31964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

2 DOE Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0060, 

Comment 1. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[Docket Number EERE–2011–BT–STD– 

0060] 

RIN 1904–AC64 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Residential Dishwashers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including residential dishwashers. 

EPCA also requires the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) to determine whether 

amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. In this 

proposed rule, DOE proposes amended 

energy conservation standards for 

residential dishwashers identical to 

those set forth in a direct final rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register. If DOE receives adverse 

comment and determines that such 

comment may provide a reasonable 

basis for withdrawing the direct final 

rule, DOE will publish a notice 

withdrawing the final rule and will 

proceed with this proposed rule. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding the proposed 

standards no later than September 17, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: See section III, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for details. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the proposed rule for Energy 

Conservation Standards for Residential 

Dishwashers, and provide docket 

number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0060 

and/or regulatory information number 

(RIN) number 1904–AC64. Comments 

may be submitted using any of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: DW-2011-STD0060@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket 

number and/or RIN in the subject line 

of the message. 

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

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD. It is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at regulations.gov, including 

Federal Register notices, comments, 

and other supporting documents/ 

materials. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-STD0060. 

For further information on how to 

submit or review public comments or 

view hard copies of the docket, contact 

Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 

or email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

7463, email: 

Stephen.Witkowski@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 

586–7796, email: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction and Legal Authority 

II. Proposed Standards 

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Dishwashers 

B. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Standards 

III. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Public Meeting 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Introduction and Legal Authority 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

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

6291–6309, as codified) established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles,1 a program covering most 

major household appliances 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘covered 

products’’), which includes the 

residential dishwashers that are the 

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

6292(a)(6)) EPCA, as amended by the 

Energy Information and Security Act of 

2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110–140), 

prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for residential 

dishwashers (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10), and 

directed DOE to publish a final rule no 

later than January 1, 2015, to determine 

whether to amend the standards in 

effect for dishwashers manufactured on 

or after January 1, 2018. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(10)(B)(i)) 

EISA 2007 also amended EPCA, in 

relevant part, to grant DOE authority 

DOE to issue a final rule (hereinafter 

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

establishing an energy conservation 

standard for a covered product on 

receipt of a statement submitted jointly 

by interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

(including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates) as 

determined by the Secretary, that 

contains recommendations with respect 

to an energy conservation standard that 

are in accordance with the provisions of 

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

that a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR) that proposes an identical 

energy conservation standard be 

published simultaneously with the 

direct final rule, and DOE must provide 

a public comment period of at least 110 

days. (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 NOPR. DOE must also 

publish in the Federal Register the 

reason why the direct final rule was 

withdrawn. Id. 

On July 30, 2010, DOE received the 

‘‘Agreement on Minimum Federal 

Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances, 

Federal Incentives and Related Matters 

for Specified Appliances’’ (hereinafter, 

the ‘‘Joint Petition’’),2 a comment 

submitted by groups representing 

manufacturers (the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), 

Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), 

General Electric Company (GE), 

Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31965 

3 DOE Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0060, 

Comment 2. 

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 dishwashers that they 

believed would satisfy the EPCA 

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

Earthjustice submitted a comment 

affirming its support for the Joint 

Petition.3

DOE has considered the 

recommended energy conservation 

standards and believes that they meet 

the EPCA requirements for issuance of 

a direct final rule. As a result, DOE has 

published a direct final rule establishing 

energy conservation standards for 

dishwashers elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register. If DOE receives 

adverse comments that may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal and 

withdraws the direct final rule, DOE 

will consider those comments and any 

other comments received in determining 

how to proceed with today’s proposed 

rule. 

For further background information 

on these proposed standards and the 

supporting analyses, please see the 

direct final rule published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register. That 

document includes additional 

discussion on the EPCA requirements 

for promulgation of energy conservation 

standards, the current standards for 

residential dishwashers, 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 

dishwashers. 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, 

considering to the greatest extent 

practicable the seven statutory factors 

set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended 

standard must also result in a significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

The Department considered the 

impacts of standards at each trial 

standard level (TSL) considered by 

DOE, beginning with maximum 

technologically feasible level, to 

determine whether that level was 

economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not economically 

justified, DOE then considered the next 

most efficient level and undertook the 

same evaluation until it reached the 

highest efficiency level that is both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and burdens of each TSL, 

DOE has included tables that present a 

summary of the results of DOE’s 

quantitative analysis for each TSL. In 

addition to the quantitative results 

presented in the tables, DOE also 

considers other burdens and benefits 

that affect economic justification. These 

include the impacts on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers, such as lowincome households and seniors, who 

may be disproportionately affected by a 

national standard. Section V.B.1.b 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 Dishwashers 

Table II.1 and Table II.2 present a 

summary of the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for dishwashers. 

The efficiency levels contained in each 

TSL are described in section V.A of the 

direct final rule. 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

National Energy Savings (quads) ........................................................ 0.02 .................. 0.07 .................. 0.94 .................. 1.59 

National Water Savings (trillion gal.) ................................................... 0.01 .................. 0.14 .................. 0.56 .................. 1.71 

Net Present Value (2010$ billion): 

3% discount rate ........................................................................... 0.12 .................. 0.46 .................. 6.51 .................. 17.45 

7% discount rate ........................................................................... 0.03 .................. 0.08 .................. 1.96 .................. 5.88 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction: 

CO2 (million metric tons) .............................................................. 1.15 .................. 4.06 .................. 65.02 ................ 98.62 

NOX (thousand tons) .................................................................... 0.96 .................. 3.54 .................. 54.27 ................ 83.31 

Hg (tons) ....................................................................................... 0.004 ................ 0.000 ................ 0.274 ................ 0.304 

Value of Emissions Reduction: 

CO2 (2010$ million) * .................................................................... 5 to 79 .............. 16 to 242 .......... 278 to 4515 ...... 427 to 6951 

NOX ¥ 3% discount rate (2010$ million) .................................... 0 to 3 ................ 1 to 10 .............. 14 to 148 .......... 22 to 230 

NOX ¥ 7% discount rate (2010$ million) .................................... 0 to 1 ................ 0 to 5 ................ 6 to 59 .............. 9 to 91 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

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

** Values are for 2047. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: CONSUMER AND

MANUFACTURER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Impact to Industry NPV (2010$ million, 8.5% discount rate) .. (44.3)–(45.3) (73.9)–(84.6) (128.9)–(174.4) (145.6)–(202.7) 

Industry NPV (% change) ........................................................ (7.0)–(7.1) (11.6)–(13.3) (20.2)–(27.4) (22.8)–(31.8) 

Consumer Mean LCC Savings (2010$) 

Standard Dishwasher .............................................................. 1 3 41 108 

Compact Dishwasher ............................................................... 13 12 52 52 

Consumer Median PBP (years) 

Standard Dishwasher .............................................................. 5.9 11.8 6.6 4.5 

Compact Dishwasher ............................................................... 0.3 0.3 2.1 2.1 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts 

Standard Dishwasher: 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................... 1.9 18.7 29.7 22.9 

No Impact (%) .................................................................. 96.3 64.1 20.0 9.0 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................. 1.7 17.2 50.4 68.1 

Compact Dishwasher: 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................... 6.4 6.5 5.4 5.4 

No Impact (%) .................................................................. 75.6 75.6 50.2 50.2 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................. 18.0 17.9 44.4 44.4 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

DOE first considered TSL 4, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 4 would save 1.59 quads of 

energy and 1.71 trillion gallons of water, 

amounts DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $5.88 billion, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $17.45 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 99 Mt of CO2, 83 thousand 

tons of NOX, and 0.304 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions at TSL 4 ranges 

from $427 million to $6,951 million. 

Total generating capacity in 2047 is 

estimated to decrease by 0.800 GW 

under TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $108 for standard 

dishwashers and a savings of $52 for 

compact dishwashers. The median 

payback period is 4.5 years for standard 

dishwashers and 2.1 years for compact 

dishwashers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 68.1 

percent for standard dishwashers and 

44.4 percent for compact dishwashers. 

However, 22.9 percent of standard 

dishwasher consumers and 5.4 percent 

of compact dishwasher consumers 

experience an LCC net cost. In addition, 

DOE is concerned that reducing energy 

and water use at TSL 4 without 

implementing significantly higher-cost 

technologies could result in the loss of 

certain consumer utility. Specifically, a 

substantially longer cycle time could be 

required to maintain cleaning 

performance. Because it is uncertain 

how greatly consumers value short cycle 

times, DOE is concerned that TSL 4 may 

result in significant loss of consumer 

utility. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $145.6 

million to a decrease of $202.7 million, 

equivalent to 22.8 percent and 31.8 

percent, respectively. Current products 

that meet efficiency standards specified 

by this TSL represent less than 9 

percent of shipments in the year leading 

up to amended standards; thus, 

manufacturers would have to redesign 

nearly all products by the 2018 

compliance date to meet demand. 

Redesigning all units to meet the current 

max-tech efficiency levels would 

require considerable capital and product 

conversion expenditures. At TSL 4, the 

capital conversion costs total $226.3 

million, 2.23 times the industry annual 

capital expenditure in the year leading 

up to amended standards. DOE 

estimates that complete platform 

redesigns would cost the industry $76.7 

million in product conversion costs. 

These conversion costs largely relate to 

the research programs required to 

develop products that meet the 

efficiency standards set forth by TSL 4, 

and represent 164.5 percent of the 

industry annual budget for research and 

development. As such, the conversion 

costs associated with the changes in 

products and manufacturing facilities 

required at TSL 4 would require 

significant use of manufacturers’ 

financial reserves (manufacturer capital 

pools), impacting other areas of business 

that compete for these resources and 

significantly reducing INPV. In 

addition, manufacturers could face a 

substantial impact on profitability at 

TSL 4. Because manufacturers earn a 

premium for ENERGY STAR products 

and additional profit for products that 

exceed the ENERGY STAR level, 

collapsing the market to one commodity 

product makes it unlikely that 

manufacturers could maintain their 

base-case profitability on these products 

after compliance with the standards is 

required. As a result, DOE expects that 

TSL 4 would yield impacts closer to the 

high end of the range of INPV impacts. 

If the high end of the range of impacts 

is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 4 could 

result in a net loss of 31.8 percent in 

INPV to dishwasher manufacturers. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

4 for residential dishwashers, the 

benefits of energy savings, water 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

economic burden on some consumers, 

the potential burden on all consumers 

from loss of product utility, and the 

impacts on manufacturers, including the 

conversion costs and profit margin 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31967 

impacts that could result in a large 

reduction in INPV. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 4 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 

would save 0.94 quads of energy and 

0.56 trillion gallons of water, amounts 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, 

the NPV of consumer benefit would be 

$1.96 billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $6.51 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 65 Mt of CO2, 54 thousand 

tons of NOX, and 0.274 ton of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions at TSL 3 ranges 

from $278 million to $4,515 million. 

Total generating capacity in 2047 is 

estimated to decrease by 0.719 GW 

under TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $41 for standard 

dishwashers and a savings of $52 for 

compact dishwashers. The median 

payback period is 6.6 years for standard 

dishwashers and 2.1 years for compact 

dishwashers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 50.4 

percent for standard dishwashers and 

44.4 percent for compact dishwashers. 

However, 29.7 percent of standard 

dishwasher consumers and 5.4 percent 

of compact dishwasher consumers 

experience an LCC net cost. In addition, 

DOE is concerned that reducing energy 

and water use at TSL 3 without 

implementing significantly higher-cost 

technologies could result in the loss of 

certain consumer utility. Specifically, a 

substantially longer cycle time could be 

required to maintain cleaning 

performance. Because it is uncertain 

how greatly consumers value short cycle 

times, DOE is concerned that TSL 3 may 

result in significant loss of consumer 

utility. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $128.9 

million to a decrease of $174.4 million, 

decreases of 20.2 percent and 27.4 

percent, respectively. Current products 

that meet efficiency standards specified 

by this TSL represent less than 20 

percent of shipments in the year leading 

up to amended standards; thus, 

manufacturers would have to overhaul a 

significant fraction of products by the 

2018 compliance date to meet demand. 

Redesigning significant component 

systems or developing new platforms 

entirely to meet the efficiency levels 

specified by this TSL would require 

considerable capital and product 

conversion expenditures. At TSL 3, the 

estimated capital conversion costs total 

$195.4 million, which is 1.93 times the 

industry annual capital expenditure in 

the year leading up to amended 

standards. DOE estimates that the 

redesigns necessary to meet these 

standards would cost the industry $66.5 

million in product conversion costs. 

These conversion costs largely relate to 

the research programs required to 

develop products that meet the 

efficiency standards set forth by TSL 3, 

and represent 142.6 percent of the 

industry annual budget for research and 

development in the year leading up to 

amended standards. As such, the 

conversion costs associated with the 

changes in products and manufacturing 

facilities required at TSL 3 would 

require significant use of manufacturers’ 

financial reserves (manufacturer capital 

pools), impacting other areas of business 

that compete for these resources and 

significantly reducing INPV. In 

addition, manufacturers could face a 

substantial impact on profitability at 

TSL 3. Because manufacturers earn a 

premium for ENERGY STAR products 

and additional profit for products that 

exceed the ENERGY STAR level, 

collapsing the market to one commodity 

product makes it unlikely that 

manufacturers could maintain their 

base-case profitability on these products 

after compliance with the standards is 

required. As a result, DOE expects that 

TSL 3 would yield impacts closer to the 

high end of the range of INPV impacts. 

If the high end of the range of impacts 

is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could 

result in a net loss of 27.4 percent in 

INPV to dishwasher manufacturers. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

3 for residential dishwashers, the 

benefits of energy savings, water 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

economic burden on some consumers, 

the potential burden on all consumers 

from loss of product utility, and the 

impacts on manufacturers, including the 

conversion costs and profit margin 

impacts that could result in a large 

reduction in INPV. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 3 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 

would save 0.07 quads of energy and 

0.14 trillion gallons of water, amounts 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, 

the NPV of consumer benefit would be 

$0.08 billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $0.46 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 2 are 4.06 Mt of CO2, 3.54 

thousand tons of NOX, and 0.000 ton of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 2 

ranges from $16 million to $242 million. 

Total generating capacity in 2047 is 

estimated to decrease by 0.001 GW 

under TSL 2. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $3 for standard dishwashers 

and a savings of $12 for compact 

dishwashers. The median payback 

period is 11.8 years for standard 

dishwashers and 0.3 years for compact 

dishwashers. While some consumers 

experience an LCC increase, this 

increase is very small in most cases. 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $73.9 

million to a decrease of $84.6 million, 

decreases of 11.6 percent and 13.3 

percent, respectively. All dishwasher 

manufacturers currently produce 

products that meet the efficiency levels 

specified at TSL 2. As such, this level 

corresponds more to incremental 

product conversions rather than the 

platform redesigns expected for TSL 3 

and TSL 4. Products at or above the 

efficiency levels of TSL 2 represent over 

63 percent of shipments in the year 

leading up to amended standards. As 

such, DOE believes that the scope of the 

redesigns necessary to meet TSL 2 by 

the 2013 compliance date greatly 

mitigates concerns over manufacturers’ 

ability to redesign products and switch 

over the bulk of production in time to 

meet the amended standards by the 

compliance date (operational risk). DOE 

estimates that the improvements to 

manufacturing facilities necessary to 

meet these standards would cost the 

industry $59.1 million in capital 

conversion costs, over $130 million less 

than those incurred at TSL 3, and only 

55.7 percent of the industry budget for 

capital expenditure in the year leading 

up to amended standards. TSL 2 will 

require an estimated 34.9 million in 

product conversion costs primarily 

relating to the research and 

development programs needed to 

improve upon existing platforms to 

meet the specified efficiency levels. 

This represents 71.6 percent of the 

industry budget for research and 

development in the year leading up to 

amended standards. The substantial 

reduction in conversion costs over those 

incurred at higher TSLs, coupled with 

the fact that many products currently 

meet the efficiency standards set forth 

by TSL 2, greatly mitigate the 

operational risk and impact on INPV. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

2 for residential dishwashers, the 

benefits of energy savings, water 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would outweigh the impacts 

on manufacturers, including the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2011, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits 

except for the value of CO2 reductions. For the 

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

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

calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year 

period that yields the same present value. The fixed 

annual payment is the annualized value. Although 

DOE calculated annualized values, this does not 

imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from 

which the annualized values were determined 

would be a steady stream of payments. 

conversion costs that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers. 

In addition, the efficiency levels in 

TSL 2 correspond to the recommended 

levels in the Joint Petition, which DOE 

believes sets forth a statement by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

(including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates) and 

contains recommendations with respect 

to an energy conservation standard that 

are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged 

the submission of consensus agreements 

as a way for diverse interested parties to 

develop an independent and probative 

analysis useful in DOE standard setting 

and to expedite the rulemaking process. 

DOE also believes that the standard 

levels recommended in the consensus 

agreement may increase the likelihood 

for regulatory compliance, while 

decreasing the risk of litigation. 

After considering the analysis and the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 2, the 

Secretary concludes that this TSL will 

offer the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

will result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE 

proposes to adopt TSL 2 for residential 

dishwashers. The proposed amended 

energy conservation standards for 

residential dishwashers, which are a 

maximum allowable annual energy use 

and maximum allowable per-cycle 

water consumption, are shown in Table 

II.3. 

TABLE II.3—AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS

Product class 

Compliance date: May 30, 2013 

Maximum annual 

energy use * 

Maximum per-cycle 

water consumption 

1. Standard (≥8 place settings plus 6 serving pieces) .................................................................... 307 kWh/year ............ 5.0 gallons/cycle. 

2. Compact (<8 place settings plus 6 serving pieces) .................................................................... 222 kWh/year ............ 3.5 gallons/cycle. 

* Annual energy use, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, is calculated as: The sum of the annual standby electrical energy in kWh and 

the product of (1) the representative average dishwasher use cycles per year and (2) the sum of machine electrical energy consumption per 

cycle in kWh, the total water energy consumption per cycle in kWh, and, for dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle, the drying energy 

consumption divided by 2 in kWh. A truncated normal cycle is defined as the normal cycle interrupted to eliminate the power-dry feature after the 

termination of the last rinse option. 

B. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Standards 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value, 

expressed in 2010$, of the benefits from 

operating products that meet the 

proposed standards (consisting 

primarily of operating cost savings from 

using less energy and water, minus 

increases in product purchase costs, 

which is another way of representing 

consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary 

value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission 

reductions.4 The value of the CO2

reductions, otherwise known as the 

Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 developed by a recent 

interagency process. 

Although combining the values of 

operating savings and CO2 reductions 

provides a useful perspective, two 

issues should be considered. First, the 

national operating savings are domestic 

U.S. consumer monetary savings that 

occur as a result of market transactions 

while the value of CO2 reductions is 

based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings 

and SCC are performed with different 

methods that use quite different time 

frames for analysis. The national 

operating cost savings is measured for 

the lifetime of products shipped in 

2013–2047. The SCC values, on the 

other hand, reflect the present value of 

all future climate-related impacts 

resulting from the emission of one ton 

of carbon dioxide in each year. These 

impacts continue well beyond 2100. 

Table II.4 shows the annualized 

values for residential dishwashers under 

TSL 2, expressed in 2010$. The results 

under the primary estimate are as 

follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate 

for benefits and costs other than CO2

reductions, for which DOE used a 3- 

percent discount rate along with the 

SCC series corresponding to a value of 

$22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$), the cost of 

the standards for dishwashers in today’s 

rule is $46 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the annualized 

benefits are $53 million per year in 

reduced equipment operating costs, $3.9 

million in CO2 reductions, and $0.24 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to $11 

million per year. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate for all benefits and costs 

and the SCC series corresponding to a 

value of $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$), 

the cost of the standards for 

dishwashers in today’s rule is $44 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the benefits are $66 million 

per year in reduced operating costs, $3.9 

million in CO2 reductions, and $0.26 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to $27 

million per year. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31969 

TABLE II.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS (TSL 2) FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS SOLD

IN 2013–2047 

Discount rate 

Monetized 

(million 2010$/year) 

Primary estimate* Low net benefits 

estimate* 

High net benefits 

estimate* 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................. 7% .................................. 53 ................................... 48 ................................... 59 

3% .................................. 66 ................................... 59 ................................... 75 

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t** .............. 5% .................................. 1.1 .................................. 1.0 .................................. 1.3 

CO2 Reduction at $22.3/t** ............ 3% .................................. 3.9 .................................. 3.5 .................................. 4.7 

CO2 Reduction at $36.5/t** ............ 2.5% ............................... 6.1 .................................. 5.4 .................................. 7.2 

CO2 Reduction at $67.6/t** ............ 3% .................................. 12.0 ................................ 10.8 ................................ 14.2 

NOX Reduction at $2,537/t** ......... 7% .................................. 0.24 ................................ 0.23 ................................ 0.27 

3% .................................. 0.26 ................................ 0.24 ................................ 0.30 

Total† ............................................. 7% plus CO2 range ........ 54 to 65 .......................... 49 to 59 .......................... 60 to 73 

7% .................................. 57 ................................... 52 ................................... 64 

3% plus CO2 range ........ 68 to 78 .......................... 60 to 70 .......................... 76 to 89 

3% .................................. 70 ................................... 63 ................................... 80 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs ............ 7% .................................. 46 ................................... 44 ................................... 43 

3% .................................. 44 ................................... 41 ................................... 40 

Total Net Benefits 

Total† ............................................. 7% plus CO2 range ........ 8 to 19 ............................ 6 to 16 ............................ 17 to 30 

7% .................................. 11 ................................... 8 ..................................... 20 

3% plus CO2 range ........ 24 to 35 .......................... 19 to 29 .......................... 37 to 49 

3% .................................. 27 ................................... 22 ................................... 40 

* The results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2047 from the dishwashers purchased from 2013 through 2047. Costs incurred 

by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2013 in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as 

part of incremental equipment costs. The extent of the costs and benefits will depend on the projected price trends of dishwashers, as the consumer demand for dishwashers is a function of dishwasher prices. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of 

energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2011 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental 

product costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected product price trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate for projected product 

price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for projected product price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods 

used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.G.3 of the direct final rule. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule until the date provided in the DATES

section at the beginning of this proposed 

rule. Interested parties may submit 

comments, data, and other information 

using any of the methods described in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this 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 

Web site 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. Email 

submissions are preferred. If you submit 

via mail or hand delivery/courier, 

please provide all items on a CD, if 

feasible. It is not necessary to submit 

printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential business information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

B. Public Meeting 

If DOE withdraws the direct final rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

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

meeting to allow for additional 

comment on this proposed rule. DOE 

will publish notice of any meeting in 

the Federal Register. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

The regulatory reviews conducted for 

this proposed rule are identical to those 

conducted for the direct final rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register. Please see the direct final rule 

for further details. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Small 

businesses. 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, and Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 11, 

2012. 

David Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 

429 and 430 of title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

1. The authority citation for Part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

2. In § 429.19 revise paragraph (b)(2) 

to read as follows: 

§ 429.19 Dishwashers. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report shall include the 

following public product-specific 

information: The estimated annual 

energy use in kilowatt hours per year 

(kWh/yr) and the water consumption in 

gallons per cycle. 

* * * * * 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

3. The authority citation for Part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

4. In § 430.32 add paragraph (f)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) All dishwashers manufactured on 

or after May 30, 2013, shall meet the 

following standard— 

(i) Standard size dishwashers shall 

not exceed 307 kwh/year and 5.0 

gallons per cycle. 

(ii) Compact size dishwashers shall 

not exceed 222 kwh/year and 3.5 

gallons per cycle. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–12338 Filed 5–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2