Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for information.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is initiating an effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers (“RCWs”). This request for information (“RFI”) solicits information from the public to help DOE determine whether amended standards for RCWs would result in significant amount of additional energy savings and whether such standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified. As part of this RFI, DOE seeks comment on whether there have been sufficient technological or market changes since the most recent standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a “no new standard” determination because a more stringent standard: Would not result in a significant savings of energy; is not technologically feasible; is not economically justified; or any combination of foregoing. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of this document (including topics not raised in this RFI).
Written comments and information will be accepted on or before September 3, 2019.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
1.
2.
3.
4.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section III of this document.
The docket web page can be found at:
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:
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–7796. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by email:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA”),
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).
EPCA required that all rinse cycles of clothes washers manufactured after January 1, 1988 include an unheated water option, but stated that such clothes washers may have a heated water rinse option. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) EPCA directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)(A) and (B)) DOE completed the first rulemaking cycle for RCWs in 1991 by establishing performance-based energy conservation standards for top-loading compact and top-loading standard-size RCWs manufactured on or after May 14, 1994. 56 FR 22249 (May 14, 1991). DOE completed a second rulemaking cycle by publishing a final rule on January 12, 2001 (“January 2001 Final Rule”), which amended the standards for top-loading compact and standard-size RCWs and established performance-based standards for front-loading RCWs. 66 FR 3314. These amended standards were based on a joint proposal submitted to DOE by clothes washer manufacturers and energy conservation advocates.
EPCA further amended the energy conservation standards for top-loading and front-loading standard-size RCWs manufactured on or after January 1, 2011.
Most recently, DOE completed a third rulemaking cycle to amend the standards for RCWs by publishing a direct final rule on May 31, 2012 (“May 2012 Direct Final Rule”). 77 FR 32307. These amended standards were based on a joint proposal submitted to DOE by interested parties representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer groups.
The current energy conservation standards are located in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, section 32(g). The currently applicable DOE test procedures for RCWs appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J2 (“Appendix J2”).
EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the energy conservation standards for each type of covered product and publish either a notice of determination that the standards do not need to be amended or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product compared to any increase 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 standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from 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 standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant.
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.
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for RCWs.
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for RCWs may be warranted.
As an initial matter, DOE seeks comment on whether there have been sufficient technological or market changes since the most recent standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a “no new standard” determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its energy conservation standards rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and compliance and certification requirements applicable to RCWs, while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
This RFI covers those products that meet the definitions for RCWs, as codified at 10 CFR 430.2:
EPCA does not define the term “clothes washer”. DOE has defined a “clothes washer” as a consumer product designed to clean clothes, utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical agitation or other movement, that must be one of the following classes: automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes washers, and other clothes washers. 10 CFR 430.2
An “automatic clothes washer” is a class of clothes washer that has a control system that is capable of scheduling a preselected combination of operations, such as regulation of water temperature, regulation of the water fill level, and performance of wash, rinse, drain, and spin functions without the need for user intervention subsequent to the initiation of machine operation. Some models may require user intervention to initiate these different segments of the cycle after the machine has begun operation, but they do not require the user to intervene to regulate the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves.
A “semi-automatic clothes washer” is a class of clothes washer that is the same as an automatic clothes washer except that user intervention is required to regulate the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves.
“Other clothes washer” means a class of clothes washer that is not an automatic or semi-automatic clothes washer.
The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy conservation standard provides information about the RCW industry that will be used throughout the rulemaking process. DOE uses qualitative and quantitative information to characterize the structure of the industry and market. DOE identifies manufacturers, estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency improvements in the design and manufacturing of RCWs. DOE also reviews product literature, industry publications, and company websites. Additionally, DOE conducts interviews with manufacturers to improve its assessment of the market and available technologies for RCWs.
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 justify a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
For RCWs, the current energy conservation standards specified in 10 CFR 403.32(g) are based on four product classes, differentiated by capacity and method of loading clothes (
• Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet (cu.ft.) capacity);
• Top-loading, standard (1.6 cu.ft. or greater capacity);
• Front-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cu.ft. capacity); and
• Front-loading, standard (1.6 cu.ft. or greater capacity).
In a previous rulemaking to amend standards applicable to commercial clothes washers, DOE determined specifically that the “axis of loading” constituted a feature that justified separate product classes for top loading and front loading clothes washers, and that “the longer average cycle time of front-loading machines warrants consideration of separate [product] classes.” 79 FR 74492, 74498 (Sept. 15, 2014). DOE stated that a split in preference between top loaders and front loaders would not indicate consumer indifference to the axis of loading, but rather that a certain percentage of the market expresses a preference for (
DOE is also aware that new configurations and features are available for RCWs that may not have been available at the time of the last energy conservation standards analysis. For example, DOE is aware of auxiliary or supplementary clothes washers designed to accompany a standard-size RCW from the same manufacturer, which may be integrated as a single product; RCWs that contain a built-in basin that can be used to pre-treat and soak clothing before the start of a wash cycle; and RCWs that provide drying functionality as an optional feature that can be added to the end of a wash cycle.
DOE recently granted a petition for rulemaking to propose a new product class for dishwashers with a normal cycle of 60 minutes or fewer.
Additionally, as noted, EPCA identifies product capacity as a performance-related feature that may justify the establishment of a higher or lower standard than that which applies (or would apply) for such type or class for any group of covered products. 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). For clothes washers, products with a larger capacity are inherently able to achieve higher efficiency levels; conversely, products with smaller capacity are inherently unable to achieve as high efficiency levels, for two main reasons. First, a larger tub capacity can contribute to improved efficiency because a larger amount of clothing can be washed using an incremental increase in the quantity of water that is less than the incremental increase in capacity, therefore reducing the amount of water and energy per pound of clothing. Second, a larger drum diameter can exert a higher g-force on the clothing during the final-spin portion of the cycle, thus removing more water and reducing the drying energy component of the integrated modified energy factor (“IMEF”) metric (resulting in a better IMEF rating).
DOE notes that the front-loading clothes washer market is segmented based on product width (which inherently affects clothes washer capacity). A significant majority of front-loading RCWs currently on the market in the United States have a nominal cabinet width of 27 inches or greater. However, the front-loading market also includes narrower products with a nominal cabinet width of 24 inches. These products are designed to be installed in confined spaces such as small closets and under-counter installations. At the time of the rulemaking culminating in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, the efficiency levels of both 27-inch and 24-inch RCWs overlapped sufficiently such that both types of products were available at the efficiency levels considered for the rulemaking analysis and at the amended standard level. However, in the current market, almost no overlap in efficiency exists between 24-inch and 27-inch RCWs (specifically, the 24-inch products have lower efficiency ratings than the 27-inch products, which may be due to the limitation on drum diameter and volume, as described above).
Similarly, while a significant majority of top-loading RCWs currently on the market have a nominal cabinet width of 27 inches or greater, the standard-size product class also includes smaller products that typically have clothes container capacities less than 3 cu.ft. and are designed to be portable. Due to size and installation limitations, such products may be less able to incorporate certain efficiency-related technologies such as larger drum volume or higher spin speeds compared to 27-inch stationary products.
In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy conservation standards, DOE uses
The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from further consideration based on the following criteria:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Technology options identified in the technology assessment are evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from interested parties (
Table II–2 summarizes the screened-out technology options, and the applicable screening criteria, from the May 2012 Direct Final Rule.
The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship of products at different levels of increased energy efficiency (“efficiency levels”). 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 production cost (“MPC”) associated with increasing the efficiency of products above the baseline, up to the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) efficiency level for each product class.
DOE has historically used the following three methodologies to generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency levels (“ELs”) for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse-engineering) approach, which provides “bottom-up” manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of increased efficiency, based on detailed data as to costs for parts and material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that operate at particular efficiency levels.
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 meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and provides basic consumer utility. If DOE determines that a rulemaking is necessary, consistent with this analytical approach, for each product class, DOE tentatively plans to consider the current standard levels as the baseline efficiency levels.
The current standards for all four product classes are based on two metrics:
(1) IMEF, expressed as cu.ft. per kilowatt-hour per cycle (cu.ft/kWh/cycle), and calculated as the clothes container capacity in cu.ft. divided by the sum, expressed in 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; and
(2) Integrated Water Factor (“IWF”), expressed in gallons per cycle per cu.ft. (gal/cycle/cu.ft.), and calculated as the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles, expressed in gallons per cycle, divided by the clothes container capacity in cu.ft.
The current standards for RCWs are found in 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4).
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. Table II–3 in the next section shows the current maximum available IMEF efficiency levels for each existing RCW product class, based on information in DOE's Compliance Certification Database.
DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the maximum possible efficiency for a given product. In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that the maximum available efficiency levels for RCWs corresponded to the max-tech efficiency levels.
DOE may also define intermediate efficiency levels in between the baseline and max-tech efficiency levels. Typically, DOE identifies intermediate efficiency levels, where appropriate, based on a variety of sources including, but not limited to: (1) Clusters of models currently on the market at intermediate efficiency levels; (2) efficiency levels defined by programs such as ENERGY STAR or the Consortium for Energy Efficiency's (“CEE”) Super-Efficient Home Appliances Initiative; or (3) “gap-fill” levels to bridge large divides between existing clusters in the market.
Table II–3 indicates potential intermediate efficiency levels, along with baseline and maximum available levels, that DOE could consider for each existing RCW product class, based on a preliminary review of the current market according to models listed in DOE's Compliance Certification Database.
As an alternative to the current RCW standards based on IMEF and IWF, DOE could consider defining an IMEF and/or IWF standard as an equation based on capacity. Such an approach would be consistent with the approach used by DOE for consumer refrigerator-freezer standards, for example. If DOE were to adopt such an approach, the efficiency levels considered in the analysis would represent variations from a baseline equation that DOE would establish. For example, if such an approach used a linear equation to define the standard, the higher efficiency levels considered in the analysis could represent equations with the same slope as the baseline equation but with a different y-intercept, or
As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that describe the estimated increases in MPC associated with higher-efficiency products for the analyzed product classes. For the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed the cost-efficiency relationships for the top-loading standard and front-loading standard product classes using a combination of the reverse-engineering approach and the efficiency-level approach. DOE used the design-option approach to develop the cost-efficiency relationships for the top-loading compact and front-loading compact product classes, because less data was available for these product classes.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC.
To carry out the life-cycle cost (“LCC”) and payback period (“PBP”) calculations, DOE would need to determine the cost to the residential consumer of baseline products, and the cost of more-efficient units the consumer would purchase under potential amended standards. By applying a multiplier called a “markup” to the MSP, DOE is able to estimate the residential consumer's price. In generating end-user price inputs, DOE must identify distribution channels (
For a potential new analysis, DOE would determine an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 10–K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers of appliances whose product range includes RCWs. 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 developing manufacturer and retailer markups, DOE would develop and include sales taxes to calculate appliance retail prices. DOE would use an internet source, the Sales Tax Clearinghouse, to calculate applicable sales taxes.
As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy and water use analysis to identify how products are used by consumers, and thereby determine the energy and water savings potential of efficiency improvements. The energy and water use analysis seeks to capture the range of operating conditions for RCWs in U.S. homes. The energy and water use analysis is meant to represent typical energy and water consumption in the field.
To determine the field energy and water use of products that would meet possible standard levels, DOE would use data from the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”) 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (“RECS”), the most recent survey available from EIA.
For each sample household, DOE would estimate the field-based annual energy and water use of front- and top-loading standard-capacity RCWs by multiplying the annual number of RCW cycles for each household by the per-cycle energy and water use values established by the engineering analysis (using the DOE test procedure) for each considered efficiency level. Per-cycle energy use is calculated in the test procedure as the sum of per-cycle machine energy use (including the energy used to heat water and remove moisture from clothing), and standby mode and off-mode energy use.
For the purpose of its analysis, DOE would account for any rebound effect in its determination of annual energy and water consumption. The rebound effect occurs when a piece of equipment, made more efficient and used more intensively, does not yield the expected energy savings from the efficiency improvement. In the case of more efficient RCWs, research to date indicates no conclusive causality between increased efficiency and increased use.
The effects of more stringent energy conservation standards on a consumer of RCWs include changes in operating expenses (usually decreased) and changes in purchase prices (usually increased). DOE would 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 simulation 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.
DOE would analyze the net effect on consumers by calculating the LCC and PBP using engineering performance data (section II.D of this document), energy and water consumption data (section II.F of this document), and equipment
To derive the installation costs, DOE would use the 2017 RSMeans Residential Cost Data on labor requirements to estimate installation costs for RCWs.
In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE did not have any data to support increases in maintenance and repair costs associated with increases in efficiency levels within each of the product classes considered in the analysis. Therefore, DOE did not assume that more efficient RCWs in each product class would have greater repair or maintenance costs. 77 FR 32308, 32342.
DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts of potential standard levels relative to a no-standards case that reflects the market in the absence of amended standards. DOE would develop market-share efficiency data (
DOE develops shipments forecasts of RCWs to calculate the national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy consumption, net present value (“NPV”), and future manufacturer cash flows. Typically, DOE shipments projections utilize available historical data broken out by product class, capacity, and efficiency. In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed a shipments model for RCWs driven by historical shipments data, which were used to build up a product stock and calibrate the shipments model. 77 FR 32308, 32344. The key drivers of the shipments model included the new owner and replacement markets. Current sales estimates would allow for a more accurate model that captures recent trends in the market.
Table II–4 provides a summary table of the data requested in Issue II.H.1:
An initial analysis of market data indicates that consumers are purchasing more top-loading units in recent years, showing an upswing in the market share for this product class.
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 RCWs shipped in a 30-year period that begins with the expected compliance date for new or amended standards.
Analyzing impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards for RCWs requires a comparison of projected U.S. energy consumption with and without the amended standards. The forecasts contain projections of annual appliance shipments (section II.H of this document), the annual energy and water consumption of new RCWs (section II.F of this document), and the purchase price of new RCWs (section II.E of this document).
A key component of DOE's estimates of NES and NPV would be the RCW energy efficiency forecasted over time for the no-standards case and each of the potential standards cases. In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE based projections of no-standards-case shipment-weighted efficiency (“SWEF”) for the RCW product classes on growth rates determined from historical data provided by AHAM. 77 FR 32308, 32342. For a potential future rulemaking, DOE would expect to consider recent trends in efficiency and input from interested parties to update product energy efficiency forecasts.
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) is to estimate the financial impact of any amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of RCWs, and to evaluate the potential impact of such standards on direct 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 adapted for covered RCW product classes, with the key output of industry
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze the impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of RCWs, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small Business Administration's (“SBA”) small business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are listed by the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”).
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy conservation standards, including previous standards affecting the same product, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.
In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of amended energy conservation standards for RCWs.
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE welcomes comment on any other aspect of energy conservation standards for RCWs not already addressed by the specific areas identified in this document.
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by September 3, 2019, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservation standards for RCWs. After the close of the comment period, DOE will review the public comments received and may begin collecting data, conducting the analyses discussed in this RFI.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing 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 process or would like to request a public meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or via email at