[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59712-59718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23953]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[Docket Number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060]
RIN 1904-AC64
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Dishwashers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of effective date and compliance dates for direct final
rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a direct final
rule to establish amended energy conservation standards for dishwashers
in the Federal Register on May 30, 2012. DOE has determined that the
adverse comments received in response to the direct final rule were not
sufficiently ``adverse'' as to provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawing the direct final rule. Therefore, DOE provides this
document confirming adoption of the energy conservation standards
established in the direct final rule and announcing the effective date
of those standards.
DATES: The September 27, 2012, effective date for the direct final rule
published on May 30, 2012 (77 FR 31918) is confirmed. Compliance with
the standards in the direct final rule will be required on May 30,
2013.
ADDRESSES: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices, framework documents, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulations.gov index. Not all documents listed in the index may be
publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public
disclosure. The docket web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR;rpp=25;po=0;D=EERE-
2011-BT-STD-0060.
For further information on how to submit or review public comments
or view hard copies of the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202)
586-2945 or email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121; telephone:
[[Page 59713]]
(202) 586-7463; email: Stephen.Witkowski@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121; telephone: (202) 586-7796; email:
Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority and Rulemaking Background
As amended by Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA
2007; Pub. L. 110-140), the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)
authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule establishing an energy
conservation standard on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by
interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of
view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products,
States, and efficiency advocates) as determined by the Secretary of
Energy (Secretary), that contains recommendations with respect to an
energy conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions
of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). A notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that
proposes an identical energy conservation standard must be published
simultaneously with the final rule, and DOE must provide a public
comment period of at least 110 days on the direct final rule. 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4). Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final
rule, if one or more adverse comments or an alternative joint
recommendation are received relating to the direct final rule, the
Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative
recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42
U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law. If the Secretary makes such a
determination, DOE must withdraw the direct final rule and proceed with
the simultaneously published NOPR. DOE must publish in the Federal
Register the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn. Id.
During the rulemaking proceeding to consider amending energy
conservation standards for dishwashers, DOE received the ``Agreement on
Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances, Federal
Incentives and Related Matters for Specified Appliances'' (the ``Joint
Petition'' or ``Consensus Agreement''), a comment submitted by groups
representing manufacturers (the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM), Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), General
Electric Company (GE), Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), BSH Home
Appliances (BSH), Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS), Viking Range, Sub-
Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele,
Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell
Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch,
Kelon, and DeLonghi); energy and environmental advocates (American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards
Awareness Project (ASAP), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC),
Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE),
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), and Northeast Energy
Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)); and consumer groups (Consumer
Federation of America (CFA) and the National Consumer Law Center
(NCLC)) (collectively, the ``Joint Petitioners''). This collective set
of comments1 2 recommends specific energy conservation
standards for dishwashers that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy
the EPCA requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060, Comment 1.
\2\ The Joint Petitioners submitted a second petition amending
the recommended compliance dates for new dishwasher standards. DOE
Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060, Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After careful consideration of the Consensus Agreement, the
Secretary determined that it was submitted by interested persons who
are fairly representative of relevant points of view on this matter.
DOE noted in the direct final rule that Congress provided some guidance
within the statute itself by specifying that representatives of
manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates are
relevant parties to any consensus recommendation. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)) As delineated above, the Consensus Agreement was signed
and submitted by a broad cross-section of the manufacturers who produce
the subject products, their trade associations, and environmental,
energy efficiency and consumer advocacy organizations. Although States
were not signatories to the Consensus Agreement, they did not express
any opposition to it from the time of its submission to DOE through the
close of the comment period on the direct final rule. Moreover, DOE
stated in the direct final rule that it does not interpret the statute
as requiring absolute agreement among all interested parties before DOE
may proceed with issuance of a direct final rule. By explicit language
of the statute, the Secretary has discretion to determine when a joint
recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard has met the
requirement for representativeness (i.e., ``as determined by the
Secretary''). Accordingly, DOE determined that the Consensus Agreement
was made and submitted by interested persons fairly representative of
relevant points of view.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine
whether a jointly submitted recommendation for an energy or water
conservation standard is in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. As stated in the direct final
rule, this determination is exactly the type of analysis DOE conducts
whenever it considers potential energy conservation standards pursuant
to EPCA. DOE applies the same principles to any consensus
recommendations it may receive to satisfy its statutory obligation to
ensure that any energy conservation standard that it adopts achieves
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified and will result in significant
conservation of energy. Upon review, the Secretary determined that the
Consensus Agreement submitted in the instant rulemaking comports with
the standard-setting criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
Accordingly, the Consensus Agreement levels, included as trial standard
level (TSL) 2, were adopted as the amended standard levels in the
direct final rule. In sum, as the relevant statutory criteria were
satisfied, the Secretary adopted the amended energy conservation
standards for dishwashers set forth in the direct final rule. These
standards are set forth in TABLE 1--AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS
The standards apply to all products listed in TABLE 1--AMENDED
ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS that are
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after May
30, 2013. For a detailed discussion of DOE's analysis of the benefits
and burdens of the amended standards pursuant to the criteria set forth
in EPCA, please see the direct final rule. (77 FR 31918 (May 30,
2012)).
As required by EPCA, DOE also simultaneously published a NOPR
proposing the identical standard levels contained in the direct final
rule. As discussed in section II-B of this notice, DOE considered
whether any comment received during the 110-day comment period
following the direct final rule was sufficiently ``adverse'' as to
provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
[[Page 59714]]
direct final rule and continuation of this rulemaking under the NOPR.
As noted in the direct final rule, it is the substance, rather than the
quantity, of comments that will ultimately determine whether a direct
final rule will be withdrawn. To this end, DOE weighs the substance of
any adverse comment(s) received against the anticipated benefits of the
Consensus Agreement and the likelihood that further consideration of
the comment(s) would change the results of the rulemaking. DOE notes
that to the extent an adverse comment had been previously raised and
addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a submission will not
typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a direct final rule.
Table 1--Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential
Dishwashers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date: May 30, 2013
-------------------------------------------
Product class Maximum per-cycle
Minimum annual water consumption
energy use* kWh/year gallons/cycle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Standard (>=8 place 307 5.0
settings plus 6 serving
pieces)....................
2. Compact (<8 place 222 3.5
settings plus 6 serving
pieces)....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Annual energy use, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, is
calculated as: The sum of the annual standby electrical energy in kWh
and the product of (1) the representative average dishwasher use
cycles per year and (2) the sum of machine electrical energy
consumption per cycle in kWh, the total water energy consumption per
cycle in kWh, and, for dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle,
the drying energy consumption divided by 2 in kWh. A truncated normal
cycle is defined as the normal cycle interrupted to eliminate the
power-dry feature after the termination of the last rinse option.
II. Comments Received on the Direct Final Rule
A. Comments Received in Support of the Direct Final Rule
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas
Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern
California Edison (SCE) (collectively, the ``California Utilities'')
expressed support for DOE's adoption of the standard levels proposed in
the Joint Petition,\3\ as did AHAM.\4\ Additionally, ASAP, ASE, ACEEE,
CFA, NCLC, NRDC, and NEEP commented in support of the standard levels
in the direct final rule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060, Comment 13.
\4\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060, Comment 19.
\5\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060, Comment 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Adverse Comments Received on the Direct Final Rule
DOE received several adverse comments from private citizens. To
make the comment summary and response easier to follow, the commenters
are identified by their comment number. 6 7 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060, Comment 14.
\7\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060, Comment 15.
\8\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060, Comment 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 15 stated that DOE should withdraw the direct final rule
and move to a proposed rule because it failed to analyze several
important factors. It stated that: (1) DOE did not examine the effects
on two important demographics (wholesalers and retailers); (2) DOE did
not adequately assess the significance of market and public institution
failures that the rule attempts to correct; and (3) the life-cycle-cost
savings for each individual dishwasher are so small that deviations
from the agency's assumption of dishwashing habits or other mistakes
could eliminate those savings.
Regarding the impacts of the standards on wholesalers and
retailers, DOE estimated that the standards would likely cause a slight
reduction in dishwasher unit sales. Because the standards are expected
to result in a small increase in price, however, the net effect on
revenue of wholesalers and retailers should be negligible.
Regarding failures of private markets or public institutions,
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify
the problem that it intends to address, including, where applicable,
the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new
agency action. DOE addressed this requirement in section VI.A of the
direct final rule. In addition, in section V.C of the direct final
rule, DOE discussed some of the reasons why consumers appear to
undervalue energy efficiency improvements.
DOE acknowledges that there is uncertainty regarding the estimated
cost savings. The methods and assumptions used by DOE, however, have
been extensively reviewed and subject to public comment not only in the
direct final rule to establish amended standards for dishwashers, but
in other DOE rulemakings as well. The commenter did not provide any
specific concerns with the assumptions used by DOE or offer any
alternative assumptions for use in DOE's analysis.
Two of the private citizens questioned the estimated payback period
in the direct final rule. Comment 14 notes that DOE estimates a median
payback period of 11.8 years for a new dishwasher, and that the
Consortium for Energy Efficiency lists the average life of a
residential dishwasher at 11 years, which is shorter than the estimated
payback period. Comment 16 notes that external sources estimate
dishwasher lifetime at 9-12 years. Because the basis for published
dishwasher lifetime estimates is uncertain, DOE conducted an analysis
of residential dishwasher lifetimes in the field. As described in
chapter 8 of the direct final rule technical support document (TSD),
the analysis yielded an estimate of mean age for residential
dishwashers of approximately 15 years, longer than the median payback
period for the adopted energy conservation standards for standard-size
dishwashers.
Comment 14 noted that the benefits attributed to emissions
reductions represent between 17 and 35 percent of the total benefits
from the new standard, and because the long-term effects of carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions are unclear, DOE should not justify
the standards using benefits from emissions reductions. DOE used a wide
range of estimates of the value of avoiding a ton of CO2
emissions that had been prepared by an interagency process that
included a thorough review of the relevant literature (see appendix 16-
A of the direct final rule TSD for discussion). Furthermore, the
benefits from emissions reductions are only one of a number of factors
that DOE considers in assessing whether a
[[Page 59715]]
standard is economically justified. In the direct final rule, the
Secretary concluded that at trial standard level (TSL) 2 for
residential dishwashers (which represents the standards adopted), the
benefits of energy savings, water savings, positive net present value
(NPV) of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions would
outweigh the impacts on manufacturers.
Comment 16 notes that the benefits attributed to emissions
reductions represent a global, not a domestic, value. The interagency
process that developed the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimates used
by DOE focused on a global measure of SCC because of the distinctive
nature of the climate change problem. Under current Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance in OMB Circular A-4, agencies must
analyze economically significant proposed and final regulations from
the domestic perspective, and analysis from the international
perspective is conducted as appropriate. A global measure of SCC is
used in DOE rulemakings because climate change involves a global
externality: Emissions of most greenhouse gases (GHG) contribute to
damages around the world even when they are emitted in the United
States. Consequently, to address the global nature of the problem, the
SCC must incorporate the full (global) damages caused by GHG emissions.
Comment 14 stated that the new standards may not represent a
significant conservation of energy due to the presence of other energy
efficiency programs, most notably the ENERGY STAR program. Comment 14
notes that the majority of dishwashers sold in the United States meet
the ENERGY STAR specifications, which are more stringent than the new
DOE energy conservation standards. DOE's analysis measures energy
savings relative to a base case that includes the projected impacts of
other energy efficiency programs. Although the term ``significant'' is
not defined in EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (DC Cir. 1985),
indicated that Congress intended ``significant'' energy savings in this
context to be savings that were not ``genuinely trivial.'' DOE
estimates that the new standards will save 0.07 quads of energy over
the period from 2013 through 2047. DOE considers these to be
significant reductions.
Comments 14 and 16 stated that due to the increased cost of a
dishwasher under the new standards, some consumers will opt not to
purchase a new dishwasher and will continue to use older less-efficient
models or to hand wash, which would negatively impact the water and
energy savings attributed to the new standard. DOE's analysis accounted
for the possibility that some consumers may opt not to purchase new
energy efficient dishwashers, and the estimated savings reflect this
possibility.
C. Other Comments on the Direct Final Rule
Although AHAM expressed support for the direct final rule, AHAM
raised several points that it clarified were not intended as adverse
comments.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060, Comment 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, AHAM noted that the compliance date for the amended
dishwasher standards represents an unusual case in which less lead time
than usual is acceptable because manufacturers agreed to the shorter
lead time as part of the consensus agreement. AHAM noted that
ordinarily, and going forward, the statutory lead time of 3 years from
the date of publication of a final rule adopting new or amended
standards is necessary for manufacturers to design and produce products
that comply with the new or amended standards. DOE acknowledges AHAM's
comment.
Regarding DOE's estimate of typical dishwasher cycle time, AHAM
does not object to the 1-hour cycle time estimate for purposes of the
direct final rule, but notes that it may need to be studied in the
future and that the average cycle time could be longer than 1 hour. DOE
acknowledges AHAM's comment.
Regarding dishwasher performance, AHAM agrees that the efficiency
levels in the direct final rule are not likely to adversely impact
performance, but states that more stringent levels could adversely
impact performance. AHAM stated that, as efficiency and water standards
levels become more stringent, it may be necessary to evaluate
performance in DOE's analysis. DOE acknowledges AHAM's comment.
AHAM opposed DOE's use of the Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(RECS) and similar data for its energy and water use analysis. DOE
acknowledges AHAM's comment. DOE uses RECS data for the energy and
water use for the reasons explained in the direct final rule. 77 FR
31918, 31931 (May 30, 2012).
AHAM stated that the burden associated with reporting for
certification is substantially more than 20 hours. It expressed hope
that DOE will amend its certification, compliance, and enforcement rule
to conform the scope of its annual report to the Federal Trade
Commission report. DOE acknowledges AHAM's comment.
AHAM continues to oppose the use of experience curves in the
projection of consumer product prices. DOE used experience curves to
project product prices for dishwashers for the reasons stated in the
direct final rule. 77 FR 31918, 31933 (May 30, 2012).
AHAM stated that any CO2 analysis should include
CO2 emissions caused indirectly, as well as directly, from a
standards change, such as increased carbon emissions required to
manufacture a product at a given standard level. DOE has begun to
include CO2 emissions that occur in the full fuel cycle,
which includes emissions that occur in production and transportation of
fuels. DOE continues to believe that it is inappropriate to include
emissions that occur in manufacturing or transport of appliances. EPCA
directs DOE to consider the total projected amount of energy savings
likely to result directly from a standard, and DOE interprets this to
include only energy consumed at the point of use and in the production,
processing and transportation of fuels used by appliances or equipment.
III. Department of Justice Analysis of Competitive Impacts
EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is
likely to result from new or amended standards. It also directs the
Attorney General of the United States (Attorney General) to determine
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result
from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the
Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule,
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE published a NOPR containing
energy conservation standards identical to those set forth in the
direct final rule and transmitted a copy of the direct final rule and
the accompanying TSD to the Attorney General, requesting that the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue.
DOE has published DOJ's comments at the end of this notice.
DOJ reviewed the amended standards in the direct final rule and the
final TSD provided by DOE. As a result of its analysis, DOJ concluded
that the amended standards issued in the direct final rule are unlikely
to have a significant adverse impact on competition. DOJ further noted
that the amended standards established in the
[[Page 59716]]
direct final rule were the same as recommended standards submitted in
the Joint Petition signed by industry participants who believed they
could meet the standards (as well as other interested parties).
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by
law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies
that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by
Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's Web site (www.gc.doe.gov).
DOE reviewed the direct final rule and corresponding NOPR pursuant
to the RFA and the policies and procedures discussed above. DOE
certifies that the standards in the direct final rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
factual basis for this certification is set forth below. DOE has
considered the comments received on the economic impacts of the rule in
adopting the standards set forth in the direct final rule; responses to
these comments are provided in section II.
For manufacturers of residential dishwashers, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the
rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533,
53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121.The size
standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code and industry description and are available at: http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
Residential dishwasher manufacturing is classified under NAICS 335228,
``Other Major Household Appliance Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a
threshold of 500 employees or less for an entity to be considered as a
small business for this category.
To estimate the number of small businesses which could be impacted
by the amended energy conservation standards, DOE conducted a market
survey using all available public information to identify potential
small manufacturers. DOE's research included the AHAM membership
directory, product databases (Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE),
California Energy Commission (CEC), and ENERGY STAR databases) and
individual company Web sites to find potential small business
manufacturers. DOE also asked interested parties and industry
representatives if they were aware of any other small business
manufacturers during manufacturer interviews and at previous DOE public
meetings. DOE reviewed all publicly available data and contacted
various companies, as necessary, to determine whether they met the
SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of covered
residential dishwashers. DOE screened out companies that did not offer
products covered by this rulemaking, did not meet the definition of a
``small business,'' or are foreign owned and operated.
Almost half of residential dishwashers are currently manufactured
in the United States by one corporation that accounts for approximately
49 percent of the total market. Together, this manufacturer and three
other manufacturers that do not meet the definition of a small business
manufacturer comprise 99 percent of the residential dishwasher market.
The small portion of the remaining residential dishwasher market
(approximately 57,000 shipments) is supplied by a combination of
approximately 15 international and domestic companies, all of which
have small market shares. These companies are either foreign owned and
operated or exceed the SBA's employment threshold for consideration as
a small business under the appropriate NAICS code. Therefore, DOE did
not identify any small business manufacturers of dishwashers. DOE
received no comments on its estimate and retains this estimate for the
certification.
Based on the discussion above, DOE continues to certify that the
standards for residential dishwashers set forth in today's rule would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility
analysis for this rulemaking. DOE transmitted the certification to the
SBA as required by 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
V. National Environmental Policy Act
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
DOE has determined that the direct final rule fits within the category
of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise
meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR Part 1021,
App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The rule fits
within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking that
establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified
in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for
this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this rule. DOE's CX
determination or this direct final rule is available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov.
VI. Conclusion
In summary, based on the discussion above, DOE has determined that
the comments received in response to the direct final rule for amended
energy conservation standards for dishwashers do not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. As a result,
the amended energy conservation standards set forth in the direct final
rule were effective on September 27, 2012. Compliance with these
standards is required on May 30, 2013.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 25, 2012.
David Danielson,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Note: The following will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations:
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 59717]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01OC12.008
[[Page 59718]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01OC12.009
[FR Doc. 2012-23953 Filed 9-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C