Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16309 

applies to a holder of a license to 

operate a LWR under 10 CFR part 50; a 

holder of a renewed LWR license under 

10 CFR part 54; an applicant for a 

construction permit or operating license 

under 10 CFR part 50; or an applicant 

for a design approval, a COL, or 

manufacturing license under 10 CFR 

part 52. A holder of a COL issued under 

10 CFR part 52 is not included in the 

group of entities that may take 

advantage of the provisions of § 50.69. 

The specific reasons for excluding 

COL holders from the group of entities 

that may take advantage of the 

provisions of § 50.69 were not discussed 

in the Federal Register notice for either 

the proposed or final ‘‘Risk-Informed 

Categorization and Treatment of 

Structures, Systems and Components for 

Nuclear Power Reactors’’ rule. However, 

as discussed at a public meeting on 

October 17, 2012 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML12341A153), the NRC staff 

provided the following reasons: 

1. After issuance of the COL, the staff 

was concerned primarily that 

implementation of the provisions of 

§ 50.69 in the midst of construction and 

Inspections, Tests, Analysis, and 

Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) closure 

would lead to proposed changes in the 

NRC’s approved requirements on some 

SSCs prior to the Commission making a 

finding regarding the COL ITAAC 

acceptance criteria in accordance with 

§ 52.103(g). Such a situation could 

create an unexpected budget shortfall 

related to a higher resource burden for 

the NRC due to an increased number of 

license amendments submitted for 

review concurrent with supporting 

construction and ITAAC completion 

and complicate the NRC’s ability to 

reach a finding under § 52.103(g). 

2. Since the proposed rule allowed for 

the provisions of § 50.69 to be adopted 

as part of the COL application, COL 

applicants could take advantage of these 

provisions as part of the COL review. 

This approach would be consistent with 

the NRC’s Principles of Good Regulation 

regarding efficiency, since the staff 

believed that implementation of the 

provisions of § 50.69 following the 

Commission’s making a finding per 

§ 52.103(g) would require substantial 

additional resources to conduct the 

review of license amendments necessary 

to implement the provisions of § 50.69. 

The NRC did not receive any 

comments from the nuclear industry nor 

the general public on the absence of 

COL holders from the applicability 

provisions of the proposed rule. The 

final rule, as issued, retained this 

feature of the proposed rule. 

The NRC is examining the issues 

raised in PRM–50–110 to determine 

whether they should be considered in 

rulemaking. The NRC is not requesting 

public comment at this time. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day 

of March, 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Kenneth R. Hart, 

Acting, Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07092 Filed 3–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2014–BT–STD– 

0058] 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Residential Clothes Dryers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is initiating an effort to 

determine whether to amend the current 

energy conservation standards for 

residential clothes dryers. According to 

the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act’s 6-year review requirement, DOE 

must publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking to propose amended 

standards for residential clothes dryers 

or a notice of determination that the 

existing standards do not need to be 

amended by August 24, 2017. This 

notice seeks to solicit information from 

the public to help DOE determine 

whether amended standards for 

residential clothes dryers would result 

in a significant amount of additional 

energy savings and whether those 

standards would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

May 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

encouraged to submit comments 

electronically. Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: 

ResClothesDryers2014STD0058@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2014–BT–STD–0058 in the 

subject line of the message. All 

comments should clearly identify the 

name, address, and, if appropriate, 

organization of the commenter. 

• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

Request for Information for Energy 

Conservation Standards for Residential 

Clothes Dryers, Docket No. EERE–2014– 

BT–STD–0058, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. If possible, please submit all items 

on a compact disc (CD), in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. No 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, some documents listed in the 

index may not be publicly available, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0058. This Web page contains a link to 

the docket for this notice on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page contains 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–0371. Email: 

ResClothesDryers2014STD0058@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email: 

peter.cochran@hq.doe.gov. 

For information on how to submit or 

review public comments, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16310 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

A. Authority and Background 

B. Rulemaking Process 

II. Request for Information and Comments 

A. Products Covered by This Rulemaking 

B. Test Procedure 

C. Market Assessment 

D. Engineering Analysis 

E. Markups Analysis 

F. Energy Use Analysis 

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

H. Shipments Analysis 

I. National Impact Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

III. Submission of Comments 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority and Background 

Title III, Part B1 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.2 These products include 

residential clothes dryers, the subject of 

this Request for Information (RFI). 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the 

new or amended standard must result in 

a significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also 

provides that not later than 6 years after 

issuance of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) including new 

proposed energy conservation 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

On April 21, 2011, DOE published a 

direct final rule (2011 Direct Final Rule) 

amending the energy conservation 

standards for residential clothes dryers. 

76 FR 22454. The amended energy 

conservation standards were based on a 

new metric, the combined energy factor 

(CEF), that incorporates energy use in 

active mode, standby mode, and off 

mode. DOE established an initial 

compliance date of April 24, 2014 for 

the amended standards. Subsequently, 

DOE amended the compliance date for 

the new standards to January 1, 2015. 76 

FR 52852 (Aug. 24, 2011). 

Thus, DOE must publish either a 

NOPR proposing amended standards for 

residential clothes dryers or a notice of 

determination that the existing 

standards do not need to be amended by 

August 24, 2017. This RFI seeks input 

from the public to assist DOE with its 

determination on whether new or 

amended standards pertaining to 

residential clothes dryers are warranted. 

In making this determination, DOE must 

evaluate whether amended standards 

would: (1) Yield a significant savings in 

energy use; and (2) be both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

B. Rulemaking Process 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including residential clothes dryers. 

Any new or amended standard for a 

covered product must be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE 

may not adopt any standard that would 

not result in the significant conservation 

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

deciding whether a proposed standard 

is economically justified, DOE must 

determine whether the benefits of the 

standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this 

determination after receiving comments 

on the proposed standard, and by 

considering, to the greatest extent 

practicable, the following seven 

statutory factors: 

1. The economic impact of the 

standard on the manufacturers and 

consumers of the affected products; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the affected products compared to any 

increases in the initial cost, or 

maintenance expenses; 

3. The total projected amount of 

energy and water (if applicable) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the affected products 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

5. The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

6. The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

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

DOE fulfills these and other 

applicable requirements by conducting 

a series of analyses throughout the 

rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the 

individual analyses that are performed 

to satisfy each of the requirements 

within EPCA. 

TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS

EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis 

Technological Feasibility .......................................................................... • Market and Technology Assessment. 

• Screening Analysis. 

• Engineering Analysis. 

Economic Justification: 

1. Economic impact on manufacturers and consumers ................... • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis. 

• Shipments Analysis. 

2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared to increased cost for 

the product.

• Markups for Product Price Determination. 

• Energy and Water Use Determination. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 

3. Total projected energy savings ..................................................... • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

4. Impact on utility or performance ................................................... • Screening Analysis. 

• Engineering Analysis. 

5. Impact of any lessening of competition ........................................ • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16311 

3 K. Gluesenkamp, Residential Clothes Dryer 

Performance Under Timed and Automatic Cycle 

Termination Test Procedures, Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory Report No. ORNL/TM–2014/431 (2014) 

(‘‘ORNL/TM–2014/431 Report’’) (Available at: 

http://web.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/docs/2014-10-09- 

ORNL-DryerFinalReport-TM-2014-431.pdf); W. 

TeGrotenhuis, Clothes Dryer Automatic 

Termination Sensor Evaluation. Volume 1: 

Characterization of Energy Use in Residential 

Clothes Dryers, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory Report No. PNNL–23621 (2014) 

(‘‘PNNL–23621 Report’’) (Available at: http://

www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/

technical_reports/PNNL-23621.pdf); W. 

TeGrotenhuis, Clothes Dryer Automatic 

Termination Sensor Evaluation. Volume 2: 

Improved Sensor and Control Designs, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory Report No. PNNL– 

23616 (2014) (Available at: http://www.pnnl.gov/

main/publications/external/technical_reports/

PNNL-23616.pdf). 

4The docket for this test procedure rulemaking is 

available at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-TP-0034. 

TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS—Continued 

EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis 

6. Need for national energy and water conservation ........................ • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant ............................ • Emissions Analysis. 

• Utility Impact Analysis. 

• Employment Impact Analysis. 

• Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits. 

• Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE 

is publishing this notice as the first step 

in the analysis process and is requesting 

input and data from interested parties to 

aid in the development of the technical 

analyses. 

II. Request for Information and 

Comments 

In the next section, DOE has 

identified a variety of questions that 

DOE would like to receive input on to 

aid in the development of the technical 

and economic analyses regarding 

whether amended standards for 

residential clothes dryers may be 

warranted. In addition, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this rulemaking that may 

not be identified specifically in this 

notice. As part of the process for 

soliciting information, DOE is providing 

a document titled ‘‘APPENDIX— 

EXAMPLES OF RESIDENTIAL 

CLOTHES DRYER DATA’’ (available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0058) to provide examples of the type of 

data needed for the rulemaking 

analyses. 

A. Products Covered by This 

Rulemaking 

DOE defines an electric clothes dryer 

to mean ‘‘a cabinet-like appliance 

designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type 

drum with forced air circulation. The 

heat source is electricity and the drum 

and blower(s) are driven by an electric 

motor(s).’’ (10 CFR 430.2) Similarly, 

DOE defines a gas clothes dryer to mean 

‘‘a cabinet-like appliance designed to 

dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum with 

forced air circulation. The heat source is 

gas and the drum and blower(s) are 

driven by an electric motor(s).’’ (10 CFR 

430.2) As part of this rulemaking, DOE 

intends to address energy conservation 

standards for both electric and gas 

clothes dryers. 

B. Test Procedure 

DOE’s test procedures for clothes 

dryers are codified in appendix D1 and 

appendix D2 to subpart B of Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

On January 6, 2011, DOE issued an 

amended test procedure for residential 

clothes dryers, in which it (1) adopted 

the provisions for the measurement of 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

along with a new energy efficiency 

metric, Combined Energy Factor (CEF), 

that incorporates energy use in active 

mode, standby mode, and off mode; and 

(2) adopted several amendments to the 

clothes dryer test procedure concerning 

active mode. 76 FR 972. DOE created a 

new appendix D1 in 10 CFR part 430 

subpart B that contained the amended 

test procedure for clothes dryers. 

DOE issued a final rule on August 14, 

2013 (August 2013 TP Final Rule), to 

amend the clothes dryer test procedure, 

in which it: (1) Updated appendix D1 to 

reference the latest edition of the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) Standard 62301, 

‘‘Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power,’’ 

Edition 2.0 2011–01; (2) amended 

appendix D1 to clarify the cycle settings 

used for the test cycle, the requirements 

for the gas supply for gas clothes dryers, 

the installation conditions for console 

lights, the method for measuring the 

drum capacity, the maximum allowable 

weighing scale range, and the allowable 

use of a relative humidity meter; and (3) 

created a new appendix D2 that 

includes, in addition to the amendments 

discussed above, testing methods for 

measuring the effects of automatic cycle 

termination. 78 FR 49608. 

Manufacturers must use either the test 

procedures in appendix D1 or D2 to 

demonstrate compliance with energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers as of January 1, 2015. 

Manufacturers must use a single 

appendix for all representations, 

including certifications of compliance, 

and may not use appendix D1 for 

certain representations and appendix D2 

for other representations. 

DOE may consider energy 

conservation standards using the new 

appendix D2 test method to more 

accurately account for the effects of 

automatic cycle termination. 

Interested parties have commented 

publicly, as part of the previous test 

procedure rulemaking process and more 

recently through other public channels, 

that the DOE clothes dryer test 

procedures may not produce results that 

are representative of consumer use with 

regards to test load size and 

composition, cycle settings for the test 

cycle, and other provisions in the test 

procedure. DOE also notes that Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

(PNNL) recently published reports 

evaluating clothes dryer performance 

using the new appendix D2 test method 

and investigating new automatic cycle 

termination concepts for improving 

clothes dryer efficiency.3 In 

consideration of these concerns 

regarding the test procedure and the 

recent clothes dryer automatic cycle 

termination research, DOE initiated an 

effort to determine whether 

amendments to the test procedure are 

warranted. DOE held a public meeting 

on November 13, 2014, to solicit 

comments from interested parties on 

potential changes to the clothes dryer 

test procedure.4

C. Market Assessment 

The market and technology 

assessment provides information about 

the residential clothes dryer industry 

that will be used throughout the 

rulemaking process. For example, this 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16312 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

5A ventless combination washer/dryer is a device 

that washes and then dries clothes in the same 

basket/cavity in a combined cycle. 

information will be used to determine 

whether the existing product class 

structure requires modification based on 

technological improvements in the 

design and manufacturing of such 

products. DOE uses qualitative and 

quantitative information to analyze the 

residential clothes dryer industry and 

market. DOE will identify and 

characterize the manufacturers of 

clothes dryers, estimate market shares 

and trends, address regulatory and nonregulatory initiatives intended to 

improve energy efficiency or reduce 

energy consumption, and explore the 

potential for technological 

improvements in the design and 

manufacturing of clothes dryers. DOE 

will also review product literature, 

industry publications, and company 

Web sites. Additionally, DOE will 

consider conducting interviews with 

manufacturers to assess the overall 

market for residential clothes dryers. 

Product Classes 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

may divide covered products into 

product classes by the type of energy 

used or by capacity or other 

performance-related features that would 

justify a different standard. In making a 

determination whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different 

standard, DOE must consider factors 

such as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)) 

During the previous energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

residential clothes dryers, DOE 

established four product classes for 

vented clothes dryers and two product 

classes for ventless clothes dryers. DOE 

established separate product classes for 

ventless clothes dryers because of the 

unique utility they offer consumers, i.e., 

the ability to have a clothes dryer in a 

living area where vents are impossible 

to install, such as an apartment in a 

high-rise building, where venting dryers 

would be precluded due to venting 

restrictions. As part of the previous 

rulemaking, DOE established product 

classes for ventless electric compact 

(240V) clothes dryers and ventless 

electric combination washer/dryers.5

The product classes established in the 

previous energy conservation standards 

rulemaking are presented in Table II.1. 

TABLE II.1—EXISTING CLOTHES DRYER

PRODUCT CLASSES

Vented dryers 

1. Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (ft3) or 

greater capacity). 

2. Electric, Compact (120 volts (V)) (less 

than 4.4 ft3 capacity). 

3. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 

ft3 capacity). 

4. Gas. 

Ventless dryers 

5. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 

ft3 capacity). 

6. Electric, Combination Washer/Dryer. 

Based on DOE’s review of products 

available on market, DOE notes that at 

least one manufacturer offers a ventless 

clothes dryers with a drum capacity 

greater than 4.4 cubic feet. As a result, 

DOE tentatively proposes to establish an 

additional product class for ventless 

electric standard clothes dryers listed in 

Table II.2. 

TABLE II.2—PROPOSED CLOTHES

DRYER PRODUCT CLASSES

Vented dryers 

7. Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (ft3) or 

greater capacity). 

8. Electric, Compact (120 volts (V)) (less 

than 4.4 ft3 capacity). 

9. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 

ft3 capacity). 

10. Gas. 

Ventless dryers 

11. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater 

capacity). 

12. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 

4.4 ft3 capacity). 

13. Electric, Combination Washer/Dryer. 

Issue C.1 DOE requests feedback on 

the proposed product classes and seeks 

information regarding other product 

classes it should consider for inclusion 

in its analysis. In particular, DOE 

requests comment on the determination 

to consider a separate product class for 

ventless electric clothes dryers with 

drum capacities of 4.4 cubic feet or 

greater. If commenters believe that 

additional product classes are 

warranted, DOE requests comment as to 

how those classes should be configured, 

as well as energy use data and utility or 

performance-related information 

justifying the need for a separate class. 

Technology Assessment and Screening 

Analysis 

The purpose of the technology 

assessment is to develop a preliminary 

list of technologies that could 

potentially be used to improve the 

efficiency of residential clothes dryers. 

The purpose of the screening analysis is 

to screen out technologies that are not 

appropriate for consideration in the 

engineering analysis due to the 

following four factors: (1) Technological 

feasibility, (2) practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service, (3) 

impacts on product utility to 

consumers, and (4) health and safety. 

(10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix 

A, section (4)(a)(4)) The technologies 

that pass the screening are considered in 

the engineering analysis. 

DOE uses information about existing 

and past technology options and 

prototype designs to help identify 

technologies that manufacturers could 

use to meet and/or exceed energy 

conservation standards. In consultation 

with interested parties, DOE intends to 

develop a list of technologies to 

consider in its analysis. Initially, this 

list will include the technology options 

considered during the most recent 

residential clothes dryer standards 

rulemaking, including those that were 

screened out in the previous 

rulemaking. 

DOE plans to initially consider all of 

the technologies for residential clothes 

dryers identified in the previous 

standards rulemaking. These technology 

options are listed in Table II.3. 

TABLE II.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES DRYERS

Dryer Control or Drum Upgrades 

1. Improved termination. 

2. Increased insulation. 

3. Modified operating conditions. 

4. Improved air circulation. 

5. Improved drum design. 

Methods of Exhaust Heat Recovery (Vented Models Only) 

6. Recycle exhaust heat. 

7. Inlet air preheat. 

8. Inlet air preheat, condensing mode. 

Heat Generation Options 

9. Heat pump, electric only. 

10. Microwave, electric only. 

11. Modulating heat. 

12. Indirect heating. 

Component Improvements 

13. Improved motor efficiency. 

14. Improved fan efficiency. 

Standby Power Improvements 

15. Switching Power Supply. 

16. Transformerless Power Supply with 

Auto-Powerdown. 

Based on a preliminary review of the 

clothes dryer market and information 

published in recent trade publications, 

technical reports, and manufacturer 

literature, DOE has observed that the 

results of the technology screening 

analysis performed during the previous 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16313 

6ORNL/TM–2014/431 Report at 12; PNNL–23621 

Report at 2.1–2.3. 

rulemaking remain largely relevant for 

this rulemaking. 

Issue C.2 DOE seeks information on 

how the above technologies, and any 

other technologies that may improve 

clothes dryer efficiency: (1) Apply to the 

current market; and (2) improve 

efficiency of clothes dryers as measured 

according to the DOE test procedure 

under appendix D2. 

D. Engineering Analysis 

The engineering analysis estimates 

the cost-efficiency relationship of 

products at different levels of increased 

energy efficiency. This relationship 

serves as the basis for the cost-benefit 

calculations for consumers, 

manufacturers, and the nation. In 

determining the cost-efficiency 

relationship, DOE estimates the increase 

in manufacturer cost associated with 

increasing the efficiency of products 

above the baseline to the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

efficiency level for each product class. 

The baseline model is used as a 

reference point for each product class in 

the engineering analysis and the lifecycle cost and payback-period analyses. 

Baseline Models 

For each established product class, 

DOE selects a baseline model as a 

reference point against which any 

changes resulting from energy 

conservation standards can be 

measured. The baseline model in each 

product class represents the 

characteristics of common or typical 

products in that class. Typically, a 

baseline model is one that just meets the 

current minimum energy conservation 

standards by a small margin. 

In developing the baseline efficiency 

levels, DOE initially considered the 

current standards for residential clothes 

dryers manufactured on or after January 

1, 2015 presented in Table II.4. 

TABLE II.4—JANUARY 1, 2015 

CLOTHES DRYER ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD LEVELS

Product class CEF 

(lb/kWh) 

Vented dryers 

1. Electric, Standard (4.4 

ft3 or greater capacity) .. 3.73 

2. Electric, Compact (120 

v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ............................ 3.61 

3. Electric, Compact (240 

v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ............................ 3.27 

4. Gas ............................... 3.30 

Ventless dryers 

5. Electric, Compact (240 

v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ............................ 2.55 

6. Electric, Combination 

Washer/Dryer ................ 2.08 

Since the last standards rulemaking, 

DOE amended the clothes dryer test 

procedures as part of the August 2013 

TP Final Rule to create a new appendix 

D2 that includes testing methods for 

more accurately measuring the effects of 

automatic cycle termination. Because 

DOE is proposing to consider energy 

conservation standards based on the 

appendix D2 test method, DOE would 

have to establish baseline efficiency 

levels considering this new test 

procedure. 

As part of the August 2013 TP Final 

Rule, DOE presented test data for each 

product class comparing the efficiencies 

measured under the appendix D1 and 

D2 test procedures. 78 FR 49614–15. In 

addition, ORNL and PNNL conducted 

testing on separate models according to 

the appendix D1 and the new appendix 

D2 test procedures.6 Table II.5 presents 

the average measured CEF values using 

appendix D1 and D2 for each product 

class using the test data from DOE, 

ORNL, and PNNL. 

TABLE II.5—CLOTHES DRYER TEST DATA USING APPENDIX D1 AND D2 

Product class Number of test 

units 

Appendix D1 Appendix D2 

Average CEF 

(lb/kWh) 

Average CEF 

(lb/kWh) % Change 

Vented Electric Standard ................................................................. 12 3.83 3.19 ¥16.7 

Vented Electric Compact (240V) ..................................................... 4 3.65 3.06 ¥16.2 

Vented Electric Compact (120V) ..................................................... 1 3.75 2.18 ¥41.9 

Vented Gas ...................................................................................... 8 3.43 2.87 ¥16.2 

Ventless Electric Compact (240V) ................................................... 1 2.98 2.73 ¥8.4 

Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer .................................. 2 2.55 2.45 ¥3.9 

Using these data, DOE developed 

tentative baseline efficiency levels by 

applying the percentage difference in 

efficiency between appendix D1 and D2, 

as presented in Table II.5, to the energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers required on January 1, 2015, 

presented in Table II.4. The proposed 

baseline efficiency levels are presented 

in Table II.6. DOE did not have 

sufficient data to characterize the 

baseline efficiency level for the newly 

proposed product class, ventless electric 

standard clothes dryers. 

TABLE II.6—PROPOSED BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Product class 

Current 

Standard CEF 

(Appendix D1) 

(lb/kWh) 

Proposed Baseline CEF 

(Appendix D2) 

(lb/kWh) 

Vented dryers: 

1. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ...................................................................................... 3.73 .................. 3.11. 

2. Electric, Compact (120 v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ........................................................................... 3.61 .................. 3.03. 

3. Electric, Compact (240 v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ........................................................................... 3.27 .................. 1.90. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16314 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

7ENERGY STAR Program Requirements Product 

Specification for Clothes Dryers: Eligibility Criteria 

Version 1.0, (May 19, 2014) (Available at: http://

www.energystar.gov//products/certified-products/

detail/17517/partners). 

8ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology 

Award Criteria for Advanced Clothes Dryers, (May 

13, 2014) (Available at: http://www.energystar.gov/ 

about/awards/energy-star-emerging-technologyaward/2014-emerging-technology-award-advancedclothes-dryers). 

TABLE II.6—PROPOSED BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS—Continued 

Product class 

Current 

Standard CEF 

(Appendix D1) 

(lb/kWh) 

Proposed 

Baseline CEF 

(Appendix D2) 

(lb/kWh) 

4. Gas ......................................................................................................................................................... 3.30 .................. 2.77. 

Ventless dryers: 

5. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ...................................................................................... Not Applicable .. Not Available. 

6. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ........................................................................... 2.55 .................. 2.33. 

7. Electric, Combination Washer/Dryer ...................................................................................................... 2.08 .................. 2.00. 

Issue D.1 DOE requests comment on 

approaches that it should consider 

when determining the baseline 

efficiency levels for each product class, 

including information regarding the 

merits and/or limitations of such 

approaches. DOE also requests 

additional test data to characterize the 

baseline efficiency levels for each 

product class. In particular, DOE 

requests appendix D2 test data broken 

down by standby/off mode and active 

mode energy use for each product class, 

including the newly proposed product 

class for ventless electric standard 

dryers. DOE requests additional test 

data for residential clothes dryers 

showing the difference in measured 

efficiency using the appendix D1 test 

procedure and the appendix D2 test 

procedure. 

Higher Efficiency Levels 

DOE will analyze each product class 

to determine the relevant trial standard 

levels (TSLs) and to develop 

incremental manufacturing cost data at 

each higher efficiency level. DOE 

generally selects incremental efficiency 

levels based on a review of industry 

standards and the efficiency of products 

available on the market. 

For the vented clothes dryer product 

classes, DOE tentatively plans to 

consider an efficiency level associated 

with the current standard level nominal 

values without the adjustment used to 

develop the baseline efficiency levels 

discussed above. Because there is a large 

gap between these two efficiency levels, 

DOE is tentatively planning to consider 

evenly spaced gap fill efficiency levels. 

DOE also plans to consider efficiency 

levels corresponding to the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Version 1.0 ENERGY STAR 

performance specification 

requirements 7 and the ENERGY STAR 

2014 Emerging Technology Award 

criteria for advanced clothes dryers.8

Table II.7 shows the proposed efficiency 

levels for the vented clothes dryer 

product classes. 

TABLE II.7—EFFICIENCY LEVELS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR VENTED CLOTHES DRYERS

Level Efficiency level description 

Integrated efficiency level (CEF) 

(lb/kWh) 

Electric standard Electric compact 

(120V) 

Electric compact 

(240V) Gas 

Baseline ............ DOE Standard w/Adjusted Appendix D2 

Energy Use.

3 .11 2 .10 2 .74 2 .77 

1 ........................ Gap Fill ..................................................... 3 .31 2 .60 2 .92 2 .94 

2 ........................ Gap Fill ..................................................... 3 .52 3 .11 3 .09 3 .12 

3 ........................ DOE Standard .......................................... 3 .73 3 .61 3 .27 3 .30 

4 ........................ ENERGY STAR Performance Specification.3 .93 3 .80 3 .45 3 .48 

5 ........................ ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award.4 .3 4 .3 4 .3 4 .0 

For the ventless electric compact 

(240V) clothes dryer and ventless 

electric combination washer/dryer 

product classes, DOE is again proposing 

an incremental efficiency level 

associated with the current standard 

level nominal values. For ventless 

electric compact (240V) clothes dryers, 

DOE is proposing an additional gap fill 

level between the baseline and the 

current standard level nominal value. 

DOE also plans to consider efficiency 

levels corresponding to the Version 1.0 

ENERGY STAR performance 

specification requirements and the 

ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging 

Technology Award criteria. For ventless 

electric combination washer/dryers, 

because limited data are available 

regarding the efficiency of products 

measured according to the new 

appendix D2 test procedure, DOE is 

tentatively proposing to consider 

efficiency levels corresponding to the 

relative increase in efficiency levels 

considered for the 2011 Direct Final 

Rule analysis. For ventless electric 

standard clothes dryers, DOE notes that 

one recently introduced ventless electric 

standard clothes dryer qualifies for the 

ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging 

Technology Award. DOE plans to 

consider an efficiency level associated 

with this unit. However, DOE is 

unaware of any data to determine other 

incremental efficiency levels for 

ventless electric standard clothes dryers. 

The proposed efficiency levels for the 

ventless clothes dryer product classes 

are presented in Table II.8 and Table 

II.9. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16315 

TABLE II.8—EFFICIENCY LEVELS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR VENTLESS ELECTRIC STANDARD AND COMPACT (240V) 

CLOTHES DRYERS

Level Efficiency level description 

Integrated efficiency level (CEF) 

(lb/kWh) 

Electric 

standard 

Electric 

compact 

(240V) 

Baseline ............ DOE Standard w/Adjusted Appendix D2 Energy Use ................................................... N/A 2 .33 

1 ........................ Gap Fill ........................................................................................................................... N/A 2 .44 

2 ........................ DOE Standard ................................................................................................................ N/A 2 .55 

3 ........................ ENERGY STAR Performance Specification .................................................................. N/A 2 .68 

4 ........................ ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award ..................................................... 4.5 4 .3 

TABLE II.9—EFFICIENCY LEVELS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMBINATION WASHER/DRYERS

Level Efficiency level description 

Integrated 

efficiency level 

(CEF) 

(lb/kWh) 

Electric 

combination 

washer/dryer 

Baseline ............ DOE Standard w/Adjusted Appendix D2 Energy Use ..................................................................................... 2.00 

1 ........................ DOE Standard .................................................................................................................................................. 2.08 

2 ........................ 2011 Direct Final Rule Analysis Gap Fill ......................................................................................................... 2.26 

3 ........................ EL 2 + 1.5 Watt Standby ................................................................................................................................. 2.29 

4 ........................ EL 3 + 0.08 Watt Standby ............................................................................................................................... 2.36 

5 ........................ Gap Fill ............................................................................................................................................................. 2.46 

6 ........................ Max-Tech (Heat Pump) .................................................................................................................................... 3.55 

Issue D.3 DOE seeks input 

concerning the efficiency levels it 

tentatively plans to use for each product 

class for collecting incremental cost data 

from manufacturers of residential 

clothes dryers. In particular, DOE seeks 

additional data on the efficiency of 

products measured according to the new 

appendix D2 test procedure to 

characterize the range of efficiencies 

available on the market for each product 

class. DOE also seeks input on 

appropriate maximum technologically 

feasible efficiency levels whether any 

additional intermediate efficiency levels 

should be considered and the basis for 

why those levels should be selected. 

Approach for Determining the CostEfficiency Relationship 

In order to create the cost-efficiency 

relationship, DOE intends to use an 

efficiency-level approach, 

supplemented with reverse engineering 

(physical teardowns and testing of 

existing products in the market), to 

identify the incremental cost and 

efficiency improvement associated with 

each efficiency level. 

DOE will analyze technologies and 

associated costs representative of 

baseline units as part of the reverseengineering process. DOE intends to 

perform reverse engineering for each 

product class being analyzed. Whenever 

possible, DOE will attempt to reverse 

engineer test units that share similar 

platforms to better identify the 

efficiency benefits and costs of design 

options. As units are torn down, all 

design options used in them are noted 

and reviewed. Prior to tear down, DOE 

also plans to conduct limited testing to 

establish what control strategies are 

being used by manufacturers in 

conjunction with design options and 

platform design. Unit testing may 

include the measurement of 

disaggregated energy consumption to 

identify the relationship between 

particular components and control 

strategies taken by manufacturers to 

achieve higher efficiency levels. As part 

of the reverse-engineering process, DOE 

will attempt to generate a cost-efficiency 

relationship for each efficiency level 

identified. DOE also requests 

incremental cost data for each efficiency 

level. DOE intends the data to represent 

the average industry-wide incremental 

production cost for each technology. 

To be useful in the manufacturer 

impact analysis, manufacturer cost 

information should reflect the 

variability in baseline models, design 

strategies, and cost structures that can 

exist among manufacturers. This 

information allows DOE to better 

understand the industry and its 

associated cost structure, and helps DOE 

predict the most likely impact of new 

energy efficiency regulations. For 

example, the reverse-engineering 

methodology allows DOE to estimate the 

‘‘green-field’’ costs of building new 

facilities, yet the majority of plants in 

any given industry are comprised of a 

mix of assets in different stages of 

depreciation. Interviews with 

manufacturers not only help DOE refine 

its capital expenditure estimates, but 

they also allow DOE to refine its 

estimates regarding depreciation and 

other financial parameters. 

DOE will refine the cost-efficiency 

data it generates through the reverseengineering activities with information 

obtained through follow-up 

manufacturer interviews and, as 

necessary, information contained in the 

market and technology assessment and 

further review of publicly available cost 

and performance information. 

Issue D.5 DOE requests feedback on 

using an efficiency-level approach 

supplemented with reverse engineering 

to determine the relationship between 

manufacturer cost and energy efficiency 

for residential clothes dryers. 

Issue D.6 DOE also requests 

incremental cost data for each clothes 

dryer efficiency level as well as 

information about the design options 

associated with each efficiency level. 

DOE intends the data to represent the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16316 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

9 I. Ru ̈denauer and C.O. Gensch, Energy demand 

of tumble dryers with respect to differences in 

technology and ambient conditions. Report 

commissioned by European Committee of Domestic 

Equipment Manufacturers (CECED) (January 13, 

2004) (Available at: www.oeko.de/oekodoc/202/

2004-009-en.pdf). 

10U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information 

Administration, Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey: 2009 RECS Survey Data (2013) (Available 

at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/

data/2009/). 

average industry-wide incremental 

production cost for each technology. 

EPCA also requires DOE to consider 

any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of a covered product likely 

to result from the imposition of a new 

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

As part of its analysis of higher 

efficiency levels, DOE will consider 

whether new standards may impact the 

utility of residential clothes dryers. 

Issue D.7 DOE seeks comment on 

whether any new standards may impact 

the utility of clothes dryers. If such 

impacts exist, can the effects be 

quantified? If so, how? 

E. Markups Analysis 

To carry out the life-cycle cost (LCC) 

and payback period (PBP) calculations, 

DOE needs to determine the cost to the 

residential consumer of baseline 

products that satisfies the currently 

applicable standards, and the cost of the 

more-efficient unit the consumer would 

purchase under potential amended 

standards. By applying a multiplier 

called a ‘‘markup’’ to the manufacturer’s 

selling price, DOE is able to estimate the 

residential consumer’s price. 

For the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

used distribution channels, based on 

data from the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), to 

characterize how products pass to the 

consumer. For clothes dryers, the main 

actors are manufacturers and retailers. 

Thus, DOE analyzed a manufacturer-toconsumer distribution channel 

consisting of three parties: (1) The 

manufacturers producing the products; 

(2) the retailers purchasing the products 

from manufacturers and selling them to 

consumers; and (3) the consumers who 

purchase the products. DOE plans to use 

the same approach in the current 

rulemaking. 

As was done in the last rulemaking 

and consistent with the approach 

followed for other energy consuming 

products, DOE will determine an 

average manufacturer markup by 

considering the annual Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC) 10–K 

reports filed by publicly traded 

manufacturers of appliances whose 

product range includes clothes dryers. 

DOE then revises the initial 

manufacturer markup estimate based on 

feedback received during manufacturer 

interviews. DOE will determine an 

average retailer markup by analyzing 

both economic census data from the 

U.S. Census Bureau and the annual SEC 

10–K reports filed by publicly traded 

retailers. 

In addition to manufacturer and 

retailer markups, DOE will include sales 

tax in its retail price calculations. DOE 

will use an Internet source, the Sales 

Tax Clearinghouse, to calculate 

applicable sales taxes. 

Issue E.1 DOE seeks input from 

stakeholders on whether the 

distribution channels described above 

are still relevant for residential clothes 

dryers. DOE also welcomes comments 

concerning its proposed approach to 

developing estimates of markups for 

clothes dryers. 

F. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy analysis is 

to assess the energy-savings potential of 

different product efficiencies. DOE uses 

the annual energy consumption and 

energy-savings potential in the LCC and 

PBP analyses to establish the savings in 

consumer operating costs at various 

product efficiency levels. In contrast to 

the DOE test procedure, which provides 

a measure of the energy use, energy 

efficiency or annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle, the energy use 

analysis captures a range of operating 

conditions for clothes dryers in U.S. 

homes. 

For the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

developed distributions of values for 

several operating conditions, including 

number of cycles, remaining moisture 

content (RMC), and load weights that 

reflect its best estimate of the range of 

practices found in U.S. homes. 76 FR 

22508. DOE also evaluated the indirect 

impact of a clothes dryer standard on 

heating and cooling loads in a 

household. To calculate this impact, 

DOE first characterized the location of 

the clothes dryers in a conditioned 

space based on the Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA’s) 2005 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(RECS), and the 2009 American Housing 

Survey (AHS). For these installations, 

DOE utilized the results from a 

European Union study about the 

impacts of clothes dryers on home 

heating and cooling loads to determine 

the appropriate factor to apply to the 

total clothes dryer energy use.9

To determine the field energy use of 

products that would be required to meet 

amended standard levels, DOE proposes 

to use data from the EIA’s 2009 RECS, 

or the most recent such survey available 

from EIA.10 RECS is a national sample 

survey of housing units that collects 

statistical information on the 

consumption of and expenditures for 

energy in housing units along with data 

on energy-related characteristics of the 

housing units and occupants. RECS 

provides sufficient information to 

establish the type (product class) of 

clothes dryer used in each household. 

As a result, DOE will be able to develop 

household samples for each of the 

considered product classes. 

DOE requests comment or seeks input 

from stakeholders on the following 

issues pertaining to the energy use 

analysis: 

Issue F.1 Approaches for specifying 

the typical annual energy consumption 

of residential clothes dryers; 

Issue F.2 Data sources that DOE can 

use to characterize the variability in 

annual energy consumption of clothes 

dryers. 

Issue F.3 Data sources to 

characterize the indirect impact of dryer 

energy use on heating and cooling loads 

of a household. 

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

The purpose of the LCC and PBP 

analysis is to analyze the effects of 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards on consumers of residential 

clothes dryers by determining how a 

potential amended standard affects the 

consumers’ operating expenses (usually 

decreased) and total installed costs 

(usually increased). 

DOE intends to analyze data input 

variability and uncertainty by 

performing the LCC and PBP 

calculations on a representative sample 

of households from RECS for the 

considered product classes using Monte 

Carlo simulations and probability 

distributions. The analysis results are a 

distribution of results showing the range 

of LCC savings and PBPs for a given 

efficiency level relative to the baseline 

level. 

Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis 

are categorized as: (1) Inputs for 

establishing the purchase expense, 

otherwise known as the total installed 

cost, and (2) inputs for calculating the 

operating expense. The primary inputs 

for establishing the total installed cost 

are the baseline consumer price, 

standard-level consumer price 

increases, and installation costs. 

Baseline consumer prices and standardlevel consumer price increases will be 

determined by applying markups to 

manufacturer price estimates. The 

installation cost is added to the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16317 

11Available at: http://

rsmeans.reedconstructiondata.com/60300.aspx. 

12 DOE-Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products, Technical Support Document: Energy 

Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment, Residential 

Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners, chapter 

9 (2011) (Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010- 

0053). 13 Id. chapter 10. 

consumer price to arrive at a total 

installed cost. 

In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

derived the installation costs from RS 

Means 2008. 76 FR 22513. DOE plans to 

use similar data sources for this 

rulemaking, with adjustments to reflect 

current-day labor and material prices as 

well as to scale installation cost for 

higher-efficiency products based on 

equipment weight and/or dimensions. 

Issue G.1 DOE seeks input on 

whether clothes dryer installation costs 

scale with equipment weight and/or 

dimensions. 

The primary inputs for calculating the 

operating costs are product energy 

consumption, product efficiency, 

electricity prices and forecasts, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and discount rates. 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing components that 

have failed in the appliance, whereas 

maintenance costs are associated with 

maintaining the operation of the 

equipment. In the 2011 Direct Final 

Rule, DOE derived annualized 

maintenance and repair frequencies 

based on Consumer Reports data on 

repair and maintenance issues for 

clothes dryers during the first 4 years of 

ownership. DOE estimated that on 

average 1.5 percent of electric and 1.75 

percent of gas clothes dryers are 

maintained or repaired each year. Based 

on RS Means Facilities Maintenance & 

Repair 2010 Cost Data,11 DOE also 

estimated that an average service call 

and any necessary repair or 

maintenance takes about 2.5 hours. DOE 

further estimated that the average 

material cost is equal to one-half of the 

equipment cost. The values for cost per 

service call were then annualized by 

multiplying by the frequencies and 

dividing by the average equipment 

lifetime of 16 years. 76 FR 22514. DOE 

plans to use similar data sources for this 

rulemaking. 

In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

also assumed that repair costs vary in 

direct proportion with the product price 

at higher efficiency levels as 

replacement costs for more-efficient 

components are likely to be greater than 

replacement costs for components in 

baseline products. 

Issue G.2 DOE seeks stakeholder 

input on the approach for estimating 

repair and maintenance costs for more 

efficient clothes dryers. DOE also seeks 

stakeholder comment on the assumption 

that repair costs vary in direct 

proportion to product price as well as 

historical repair cost data as a function 

of efficiency. 

DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts 

of potential standard levels relative to a 

base case that reflects the market in the 

absence of amended standards. DOE 

plans to develop market-share efficiency 

data (i.e., the distribution of product 

shipments by efficiency) for the product 

classes DOE is considering, for the year 

in which compliance with any amended 

or new standards would be required. By 

accounting for consumers who already 

purchase more efficient products, DOE 

avoids overstating the potential benefits 

from new or amended standards. 

Issue G.4 DOE seeks stakeholder 

input and data on the fraction of clothes 

dryers sold that exceed the minimum 

energy efficiency standards. DOE also 

requests information on expected trends 

in product efficiency over the next five 

years. 

H. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses shipment projections by 

product class and efficiency level in its 

analysis of the national impacts of 

potential standards, as well as in the 

manufacturer impact analysis. 

In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

developed a shipments model for 

clothes dryers driven by historical 

shipments data. 76 FR 22516. The key 

drivers of the shipments model 

included the new owner and 

replacement markets. 

Issue H.1 DOE seeks stakeholder 

input and data showing the distribution 

of shipments by product class. 

In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

modeled the decision to repair or 

replace equipment for existing owners 

and the impact that decision would 

have on the shipments model. DOE 

estimated how increases in product 

purchase price and decreases in product 

operating costs due to standards affect 

product shipments.12

Issue H.2 DOE seeks input and data 

on factors that influence a consumer’s 

decisions to repair or replace failed 

products. 

I. National Impact Analysis 

The purpose of the national impact 

analysis (NIA) is to estimate aggregate 

impacts of potential efficiency standards 

at the national level. Impacts reported 

by DOE include the national energy 

savings (NES) from potential standards 

and the national net present value 

(NPV) of the total consumer benefits. 

The NIA considers lifetime impacts of 

potential standards on clothes dryers 

shipped in a 30-year period that begins 

with the expected compliance date for 

new or amended standards. 

To develop the NES, DOE calculates 

annual energy consumption of clothes 

dryers in households for the base case 

and each standards case. To develop the 

national NPV of consumer benefits from 

potential standards, DOE calculates 

national annual energy expenditures 

and annual product expenditures for the 

base case and the standards cases. DOE 

calculates total annual energy 

expenditures using data on annual 

energy consumption in each case, 

forecasted average annual energy prices, 

and shipment projections. The 

difference each year between operating 

cost savings and increased product 

expenditures is the net savings or net 

costs. 

A key component of DOE’s estimates 

of NES and NPV is the product energy 

efficiency forecasted over time for the 

base case and for each of the standards 

cases. In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, 

DOE based projections of base-case 

shipment-weighted efficiency (SWEF) 

for the clothes dryer product classes on 

growth rates determined from historical 

data provided by AHAM.13 For this 

rulemaking, DOE plans on considering 

recent trends in efficiency and input 

from stakeholders to update product 

energy efficiency forecasts. 

Issue I.1 DOE seeks historical SWEF 

data for residential clothes dryers by 

product class and stakeholder input 

regarding future trends in efficiency. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

The purpose of the manufacturer 

impact analysis (MIA) is to estimate the 

financial impact of potential energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of residential clothes 

dryers and to evaluate the potential 

impact of such standards on 

competition, employment and 

manufacturing capacity. The MIA 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative aspects. The quantitative 

part of the MIA primarily relies on the 

Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(GRIM), an industry cash-flow model 

used to estimate a range of potential 

impacts on manufacturer profitability. 

The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses a proposed standard’s 

potential impacts on manufacturing 

capacity and industry competition, as 

well as factors such as product 

characteristics, impacts on particular 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16318 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

14Available at: http://www.sba.gov/content/

small-business-size-standards. 

subgroups of firms, and key issues from 

the manufacturers’ perspective. 

As part of the MIA, DOE intends to 

analyze impacts of potential energy 

conservation standards on small 

business manufacturers of covered 

products. DOE intends to use the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) small 

business size standards to determine 

whether manufacturers qualify as small 

businesses. The size standards are listed 

by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code and 

industry description.14 Manufacturing 

of residential clothes dryers is classified 

under NAICS 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. This 1,000-employee threshold 

would include all employees in a 

business’s parent company and any 

other subsidiaries. 

DOE intends to conduct a market 

survey using publicly available 

information to identify potential small 

manufacturers using the abovementioned size threshold. In identifying 

potential small businesses, DOE 

generally uses its Compliance 

Certification Management System 

(CCMS), industry trade association 

membership directories (including 

AHAM), individual company Web sites, 

and market research tools (e.g., Hoovers 

reports) to create a list of companies that 

manufacture or sell products covered by 

this rulemaking. 

Issue J.1 DOE requests comment on 

whether there are any small business 

manufacturers of residential clothes 

dryers that it should consider in its 

analysis. 

III. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by May 11, 2015, 

comments and information on matters 

addressed in this notice and on other 

matters relevant to DOE’s consideration 

of new or amended energy 

conservations standards for residential 

clothes dryers. After the close of the 

comment period, DOE will collect data, 

conduct analyses, and review public 

comments, as needed. These actions 

will aid in the development of a NOPR 

for residential clothes dryers if DOE 

decides to amend the standards for such 

products. 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing test procedures and 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

actively encourages the participation 

and interaction of the public during the 

comment period in each stage of the 

rulemaking process. Interactions with 

and between members of the public 

provide a balanced discussion of the 

issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking 

process. Anyone who wishes to be 

added to the DOE mailing list to receive 

future notices and information about 

this rulemaking should contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945, or 

via email at Brenda.Edwards@

ee.doe.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 23, 

2015. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07058 Filed 3–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–0496; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–101–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005–18– 

18, which applies to certain The Boeing 

Company Model 757 airplanes. AD 

2005–18–18 currently requires 

inspections of certain wire bundles in 

the left and right engine-to-wing aft 

fairings for discrepancies; installation of 

back-to-back p-clamps between the wire 

and hydraulic supply tube at the aft end 

of the right-hand strut only; and 

associated re-routing of the wire 

bundles, if necessary. Since we issued 

AD 2005–18–18, we have determined 

that the service information referenced 

in AD 2005–18–18 did not adequately 

address fuel shutoff valve (FSV) wires at 

the aft end of the struts. This proposed 

AD would add an installation of spiral 

cable wrap on FSV wires at the aft end 

of the strut, for both left and right 

engines, and related investigative and 

corrective actions. We are proposing 

this AD to prevent chafing between the 

wire bundle and the structure of the aft 

fairing, which could result in electrical 

arcing and subsequent ignition of 

flammable vapors and possible 

uncontrollable fire. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view 

this referenced service information at 

the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA 98057. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. It is also 

available on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

0496. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

0496; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6498; 

fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

christopher.r.baker@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS