Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81295 

1All 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. 

Houston Community College 

Huston-Tillotson University 

Lee College 

Lone Star College System 

Odessa College 

Palo Alto College 

Saint Edward’s University 

Sam Houston State University 

South Plains College 

Southwest Texas Junior College 

Southwestern University 

St. Mary’s University 

Sul Ross State University 

Tarrant County College District 

Texas A & M University-Corpus Christi 

Texas A & M University-Kingsville 

Texas State University 

Texas Woman’s University 

The University of Texas at Arlington 

The University of Texas at Austin 

The University of Texas at El Paso 

The University of Texas at San Antonio 

The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley 

Tyler Junior College 

University of Houston 

University of Houston-Clear Lake 

University of North Texas 

University of the Incarnate Word 

Wayland Baptist University 

Virginia (1) 

Northern Virginia Community College 

Washington (6) 

Big Bend Community College 

Columbia Basin College 

Heritage University 

Perry Technical Institute 

Wenatchee Valley College 

Yakima Valley College 

Done at Washington, DC, this day of 

October 1, 2024. 

Dionne Toombs, 

Associate Director for Programs, National 

Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23061 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2014–BT–STD–0058] 

RIN 1904–AF59 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Clothes Dryers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of 

effective and compliance dates; 

technical correction. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) published a direct final 

rule to establish amended energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

clothes dryers in the Federal Register 

on March 12, 2024. DOE has determined 

that the comments received in response 

to the direct final rule do not provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawing the 

direct final rule. Therefore, DOE 

provides this document confirming the 

effective and compliance dates of those 

standards. This document also clarifies 

the introductory notes to the appendices 

for the consumer dryer test procedure to 

conform with the amended standards 

promulgated by direct final rule 

published on March 12, 2024. 

DATES: The technical correction in this 

document is effective October 8, 2024. 

The effective date of July 10, 2024 for 

the direct final rule published on March 

12, 2024 (89 FR 18164) is confirmed. 

Compliance with the standards 

established in the direct final rule will 

be required on March 1, 2028. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking, which includes Federal 

Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2014-BT-STD-0058. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.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: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Uchechukwu ‘‘Emeka’’ Eze, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (240) 961– 

8879. Email: uchechukwu.eze@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority 

II. Consumer Clothes Dryers Direct Final Rule 

A. Background 

III. Comments on the Direct Final Rule 

A. General Comments 

B. Anti-Backsliding 

C. Economic Justification 

1. Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts 

2. Energy Price Trends 

3. Consumer Behavior 

4. Product Reliability 

5. SCC–GHG Analysis 

D. Unavailability of Performance 

Characteristics 

E. Stakeholder Representation 

F. Formal Rulemaking 

G. Conforming Updates To Test Procedure 

Introductory Notes 

IV. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

V. Conclusion 

I. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to issue a 

direct final rule establishing an energy 

conservation standard for a product on 

receipt of a statement submitted jointly 

by interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

(including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates), as 

determined by the Secretary of Energy 

(‘‘Secretary’’), that contains 

recommendations with respect to an 

energy or water conservation standard 

that are in accordance with the 

provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) 

The direct final rule must be 

published simultaneously with a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) that 

proposes an energy or water 

conservation standard that is identical 

to the standard established in the direct 

final rule, and DOE must provide a 

public comment period of at least 110 

days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)–(B)) Not later than 120 

days after issuance of the direct final 

rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct 

final rule if: (1) DOE receives one or 

more adverse public comments relating 

to the direct final rule or any alternative 

joint recommendation; and (2) based on 

the rulemaking record relating to the 

direct final rule, DOE determines that 

such adverse public comments or 

alternative joint recommendation may 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) If DOE makes such 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81296 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

2 DOE published a confirmation of effective date 

and compliance date for the direct final rule on 

August 24, 2011. 76 FR 52854. 

3The signatories to the Joint Agreement include 

AHAM, American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project, Consumer Federation 

of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, 

National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 

Members of AHAM’s Major Appliance Division that 

make the affected products include: Alliance 

Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB; Beko 

U.S. Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home 

Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; 

Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de 

C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier 

Company; L’Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG 

Electronics; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea America 

Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances 

Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of 

America; Perlick Corporation; Samsung Electronics 

America Inc; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Smeg 

S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby 

Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, 

LLC; and Whirlpool Corporation. 

4The Joint Agreement contained 

recommendations for six covered products: 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; 

clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; 

cooking products; and miscellaneous refrigeration 

products. 

5The Joint Agreement available in the docket at 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0058-0055. 

a determination, DOE must proceed 

with the NOPR published 

simultaneously with the direct final rule 

and publish in the Federal Register the 

reasons why the direct final rule was 

withdrawn. (Id.) 

After review of comments received, 

DOE has determined that it did receive 

adverse comments on the direct final 

rule. However, based on the rulemaking 

record, the comments did not provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawing the 

direct final rule under the provisions in 

42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C). As such, DOE 

did not withdraw this direct final rule 

and the direct final rule remains 

effective. Although not required under 

EPCA, where DOE does not withdraw a 

direct final rule, DOE typically 

publishes a summary of the comments 

received during the 110-day comment 

period and its responses to those 

comments. This document contains 

such a summary, as well as DOE’s 

responses to the comments. 

II. Consumer Clothes Dryers Direct 

Final Rule 

A. Background 

In a direct final rule published on 

April 21, 2011, (‘‘April 2011 Direct 

Final Rule’’), DOE prescribed the 

current energy conservation standards 

for consumer clothes dryers 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2015. 76 FR 22454.2 These standards are 

set forth in DOE’s regulations at title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(‘‘CFR’’) section 430.32(h)(3). 

DOE’s current energy conservation 

standards for consumer clothes dryers 

are expressed in terms of combined 

energy factor (‘‘CEF’’), measured in 

pounds per kilowatt-hour (‘‘lb/kWh’’). 

To demonstrate compliance with the 

current energy conservation standards, 

manufacturers must use either the test 

procedure provided at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D1 (‘‘appendix 

D1’’) or the test procedure provided at 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 

D2 (‘‘appendix D2’’). Appendix D1 tests 

timed drying cycles, and accounts for 

clothes dryers with automatic 

termination controls by applying a 

higher field use factor to units that have 

this feature. Appendix D2 tests 

‘‘normal’’ automatic termination cycles 

and more accurately measures the 

effects of automatic cycle termination. 

On August 23, 2022, DOE published 

a NOPR (‘‘August 2022 NOPR’’) 

proposing to establish amended 

standards for consumer clothes dryers 

expressed in terms of CEF as 

determined in accordance with the 

appendix D2 test procedure (denoted as 

CEFD2). 87 FR 51734. 

On September 25, 2023, DOE received 

a joint statement (‘‘Joint Agreement’’) 

recommending standards for consumer 

clothes dryers that was submitted by 

groups representing manufacturers, 

energy and environmental advocates, 

consumer groups, and a utility.3 In 

addition to the recommended standards 

for consumer clothes dryers, the Joint 

Agreement also included separate 

recommendations for several other 

covered products.4 The amended 

standard levels recommended in the 

Joint Agreement for consumer clothes 

dryers are presented in table II.1. Details 

of the Joint Agreement 

recommendations for other products are 

provided in the Joint Agreement posted 

in the docket for this rulemaking.5

TABLE II.1—RECOMMENDED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS

Product class 

Minimum 

CEFD2

(lb/kWh) 

Compliance 

date 

Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (‘‘ft3’’) or greater capacity) ................................................................................. 3.93 March 1, 2028. 

Electric, Compact (120 volts (‘‘V’’)) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ............................................................................. 4.33 

Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ................................................................................ 3.57 

Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ................................................................................................ 3.48 

Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ................................................................................................. 2.02 

Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) ............................................................................. 2.68 

Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer ........................................................................................................ 2.33 

After carefully considering the 

recommended energy conservation 

standards for consumer clothes dryers 

in the Joint Agreement, DOE determined 

that these recommendations were in 

accordance with the statutory 

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for 

the issuance of a direct final rule and 

published a direct final rule on March 

12, 2024 (‘‘March 2024 Direct Final 

Rule’’). 89 FR 18164. DOE evaluated 

whether the Joint Agreement satisfies 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o), as applicable, and found 

that the recommended standard levels 

would result in significant energy 

savings and are technologically feasible 

and economically justified. Id. at 89 FR 

18230–18240. Accordingly, DOE 

adopted the recommended efficiency 

levels for consumer clothes dryers as the 

amended standard levels in the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule. Id. 

The standards adopted in the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule apply to product 

classes listed in table II.2 and that are 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States starting on March 1, 2028. 

The March 2024 Direct Final Rule 

provides a detailed discussion of DOE’s 

analysis of the benefits and burdens of 

the new and amended standards 

pursuant to the criteria set forth in 

EPCA. Id. at 89 FR 18230–18240. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81297 

6The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for consumer clothes dryers. (Docket No. 

EERE–2014–BT–STD–0058, which is maintained at: 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID 

number at page of that document). 

7NYSERDA and CEC letter available at 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0058-0056. 

TABLE II.2—AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS

[Compliance starting March 1, 2028] 

Product class 

Minimum 

CEFD2

(lb/kWh) 

(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (‘‘ft3’’) or greater capacity) * ..................................................................................................... 3.93 

(ii) Electric, Compact (120 volts (‘‘V’’)) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) .................................................................................................. 4.33 

(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) .................................................................................................... 3.57 

(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ** ................................................................................................................. 3.48 

(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ...................................................................................................................... 2.02 

(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) .................................................................................................. 2.68 

(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer ........................................................................................................................... 2.33 

* The energy conservation standards in this product class do not apply to Vented Electric, Standard clothes dryers with a cycle time of less 

than 30 minutes, when tested according to appendix D2 in subpart B of this part. 

** The energy conservation standards in this product class do not apply to Vented Gas, Standard clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 

30 minutes, when tested according to appendix D2 in subpart B of this part. 

As required by EPCA, DOE also 

simultaneously published a NOPR 

proposing the identical standard levels 

contained in the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule. 89 FR 18244. DOE 

considered whether any adverse 

comment received during the 110-day 

comment period following the 

publication of the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule provided a reasonable basis 

for withdrawal of the direct final rule 

under the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(C). 

III. Comments on the Direct Final Rule 

As discussed in section I of this 

document, not later than 120 days after 

publication of a direct final rule, DOE 

shall withdraw the direct final rule if: 

(1) DOE receives one or more adverse 

public comments relating to the direct 

final rule or any alternative joint 

recommendation; and (2) based on the 

rulemaking record relating to the direct 

final rule, DOE determines that such 

adverse public comments or alternative 

joint recommendation may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawing the 

direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(C)(i)) 

DOE received comments in response 

to the March 2024 Direct Final Rule 

from the interested parties listed in table 

III.1. 

TABLE III.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE MARCH 2024 DIRECT FINAL RULE

Commenter(s) Abbreviation Comment No. 

in the docket Commenter type 

Casey Smith ............................................................................................... Smith ............................ 65 Individual. 

Representative Stephanie Bice .................................................................. Rep. Bice ..................... 67 Federal Government 

Official. 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and California Energy Commission.NYSERDA and CEC .... 68 State Agencies. 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ......................................... AHAM ........................... 69 Trade Association. 

The Attorney General of Montana ............................................................. AG of MT ..................... 70 State Government Official. 

The Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Green Energy Consumers Alliance, National Consumer Law Center, and U.S. 

Public Interest Research Group.

CFA et al ...................... 71 Advocacy Organizations. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer 

Reports, Earthjustice, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

ASAP et al ................... 72 Advocacy Organizations. 

The Attorneys General of the States of Tennessee, Nebraska, Florida, 

Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, Indiana, Kentucky, Texas, 

Iowa, South Carolina, Idaho, West Virginia, Missouri, New Hampshire, 

South Dakota, Alabama, Kansas, Utah, Mississippi.

AGs of TN et al ............ 73 State Government Officials. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.6 The following sections 

discuss the substantive comments DOE 

received on the March 2024 Direct Final 

Rule as well as DOE’s determination 

that the comments do not provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

direct final rule. 

A. General Comments 

NYSERDA and CEC reiterated their 

sustained support for the 

recommendations issued in their 

October 5, 2023 letter.7 (NYSERDA and 

CEC, No. 68 at p. 1) 

Smith supported DOE’s proposal to 

apply energy conservation standards to 

consumer clothes dryers and to 

periodically determine whether stricter 

standards are feasible. Smith 

commented that the benefits of the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule outweigh 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81298 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

manufacturer concerns regarding initial 

costs. (Smith, No. 65 at p. 1) 

AHAM and ASAP et al. supported the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule for 

consumer clothes dryers because it 

establishes standards that are consistent 

with recommendations submitted in the 

Joint Agreement. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 

1, ASAP et al. No. 72 at pp. 1–2) AHAM 

commented that it finds DOE has 

satisfied all EPCA criteria for issuing the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule because 

the recommended energy conservation 

standards were designed by the Joint 

Stakeholders (including manufacturers 

of various sizes as well as consumer, 

environmental, and efficiency advocacy 

groups; a utility; and some States) to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified in 

accordance with the provisions of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o); and because DOE issued 

the March 2024 Direct Final Rule 

together with a proposed rule identical 

to the standard established in the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule and allowed 110 

days for public comment, which is 

consistent with EPCA requirements. 

AHAM agreed with DOE’s 

determination that the amended energy 

conservation standards levels in the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule can be 

reached through technology options 

identified in the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule, or through other pathways, 

and that under the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule, about half of existing 

consumer clothes dryer shipments 

already meet the amended conservation 

standards. AHAM added that because 

the March 2024 Direct Final Rule levels 

for many product classes are equivalent 

to current ENERGY STAR levels, there 

are a wide range of these products 

currently on the market. (AHAM, No. 69 

at pp. 4, 5–6) 

AHAM further commented that DOE 

satisfactorily responded to AHAM’s 

comments and concerns regarding 

clothes dryer performance, product 

classes, consideration of low-income 

consumers, the new Energy Information 

Administration’s (‘‘EIA’s’’) Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey of 2020 

(‘‘RECS 2020’’) data, supply chain 

challenges, and harmonization of 

compliance dates for other laundry 

products. AHAM stated that the 

compliance timeline reduces the 

cumulative regulatory burden of this 

rulemaking and those for other major 

appliances. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 2–3, 

6–7) 

CFA et al. supported the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule, which they noted is 

one of many completed and pending 

efficiency standards that will together 

significantly reduce consumer costs and 

climate pollution, as well as reduce 

emissions of nitrogen oxides, which 

cause health issues. (CFA et al., No. 71 

at p. 1) 

Rep. Bice submitted a comment in 

opposition to the standards adopted in 

the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. (Rep. 

Bice, No. 67 at p. 1) 

The AGs of TN et al. asserted that the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule overregulates American households and 

requested that DOE reconsider it. (AGs 

of TN et al., No. 73 at p. 1) The AG of 

MT expressed agreement with the AGs 

of TN et al.’s comments. (AG of MT, No. 

70, p. 1) 

As discussed in more detail below, 

DOE has determined that these 

comments do not provide a reasonable 

basis to withdraw the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule. 

B. Anti-Backsliding 

EPCA, as codified, 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)) 

The AG of MT commented that the 

fact the Joint Agreement is contingent 

upon other parts being implemented 

conflicts with the anti-backsliding 

provision of EPCA. (AG of MT, No. 70 

at pp. 1–2). The AG of MT further 

implied that DOE’s efficiency standards 

may violate the anti-backsliding 

prohibition in the EPCA when the full 

fuel cycle costs of shorter lifespans are 

taken into account. (Id. at p. 4) 

The AG of MT stated that DOE must 

consider energy efficiency over the 

entire product lifecycle. The AG of MT 

agreed with DOE’s statement that 

conscientious energy use is more 

complicated than increasing efficiency 

alone, and the AG of MT referenced 

documents with quotes from DOE 

officials testifying to this sentiment. (AG 

of MT, No. 70 at p. 3) 

As discussed previously, DOE may 

not prescribe an amended standard that 

increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the energy 

efficiency of a covered product. Further, 

EPCA defines the term ‘‘energy use’’ to 

mean the quantity of energy directly 

consumed by a consumer product at 

point of use, determined in accordance 

with test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 

6293. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) EPCA 

similarly defines ‘‘energy efficiency’’ to 

mean the ratio of the useful output of 

services from a consumer product to the 

energy use [as that term is defined] of 

such product, determined in accordance 

with test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 

6293. (42 U.S.C. 6291(5)) Neither the 

energy use nor the energy efficiency of 

a product, as those terms are defined in 

EPCA, or measured under the applicable 

test procedure, is dependent upon the 

lifespan of the product or the energy 

costs upstream from the point of use, 

i.e., full fuel cycle costs. As a result, 

product lifespan has no effect on 

whether an amended standard violates 

the anti-backsliding provision in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). 

Additionally, DOE addressed its 

approach to implementing the Joint 

Agreement in the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule. As discussed there, the Joint 

Agreement was contingent upon DOE 

initiating rulemaking processes to adopt 

all of the recommended standards. In 

other words, DOE could not pick and 

choose which recommendations in the 

Joint Agreement to implement. See 89 

FR 18164, 18173. However, the Joint 

Agreement also acknowledged that DOE 

may evaluate and implement each of the 

package of recommended standard in 

separate rulemakings under the 

applicable statutory criteria. As 

described, DOE’s adoption of the 

recommended standards conforms with 

the anti-backsliding provision in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). 

For the aforementioned reason, DOE 

has determined that the comments 

provided by the AG of MT does not 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule. 

C. Economic Justification 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including 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 determines 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In deciding whether a 

proposed standard is economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its 

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

DOE must make this determination after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, and by considering, to the 

greatest extent practicable, the following 

seven statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81299 

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 

(7) Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant. 

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

DOE received several comments on its 

determination of economic justification 

under the statutory criteria. 

1. Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts 

Rep. Bice asserted that increased 

standards will lead to increased 

production costs for manufacturers, 

which will subsequently lead to 

increased costs to consumers. Rep. Bice 

added that the adopted standards will 

limit consumer choice, drive up prices, 

and impose onerous regulations on 

American manufacturers, many of 

whom are small businesses. (Rep. Bice, 

No. 67, p. 1) 

The AGs of TN et al. commented that 

the March 2024 Direct Final Rule does 

not weigh heavily enough the appliance 

cost increase that the rule will cause 

and that will be borne by American 

consumers. (AGs of TN et al., No. 73 at 

p. 2) The AGs of TN et al. commented 

that DOE expects great savings over the 

life cycle of new, energy-efficient 

clothes dryers while failing to take into 

account the upfront costs to consumers 

and the preferences of lower 

socioeconomic buyers. The AGs of TN 

et al. commented that prior to the Joint 

Agreement, Whirlpool and AHAM 

expressed concern about the 

affordability of clothes dryers for lowincome households and the fact that for 

most consumers, purchase cost is the 

leading factor in their purchase 

decision. The AGs of TN et al. added 

that many will opt to repair old 

machines rather than purchasing more 

expensive newer models. (Id. at pp. 3– 

4) 

DOE considered the impacts to 

manufacturers, including the potential 

increase in manufacturing costs, in the 

manufacturing impact analysis in the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule. 89 FR 

18164, 18199–18202, 18217–18224. 

DOE estimates that approximately 48 

percent of annual shipments currently 

meet the adopted standard levels. Id. at 

89 FR 18236–18237. DOE notes that it 

did not identify any small business 

manufacturers of consumer clothes 

dryers. 89 FR 18244, 18258–18259. In 

the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, the 

life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) analysis 

calculated the distribution of impacts 

across a nationally representative 

sample of U.S. households. As 

demonstrated by the LCC analysis, at 

the adopted standard, the LCC savings 

is positive for nearly all consumers; the 

fraction of consumers experiencing a net 

LCC cost is less than 2 percent; the 

fraction of low-income households and 

senior-only households experiencing a 

net LCC cost is approximately 1.5 

percent and 2.5 percent, respectively. 

Id. Therefore, the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule did consider the economic 

impact of the standard on the 

manufacturers and on the consumers of 

the products subject to such standard 

(42 U.S.C. 4296(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)), and DOE 

has determined that the comments 

provided by the AGs of TN et al. and 

Rep. Bice do not provide a reasonable 

basis for withdrawal of the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule. 

AHAM commented that under the 

standards adopted in the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule, only 2 percent of 

consumers would experience a net cost. 

AHAM commented that on average, 

consumers will save $223 with a 

payback period of 1.2 years, across all 

product classes. (Id.) 

ASAP et al. commented that the 

amended standards will particularly 

benefit low-income consumers, who 

spend three times more of their income 

on energy costs compared to non-lowincome households. ASAP et al. 

commented that the standards will also 

benefit renters, whose landlords might 

not otherwise purchase energy-saving 

clothes dryers. (ASAP et al., No. 72 at 

p. 2) 

CFA et al. commented that clothes 

dryers are one of the biggest energy 

users in many homes, with today’s least 

efficient models consuming nearly onetenth of the average home’s total 

electricity use. CFA et al. also 

commented that renters, who are 

disproportionately low-income 

households, are often unable to choose 

their own clothes dryer yet pay the 

utility bills—a problem more 

pronounced in multifamily housing, 

which is predominantly occupied by 

renters. CFA et al. further commented 

that the standards adopted in the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule will reduce 

energy use by 40 percent relative to the 

least efficient clothes dryers sold today, 

benefiting homeowners and renters 

alike; for a household replacing an 

inefficient electric clothes dryer, the 

new standards will provide annual 

electricity bill savings of $44 on average. 

CFA et al. noted that the standards will 

also help ensure that clothes dryers 

don’t over-dry clothes, which can shrink 

or otherwise damage them. CFA et al. 

added that for low-income households, 

the average payback period for electric 

clothes dryers, which make up about 80 

percent of sales, is just four months; for 

gas clothes dryers, the average payback 

period is one year. (CFA et al., No. 71 

at p. 1) 

2. Energy Price Trends 

The AG of MT stated that DOE’s 

reliance on 2022 data for energy prices 

and the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 

2023 (‘‘AEO2023’’) for pricing trends is 

faulty due to Federal rulemakings being 

issued that will force existing generating 

capacity offline, spike electricity 

demand, and decrease fossil fuel 

supply, as illustrated with several 

documents attached to the comment. 

(AG of MT, No. 70 at p. 5) 

DOE contends that AEO2023 remains 

the best available source for projections 

of future energy price trends based on 

adopted energy policies. DOE also 

performed sensitivity analyses using 

alternate AEO2023 growth scenarios 

with low and high energy prices relative 

to the reference scenario in the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule to assess the 

impact of alternative energy price 

projections. 89 FR 18164, 18198. The 

results of these scenarios are available 

in appendix 10C of the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule technical support 

document (‘‘TSD’’) and show that 

consumers of consumer clothes dryers 

would still experience positive 

cumulative net present value (‘‘NPV’’) 

even when considering lower and 

higher energy prices. 

Therefore, the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule did take into account energy 

price variability in its analysis, and DOE 

has determined that the comment 

provided by the AG of MT does not 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule. 

3. Consumer Behavior 

The AG of MT stated that DOE 

acknowledges but disregards consumer 

preference and assumes consumers are 

ignorant. The AG of MT attached 

studies demonstrating consumer 

preference for product lifetime over 

energy consumption, and the AG of MT 

commented that these longer-life 

appliances may use less energy over the 

entire life cycle and be lower cost to the 

consumer, yet DOE did not address 

those issues. (AG of MT, No. 70, p. 2) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81300 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

8See Whirlpool, No. 53 at pp. 8–9. 

DOE did not disregard consumer 

preference but rather noted in the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule that the 

economics literature provides a wideranging discussion of how consumers 

trade off up-front costs and energy 

savings in the absence of government 

intervention. 89 FR 18164, 18231. Much 

of this literature explains why 

consumers appear to undervalue energy 

efficiency improvements. There is 

evidence that consumers undervalue 

future energy savings as a result of (1) 

a lack of information; (2) a lack of 

sufficient salience of the long-term or 

aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient 

savings to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases; (4) excessive focus on the 

short term, in the form of inconsistent 

weighting of future energy cost savings 

relative to available returns on other 

investments; (5) computational or other 

difficulties associated with the 

evaluation of relevant trade-offs; and (6) 

a divergence in incentives (for example, 

between renters and owners, or builders 

and purchasers). Id. Having less-thanperfect foresight and a high degree of 

uncertainty about the future, consumers 

may trade off these types of investments 

at a higher-than-expected rate between 

current consumption and uncertain 

future energy cost savings. Id. 

Potential changes in the benefits and 

costs associated with a standard due to 

changes in consumer purchase 

decisions were included in the analysis 

for the March 2024 Direct Final Rule in 

two ways. Id. First, if consumers forgo 

the purchase of a product in the 

standards case, as estimated based on 

price elasticity related to empirical data 

on appliances, this decreases sales for 

product manufacturers, and the impact 

on manufacturers attributed to lost 

revenue is included in the manufacturer 

impact analysis. Id. Second, DOE 

accounts for energy savings attributable 

only to products actually used by 

consumers in the standards case; if a 

standard decreases the number of 

products purchased by consumers, 

leading to repair existing clothes dryers 

or purchase of used ones, this decreases 

the potential energy savings from an 

energy conservation standard. 

4. Product Reliability 

Further, the AG of MT stated that the 

reliability of products affected by the 

rulemaking will decrease due to 

complexity increases, which the 

commenter asserted is supported by 

engineering facts illustrated in a 

document attached to their comment, 

yet DOE does not address this issue. The 

AG of MT also commented that 

complexity increases will lead to less 

economic viability of repair, which is 

not reflected in DOE’s assumption that 

the rulemaking will have no impact on 

lifespan. The AG of MT commented 

DOE disregards the fact that reliability 

can be increased by lightening the 

electrical, mechanical, thermal, and 

other conditions of operation of the 

components, which tends to decrease 

energy efficiency but results in less 

repair downtime and longer times 

before replacement and, therefore, 

decreased costs, as illustrated in 

attached documents. (AG of MT, No. 70, 

pp. 3–5) 

The AG of MT referenced a previous 

comment made by Whirlpool 8 in which 

Whirlpool asserted that consumers may 

continue replacing cheaper components 

well into the life of an 

electromechanically controlled clothes 

dryer, extending its life, while they may 

not decide to make a more expensive 

electronic component repair, like a user 

interface assembly, after several years of 

ownership of an electronic control 

clothes dryer. The AG of MT reiterated 

Whirlpool’s statement that DOE’s 

previously proposed standards may 

effectively shorten the useful life of a 

consumer clothes dryer because of this 

repair-versus-replacement calculus, 

resulting in loss of time-saving benefits 

of clothes dryer ownership. (Id. at p. 4) 

The AG of MT commented that DOE’s 

use of a single lifespan in its analysis for 

this rulemaking was in error. (Id. at p.3) 

ASAP et al. commented that they do 

not expect the standards in the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule to have any 

impact on product reliability because 

the amended standards can be met with 

simple design changes that have already 

been incorporated in many models on 

the market today. ASAP et al. presented 

a figure of historical RECS data showing 

that the distribution of clothes dryer age 

remained largely unchanged between 

2005 and 2020 as clothes dryer 

efficiency improved. (ASAP et al., No. 

72 at pp. 3–4) 

AHAM commented that the 

recommended standards are 

economically justified as required by 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) and will not 

result in lessening of utility, reliability, 

performance or availability of the 

clothes dryers considered under 42 

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

In contrast to the comment from the 

AG of MT and as noted in the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE’s review of 

clothes dryer product reliability 

information provides no indication that 

higher-efficiency products are less 

reliable at the adopted standard levels— 

i.e., ENERGY STAR efficiency level 

products relative to baseline products. 

Hence, notwithstanding theoretical 

conjecture that higher-efficiency 

products may have poor reliability 

based on simplified textbook models, no 

real-world evidence or data related to 

the technologies used at the adopted 

standard levels can be found clearly 

supporting such a correlation. The AG 

of MT did not specify how the 

referenced documents on network node 

analysis and reliability theory 

correspond to the technologies used at 

the adopted standard levels for 

consumer clothes dryers. In the absence 

of data specific to the technologies used 

in clothes dryer products, DOE has no 

practical basis to model the theoretical 

concern from the AG of MT at the 

adopted standard levels. 

As described in the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule, DOE did not use a single 

lifespan in its analysis for the consumer 

clothes dryer rulemaking. Instead, DOE 

assigned a range of lifespan from 1 to 30 

years, based on the Weibull lifetime 

distribution. DOE further notes that the 

lifetime distribution used in the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule is based on 

actual lifetime values in the field, which 

were developed from historical 

shipments data and surveys. DOE 

observed that from the 2015 RECS to the 

2020 RECS, there was a 6 percent 

increase in the number of consumer 

clothes dryers retiring before reaching 4 

years of age, and an additional 1 percent 

lasting beyond 15 years. However, DOE 

did not find that the average lifetime for 

consumer clothes dryers has 

significantly changed, as the increase in 

the Weibull distribution is reflected in 

both early appliance retirement and 

extended use beyond 15 years. 

Therefore, the estimated average 

lifetime for consumer clothes dryers 

remains at 14 years. 89 FR 18164, 

18191. In addition, DOE is unaware of 

data that suggests a different lifetime 

associated with the technology options 

considered in the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule, and no such data was 

provided by stakeholders. 

In response to the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule, AHAM commented that the 

adopted standard will not impact the 

reliability of products at the adopted 

level, and it further stated that the 

standard levels are achievable by 

technology readily available on the 

market. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 5) 

As discussed in the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule, DOE did take into 

account product reliability, lifetimes, 

and cost of repair when considering the 

LCC of more efficient products when 

supported by available data. See 89 FR 

18164, 18190. Therefore, the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule did take into 

account consumer purchase decisions in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81301 

9See www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/ 

3D26FA56-F102-9E9F-BEA4-52BB0085B19A. 

10 Gonzalez, A., A. Chase, and N. Horowitz. 2012. 

‘‘What We Know and Don’t Know about Embodied 

Energy and Greenhouse Gases for Electronics, 

Appliances, and Light Bulbs.’’ Energy Solutions and 

Natural Resources Defense Council. ACEEE 

Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. 

11Following the issuance of the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule, DOE issued a rulemaking 

document in an unrelated matter in which it 

preliminarily determined that new, updated SC– 

GHG estimates promulgated in 2023 by EPA (2023 

SC–GHG estimates) represent a significant 

improvement in estimating SC–GHG. See 89 FR 

59692, 59700–59701. DOE preliminarily determined 

that the updated 2023 SC–GHG estimates reflect the 

best available scientific and analytical evidence and 

methodologies, are accordingly the most 

appropriate for DOE analyses, and best facilitate 

sound decision-making by substantially improving 

the transparency of the estimates and 

representations of uncertainty inherent in such 

estimates. Id. DOE welcomed comment on that 

preliminary determination. Id. 

Because it issued the March 2024 Direct Final 

Rule prior to making that preliminary 

determination, DOE estimated the climate benefits 

of the standards adopted in this rule using the 

IWG’s SC–GHG estimates. As noted in the text, 

DOE’s decision to adopt the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule’s standards did not depend on the cost 

of greenhouse gasses; nor would the decision 

change based on a revised estimate of the cost of 

greenhouse gasses. 

its analysis, and DOE has determined 

that the comment provided by the AG 

of MT does not provide a reasonable 

basis for withdrawal of the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule. 

5. SCC–GHG Analysis 

The AG of MT commented that 

greenhouse gas (‘‘GHG’’) emissions and 

climate change impacts should not be 

part of EPCA rulemakings, but given 

their inclusion, DOE must consider 

them throughout the entire life cycle of 

the product, including manufacturing 

and potential reductions in lifespan due 

to increased complexity. (AG of MT, No. 

70 at p. 6) The AG of MT also referred 

to a statement made to the U.S. Senate 

Subcommittee on Energy to indicate 

that 40 to 60 percent of the carbon 

footprint for many consumer products 

can be attributed to the supply chain.9

However, the McKinsey report, which 

is the primary source for the statement 

made to the U.S. Subcommittee on 

Energy, is only referring to the 

manufacturing company’s energy and 

carbon footprint that can reside 

upstream in its supply chain and does 

not include the energy and emissions 

associated with the usage phase of the 

appliance life cycle, which represents 

more than 90 percent of the total for 

large appliances.10 As such, the energy 

and carbon footprint associated with 

supply chain likely accounts for 

approximately 4 to 6 percent of the 

overall carbon footprint of a product. In 

the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE 

accounted for the environmental and 

public health benefits associated with 

the more efficient use of energy, 

including those connected to global 

climate change, as they are important to 

take into account when considering the 

need for national energy conservation 

under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 89 FR 18164, 

18228–18230. This analysis focused on 

the estimated reduced emissions 

expected to result during the lifetime of 

consumer clothes dryers shipped during 

the projection period. Id. 

The AG of MT stated that the 

Interagency Working Group’s (‘‘IWG’s’’) 

social cost of GHG (‘‘SC–GHG’’) based 

on global impacts is inconsistent with 

EPCA’s requirements for standards to 

consider economic implications to U.S. 

consumers. The AG of MT claimed that 

DOE erroneously appears to assume that 

all benefits accrue to U.S. citizens, 

despite using global values. The AG of 

MT cited the case of Louisiana v. Biden 

to demonstrate questions related to the 

accuracy of the IWG’s SC–GHG 

estimates. (AG of MT, No. 70, p. 6) 

First, as stated in the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that 

the rule was economically justified 

without accounting for the social cost of 

greenhouse gases. 89 FR 18164, 18232. 

DOE, however, reiterates its view that 

the environmental and public health 

benefits associated with more efficient 

use of energy, including those 

connected to global climate change, are 

important to take into account when 

considering the need for national energy 

conservation. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) In addition, 

Executive Order 13563, which was 

reaffirmed on January 21, 2021, stated 

that each agency must, among other 

things, ‘‘select, in choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity).’’ Regarding the use 

of global SC–GHG values, many climate 

impacts that affect the welfare of U.S. 

citizens and residents are better 

reflected by global measures of SC– 

GHG. In addition, assessing the benefits 

of U.S. GHG mitigation activities 

requires consideration of how those 

actions may affect mitigation activities 

by other countries, as those 

international mitigation actions will 

provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 

residents by mitigating climate impacts 

that affect U.S. citizens and residents. 

The AG of MT stated the monetized 

GHG benefits largely accrue centuries in 

the future, well beyond the rulemaking 

analysis period. Furthermore, the AG of 

MT stated that DOE improperly mixed 

discount rates in its cost-benefit 

analysis. (AG of MT, No. 70 at p. 6) 

DOE’s March 2024 Direct Final Rule 

analysis considers the costs and benefits 

associated with 30 years of shipments of 

a covered product. Because a portion of 

products shipped within this 30-year 

period continue to operate beyond 30 

years, DOE accounts for energy cost 

savings and reductions in emissions 

until all products shipped within the 

30-year period are retired. 89 FR 18164, 

19167, 19169. In the case of carbon 

dioxide emissions, which remain in the 

atmosphere and contribute to climate 

change for many decades, the benefits of 

reductions in emissions likewise occur 

over a lengthy period; to not include 

such benefits would be inappropriate. 

Id. 

With regards to discount rates used, 

the IWG found that the use of the social 

rate of return on capital (7 percent 

under current Office of Management 

and Budget Circular A–4 guidance) to 

discount the future benefits of reducing 

GHG emissions inappropriately 

underestimates the impacts of climate 

change for the purposes of estimating 

the SC–GHG. Consistent with the 

findings of the National Academies and 

the economic literature, the IWG 

continued to conclude that the 

consumption rate of interest is the 

theoretically appropriate discount rate 

in an intergenerational context and 

recommended that discount rate 

uncertainty and relevant aspects of 

intergenerational ethical considerations 

be accounted for in selecting future 

discount rates. With regards to ‘‘mixing 

discount rates’’ (which DOE 

understands to refer to use of different 

discount rates for monetizing climaterelated benefits and for estimating the 

NPV consumer benefits), DOE consulted 

the National Academies’ 2017 

recommendations on how SC–GHG 

estimates can ‘‘be combined in 

Regulatory Impact Analyses (‘‘RIAs’’) 

with other cost and benefits estimates 

that may use different discount rates.’’ 

The National Academies reviewed 

several options, including ‘‘presenting 

all discount rate combinations of other 

costs and benefits with [SC–GHG] 

estimates.’’ 89 FR 18164, 18206.11

DOE’s approach is consistent with the 

National Academies’ recommendations 

and is not improper. 

Therefore, DOE has determined that 

the comments provided by the AG of 

MT does not provide a reasonable basis 

for withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81302 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

12ASAP and AHAM letter available at 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0058-0058. 

D. Unavailability of Performance 

Characteristics 

EPCA specifies 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)) 

Rep. Bice asserted that the adopted 

standards will limit consumer choice. 

(Rep. Bice, No. 67 at p. 1). The AGs of 

TN et al. also commented that the 

adopted standards will limit consumer 

choice. (AGs of TN et al., No. 73 at p. 

9) 

DOE’s data demonstrates that 

manufacturers of consumer clothes 

dryers currently offer units that meet or 

exceed the adopted standards. As such, 

DOE determined the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule would not result in the 

unavailability of products that are 

substantially the same as those currently 

available in the United States. 89 FR 

18164, 18226–18227. Therefore, DOE 

has determined that the comments 

provided by Rep. Bice and the AGs of 

TN et al. do not provide a reasonable 

basis for withdrawal of the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule. 

ASAP et al. commented that the 

amended standards, combined with the 

new test procedure, will ensure that 

consumer clothes dryers adequately dry 

clothing and will not negatively impact 

performance. ASAP et al. added that 

consumer clothes dryers that already 

meet the new standards provide 

improved drying performance relative to 

less-efficient models, as demonstrated 

by Consumer Reports studies and test 

data. (ASAP et al., No. 72 at pp. 2–3) 

ASAP et al. noted that the amended 

standards will not preclude the use of 

electro-mechanical controls, allowing 

consumers a preferred user experience. 

(Id. at p. 3) 

ASAP et al. noted that the amended 

standards will not require an increase in 

cycle time. ASAP et al. noted that there 

is no evidence that the frequency of 

running multiple clothes dryer cycles 

has increased over time or will increase 

in the future as a result of the amended 

standards. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that it supported 

the energy conservation standards in the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule because 

DOE’s data demonstrate that when 

tested under the applicable test 

procedure for amended standards, there 

is no significant difference in cycle time 

between clothes dryers in its data set 

that are less efficient than the amended 

standards and those that just meet the 

amended standard levels. AHAM cited 

as an example the difference in average 

cycle time of only about 2 minutes 

between electric standard clothes dryers 

in DOE’s data set that are less efficient 

than AHAM’s recommended standard 

and those that just meet its 

recommended standard level (with CEFs 

of 3.93 and 3.94, respectively). Thus, 

AHAM commented that it supported the 

energy conservation standards adopted 

in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. 

(AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 1–2) 

AHAM commented that the energy 

conservation standards adopted in the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule will not 

result in significant lessening of utility, 

reliability, performance, or availability 

of the covered products as prohibited 

under the so-called ‘‘safe harbor’’ 

exception of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(IV). 

(Id. at pp. 4–5) 

AHAM commented that the test 

procedure used to determine 

compliance with amended standards for 

consumer clothes dryers (i.e., appendix 

D2) requires that clothes dryers meet a 

threshold for ‘‘final moisture content’’ to 

be certified as compliant—the final 

moisture content requirement ensures 

that compliant clothes dryers will 

adequately dry clothes. AHAM added 

that more than 400 electric clothes dryer 

models and nearly 200 gas clothes dryer 

models meet the final moisture content 

threshold and are certified to the current 

ENERGY STAR specification, which is 

equivalent to AHAM’s recommended 

standard levels and is based on 

appendix D2. AHAM therefore does not 

anticipate that the energy conservation 

standards recommended in the Joint 

Agreement and established in the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule will negatively 

affect features or performance, including 

cycle time. (Id. at p. 5) 

NYSERDA and CEC reiterated their 

support for the recommendations in the 

Joint Agreement and echoed the 

clarification regarding ‘‘short cycle’’ 

products made in the February 15, 2024 

letter to DOE by ASAP and AHAM. This 

clarification specified that the 

recommendations in the Joint 

Agreement did not address ‘‘short 

cycle’’ products for clothes washers, 

clothes dryers, and dishwashers as socalled ‘‘short cycle’’ product classes did 

not exist at the time the 

recommendations were submitted to 

DOE and do not exist at this time.12 This 

letter also highlighted that the 

signatories to the Joint Agreement do 

not anticipate that amended standards 

will negatively affect features or 

performance, including cycle time. 

(NYSERDA and CEC, No. 68 at p. 1) 

E. Stakeholder Representation 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), interested 

persons that are fairly representative of 

relevant points of view (including 

representatives of manufacturers of 

covered products, States, and efficiency 

advocates), as determined by DOE, may 

submit a joint recommendation to DOE 

for new or amended energy 

conservation standards. 

The AGs of TN et al. questioned the 

expertise and relevancy of several 

advocacy groups who contributed to the 

Joint Agreement (i.e., the Alliance for 

Water Efficiency, Earthjustice, the 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 

the Natural Resources Defense Council, 

and the National Consumer Law 

Center). The AGs of TN et al. asserted 

that most of the advocacy groups have 

no expertise in setting energy efficiency 

standards for consumer clothes dryers, 

and failed to raise concerns related to 

the upfront cost of more efficient 

appliances to low-income households. 

(AGs of TN et al., No. 73 at p. 3) 

The AGs of TN et al. commented that 

42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) requires a joint 

statement from ‘‘interested persons that 

are fairly representative of the relevant 

points of view,’’ and it must include 

‘‘representatives of . . . States.’’ The 

AGs of TN et al. asserted that the Joint 

Agreement does not meet that standard, 

as very few States supported DOE’s 

consumer clothes dryer regulations and 

were not signatories to the Joint 

Agreement. The AGs of TN et al. stated 

that interested persons should include 

more States, which are the direct 

representatives of consumers. The AGs 

of TN et al. added that State entities are 

direct purchasers of these appliances 

and thus will directly bear the burden 

of increased costs for appliances, and 

the March 2024 Direct Final Rule also 

preempts State procurement standards 

with less stringent energy-efficiency 

rules in contradiction of Federal law. 

(Id. at pp. 4–5) 

The AG of MT agreed with the AGs 

of TN et al.’s concerns over the 

participants in the Joint Agreement 

underlying the March 2024 Direct Final 

Rule, along with their concerns that the 

group does not comply with EPCA. (AG 

of MT, No. 70 at pp. 1–2) 

AHAM commented that the 

stakeholders who submitted the Joint 

Agreement are representative of a wide 

range of expert and relevant points of 

view—including manufacturers of 

various sizes representing nearly 100 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81303 

13This document is available in the docket: 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0058-0074. 

percent of the market for consumer 

clothes dryers; consumer, 

environmental, and efficiency advocacy 

groups; a utility; and several States that 

participated in the negotiation 

discussions and filed comments in 

support of the agreement. AHAM 

concluded that the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule benefits both the 

manufacturers and consumers that these 

organizations represent. (AHAM, No. 69 

at pp. 3–4) 

In response to the comments 

regarding whether the Joint Agreement 

was submitted by persons fairly 

representative of relevant points of 

view, DOE reiterates that 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4) states that if the criteria in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o) are met, the Secretary 

may issue a final rule that establishes an 

energy conservation standard ‘‘[o]n 

receipt of a statement that is submitted 

jointly by interested persons that are 

fairly representative of relevant points 

of view (including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates), as 

determined by the Secretary.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)) 

As stated in the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule, DOE determined that this 

requirement was met. 89 FR 18164, 

18174–18175. The Joint Agreement 

included a trade association, AHAM, 

which represents 11 manufacturers of 

the subject covered products—consumer 

clothes dryers. Id. The Joint Agreement 

also included environmental and 

energy-efficiency advocacy 

organizations, consumer advocacy 

organizations, and a gas and electric 

utility company. Id. Additionally, DOE 

received a letter in support of the Joint 

Agreement from the States of New York, 

California, and Massachusetts (see 

comment No. 56). Id. DOE also received 

a letter in support of the Joint 

Agreement from the gas and electric 

utility, San Diego Gas and Electric, and 

the electric utility, Southern California 

Edison (see comment No. 57). Id. Each 

of the listed categories of persons 

described in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) 

supported the Joint Agreement. 

DOE has ample authority to accept a 

joint statement in these circumstances. 

EPCA does not require that the Joint 

Agreement be representative of every 

point of view. Nor does it require that 

a statement be submitted by all 

interested persons. Rather, it requires a 

statement from a sufficient number and 

diversity of ‘‘interested persons’’ such 

that the statement is ‘‘fairly 

representative of relevant points of 

view.’’ The Joint Agreement presented 

here is such a statement, as the 

Secretary determined. 

Contrary to the commenters’ 

suggestion, EPCA does not include any 

requirement that ‘‘relevant points of 

view’’ must include ideologically 

opposed points of view. Rather, EPCA 

ensures a diversity of opinions and 

interests by requiring that parties that 

provide a joint agreement must be fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

(including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates), as 

determined by the Secretary. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)) 

Moreover, regardless of whether 

amended energy conservation standards 

are recommended as part of a joint 

agreement or proposed by DOE, the 

standards have to satisfy the same 

criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Thus, once 

DOE has determined that a joint 

agreement was submitted by interested 

persons that are fairly representative of 

relevant points of view, DOE then 

determines whether the joint agreement 

satisfies the relevant statutory criteria. 

As a result, in evaluating whether 

comments provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawing a direct final rule, it is the 

substance of the comments, not the 

number of stakeholders that submit 

statements in favor of, or opposed to, 

the joint agreement, that determines 

whether a rule should be withdrawn. 

DOE also finds meritless the 

contention that the Joint Agreement 

parties are not competent to present a 

statement for purposes of section 

6295(p). Contrary to the 

characterizations by the AGs of TN et al. 

and AG of MT, the parties to the Joint 

Agreement have an established 

historical record of participation in DOE 

rulemakings and have submitted 

detailed comments in the past that 

demonstrate a thorough understanding 

of technical, legal, and economic 

aspects of appliance standards 

rulemakings, including factors affecting 

specific groups such as low-income 

households. 

In a follow-up letter from the parties 

to the Joint Agreement, each 

organization provided a brief 

description of its background. American 

Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy is a nonprofit research 

organization and its independent 

analysis advances investments, 

programs, and behaviors that use energy 

more effectively and help build an 

equitable clean energy future. Alliance 

for Water Efficiency is a nonprofit 

dedicated to efficiency and sustainable 

use of water that provides a forum for 

collaboration around policy, 

information sharing, research, 

education, and stakeholder engagement. 

ASAP organizes and leads a broad-based 

coalition effort that works to advance 

new appliance, equipment, and lighting 

standards that cut emissions that 

contribute to climate change and other 

environmental and public health harms, 

save water, and reduce economic and 

environmental burdens for low- and 

moderate-income households. AHAM 

represents more than 150 member 

companies that manufacture 90 percent 

of the major, portable and floor care 

appliances shipped for sale in the 

United States. CFA is an association of 

more than 250 non-profit consumer and 

cooperative groups that advances the 

consumer interest through research, 

advocacy, and education. Consumer 

Reports is a mission-driven, 

independent, nonprofit member 

organization that empowers and informs 

consumers, incentivizes corporations to 

act responsibly, and helps policymakers 

prioritize the rights and interests of 

consumers in order to shape a truly 

consumer-driven marketplace. 

Earthjustice is a nonprofit public 

interest environmental law organization 

advocating to advance clean energy and 

combat climate change. National 

Consumer Law Center supports 

consumer justice and economic security 

for low-income and other disadvantaged 

people in the United States through its 

expertise in policy analysis and 

advocacy, publications, litigation, 

expert witness services, and training. 

National Resources Defense Council is 

an international nonprofit 

environmental organization with 

expertise from lawyers, scientists, and 

other environmental specialists. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance is 

a collaboration of 140 utilities and 

efficiency organizations working 

together to advance energy efficiency in 

the Northwest on behalf of more than 13 

million consumers. Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company represents one of the 

largest combined gas and electric 

utilities in the Western United States, 

serving over 16 million customers 

across northern and central California.13

Finally, DOE notes that it had no role 

in requesting that the parties to the Joint 

Agreement submit the Joint Agreement 

or in negotiating the terms of the Joint 

Agreement. As noted in the Joint 

Agreement itself, the parties negotiated 

and accepted the agreement based on 

the totality of the agreement. DOE’s 

participation was limited to evaluating 

the joint submission under the criteria 

set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). DOE also 

notes that the preemptive effect of 

Federal energy conservation standards 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81304 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

14 DOE notes that outside of its direct rulemaking 

authority, DOE utilizes informal or legislative 

rulemaking (i.e., notice and comment rulemaking 

under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

553) when it promulgates rules under EPCA, not 

formal rulemaking. 

on State laws is clearly described in 

EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6297. 

Therefore, DOE reaffirms its 

determination that the Joint Agreement 

was submitted by interested persons 

that are fairly representative of relevant 

points of view. 

F. Formal Rulemaking 

The AGs of TN et al. recommended 

that before enacting these stringent new 

standards for consumer clothes dryers, 

DOE return to formal rulemaking or, at 

a minimum, to proceed with informal 

notice-and-comment rulemaking to 

allow States and other relevant parties 

to participate in rulemaking processes 

that affect nearly every household 

appliance and also ensure a minimal 

level of political accountability by 

giving visibility to internal agency 

deliberations. The AGs of TN et al. 

further commented that the lack of a 

formal process does not allow people 

the opportunity to comment on rules 

that touch the lives of nearly all 

Americans. (AGs of TN et al., No. 73 at 

pp. 5–8) The AG of MT similarly 

recommended that DOE halt the 

rulemaking. (AG of MT, No. 70 at p. 7) 

The AG of MT expressed concern 

about pretext and circumvention of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, regarding 

DOE’s conduct in this rulemaking and 

in recent litigations. (Id. at pp. 1–2) 

AHAM stated that interested parties 

have had ample opportunity to 

comment through multiple stages of 

rulemaking. AHAM noted that, in fact, 

the March 2024 Direct Final Rule 

process provided an extra 110 days for 

interested parties to review DOE’s final 

rule and submit comments—which met 

EPCA requirements. (AHAM, No. 69 at 

pp. 3–4) 

In response, DOE notes that Congress 

granted DOE the authority to issue 

energy conservation standards as direct 

final rules subject to certain conditions 

and procedural requirements. As 

discussed in the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule, DOE determined that Joint 

Agreement was submitted jointly by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

and the adopted energy conservation 

standards as recommended in the Joint 

Agreement would result in significant 

energy savings and are technologically 

feasible and economically justified as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and 

provided supporting analysis. 89 FR 

18164, 18174–18175. 

Additionally, DOE notes it followed 

the procedures in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) 

to publish a direct final rule in the 

Federal Register simultaneously with a 

NOPR proposing identical standards 

and allowed 110 days for public 

comment. See 89 FR 18164 and 89 FR 

18244. Regarding the comment about 

formal rulemaking, DOE has met all of 

its statutory requirements under its 

direct rule authority, which does not 

require formal rulemaking.14

G. Conforming Updates To Test 

Procedure Introductory Notes 

The test procedures at appendix D1 

and appendix D2 contain introductory 

notes that specify that either appendix 

D1 or appendix D2 must be used to 

determine compliance with energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers manufactured on or after January 

1, 2015, among other details. 

The amended standards promulgated 

by the March 2024 Direct Final Rule are 

denoted in terms of CEF as determined 

in accordance with appendix D2 (i.e., 

appendix D1 may not be used to 

determine compliance with the 

amended standards). Accordingly, in 

this document, DOE updates the 

introductory notes to both appendix D1 

and appendix D2 to specify that use of 

appendix D2 is required to demonstrate 

compliance with the amended standards 

promulgated by the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule, which are codified at 10 CFR 

430.32(h)(4). The amended introductory 

note to appendix D2 also specifies that 

manufacturers may use appendix D2 to 

certify compliance with the clothes 

dryer standards provided at 10 CFR 

430.32(h)(4) prior to the applicable 

compliance date for those standards. 

In addition, the introductory note in 

appendix D2 specifies using the value 

for the representative average number of 

clothes dryer cycles in a year as defined 

in section 4.5.1(a) of that appendix until 

the compliance date of any amended 

standards for these products; and using 

a revised value of this number as 

defined in section 4.5.1(b) of that 

appendix beginning on the compliance 

data of any amended standards for these 

products. This document also updates 

the introductory note of appendix D2 to 

specify explicitly the date ranges during 

which section 4.5.1(a) or 4.5.1(b) must 

be used, corresponding to the 

compliance date of March 1, 2028 for 

the amended standards promulgated by 

the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. 

IV. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from new or amended standards. 

(42 U.S.C. 629(p)(4)(A)(i) and (C)(i)(II); 

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

directs the Attorney General of the 

United States (‘‘Attorney General’’) to 

determine the impact, if any, of any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard and to 

transmit such determination to the 

Secretary within 60 days of the 

publication of a proposed rule, together 

with an analysis of the nature and 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To assist 

the Attorney General in making this 

determination, DOE provided the 

Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) with 

copies of the March 2024 Direct Final 

Rule, the corresponding NOPR, and the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule TSD for 

review. DOE has published DOJ’s 

comments at the end of this document. 

In its letter responding to DOE, DOJ 

concluded that, based on its review, the 

direct final rule standards for consumer 

clothes dryers are unlikely to have 

significant adverse impact on 

competition. 

V. Conclusion 

In summary, based on the previous 

discussion, DOE has determined that 

the comments received in response to 

the direct final rule for amended energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

clothes dryers do not provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

direct final rule. As a result, the energy 

conservation standards set forth in the 

direct final rule became effective on July 

10, 2024. Compliance with these 

standards is required on and after March 

1, 2028. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Small 

businesses. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on September 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81305 

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 September 

30, 2024. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 

chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, to read 

as set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Revise the introductory Note to 

appendix D1 to subpart B of part 430 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers 

Note: The procedures in either this 

appendix or appendix D2 to this subpart 

must be used to determine compliance with 

the energy conservation standards for clothes 

dryers provided at § 430.32(h)(3). 

Manufacturers must use a single appendix for 

all representations, including certifications of 

compliance, and may not use this appendix 

for certain representations and appendix D2 

to this subpart for other representations. The 

procedures in appendix D2 to this subpart 

must be used to determine compliance with 

the energy conservation standards for clothes 

dryers provided at § 430.32(h)(4). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise the introductory Note to 

appendix D2 to subpart B of part 430 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix D2 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers 

Note: The procedures in either appendix 

D1 to this subpart or this appendix must be 

used to determine compliance with the 

energy conservation standards for clothes 

dryers provided at § 430.32(h)(3). 

Manufacturers must use a single appendix for 

all representations, including certifications of 

compliance, and may not use appendix D1 to 

this subpart for certain representations and 

this appendix for other representations. The 

procedures in this appendix must be used to 

determine compliance with the energy 

conservation standards for clothes dryers 

provided at § 430.32(h)(4). Manufacturers 

may use this appendix to certify compliance 

with the clothes dryer standards provided at 

§ 430.32(h)(4) prior to the applicable 

compliance date for those standards. 

Per-cycle standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption in section 4.5 of this 

appendix is calculated using the value for the 

annual representative average number of 

clothes dryer cycles in a year specified in 

section 4.5.1(a) of this appendix until March 

1, 2028. Beginning on March 1, 2028, percycle standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption in section 4.5 of this appendix 

is calculated using the value for the annual 

representative average number of clothes 

dryer cycles in a year specified in section 

4.5.1(b) of this appendix. 

* * * * * 

Note: The following appendix will not 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Appendix A 

May 16, 2024 

Ami Grace-Tardy 

Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, 

Regulation and Energy Efficiency 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov 

Re: Consumer Clothes Dryers Energy 

Conservation Standards 

DOE Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0058 

Dear Assistant General Counsel Grace-Tardy: 

I am responding to your March 25, 2024, 

letter seeking the views of the Attorney 

General about the potential impact on 

competition of proposed energy conservation 

standards for consumer clothes dryers. 

Your request was submitted under Section 

325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the 

Attorney General to make a determination of 

the impact of any lessening of competition 

that is likely to result from the imposition of 

proposed energy conservation standards. The 

Attorney General’s responsibility for 

responding to requests from other 

departments about the effect of a program on 

competition has been delegated to the 

Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust 

Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). The Assistant 

Attorney General for the Antitrust Division 

has authorized me, as the Policy Director for 

the Antitrust Division, to provide the 

Antitrust Division’s views regarding the 

potential impact on competition of proposed 

energy conservation standards on his behalf. 

In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust 

Division examines whether a proposed 

standard may lessen competition, for 

example, by substantially limiting consumer 

choice, by placing certain manufacturers at 

an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or 

by inducing avoidable inefficiencies in 

production or distribution of particular 

products. A lessening of competition could 

result in higher prices to manufacturers and 

consumers. 

We have reviewed the proposed standards 

contained in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (89 Fed. Reg. 18244, March 12, 

2024), and the Direct Final Rule (89 Fed. Reg. 

18164, March 12, 2024) and request for 

comments and the related Technical Support 

Documents. We have also reviewed public 

comments and reviewed the Docket. Based 

on this review, our conclusion is that the 

proposed energy conservation standards for 

consumer clothes dryers are unlikely to have 

a significant adverse impact on competition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

David G.B. Lawrence, 

Policy Director. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23257 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 3 

[Docket No.: FAA–2023–1194; Amendment 

No. 3–3] 

RIN 2120–AL85 

U.S. Agents for Service on Individuals 

With Foreign Addresses Who Hold or 

Apply for Certain Certificates, Ratings, 

or Authorizations 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA will require 

individuals with foreign addresses, and 

no U.S. physical address of record on 

file with the FAA, who hold or apply for 

certain certificates, ratings, or 

authorizations to designate a U.S. agent 

for service of FAA documents. The U.S. 

agent will receive service of FAA 

documents on the certificate holder or 

applicant’s behalf. This rule facilitates 

the FAA’s ability to accomplish prompt 

and cost-effective service of process and 

service of other safety-critical or timesensitive documents to individuals 

abroad through service on their U.S. 

agents. 

DATES: 

Effective dates: Amendatory 

instructions 1 (part 3) and 2 (subpart C 

of part 3) are effective October 8, 2024, 

amendatory instruction 3 (§ 3.303(d) 

and (e)) is effective January 6, 2025, and 

amendatory instruction 4 (§ 3.303(d)) is 

effective July 7, 2025. 

Compliance dates: The compliance 

dates for this final rule are as follows: 

January 6, 2025, for applicants of any 

certificate, rating, or authorization 

issued under part 47, 61, 63, 65, 67, or 

107, and July 7, 2025 for holders of any 

certificate, rating, or authorization 

issued under part 47, 61, 63, 65, 67, or 

107. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How to Obtain 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1