Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 59719 

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

Comment 35. 

2The Joint Petitioners submitted a second 

petition amending the recommended compliance 

dates for new residential clothes washer standards. 

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

Comment 39. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[Docket Number EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0019] 

RIN 1904–AB90 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Residential Clothes Washers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of effective date and 

compliance dates for direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) published a direct final 

rule to establish amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

clothes washers in the Federal Register 

on May 31, 2012. DOE has determined 

that the adverse comments received in 

response to the direct final rule were not 

sufficiently adverse to provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawing the 

direct final rule. Therefore, DOE 

provides this document confirming 

adoption of the energy conservation 

standards established in the direct final 

rule and announcing the effective date 

of those standards. 

DATES: The September 28, 2012, 

effective date for the direct final rule 

published on May 31, 2012 (77 FR 

32308) is confirmed. Compliance with 

the standards in the direct final rule will 

be required on March 7, 2015 and 

January 1, 2018, as set forth in Table 1 

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section. 

ADDRESSES: 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. 

The docket Web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/ 

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

For further information on how to 

submit or review public comments or 

view hard copies of the docket, contact 

Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121; telephone: 

(202) 586–7463; email: 

Stephen.Witkowski@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121; 

telephone: (202) 586–7796; email: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority and Rulemaking 

Background 

As amended by Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110– 

140), the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) authorizes 

DOE to issue a direct final rule 

establishing an energy conservation 

standard on receipt of a statement 

submitted jointly by interested persons 

that are fairly representative of relevant 

points of view (including 

representatives of manufacturers of 

covered products, States, and efficiency 

advocates) as determined by the 

Secretary of Energy (Secretary), that 

contains recommendations with respect 

to an energy conservation standard that 

are in accordance with the provisions of 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o). A notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes an 

identical energy conservation standard 

must be published simultaneously with 

the direct final rule, and DOE must 

provide a public comment period of at 

least 110 days on the direct final rule. 

42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). Not later than 120 

days after issuance of the direct final 

rule, if one or more adverse comments 

or an alternative joint recommendation 

are received relating to the direct final 

rule, the Secretary must determine 

whether the comments or alternative 

recommendation may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(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 publish in the Federal Register the 

reasons why the direct final rule was 

withdrawn. Id. 

During the rulemaking proceeding to 

consider amending energy conservation 

standards for residential clothes 

washers, DOE received the ‘‘Agreement 

on Minimum Federal Efficiency 

Standards, Smart Appliances, Federal 

Incentives and Related Matters for 

Specified Appliances’’ (the ‘‘Joint 

Petition’’ or ‘‘Consensus Agreement’’), a 

comment submitted by groups 

representing manufacturers (the 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM), Whirlpool 

Corporation (Whirlpool), General 

Electric Company (GE), Electrolux, LG 

Electronics, Inc. (LG), BSH Home 

Appliances (BSH), Alliance Laundry 

Systems (ALS), Viking Range, Sub-Zero 

Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, 

Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat 

Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, 

Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, 

Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, 

Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and 

DeLonghi); energy and environmental 

advocates (American Council for an 

Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

(ASAP), Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC), Alliance to Save 

Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water 

Efficiency (AWE), Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council (NPCC), and 

Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnerships (NEEP)); and consumer 

groups (Consumer Federation of 

America (CFA) and the National 

Consumer Law Center (NCLC)) 

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

This collective set of comments 1 2

recommends specific energy 

conservation standards for residential 

clothes washers that, in the 

commenters’ view, would satisfy the 

EPCA requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 

After careful consideration of the 

Consensus Agreement, the Secretary 

determined that it was submitted by 

interested persons who are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

on this matter. DOE noted in the direct 

final rule that Congress provided some 

guidance within the statute itself by 

specifying that representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates are 

relevant parties to any consensus 

recommendation. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)) As delineated above, the 

Consensus Agreement was signed and 

submitted by a broad cross-section of 

the manufacturers who produce the 

subject products, their trade 

associations, and environmental, energy 

efficiency and consumer advocacy 

organizations. Although States were not 

signatories to the Consensus Agreement, 

they did not express any opposition to 

it from the time of its submission to 

DOE through the close of the comment 

period on the direct final rule. 

Moreover, DOE stated in the direct final 

rule that it does not interpret the statute 

as requiring absolute agreement among 

all interested parties before DOE may 

proceed with issuance of a direct final 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

59720 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Comment 48. 4 DOE Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0019, 

Comment 50. 

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

Comment 51. 

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

Comment 49. 

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

Comment 52. 

rule. By explicit language of the statute, 

the Secretary has discretion to 

determine when a joint 

recommendation for an energy or water 

conservation standard has met the 

requirement for representativeness (i.e., 

‘‘as determined by the Secretary’’). 

Accordingly, DOE determined that the 

Consensus Agreement was made and 

submitted by interested persons fairly 

representative of relevant points of 

view. 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the 

Secretary must also determine whether 

a jointly submitted recommendation for 

an energy or water conservation 

standard is in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as 

applicable. As stated in the direct final 

rule, this determination is exactly the 

type of analysis DOE conducts 

whenever it considers potential energy 

conservation standards pursuant to 

EPCA. DOE applies the same principles 

to any consensus recommendations it 

may receive to satisfy its statutory 

obligation to ensure that any energy 

conservation standard that it adopts 

achieves the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified and 

will result in significant conservation of 

energy. Upon review, the Secretary 

determined that the Consensus 

Agreement submitted in the instant 

rulemaking comports with the standardsetting criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). Accordingly, the Consensus 

Agreement levels, included as trial 

standard level (TSL) 3, were adopted as 

the amended standard levels in the 

direct final rule. 

In sum, as the relevant statutory 

criteria were satisfied, the Secretary 

adopted the amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

clothes washers set forth in the direct 

final rule. These standards are set forth 

in TABLE 1—AMENDED ENERGY 

CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR 

RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS. 

The standards apply to all products 

listed in TABLE 1—AMENDED 

ENERGY CONSERVATION 

STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL 

CLOTHES WASHERS that are 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States on or after March 7, 2015 

for top loading clothes washers and 

January 1, 2018 for both top loading and 

front loading clothes washers. For a 

detailed discussion of DOE’s analysis of 

the benefits and burdens of the 

amended standards pursuant to the 

criteria set forth in EPCA, please see the 

direct final rule. (77 FR 32308 (May 31, 

2012)). 

As required by EPCA, DOE also 

simultaneously published a NOPR 

proposing the identical standard levels 

contained in the direct final rule. DOE 

considered whether any comment 

received during the 110-day comment 

period following the direct final rule 

was sufficiently ‘‘adverse’’ as to provide 

a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and continuation of this 

rulemaking under the NOPR. As noted 

in the direct final rule, it is the 

substance, rather than the quantity, of 

comments that will ultimately 

determine whether a direct final rule 

will be withdrawn. To this end, DOE 

weighs the substance of any adverse 

comment(s) received against the 

anticipated benefits of the Consensus 

Agreement and the likelihood that 

further consideration of the comment(s) 

would change the results of the 

rulemaking. DOE notes that to the extent 

an adverse comment had been 

previously raised and addressed in the 

rulemaking proceeding, such a 

submission will not typically provide a 

basis for withdrawal of a direct final 

rule. 

TABLE 1—AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

Product class 

Compliance date: March 7, 

2015 

Compliance date: January 1, 

2018 

Minimum 

IMEF * 

Maximum 

IWF † 

Minimum 

IMEF * 

Maximum 

IWF † 

1. Top-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ...................................... 0.86 14.4 1.15 12.0 

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

3. Front-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) .................................... 1.13 8.3 N/A 

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

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

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

consumption. These IMEF standard levels are equivalent to the modified energy factor (MEF) standards proposed in the Consensus Agreement. 

† IWF (integrated water factor) is calculated as the sum, expressed in gallons per cycle, of the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for 

all wash cycles divided by the clothes container capacity in cubic feet. These IWF standard levels are equivalent to the water factor (WF) standards proposed in the Consensus Agreement. 

II. Comments Received on the Direct 

Final Rule 

A. Comments Received in Support of the 

Direct Final Rule 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Southern California Gas Company, San 

Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern 

California Edison jointly expressed 

support for DOE’s adoption of the 

standard levels proposed in the Joint 

Petition,3 as did AHAM.4 Additionally, 

ASAP, ASE, ACEEE, CFA, NCLC, 

NRDC, and NEEP commented in 

support of the standard levels in the 

direct final rule.5 One private citizen 

also expressed support for the amended 

standards in the direct final rule.6

B. Comments Requesting Withdrawal of 

the Direct Final Rule 

DOE received one adverse comment 

from a private citizen.7 The commenter 

does not support mandatory standards 

for residential clothes washers and 

believes energy efficiency standards 

should be voluntary and offered as a 

choice to the consumer. The commenter 

states that energy efficiency standards 

should consider clothes washer cleaning 

performance. Further, the commenter 

believes that energy efficiency standards 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 59721 

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

Comment 50. 

are negatively impacting cleaning 

performance, and that the standards 

should allow manufacturers to 

implement a user override option on the 

clothes washer. 

Regarding whether the energy 

efficiency standards should be 

mandatory or voluntary, EPCA requires 

DOE to consider whether to amend 

existing energy efficiency standards for 

residential clothes washers. EPCA 

further requires DOE to adopt those 

standards that achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Manufacturers 

are required by EPCA to manufacture 

products that meet these standards. 42 

U.S.C. 6295(g)(10), (o); 42 U.S.C. 6302. 

For the reasons stated in the direct final 

rule, DOE determined that the standards 

adopted for residential clothes washers 

meet the EPCA criteria. Manufacturers 

will be required to use these standards 

as of March 7, 2015 and January 1, 2018, 

as described in the direct final rule. 

Regarding cleaning performance, in 

determining whether a new standard is 

economically justified, EPCA requires 

DOE to consider any lessening of the 

utility or the performance likely to 

result from the imposition of a new 

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

(o)(4) DOE notes that the measurement 

of energy efficiency or energy or water 

use presumes the proper functioning of 

a product. DOE has considered 

performance generally in the 

development of these standards and has 

concluded that the TSL adopted in this 

direct final rule would not reduce the 

utility or performance of the clothes 

washers under consideration in this 

rulemaking. 

Regarding the implementation of 

override features on a clothes washer, 

Federal regulations do not address any 

specific product features; rather, the 

standards specify allowable energy and 

water use. Manufacturers may use any 

product design, technology, or control 

strategy in their clothes washers as long 

as the products meet the amended 

minimum efficiency standards as 

measured according to DOE’s test 

procedures at 10 CFR part 430, Subpart 

B, Appendix J2. Because manufacturers 

must produce clothes washers that 

comply with the minimum standards, 

however, including a feature that 

allowed the consumer to override the 

maximum allowable water use and 

minimally allowable energy use would 

not be consistent with EPCA. 

C. Other Comments on the Direct Final 

Rule 

Although AHAM expressed support 

for the direct final rule, AHAM raised 

several points that it stated were not 

intended as adverse comments.8

AHAM noted that the compliance 

date for the amended clothes washer 

standards represents an unusual case in 

which less lead time than usual is 

acceptable because manufacturers 

agreed to the shorter lead time as part 

of the Consensus Agreement. AHAM 

agreed to this date as part of the 

Consensus Agreement, but it noted that 

without such agreement, DOE must 

specify the three-year statutory lead 

time. DOE acknowledges AHAM’s 

comment. 

AHAM commented that it believes the 

standby power level of 0.08 Watts that 

DOE associated with the selected 

standard levels is quite low. AHAM 

stated that 1–2 Watts of standby power 

are required to power electronic 

controls and to provide consumers with 

the usability they expect. AHAM also 

disagreed with DOE’s conclusion that 

the cost to achieve 0.08 Watts is lower 

than the cost of achieving higher 

wattages of standby power. AHAM 

stated that if this were true, industry 

would already have products on the 

market that use only 0.08 Watts of 

standby power. 

DOE described its approach to 

incorporating standby power levels in 

the direct final rule and in chapter 5 of 

the accompanying Technical Support 

Document (TSD). 77 FR 32335 DOE 

conducted standby power testing on a 

sample of representative clothes 

washers to determine the standby power 

levels associated with each TSL. DOE 

measured standby power values of 0.08 

Watts or less on multiple clothes washer 

models with electronic controls. DOE’s 

methods for identifying the technologies 

associated with each standby power 

level, as well as the costs associated 

with each standby power level, are 

described in detail in chapter 5 of the 

TSD. 

Regarding clothes washer 

performance, AHAM agrees that the 

efficiency levels in the direct final rule 

are not likely to adversely impact 

performance, but stated that more 

stringent levels could adversely impact 

performance. AHAM stated that, as 

efficiency and water standards levels 

become more stringent, it may be 

necessary to evaluate performance in 

DOE’s analysis. DOE acknowledges 

AHAM’s comment. 

AHAM opposed DOE’s use of the 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(RECS) and similar data for its energy 

and water use analysis. DOE 

acknowledges AHAM’s comment. DOE 

used RECS data for the energy and water 

use analysis for the reasons explained in 

the direct final rule. 77 FR 32338–9 

(May 31, 2012) 

AHAM stated that the burden 

associated with reporting for 

certification is substantially more than 

20 hours. AHAM encourages DOE to 

amend its certification, compliance, and 

enforcement rule to conform the scope 

of its annual report to the Federal Trade 

Commission report. DOE acknowledges 

AHAM’s comment. 

AHAM continues to oppose the use of 

experience curves in the projection of 

consumer product prices. DOE used 

experience curves to project product 

prices for residential clothes washers for 

the reasons stated in the direct final 

rule. 77 FR 32340 

AHAM stated that it is not aware of 

a rebound effect for clothes washers, 

and it has no reason to believe that 

operating cost would change user 

behavior at the levels in the direct final 

rule. DOE acknowledges AHAM’s 

comment. 

AHAM stated that any CO2 analysis 

should include CO2 emissions that are 

caused indirectly, as well as directly, 

from a standards change, such as 

increased carbon emissions required to 

manufacture a product at a given 

standard level. DOE has begun to 

include CO2 emissions that occur in the 

full fuel cycle, which includes 

emissions that occur in production and 

transportation of fuels. DOE continues 

to believe that it is inappropriate to 

include emissions that occur in 

manufacturing or transport of 

appliances. EPCA directs DOE to 

consider the total projected amount of 

energy savings likely to result directly 

from a standard, and DOE interprets this 

to include only energy consumed at the 

point of use and in the production, 

processing and transportation of fuels 

used by appliances or equipment. 

III. Department of Justice Analysis of 

Competitive Impacts 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from new or amended standards. 

It also directs the Attorney General of 

the United States (Attorney General) to 

determine the impact, if any, of any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard and to 

transmit such determination to the 

Secretary within 60 days of the 

publication of a proposed rule, together 

with an analysis of the nature and 

extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE 

published a NOPR containing energy 

conservation standards identical to 

those set forth the direct final rule and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

59722 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

transmitted a copy of the direct final 

rule and the accompanying TSD to the 

Attorney General, requesting that the 

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 

provide its determination on this issue. 

DOE has published DOJ’s comments at 

the end of this document. 

DOJ reviewed the amended standards 

in the direct final rule and the final TSD 

provided by DOE. As a result of its 

analysis, DOJ concluded that the 

amended standards issued in the direct 

final rule are unlikely to have a 

significant adverse impact on 

competition. DOJ further noted that the 

amended standards established in the 

direct final rule were the same as 

recommended standards submitted in 

the Joint Petition signed by industry 

participants who believed they could 

meet the standards (as well as other 

interested parties). 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 

preparation of a regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any rule that by law must 

be proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site (www.gc.doe.gov). 

DOE reviewed the direct final rule 

and corresponding notice of proposed 

rulemaking pursuant to the RFA and the 

policies and procedures discussed 

above. Set forth below is DOE’s final 

regulatory flexibility analysis for the 

standards established in the DFR. DOE 

has considered the comments received 

on the rule in adopting the standards set 

forth in the direct final rule; responses 

to these comments are provided in 

section II. 

1. Succinct Statement of the Need for, 

and Objectives of, the Rule 

A succinct statement of the need for, 

and objectives of, the rule is provided in 

the DFR published on May 31, 2012 (77 

FR 32308) and not repeated here. 

1. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments 

A summary of the comments received 

on the DFR is provided elsewhere in 

today’s document and not repeated 

here. 

2. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

For manufacturers of residential 

clothes washers, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) has set a size 

threshold, which defines those entities 

classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the 

purposes of the statute. DOE used the 

SBA’s small business size standards to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be subject to the requirements of 

the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 

2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 

53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 

CFR part 121.The size standards are 

listed by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code and 

industry description and are available at 

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/ 

files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 

Residential clothes washer 

manufacturing is classified under 

NAICS Code 335224, ‘‘Household 

Laundry Equipment Manufacturing.’’ 

The SBA sets a threshold of 1,000 

employees or less for an entity to be 

considered as a small business for this 

category. 

To estimate the number of small 

businesses who could be impacted by 

the amended energy conservation 

standards, DOE conducted a market 

survey using all available public 

information to identify potential small 

manufacturers. DOE’s research included 

the AHAM membership directory, 

product databases (Consortium for 

Energy Efficiency, California Energy 

Commission, and ENERGY STAR 

databases) and individual company Web 

sites to find potential small business 

manufacturers. DOE also asked 

interested parties and industry 

representatives if they were aware of 

any other small business manufacturers 

during manufacturer interviews and at 

previous DOE public meetings. DOE 

reviewed all publicly available data and 

contacted various companies, as 

necessary, to determine whether they 

met the SBA’s definition of a small 

business manufacturer of covered 

residential clothes washers. DOE 

screened out companies that did not 

offer products covered by this 

rulemaking, did not meet the definition 

of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are foreign 

owned and operated. 

The majority of residential clothes 

washers are currently manufactured in 

the United States by one corporation 

that accounts for approximately 64 

percent of the total market. Together, 

this manufacturer and three other 

manufacturers that do not meet the 

definition of a small business 

manufacturer comprise 92 percent of the 

residential clothes washer market. The 

small portion of the remaining 

residential clothes washer market 

(approximately 700,000 shipments) is 

supplied by a combination of 12 

international and domestic companies, 

all of which have small market shares. 

Of the remaining 12 companies that 

manufacturer residential clothes 

washers for sale in the United States, 

DOE identified only one manufacturer 

that is considered a small business 

under NAICS Code 335224. 

DOE received no comments on its 

estimate of the number of small 

businesses and retains that estimate for 

this final regulatory flexibility analysis. 

3. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

The one small business manufacturer 

of residential clothes washers covered 

by this rulemaking has one product 

platform. It makes a top-loading 

standard residential clothes washer that 

currently meets a 1.85 MEF and a 6.75 

WF. The product meets the 2015 energy 

conservation standards proposed in this 

direct final rule, but falls short of the 

2018 standard. The unit does not offer 

warm rinse and has electromechanical 

controls, making it likely that three 

wash temperatures (hot, warm, cold) are 

available on all settings including 

Normal for test procedure purposes. 

Thus, it is likely the unit will have to 

undergo alterations to its basic design to 

meet the 2018 efficiency requirements. 

This company appears to manufacture 

its residential clothes washer with less 

automation and more labor than some of 

the larger competitors. To change the 

design of their current product to meet 

the 2018 efficiency standards, one 

available design pathway would be 

increasing the volume of the wash 

basket, assuming there is enough 

clearance within the cabinet. Increasing 

the drum’s radius would involve cutting 

slightly larger octagonal pieces of metal 

and would not be a capital intensive 

solution. With this pathway, the 

assembly process and fabrication time 

would essentially remain the same. This 

solution would also prevent the small 

business manufacturer from bearing the 

cost of retrofitting their manufacturing 

process and could result in lower perunit conversion costs relative to larger 

manufacturers. 

Based on the engineering analysis and 

manufacturer interviews, if two fulltime engineers took one year to 

implement a larger drum radius within 

the existing cabinet it could cost the 

manufacturer roughly $200,000 to 

implement the design change for the 

2018 compliance date. If the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 59723 

manufacturer were to incur additional 

tooling costs to implement this change, 

this could lead to an additional 

$200,000 in capital conversion costs. 

Because the small business 

manufacturer already meets the 2015 

energy conservation standards, it would 

have 7 years from the announcement of 

today’s direct final rule until it would 

have to make any changes to its current 

product in response to standards. 

4. Steps Taken To Minimize Economic 

Impact on Small Entities 

DOE rejected efficiency levels 

analyzed (TSLs 4 and 5) that would 

have achieved higher energy savings 

and other benefits than the standards set 

forth in the direct final rule. DOE 

determined that these TSLs were not 

economically justified, in significant 

part because of impacts to 

manufacturers. 

DOE did not adopt TSLs 1 and 2, 

which would have further decreased the 

economic impacts to manufacturers. 

DOE determined based on its analysis, 

as explained in the DFR (77 FR 32308, 

May 31, 2012) that TSL3 achieves the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that was technologically 

feasible and economically justified. The 

direct final rule TSD also includes a 

regulatory impact analysis (RIA). For 

residential clothes washers, the RIA 

discusses the following policy 

alternatives: (1) No new regulatory 

action; (2) consumer rebates; (3) 

consumer tax credits; (4) manufacturer 

tax credits; (5) voluntary energy 

efficiency targets; (5) early replacement; 

and (6) bulk government purchases. 

While these alternatives may mitigate to 

some varying extent the economic 

impacts on small entities compared to 

the amended standards, DOE 

determined that the energy savings of 

these regulatory alternatives are at least 

3.8 times smaller than those that would 

be expected to result from adoption of 

the amended standard levels. Thus, 

DOE rejected these alternatives and 

adopted the amended standards set 

forth in the DFR. (See chapter 17 of 

direct final rule TSD for further detail 

on the policy alternatives DOE 

considered.) 

V. National Environmental Policy Act 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, DOE has determined that the 

direct final rule fits within the category 

of actions included in Categorical 

Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise 

meets the requirements for application 

of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, 

B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, 

B(1)–(5). The rule fits within the 

category of actions because it is a 

rulemaking that establishes energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

products or industrial equipment, and 

for which none of the exceptions 

identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. 

Therefore, DOE has made a CX 

determination for this rulemaking, and 

DOE does not need to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

this rule. DOE’s CX determination for 

this direct final rule is available at 

http://cxnepa.energy.gov. 

VI. Conclusion 

In summary, based on the discussion 

above, DOE has determined that the 

comments received in response to the 

direct final rule for amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

clothes washers do not provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

direct final rule. As a result, the 

amended energy conservation standards 

set forth in the direct final rule were 

effective on September 28, 2012. 

Compliance with these standards is 

required on March 7, 2015 and January 

1, 2018, as noted in Table 1. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

25, 2012. 

David Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

The following will not appear in the 

Code of Federal Regulations: 

BILLING CODE 645–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

59724 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULESER01OC12.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 59725 

[FR Doc. 2012–23960 Filed 9–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULESER01OC12.007</GPH>