This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

84065 

Vol. 89, No. 203 

Monday, October 21, 2024 

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. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0014] 

RIN 1904–AF58 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Residential Clothes Washers 

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 residential 

clothes washers in the Federal Register 

on March 15, 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 residential clothes washer test 

procedure to conform with the amended 

standards promulgated by direct final 

rule published on March 15, 2024. 

DATES: The technical correction in this 

document is effective October 21, 2024. 

The effective date of July 15, 2024, for 

the direct final rule published on March 

15, 2024 (89 FR 19026) 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/EERE2017-BT-STD-0014. 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. 

Ms. Kiana Daw, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–4798. Email: 

kiana.daw@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority 

II. Residential Clothes Washers Direct Final 

Rule 

A. Background 

III. Comments on the Direct Final Rule 

A. General Comments 

B. Authority To Regulate Water Use 

C. Anti-Backsliding 

D. Economic Justification 

E. Unavailability of Performance 

Characteristics 

F. Stakeholder Representation 

G. Responses to Previous Stakeholder 

Comments 

H. Formal Rulemaking 

I. 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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84066 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

2 DOE published a confirmation of effective date 

and compliance date for the direct final rule on 

October 1, 2012. 77 FR 59719. 

3EER is defined as the quotient of the weightedaverage load size divided by the total clothes 

washer energy consumption per cycle, with such 

energy consumption expressed as the sum of (1) the 

machine electrical energy consumption, (2) the hot 

water energy consumption, (3) the energy required 

for removal of the remaining moisture in the wash 

load, and (4) the combined low-power mode energy 

consumption. 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix 

J section 1. WER is defined as the quotient of the 

weighted-average load size divided by the total 

weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash 

cycles in gallons. Id. 

4The signatories to the Joint Agreement include 

the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(‘‘AHAM’’), American Council for an EnergyEfficient 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 US 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. 

5The Joint Agreement contained 

recommendations for six covered products: 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; 

RCWs; clothes dryers; dishwashers; cooking 

products; and miscellaneous refrigeration products. 

6The Joint Agreement is available in the docket 

at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0014-0505. 

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. Residential Clothes Washers Direct 

Final Rule 

A. Background 

In a direct final rule published on 

May 31, 2012 (‘‘May 2012 Direct Final 

Rule’’), DOE prescribed the current 

energy conservation standards for 

residential clothes washers (‘‘RCWs’’) 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2018. 77 FR 32308.2 These standards are 

set forth in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 

430.32(g)(1). The current standards are 

defined in terms of a minimum 

allowable integrated modified energy 

factor (‘‘IMEF’’), measured in cubic feet 

per kilowatt-hour per cycle (‘‘ft3/kWh/ 

cycle’’), and maximum allowable 

integrated water factor (‘‘IWF’’), 

measured in gallons per cycle per cubic 

foot (‘‘gal/cycle/ft3’’), as measured 

according to the test procedure at 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J2 

(‘‘appendix J2’’). 

In a final rule published on June 1, 

2022 (‘‘June 2022 TP Final Rule’’), DOE 

finalized a new test procedure at 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix J 

(‘‘appendix J’’), which defines new 

energy efficiency metrics: an energy 

efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’) and a water 

efficiency ratio (‘‘WER’’).3 87 FR 33316, 

33319. For both EER and WER, a higher 

value indicates more efficient 

performance. 

On March 3, 2023, DOE published a 

NOPR (‘‘March 2023 NOPR’’) proposing 

to establish amended standards for 

RCWs, defined in terms of the EER and 

WER metrics as measured according to 

appendix J. 88 FR 13520. 

On September 25, 2023, DOE received 

a joint statement (‘‘Joint Agreement’’) 

recommending standards for RCWs that 

was submitted by groups representing 

manufacturers, energy and 

environmental advocates, consumer 

groups, and a utility.4 In addition to the 

recommended standards for RCWs, the 

Joint Agreement also included separate 

recommendations for several other 

covered products.5 The amended 

standard levels recommended in the 

Joint Agreement for RCWs are presented 

in Table II.1, expressed in terms of the 

EER and WER metrics as measured 

according to the newly established test 

procedure contained in appendix J. 

Details of the Joint Agreement 

recommendations for other products are 

provided in the Joint Agreement posted 

in the docket for this rulemaking.6

TABLE II.1—RECOMMENDED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

Product class 

Minimum energy 

efficiency ratio 

(lb/kWh/cycle) 

Minimum water 

efficiency ratio 

(lb/gal/cycle) 

Compliance date 

Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ......................................... 3.79 0.29 March 1, 2028. 

Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ......................................... 4.27 0.57 

Front-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ................................................ 5.02 0.71 

Front-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ...................................... 5.52 0.77 

Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers ............................................................................ 2.12 0.27 

After carefully considering the 

recommended energy conservation 

standards for RCWs 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 15, 2024 (‘‘March 

2024 Direct Final Rule’’). 89 FR 19026. 

DOE evaluated whether the Joint 

Agreement satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 

as applicable, and found that the 

recommended standard levels would, 

among other things, result in significant 

energy savings and are technologically 

feasible and economically justified. Id. 

at 89 FR 19113–19120. Accordingly, 

DOE adopted the recommended 

efficiency levels for RCWs 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 amended standards pursuant to the 

criteria set forth in EPCA. Id. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 84067 

7Table III.1 excludes one non-substantive 

comment received from an anonymous commenter. 

8The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for RCWs. (Docket No. EERE–2017–BT– 

STD–0014, which is maintained at: 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID 

number at page of that document). 

TABLE II.2—AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

[Compliance starting March 1, 2028] 

Product class 

Minimum energy 

efficiency ratio 

(lb/kWh/cycle) 

Minimum water 

efficiency ratio 

(lb/gal/cycle) 

Automatic Clothes Washers: 

Top-Loading Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ...................................................................... 3.79 0.29 

Top-Loading Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) 1 ................................................................... 4.27 0.57 

Front-Loading Compact (less than 3.0 ft3 capacity) 2 .......................................................................... 5.02 0.71 

Front-Loading Standard-Size (3.0 ft3 or greater capacity) 3 ................................................................ 5.52 0.77 

Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers ............................................................................................................... 2.12 0.27 

1The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to top-loading standard-size clothes washers with an average cycle time less 

than 30 minutes. 2The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to front-loading clothes washers with a capacity greater than or equal to 1.6 ft3

and less than 3.0 ft3 with an average cycle time of less than 45 minutes. 3The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to front-loading standard-size clothes washers with an average cycle time less 

than 45 minutes. 

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 18836. 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.1.7

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 

The Attorneys General of the States of Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, 

Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, 

and West Virginia.

AGs of FL et al ....... 526 State Government Officials. 

The Attorney General of the State of Montana .................................... AG of MT ................ 529 State Government Official. 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ................................... AHAM ..................... 525 Trade Association. 

Anonymous ........................................................................................... Anonymous ............. 530 Individual. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance for Water Efficiency, 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 .............. 527 Advocacy Organizations. 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and 

California Energy Commission.

NYSERDA and CEC 519 State Agencies. 

Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Green Energy 

Consumers Alliance, National Consumer Law Center, and U.S. 

Public Interest Research Group.

CFA et al ................ 528 Advocacy Organizations. 

Rebekah Finn ....................................................................................... Finn ......................... 524 Individual. 

Martina Go ́mez de la Torre .................................................................. Go ́mez de la Torre 516 Individual. 

Emma Leamy ....................................................................................... Leamy ..................... 518 Individual. 

Representative Stephanie Bice ............................................................ Rep. Bice ................ 517 Federal Government Official. 

Bill Word and David Daquin ................................................................. Word and Daquin ... * 521, 522 Individual. 

* Comments No. 521 and 522 are identical. DOE cites comment No. 521 in this document. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.8 The following sections 

discuss the substantive comments DOE 

received on the March 2024 Direct Final 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84068 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

9NYSERDA and CEC letter available at 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD0014-0506. 

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 their October 

5, 2023 letter.9 (NYSERDA and CEC, No. 

519 at p. 1) 

AHAM supported the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule for RCWs because it 

establishes standards that are consistent 

with recommendations submitted in the 

Joint Agreement. (AHAM, No. 525 at p. 

1) 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 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, No. 

525 at pp. 7–8) 

ASAP et al. supported the standards 

in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, as 

they reflect the recommendation in the 

Joint Agreement submitted to DOE in 

September 2023 in conjunction with 

AHAM. (ASAP et al., No. 527 at pp. 1– 

2) 

CFA et al. strongly 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. 528 at pp. 1–2) 

DOE received comments from 

individual commenters who expressed 

support for the standards promulgated 

in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. 

(Go ́mez de la Torre, No. 516 at p. 1; 

Leamy, No. 518 at p. 1; Finn, No. 524 

at p. 1; Anonymous, No. 530 at p. 1) 

Rep. Bice submitted a comment in 

opposition to the standards adopted in 

the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. (Rep. 

Bice, No. 517 at p. 1) 

Word and Daquin commented that 

they are harmed by the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule because their choice of 

preferred RCW would be eliminated by 

the rule. Word and Daquin 

recommended DOE repeal the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule and withdraw 

the proposed rule. (Word and Daquin, 

No. 521 at p. 10) 

The AGs of FL et al. asserted that the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule overregulates American households and 

requested that DOE reconsider it. (AGs 

of FL et al., No. 526 at p. 1) The AG of 

MT expressed agreement with the AGs 

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

529 at 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. Authority To Regulate Water Use 

DOE received comments regarding 

DOE’s statutory authority to regulate the 

water use of RCWs. 

Word and Daquin commented that 

DOE has gone beyond its statutory 

authority in increasing water efficiency 

standards of certain consumer 

appliances without lawful authority. 

Word and Daquin asserted that DOE 

lacks the authority to increase the 

stringency of water use standards for 

products other than showerheads, 

faucets, water closets, and urinals. 

(Word and Daquin, No. 521 at p. 1) 

Word and Daquin also commented 

that based on the history of EPCA and 

the recent ruling of the Fifth Circuit 

Court of Appeals, DOE does not have 

the authority to regulate the water use 

of RCWs. Word and Daquin commented 

that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 

recognized that ‘‘No part of [EPCA] 

indicates Congress gave DOE power to 

regulate water use for energy-using 

appliances.’’ Louisiana v. United States 

Dep’t of Energy, 90 F.4th 461, 471 (5th 

Cir. 2024). Word and Daquin also noted 

that according to the Fifth Circuit, 

‘‘EPCA does not appear to contemplate 

overlap between the products subject to 

‘energy’ regulation and those subject to 

‘water’ regulation,’’ noting that this is 

because the statute authorized DOE to 

regulate ‘‘energy use, or, [. . .] water 

use,’’ and ‘‘[t]he word ‘or’ is almost 

always disjunctive.’’ Id. at 470–471 

(quoting Encino Motorcars, LLC v. 

Navarro, 584 U.S. 79, 80 (2018)). Word 

and Daquin asserted that the March 

2024 Direct Final rule, in requiring a 

minimum water efficiency ratio for 

clothes washers beyond that required by 

statute, is irreconcilable with the 

opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. (Id. at pp. 1–5) 

The AG of MT disputed DOE’s 

interpretation of its statutory authority 

and asserted that DOE does not have 

authority to act contrary to the plain text 

of EPCA. (AG of MT, No. 529 at pp. 6– 

7) 

As discussed in the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule, EPCA prescribed 

energy conservation standards with both 

energy and water use requirements for 

RCWs. 89 FR 19026, 19032. In 

establishing energy conservation 

standards with both energy and water 

use performance standards for RCWs, 

Congress also directed DOE to 

‘‘determin[e] whether to amend’’ those 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B)) 

Congress’s directive, in section 

6295(g)(9)(B), to consider whether ‘‘to 

amend the standards in effect for 

RCWs’’ refers to ‘‘the standards’’ 

established in the immediately 

preceding paragraph, 6295(g)(9)(A), 

where Congress established energy 

conservation standards with both energy 

and water use performance standards 

for RCWs. Indeed, the energy and water 

use performance standards for RCWs 

(both top-loading and front-loading) are 

each contained within a single 

subparagraph. See id. Accordingly, 

DOE’s authority, under 6295(g)(9)(B), 

includes consideration of amended 

energy and water use performance 

standards for RCWs. 

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. 

Neither section 6295(g)(9)(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), or 

simply ‘‘standards,’’ Id. 6295(m)(1)(B), 

which may include both energy and 

water use performance standards. 

C. 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. 529 

at pp. 1–2) 

DOE addressed this issue in the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule. As 

discussed there, the Joint Agreement 

was contingent upon DOE initiating 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 84069 

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 

19026, 19036. As described, DOE’s 

adoption of the recommended standards 

conforms with the anti-backsliding 

provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). 

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. The 

AG of MT commented that DOE’s use of 

a single lifespan in its analysis for this 

rulemaking was in error, and given its 

statements about the energy consumed 

in raw materials, manufacturing, etc., its 

efficiency standards may violate antibacksliding prohibitions in EPCA when 

shorter lifespans are considered, 

especially if the full fuel cycle (‘‘FFC’’) 

costs of short lifespans are accounted 

for. (AG of MT, No. 529 at pp. 3–4) 

As described in the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule, DOE did not use a single 

lifespan in its analysis for the RCWs 

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. 89 FR 

19026, 19060. 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. Id. 

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, is dependent upon the lifespan of 

the product. As a result, product 

lifespan has no effect on whether an 

amended standard violates the antibacksliding provision in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1). 

As product lifespan does not affect 

energy use or energy efficiency as 

defined in EPCA, 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. 

D. Economic Justification 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including RCWs. 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 

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. 

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. 517 at p. 1) 

The AGs of FL et al. commented that 

while they acknowledge that DOE has 

reduced the stringency as compared to 

the previously proposed standards, 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 FL et al., No. 526 at 

p. 1) 

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 

19026, 19071–19077, 19092–19098. At 

the adopted standard levels, DOE’s data 

demonstrate no lessening of consumer 

choice, product utility, or performance 

would occur. DOE estimates that 

approximately 49 percent of annual 

shipments currently meet the adopted 

standard levels. Id. at 89 FR 19119. In 

the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, the 

life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) analysis 

calculated the distribution of impacts 

across a nationally representative 

sample of US households. As 

demonstrated by the LCC analysis, at 

the adopted standard, the average LCC 

savings are positive for all product 

classes and the fraction of consumers 

experiencing a net LCC cost is about 12 

percent. 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 FL et al. and 

Rep. Bice do not provide a reasonable 

basis for withdrawal of the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule. 

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 RCWs 

considered under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV). 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 the 

standards adopted in the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule also decrease the 

number of low-income consumers that 

could experience a net cost. In addition, 

AHAM noted that manufacturer costs to 

comply with the final standard are less 

under the March 2024 Direct Final Rule 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84070 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

than under the previously proposed 

standards. (AHAM, No. 525 at p. 6) 

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 

RCWs. (ASAP et al., No. 527 at p. 2) 

CFA et al. commented that the 

standards adopted in the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule will reduce energy use 

by about 10 percent relative to the leastefficient RCW sold today while also 

cutting water waste, and for a household 

replacing an inefficient top-loading 

RCW, the new standards will provide 

annual utility bill savings of $23 on 

average. CFA et al. further noted that the 

average PBP for low-income households 

for top-loading and front-loading RCWs 

are 3.5 years and 0.7 years, respectively. 

(CFA et al., No. 528 at p. 1) 

The AG of MT stated that DOE’s 

reliance on the Energy Information 

Administration’s (‘‘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. 529 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 19026, 19059. The 

results of these scenarios are available 

in appendix 10D of the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule Technical Support 

Document (‘‘TSD’’) and show that 

consumers of residential clothes 

washers would still experience positive 

cumulative consumer 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. 

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 a lower cost to 

the consumer. (AG of MT, No. 529 at p. 

2) 

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 19026, 19113. Much 

of this literature attempts to explain 

why consumers appear to undervalue 

energy efficiency improvements, as the 

AG of MT alleged in their comment. 

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 longterm 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. at 89 FR 19114 

Having less-than-perfect foresight and a 

high degree of uncertainty about the 

future, consumers may trade off these 

types of investments at a higher-thanexpected 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, this 

decreases the potential energy savings 

from an energy conservation standard. 

Further, the AG of MT stated that the 

reliability of products affected by the 

rulemaking will decrease due to 

complexity increases, which the 

commenters 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 that 

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. 

529 at pp. 3–5) 

AHAM commented that the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule addresses 

AHAM’s key concerns with the March 

2023 NOPR. AHAM added that the 

technology options DOE identified for 

meeting the standard levels in the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule are 

established technologies used in the 

market today and do not negatively 

impact product reliability. (AHAM, No. 

525 at p. 7) 

ASAP et al. commented that they did 

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 data from EIA’s 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(‘‘RECS’’) showing that the distribution 

of RCW age remained largely unchanged 

between 2005 and 2020 as RCW 

efficiency improved. (ASAP et al., No. 

527 at pp. 4–5) 

In contrast to the comment from the 

AG of MT and as noted in the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE did take 

into consideration the cost of repair and 

included higher repair costs for more 

efficient products when supported by 

available data. See 89 FR 19026, 19059. 

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 attached 

documents on network node analysis 

and reliability theory correspond to the 

technologies used at the adopted 

standard levels for RCWs. In the absence 

of data specific to the technologies used 

in RCWs, DOE has no practical basis to 

model the theoretical concern from the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 84071 

10See www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/ 

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

11 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. 

AG of MT at the adopted standard 

levels. 

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 did not find that 

the average lifetime for RCWs has 

changed. 89 FR 19026, 19060. 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, and hence lifetime of the 

product, at the adopted level, and it 

further stated that the standard levels 

are achievable by technology readily 

available on the market. (AHAM, No. 

525 at p. 6) As there is no data to suggest 

different lifetime distributions for 

products at the adopted standards level, 

the comment from the AG of MT does 

not provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule. 

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 

19026, 19060. Therefore, the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule did take into 

account consumer purchase decisions 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. 

The AG of MT stated their belief 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. The AG of MT 

commented that the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule failed to adequately address 

these full life cycle impacts. (AG of MT, 

No. 529 at p. 6) 

As previously stated in section III.C of 

this document, the comment from the 

AG of MT points 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.10 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.11 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. 

Furthermore, there is no data suggesting 

that the supply chain carbon footprint 

would be different between baseline 

units and units that meet the adopted 

standard. 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 

19026, 19110–19113. This analysis 

focused on the estimated reduced 

emissions expected to result during the 

lifetime of RCWs shipped during the 

projection period. Id 

The AG of MT stated that the 

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

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 the 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. 529 at p. 6) 

DOE 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. The AG of MT also 

stated that DOE improperly mixed 

discount rates in its cost-benefit 

analysis. (AG of MT, No. 529 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 19026, 

19073. 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. Regarding mixing 

discount rates, 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.’’ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84072 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

12Following 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. 

13 DOE notes that the AHAM members’ testing 

referred to by the AGs of FL et al. in this statement 

reflected testing at the standard levels proposed in 

the March 2023 NOPR (i.e., not the ‘‘new standard 

level’’ adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final 

Rule). 

14ASAP and AHAM letter available at 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD0014-0509. 

The National Academies reviewed 

several options, including ‘‘presenting 

all discount rate combinations of other 

costs and benefits with [SC–GHG] 

estimates.’’ 89 FR 19026, 19080.12

E. 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)) 

The AGs of FL et al. stated that the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule does not 

account for the lower performance of 

RCWs that AHAM identified through 

members’ independent testing of RCWs 

at the new standard level.13 (AGs of FL 

et al., No. 526 at p. 3) The AGs of FL 

et al. asserted that the standards in the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule will leave 

consumers struggling with washers that 

take longer to clean clothes. (AGs of FL 

et al., No. 526 at p. 1) 

Rep. Bice asserted that the adopted 

standards will limit consumer choice. 

(Rep. Bice, No. 517 at p. 1) 

ASAP et al. commented that the 

amended standards will improve 

washing performance for top-loading 

RCWs and will not impact other 

performance attributes. ASAP et al. 

added that RCWs that already meet the 

new standards provide improved 

washing performance relative to lessefficient models, as demonstrated by 

Consumer Reports studies. (ASAP et al., 

No. 527 at pp. 2–3) 

ASAP et al. also commented that the 

standards in the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule can be met across the entire 

capacity range of top-loading RCWs, so 

indicating that the standards will not 

preclude the availability of smallercapacity RCWs. (Id. at p. 4) ASAP et al. 

noted that the amended standards will 

not require an increase in cycle time. 

ASAP et al. further commented that 

there is no evidence that the frequency 

of running multiple RCW cycles has 

increased over time or will increase in 

the future as a result of the amended 

standards. (Id. at pp. 3–4) 

AHAM commented that it supported 

the energy conservation standards in the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule because 

DOE’s data demonstrate, and industry 

experience confirms that RCWs at the 

amended standard level can maintain 

good cleaning performance and that the 

amended standards do not preclude the 

ability to provide high wash 

temperatures. AHAM further 

commented that there is no significant 

difference in cycle time between RCWs 

in its data set that are less efficient than 

the amended standards and those that 

just meet the standard levels. Thus, 

AHAM commented that it supported the 

energy conservation standards adopted 

in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. 

(AHAM, No. 525 at p. 3) 

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 p. 6) 

AHAM further noted that the energy 

conservation standards adopted in the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule are 

equivalent to current ENERGY STAR 

levels for many product classes, and 

that there are a wide range of products 

meeting the adopted standards currently 

available on the market. 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.14 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. 519 at p. 1) 

DOE determined that 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 

19026, 19108–19109. Therefore, DOE 

has determined that the comments 

provided by Rep. Bice and the AGs of 

FL et al. do not provide a reasonable 

basis for withdrawal of the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule. 

F. 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 FL 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 Resource Defense Council, 

and the National Consumer Law 

Center). The AGs of FL et al. asserted 

that none of the advocacy groups has 

expertise in setting energy efficiency 

standards for RCWs. (AGs of FL et al., 

No. 526 at pp. 4–5) 

The AGs of FL et al. commented that 

there were several other groups that 

commented on the March 2023 NOPR 

but did not appear in the joint 

statement. The AGs of FL et al. stated 

that the joint agreement did not include 

the National Apartment Association 

(‘‘NAA’’) and the National Multifamily 

Housing Council (‘‘NMHC’’). NAA and 

NMHC previously raised concerns about 

the effects of the rulemaking on massappliance purchases, which will 

disproportionately affect low-income 

individuals. (AGs of FL et al., No. 526 

at pp. 5–6) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 84073 

The AGs of FL et al. commented that 

while Massachusetts, New York, and 

California supported the standards 

adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final 

Rule, 21 States cautioned DOE about the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule’s effects 

on consumer welfare; the AGs of FL et 

al. asserted that EPCA requires DOE to 

receive the concurrence of States across 

the ideological spectrum in order to 

proceed with a direct final rule rather 

than acknowledge only the few opinions 

in favor without receiving the support of 

a majority of States. The AGs of FL et 

al. commented that many States also 

previously raised legal concerns with 

DOE’s previously proposed rule, which 

they stated were not resolved in the 

March 2024 Direct Final Rule. The AGs 

of FL et al. commented that States have 

a direct interest in protecting consumers 

and are also directly affected by the rule 

because many State entities purchase 

clothes washers. (AGs of FL et al., No. 

526 at p. 6) 

The AG of MT agreed with the AGs 

of FL 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. 529 at p. 1) 

The AGs of FL et al. stated one 

concern was that DOE engaged in 

‘‘administrative arm-twisting’’ and 

indicated that AHAM’s change of 

approach from opposing to supporting 

the energy efficiency standards in 

question reflects a subtle example of the 

effect of DOE’s arm-twisting on AHAM. 

(AGs of FL et al., No. 526 at p. 4) 

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 

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. 

525 at p. 5) 

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 11434, 

19038. The Joint Agreement included a 

trade association, AHAM, which 

represents 12 manufacturers of the 

subject covered products—RCWs. 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. 506). 

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. 507). Id. Representatives 

from each of the relevant points of view 

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 the contention that the 

Joint Agreement parties are not 

competent to present a statement for the 

purposes of section 6295(p) meritless. 

Contrary to the characterizations by the 

AGs of FL et al., 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 the 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84074 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

15This document is available in the docket: 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD0014-0531. 

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.15

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). 

Therefore, DOE reaffirms its 

determination that the Joint Agreement 

was submitted by interested persons 

that are fairly representative of relevant 

points of view. 

G. Responses to Previous Stakeholder 

Comments 

The AGs of FL et al. commented that 

there were many comments made by 

AHAM, Whirlpool, and GE Appliances 

in previous rounds of the rulemaking 

that the AGs of FL et al. found were not 

adequately addressed in the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule. For example, the AGs 

of FL et al. stated that the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule does not address 

Whirlpool’s concern that DOE did not 

conduct a North American integrated 

supply-chain analysis. The AGs of FL et 

al. commented that the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule neglects to address 

AHAM’s previous concern that RCWs 

will not be able to maintain certain 

features and functionalities and 

households at or near the poverty line 

would be negatively affected by having 

to purchase new RCWs. The AGs of FL 

et al. commented that although AHAM 

later authored a joint agreement in favor 

of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, 

DOE did not adequately address the 

concerns listed in AHAM’s earlier 

comment and therefore does not assuage 

concerns that the new energy efficiency 

standards will raise prices for RCWs 

with disproportionate harm to lowincome households. (AGs of FL et al., 

No. 526 at pp. 2–4) 

Regarding the comments from the 

AGs of FL et al. that DOE did not 

respond in the March 2024 Direct Final 

Rule to the comments submitted by 

signatories to the Joint Agreement and 

other stakeholders in response to the 

March 2023 NOPR, DOE notes that the 

commenters misunderstand DOE’s 

direct final rule authority under EPCA. 

As discussed in the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule, DOE was already conducting 

a rulemaking to consider amending the 

standards for RCWs when the Joint 

Agreement was submitted. 89 FR 19026, 

19036. After receiving the Joint 

Agreement, DOE initiated a separate 

rulemaking action and subsequently 

issued the March 2024 Direct Final Rule 

after determining that the 

recommendations contained in the Joint 

Agreement were compliant with 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). Id. The March 2024 

Direct Final Rule is a separate 

rulemaking, conducted under a different 

statutory authority from DOE’s prior 

rulemaking in the March 2023 NOPR, 

and DOE has no obligation to consider 

comments submitted in response to that 

prior rulemaking in a different 

rulemaking. Further, both the efficiency 

levels and compliance periods proposed 

in the March 2023 NOPR are different 

from those adopted in the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule. 

Even though DOE was not required to 

consider comments from the March 

2023 NOPR, DOE did in fact consider 

relevant comments, data, and 

information obtained through the March 

2023 NOPR. This included the issues 

that the AGs of FL et al. asserted DOE 

ignored in the March 2024 Direct Final 

Rule. 

In response to concerns about 

manufacturer supply chain, DOE noted 

in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule that 

six of the nine OEMs with top-loading 

standard-size products offer models that 

meet the adopted standard level, while 

for the front-loading standard size 

RCWs, approximately 92 percent of 

shipments already meet the adopted 

standard level. 89 FR 19026, 19093. 

Given that a significant portion of the 

market already meets or exceeds the 

adopted standard, it is very unlikely 

that the adopted standard will impact 

the RCW product supply chain. 

Additionally, in the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule, DOE specifically 

addressed the ability of RCWs to 

maintain certain features and 

functionalities. 89 FR 19026, 19100. For 

example, DOE determined that the 

adopted standards would not require 

substantive reduction in hot water 

temperature on the hottest temperature 

selection in the Normal cycle. The 

adopted standards would not preclude 

the ability to provide wash temperatures 

above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, would not 

preclude the ability to provide total 

cleaning scores for top-loading units 

equally as high as the highest scores 

currently achieved by units at lower 

efficiency levels, and would not 

preclude the ability to provide 

mechanical action score comparable to 

cores for units at lower efficiency levels, 

Id. at 89 FR 19102–19103. 

AHAM commented that DOE 

satisfactorily responded to AHAM’s 

comments and concerns regarding 

clothes washer performance and safety 

concerns, baseline level definition, 

product class definitions, the economic 

value of water, consideration of lowincome consumers, consideration of 

well and septic system users, test cloth 

availability, 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 further commented 

that the energy conservation standards 

adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final 

Rule maintain important consumer 

features and utilities. AHAM 

commented that it agrees with DOE that 

the standard levels in the March 2024 

Direct Final Rule can maintain good 

cleaning performance and do not 

preclude the ability to provide high 

wash temperatures. (AHAM, No. 525 at 

pp. 3–8) 

ASAP et al. also commented that 

DOE’s testing found that the standards 

finalized in the March 2024 Direct Final 

Rule can be achieved with wash 

temperatures and ‘‘wear and tear’’ 

scores comparable to or better than 

those of lower-efficiency units. (ASAP 

et al., No. 527 at p. 3) 

In the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, 

DOE considered the impact on lowincome households by performing a 

LCC subgroup analysis for low-income 

households. 89 FR 19026, 19067–19071. 

Notably, consistent with the Joint 

Agreement, in the March 2024 Direct 

Final Rule DOE adopted a lower 

standard level for top-loading and frontloading standard-size RCWs than the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 84075 

16 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. 

level proposed in the March 2023 

NOPR. DOE estimated that the adopted 

standard level would result in 12 

percent of low-income households 

experiencing a net cost due to the 

standard, compared with 14 percent at 

the proposed level in the March 2023 

NOPR. 

H. Formal Rulemaking 

The AGs of FL et al. recommended 

that before enacting these stringent new 

standards for RCWs, DOE return to 

formal rulemaking or, at a minimum, to 

proceed with informal notice-andcomment 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 FL 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 FL et al., No. 526 at 

pp. 1, 6–8) The AG of MT similarly 

recommended DOE halt the rulemaking. 

(AG of MT, No. 529 at p. 7) 

The AG of MT expressed concern 

about pretext and circumvention of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’), 

regarding DOE’s conduct in this 

rulemaking and in recent litigations. 

(AG of MT, No. 529 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. 525 at 

p. 5) 

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 the 

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 

19026, 19037–19038. 

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 19026. 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.16

Finally, regarding the comments 

about the APA, EPCA mandates the 

substance and process by which DOE 

establishes energy conservation 

standards and develops direct final 

rules. While the APA provides DOE 

direction in areas in which EPCA is 

silent, EPCA is a comprehensive 

statutory mechanism for the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of energy conservation 

standards. 

I. Conforming Updates To Test 

Procedure Introductory Notes 

The test procedures at appendices J 

and appendix J2 contain introductory 

notes that specify the dates of 

applicability for each test procedure. 

Among other details, these introductory 

notes currently specify the following: 

• For RCWs, manufacturers must use 

the results of testing under appendix J2 

to determine compliance with the 

relevant standards at 10 CFR 

430.32(g)(4) as they appeared in January 

1, 2022 edition of 10 CFR parts 200–499. 

• For RCWs, manufacturers must use 

the results of testing under appendix J 

to determine compliance with any 

amended standards provided in 10 CFR 

430.32(g) that are published after 

January 1, 2022. 

The March 2024 Direct Final Rule 

reorganized 10 CFR 430.32(g) by 

renumbering the currently applicable 

standards at 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4) to 

430.32(g)(1) and adding the amended 

standards promulgated by the March 

2024 Direct Final Rule at 10 CFR 

430.32(g)(2). 

In this document, DOE updates the 

introductory notes to both appendix J 

and appendix J2 to reference 10 CFR 

430.32(g)(1) with regard to the currently 

applicable standards for RCWs and 10 

CFR 430.32(g)(2) with regard to 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. 6295(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 RCWs are 

unlikely to have a 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 RCWs 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 15, 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, and 

Small businesses. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on October 10, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84076 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on October 15, 

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, 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. Amend appendix J to subpart B of 

part 430 by revising the introductory 

note to read as follows: 

Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Automatic and 

Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers 

Note 1 to appendix J to subpart B of part 

430: Manufacturers must use the results of 

testing under appendix J2 to this subpart to 

determine compliance with the residential 

clothes washer standards provided at 

§ 430.32(g)(1) and the commercial clothes 

washer standards provided at § 431.156(b). 

Manufacturers must use the results of 

testing under this appendix to determine 

compliance with the residential clothes 

washer standards provided at § 430.32(g)(2) 

and for any amended commercial clothes 

washer standards provided at § 431.156 that 

are published after January 1, 2022. 

Any representations related to energy or 

water consumption of residential or 

commercial clothes washers must be made in 

accordance with the appropriate appendix 

that applies (i.e., this appendix or appendix 

J2 to this subpart) when determining 

compliance with the relevant standard. 

Manufacturers may also use this appendix to 

certify compliance with the residential 

clothes washer standards provided at 

§ 430.32(g)(2) or any amended standards for 

commercial clothes washers prior to the 

applicable compliance date for those 

standards. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend appendix J2 to subpart B of 

part 430 by revising the introductory 

note to read as follows: 

Appendix J2 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Automatic and 

Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers 

Note 1 to appendix J2 to subpart B of part 

430: Manufacturers must use the results of 

testing under this appendix to determine 

compliance with the residential clothes 

washer standards provided at § 430.32(g)(1) 

and the commercial clothes washer standards 

provided at § 431.156(b). 

Manufacturers must use the results of 

testing under Appendix J to this subpart to 

determine compliance with the residential 

clothes washer standards provided at 

§ 430.32(g)(2) and for any amended 

commercial clothes washer standards 

provided at § 431.156 that are published after 

January 1, 2022. 

Any representations related to energy or 

water consumption of residential or 

commercial clothes washers must be made in 

accordance with the appropriate appendix 

that applies (i.e., appendix J to this subpart 

or this appendix) when determining 

compliance with the relevant standard. 

* * * * * 

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: Residential Clothes Washers Energy 

Conservation Standards 

DOE Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–STD–0014 

Dear Assistant General Counsel Grace-Tardy: 

I am responding to your March 18, 2024 

letter seeking the views of the Attorney 

General about the potential impact on 

competition of proposed energy conservation 

standards for residential clothes washers. 

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 FR 18836), Direct Final Rule 

(89 FR 19026), and the related Technical 

Support Documents. We have also reviewed 

public comments and information provided 

by industry participants. 

Based on this review, our conclusion is 

that the proposed energy conservation 

standards for residential clothes washers are 

unlikely to have a significant adverse impact 

on competition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

David G.B. Lawrence, 

Policy Director. 

[FR Doc. 2024–24154 Filed 10–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005] 

RIN 1904–AF57 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Conventional Cooking Products 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Publication of determination. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, requires that the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) make a 

determination on the impact, if any, of 

any lessening of competition likely to 

result from an energy conservation 

standard and that the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) publish such 

determination in the Federal Register. 

DOE published a direct final rule and 

accompanying notice of proposed 

rulemaking for consumer conventional 

cooking products on February 14, 2024. 

In accordance with EPCA, DOE is 

publishing DOJ’s determination of the 

impact, if any, the energy conservation 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products will have on 

competition. 

DATES: The DOJ determination is dated 

April 9, 2024. 

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. 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: 

Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1