[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 217 (Friday, November 8, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 88661-88680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25617]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002]
RIN 1904-AF69
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Dishwashers, Residential Clothes Washers, and Consumer Clothes Dryers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of proposed confirmation of withdrawal and request
for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In light of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit granting a petition for review of a final rule published by the
U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') on January 19, 2022, and remanding
the matter to DOE for further proceedings, DOE issued a
[[Page 88662]]
request for information on whether ``short-cycle'' product classes for
dishwashers, residential clothes washers, and consumer clothes dryers
are warranted under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. In this
document, DOE considers the factors outlined by the Fifth Circuit and
proposes to confirm the elimination of ``short-cycle'' product classes
in the January 19, 2022, final rule.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposal no later than December 9, 2024. See section IV, ``Public
Participation,'' for details.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments may
submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002, by
any of the following methods:
(1) Email: [email protected]. Include the docket
number EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section IV of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, 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, such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section IV for information on how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, 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) 287-5649. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (240) 961-1189. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Discussion
A. Dishwashers
1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature
2. Justification of Different Standards for Dishwashers With a
Short-Cycle Feature
3. Response to Other Comments
B. Residential Clothes Washers
1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature
2. Justification of Different Standards for Residential Clothes
Washers With a Short-Cycle Feature
3. Response to Other Comments
C. Consumer Clothes Dryers
1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature
2. Justification of Different Standards for Consumer Clothes
Dryers With a Short-Cycle Feature
3. Response to Other Comments
D. Other Comments
1. Process
2. Legal
3. Impacts on Average Lifetime
E. Other Topics Addressed by the Fifth Circuit
1. Water Authority
2. Test Procedure Authority
3. Preservation of Product Utility
III. Conclusion
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
IV. Public Participation
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
The following sections briefly discuss the statutory authority
underlying this proposed confirmation of withdrawal, as well as some of
the historical background relevant to dishwashers, residential clothes
washers (``RCWs''), and consumer clothes dryers.
A. Authority
The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') must follow specific
statutory criteria under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public
Law 94-163,\1\ as amended, (``EPCA'') for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered products, including dishwashers, RCWs, and
consumer clothes dryers. Any new or amended standard for a covered
product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') determines 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))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by
rule that the establishment of such standard will not result in
significant conservation of energy (or, for certain products, water),
or is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (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 exceeds 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 manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
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
[[Page 88663]]
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a
type (or class) of product must specify a different standard level for
a type or class of products that has the same function or intended use
if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products
within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.) Any rule
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(2))
B. Background
The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.,
provides, among other things, that ``[e]ach agency shall give an
interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of a rule.'' (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) Pursuant to this provision of the
APA, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (``CEI'') petitioned DOE for
the issuance of a rule establishing a new product class under 42 U.S.C.
6295(q) that would cover dishwashers with a cycle time of less than 60
minutes from washing through drying, asserting that it is not
technologically feasible to create dishwashers that both meet the
current standards and have cycle times of 60 minutes or less.\2\ On
October 30, 2020, DOE published a final rule that established a product
class for standard-size dishwashers with a cycle time for the normal
cycle \3\ of 60 minutes or less. 85 FR 68723 (``October 2020 Final
Rule''). Contrary to CEI's claim in its petition that it is not
technologically feasible for a dishwasher with a cycle time of 60
minutes or less to meet the current standards, in the October 2020
Final Rule DOE identified several dishwashers that had cycles that were
less than 60 minutes and met the current standards, but asserted that
establishing a product class for dishwashers with a normal cycle of 60
minutes or less could spur manufacturer innovation to generate
additional product offerings. Id. at 85 FR 68726. The October 2020
Final Rule additionally specified that the current standards for
dishwashers no longer apply to short-cycle products and that DOE
intended to conduct the necessary rulemaking to determine standards
that would provide the maximum energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result
in a significant conservation of energy. Id. at 85 FR 68733, 68741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See document IDs 0006 and 0007 at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005.
\3\ The ``normal cycle'' is specifically defined in section 1 of
the DOE test procedure at title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR''), part 430, subpart B, appendix C1 (``appendix
C1''), as ``the cycle type, including washing and drying temperature
options, recommended in the manufacturer's instructions for daily,
regular, or typical use to completely wash a full load of normally
soiled dishes including the power-dry feature,'' among other
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the October 2020 Final Rule, having determined that
similarities exist between the consumer use of dishwashers, RCWs, and
consumer clothes dryers (i.e., that these products offer several cycles
with varying times, and that consumers run these cycles multiple times
per week on average), DOE published a final rule on December 16, 2020,
that established product classes for top-loading RCWs and certain
classes of consumer clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30
minutes, and front-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45
minutes (``December 2020 Final Rule''). 85 FR 81359. Similar to the
October 2020 Final Rule, the December 2020 Final Rule also specified
that the current standards for RCWs and consumer clothes dryers no
longer apply to short-cycle products. 85 FR 68723, 68742; 85 FR 81359,
81376.
On January 19, 2022, DOE published a final rule (``January 2022
Final Rule'') revoking the October 2020 Final Rule and the December
2020 Final Rule (collectively, ``Short-cycle Final Rules''). In that
rule, DOE noted that the appropriate time for establishing a new
product class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) is during a rulemaking
prescribing new or amended standards. 87 FR 2673, 2682. And, as the
Short-cycle Final Rules stated that they were not applying the
rulemaking analysis pursuant to the seven factors specified in 42
U.S.C. 6295(o) for the establishment of standards, DOE found that these
rules were improperly promulgated. Id. at 87 FR 2673. The January 2022
Final Rule reinstated the prior product classes and applicable
standards for these covered products. Id. at 87 FR 2686.
On March 17, 2022, various States filed a petition in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (``Fifth Circuit'')
seeking review of the January 2022 Final Rule, which eliminated the
short-cycle product classes and reinstated the applicable energy
conservation standards. The petitioners argued that the January 2022
Final Rule withdrawing the Short-cycle Final Rules violated EPCA and
was arbitrary and capricious. On January 8, 2024, the Fifth Circuit
granted the petition for review and remanded the matter to DOE for
further proceedings consistent with the Fifth Circuit's opinion. In
remanding the January 2022 Final Rule for further consideration, the
Court held that even if the Short-cycle Final Rules were invalid, DOE
was obligated to consider other remedies short of withdrawal. See
Louisiana, et al. v. United States Department of Energy, et al., 90
F.4th 461, 477 (5th Cir. 2024). Specifically, the Court noted that
instead of withdrawing the Short-cycle Final Rules, DOE could have
promulgated energy conservation standards for the short-cycle product
classes. Id. at 476.
As a result, DOE is considering whether short-cycle product classes
and standards can be established under the applicable statutory
criteria. Under EPCA, DOE establishes product classes based on: (1)
fuel type; or (2) performance-related features. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1))
With regards to product classes based on performance-related features,
the product must have a feature which other products within such type
do not have and such feature must justify a different standard from
that which applies to other products within such type. (Id.). In the
Short-cycle Final Rules, DOE found that cycle time was a performance-
related feature and that some products had shorter
[[Page 88664]]
cycle times than others. 85 FR 68723, 68726; 85 FR 81359, 81361. But
the Short-cycle Final Rules did not determine whether cycle time
justified different standards. Instead, the Short-cycle Final Rules
stated DOE would determine specific standards in a separate rulemaking.
Id. Therefore, to establish separate energy conservation standards for
short-cycle product classes, DOE must first confirm the determination
made in the Short-cycle Final Rules that cycle time is a performance-
related feature for these three covered products. DOE must then
determine that a different standard level is justified for short-cycle
products as there is no basis for establishing a product class under 42
U.S.C. 6295(q) that would be subject to the same standard level.
Finally, assuming DOE determines that cycle time is a performance-
related feature and a different standard level is justified for short-
cycle products, DOE must apply the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) to
prescribe energy conservation standards that, among other things, are
technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in
significant conservation of energy.
As part of this process, DOE published a request for information on
March 11, 2024 (``March 2024 RFI''), seeking data and other information
on, among other things, the presence of any short-cycle products in the
market and any relationship between cycle time and performance. 89 FR
17338. DOE received comments in response to the March 2024 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table II.1.
Table II.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the March 2024 RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this final Comment number
Commenter(s) rule in the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, ASAP et al................ 8 Efficiency Organizations.
Alliance for Water Energy, American
Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, Consumer Federation of
America, Earthjustice, National
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources
Defense Council, New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM...................... 5 Trade Association.
Manufacturers.
Attorneys General of MT, AL, AR, FL, GA, AGs of MT et al........... 9 State Government
ID, IA, KY, LA, MS, MO, NE, OH, SC, TN, Officials.
TX, UT, VA.
California Investor-Owned Utilities CA IOUs................... 6 Utilities.
(Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern
California Edison, San Diego Gas and
Electric).
China via National Center of Standards China..................... 11 International Government.
Evaluation and State Administration for
Market Regulation.
LG Corporation.......................... LG........................ 7 Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.... NEEA...................... 4 Efficiency Organization.
Natural Resources Defense Council and NRDC and Earthjustice..... 10 Efficiency Organizations.
Earthjustice.
New York State Energy Research and NYSERDA and CEC........... 12 State Agencies.
Development Authority and California
Energy Commission.
U.S. Representative Stephanie Bice...... Rep. Bice................. 2 Federal Government
Official.
Joshua McCray........................... McCray.................... 3 Individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket for this rulemaking. (Docket No.
EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002, which is maintained at: www.regulations.gov).
The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment
docket ID number at page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
This discussion responds to the Fifth Circuit's January 8, 2024,
decision remanding this matter to DOE for further proceedings
consistent with its opinion. In remanding the January 2022 Final Rule
for further consideration, the Fifth Circuit found the January 2022
Final Rule arbitrary and capricious for two principal reasons:
(1) It failed to adequately consider appliance performance,
substitution effects, and the ``ample record evidence'' that DOE's
conservation standards are causing Americans to use more energy and
water rather than less; and
(2) It rested instead on DOE's view that the Short-cycle Final
Rules were legally invalid--but even if true, that does not excuse DOE
from considering other remedies short of repealing the Short-cycle
Final Rules in toto.
Louisiana, 90 F.4th at 477.
With regards to the second reason, the Court noted that instead of
withdrawing the Short-cycle Final Rules, DOE could have promulgated
energy conservation standards for the short-cycle product classes. Id.
at 476.
In the discussion that follows, DOE considers whether an
alternative to withdrawing the Short-cycle Final Rules--establishing
standards for the short-cycle product classes--would be justified under
EPCA. As discussed below, DOE tentatively concludes that the short-
cycle features of dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers do not
justify standards different from those applicable to those products
generally. DOE has also considered the effect of withdrawing the short-
cycle product class on product performance and energy and water use
savings, including cleaning and drying performance, the potential for
increased substitution (e.g., by hand washing or pre-washing), and the
risk that standards are unintentionally increasing energy use (e.g.,
via consumers relying on multiple cycles or unregulated cycles).
A. Dishwashers
The following sections apply DOE's authority under EPCA at 42
U.S.C. 6295(q) to determine whether a ``short-cycle'' feature for
dishwashers is a performance-related feature that justifies the
establishment of a separate product class. DOE considers a short-cycle
feature for dishwashers to be a cycle that can completely wash a full
load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less. DOE first
reiterates its prior determinations that cycle time is a performance-
related feature of dishwashers and details its specific consideration
of the short-cycle feature (see section II.A.1 of this document). As
[[Page 88665]]
discussed in section II.A.2 of this document, DOE tentatively
determines in this analysis that the short-cycle feature does not
justify a different standard. Data and information from the Short-cycle
Final Rules, March 2024 RFI, and dishwashers direct final rule
published on April 24, 2024 (``April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final
Rule''; 89 FR 31398) show that products with a normal cycle of less
than 60 minutes can meet the current energy conservation standards
using the same design strategies as other dishwashers of comparable
efficiency without a short-cycle feature. Finally, in section II.A.3 of
this document, DOE addresses other pertinent comments received in
response to the March 2024 RFI that pertain to the dishwasher topics
discussed in this document.
1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature
DOE first considered whether cycle time is a performance-related
feature of dishwashers in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B).
Consistent with DOE's assessment in previous rulemakings, discussed as
follows, DOE reiterates that cycle time is a performance-related
feature of dishwashers.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') published on July 16,
2019 (``July 2019 NOPR''), DOE noted that while some individual
consumers commented in response to the Notice of Petition for
Rulemaking that was published on April 24, 2018 (83 FR 17768) that they
were not concerned with a shorter cycle time, other individual
consumers expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of time necessary
to run their dishwashers. 84 FR 33869, 33873. In the July 2019 NOPR,
DOE further discussed that the data and comments from dissatisfied
consumers indicated that for many consumers, there is a utility in
shorter cycle times to clean a normally soiled load of dishes. Id.
Based on these considerations, DOE concluded that cycle time for
dishwashers is a performance-related feature for the purposes of 42
U.S.C. 6295(q). Id.
DOE reiterated this conclusion in the October 2020 Final Rule. 85
FR 68723, 68726-68732. Specifically, DOE concluded in the October 2020
Final Rule that dishwashers with a normal cycle with a cycle time of 60
minutes or less have a performance-related feature that other
dishwashers currently on the market lack. Id. at 85 FR 68726, citing 84
FR 33869, 33871. As defined in section 1 of appendix C1, the normal
cycle refers to the cycle recommended to the consumer to completely
wash a full load of normally soiled dishes.
As discussed, CEI petitioned DOE in March 2018 to establish a
separate product class for dishwashers for which the normal cycle is
less than 60 minutes. In the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE finalized the
creation of a new product class for standard-size dishwashers with a
normal cycle of 60 minutes or less. 85 FR 68723, 68733. In the January
2022 Final Rule, DOE did not question the validity of those prior
determinations that short cycles provide a performance-related feature.
87 FR 2673, 2682.
In response to the March 2024 RFI, AHAM stated that cycle time is
an important consumer feature. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 1) The AGs of MT et
al. stated that consumers find distinct utility in appliances that are
actually capable of cleaning dishes on a short cycle. (AGs of MT et
al., No. 9 at p. 5)
The CA IOUs commented that short-cycle product classes for
dishwashers are unwarranted because they do not meet the requirements
for a separate product class under EPCA. The CA IOUs stated that
``cycle time'' is not a ``capacity or other performance-related
feature'' that justifies a higher or lower standard as specified under
42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1). The CA IOUs further noted that under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4), the types of features that are considered for establishing
a higher or lower standard, and thus, separate product class, include
reliability, size, capacity, volume, and similar attributes. The CA
IOUs further asserted that cycle time, for the products at issue, is
outside the scope of what EPCA permits DOE to consider in establishing
or maintaining separate product classes. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 8) For
the reasons stated in the July 2019 NOPR and October 2020 Final Rule,
DOE reconfirms in this proposed confirmation of withdrawal that cycle
time is a performance-related feature of dishwashers for the purposes
of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). The following paragraphs discuss DOE's specific
consideration of the short-cycle feature for dishwashers.
Within the context of the CEI petition, in this document, DOE
considers a dishwasher to have a ``short-cycle feature'' only if it
provides a cycle with the capability of ``completely washing'' \5\ a
full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less on any
available cycle, as would be the consumer expectation for a normal
cycle. DOE does not consider a cycle intended for washing only a
partial load of dishes, or a cycle unable to completely wash a full
load of normally soiled dishes, to be a short-cycle feature for the
purpose of this analysis--even if such cycle has a cycle time of 60
minutes or less. In this regard, the analyses performed in support of
this proposed confirmation of withdrawal differ from the analyses DOE
performed in support of the January 2022 Final Rule, in which DOE
considered all ``quick'' cycles with a cycle time of 60 minutes or
less, regardless of dish load size or cleaning ability. By considering
only cycles that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled
dishes, DOE avoids considering ``quick'' cycles designed for addressing
niche applications (e.g., light soils, delicate items, etc.) that are
not capable of washing a full load of normally soiled dishes, as would
be the consumer expectation for a normal cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As discussed further in section II.E.3.a of this document,
DOE's test procedure for dishwashers at 10 CFR 430, subpart B,
appendix C2 (``appendix C2''), which references the latest industry
test standard, defines a minimum cleaning index of 70 as the level
that represents ``completely washing'' a full load of normally
soiled dishes--as measured on each of the three soil loads that are
tested in the DOE test procedure (i.e., the heavy, medium, and light
soil loads). See 88 FR 3234, 3251-3263. For the purpose of this
proposed confirmation of withdrawal, DOE considers ``completely
washing a full load of normally soiled dishes'' to mean achieving a
cleaning index of at least 70 on each of the three soil loads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the sections that follow, DOE evaluates whether such a short-
cycle feature justifies a separate product class in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6295(q).
2. Justification of Different Standards for Dishwashers With a Short-
Cycle Feature
As discussed, EPCA authorizes DOE to prescribe a higher or lower
standard than that which applies (or would apply) for such type (or
class) for any group of covered products which have the same function
or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A)
consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered
products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.)
A typical application of this provision of EPCA is for DOE to
establish comparatively less stringent standards for classes of covered
products that have a performance-related feature that
[[Page 88666]]
inherently uses more energy than products without such feature, and for
which DOE has determined that such feature provides a utility to the
consumer that justifies the comparatively less stringent standard. For
example, when establishing standards for consumer refrigerators, DOE
determined through-the-door ice service to be a performance-related
feature of refrigerators that provides utility to the consumer and that
affects efficiency; i.e., inherently uses more energy (see discussion
of product class segregation at 52 FR 46367, 46371 (Dec. 7, 1987)).
Accordingly, DOE established comparatively less stringent standards for
refrigerators with through-the-door ice service than for equivalent
refrigerators without such a feature. 54 FR 47916, 47943-47944 (Nov.
17, 1989). DOE has maintained a product class distinction with
comparatively less stringent standards for refrigerators with through-
the-door ice service through successive amendments to the standards for
consumer refrigerators.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Separate refrigerator product class distinctions are made
for additional product features as well, such as automatic defrost
and transparent doors. See 10 CFR 430.32(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE acknowledged that designing a
dishwasher with a normal cycle time of 60 minutes or less is achievable
and asserted that establishing a short-cycle product class could spur
manufacturer innovation to generate additional product offerings to
fill the market gap that exists for dishwashers with this feature
(i.e., the ability to clean a load of normally soiled dishes in under
60 minutes). DOE further stated its intent to determine the specific
energy and water conservation standards of the new product class in a
separate rulemaking. 85 FR 68723, 68724.
DOE has conducted an analysis of the energy and water use of a
short-cycle feature for dishwashers to evaluate whether different
(i.e., comparatively less stringent) standards would be warranted for
dishwashers that provide a short-cycle feature. As discussed in the
previous section of this document, DOE has determined that a normal
cycle of 60 minutes or less on a dishwasher is a performance-related
feature that provides consumer utility for the purpose of consideration
of potential product class distinction under the provisions of 42
U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE next evaluated whether dishwashers with a short-
cycle feature necessitate more energy and water use than dishwashers
without such feature, which could justify a comparatively less
stringent standard for dishwashers that provide such a feature.
To evaluate the energy and water use of a short-cycle feature in
comparison to the currently applicable energy and water standards, DOE
considered all data available from recent rulemakings, including data
from testing conducted in support of the October 2020 Final Rule \7\
and the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule and confidential data
from AHAM. DOE notes that the test data published in support of the
October 2020 Final Rule include cleaning indices calculated by scoring
soil particles on all items as well as spots, streaks, and rack contact
marks on glassware. However, in a final rule amending the test
procedure for dishwashers published on January 18, 2023 (``January 2023
TP Final Rule''), DOE established a new test procedure at appendix C2,
which specifies a minimum cleaning index threshold of 70 as a condition
for a valid test cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3248. The test procedure at
appendix C2 specifies that the cleaning index is calculated by scoring
only soil particles, and that spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on
glassware are not included in the cleaning index calculation.
Accordingly, DOE reanalyzed the October 2020 Final Rule test data,
revising the cleaning index for all test cycles at each soil load to
include only soil particles and not spots, streaks, or rack contact
marks, consistent with the adopted test procedure. The analyses
presented in this document are based on these revised cleaning indices.
While AHAM's data includes energy and water use data for standard-size
dishwashers on the normal cycle and cycle time data for the same units
on the normal cycle and quick cycle, it does not include cleaning
performance for each unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ DOE test data are available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From its test sample, DOE identified one unit that provides a
``short-cycle feature''--as DOE has described that term in this
document--that uses less energy and water than the maximum allowable
standard level for standard-size dishwashers. Specifically, this unit
achieves a cleaning index of at least 70 on the heavy, medium, and
light soil loads that are required for testing the normal cycle, with a
cycle time less than 60 minutes; i.e., provides a ``short-cycle
feature'' consistent with consumer expectations of a normal cycle.\8\
This unit's test results demonstrate that providing a short-cycle
feature consistent with consumer expectations of a normal cycle (i.e.,
a cycle that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes
in 60 minutes or less) does not necessitate using more energy and water
than a dishwasher without such feature that meets the current
standards. DOE further evaluated the technologies and design strategies
used by this dishwasher and has tentatively concluded that this unit
does not incorporate any proprietary technologies or design strategies
and is designed no differently than other dishwashers of comparable
efficiency without a short-cycle feature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In consideration of the Fifth Circuit's opinion that in the
short-cycle rulemakings DOE pointed to existing ``quick'' cycles
that did not address the foundational concerns underlying these
rules, DOE considers in this analysis that the other units in the
test sample that provide a dishwasher cycle less than 60 minutes,
but that do not ``completely wash'' a full load of normally soiled
dishes, do not have what DOE is describing as a ``short-cycle
feature'' in this document, and therefore do not factor into DOE's
consideration of whether a separate product class is justified for
dishwashers with a short-cycle feature. See Louisiana, 90 F.4th at
474-75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has tentatively concluded that the availability of this feature
currently on the market--at lower energy and water levels than the
current standard allows--in a unit with no identifiable proprietary
design or control strategy demonstrates that a dishwasher with a short-
cycle feature does not inherently use more energy and water than a
dishwasher without such feature to achieve an acceptable cleaning
performance, and that the current dishwasher standards do not preclude
manufacturers from offering a normal cycle of 60 minutes or less. This
tentative conclusion is consistent with the October 2020 Final Rule,
which found that manufacturers already offered ``quick'' cycles that
were less than 60 minutes and could meet the current DOE standards. 85
FR 68724.
Further evaluation of consumer survey data and comments from
dishwasher manufacturers (discussed further in section II.A.3.c of this
document) indicates that the limited availability of short-cycle
features on the current market is not indicative of energy conservation
standards precluding or discouraging the availability of such feature,
but rather reflects the prioritization of product offerings by
manufacturers commensurate with a relatively low level of market demand
for this feature in comparison to other features more important to
consumers.
In response to the March 2024 RFI, DOE received the following
comments regarding establishing a separate short-cycle product class
for dishwashers.
AHAM stated that new product classes to protect the short-cycle
feature
[[Page 88667]]
are not justified at this time under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) for the
following reasons: (1) consumers are satisfied with existing normal
cycle times based on AHAM's 2021 Consumer Research, which found that 81
percent of respondents were satisfied with the length of the normal
cycle of their dishwasher; (2) most dishwashers already provide
consumers with short cycle time options; and, (3) data shows that
standards are not expected to increase cycle time significantly. (AHAM,
No. 5 at p. 5)
NEEA commented that the short-cycle product class for dishwashers
is unwarranted. NEEA stated that its comments build upon past NEEA
letters submitted to DOE, which demonstrated that short-cycle product
classes were not appropriate for these appliances. NEEA added that
recent research clearly reinforces these conclusions. (NEEA, No. 4 at
p. 2)
China commented that DOE should remove the short-cycle product
classes. China commented that the short-cycle product class is not
defined in the regulations and standards, which makes it difficult for
manufacturers to clearly classify their products into this product
class. (China, No. 11 at p. 2)
An individual commented expressing support for short-cycle product
classes for dishwashers and stated that products with a ``short cycle''
as the normal cycle should be subject to different standards than
products without a ``short cycle'' as the normal cycle. The individual
noted that such a rulemaking would save consumers money by lowering the
cost of their electric bills. (McCray, No. 3 at p. 1)
LG commented that, after internal discussions and discussions with
industry partners to evaluate market changes since the January 2022
Final Rule, LG is supportive of DOE's decision in the January 2022
Final Rule and opposes new product classes for short-cycle products. LG
added that for appliances to satisfy cleaning and drying performance in
a shorter amount of time while achieving the same performance, it would
be inevitable that they would consume more energy--an outcome that
contradicts DOE's objective to adopt standards that would result in
more energy conservation. (LG, No. 7 at pp. 1-2)
As noted earlier in this section, test data show that it is
technologically feasible to design dishwashers with a short-cycle
feature while meeting current standards. That is, dishwashers with
shorter cycle times do not need to consume more energy than the current
standard to provide the same performance.
Rep. Bice commented in opposition to multiple rulemakings recently
published by DOE that add new regulations to consumer products. Rep.
Bice asserted that the standards would increase costs for manufacturers
and prices for consumers. Rep. Bice commented that regulation limits
consumer choice and is onerous for American manufacturers, including
many small businesses. (Rep. Bice, No. 2 at p. 1)
DOE notes that this proposed confirmation of withdrawal does not
propose to add any new regulations for dishwashers. Instead, this
proposed confirmation of withdrawal reanalyzes the provisions of a
previous rulemaking (i.e., the January 2022 Final Rule) that withdrew
short-cycle product classes.
In conclusion, based on the available test data--which demonstrate
that it is feasible to design a short-cycle feature while meeting
current standards--as well as stakeholder comments and market survey
data, DOE has tentatively determined that (1) a short-cycle feature
that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60
minutes or less is technologically feasible; (2) current standards do
not prevent dishwasher manufacturers from providing such a short-cycle
feature; and (3) there is a dishwasher currently available on the
market that provides such a short-cycle feature and meets the currently
applicable energy and water standard. For these reasons, DOE has
tentatively determined that a short-cycle feature for dishwashers does
not justify a separate product class with separate standards under 42
U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE seeks comment on these proposed determinations.
3. Response to Other Comments
In the sections that follow, DOE addresses comments received in
response to the March 2024 RFI that pertain to the dishwasher topics
discussed in this document.
a. Prevalence of Quick Cycles on the Market
DOE received comments from stakeholders discussing the prevalence
of quick cycle options in current dishwasher models.
ASAP et al. reiterated data that AHAM had previously presented in
response to the July 2019 NOPR, which ASAP et al. summarized as
indicating that 87 percent of dishwasher shipments in 2017 provided the
option for a quick \9\ cycle, and about half of those quick cycles were
designed for normally soiled loads. ASAP et al. commented that short-
cycle product classes are unwarranted, as there are many products with
quick cycles that meet existing energy and water conservation standards
on the market. (ASAP et al., No. 8 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ DOE notes that ASAP et al. referred to these cycles as
``short cycles.'' However, in this proposed confirmation of
withdrawal, DOE uses the term ``quick cycles'' to refer to all
cycles with a cycle time of around 60 minutes. DOE uses the term
``short-cycle feature'' only to refer to cycles that are 60 minutes
or less in duration and can completely wash a full load of normally
soiled dishes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEA stated that consumers can already access quick cycles on
current dishwasher models. NEEA stated that its review of available
products on Lowe's website indicated that 84 percent of 24-inch
dishwasher models provided a quick-cycle program. NEEA further
commented that consumers continue to be satisfied with existing
products that provide the option of a quick cycle, and that consumers
of one national retail chain highly rated more than 90 percent of
dishwasher models with a quick cycle. NEEA asserted that selecting an
available quick cycle by pressing a button or shifting a dial is not an
unreasonable consumer burden when a faster cycle is preferred. (NEEA,
No. 4 at p. 3)
Confidential data submitted to DOE by AHAM in response to the March
2024 RFI show that 92 percent of dishwasher models offer a quick cycle
with cycle times ranging from 30 minutes to 124 minutes, and for 22
percent of these dishwasher models, the recommended soil level for the
quick cycle is ``normal,'' ``heavy,'' or ``any'' soil loads.
The prevalence and variety of quick-cycle offerings, as reflected
in these data presented by stakeholders, support DOE's conclusions in
section II.A.1 of this document that cycle time is a performance-
related feature for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).
In consideration of the Fifth Circuit's opinion that DOE's prior
reasoning in the January 2022 Final Rule improperly relied upon the
prevalence of ``quick'' cycles that do not address the foundational
concerns underlying the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE considered in this
analysis only those cycles that are consistent with consumer
expectations of a normal cycle to completely wash a full load of
normally soiled dishes and are 60 minutes or less (i.e., cycles that
achieved a cleaning index of at least 70 on the heavy,
[[Page 88668]]
medium, and light soil loads and had a weighted-average cycle time of
60 minutes or less).
b. Historical Cycle Time Trends
In its March 2018 Petition, CEI presented dishwasher cycle time
data compiled from annual Consumer Reports data. These data include the
range of cycle times measured by Consumer Reports as well as an
approximate market-average cycle time for each year. Based on the
Consumer Reports data, CEI concluded that the historical increase in
the average normal cycle time demonstrates that current standards have
precluded manufacturers from offering products with short cycles as the
normal cycle.\10\ In particular, CEI noted that the average cycle time
had not been about 1 hour since 1983, before any standards were
adopted; average cycle time in 2018 was 2 hours and 20 minutes, and,
according to CEI, had ``more than doubled due to current energy
standards.'' CEI further asserted that ``when a new energy standard is
adopted by the DOE, the result is an increase in dishwasher cycle
time.'' CEI also asserted that dishwasher average cycle times of less
than 1 hour had been eliminated from the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The March 2018 Petition is available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-0006, page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding CEI's conclusion that the historical increase in the
average normal cycle time demonstrates that current standards have
precluded manufacturers from offering products with short cycles as the
normal cycle, DOE notes that market-average cycle time is not an
appropriate indicator to demonstrate any causality with standards.
Instead, the minimum available cycle time is a more appropriate
indicator to assess any impact of standards on dishwasher cycle time,
because the minimum available cycle time on the market can provide an
indication of the technological feasibility of providing shorter cycle
times while meeting more stringent standards. Trends in market-average
cycle times have largely been driven by other factors, discussed in the
following paragraphs.
Based on the data shared by CEI in its petition, minimum cycle
times (as represented by the lowest cycle time measured by Consumer
Reports each year) have generally increased only during periods when
standards were not amended. For example, the minimum cycle time
increased from 65 minutes in 1993 to 85 minutes in 2006, a period
during which there were no changes to dishwasher standards.
Furthermore, the minimum cycle time as measured by Consumer Reports has
decreased over the past 15 years, even while standards became more
stringent during that time period.
Additionally, the short-cycle feature currently available on the
market has a cycle time (41 minutes) that is lower than the minimum
cycle time measured by Consumer Reports in 1983 (55 minutes), prior to
the introduction of any standards for dishwashers. This demonstrates
that amended standards have not prevented the technological feasibility
of providing a short-cycle feature even as dishwasher standards have
become more stringent, and even as the market-weighted average cycle
time has increased due to other factors (see discussion in the
following paragraphs regarding potential impact of dishwasher sound
levels and detergent formulation on cycle time). In other words,
Consumer Reports data (as well as the other data discussed elsewhere in
this document) show that current standards are not precluding
manufacturers from offering dishwashers with a short-cycle feature.
Consistent with DOE's observations, in response to the March 2024
RFI, ASAP et al. noted that the Consumer Reports data presented in
CEI's March 2018 Petition show that the greatest cycle-time increase
came during a period when no new standards were adopted. ASAP et al.
asserted that the increase in cycle time was likely driven by other
factors, such as consumer preference for quieter products and changes
to detergent formulation. ASAP et al. cited Reviewed,\11\ which stated
that older dishwashers had sound levels around 60 decibels, while
modern dishwashers average between 40 and 50 decibels. ASAP et al. also
cited Reviewed to explain that ``there are lots of ways to reduce
noise, but most of them involve reducing the machine's cleaning power,
and that in turn means lengthening cycle times to compensate.'' (ASAP
et al., No. 8 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Reviewed is part of the USA TODAY Network. See
reviewed.usatoday.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASAP et al. also stated that by 2010, many states had banned the
sale of dishwasher detergents containing phosphates, which resulted in
newer detergents that use enzymes. ASAP et al. cited information from
Reviewed explaining that enzyme-based detergents require more time to
work, lengthening cycle times. (Id.)
In summary, the available data demonstrate that amended standards
have not affected the technological feasibility of providing a short-
cycle feature, even as dishwasher standards have become more stringent,
and that current standards are not precluding manufacturers from
offering dishwashers with a short-cycle feature. Rather, the data
provided by CEI in its petition are reflective of the expanding range
of product availability on the market since the early 2000s,
corresponding to a proliferation of other distinguishing features on
the market.
c. Consumer Preferences
With regard to market competition and consumer preferences, the AGs
of MT et al. referenced AHAM's comments from its Petition for
Reconsideration of the October 2020 Final Rule \12\ to state that
consumers do not want what DOE and industry have offered historically
and that distinct short-cycle product classes would increase
competition and consumer choice. (AGs of MT et al., No. 9 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3224. The Joint Attorneys General referenced AHAM's comment in
this Petition for Reconsideration that the October 2020 Final Rule
disrupted AHAM's members who ``have invested heavily in innovating
to meet energy conservation standards for dishwashers,'' with the
October 2020 Final Rule resulting in ``stranded investments as
manufacturers are required to consider abandoning these innovations
in efficiency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AGs of MT et al. noted that CEI's survey included 2,200
individual public comments in support of the short-cycle product class,
with only 16 opposed, which the AGs of MT et al. assert is evidence
that consumers find it important to clean dishes using a short cycle.
(Id.)
Contrary to the claims made by the AGs of MT et al., the CA IOUs
asserted that the absence of dishwasher products with a normal cycle of
60 minutes or less is due to lack of consumer demand. The CA IOUs cited
an LBNL report that studied dishwasher consumer preferences based on a
survey of 1,201 consumers, ranking from most to least important
attributes affecting consumers' purchase decision,\13\ and provided a
figure illustrating its findings that dishwasher cycle time ranked 14
out of 18 attributes, well below average importance for consumers and
significantly lower than energy efficiency, which was ranked fifth, and
energy bill cost savings, which was ranked sixth. The CA IOUs stated
that based on multiple stakeholders'
[[Page 88669]]
comments,14 15 consumers prioritize cleaning performance,
dish rack features, drying performance, energy and water efficiency,
and low noise levels. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at pp. 5-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Stratton, H., et al. 2021. Dishwashers in the Residential
Section: A Survey of Product Characteristics, Usage, and Consumer
Preferences (last accessed July 17, 2024). eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/osg_lbnl_report_dishwashers_final_4.pdf.
\14\ Comments from Electrolux Home Products, Inc. in response to
the July 2019 NOPR. Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3134.
\15\ Comments from AHAM in response to the July 2019 NOPR.
Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the comment from the CA IOUs regarding the
importance of energy efficiency to consumers, ASAP et al. noted that
the market penetration of ENERGY STAR[supreg]-qualified dishwashers
ranged between 84 percent and 100 percent between 2010 and 2022, which
ASAP et al. asserted provides an indication that consumers are choosing
to buy highly efficient dishwashers. (ASAP et al., No. 8 at p. 4)
AHAM stated that manufacturers pay careful attention to consumer
needs and desires for particular features and utilities. (AHAM, No. 5
at p. 4)
In addition to the data cited by commenters, DOE notes that
according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (``EIA's'')
2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS''),\16\ over 80
percent of consumers use normal cycles, as currently designed (i.e.,
generally longer than 60 minutes) most of the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 2015 Public
Use Microdata Files, 2020. Washington, DC. Available at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/index.php?view=microdata.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the comments and data discussed in the preceding
paragraphs, DOE tentatively concludes that consumers on the whole
prioritize other attributes over cycle length, and product design is
largely driven by these consumer preferences. To the extent that
manufacturers prioritize other attributes of dishwasher performance
over providing a short-cycle feature, such prioritization is a result
of manufacturers targeting broad consumer preferences and not an
indication that DOE's energy conservation standards are precluding
manufacturers from offering a short-cycle feature.
B. Residential Clothes Washers
The following sections apply DOE's authority under EPCA at 42
U.S.C. 6295(q) to determine whether a ``short-cycle'' feature for RCWs
is a performance-related feature that justifies the establishment of
separate product classes. DOE considers a short-cycle feature for top-
loading RCWs to be a cycle that can completely wash a full load of
normally soiled cotton clothing in less than 30 minutes, and for front-
loading RCWs to be a cycle that can completely wash a full load of
normally soiled cotton clothing in less than 45 minutes.\17\ DOE first
reiterates its prior determinations that cycle time is a performance-
related feature of RCWs and details its specific consideration of the
short-cycle feature (see section II.B.1 of this document). As discussed
in section II.B.2 of this document, DOE tentatively determines in this
analysis that the short-cycle feature does not justify a different
standard. Data and information from the Short-cycle Final Rules, the
RCW direct final rule published on March 15, 2024 (``March 2024 RCW
Direct Final Rule''; 89 FR 19026), and the March 2024 RFI show that
RCWs currently available with a short normal cycle (i.e., with a cycle
time less than 30 minutes for top-loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes
for front-loading RCWs) can meet the current energy conservation
standards using the same design strategies as other RCWs of comparable
efficiency without a short-cycle feature. Finally, in section II.B.3 of
this document, DOE addresses other pertinent comments received in
response to the March 2024 RFI that pertain to the RCW topics discussed
in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ This consideration corresponds to DOE's definition of
``normal cycle'' in section 1 of the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR
430, subpart B, appendix J2 (``appendix J2''), which is defined as
``the cycle recommended by the manufacturer [. . .] for normal,
regular, or typical use for washing up to a full load of normally
soiled cotton clothing,'' among other criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature
DOE first considered whether cycle time is a performance-related
feature of RCWs in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). Consistent
with DOE's assessment in previous rulemakings, discussed as follows,
DOE reiterates that cycle time is a performance-related feature of
RCWs.
DOE has previously considered cycle time as a consumer utility for
the purposes of establishing product classes for RCWs. In a direct
final rule published on May 31, 2012, (``May 2012 Direct Final Rule'')
DOE determined that the longer cycle times of front-loading RCWs versus
cycle times for top-loading RCWs are likely to impact consumer utility.
77 FR 32308, 32319. Because the wash cycle times for front-loaders
arise from the reduced mechanical action of agitation as compared to
top-loaders, DOE stated that it believes that such longer cycles may be
required to achieve the necessary cleaning, and thereby constitute a
performance-related utility of front-loading versus top-loading RCWs
pursuant to the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 77 FR 32308, 32319.
In a NOPR published on August 13, 2020 (``August 2020 NOPR''), DOE
discussed that consumer use of RCWs is similar to that of dishwashers,
in that the products provide consumer utility over discrete cycles with
programmed cycle times, and consumers run these cycles multiple times
per week on average. As such, the impact of cycle time on consumer
utility identified by CEI in its petition regarding dishwashers is also
relevant to RCWs. Based on these considerations, DOE concluded that
cycle time for RCWs is a performance-related feature for the purposes
of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 85 FR 49297, 49299.
DOE reiterated this conclusion in the December 2020 Final Rule.
Specifically, DOE concluded in the December 2020 Final Rule that RCWs
with a short normal cycle (i.e., with a cycle time less than 30 minutes
for top-loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes for front-loading RCWs)
provide a distinct utility to consumers that other RCWs do not provide,
and that consumers receive a utility from the short normal cycle
feature to support the establishment of new product classes under 42
U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). 85 FR 81359, 81363-81364. The ``normal cycle''
refers to the cycle recommended to the consumer for normal, regular, or
typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton
clothing. In the January 2022 Final Rule, DOE did not question the
validity of those prior determinations made that short cycles provide a
performance-related feature. 87 FR 2673, 2682.
In response to the March 2024 RFI, AHAM stated that cycle time is
an important consumer feature. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 1). The AGs of MT et
al. stated that consumers find distinct utility in appliances that are
actually capable of washing clothes on a short cycle. (AGs of MT et
al., No. 9 at p. 5).
The CA IOUs commented that short-cycle product classes for RCWs are
unwarranted because they do not meet the requirements for a separate
product class under EPCA. The CA IOUs stated that ``cycle time'' is not
a ``capacity or other performance-related feature'' that justifies a
higher or lower standard as specified under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1). The
CA IOUs further noted that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), the types of
features that are considered for establishing a higher or lower
standard, and thus, separate product class, include reliability, size,
capacity,
[[Page 88670]]
volume, and similar attributes. The CA IOUs further asserted that cycle
time, for the products at issue, is outside the scope of what EPCA
permits DOE to consider in establishing or maintaining separate product
classes. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 8)
For the reasons stated in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, August
2020 NOPR, and December 2020 Final Rule, DOE reconfirms in this
proposed confirmation of withdrawal that cycle time is a performance-
related feature of RCWs for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). In the
sections that follow, DOE evaluates whether such a short-cycle feature
justifies separate product classes in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
6295(q).
2. Justification of Different Standards for Residential Clothes Washers
With a Short-Cycle Feature
As discussed, EPCA authorizes DOE to prescribe a higher or lower
standard than that which applies (or would apply) for such type (or
class) for any group of covered products which have the same function
or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A)
consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered
products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.)
DOE stated in the August 2020 NOPR, and reiterated in the December
2020 Final Rule, that it presumed manufacturers were implementing the
shortest possible cycle times that enabled a clothes washer to achieve
satisfactory cleaning performance (and other aspects of clothes washer
performance) while meeting the applicable energy and water conservation
standards. 85 FR 81359, 81361. DOE stated its belief that the current
energy conservation standards may have been precluding or discouraging
manufacturers from introducing models to the market with substantially
shorter cycle times. Id. DOE further stated in the December 2020 Final
Rule that its actions (i.e., establishing short-cycle product classes
for top-loading and front-loading RCWs) were intended to incentivize
manufacturers to provide consumers with new options when purchasing
RCWs, asserting that creation of these new product classes would
incentivize manufacturers to develop innovative products with short
cycle times for those consumers that receive a value from the time
saved washing and drying their clothing. Id. at 85 FR 81360-81361. DOE
further stated its intent to determine the specific energy and water
consumption limits for the new product classes in a separate
rulemaking. Id.
DOE has conducted an analysis of the energy and water use of a
short-cycle feature for RCWs to evaluate whether different (i.e.,
comparatively less stringent) standards would be warranted for RCWs
that provide a short-cycle feature. As discussed in the previous
section of this document, DOE has determined that a normal cycle of
less than 30 minutes for top-loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes for
front-loading RCWs is a performance-related feature that provides
consumer utility for the purpose of consideration of potential product
class distinction under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE next
evaluated whether RCWs with a short-cycle feature necessitate more
energy and water use than RCWs without such feature, which could
justify a comparatively less stringent standard for RCWs that provide
such a feature.
To evaluate the energy and water use of a short-cycle feature in
comparison to the currently applicable energy and water standards, DOE
considered all data available from recent rulemakings, including DOE's
data from testing conducted in support of the December 2020 Final Rule
and the March 2024 RCW Direct Final Rule and confidential data received
from AHAM.\18\ All RCW test data evaluated in this manner was based on
testing of the Normal cycle as defined in section 1 of appendix J2,
corresponding to the cycle recommended by the manufacturer for normal,
regular, or typical use for washing up to a full load of normally
soiled cotton clothing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ DOE test data from the December 2020 Final Rule are
available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0001-0007. Information on the March 2024 RCW Direct Final Rule models is
available in the technical support document for the March 2024 RCW
Direct Final Rule, which is available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From among DOE's test samples, DOE identified 3 top-loading RCWs
and 9 front-loading RCWs that provide a short-cycle feature.
Specifically, these units have a normal cycle time of less than 30
minutes for the top-loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes for the
front-loading RCWs.
From AHAM's test sample, DOE identified 1 top-loading standard-size
RCW with a normal cycle time of less than 30 minutes and 4 front-
loading RCWs with a normal cycle time of less than 45 minutes.
DOE then assessed the energy and water use of the short-cycle
feature on these units in comparison to the currently applicable DOE
standards. For all of these units, the short-cycle feature uses no more
energy and water than the maximum allowable standard levels for
standard-size RCWs, demonstrating that providing a short-cycle feature
consistent with consumer expectations of a normal cycle (i.e., a cycle
that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing
in less than 30 or 45 minutes for top-loading and front-loading RCWs
respectively) does not necessitate using more energy and water than an
RCW without such feature that meets the current standards. DOE further
evaluated the technologies and design strategies used by these RCW
models and has tentatively concluded that these units do not
incorporate any proprietary technologies or design strategies and are
designed no differently than other RCW models of comparable efficiency
without a short-cycle feature.
DOE has tentatively concluded that the availability of this feature
currently on the market--at energy and water levels that comply with
the current standards--in units with no identifiable proprietary
designs or control strategies demonstrates that an RCW with a short-
cycle feature does not inherently use more energy and water than an RCW
without such feature, and that the current RCW standards do not
preclude manufacturers from offering a short-cycle feature (i.e., a
normal cycle time of less than 30 minutes for top-loading RCWs and less
than 45 minutes for front-loading RCWs). On the basis that both top-
loading and front-loading RCWs with short-cycle features are currently
available on the market with no identifiable proprietary designs or
control strategies, DOE has tentatively determined that a short-cycle
feature is technologically feasible and that current standards do not
prevent manufacturers from providing a short-cycle feature.
In response to the March 2024 RFI, DOE received the following
comments regarding establishing separate short-cycle product classes
for RCWs.
AHAM stated that new product classes to protect the short-cycle
feature are not justified at this time under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) for the
following reasons: (1) consumers are satisfied with existing normal
cycle times based on AHAM's 2021 Consumer Research, which found that 78
percent of respondents were satisfied with the length of the normal
[[Page 88671]]
cycle of their laundry appliance; (2) most RCWs already provide
consumers with short cycle time options; and, (3) data shows that
standards are not expected to increase cycle time significantly. (AHAM,
No. 5 at p. 5)
NEEA commented that short-cycle product classes for RCWs are
unwarranted. NEEA stated that its comments build upon past NEEA letters
submitted to DOE, which demonstrated that short-cycle product classes
were not appropriate for these appliances. NEEA added that recent
research clearly reinforces these conclusions. (NEEA, No. 4 at p. 2)
China commented that DOE should remove the short-cycle product
classes. China commented that the short-cycle product class is not
defined in the regulations and standards, which makes it difficult for
manufacturers to clearly classify their products into this product
class. (China, No. 11 at p. 2)
An individual commented expressing support for short-cycle product
classes for RCWs and stated that products with a ``short cycle'' as the
normal cycle should be subject to different standards than products
without a ``short cycle'' as the normal cycle. The individual noted
that such a rulemaking would save consumers money by lowering the cost
of their electric bills. (McCray, No. 3 at p. 1)
LG commented that, after internal discussions and discussions with
industry partners to evaluate market changes since the January 2022
Final Rule, LG is supportive of DOE's decision in the January 2022
Final Rule and opposes new product classes for short-cycle products. LG
added that for appliances to satisfy cleaning and drying performance in
a shorter amount of time while achieving the same performance, it would
be inevitable that they would consume more energy--an outcome that
contradicts DOE's objective to adopt standards that would result in
more energy conservation. (LG, No. 7 at pp. 1-2)
As noted earlier in this section, both top-loading and front-
loading RCWs with short-cycle features are currently available on the
market with no identifiable proprietary designs or control strategies.
That is, RCWs with shorter cycle times do not need to consume more
energy than the current standard to provide the same performance.
Rep. Bice commented in opposition to multiple rulemakings recently
published by DOE that add new regulations to consumer products. Rep.
Bice asserted that the standards would increase costs for manufacturers
and prices for consumers. Rep. Bice commented that regulation limits
consumer choice and is onerous for American manufacturers, including
many small businesses. (Rep. Bice, No. 2 at p. 1)
DOE notes that this proposed confirmation of withdrawal does not
propose to add any new regulations for RCWs. Instead, this proposed
confirmation of withdrawal reanalyzes the provisions of a previous
rulemaking (i.e., the January 2022 Final Rule) that withdrew short-
cycle product classes.
In conclusion, based on the available test data--which demonstrate
that it is feasible to design a short-cycle feature while meeting
current standards--DOE has tentatively determined that (1) a short-
cycle feature for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to a
full load of normally soiled cotton clothing is technologically
feasible; (2) current standards do not prevent RCW manufacturers from
providing such a short-cycle feature; and (3) multiple RCW models are
currently available on the market that provide such a short-cycle
feature that meet the currently applicable energy and water standards.
For these reasons, DOE has tentatively determined that a short-cycle
feature for RCWs does not justify separate product classes with
separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE requests comment on
these proposed determinations.
3. Response to Other Comments
DOE received comments in response to the March 2024 RFI from
stakeholders discussing the prevalence of quick cycles on current RCW
models.
NEEA stated that consumers can already access quick cycles on
current RCW models. NEEA stated that its review of the 58 best-selling
models in the northwest United States \19\ indicated that 94 percent of
RCW models provided a quick-cycle program, noting that quick cycles are
widely available in both top-loading and front-loading models. NEEA
further commented that consumer-use data found that the quick cycle is
used relatively infrequently in RCWs, citing their previous letter \20\
showing that the quick cycle is selected 8 percent of the time. (NEEA,
No. 4 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ NEEA noted that these models represent 75 percent of the
top-loading market, 80 percent of the front-loading market, and 77
percent of overall sales for 2023.
\20\ Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0001-0044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LG commented that that there are RCWs currently on the market that
have default cycles comparable to DOE's definition of short cycles
while also offering additional short cycles as an option and because
such products are already prevalent, it would be counterproductive to
establish new product classes, which would involve simply setting a
short cycle as the default cycle. (LG, No. 7 at p. 1)
The CA IOUs commented that short-cycle product classes for RCWs are
unwarranted, as other products of the same type are already available
with quick cycles that meet current and future DOE energy conservation
standards. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 1) The CA IOUs also stated that they
could not find substantial evidence that consumers largely prefer
shorter cycle times. The CA IOUs presented results from a 2024 in-store
survey, showing that consumers were satisfied with a 45- to 60-minute
RCW cycle. The CA IOUs additionally stated that survey results showed
that 57 percent of consumers favored an ENERGY STAR-qualified RCW, 27
percent preferred a quiet RCW, and only 16 percent preferred an RCW
with a cycle time of 30 minutes or less. (Id. at pp. 1-2)
Confidential data submitted to DOE by AHAM in response to the March
2024 RFI show that 91 percent of RCW models offer a quick cycle with
cycle times ranging from 15 minutes to 59 minutes and the recommended
soil level for the quick cycle is ``normal'' for 6 percent of these RCW
models.
The prevalence and variety of quick-cycle offerings as reflected in
these data presented by stakeholders support DOE's conclusions in
section II.B.1 of this document that cycle time is a performance-
related feature for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).
In consideration of the Fifth Circuit's opinion that DOE's prior
reasoning in the January 2022 Final Rule improperly relied upon the
prevalence of ``quick'' cycles that do not address the foundational
concerns underlying the December 2020 Final Rule, DOE considered in
this analysis only those cycles that are consistent with consumer
expectations of a normal cycle (i.e., a cycle for normal, regular, or
typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton
clothing) and have a cycle time of less than 30 minutes for top-loading
RCWs and less than 45 minutes for front-loading RCWs.
C. Consumer Clothes Dryers
The following sections apply DOE's authority under EPCA at 42
U.S.C. 6295(q) to determine whether a ``short-cycle'' feature for
consumer clothes dryers is a performance-related feature that justifies
the establishment of a separate product class. DOE considers a short-
cycle feature for consumer clothes dryers to be a normal cycle that
offers
[[Page 88672]]
cycle times of less than 30 minutes. DOE first reiterates its prior
determinations that cycle time is a performance-related feature of
consumer clothes dryers and details its specific consideration of the
short-cycle feature (see section II.C.1 of this document). As discussed
in section II.C.2 of this document, DOE tentatively determines in this
analysis that the short-cycle feature does not justify a different
standard. Data and information from the Short-cycle Final Rules, the
consumer clothes dryers direct final rule published on March 12, 2024
(``March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule''; 89 FR 18164), and the March
2024 RFI show that products with a normal cycle of less than 30 minutes
can meet the current energy conservation standards using the same
design strategies as other consumer clothes dryers of comparable
efficiency without a short-cycle feature. Finally, in section II.C.3 of
this document, DOE addresses other pertinent comments received in
response to the March 2024 RFI that pertain to the consumer clothes
dryer topics discussed in this document.
1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature
DOE first considered whether cycle time is a performance-related
feature of consumer clothes dryers in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)(B). Consistent with DOE's assessment in previous
rulemakings, discussed as follows, DOE reiterates that cycle time is a
performance-related feature of consumer clothes dryers.
In the August 2020 NOPR, DOE discussed that consumer use of
consumer clothes dryers is similar to that of dishwashers, in that the
products provide consumer utility over discrete cycles with programmed
cycle times, and consumers run these cycles multiple times per week on
average. As such, the impact of cycle time on consumer utility
identified by CEI in its petition regarding dishwashers is also
relevant to consumer clothes dryers. Based on these considerations, DOE
concluded that cycle time for consumer clothes dryers is a performance-
related feature for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 85 FR 49297,
49299.
DOE reiterated this conclusion in the December 2020 Final Rule. 85
FR 81359, 81363-81364. Specifically, DOE concluded in the December 2020
Final Rule that consumer clothes dryers with a short normal cycle
(i.e., with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes) provide a distinct
utility to consumers that other consumer clothes dryers do not provide,
and that consumers receive a utility from the short normal cycle
feature to support the establishment of a new product class under 42
U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). Id. at 85 FR 81363, 81364. The ``normal cycle''
refers to the cycle recommended by the manufacturer to the consumer for
drying cotton or linen clothes, among other criteria. In the January
2022 Final Rule, DOE did not question the validity of those prior
determinations made about whether that short cycles provide a
performance-related feature. 87 FR 2673, 2682.
In response to the March 2024 RFI, AHAM stated that cycle time is
an important consumer feature, (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 1).
The CA IOUs commented that short-cycle product classes for consumer
clothes dryers are unwarranted because they do not meet the
requirements for a separate product class under EPCA. The CA IOUs
stated that ``cycle time'' is not a ``capacity or other performance-
related feature'' that justifies a higher or lower standard as
specified under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1). The CA IOUs further noted that
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), the types of features that are considered
for establishing a higher or lower standard, and thus, separate product
class, include reliability, size, capacity, volume, and similar
attributes. The CA IOUs further asserted that cycle time, for the
products at issue, is outside the scope of what EPCA permits DOE to
consider in establishing or maintaining separate product classes. (CA
IOUs, No. 6 at p. 8). (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 8)
For the reasons stated in the August 2020 NOPR and December 2020
Final Rule, DOE reconfirms in this proposed confirmation of withdrawal
its previous determinations that cycle time is a performance-related
feature of consumer clothes dryers for the purposes of 42 U.S.C.
6295(q).
In the sections that follow, DOE evaluates whether such a short-
cycle feature justifies separate product classes in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6295(q).
2. Justification of Different Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers
With a Short-Cycle Feature
As discussed, EPCA authorizes DOE to prescribe a higher or lower
standard than that which applies (or would apply) for such type (or
class) for any group of covered products which have the same function
or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A)
consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered
products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.)
DOE stated in the August 2020 NOPR, and reiterated in the December
2020 Final Rule, that vented electric standard-size and vented gas
clothes dryers that comply with the current energy conservation
standards exhibit cycle times of approximately 30 minutes or longer. 85
FR 81359, 81361. Based on a presumption that manufacturers were already
implementing the shortest possible cycle times that enabled a clothes
dryer to achieve satisfactory drying performance (and other aspects of
clothes dryer performance) while meeting the applicable energy
conservation standards, DOE asserted that the standards may have
discouraged manufacturers from developing clothes dryers for consumers
that provide the utility of 30-minute-or-less cycle times. Id. DOE
further stated in the December 2020 Final Rule that its actions (i.e.,
establishing short-cycle product classes for consumer clothes dryers)
were intended to incentivize manufacturers to provide consumers with
new options when purchasing clothes dryers, asserting that creation of
this new product class would incentivize manufacturers to develop
innovative products with short cycle times for those consumers that
receive a value from the time saved washing and drying their clothing.
Id. at 85 FR 81360-81361. DOE further stated its intent to determine
the specific energy conservation standards of the new product classes
in a separate rulemaking. Id.
DOE has conducted an analysis of the energy use of a short-cycle
feature for consumer clothes dryers to evaluate whether different
(i.e., comparatively less stringent) standards would be warranted for
consumer clothes dryers that provide a short-cycle feature. As
discussed in the previous section of this document, DOE has determined
that a short-cycle feature on a consumer clothes dryer is a
performance-related feature that provides consumer utility for the
purpose of consideration of potential product class distinction under
the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE next evaluated whether
consumer clothes dryers with a short-cycle feature necessitate more
energy use than consumer clothes dryers without such feature, which
could justify a comparatively less stringent standard for consumer
clothes dryers that provide such a feature.
[[Page 88673]]
To evaluate the energy use of a short-cycle feature in comparison
to the currently applicable energy standards, DOE considered all data
available from recent rulemakings, including DOE's data from testing
conducted in support of the December 2020 Final Rule, the March 2024
Dryers Direct Final Rule, and confidential data from AHAM. All consumer
clothes dryer test data evaluated in this manner was based on testing
of the Normal cycle as defined in section 3.3.2 of appendix D2,
corresponding to the program labeled ``normal'' or, for clothes dryers
that do not have a ``normal'' program, the cycle recommended by the
manufacturer for drying cotton or linen clothes. In addition, all test
data represent cycles that achieve a final moisture content of 2
percent or less, which DOE has determined to be representative of the
consumer-acceptable dryness level after completion of a drying cycle.
None of the units in DOE's test sample had a normal cycle time less
than 30 minutes.\21\ However, from the confidential data received from
AHAM, DOE identified 3 electric standard-size clothes dryers and 1
vented gas standard-size clothes dryer with normal cycle times of less
than 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Information on these models is available in the technical
support document for the March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule, which
is available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE then assessed the energy use of the short-cycle feature on
these units in comparison to the current applicable DOE standards. For
all of these units, the short-cycle feature uses no more energy than
the maximum allowable standard levels for standard-size consumer
clothes dryers, demonstrating that providing a short-cycle feature
consistent with consumer expectations of a normal cycle (i.e., cycle
recommended by the manufacturer to the consumer for drying cotton or
linen clothes in less than 30 minutes) does not necessitate using more
energy than a consumer clothes dryer without such feature that meets
the current standards. In the engineering analysis conducted for the
March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule, DOE did not identify any
proprietary technologies in use among clothes dryers currently on the
market. 89 FR 18164, 18178-18179. Therefore, although AHAM's data set
did not identify specific model numbers associated with each data
point, DOE has no reason to believe that any proprietary technologies
or design strategies are being used in those clothes dryer models with
cycle times of less than 30 minutes.
DOE has tentatively concluded that the availability of a short-
cycle feature currently on the market--at energy levels that comply
with the current standards--in units with no identifiable proprietary
designs or control strategies demonstrates that a consumer clothes
dryer with a short-cycle feature does not inherently use more energy
than a consumer clothes dryer without such a feature, and that the
current consumer clothes dryer standards do not preclude manufacturers
from offering a short-cycle feature (i.e., a normal cycle time of less
than 30 minutes). On the basis that both vented electric standard-size
and vented gas clothes dryers with short-cycle features (i.e., normal
cycles less than 30 minutes) are currently available on the market with
no identifiable proprietary designs or control strategies, DOE has
tentatively determined that a short-cycle feature is technologically
feasible and that current standards do not prevent manufacturers from
providing a short-cycle feature.
In response to the March 2024 RFI, DOE received the following
comments regarding establishing separate short-cycle product classes
for consumer clothes dryers.
AHAM stated that new product classes to protect the short-cycle
feature are not justified at this time under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) for the
following reasons: (1) consumers are satisfied with existing normal
cycle times based on AHAM's 2021 Consumer Research, which found that 78
percent of respondents were satisfied with the length of the normal
cycle of their laundry appliance; (2) most consumer clothes dryers
already provide consumers with short cycle time options; and, (3) data
shows that standards are not expected to increase cycle time
significantly. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 5)
NEEA commented that the short-cycle product class for consumer
clothes dryers is unwarranted. NEEA stated that its comments build upon
past NEEA letters submitted to DOE, which demonstrated that short-cycle
product classes were not appropriate for these appliances. NEEA added
that recent research clearly reinforces these conclusions. (NEEA, No. 4
at p. 2)
China commented that DOE should remove the short-cycle product
classes. China commented that the short-cycle product class is not
defined in the regulations and standards, which makes it difficult for
manufacturers to clearly classify their products into this product
class. (China, No. 11 at p. 2)
An individual commented expressing support for short-cycle product
classes for consumer clothes dryers and stated that products with a
``short cycle'' as the normal cycle should be subject to different
standards than products without a ``short cycle'' as the normal cycle.
The individual noted that such a rulemaking would save consumers money
by lowering the cost of their electric bills. (McCray, No. 3 at p. 1)
LG commented that, after internal discussions and discussions with
industry partners to evaluate market changes since the January 2022
Final Rule, LG is supportive of DOE's decision in the January 2022
Final Rule and opposes new product classes for short-cycle products. LG
added that for appliances to satisfy cleaning and drying performance in
a shorter amount of time while achieving the same performance, it would
be inevitable that they would consume more energy--an outcome that
contradicts DOE's objective to adopt standards that would result in
more energy conservation. (LG, No. 7 at pp. 1-2)
As noted earlier in this section, test data show that both vented
electric standard-size and vented gas clothes dryers with short-cycle
features (i.e., normal cycles less than 30 minutes) are currently
available on the market at energy levels that comply with the current
standards with no identifiable proprietary designs or control
strategies. That is, consumer clothes dryers with shorter cycle times
do not need to consume more energy than the current standard to provide
the same performance.
Rep. Bice commented in opposition to multiple rulemakings recently
published by DOE that add new regulations to consumer products. Rep.
Bice asserted that the standards would increase costs for manufacturers
and prices for consumers. Rep. Bice commented that regulation limits
consumer choice and is onerous for American manufacturers, including
many small businesses. (Rep. Bice, No. 2 at p. 1)
DOE notes that this proposed confirmation of withdrawal does not
propose to add any new regulations for consumer clothes dryers.
Instead, this proposed confirmation of withdrawal reanalyzes the
provisions of a previous rulemaking (i.e., the January 2022 Final Rule)
that withdrew short-cycle product classes.
In conclusion, based on the available test data--which demonstrate
that it is feasible to design a short-cycle feature while meeting
current standards--DOE has tentatively determined that (1) a short-
cycle feature as the normal cycle for drying cotton or linen clothes is
technologically feasible; (2) current standards do not prevent consumer
clothes dryer manufacturers from
[[Page 88674]]
providing such a short-cycle feature; and (3) multiple consumer clothes
dryer models are currently available on the market that provide such a
short-cycle feature that meet the currently applicable energy and water
standards. For these reasons, DOE has tentatively determined that a
short-cycle feature for consumer clothes dryers does not justify
separate product classes with separate standards under 42 U.S.C.
6295(q). DOE requests comment on these proposed determinations.
3. Response to Other Comments
DOE received comments in response to the March 2024 RFI from
stakeholders discussing the prevalence of quick cycles on current
consumer clothes dryer models.
NEEA stated that consumers can already access quick cycles on
current consumer clothes dryer models. NEEA stated that its review of
available products on Lowe's website indicated that 92 percent of
standard-size clothes dryer models provided a quick cycle program. NEEA
further commented that preliminary consumer clothes dryer field data
from the 2024 NEEA Residential Building Stock Assessment Laundry Field
Study revealed that the quick-dry program is used infrequently (1
percent of the time). NEEA also stated that consumers continue to be
satisfied with existing products that provide the option of a quick
cycle, and that consumers of one national retail chain highly rated
more than 90 percent of consumer clothes dryer models with a quick
cycle. NEEA asserted that selecting an available quick cycle by
pressing a button or shifting a dial is not an unreasonable consumer
burden when a faster cycle is preferred. (NEEA, No. 4 at p. 3) NEEA
also commented that according to its market research, emerging
combination washer-dryer models are gaining popularity, and according
to NEEA data from its ENERGY STAR Residential Products Portfolio
participation, one combination washer-dryer is among the top-selling
models of RCWs and consumer clothes dryers on the market. NEEA
commented that this option changes consumer views of cycle timing
because it is no longer necessary to wait for a cycle to end to switch
the load from the clothes washer into the clothes dryer. (Id. at p. 4)
LG commented that there are consumer clothes dryers currently on
the market that have default cycles comparable to DOE's definition of
short cycle while also offering additional short cycles as an option,
and since such products are already prevalent, it would be
counterproductive to establish ``new'' product classes, which would
involve simply setting a short cycle as the default cycle. (LG, No. 7
at p. 1)
The CA IOUs commented that short-cycle product classes for consumer
clothes dryers are unwarranted, as other products of the same type are
already available with quick cycles that meet current and future DOE
energy conservation standards. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 1)
Confidential data submitted to DOE by AHAM in response to the March
2024 RFI show that 78 percent of consumer clothes dryer models offer a
quick cycle with cycle times ranging from 23 minutes to 77 minutes, of
which, 81 percent of the models are recommended for small load sizes
and for 19 percent of these consumer clothes dryer models, the
manufacturer did not recommend any specific load size for the quick
cycle.
The prevalence and variety of quick-cycle offerings as reflected in
these data presented by stakeholders support DOE's conclusions in
section II.C.1 of this document that cycle time is a performance-
related feature for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).
In consideration of the Fifth Circuit's opinion that DOE's prior
reasoning in the January 2022 Final Rule improperly relied upon the
prevalence of ``quick'' cycles that do not address the foundational
concerns underlying the December 2020 Final Rule, DOE considered in
this analysis only those cycles that are consistent with consumer
expectations of a normal cycle (i.e., a normal cycle or the cycle
recommended by the manufacturer for drying cotton or linen clothes if a
``normal'' cycle is not available).
D. Other Comments
1. Process
China commented that the comment period for the March 2024 RFI was
less than 60 days, but Article 6.3.1.8(a) of Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade (Document No. G/TBT/1/Rev.15) specifies that ``the
normal time limit for comments on notifications should be 60 days.''
Accordingly, China suggested extending the comment period for the March
2024 RFI. (China, No. 11 at p. 3)
In response, DOE notes that the time limits referenced in Article
6.3.1.8 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade apply to
notified technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures and
not to documents like the March 2024 RFI. DOE finds that the 30-day
comment period in the March 2024 RFI was appropriate as stakeholders
have already been afforded multiple opportunities to provide comments
on this topic as part of the October 2020 Final Rule, the December 2020
Final Rule, and January 2022 Final Rule. 85 FR 68723; 85 FR 81359; 87
FR 2673.
2. Legal
NRDC and Earthjustice included as an attachment to their comments
on the March 2024 RFI, their previous comments with ASAP et al. and
commented that the creation of the short-cycle product classes violated
numerous provisions of EPCA and standards of reasoned decision-making,
including the statute's anti-backsliding provision, product class
provision, and criteria for prescribing new or amended standards. NRDC
and Earthjustice commented that if DOE were to attempt to unwind its
revocation of the short-cycle product classes, DOE would be repeating
these violations of the statute and compounding its unlawful prior
actions. (NRDC and Earthjustice, No. 10 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs commented that the Short-cycle Final Rules reduced or
removed efficiency standards for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer
clothes dryers, which conflicts with EPCA under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1).
(CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 9)
As discussed elsewhere in this document, DOE applied EPCA's
authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and has tentatively determined that
separate product classes with separate standards are not justified for
dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers that provide a short-
cycle feature.
AHAM commented that while it remains opposed to new short-cycle
product classes for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers,
AHAM questioned DOE's legal interpretation that the anti-backsliding
provision in EPCA prohibits new product classes from having less-
stringent standards. AHAM commented that Congress provided DOE the
authority to develop separate classes that can have higher or lower
standards and would not have included this provision if DOE could never
use it. AHAM commented that the intent behind the creation of a new
product class is to ensure features are protected and if standards
threaten those features, DOE is authorized to create new product
classes that have a less (or more) stringent standard than other
products of that type. AHAM commented that if the anti-backsliding
provision is interpreted to prohibit lower standards from being
implemented, it would render this section of EPCA almost useless once
initial product classes have been established, and that does not seem
[[Page 88675]]
consistent with Congressional intent. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 6-7)
In the January 2022 Final Rule, DOE concluded that it did not
adequately consider EPCA's requirements, including the anti-backsliding
provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), when it finalized the Short-cycle
Final Rules. 87 FR 2673, 2680. DOE did not provide a legal
interpretation on the anti-backsliding provision beyond that it was not
adequately considered in the Short-cycle Final Rules. In this proposed
confirmation of withdrawal, DOE applied EPCA's authority under 42
U.S.C. 6295(q) and tentatively determined that a short-cycle feature
does not justify a separate product class with separate standards under
42 U.S.C. 6295(q) for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers.
As a result, the anti-backsliding provision is not applicable because
DOE is not proposing to establish a separate product class requiring
different standards.
DOE also received a comment regarding pending litigation, which is
outside of the scope of this proposed confirmation of withdrawal.
3. Impacts on Average Lifetime
The AGs of MT et al. commented that increased energy efficiency
tends to increase appliance complexity, which decreases mean time to
failure and makes many appliances either not repairable in a cost-
effective manner or not repairable at all. The AGs of MT et al.
asserted that one method to increase reliability is to decrease time of
continuous operation (i.e., cycle time); another method is to operate
components well short of their rated load--which would be less energy
efficient but would be more reliable and last longer (i.e., less
downtime for repair and longer time before replacement), which would
make overall costs lower. The AGs of MT et al. stated that a
significant subset of consumers prefer, and find distinct utility in,
more-functional and longer-lasting short-cycle appliances. The AGs of
MT et al. asserted that the expected increased reliability and
increased lifespan of short-cycle appliances likely aligns with lower
life-cycle energy use vis-[agrave]-vis appliance models in the pre-
existing classes. (AGs of MT et al., No. 9 at p. 6)
In response, to the extent that any technology option considered by
DOE as the basis for achieving higher levels of efficiency could result
in an increase in repair frequency or cost, DOE's rulemaking analysis
incorporates such impacts into the life-cycle cost analysis, where
supported by data. For example, in the life-cycle cost analysis
conducted for the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule, DOE
accounted for slightly higher repair frequency for efficiency levels
above baseline and doubled the estimated repair frequency for products
at the maximum technologically feasible efficiency level due to the
increased complexity and less mature technologies required at those
levels, based on discussions with manufacturers. DOE also modeled
repair costs as being proportional to the equipment cost, based on
manufacturers' inputs. 89 FR 31398, 31424.
However, DOE has not found any evidence of average product lifetime
being correlated with any specific higher-efficiency design options or
efficiency levels and did not receive any comments on the NOPR
preceding the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule (88 FR 32514
(May 19, 2023)) regarding DOE's dishwasher lifetime assumptions. Among
the dishwasher standards rulemakings conducted over the course of the
last 30 years, the data sources that DOE uses to derive estimates of
average product lifetime have not provided any indication of a
substantial change in lifetime during this time period. In fact, the
data suggest that current product lifetimes are actually longer than
the lifetime estimates used in 1991. Specifically, DOE's estimates of
average lifetime for dishwashers have been as follows: 12.6 years in
the May 1991 Final Rule, 12.3 years in the 2007 Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 15.4 years in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, 15.2
years in the December 2016 Final Determination, and 15.2 years in the
April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule. 56 FR 22250, 22276 (May 14,
1991); 72 FR 64432, 64435 (Nov. 15, 2007); 77 FR 31918, 31933 (May 30,
2012); 81 FR 90072, 90088 (Dec. 13, 2016); 89 FR 31398, 31430.
Similarly, in the life-cycle cost analysis conducted for the March
2024 RCW Direct Final Rule, DOE accounted for slightly higher repair
costs for ENERGY STAR-qualified RCWs due to the increased complexity
and less mature technologies required at those levels, based on
discussions with manufacturers.
However, DOE has not found any evidence of average product lifetime
being correlated with any specific higher-efficiency design options or
efficiency levels and did not receive any comments on the NOPR
preceding the March 2024 RCW Direct Final Rule (``May 2023 RCW NOPR'';
88 FR 26511 (May 1, 2023)) objecting to DOE's RCW lifetime assumptions.
Among the RCW standards rulemakings conducted over the course of the
last 30 years, the data sources that DOE uses to derive estimates of
average product lifetime have not provided any indication of a
substantial change in lifetime during this time period. DOE's estimates
of average lifetime for RCWs have been as follows: 14.1 years in the
May 1991 and January 2001 Final Rules, 14.2 years in the December 2012
Direct Final Rule, and 13.4 years in the March 2024 RCW Direct Final
Rule. 56 FR 22250, 22270 (May 14, 1991); 77 FR 32308, 32342 (May 31,
2012); 89 FR 19026, 19060.
Further, in the life-cycle cost analysis conducted for the March
2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule, DOE accounted for slightly higher repair
frequency for ENERGY STAR-qualified consumer clothes dryers due to the
increased complexity and less mature technologies required at those
levels, based on discussions with manufacturers.
However, DOE has not found any evidence of average product lifetime
being correlated with any specific higher-efficiency design options or
efficiency levels and did not receive any comments on the NOPR
preceding the March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule (87 FR 51734 (August
22, 2022)) objecting to DOE's consumer clothes dryer lifetime
assumptions. Among the consumer clothes dryer standards rulemakings
conducted over the course of the last 30 years, the data sources that
DOE uses to derive estimates of average product lifetime have not
provided any indication of a substantial change in lifetime during this
time period. DOE's estimates of average lifetime for consumer clothes
dryers have been as follows: 17.1 years in the May 1991 Final Rule, 16
years in the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, and 14 years in the March
2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule. 56 FR 22250, 22273 (May 14, 1991); 76 FR
22454, 22514 (April 21, 2011); 89 FR 18164, 18166.
In summary, the best available data--which have been vetted
publicly through multiple rounds of standards rulemakings since 1991--
indicate a very stable trend in dishwasher, RCW, and consumer clothes
dryer lifetimes over the past 30 years even as improvements in energy
and water efficiency have been achieved through those rulemakings over
that time.
E. Other Topics Addressed by the Fifth Circuit
1. Water Authority
In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit stated that ``[n]o part of [EPCA]
indicates Congress gave DOE power to regulate
[[Page 88676]]
water use for energy-using appliances (like dishwashers and [RCWs]),''
and stated that it is unclear that DOE has any statutory authority to
regulate water use in dishwashers and RCWs. See Louisiana, 90 F.4th at
470-471.
In response, DOE notes, as did the Fifth Circuit, that EPCA
prescribed energy conservation standards with both energy and water use
requirements for RCWs and dishwashers. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(A) and
(10)(A)). In establishing energy conservation standards with both
energy and water use performance standards for RCWs and dishwashers,
Congress also directed DOE to ``determin[e] whether to amend'' those
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B) and (10)(B)) Congress's directive,
in section 6295(g)(9)(B), to consider whether ``to amend the standards
in effect for RCWs,'' and in section 6295(g)(10)(B), to consider
whether ``to amend the standards for dishwashers,'' refers to ``the
standards'' established in the immediately preceding paragraphs, where
Congress established energy conservation standards with both energy and
water use performance standards for RCWs and dishwashers. Indeed, the
energy and water use performance standards for RCWs (both top-loading
and front-loading) are each contained within a single subparagraph, as
are the energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers
(both standard-size and compact-size). (See id.) Accordingly, DOE's
authority, under 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B) and (10)(B), includes
consideration of amended energy and water use performance standards for
RCWs and dishwashers, respectively.
Similarly, DOE's authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m) to amend
``standards'' for covered products includes amending both the energy
and water use performance standards for RCWs and dishwashers. Neither
section 6295(g)(9)(B) or (10)(B) nor section 6295(m) limit their
application to ``energy use standards.'' Rather, they direct DOE to
consider amending ``the standards,'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B) and
(10)(B), or simply ``standards,'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B), which may
include both energy and water use performance standards.
Accordingly, in conducting the analyses in this proposed
confirmation of withdrawal, DOE has considered (where appropriate)
whether the relevant short-cycle features justify both different water
and energy standards.
2. Test Procedure Authority
The Fifth Circuit noted that DOE tests only some of the settings on
dishwashers and ``laundry machines'' (i.e., RCWs and consumer clothes
dryers) and stated that DOE concluded in the January 2022 Final Rule
that ``manufacturers are free to deploy other, non-tested settings that
use as much energy and water as necessary to actually clean consumers'
things,'' indicating that this could create a loophole for
manufacturers to deploy unregulated cycles. Louisiana, 90 F.4th at 474.
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or water use (in
the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets and urinals), or
estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a
representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the
Secretary, and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3))
DOE has established test procedures for dishwashers, RCWs, and
consumer clothes dryers in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices C1
and C2, J and J2, and D1 and D2, respectively. For each test procedure,
DOE has determined through its rulemaking process, which included ample
manufacturer input, that the tested cycle(s)--i.e., the normal cycle
for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers--produce
representative measures of energy efficiency, energy use or water use,
or estimated annual operating cost, as applicable for each product,
without the undue burden that would be associated with requiring every
available cycle to be tested.
To ensure that the normal cycle produces measures of energy use,
efficiency, and estimated annual operating cost specifically for a
representative average use cycle or period of use, DOE has developed
definitions and testing instructions in each test procedure to guide
the appropriate selection of cycles to be tested, which corresponds to
a representative average use cycle of how such appliance are used by
consumers in their households.
For dishwashers, the normal cycle is ``[t]he cycle type, including
washing and drying temperature options, recommended in the
manufacturer's instructions for daily, regular, or typical use to
completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes including the
power-dry feature. If no cycle or more than one cycle is recommended in
the manufacturer's instructions for daily, regular, or typical use to
completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes, the most energy
intensive of these cycles shall be considered the normal cycle. In the
absence of a manufacturer recommendation on washing and drying
temperature options, the highest energy consumption options must be
selected.'' Section 1 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices C1 and
C2.
In the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE noted that it was
maintaining the dishwasher test cycle selections and cycle options to
test on the normal cycle. DOE additionally added a cleaning performance
requirement to validate that the tested cycle was representative of an
average use cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3243. Prior to publishing this final
rule, in a NOPR published on December 22, 2021, (``December 2021 TP
NOPR'') DOE summarized and addressed stakeholder comments regarding the
representative test cycle for dishwashers. Specifically, AHAM commented
that consumers still most frequently select the normal cycle, and when
consumers decide on a cycle selection, they typically use it for most
of their cycles. Both GE Appliances and Whirlpool Corporation supported
AHAM's comment that the normal cycle should remain the tested cycle.
Both manufacturers submitted confidential data that supported the
position that the manufacturer-designated normal cycle still represents
consumer preference regarding cycle selection. These confidential data
indicated, in the aggregate, that roughly 55 to 75 percent of all
dishwasher cycles are conducted on the normal cycle. DOE further
observed that among the other selected cycle types, some would be
expected to be less energy-intensive than the normal cycle (e.g., a
glassware cycle type), while others would be expected to be more
energy-intensive than the normal cycle (e.g., a pots and pans cycle
type). 86 FR 72738, 72757. The CA IOUs referenced PG&E's 2016 Home
Energy Use Survey to support their claim that the tested normal cycle
including any power-dry feature, in the current test procedure, is
still the cycle most representative of how consumers operate
dishwashers. In this survey, PG&E found that 75 percent of households
use the normal cycle. The CA IOUs further stated that consumers would
be less likely to switch from using the normal cycle if DOE were to
incorporate cleaning performance in the test procedure, and recommended
DOE investigate incorporating a cleaning performance test. Id. at 86 FR
72747. In that NOPR, DOE noted that absent data
[[Page 88677]]
that reflects national use and frequency of use of other cycle types,
DOE was not proposing changes to cycle selections for testing. Further,
as noted in section II.A.3.c of this document, according to EIA's 2020
RECS, over 80 percent of consumers use normal cycles most of the time.
In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE noted that it was proposing a
minimum cleaning index threshold for a test cycle to be considered
valid. That is, if the normal cycle does not meet a specified threshold
at any soil-load, DOE proposed that the most energy-intensive cycle be
tested and used for certification purposes at that soil load. DOE noted
that this alternative approach would better represent an average use
cycle by capturing those consumers that may select other cycles for
washing dishes if the cleaning performance of the normal cycle does not
meet their expectations, because higher energy use provides increased
thermal and mechanical action for removing soils, thus correlating
generally with improved cleaning performance. Id. DOE adopted these
proposals in the January 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 3234, 3243.
Based on stakeholder comments, nationally representative survey
data, and DOE's analyses, DOE concluded that the normal cycle is the
representative average use cycle for dishwashers.
For RCWs, the normal cycle is ``the cycle recommended by the
manufacturer (considering manufacturer instructions, control panel
labeling and other markings on the clothes washer) for normal, regular,
or typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton
clothing. For machines where multiple cycle settings are recommended by
the manufacturer for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to
a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing, then the Normal cycle
is the cycle selection that results in the lowest [energy efficiency]
value.'' Section 1 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices J and J2.
For the final rule that established appendix J1, which was a
precursor to the current appendices J and J2, DOE reviewed Procter &
Gamble data indicating that the normal cycle on a typical RCW is used
approximately 75 percent of the time, and DOE noted that its test
procedure uses the normal cycle to approximate typical use by
consumers. 62 FR 45484, 45493 (Aug. 27, 1997). In a test procedure
final rule published on August 5, 2015, DOE changed the draft language
for the definition of the normal cycle from referencing ``the most
common consumer cycle'' to referencing ``the cycle recommended by the
manufacturer [. . .] for normal, regular, or typical use,'' noting that
the updated phrasing represented the same intent. 80 FR 46730, 46742.
In the most recently published test procedure for RCWs that established
the current appendices J and J2 (``June 2022 TP Final Rule''), DOE
noted that its test procedure identifies the ``normal cycle'' as the
cycle representative of consumer use and requires testing using it. 87
FR 33316, 33351 (June 1, 2022).
For all consumer clothes dryers in the test procedure at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1 and for timer dryers in 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix D2, the consumer clothes dryer is operated for
the test cycle at the maximum temperature setting and, if equipped with
a timer, at the maximum time setting. If the consumer clothes dryer
does not have a separate temperature setting selection on the control
panel, the maximum time settings is used for the drying test cycle. For
automatic termination control dryers in the test procedure at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, the ``normal'' program shall be
selected for the test cycle. Automatic termination control dryers that
do not have a ``normal'' program are tested using the cycle recommended
by the manufacturer for drying cotton or linen clothes. Section 3.3 of
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices D1 and D2.
In a NOPR published on January 2, 2013, DOE first proposed the use
of the ``normal'' program for the drying test cycle in conjunction with
test methods that would more accurately measure the energy use of
automatic termination control dryers, which comprise the majority of
consumer clothes dryer shipments. DOE determined this program to be
most representative of consumer use based on data from NEEA's
residential laundry field use study, which showed that the average
household surveyed used the ``normal'' or an equivalent program cycle
for nearly 60 percent of all drying. 78 FR 152, 170-171. DOE received
comments from Samsung stating that the proposed test procedure would be
representative of consumer use because it measures the energy use of
the most commonly selected cycle (Normal/Cottons and Linens) for
automatic termination control dryers. DOE adopted this proposal and
established appendix D2 in a final rule published on August 14, 2013.
78 FR 49608, 49624.
DOE has thereby promulgated new and amended test procedures in
accordance with EPCA's requirements to ensure that manufacturers are
certifying dishwashers, RCWs, and clothes dryers that comply with the
currently applicable energy conservation standards. As discussed in
section II.E.3 of this document, DOE has also developed provisions
within its test procedures for dishwashers, RCWs, and clothes dryers
that ensure that the tested cycles maintain product utility that meets
consumer expectations.
3. Preservation of Product Utility
In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit stated that ``Americans who want
clean dishes or clothes may use more energy and more water to preclean,
reclean, or handwash their stuff before, after, or in lieu of using
DOE-regulated appliances,'' and that DOE did not adequately respond to
this potential for more energy and water use in the January 2022 Final
Rule. Louisiana, 90 F.4th at 472-473. In the following sections, DOE
addresses stakeholder concerns regarding preservation of product
utility for each product type.
a. Dishwashers
In addition to the Fifth Circuit's opinion on product utility, DOE
also received stakeholder comments on this topic in response to the
March 2024 RFI. The AGs of MT et al., commented that, according to
survey results presented by CEI in response to the July 2019 NOPR,\22\
over 85 percent of consumers hand-wash dishes at least sometimes
``because the dishwasher takes too long''; roughly 33 percent of
consumers reported that their dishwasher does not clean their dishes
well; and 34 percent reported that they run their dishwasher multiple
times to get their dishes clean. (AGs of MT et al., No. 9 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ CEI submitted results from a survey it conducted in late
2019 based on 1,062 respondents to understand consumers' dishwasher
usage patterns as well as their opinions on dishwasher cycle length.
Available as attachment B at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0002-0239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that the data and conclusions presented by the AGs of MT
et al., are contradicted by data and conclusions presented by other
stakeholders in response to the March 2024 RFI.
With regard to handwashing dishes because the dishwasher takes too
long, AHAM presented data \23\ indicating that 81 percent of
respondents were satisfied with the length of the normal cycle of their
dishwashers. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 3) AHAM also referenced a 2020
University of Michigan study \24\ and
[[Page 88678]]
commented that this study showed that recommended practices for
dishwasher use are not always performed, with 67 percent of dishwasher
owners typically prerinsing dishes before loading. However, AHAM stated
that its member data do not indicate that consumers are choosing to
wash their dishes by hand because of perceived longer cycle times.
(Id., at p. 5) AHAM further commented that consumers are satisfied with
current cycle times, choosing to rely on their dishwashers regularly.
(Id., at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Appliance Impact Research--Regulatory Findings, conducted
for AHAM by DIG Insights (February 2021).
\24\ Gabriela Y Porras et al., 2020. A Guide to Household Manual
and Machine Dishwashing Through a Life Cycle Perspective.
Environmental Research Communications. 2 021004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, DOE notes that the 2020 Michigan study cited by AHAM
discussed the role of behavioral barriers in explaining why certain
consumers may be reluctant to switch from handwashing to machine
washing, as these consumers believe handwashing outperforms machine
washing in terms of resource consumption and cleaning performance.
Likewise, findings from the University of Bonn and the Impulse Reach
national survey 25 26 also suggest that the primary factor
contributing to consumers hand-washing dishes is not the dishwasher
cycle duration, but rather a misconception by consumers that
dishwashers require more energy and water than handwashing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Berkholz, P., V. Kobersky, and R. Stamminger. 2011.
``Comparative analysis of global consumer behaviour in the context
of different manual dishwashing methods.'' International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 37(1), 46-58. doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01051.x.
\26\ Wolf, A. 2011. ``Consumers: Dishwashers Second to Kids in
Noise.'' Twice: This Week in Consumer Electronics, 26(18), 64.
www.twice.com/product/consumers-dishwashers-second-kids-noise-37554.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the portion of consumers who report their dishwasher
does not clean well or they run the dishwasher multiple times to get
dishes clean, DOE noted in January 2023 TP Final Rule that the cleaning
performance at the completion of a dishwasher cycle influences how a
consumer uses the product. DOE acknowledged that if the cleanliness of
the dishware after completion of a cleaning cycle does not meet
consumer expectations, consumers may alter their use of the dishwasher
by selecting a different cycle type that consumes more energy and
water, operating the selected cycle type multiple times, or prewashing
the dishware items. DOE recognized the need to ensure that the cycle
type tested in the DOE test procedure is representative of consumer use
as the dishwasher market continuously evolves to higher levels of
efficiency. DOE therefore established a new cleaning performance
threshold in the newly established appendix C2 test procedure that
represents what constitutes ``completely washing'' a full load of
normally soiled dishes (i.e., a threshold below which the dishwasher
would not meet consumer expectations of cleanability). 88 FR 3234,
3250-3267. Under appendix C2, a dishwasher must meet the cleaning
performance threshold, and thus consumer expectations of cleanability.
To the extent that any individual dishwashers on the market have not
met consumer expectations for cleanability, such historical performance
issues should be remedied moving forward, as the test procedure at
appendix C2 ensures that any dishwasher tested for certification will
have a valid energy and water representation only if the dishwasher
also meets or exceeds a minimum level of cleaning performance.
Finally, as discussed previously, DOE's data demonstrate that
dishwashers with a short-cycle feature can meet the current standards.
That is, dishwasher cycles that achieve the cleaning performance
requirements specified in appendix C2 and are 60 minutes or less in
duration are technologically feasible. As noted by ASAP et al., there
are more than 400 dishwasher models on the current market that are
certified to the current ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 specification--which DOE
notes is more stringent than the current standards--and all ENERGY
STAR-qualified products are required to meet a minimum cleaning index
requirement. (See ASAP et al., No. 8 at p. 6)
In response to the March 2024 RFI, ASAP et al., commented that
shorter cycle times would likely result in trade-offs with other
aspects of dishwasher performance. ASAP et al., asserted that there are
many product attributes of dishwashers that are important to consumers,
such as cleaning/drying performance, noise, efficiency, and cycle time,
and that manufacturers have to balance these attributes. ASAP et al.,
referenced DOE's dishwasher test data, noting that cycles with a cycle
time of less than 60 minutes generally provided worse cleaning
performance than the ``normal'' cycles on the same machines, in
particular for the heavy and medium soil loads. ASAP et al., further
asserted that in addition to sacrificing cleaning performance, quick
cycles would likely be noisier, because one way of reducing cycle time
is to increase mechanical action, which in turn increases noise levels.
(ASAP et al., No. 8 at p. 6)
DOE recognizes that dishwasher manufacturers design dishwashers to
achieve many different performance requirements (e.g., cleaning
performance, drying performance, noise, efficiency, cycle time).
Manufacturers also provide multiple cycle types to meet different
consumer needs (e.g., normal, heavy, light, quick). However, DOE
reiterates that 1 of the units in DOE's test sample meets the cleaning
index threshold specified in appendix C2 while also having a cycle time
of less than 60 minutes and meeting the current standards,
demonstrating that current standards do not require manufacturers to
trade off cleaning performance with cycle time.
Regarding ASAP et al.,s comment on the potential trade-off between
cycle time and noise, DOE notes that it did not collect noise data in
its previous testing. Accordingly, DOE cannot independently corroborate
the extent to which there may be a trade-off between noise and cycle
time.
In sum, DOE tentatively concludes that any consumer handwashing or
pre-washing is unlikely to have been the result of past or current
standards. Further, the amended test procedure at appendix C2 requires
test samples to meet a cleaning index threshold consistent with
consumer expectations. Accordingly, DOE does not expect increased
handwashing or pre-washing (above levels resulting from consumer
preferences or misunderstandings) in the future.
b. Residential Clothes Washers
In response to the March 2024 RFI, ASAP et al., commented that
shorter cycle times would likely result in trade-offs with other
aspects of RCW performance. ASAP et al., asserted that there are many
product attributes of RCWs that are important to consumers, such as
cleaning performance, noise, efficiency, and cycle time, and that
manufacturers have to balance these attributes. ASAP et al., referenced
AHAM's petition for reconsideration of the December 2020 Final
Rule,\27\ wherein AHAM noted that in order to reduce cycle time, ``many
manufacturers may elect to reduce clothes washer spin time.'' ASAP et
al., further noted that AHAM explained that reducing spin time would
mean that clothes would come out of the clothes washer wetter, which
would have the effect of increasing clothes dryer cycle time. (ASAP et
al., No. 8 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0002-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE recognizes that RCW manufacturers design RCWs to achieve many
different performance requirements (e.g., cleaning performance, rinsing
performance, noise, efficiency, cycle time). Manufacturers also provide
multiple
[[Page 88679]]
cycle types to meet different consumer needs (e.g., normal, heavy,
light, quick, delicates). However, DOE reiterates that multiple top-
loading RCW models currently on the market provide a cycle time of less
than 30 minutes, and multiple front-loading RCW models provide a cycle
time of less than 45 minutes, all of which meet the current standards--
demonstrating that current standards do not require manufacturers to
trade off cycle time with energy and water use.
Although DOE's current RCW test procedures do not include a measure
of cleaning performance, DOE does consider multiple aspects of clothes
washer performance as it evaluates potential energy and water
conservation standards for RCWs to ensure that no lessening of the
utility or performance of the product is likely to result from an
amended standard. For example, in support of the May 2023 RCW NOPR, DOE
conducted extensive testing to evaluate any potential impacts of
amended standards on of several performance characteristics including
cycle time, hot wash water temperature, soil and stain removal, and
mechanical action.\28\ 88 FR 26511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ DOE published the results of this testing in a report
available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though DOE's analyses conducted as part the standards
rulemaking process have demonstrated that performance can be maintained
under the current standards for RCWs, DOE has previously discussed, for
example in the June 2022 TP Final Rule, that the cleaning performance
at the completion of a wash cycle could influence how a consumer uses
the product. If the cleanliness of the clothing after completion of a
wash cycle were to not meet consumer expectations, consumers could be
expected to alter their use of the clothes washer. For example,
consumers could alter the use of the product by choosing cycle
modifiers to enhance the performance of the selected cycle; selecting
an alternate cycle that consumes more energy and water to provide a
higher level of cleaning; operating the selected cycle multiple times;
or pre-treating (e.g., pre-soaking in water) clothing items before
loading into the clothes washer to achieve an acceptable level of
cleaning. 87 FR 33316, 33352.
As discussed, the dishwasher test procedure defines a cleaning
performance threshold that represents what constitutes ``completely
washing'' a full load of normally soiled dishes (i.e., a threshold
below which the dishwasher would not meet consumer expectations of
cleanability). However, the current RCW test procedures do not define
what constitutes ``washing'' up to a full load of normally soiled
cotton clothing (i.e., the cleaning performance). In the June 2022 TP
Final Rule, DOE discussed its consideration of adding a cleaning
performance metric to its RCW test procedures, but ultimately DOE was
unable to make a determination whether existing test procedures for
determining cleaning performance would produce results for DOE's
purposes that are representative of an average use cycle, as required
by EPCA. Furthermore, DOE was unable to assess whether the additional
burden resulting from these additional tests would be outweighed by the
benefits of incorporating these tests. Therefore, DOE did not include a
measure of cleaning performance in the RCW test procedures in the June
2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 33316, 33352.
DOE continues, however, to evaluate the potential benefits and
burdens of incorporating a measure of performance into its RCW test
procedures, akin to the cleaning performance threshold incorporated
into the appendix C2 test procedure for dishwashers. Any such
amendments to the RCW test procedures would be considered in a separate
rulemaking.
c. Consumer Clothes Dryers
In response to the March 2024 RFI, ASAP et al., commented that
shorter cycle times would likely result in trade-offs with other
aspects of consumer clothes dryer performance. ASAP et al., asserted
that there are many product attributes of consumer clothes dryers that
are important to consumers, such as drying performance, noise,
efficiency, and cycle time, and that manufacturers have to balance
these attributes. ASAP et al., referenced AHAM's petition for
reconsideration of the December 2020 Final Rule,\29\ wherein AHAM noted
that shorter cycle times than those available today would likely
require higher heat levels and/or the use of high heat for longer
periods of time, which could damage the clothes being dried. (ASAP et
al., No. 8 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0002-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE recognizes that consumer clothes dryer manufacturers design
consumer clothes dryers to achieve many different performance
requirements (e.g., drying performance, noise, efficiency, cycle time).
Manufacturers also provide multiple cycle types to meet different
consumer needs (e.g., normal, heavy, light, quick, delicates). However,
DOE reiterates that multiple clothes dryer models currently on the
market provide a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, all of which meet
the current standards--demonstrating that current standards do not
require manufacturers to trade off cycle time with energy use.
Similar to dishwashers, for consumer clothes dryers DOE noted in
the test procedure final rule published on October 8, 2021, that drying
performance at the completion of a clothes dryer cycle may influence
how a consumer uses the product. 86 FR 56608. DOE acknowledged that if
the dryness of the clothes after completion of a during cycle does not
meet consumer expectations, consumers may alter their use of their
consumer clothes dryer by selecting a different cycle type that
consumers more energy, or operating the selected cycle type multiple
times. DOE recognized the need to ensure that the cycle type tested in
the DOE test procedure is representative of consumer use as the
consumer clothes dryer market continuously evolves to higher levels of
efficiency. DOE therefore established a 2-percent final moisture
content dryness threshold in the appendix D2 test procedure that was
shown to be representative of the consumer-acceptable dryness level
after completion of a drying cycle. 86 FR 56608, 56627-56628. Under
appendix D2, a consumer clothes dryer must achieve this dryness
threshold in order for the tested cycle to be considered valid for
certifying compliance with the applicable standard.
To the extent that any individual consumer clothes dryers on the
market have not met consumer expectations for dryness, such historical
performance issues should be remedied moving forward, as the test
procedure at appendix D2 ensures that any consumer clothes dryer tested
for certification will have a valid energy and water representation
only if the consumer clothes dryer meets or exceeds this threshold of
dryness performance.
III. Conclusion
In conclusion, and for the reasons discussed in the preceding
sections of this document, DOE has tentatively determined that a short-
cycle feature does not justify separate product classes with separate
standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer
clothes dryers. As a result, there is no basis for remedying the Short-
cycle Final Rules by establishing a different standard level for short-
cycle products. Therefore, products with short-cycle features remain
subject to the currently applicable standards as
[[Page 88680]]
specified in 10 CFR 430.32(f), (g), and (h), respectively.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
DOE has concluded that the determinations made pursuant to the
various procedural requirements applicable to the January 2022 Final
Rule remain unchanged for this proposed confirmation of that rule.
These determinations are set forth in the January 2022 Final Rule. 87
FR 2673, 2686-2688.
V. Public Participation
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed confirmation of withdrawal before or after the public meeting,
but no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this document. Interested parties may submit comments,
data, and other information using any of the methods described in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
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).
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed
confirmation of withdrawal and request for comment.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 30,
2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on October 30, 2024.
Jennifer Hartzell,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2024-25617 Filed 11-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P