.062             0.37             0.39             1.45              3.14
NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion):
    3% discount rate.............................            0.00             0.62             3.00             3.01             0.22            (1.53)
    7% discount rate.............................            0.01             0.25             1.10             1.08           (2.60)            (6.72)
Cumulative Emissions Reduction:
    CO2 (million metric tons)....................           0.119             2.99            17.75            18.67            70.47             186.6
    NOX (thousand tons)..........................           0.097             2.41            14.26            15.14            57.26             151.3
    Hg (ton).....................................           0.000            0.009            0.053            0.051            0.188             0.569
Value of Emissions Reduction:
    CO2 (2009$ million) *........................         1 to 10        15 to 239      88 to 1,417      93 to 1,490     351 to 5,626     929 to 14,902
    NOX--3% discount rate (2009 million).........  0.031 to 0.314     0.759 to 7.8     4.49 to 46.2     4.77 to 49.0      18.0 to 185       47.6 to 490
    NOX--7% discount rate (2009$ million)........  0.013 to 0.136    0.328 to 3.37     1.94 to 20.0     2.06 to 21.2      7.8 to 80.2       20.6 to 212
Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) **............           0.002            0.060            0.358            0.345             1.27              2.27
Employment Impacts:
    Total Potential Change in Domestic Production  0.00 to (3.96)   0.00 to (3.96)   0.41 to (3.96)   0.46 to (3.96)   1.08 to (3.96)    2.26 to (3.96)
     Workers in 2014 (thousands).................
Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) **............            0.01             0.01             1.82             1.75             4.25              9.30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
** Changes in 2043.

                        Table II.2--Summary of Results for Clothes Dryer Trial Standard Levels: Consumer and Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Category                            TSL 1            TSL 2            TSL 3            TSL 4            TSL 5            TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (2009$ million)......................  (2.5) to (2.5)   (3.6) to (4.9)        (41.1) to        (64.5) to       (176.5) to       (303.9) to
                                                                                              (55.5)           (80.6)          (397.4)          (730.0)
Industry NPV (% change)...........................  (0.3) to (0.3)   (0.4) to (0.5)   (4.1) to (5.5)   (6.4) to (8.0)        (17.6) to        (30.3) to
                                                                                                                                (39.6)           (72.7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Consumer Mean LCC Savings * (2009$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard.................................              $0               $2              $14              $14            ($30)           ($146)
Compact 120V......................................              $0              $14              $14              $14            ($99)           ($264)
Compact 240V......................................              $0               $8               $8               $8            ($99)           ($246)
Gas...............................................              $0               $2               $2               $2           ($100)           ($100)
Ventless 240V.....................................              $0              $20              $20               $0            ($42)           ($177)
Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer.................              $0              $73              $73               $0              $73           ($166)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Consumer Median PBP (years) **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard.................................             3.9              0.2              5.3              5.3             19.1             22.1
Compact 120V......................................             n/a              0.9              0.9              0.9             36.1             40.1
Compact 240V......................................             0.0              0.9              0.9              0.9             45.1             38.2
Gas...............................................             2.2              0.5              0.5             11.7             49.5             49.5
Ventless 240V.....................................             n/a              0.9              0.9              n/a             25.3             26.9
Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer.................             n/a              5.3              5.3              n/a              5.3             22.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard:
    Net Cost (%)..................................              1%               0%              19%              19%              75%              81%
    No Impact (%).................................             98%              79%              25%              25%               1%               0%
    Net Benefit (%)...............................              2%              21%              56%              56%              24%              19%
Compact 120V:
    Net Cost (%)..................................              0%               4%               4%               4%              95%              95%
    No Impact (%).................................            100%               0%               0%               0%               0%               0%
    Net Benefit (%)...............................              0%              96%              96%              96%               5%               5%
Compact 240V:
    Net Cost (%)..................................              0%               2%               2%               2%              93%              95%
    No Impact (%).................................            100%              41%              41%              41%               4%               0%
    Net Benefit (%)...............................              0%              56%              56%              56%               3%               5%
Gas:
    Net Cost (%)..................................              1%               0%               0%              32%              95%              95%
    No Impact (%).................................             93%              85%              85%              42%               1%               1%

[[Page 22327]]

 
    Net Benefit (%)...............................              7%              15%              15%              26%               4%               4%
Ventless 240V:
    Net Cost (%)..................................              0%               0%               0%               0%              92%              88%
    No Impact (%).................................            100%               0%               0%             100%               0%               0%
    Net Benefit (%)...............................              0%             100%             100%               0%               8%              12%
Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer:
    Net Cost (%)..................................              0%              21%              21%               0%              21%              82%
    No Impact (%).................................            100%               0%               0%             100%               0%               0%
    Net Benefit (%)...............................              0%              79%              79%               0%              79%              18%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.
** In some cases the standard level is the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and therefore calculation of a payback
  period is not applicable.

    DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. TSL 6 would save 3.14 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer benefit would 
be -$6.72 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$1.53 
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 186.6 Mt of 
CO2, 151.3 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.569 ton of 
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 6 ranges from $929 million to $14,902 million. Total 
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 2.27 GW under 
TSL 6.
    At TSL 6, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $146 
for electric standard clothes dryers, a cost of $264 for 120V compact 
clothes dryers, a cost of $246 for 240V compact clothes dryers, a cost 
of $100 for gas clothes dryers, a cost of $177 for ventless 240V 
clothes dryers, and a cost of $166 for combination washer/dryers. The 
median payback period is 22.1 years for electric standard clothes 
dryers, 40.1 years for 120V compact clothes dryers, 38.2 years for 240V 
compact clothes dryers, 49.5 years for gas clothes dryers, 26.9 years 
for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 22.4 years for combination 
washer/dryers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 
19 percent for electric standard clothes dryers, 5 percent for 120V 
compact clothes dryers, 5 percent for 240V compact clothes dryers, 4 
percent for gas clothes dryers, 12 percent for ventless 240V clothes 
dryers, and 18 percent for combination washer/dryers. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 81 percent for electric standard 
clothes dryers, 95 percent for 120V compact clothes dryers, 95 percent 
for 240V compact clothes dryers, 95 percent for gas clothes dryers, 88 
percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 82 percent for 
combination washer/dryers.
    At TSL 6, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$303.9 million to a decrease of $730.0 million. TSL 6 would effectively 
require heat pump clothes dryers for all electric clothes dryer product 
classes. Changing all electric models to use heat pump technology would 
be extremely disruptive to current manufacturing facilities and would 
require substantial product and capital conversion costs. In addition, 
the large cost increases would greatly harm manufacturer profitability 
if they were unable to earn additional operating profit on these 
additional costs. At TSL 6, DOE recognizes the risk of very large 
negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning reduced 
profit margins and large conversion costs are realized. If the high end 
of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 6 could result 
in a net loss of 72.6 percent in INPV to clothes dryer manufacturers.
    DOE concludes that at TSL 6 for residential clothes dryers, the 
benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission 
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 
emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative NPV of 
consumer benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction of 
consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the 
conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a very 
large reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the 
Secretary has concluded that TSL 6 is not economically justified.
    DOE next considered TSL 5. TSL 5 would save 1.45 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer 
benefit would be -$2.60 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, 
and $0.22 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 70.47 Mt of 
CO2, 57.26 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.188 tons 
of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $351 million to $5,626 million. Total 
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.27 GW under 
TSL 5.
    At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $30 
for electric standard clothes dryers, a cost of $99 for 120V compact 
clothes dryers, a cost of $99 for 240V compact clothes dryers, a cost 
of $100 for gas clothes dryers, a cost of $42 for ventless 240V clothes 
dryers, and a savings of $73 for combination washer/dryers. The median 
payback period is 19.1 years for electric standard clothes dryers, 36.1 
years for 120V compact clothes dryers, 45.1 years for 240V compact 
clothes dryers, 49.5 years for gas clothes dryers, 25.3 years for 
ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 5.3 years for combination washer/
dryers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 24 
percent for electric standard clothes dryers, 5 percent for 120V 
compact clothes dryers, 3 percent for 240V compact clothes dryers, 4 
percent for gas clothes dryers, 8 percent for ventless 240V clothes 
dryers, and 79 percent for combination washer/dryers. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 75 percent for electric standard 
clothes dryers, 95 percent for 120V compact clothes dryers, 93 percent 
for 240V compact clothes dryers, 95 percent for gas clothes dryers, 92 
percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 21 percent for 
combination washer/dryers.
    At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$176.5 million to a decrease of $397.4 million. While most changes at 
TSL 5 could be made within existing product design, redesigning units 
to the most efficient technologies on the market today would take 
considerable capital and product

[[Page 22328]]

conversion costs. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes the risk of very large 
negative impacts if manufacturers are not able to earn additional 
operating profit from the additional production costs to reach TSL 5. 
If the high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 
5 could result in a net loss of 39.6 percent in INPV to clothes dryer 
manufacturers.
    The Secretary concludes that at TSL 5 for residential clothes 
dryers, the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, 
emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative 
NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction 
of consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the 
conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large 
reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary 
has concluded that TSL 5 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 would save 0.39 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer 
benefit would be $1.08 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
$3.01 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 18.67 Mt of 
CO2, 15.14 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.051 ton of 
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $93 million to $1,490 million. Total 
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.345 GW under 
TSL 4.
    At TSL 4, DOE projects that the average LCC impact is a savings 
(LCC decrease) of $14 for electric standard clothes dryers, a savings 
of $14 for 120Vcompact clothes dryers, a savings of $8 for 240V compact 
clothes dryers, a savings of $2 for gas clothes dryers, and no change 
for ventless 240V clothes dryers and combination washer/dryers. The 
median payback period is 5.3 years for electric standard clothes 
dryers, 0.9 years for 120V compact clothes dryers, 0.9 years for 240V 
compact clothes dryers, 11.7 years for gas clothes dryers, and is not 
applicable for ventless 240V clothes dryers and combination washer/
dryers.\3\ The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 56 
percent for electric standard clothes dryers, 96 percent for 120V 
compact clothes dryers, 56 percent for 240V compact clothes dryers, 26 
percent for gas clothes dryers, zero percent for ventless 240V clothes 
dryers, and zero percent for combination washer/dryers. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 19 percent for electric standard 
clothes dryers, 4 percent for 120V compact clothes dryers, 2 percent 
for 240V compact clothes dryers, 32 percent for gas clothes dryers, 
zero percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and zero percent for 
combination washer/dryers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For these product classes, the efficiency level at TSL 4 is 
the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are 
impacted and therefore calculation of a payback period is not 
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$64.5 million to a decrease of $80.6 million. The design changes 
required at TSL 4 for the most common standard-size gas and electric 
products are incremental improvements that are well known in the 
industry but would still require moderate product and capital 
conversion costs to implement. At TSL 4, DOE recognizes the risk of 
negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning reduced 
profit margins are realized. If the high end of the range of impacts is 
reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss of 8.0 percent 
in INPV to clothes dryer manufacturers.
    DOE concludes that at TSL 4 for residential clothes dryers, the 
benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission 
reductions and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 
emissions reductions, and positive NPV of consumer benefits outweigh 
the economic burden on some consumers due to the increases in product 
cost and the profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in 
INPV for the manufacturers.
    In addition, the efficiency levels in TSL 4 correspond to the 
recommended levels in the consensus agreement, which DOE believes sets 
forth a statement by interested persons that are fairly representative 
of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers 
of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) and contains 
recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that 
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged 
the submission of consensus agreements as a way to get diverse 
stakeholders together, to develop an independent and probative analysis 
useful in DOE standard setting, and to expedite the rulemaking process. 
DOE also believes that standard levels recommended in the consensus 
agreement may increase the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while 
decreasing the risk of litigation.
    After considering the analysis, comments on the preliminary TSD, 
and the benefits and burdens of TSL 4, DOE concludes that this trial 
standard level will offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in 
the significant conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE today adopts TSL 
4 for clothes dryers. The proposed energy conservation standards for 
clothes dryers, expressed as combined energy factor (CEF) in pounds 
(lb) per kilowatt-hour (kWh), are shown in Table II.3.

 Table II.3--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Clothes
                                 Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Residential clothes dryers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Minimum CEF
                    Product class                        levels  lb/kWh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft \3\ or greater                 3.73
 capacity)...........................................
2. Vented Electric, Compact (120 V) (less than 4.4 ft               3.61
 \3\ capacity).......................................
3. Vented Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft               3.27
 \3\ capacity).......................................
4. Vented Gas........................................               3.30
5. Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4                2.55
 ft \3\ capacity)....................................
6. Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer........               2.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22329]]

B. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Room Air Conditioners

    Table II.4 and Table II.5 present a summary of the quantitative 
impacts estimated for each TSL for room air conditioners. The 
efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of 
the direct final rule.

                             Table II.4--Summary of Results for Room Air Conditioner Trial Standard Levels: National Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Category                            TSL 1            TSL 2            TSL 3            TSL 4            TSL 5            TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Energy Savings (quads)...................           0.105            0.205            0.218            0.305            0.477            0.665
NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion):
    3% discount rate..............................            0.75             1.30             1.51             1.47             1.46           (5.62)
    7% discount rate..............................            0.35             0.57             0.71             0.57             0.33           (4.44)
Cumulative Emissions Reduction:
    CO2 (million metric tons).....................            9.83             11.9             12.5             17.4             26.9             37.7
    NOX (thousand tons)...........................            8.02             9.69             10.2             14.2             21.9             30.7
    Hg (ton)......................................           0.012            0.015            0.017            0.022            0.032            0.044
Value of Emissions Reduction:
    CO2 (2009$ million) *.........................       43 to 648        52 to 790        55 to 826       77 to 1164      118 to 1803      166 to 2541
    NOX--3% discount rate (2009$ million).........    2.34 to 24.0     2.83 to 29.1     2.99 to 30.7     4.16 to 42.7     6.40 to 65.8     8.96 to 92.1
    NOX--7% discount rate (2009$ million).........    1.25 to 12.9     1.50 to 15.4     1.61 to 16.6      2.2 to 22.6     3.35 to 34.4     4.64 to 47.7
Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) **.............           0.348            0.429            0.436            0.632             1.01             1.46
Employment Impacts:
    Total Potential Changes in Domestic Production             N/A              N/A              N/A              N/A              N/A              N/A
     Workers in 2014 (thousands)..................
    Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) **.........            0.74             0.73             0.74             1.16             1.94             3.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
** Changes in 2043.

                    Table II.5--Summary of Results for Room Air Conditioner Trial Standard Levels: Consumer and Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Category                            TSL 1            TSL 2            TSL 3            TSL 4            TSL 5            TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (2009$ million)......................       (44.2) to        (65.4) to        (65.7) to       (111.3) to        (86.6) to        (80.2) to
                                                            (84.9)          (112.7)          (112.4)          (177.6)          (184.4)          (344.5)
Industry NPV (% change)...........................  (4.6) to (8.9)   (6.8) to (11.8)  (6.9) to (11.8)       (11.6) to   (9.1) to (19.3)  (8.4) to (36.0)
                                                                                                               (18.6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Consumer Mean LCC Savings * (2009$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
h, with Louvers.......................              $9              $11               $9               $7               $7            ($58)
8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers..................              16               16               22               22               22             (38)
20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers.................               6                6                0                6                0            (214)
> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers......................               1                1                0                1                0            (227)
8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers...............               4                4               13               13               20             (66)
> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers...................               5                5               11               11               11             (64)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Consumer Median PBP (years) **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
h, with Louvers.......................             4.1              5.8              4.1              8.6              8.6             20.9
8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers..................             0.0              0.0              2.8              2.8              7.1             14.7
20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers.................             4.3              4.3              n/a              4.3              n/a             73.8
> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers......................            10.3             10.3              n/a             10.1              n/a            107.7
8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers...............             1.5              1.5              2.1              2.1              4.9             25.2
> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers...................             2.6              2.6              3.7              3.7              3.7             25.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
h, with Louvers:
    Net Cost (%)..................................             21%              33%              21%              65%              65%              90%
    No Impact (%).................................             31%              31%              31%               1%               1%               0%
    Net Benefit (%)...............................             48%              37%              48%              34%              34%              10%
8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers:
    Net Cost (%)..................................              9%               9%              34%              34%              56%              77%
    No Impact (%).................................             60%              60%               2%               2%               1%               0%
    Net Benefit (%)...............................             30%              30%              64%              64%              43%              22%
20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers:

[[Page 22330]]

 
    Net Cost (%)..................................              5%               5%               0%               5%               0%              98%
    No Impact (%).................................             85%              85%               0%              85%               0%               2%
    Net Benefit (%)...............................             10%              10%               0%              10%               0%               0%
> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers:
    Net Cost (%)..................................             11%              11%               0%               9%               0%             100%
    No Impact (%).................................             85%              85%               0%              88%               0%               0%
    Net Benefit (%)...............................              4%               4%               0%               4%               0%               0%
8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers:
    Net Cost (%)..................................              1%               1%              12%              12%              38%              92%
    No Impact (%).................................             90%              90%              25%              25%               6%               2%
    Net Benefit (%)...............................              9%               9%              62%              62%              56%               6%
> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers:
    Net Cost (%)..................................              2%               2%              23%              23%              23%              93%
    No Impact (%).................................             90%              90%              31%              31%              31%               0%
    Net Benefit (%)...............................              8%               8%              47%              47%              47%               7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.
** In some cases the standard level is the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and therefore calculation of a payback
  period is not applicable.

    DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. TSL 6 would save 0.665 quads of energy, an amount 
DOE considers significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer benefit 
would be -$4.44 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$5.62 
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 37.7 Mt of 
CO2, 30.7 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.044 tons of 
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 6 ranges from $166 million to $2,541 million. Total 
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.46 GW under 
TSL 6.
    At TSL 6, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $58 
for room air conditioners h, with louvers; a cost of $38 
for room air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a cost of 
$214 for room air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a 
cost of $227 for room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; a 
cost of $66 for room air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without 
louvers; and a cost of $64 for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, 
without louvers. The median payback period is 20.9 years for room air 
conditioners h, with louvers; 14.7 years for room air 
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 73.8 years for room air 
conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 107.7 years for room 
air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 25.2 years for room air 
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 25.9 years for 
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 10 percent for room air 
conditioners h, with louvers; 22 percent for room air 
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for room 
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for 
room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 6 percent for room 
air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 7 percent for 
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 90 percent for room air 
conditioners h, with louvers; 77 percent for room air 
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 98 percent for room air 
conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 100 percent for room 
air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 92 percent for room air 
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 93 percent for 
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers.
    At TSL 6, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$80.2 million to a decrease of $344.5 million. At TSL 6, DOE recognizes 
the risk of large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the 
range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 6 could result in a net 
loss of 36.0 percent in INPV to room air conditioner manufacturers.
    The Secretary concludes that at TSL 6 for room air conditioners, 
the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, 
emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative 
NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction 
of consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the 
capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in 
a large reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the 
Secretary has concluded that TSL 6 is not economically justified.
    DOE next considered TSL 5. TSL 5 would save 0.477 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer 
benefit would be $0.33 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
$1.46 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 26.9 Mt of 
CO2, 21.9 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.032 ton of 
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $118 million to $1,803 million. Total 
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.01 GW under 
TSL 5.
    At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a savings (LCC decrease) of $7 
for room air conditioners h, with louvers; a savings of $22 
for room air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a savings 
of $0 for room air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a 
savings of $0 for room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; a 
savings of $20 for room air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without 
louvers; and a savings of $11 for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, 
without louvers. The median payback period is 8.6 years for room air 
conditioners h, with louvers; 7.1 years for room air

[[Page 22331]]

conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; not applicable for room 
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers or for room air 
conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; \4\ 4.9 years for room air 
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 3.7 years for 
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 34 percent for room air 
conditioners h, with louvers; 43 percent for room air 
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for room 
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for 
room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 56 percent for room 
air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 47 percent 
for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction 
of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 65 percent for room air 
conditioners h, with louvers; 56 percent for room air 
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for room 
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for 
room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 38 percent for room 
air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 23 percent 
for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In these cases the standard level is the same as the 
baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and 
therefore calculation of a payback period is not applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$86.6 million to a decrease of $184.4 million. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes 
the risk of moderately negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the 
range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 5 could result in a net 
loss of 19.3 percent in INPV to room air conditioner manufacturers.
    The Secretary concludes that at TSL 5 for room air conditioners, 
the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, 
generating capacity reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated 
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions would be 
outweighed by the economic burden on a significant fraction of 
consumers in some product classes due to the large increases in product 
cost, and the capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that 
could result in a moderate reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. In 
particular, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 56 
percent for room air conditioners with 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with 
louvers, which is the product class with the largest market share. 
Based on the above findings, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 is 
not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 would save 0.305 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer 
benefit would be $0.57 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
$1.47 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 17.4 Mt of 
CO2, 14.2 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.022 ton of 
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $77 million to $1,164 million. Total 
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.632 GW under 
TSL 4.
    At TSL 4, DOE projects that the average LCC impact is a savings 
(LCC decrease) of $7 for room air conditioners h, with 
louvers; a savings of $22 for room air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, 
with louvers; a savings of $6 for room air conditioners 20,000-24,999 
Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of $1 for room air conditioners > 25,000 
Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of $13 for room air conditioners 8,000-
10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and a savings of $11 for room air 
conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The median payback period 
is 8.6 years for room air conditioners h, with louvers; 2.8 
years for room air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 4.3 
years for room air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 10.1 
years for room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 2.1 years 
for room air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 3.7 
years for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The 
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 34 percent for 
room air conditioners h, with louvers; 64 percent for room 
air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 10 percent for room 
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 4 percent for room 
air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 62 percent for room air 
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 47 percent for 
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 65 percent for room air 
conditioners h, with louvers; 34 percent for room air 
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 5 percent for room air 
conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 9 percent for room air 
conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 12 percent for room air 
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 23 percent for 
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers.
    At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$111.3 million to a decrease of $177.6 million. DOE recognizes the risk 
of moderately negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the 
range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net 
loss of 18.6 percent in INPV to room air conditioner manufacturers.
    The Secretary concludes that at TSL 4 for room air conditioners, 
the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, 
emission reductions and the estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions, positive NPV of consumer benefits 
and positive average consumer LCC savings outweigh the economic burden 
on some consumers (a significant fraction for one product class but 
small to moderate fractions for the other product classes) due to the 
increases in product cost, and the capital conversion costs and profit 
margin impacts that could result in a moderate reduction in INPV for 
the manufacturers.
    In addition, the efficiency levels in TSL 4 correspond to the 
recommended levels in the consensus agreement, which DOE believes sets 
forth a statement by interested persons that are fairly representative 
of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers 
of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) and contains 
recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that 
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged 
the submission of consensus agreements as a way to get diverse 
stakeholders together, to develop an independent and probative analysis 
useful in DOE standard setting, and to expedite the rulemaking process. 
DOE also believes that standard levels recommended in the consensus 
agreement may increase the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while 
decreasing the risk of litigation.
    After considering the analysis, comments on the preliminary TSD, 
and the benefits and burdens of TSL 4, DOE concludes preliminarily that 
this trial standard level would offer the maximum improvement in 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, 
and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Therefore, 
DOE proposes to

[[Page 22332]]

adopt TSL 4 for room air conditioners. The proposed energy conservation 
standards for room air conditioners, expressed as combined energy 
efficiency ratio (CEER) in Btu per watt-hour (Wh), are shown in Table 
II.6.

 Table II.6--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Room Air
                              Conditioners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Room air conditioners
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Minimum CEER
                    Product class                        levels Btu/Wh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and                  11.0
 less than 6,000 Btu/h...............................
2. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and                  11.0
 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h................................
3. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and                  10.9
 8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h...............................
4. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and                  10.7
 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h..............................
5a. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and                  9.4
 20,000 to 24,999 Btu/h..............................
5b. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and                  9.0
 25,000 Btu/h or more................................
6. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and               10.0
 less than 6,000 Btu/h...............................
7. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and               10.0
 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h................................
8a. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides,                   9.6
 and 8,000 to 10,999 Btu/h...........................
8b. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides,                   9.5
 and 11,000 to 13,999 Btu/h..........................
9. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and                9.3
 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h..............................
10. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides,                   9.4
 and 20,000 Btu/h or more............................
11. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less                9.8
 than 20,000 Btu/h...................................
12. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and                  9.3
 less than 14,000 Btu/h..............................
13. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and                     9.3
 20,000 Btu/h or more................................
14. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and                  8.7
 14,000 Btu/h or more................................
15. Casement-only....................................                9.5
16. Casement-slider..................................               10.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards

    The benefits and costs of today's standards can also be expressed 
in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the 
sum of (1) the annualized national economic value, expressed in 2009$, 
of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed 
standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using 
less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase costs, which is 
another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value 
of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO2 
emission reductions.\5\ The value of the CO2 reductions, 
otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using 
a range of values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a 
recent interagency process. The monetary costs and benefits of 
cumulative emissions reductions are reported in 2009$ to permit 
comparisons with the other costs and benefits in the same dollar units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-
series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE 
calculated a present value in 2011, the year used for discounting 
the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of 
costs and benefits using discount rates of three and seven percent 
for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 
shown in Table II.7. From the present value, DOE then calculated the 
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in 2011, that 
yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the 
annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this 
does not imply that the time-series of costs and benefits from which 
the annualized values were determined would be a steady stream of 
payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although combining the values of operating savings and 
CO2 reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues 
should be considered. First, the national operating savings are 
domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of 
market transactions while the value of CO2 reductions is 
based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost 
savings and CO2 savings are performed with different methods 
that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national 
operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of products shipped 
in 2014-2043. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present 
value of future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of 
one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts go well beyond 
2100.
    Table II.7 and Table II.8 show the annualized values for clothes 
dryers and room air conditioners, respectively. Using a 7-percent 
discount rate and the SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$), the 
cost of the standards for clothes dryers in today's rule is $52.3 
million per year in increased equipment costs, while the annualized 
benefits are $139.1 million per year in reduced equipment operating 
costs, $25.0 million in CO2 reductions, and $0.9 million in 
reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts 
to $112.7 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate and the SCC 
value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$), the cost of the standards for 
clothes dryers in today's rule is $55.4 million per year in increased 
equipment costs, while the benefits are $209.1 million per year in 
reduced operating costs, $25.0 million in CO2 reductions, 
and $1.4 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 
net benefit amounts to $180.1 million per year.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate and the SCC value of $22.1/ton in 
2010 (in 2009$), the cost of the standards for room air conditioners in 
today's rule is $107.7 million per year in increased equipment costs, 
while the annualized benefits are $153.7 million per year in reduced 
equipment operating costs, $19.5 million in CO2 reductions, 
and $0.999 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, 
the net benefit amounts to $66.4 million per year. Using a 3-percent 
discount rate and the SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$), the 
cost of the standards for room air conditioners in today's rule is 
$111.0 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the 
benefits are $186.2 million per year in reduced operating costs, $19.5 
million in CO2 reductions, and $1.20 million in reduced 
NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to 
$95.9 million per year.

[[Page 22333]]

                       Table II.7--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards (TSL 4) for Clothes Dryers Sold in 2014-2043
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Monetized (million 2009$/year)
                                                        Discount rate      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Primary estimate *          Low estimate *            High estimate *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings..........................                       7%                     139.1                     120.6                     158.3
                                                                       3%                     209.1                     177.4                     241.3
CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t **......................                       5%                       6.0                       6.0                       6.0
CO2 Reduction at $22.1/t **.....................                       3%                      25.0                      25.0                      25.0
CO2 Reduction at $36.3/t **.....................                     2.5%                      39.8                      39.8                      39.8
CO2 Reduction at $67.1/t **.....................                       3%                      76.0                      76.0                      76.0
NOX Reduction at $2,519/ton **..................                       7%                       0.9                       0.9                       0.9
                                                                       3%                       1.4                       1.4                       1.4
    Total [dagger]..............................                 7% plus CO2 range   146.1 to 216.1            127.6 to 197.6            165.3 to 235.3
                                                                       7%                     165.0                     146.5                     184.3
                                                                       3%                     235.4                     203.7                     267.6
                                                                 3% plus CO2 range   216.5 to 286.5            184.8 to 254.8            248.7 to 318.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Product Costs.......................                       7%                      52.3                      48.8                      55.9
                                                                       3%                      55.4                      51.2                      59.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total Net Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total [dagger]..............................                 7% plus CO2 range    93.7 to 163.7             78.7 to 148.7            109.4 to 179.4
                                                                       7%                     112.7                      97.7                     128.3
                                                                       3%                     180.1                     152.5                     208.1
                                                                 3% plus CO2 range   161.1 to 231.1            133.6 to 203.6            189.1 to 259.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case,
  and High Economic Growth case, respectively.
** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2009$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.1, and
  $36.3 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of
  $67.1 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2009$) is the
  average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3-percent discount rate, which is
  $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$). In the rows labeled as ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are
  calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

                   Table II.8--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards (TSL 4) for Room Air Conditioners Sold in 2014-2043
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Monetized (million 2009$/year)
                                                        Discount rate      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Primary estimate *          Low estimate *            High estimate *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings..........................                       7%                     153.7                     145.1                     161.9
                                                                       3%                     186.2                     174.2                     197.3
CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t **......................                       5%                       5.0                       5.0                       5.0
CO2 Reduction at $22.1/t **.....................                       3%                      19.5                      19.5                      19.5
CO2 Reduction at $36.3/t **.....................                     2.5%                      30.7                      30.7                      30.7
CO2 Reduction at $67.1/t **.....................                       3%                      59.4                      59.4                      59.4
NOX Reduction at $2,519/ton **..................                       7%                     0.999                     0.999                     0.999
                                                                       3%                     1.197                     1.197                     1.197
    Total [dagger]..............................                 7% plus CO2 range   159.6 to 214.0            151.1 to 205.5            167.9 to 222.3
                                                                       7%                     174.1                     165.5                     182.4
                                                                       3%                     206.8                     194.9                     218.0
                                                                 3% plus CO2 range   192.3 to 246.7            180.4 to 234.8            203.5 to 257.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Product Costs.......................                       7%                     107.7                     107.7                     107.7
                                                                       3%                     111.0                     111.0                     111.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total Net Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total [dagger]..............................                 7% plus CO2 range    51.9 to 106.3              43.4 to 97.8             60.2 to 114.6
                                                                       7%                      66.4                      57.8                      74.7
                                                                       3%                      95.9                      83.9                     107.0

[[Page 22334]]

 
                                                                 3% plus CO2 range    81.4 to 135.8             69.4 to 123.8             92.5 to 146.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case,
  and High Economic Growth case, respectively.
** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2009$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.1, and
  $36.3 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of
  $67.1 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2009$) is the
  average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3-percent discount rate, which is
  $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$). In the rows labeled as ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are
  calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

III. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule until the date provided in the DATES section at the 
beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit 
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov web 
page will require you to provide your name and contact information. 
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies 
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable 
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not 
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this 
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure 
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot 
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any 
CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting 
CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section below.
    DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via e-mail, hand delivery/courier, or mail. 
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also 
will be posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal 
contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your 
comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, e-
mail address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. E-mail submissions are 
preferred. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please 
provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit 
printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential business information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
e-mail, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: 
One copy of the document marked confidential including all the 
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document 
marked non-confidential with the information believed to be 
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via e-mail or on a CD, if 
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential 
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

[[Page 22335]]

    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

B. Public Meeting

    As stated previously, if DOE withdraws the direct final rule 
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for additional 
comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of any meeting 
in the Federal Register.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

    The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are 
identical to those conducted for the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. Please see the direct final rule 
for further details.

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's 
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Small businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2011.
Kathleen Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office of Technology 
Development, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

    1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2. Revise Sec.  430.32 paragraphs (b) and (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and effective 
dates.

* * * * *
    (b) Room air conditioners.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Energy efficiency   Combined energy
                                     ratio, effective  efficiency ratio,
           Product class            from Oct. 1, 2000   effective as of
                                    to April 20, 2014    April 21, 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Without reverse cycle, with                    9.7               11.0
 louvered sides, and less than
 6,000 Btu/h......................
2. Without reverse cycle, with                    9.7               11.0
 louvered sides, and 6,000 to
 7,999 Btu/h......................
3. Without reverse cycle, with                    9.8               10.9
 louvered sides, and 8,000 to
 13,999 Btu/h.....................
4. Without reverse cycle, with                    9.7               10.7
 louvered sides, and 14,000 to
 19,999 Btu/h.....................
5a. Without reverse cycle, with                   8.5                9.4
 louvered sides, and 20,000 to
 24,999 Btu/h.....................
5b. Without reverse cycle, with     .................                9.0
 louvered sides, and 25,000 Btu/h
 or more..........................
6. Without reverse cycle, without                 9.0               10.0
 louvered sides, and less than
 6,000 Btu/h......................
7. Without reverse cycle, without                 9.0               10.0
 louvered sides, and 6,000 to
 7,999 Btu/h......................
8a. Without reverse cycle, without                8.5                9.6
 louvered sides, and 8,000 to
 10,999 Btu/h.....................
8b. Without reverse cycle, without  .................                9.5
 louvered sides, and 11,000 to
 13,999 Btu/h.....................
9. Without reverse cycle, without                 8.5                9.3
 louvered sides, and 14,000 to
 19,999 Btu/h.....................
10. Without reverse cycle, without                8.5                9.4
 louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h
 or more..........................
11. With reverse cycle, with                      9.0                9.8
 louvered sides, and less than
 20,000 Btu/h.....................
12. With reverse cycle, without                   8.5                9.3
 louvered sides, and less than
 14,000 Btu/h.....................
13. With reverse cycle, with                      8.5                9.3
 louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h
 or more..........................
14. With reverse cycle, without                   8.0                8.7
 louvered sides, and 14,000 Btu/h
 or more..........................
15. Casement-Only.................                8.7                9.5
16. Casement-Slider...............                9.5               10.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (h) Clothes dryers. (1) Gas clothes dryers manufactured after 
January 1, 1988 shall not be equipped with a constant burning pilot.
    (2) Clothes dryers manufactured on or after May 14, 1994 and before 
[DATE 3 YEARS AFTER FINAL RULE FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION], shall 
have an energy factor no less than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Energy factor
                    Product class                          (lbs/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ or greater capacity)               3.01
ii. Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft\3\                   3.13
 capacity)...........................................
iii. Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft\3\                  2.90
 capacity)...........................................
iv. Gas..............................................               2.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (3) Clothes dryers manufactured on or after [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER 
FINAL RULE FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION], shall have a combined energy 
factor no less than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Combined energy
                    Product class                      factor  (lbs/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ or greater                  3.73
 capacity)...........................................
ii. Vented Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4                  3.61
 ft\3\ capacity).....................................
iii. Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4                 3.27
 ft\3\ capacity).....................................
iv. Vented Gas.......................................               3.30
v. Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4                 2.55
 ft\3\ capacity).....................................
vi. Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer......               2.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-9041 Filed 4-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```