This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

88661 

Vol. 89, No. 217 

Friday, November 8, 2024 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 981 

[Doc. No. AMS–SC–24–0050] 

Almonds Grown in California; 

Continuance Referendum 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Referendum order. 

SUMMARY: This document directs that a 

referendum be conducted among 

eligible almond growers to determine 

whether they favor continuance of the 

marketing order regulating the handling 

of almonds grown in California. 

DATES: The referendum will be 

conducted from December 4 through 

December 20, 2024. Only current 

growers of almonds within the 

production area that grew almonds 

during the period August 1, 2023, 

through July 31, 2024, are eligible to 

vote in this referendum. The U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) will 

provide the option for ballots to be 

returned electronically. Further detail 

will be provided in the ballot 

instructions. Ballots returned via 

express mail or electronic mail must 

show proof of delivery by no later than 

11:59 p.m. Eastern time on December 

20, 2024, to be counted. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the marketing 

order may be obtained from the West 

Region Branch, Market Development 

Division, Specialty Crops Program, 

AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, 

Suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721– 

3129; Telephone: (559) 487–5901; the 

Office of the Docket Clerk, Market 

Development Division, Specialty Crops 

Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; 

Telephone: (202) 720–8085; or on the 

internet: https://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

rules-regulations/moa/commodities. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Sommers, Marketing Specialist, or 

Abigail Maharaj, Branch Chief, West 

Region Branch, Market Development 

Division, Specialty Crops Program, 

AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, 

Suite 102B, Fresno, CA 93721–3129; 

Telephone: (559) 487–5901, or Email: 

Peter.Sommers@usda.gov or 

Abigail.Maharaj@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Marketing Order No. 981, as amended 

(7 CFR part 981), hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Order,’’ and the applicable 

provisions of the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Act,’’ it is hereby directed that 

a referendum be conducted to ascertain 

whether continuance of the Order is 

favored by growers. The referendum 

will be conducted from December 4 

through December 20, 2024, among 

almond growers in the production area. 

Only current almond growers that were 

engaged in the production of almonds 

during the period of August 1, 2023, 

through July 31, 2024, may participate 

in the continuance referendum. 

USDA has determined that 

continuance referenda are an effective 

means for determining whether growers 

favor the continuation of marketing 

order programs. USDA would consider 

termination of the Order if less than 

two-thirds of the growers voting in the 

referendum, or growers of less than twothirds of the volume of almonds 

represented in the referendum, favor 

continuance. In evaluating the merits of 

continuance versus termination, USDA 

will not exclusively consider the results 

of the continuance referendum. USDA 

will also consider all other relevant 

information concerning the operation of 

the Order and the relative benefits and 

costs to growers, handlers, and 

consumers to determine whether 

continued operation of the Order would 

tend to effectuate the declared policy of 

the Act. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the ballot materials used in 

the referendum have been submitted to 

and approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

have been assigned OMB No. 0581– 

0178, Fruit Crops. It has been estimated 

it will take an average of 20 minutes for 

each of the approximately 9,500 almond 

growers to cast a ballot. Participation is 

voluntary. Ballots postmarked after 

December 20, 2024, will not be included 

in the vote tabulation. 

Abigail Maharaj, Jeffery Rymer, and 

Peter Sommers of the West Region 

Branch, Market Development Division, 

Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 

are hereby designated as the referendum 

agents of the Secretary of Agriculture to 

conduct this referendum. The procedure 

applicable to the referendum shall be 

the ‘‘Procedure for the Conduct of 

Referenda in Connection with 

Marketing Orders for Fruits, Vegetables, 

and Nuts Pursuant to the Agricultural 

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as 

Amended’’ (7 CFR part 900.400 et seq.). 

Ballots and voting instructions will be 

sent by U.S. Postal Service, or through 

electronic mail to all growers of record 

and may also be obtained from the 

referendum agents or from their 

appointees. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 981 

Marketing agreements, Nuts, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

(Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674) 

Erin Morris, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26048 Filed 11–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2024–BT–STD–0002] 

RIN 1904–AF69 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Dishwashers, Residential Clothes 

Washers, and Consumer Clothes 

Dryers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notification of proposed 

confirmation of withdrawal and request 

for comment. 

SUMMARY: In light of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

granting a petition for review of a final 

rule published by the U.S. Department 

of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) on January 19, 2022, 

and remanding the matter to DOE for 

further proceedings, DOE issued a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88662 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

request for information on whether 

‘‘short-cycle’’ product classes for 

dishwashers, residential clothes 

washers, and consumer clothes dryers 

are warranted under the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act. In this document, 

DOE considers the factors outlined by 

the Fifth Circuit and proposes to 

confirm the elimination of ‘‘short-cycle’’ 

product classes in the January 19, 2022, 

final rule. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this proposal 

no later than December 9, 2024. See 

section IV, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

details. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EERE–2024–BT–STD–0002. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. Alternatively, interested 

persons may submit comments may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2024–BT–STD–0002, by 

any of the following methods: 

(1) Email: ShortCycle2024STD0002@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EERE–2024–BT–STD–0002 in the 

subject line of the message. 

(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a compact 

disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287– 

1445. If possible, please submit all items 

on a CD, in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

IV of this document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE– 

2024–BT–STD–0002. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section IV 

for information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287– 

5649. Email: 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Discussion 

A. Dishwashers 

1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related 

Feature 

2. Justification of Different Standards for 

Dishwashers With a Short-Cycle Feature 

3. Response to Other Comments 

B. Residential Clothes Washers 

1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related 

Feature 

2. Justification of Different Standards for 

Residential Clothes Washers With a 

Short-Cycle Feature 

3. Response to Other Comments 

C. Consumer Clothes Dryers 

1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related 

Feature 

2. Justification of Different Standards for 

Consumer Clothes Dryers With a ShortCycle Feature 

3. Response to Other Comments 

D. Other Comments 

1. Process 

2. Legal 

3. Impacts on Average Lifetime 

E. Other Topics Addressed by the Fifth 

Circuit 

1. Water Authority 

2. Test Procedure Authority 

3. Preservation of Product Utility 

III. Conclusion 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

IV. Public Participation 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Introduction 

The following sections briefly discuss 

the statutory authority underlying this 

proposed confirmation of withdrawal, 

as well as some of the historical 

background relevant to dishwashers, 

residential clothes washers (‘‘RCWs’’), 

and consumer clothes dryers. 

A. Authority 

The U.S. Department of Energy 

(‘‘DOE’’) must follow specific statutory 

criteria under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, Public Law 94–163,1

as amended, (‘‘EPCA’’) for prescribing 

new or amended standards for covered 

products, including dishwashers, RCWs, 

and consumer clothes dryers. Any new 

or amended standard for a covered 

product must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 

(‘‘Secretary’’) determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may 

not adopt any standard that would not 

result in the significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard if DOE determines by rule that 

the establishment of such standard will 

not result in significant conservation of 

energy (or, for certain products, water), 

or is not technologically feasible or 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a 

proposed standard is economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceeds its 

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

DOE must make this determination after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, and by considering, to the 

greatest extent practicable, the following 

seven statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy (or as applicable, water) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88663 

2See document IDs 0006 and 0007 at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2018-BT-STD0005. 

3The ‘‘normal cycle’’ is specifically defined in 

section 1 of the DOE test procedure at title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’), part 430, 

subpart B, appendix C1 (‘‘appendix C1’’), as ‘‘the 

cycle type, including washing and drying 

temperature options, recommended in the 

manufacturer’s instructions for daily, regular, or 

typical use to completely wash a full load of 

normally soiled dishes including the power-dry 

feature,’’ among other criteria. 

(7) Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant. 

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

EPCA, as codified, also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard 

if interested persons have established by 

a preponderance of the evidence that 

the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States in 

any covered product type (or class) of 

performance characteristics (including 

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 

and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the 

United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

Additionally, EPCA specifies 

requirements when promulgating an 

energy conservation standard for a 

covered product that has two or more 

subcategories. A rule prescribing an 

energy conservation standard for a type 

(or class) of product must specify a 

different standard level for a type or 

class of products that has the same 

function or intended use if DOE 

determines that products within such 

group (A) consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE considers such factors as 

the utility to the consumer of such a 

feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. (Id.) Any rule prescribing 

such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

B. Background 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(‘‘APA’’), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides, 

among other things, that ‘‘[e]ach agency 

shall give an interested person the right 

to petition for the issuance, amendment, 

or repeal of a rule.’’ (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) 

Pursuant to this provision of the APA, 

the Competitive Enterprise Institute 

(‘‘CEI’’) petitioned DOE for the issuance 

of a rule establishing a new product 

class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) that 

would cover dishwashers with a cycle 

time of less than 60 minutes from 

washing through drying, asserting that it 

is not technologically feasible to create 

dishwashers that both meet the current 

standards and have cycle times of 60 

minutes or less.2 On October 30, 2020, 

DOE published a final rule that 

established a product class for standardsize dishwashers with a cycle time for 

the normal cycle 3 of 60 minutes or less. 

85 FR 68723 (‘‘October 2020 Final 

Rule’’). Contrary to CEI’s claim in its 

petition that it is not technologically 

feasible for a dishwasher with a cycle 

time of 60 minutes or less to meet the 

current standards, in the October 2020 

Final Rule DOE identified several 

dishwashers that had cycles that were 

less than 60 minutes and met the 

current standards, but asserted that 

establishing a product class for 

dishwashers with a normal cycle of 60 

minutes or less could spur manufacturer 

innovation to generate additional 

product offerings. Id. at 85 FR 68726. 

The October 2020 Final Rule 

additionally specified that the current 

standards for dishwashers no longer 

apply to short-cycle products and that 

DOE intended to conduct the necessary 

rulemaking to determine standards that 

would provide the maximum energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in a significant 

conservation of energy. Id. at 85 FR 

68733, 68741. 

Following the October 2020 Final 

Rule, having determined that 

similarities exist between the consumer 

use of dishwashers, RCWs, and 

consumer clothes dryers (i.e., that these 

products offer several cycles with 

varying times, and that consumers run 

these cycles multiple times per week on 

average), DOE published a final rule on 

December 16, 2020, that established 

product classes for top-loading RCWs 

and certain classes of consumer clothes 

dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 

minutes, and front-loading RCWs with a 

cycle time of less than 45 minutes 

(‘‘December 2020 Final Rule’’). 85 FR 

81359. Similar to the October 2020 Final 

Rule, the December 2020 Final Rule also 

specified that the current standards for 

RCWs and consumer clothes dryers no 

longer apply to short-cycle products. 85 

FR 68723, 68742; 85 FR 81359, 81376. 

On January 19, 2022, DOE published 

a final rule (‘‘January 2022 Final Rule’’) 

revoking the October 2020 Final Rule 

and the December 2020 Final Rule 

(collectively, ‘‘Short-cycle Final Rules’’). 

In that rule, DOE noted that the 

appropriate time for establishing a new 

product class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) is 

during a rulemaking prescribing new or 

amended standards. 87 FR 2673, 2682. 

And, as the Short-cycle Final Rules 

stated that they were not applying the 

rulemaking analysis pursuant to the 

seven factors specified in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o) for the establishment of 

standards, DOE found that these rules 

were improperly promulgated. Id. at 87 

FR 2673. The January 2022 Final Rule 

reinstated the prior product classes and 

applicable standards for these covered 

products. Id. at 87 FR 2686. 

On March 17, 2022, various States 

filed a petition in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

(‘‘Fifth Circuit’’) seeking review of the 

January 2022 Final Rule, which 

eliminated the short-cycle product 

classes and reinstated the applicable 

energy conservation standards. The 

petitioners argued that the January 2022 

Final Rule withdrawing the Short-cycle 

Final Rules violated EPCA and was 

arbitrary and capricious. On January 8, 

2024, the Fifth Circuit granted the 

petition for review and remanded the 

matter to DOE for further proceedings 

consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s 

opinion. In remanding the January 2022 

Final Rule for further consideration, the 

Court held that even if the Short-cycle 

Final Rules were invalid, DOE was 

obligated to consider other remedies 

short of withdrawal. See Louisiana, et 

al. v. United States Department of 

Energy, et al., 90 F.4th 461, 477 (5th Cir. 

2024). Specifically, the Court noted that 

instead of withdrawing the Short-cycle 

Final Rules, DOE could have 

promulgated energy conservation 

standards for the short-cycle product 

classes. Id. at 476. 

As a result, DOE is considering 

whether short-cycle product classes and 

standards can be established under the 

applicable statutory criteria. Under 

EPCA, DOE establishes product classes 

based on: (1) fuel type; or (2) 

performance-related features. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) With regards to product 

classes based on performance-related 

features, the product must have a 

feature which other products within 

such type do not have and such feature 

must justify a different standard from 

that which applies to other products 

within such type. (Id.). In the Shortcycle Final Rules, DOE found that cycle 

time was a performance-related feature 

and that some products had shorter 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88664 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

4The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket for this 

rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE–2024–BT–STD– 

0002, which is maintained at: 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID 

number at page of that document). 

cycle times than others. 85 FR 68723, 

68726; 85 FR 81359, 81361. But the 

Short-cycle Final Rules did not 

determine whether cycle time justified 

different standards. Instead, the Shortcycle Final Rules stated DOE would 

determine specific standards in a 

separate rulemaking. Id. Therefore, to 

establish separate energy conservation 

standards for short-cycle product 

classes, DOE must first confirm the 

determination made in the Short-cycle 

Final Rules that cycle time is a 

performance-related feature for these 

three covered products. DOE must then 

determine that a different standard level 

is justified for short-cycle products as 

there is no basis for establishing a 

product class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) 

that would be subject to the same 

standard level. Finally, assuming DOE 

determines that cycle time is a 

performance-related feature and a 

different standard level is justified for 

short-cycle products, DOE must apply 

the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) to 

prescribe energy conservation standards 

that, among other things, are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and would result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

As part of this process, DOE 

published a request for information on 

March 11, 2024 (‘‘March 2024 RFI’’), 

seeking data and other information on, 

among other things, the presence of any 

short-cycle products in the market and 

any relationship between cycle time and 

performance. 89 FR 17338. DOE 

received comments in response to the 

March 2024 RFI from the interested 

parties listed in Table II.1. 

TABLE II.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE MARCH 2024 RFI 

Commenter(s) Reference in this final rule 

Comment 

number in 

the docket 

Commenter type 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance for Water 

Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense 

Council, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.

ASAP et al. ............................. 8 Efficiency Organizations. 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ........................ AHAM ...................................... 5 Trade Association. 

Attorneys General of MT, AL, AR, FL, GA, ID, IA, KY, LA, 

MS, MO, NE, OH, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA.

AGs of MT et al. ..................... 9 State Government Officials. 

California Investor-Owned Utilities (Pacific Gas and Electric, 

Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric).

CA IOUs .................................. 6 Utilities. 

China via National Center of Standards Evaluation and State 

Administration for Market Regulation.

China ....................................... 11 International Government. 

LG Corporation ......................................................................... LG ........................................... 7 Manufacturer. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ....................................... NEEA ...................................... 4 Efficiency Organization. 

Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice ............. NRDC and Earthjustice .......... 10 Efficiency Organizations. 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 

and California Energy Commission.

NYSERDA and CEC ............... 12 State Agencies. 

U.S. Representative Stephanie Bice ........................................ Rep. Bice ................................ 2 Federal Government Official. 

Joshua McCray ......................................................................... McCray .................................... 3 Individual. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.4

II. Discussion 

This discussion responds to the Fifth 

Circuit’s January 8, 2024, decision 

remanding this matter to DOE for 

further proceedings consistent with its 

opinion. In remanding the January 2022 

Final Rule for further consideration, the 

Fifth Circuit found the January 2022 

Final Rule arbitrary and capricious for 

two principal reasons: 

(1) It failed to adequately consider 

appliance performance, substitution 

effects, and the ‘‘ample record 

evidence’’ that DOE’s conservation 

standards are causing Americans to use 

more energy and water rather than less; 

and 

(2) It rested instead on DOE’s view 

that the Short-cycle Final Rules were 

legally invalid—but even if true, that 

does not excuse DOE from considering 

other remedies short of repealing the 

Short-cycle Final Rules in toto. 

Louisiana, 90 F.4th at 477. 

With regards to the second reason, the 

Court noted that instead of withdrawing 

the Short-cycle Final Rules, DOE could 

have promulgated energy conservation 

standards for the short-cycle product 

classes. Id. at 476. 

In the discussion that follows, DOE 

considers whether an alternative to 

withdrawing the Short-cycle Final 

Rules—establishing standards for the 

short-cycle product classes—would be 

justified under EPCA. As discussed 

below, DOE tentatively concludes that 

the short-cycle features of dishwashers, 

RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers do 

not justify standards different from 

those applicable to those products 

generally. DOE has also considered the 

effect of withdrawing the short-cycle 

product class on product performance 

and energy and water use savings, 

including cleaning and drying 

performance, the potential for increased 

substitution (e.g., by hand washing or 

pre-washing), and the risk that 

standards are unintentionally increasing 

energy use (e.g., via consumers relying 

on multiple cycles or unregulated 

cycles). 

A. Dishwashers 

The following sections apply DOE’s 

authority under EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q) to determine whether a ‘‘shortcycle’’ feature for dishwashers is a 

performance-related feature that justifies 

the establishment of a separate product 

class. DOE considers a short-cycle 

feature for dishwashers to be a cycle 

that can completely wash a full load of 

normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or 

less. DOE first reiterates its prior 

determinations that cycle time is a 

performance-related feature of 

dishwashers and details its specific 

consideration of the short-cycle feature 

(see section II.A.1 of this document). As 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88665 

5As discussed further in section II.E.3.a of this 

document, DOE’s test procedure for dishwashers at 

10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix C2 (‘‘appendix 

C2’’), which references the latest industry test 

standard, defines a minimum cleaning index of 70 

as the level that represents ‘‘completely washing’’ 

a full load of normally soiled dishes—as measured 

on each of the three soil loads that are tested in the 

DOE test procedure (i.e., the heavy, medium, and 

light soil loads). See 88 FR 3234, 3251–3263. For 

the purpose of this proposed confirmation of 

withdrawal, DOE considers ‘‘completely washing a 

full load of normally soiled dishes’’ to mean 

achieving a cleaning index of at least 70 on each 

of the three soil loads. 

discussed in section II.A.2 of this 

document, DOE tentatively determines 

in this analysis that the short-cycle 

feature does not justify a different 

standard. Data and information from the 

Short-cycle Final Rules, March 2024 

RFI, and dishwashers direct final rule 

published on April 24, 2024 (‘‘April 

2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule’’; 89 

FR 31398) show that products with a 

normal cycle of less than 60 minutes 

can meet the current energy 

conservation standards using the same 

design strategies as other dishwashers of 

comparable efficiency without a shortcycle feature. Finally, in section II.A.3 

of this document, DOE addresses other 

pertinent comments received in 

response to the March 2024 RFI that 

pertain to the dishwasher topics 

discussed in this document. 

1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related 

Feature 

DOE first considered whether cycle 

time is a performance-related feature of 

dishwashers in accordance with 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). Consistent with 

DOE’s assessment in previous 

rulemakings, discussed as follows, DOE 

reiterates that cycle time is a 

performance-related feature of 

dishwashers. 

In a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NOPR’’) published on July 16, 2019 

(‘‘July 2019 NOPR’’), DOE noted that 

while some individual consumers 

commented in response to the Notice of 

Petition for Rulemaking that was 

published on April 24, 2018 (83 FR 

17768) that they were not concerned 

with a shorter cycle time, other 

individual consumers expressed 

dissatisfaction with the amount of time 

necessary to run their dishwashers. 84 

FR 33869, 33873. In the July 2019 

NOPR, DOE further discussed that the 

data and comments from dissatisfied 

consumers indicated that for many 

consumers, there is a utility in shorter 

cycle times to clean a normally soiled 

load of dishes. Id. Based on these 

considerations, DOE concluded that 

cycle time for dishwashers is a 

performance-related feature for the 

purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). Id. 

DOE reiterated this conclusion in the 

October 2020 Final Rule. 85 FR 68723, 

68726–68732. Specifically, DOE 

concluded in the October 2020 Final 

Rule that dishwashers with a normal 

cycle with a cycle time of 60 minutes or 

less have a performance-related feature 

that other dishwashers currently on the 

market lack. Id. at 85 FR 68726, citing 

84 FR 33869, 33871. As defined in 

section 1 of appendix C1, the normal 

cycle refers to the cycle recommended 

to the consumer to completely wash a 

full load of normally soiled dishes. 

As discussed, CEI petitioned DOE in 

March 2018 to establish a separate 

product class for dishwashers for which 

the normal cycle is less than 60 

minutes. In the October 2020 Final Rule, 

DOE finalized the creation of a new 

product class for standard-size 

dishwashers with a normal cycle of 60 

minutes or less. 85 FR 68723, 68733. In 

the January 2022 Final Rule, DOE did 

not question the validity of those prior 

determinations that short cycles provide 

a performance-related feature. 87 FR 

2673, 2682. 

In response to the March 2024 RFI, 

AHAM stated that cycle time is an 

important consumer feature. (AHAM, 

No. 5 at p. 1) The AGs of MT et al. 

stated that consumers find distinct 

utility in appliances that are actually 

capable of cleaning dishes on a short 

cycle. (AGs of MT et al., No. 9 at p. 5) 

The CA IOUs commented that shortcycle product classes for dishwashers 

are unwarranted because they do not 

meet the requirements for a separate 

product class under EPCA. The CA 

IOUs stated that ‘‘cycle time’’ is not a 

‘‘capacity or other performance-related 

feature’’ that justifies a higher or lower 

standard as specified under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1). The CA IOUs further noted 

that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), the 

types of features that are considered for 

establishing a higher or lower standard, 

and thus, separate product class, 

include reliability, size, capacity, 

volume, and similar attributes. The CA 

IOUs further asserted that cycle time, for 

the products at issue, is outside the 

scope of what EPCA permits DOE to 

consider in establishing or maintaining 

separate product classes. (CA IOUs, No. 

6 at p. 8) For the reasons stated in the 

July 2019 NOPR and October 2020 Final 

Rule, DOE reconfirms in this proposed 

confirmation of withdrawal that cycle 

time is a performance-related feature of 

dishwashers for the purposes of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q). The following 

paragraphs discuss DOE’s specific 

consideration of the short-cycle feature 

for dishwashers. 

Within the context of the CEI petition, 

in this document, DOE considers a 

dishwasher to have a ‘‘short-cycle 

feature’’ only if it provides a cycle with 

the capability of ‘‘completely washing’’ 5

a full load of normally soiled dishes in 

60 minutes or less on any available 

cycle, as would be the consumer 

expectation for a normal cycle. DOE 

does not consider a cycle intended for 

washing only a partial load of dishes, or 

a cycle unable to completely wash a full 

load of normally soiled dishes, to be a 

short-cycle feature for the purpose of 

this analysis—even if such cycle has a 

cycle time of 60 minutes or less. In this 

regard, the analyses performed in 

support of this proposed confirmation of 

withdrawal differ from the analyses 

DOE performed in support of the 

January 2022 Final Rule, in which DOE 

considered all ‘‘quick’’ cycles with a 

cycle time of 60 minutes or less, 

regardless of dish load size or cleaning 

ability. By considering only cycles that 

can completely wash a full load of 

normally soiled dishes, DOE avoids 

considering ‘‘quick’’ cycles designed for 

addressing niche applications (e.g., light 

soils, delicate items, etc.) that are not 

capable of washing a full load of 

normally soiled dishes, as would be the 

consumer expectation for a normal 

cycle. 

In the sections that follow, DOE 

evaluates whether such a short-cycle 

feature justifies a separate product class 

in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 

2. Justification of Different Standards for 

Dishwashers With a Short-Cycle Feature 

As discussed, EPCA authorizes DOE 

to prescribe a higher or lower standard 

than that which applies (or would 

apply) for such type (or class) for any 

group of covered products which have 

the same function or intended use if 

DOE determines that products within 

such group (A) consume a different kind 

of energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE considers such factors as 

the utility to the consumer of such a 

feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. (Id.) 

A typical application of this provision 

of EPCA is for DOE to establish 

comparatively less stringent standards 

for classes of covered products that have 

a performance-related feature that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88666 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

6Separate refrigerator product class distinctions 

are made for additional product features as well, 

such as automatic defrost and transparent doors. 

See 10 CFR 430.32(a). 

7 DOE test data are available at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BTSTD-0005-3213. 

8 In consideration of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion 

that in the short-cycle rulemakings DOE pointed to 

existing ‘‘quick’’ cycles that did not address the 

foundational concerns underlying these rules, DOE 

considers in this analysis that the other units in the 

test sample that provide a dishwasher cycle less 

than 60 minutes, but that do not ‘‘completely wash’’ 

a full load of normally soiled dishes, do not have 

what DOE is describing as a ‘‘short-cycle feature’’ 

in this document, and therefore do not factor into 

DOE’s consideration of whether a separate product 

class is justified for dishwashers with a short-cycle 

feature. See Louisiana, 90 F.4th at 474–75. 

inherently uses more energy than 

products without such feature, and for 

which DOE has determined that such 

feature provides a utility to the 

consumer that justifies the 

comparatively less stringent standard. 

For example, when establishing 

standards for consumer refrigerators, 

DOE determined through-the-door ice 

service to be a performance-related 

feature of refrigerators that provides 

utility to the consumer and that affects 

efficiency; i.e., inherently uses more 

energy (see discussion of product class 

segregation at 52 FR 46367, 46371 (Dec. 

7, 1987)). Accordingly, DOE established 

comparatively less stringent standards 

for refrigerators with through-the-door 

ice service than for equivalent 

refrigerators without such a feature. 54 

FR 47916, 47943–47944 (Nov. 17, 1989). 

DOE has maintained a product class 

distinction with comparatively less 

stringent standards for refrigerators with 

through-the-door ice service through 

successive amendments to the standards 

for consumer refrigerators.6

In the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE 

acknowledged that designing a 

dishwasher with a normal cycle time of 

60 minutes or less is achievable and 

asserted that establishing a short-cycle 

product class could spur manufacturer 

innovation to generate additional 

product offerings to fill the market gap 

that exists for dishwashers with this 

feature (i.e., the ability to clean a load 

of normally soiled dishes in under 60 

minutes). DOE further stated its intent 

to determine the specific energy and 

water conservation standards of the new 

product class in a separate rulemaking. 

85 FR 68723, 68724. 

DOE has conducted an analysis of the 

energy and water use of a short-cycle 

feature for dishwashers to evaluate 

whether different (i.e., comparatively 

less stringent) standards would be 

warranted for dishwashers that provide 

a short-cycle feature. As discussed in 

the previous section of this document, 

DOE has determined that a normal cycle 

of 60 minutes or less on a dishwasher 

is a performance-related feature that 

provides consumer utility for the 

purpose of consideration of potential 

product class distinction under the 

provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE 

next evaluated whether dishwashers 

with a short-cycle feature necessitate 

more energy and water use than 

dishwashers without such feature, 

which could justify a comparatively less 

stringent standard for dishwashers that 

provide such a feature. 

To evaluate the energy and water use 

of a short-cycle feature in comparison to 

the currently applicable energy and 

water standards, DOE considered all 

data available from recent rulemakings, 

including data from testing conducted 

in support of the October 2020 Final 

Rule 7 and the April 2024 Dishwashers 

Direct Final Rule and confidential data 

from AHAM. DOE notes that the test 

data published in support of the October 

2020 Final Rule include cleaning 

indices calculated by scoring soil 

particles on all items as well as spots, 

streaks, and rack contact marks on 

glassware. However, in a final rule 

amending the test procedure for 

dishwashers published on January 18, 

2023 (‘‘January 2023 TP Final Rule’’), 

DOE established a new test procedure at 

appendix C2, which specifies a 

minimum cleaning index threshold of 

70 as a condition for a valid test cycle. 

88 FR 3234, 3248. The test procedure at 

appendix C2 specifies that the cleaning 

index is calculated by scoring only soil 

particles, and that spots, streaks, and 

rack contact marks on glassware are not 

included in the cleaning index 

calculation. Accordingly, DOE 

reanalyzed the October 2020 Final Rule 

test data, revising the cleaning index for 

all test cycles at each soil load to 

include only soil particles and not 

spots, streaks, or rack contact marks, 

consistent with the adopted test 

procedure. The analyses presented in 

this document are based on these 

revised cleaning indices. While 

AHAM’s data includes energy and water 

use data for standard-size dishwashers 

on the normal cycle and cycle time data 

for the same units on the normal cycle 

and quick cycle, it does not include 

cleaning performance for each unit. 

From its test sample, DOE identified 

one unit that provides a ‘‘short-cycle 

feature’’—as DOE has described that 

term in this document—that uses less 

energy and water than the maximum 

allowable standard level for standardsize dishwashers. Specifically, this unit 

achieves a cleaning index of at least 70 

on the heavy, medium, and light soil 

loads that are required for testing the 

normal cycle, with a cycle time less 

than 60 minutes; i.e., provides a ‘‘shortcycle feature’’ consistent with consumer 

expectations of a normal cycle.8 This 

unit’s test results demonstrate that 

providing a short-cycle feature 

consistent with consumer expectations 

of a normal cycle (i.e., a cycle that can 

completely wash a full load of normally 

soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less) does 

not necessitate using more energy and 

water than a dishwasher without such 

feature that meets the current standards. 

DOE further evaluated the technologies 

and design strategies used by this 

dishwasher and has tentatively 

concluded that this unit does not 

incorporate any proprietary 

technologies or design strategies and is 

designed no differently than other 

dishwashers of comparable efficiency 

without a short-cycle feature. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

the availability of this feature currently 

on the market—at lower energy and 

water levels than the current standard 

allows—in a unit with no identifiable 

proprietary design or control strategy 

demonstrates that a dishwasher with a 

short-cycle feature does not inherently 

use more energy and water than a 

dishwasher without such feature to 

achieve an acceptable cleaning 

performance, and that the current 

dishwasher standards do not preclude 

manufacturers from offering a normal 

cycle of 60 minutes or less. This 

tentative conclusion is consistent with 

the October 2020 Final Rule, which 

found that manufacturers already 

offered ‘‘quick’’ cycles that were less 

than 60 minutes and could meet the 

current DOE standards. 85 FR 68724. 

Further evaluation of consumer 

survey data and comments from 

dishwasher manufacturers (discussed 

further in section II.A.3.c of this 

document) indicates that the limited 

availability of short-cycle features on 

the current market is not indicative of 

energy conservation standards 

precluding or discouraging the 

availability of such feature, but rather 

reflects the prioritization of product 

offerings by manufacturers 

commensurate with a relatively low 

level of market demand for this feature 

in comparison to other features more 

important to consumers. 

In response to the March 2024 RFI, 

DOE received the following comments 

regarding establishing a separate shortcycle product class for dishwashers. 

AHAM stated that new product 

classes to protect the short-cycle feature 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88667 

9 DOE notes that ASAP et al. referred to these 

cycles as ‘‘short cycles.’’ However, in this proposed 

confirmation of withdrawal, DOE uses the term 

‘‘quick cycles’’ to refer to all cycles with a cycle 

time of around 60 minutes. DOE uses the term 

‘‘short-cycle feature’’ only to refer to cycles that are 

60 minutes or less in duration and can completely 

wash a full load of normally soiled dishes. 

are not justified at this time under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q) for the following reasons: 

(1) consumers are satisfied with existing 

normal cycle times based on AHAM’s 

2021 Consumer Research, which found 

that 81 percent of respondents were 

satisfied with the length of the normal 

cycle of their dishwasher; (2) most 

dishwashers already provide consumers 

with short cycle time options; and, (3) 

data shows that standards are not 

expected to increase cycle time 

significantly. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 5) 

NEEA commented that the short-cycle 

product class for dishwashers is 

unwarranted. NEEA stated that its 

comments build upon past NEEA letters 

submitted to DOE, which demonstrated 

that short-cycle product classes were 

not appropriate for these appliances. 

NEEA added that recent research clearly 

reinforces these conclusions. (NEEA, 

No. 4 at p. 2) 

China commented that DOE should 

remove the short-cycle product classes. 

China commented that the short-cycle 

product class is not defined in the 

regulations and standards, which makes 

it difficult for manufacturers to clearly 

classify their products into this product 

class. (China, No. 11 at p. 2) 

An individual commented expressing 

support for short-cycle product classes 

for dishwashers and stated that products 

with a ‘‘short cycle’’ as the normal cycle 

should be subject to different standards 

than products without a ‘‘short cycle’’ as 

the normal cycle. The individual noted 

that such a rulemaking would save 

consumers money by lowering the cost 

of their electric bills. (McCray, No. 3 at 

p. 1) 

LG commented that, after internal 

discussions and discussions with 

industry partners to evaluate market 

changes since the January 2022 Final 

Rule, LG is supportive of DOE’s 

decision in the January 2022 Final Rule 

and opposes new product classes for 

short-cycle products. LG added that for 

appliances to satisfy cleaning and 

drying performance in a shorter amount 

of time while achieving the same 

performance, it would be inevitable that 

they would consume more energy—an 

outcome that contradicts DOE’s 

objective to adopt standards that would 

result in more energy conservation. (LG, 

No. 7 at pp. 1–2) 

As noted earlier in this section, test 

data show that it is technologically 

feasible to design dishwashers with a 

short-cycle feature while meeting 

current standards. That is, dishwashers 

with shorter cycle times do not need to 

consume more energy than the current 

standard to provide the same 

performance. 

Rep. Bice commented in opposition to 

multiple rulemakings recently 

published by DOE that add new 

regulations to consumer products. Rep. 

Bice asserted that the standards would 

increase costs for manufacturers and 

prices for consumers. Rep. Bice 

commented that regulation limits 

consumer choice and is onerous for 

American manufacturers, including 

many small businesses. (Rep. Bice, No. 

2 at p. 1) 

DOE notes that this proposed 

confirmation of withdrawal does not 

propose to add any new regulations for 

dishwashers. Instead, this proposed 

confirmation of withdrawal reanalyzes 

the provisions of a previous rulemaking 

(i.e., the January 2022 Final Rule) that 

withdrew short-cycle product classes. 

In conclusion, based on the available 

test data—which demonstrate that it is 

feasible to design a short-cycle feature 

while meeting current standards—as 

well as stakeholder comments and 

market survey data, DOE has tentatively 

determined that (1) a short-cycle feature 

that can completely wash a full load of 

normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or 

less is technologically feasible; (2) 

current standards do not prevent 

dishwasher manufacturers from 

providing such a short-cycle feature; 

and (3) there is a dishwasher currently 

available on the market that provides 

such a short-cycle feature and meets the 

currently applicable energy and water 

standard. For these reasons, DOE has 

tentatively determined that a short-cycle 

feature for dishwashers does not justify 

a separate product class with separate 

standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE 

seeks comment on these proposed 

determinations. 

3. Response to Other Comments 

In the sections that follow, DOE 

addresses comments received in 

response to the March 2024 RFI that 

pertain to the dishwasher topics 

discussed in this document. 

a. Prevalence of Quick Cycles on the 

Market 

DOE received comments from 

stakeholders discussing the prevalence 

of quick cycle options in current 

dishwasher models. 

ASAP et al. reiterated data that 

AHAM had previously presented in 

response to the July 2019 NOPR, which 

ASAP et al. summarized as indicating 

that 87 percent of dishwasher shipments 

in 2017 provided the option for a quick 9

cycle, and about half of those quick 

cycles were designed for normally 

soiled loads. ASAP et al. commented 

that short-cycle product classes are 

unwarranted, as there are many 

products with quick cycles that meet 

existing energy and water conservation 

standards on the market. (ASAP et al., 

No. 8 at p. 2) 

NEEA stated that consumers can 

already access quick cycles on current 

dishwasher models. NEEA stated that its 

review of available products on Lowe’s 

website indicated that 84 percent of 24- 

inch dishwasher models provided a 

quick-cycle program. NEEA further 

commented that consumers continue to 

be satisfied with existing products that 

provide the option of a quick cycle, and 

that consumers of one national retail 

chain highly rated more than 90 percent 

of dishwasher models with a quick 

cycle. NEEA asserted that selecting an 

available quick cycle by pressing a 

button or shifting a dial is not an 

unreasonable consumer burden when a 

faster cycle is preferred. (NEEA, No. 4 

at p. 3) 

Confidential data submitted to DOE 

by AHAM in response to the March 

2024 RFI show that 92 percent of 

dishwasher models offer a quick cycle 

with cycle times ranging from 30 

minutes to 124 minutes, and for 22 

percent of these dishwasher models, the 

recommended soil level for the quick 

cycle is ‘‘normal,’’ ‘‘heavy,’’ or ‘‘any’’ 

soil loads. 

The prevalence and variety of quickcycle offerings, as reflected in these data 

presented by stakeholders, support 

DOE’s conclusions in section II.A.1 of 

this document that cycle time is a 

performance-related feature for the 

purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 

In consideration of the Fifth Circuit’s 

opinion that DOE’s prior reasoning in 

the January 2022 Final Rule improperly 

relied upon the prevalence of ‘‘quick’’ 

cycles that do not address the 

foundational concerns underlying the 

October 2020 Final Rule, DOE 

considered in this analysis only those 

cycles that are consistent with consumer 

expectations of a normal cycle to 

completely wash a full load of normally 

soiled dishes and are 60 minutes or less 

(i.e., cycles that achieved a cleaning 

index of at least 70 on the heavy, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88668 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

10The March 2018 Petition is available at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BTSTD-0005-0006, page 4. 

11Reviewed is part of the USA TODAY Network. 

See reviewed.usatoday.com. 

12Available at www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3224. The Joint Attorneys 

General referenced AHAM’s comment in this 

Petition for Reconsideration that the October 2020 

Final Rule disrupted AHAM’s members who ‘‘have 

invested heavily in innovating to meet energy 

conservation standards for dishwashers,’’ with the 

October 2020 Final Rule resulting in ‘‘stranded 

investments as manufacturers are required to 

consider abandoning these innovations in 

efficiency.’’ 

13Stratton, H., et al. 2021. Dishwashers in the 

Residential Section: A Survey of Product 

Characteristics, Usage, and Consumer Preferences 

(last accessed July 17, 2024). etapublications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/osg_lbnl_

report_dishwashers_final_4.pdf. 

medium, and light soil loads and had a 

weighted-average cycle time of 60 

minutes or less). 

b. Historical Cycle Time Trends 

In its March 2018 Petition, CEI 

presented dishwasher cycle time data 

compiled from annual Consumer 

Reports data. These data include the 

range of cycle times measured by 

Consumer Reports as well as an 

approximate market-average cycle time 

for each year. Based on the Consumer 

Reports data, CEI concluded that the 

historical increase in the average normal 

cycle time demonstrates that current 

standards have precluded 

manufacturers from offering products 

with short cycles as the normal cycle.10

In particular, CEI noted that the average 

cycle time had not been about 1 hour 

since 1983, before any standards were 

adopted; average cycle time in 2018 was 

2 hours and 20 minutes, and, according 

to CEI, had ‘‘more than doubled due to 

current energy standards.’’ CEI further 

asserted that ‘‘when a new energy 

standard is adopted by the DOE, the 

result is an increase in dishwasher cycle 

time.’’ CEI also asserted that dishwasher 

average cycle times of less than 1 hour 

had been eliminated from the 

marketplace. 

Regarding CEI’s conclusion that the 

historical increase in the average normal 

cycle time demonstrates that current 

standards have precluded 

manufacturers from offering products 

with short cycles as the normal cycle, 

DOE notes that market-average cycle 

time is not an appropriate indicator to 

demonstrate any causality with 

standards. Instead, the minimum 

available cycle time is a more 

appropriate indicator to assess any 

impact of standards on dishwasher 

cycle time, because the minimum 

available cycle time on the market can 

provide an indication of the 

technological feasibility of providing 

shorter cycle times while meeting more 

stringent standards. Trends in marketaverage cycle times have largely been 

driven by other factors, discussed in the 

following paragraphs. 

Based on the data shared by CEI in its 

petition, minimum cycle times (as 

represented by the lowest cycle time 

measured by Consumer Reports each 

year) have generally increased only 

during periods when standards were not 

amended. For example, the minimum 

cycle time increased from 65 minutes in 

1993 to 85 minutes in 2006, a period 

during which there were no changes to 

dishwasher standards. Furthermore, the 

minimum cycle time as measured by 

Consumer Reports has decreased over 

the past 15 years, even while standards 

became more stringent during that time 

period. 

Additionally, the short-cycle feature 

currently available on the market has a 

cycle time (41 minutes) that is lower 

than the minimum cycle time measured 

by Consumer Reports in 1983 (55 

minutes), prior to the introduction of 

any standards for dishwashers. This 

demonstrates that amended standards 

have not prevented the technological 

feasibility of providing a short-cycle 

feature even as dishwasher standards 

have become more stringent, and even 

as the market-weighted average cycle 

time has increased due to other factors 

(see discussion in the following 

paragraphs regarding potential impact of 

dishwasher sound levels and detergent 

formulation on cycle time). In other 

words, Consumer Reports data (as well 

as the other data discussed elsewhere in 

this document) show that current 

standards are not precluding 

manufacturers from offering 

dishwashers with a short-cycle feature. 

Consistent with DOE’s observations, 

in response to the March 2024 RFI, 

ASAP et al. noted that the Consumer 

Reports data presented in CEI’s March 

2018 Petition show that the greatest 

cycle-time increase came during a 

period when no new standards were 

adopted. ASAP et al. asserted that the 

increase in cycle time was likely driven 

by other factors, such as consumer 

preference for quieter products and 

changes to detergent formulation. ASAP 

et al. cited Reviewed,11 which stated 

that older dishwashers had sound levels 

around 60 decibels, while modern 

dishwashers average between 40 and 50 

decibels. ASAP et al. also cited 

Reviewed to explain that ‘‘there are lots 

of ways to reduce noise, but most of 

them involve reducing the machine’s 

cleaning power, and that in turn means 

lengthening cycle times to compensate.’’ 

(ASAP et al., No. 8 at p. 4) 

ASAP et al. also stated that by 2010, 

many states had banned the sale of 

dishwasher detergents containing 

phosphates, which resulted in newer 

detergents that use enzymes. ASAP et 

al. cited information from Reviewed 

explaining that enzyme-based 

detergents require more time to work, 

lengthening cycle times. (Id.) 

In summary, the available data 

demonstrate that amended standards 

have not affected the technological 

feasibility of providing a short-cycle 

feature, even as dishwasher standards 

have become more stringent, and that 

current standards are not precluding 

manufacturers from offering 

dishwashers with a short-cycle feature. 

Rather, the data provided by CEI in its 

petition are reflective of the expanding 

range of product availability on the 

market since the early 2000s, 

corresponding to a proliferation of other 

distinguishing features on the market. 

c. Consumer Preferences 

With regard to market competition 

and consumer preferences, the AGs of 

MT et al. referenced AHAM’s comments 

from its Petition for Reconsideration of 

the October 2020 Final Rule 12 to state 

that consumers do not want what DOE 

and industry have offered historically 

and that distinct short-cycle product 

classes would increase competition and 

consumer choice. (AGs of MT et al., No. 

9 at p. 5) 

The AGs of MT et al. noted that CEI’s 

survey included 2,200 individual public 

comments in support of the short-cycle 

product class, with only 16 opposed, 

which the AGs of MT et al. assert is 

evidence that consumers find it 

important to clean dishes using a short 

cycle. (Id.) 

Contrary to the claims made by the 

AGs of MT et al., the CA IOUs asserted 

that the absence of dishwasher products 

with a normal cycle of 60 minutes or 

less is due to lack of consumer demand. 

The CA IOUs cited an LBNL report that 

studied dishwasher consumer 

preferences based on a survey of 1,201 

consumers, ranking from most to least 

important attributes affecting 

consumers’ purchase decision,13 and 

provided a figure illustrating its findings 

that dishwasher cycle time ranked 14 

out of 18 attributes, well below average 

importance for consumers and 

significantly lower than energy 

efficiency, which was ranked fifth, and 

energy bill cost savings, which was 

ranked sixth. The CA IOUs stated that 

based on multiple stakeholders’ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88669 

14Comments from Electrolux Home Products, Inc. 

in response to the July 2019 NOPR. Available at 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2018-BT-STD0005-3134. 

15Comments from AHAM in response to the July 

2019 NOPR. Available at www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3188. 

16U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey, 2015 Public Use Microdata Files, 2020. 

Washington, DC. Available at www.eia.gov/ 

consumption/residential/data/2020/ 

index.php?view=microdata. 

17This consideration corresponds to DOE’s 

definition of ‘‘normal cycle’’ in section 1 of the DOE 

test procedure at 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix 

J2 (‘‘appendix J2’’), which is defined as ‘‘the cycle 

recommended by the manufacturer [. . .] for 

normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to a 

full load of normally soiled cotton clothing,’’ among 

other criteria. 

comments,14 15 consumers prioritize 

cleaning performance, dish rack 

features, drying performance, energy 

and water efficiency, and low noise 

levels. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at pp. 5–6) 

In accordance with the comment from 

the CA IOUs regarding the importance 

of energy efficiency to consumers, 

ASAP et al. noted that the market 

penetration of ENERGY STAR®- 

qualified dishwashers ranged between 

84 percent and 100 percent between 

2010 and 2022, which ASAP et al. 

asserted provides an indication that 

consumers are choosing to buy highly 

efficient dishwashers. (ASAP et al., No. 

8 at p. 4) 

AHAM stated that manufacturers pay 

careful attention to consumer needs and 

desires for particular features and 

utilities. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 4) 

In addition to the data cited by 

commenters, DOE notes that according 

to the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration’s (‘‘EIA’s’’) 2020 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(‘‘RECS’’),16 over 80 percent of 

consumers use normal cycles, as 

currently designed (i.e., generally longer 

than 60 minutes) most of the time. 

Based on the comments and data 

discussed in the preceding paragraphs, 

DOE tentatively concludes that 

consumers on the whole prioritize other 

attributes over cycle length, and product 

design is largely driven by these 

consumer preferences. To the extent 

that manufacturers prioritize other 

attributes of dishwasher performance 

over providing a short-cycle feature, 

such prioritization is a result of 

manufacturers targeting broad consumer 

preferences and not an indication that 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

are precluding manufacturers from 

offering a short-cycle feature. 

B. Residential Clothes Washers 

The following sections apply DOE’s 

authority under EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q) to determine whether a ‘‘shortcycle’’ feature for RCWs is a 

performance-related feature that justifies 

the establishment of separate product 

classes. DOE considers a short-cycle 

feature for top-loading RCWs to be a 

cycle that can completely wash a full 

load of normally soiled cotton clothing 

in less than 30 minutes, and for frontloading RCWs to be a cycle that can 

completely wash a full load of normally 

soiled cotton clothing in less than 45 

minutes.17 DOE first reiterates its prior 

determinations that cycle time is a 

performance-related feature of RCWs 

and details its specific consideration of 

the short-cycle feature (see section II.B.1 

of this document). As discussed in 

section II.B.2 of this document, DOE 

tentatively determines in this analysis 

that the short-cycle feature does not 

justify a different standard. Data and 

information from the Short-cycle Final 

Rules, the RCW direct final rule 

published on March 15, 2024 (‘‘March 

2024 RCW Direct Final Rule’’; 89 FR 

19026), and the March 2024 RFI show 

that RCWs currently available with a 

short normal cycle (i.e., with a cycle 

time less than 30 minutes for toploading RCWs and less than 45 minutes 

for front-loading RCWs) can meet the 

current energy conservation standards 

using the same design strategies as other 

RCWs of comparable efficiency without 

a short-cycle feature. Finally, in section 

II.B.3 of this document, DOE addresses 

other pertinent comments received in 

response to the March 2024 RFI that 

pertain to the RCW topics discussed in 

this document. 

1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related 

Feature 

DOE first considered whether cycle 

time is a performance-related feature of 

RCWs in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)(B). Consistent with DOE’s 

assessment in previous rulemakings, 

discussed as follows, DOE reiterates that 

cycle time is a performance-related 

feature of RCWs. 

DOE has previously considered cycle 

time as a consumer utility for the 

purposes of establishing product classes 

for RCWs. In a direct final rule 

published on May 31, 2012, (‘‘May 2012 

Direct Final Rule’’) DOE determined 

that the longer cycle times of frontloading RCWs versus cycle times for 

top-loading RCWs are likely to impact 

consumer utility. 77 FR 32308, 32319. 

Because the wash cycle times for frontloaders arise from the reduced 

mechanical action of agitation as 

compared to top-loaders, DOE stated 

that it believes that such longer cycles 

may be required to achieve the 

necessary cleaning, and thereby 

constitute a performance-related utility 

of front-loading versus top-loading 

RCWs pursuant to the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q). 77 FR 32308, 32319. 

In a NOPR published on August 13, 

2020 (‘‘August 2020 NOPR’’), DOE 

discussed that consumer use of RCWs is 

similar to that of dishwashers, in that 

the products provide consumer utility 

over discrete cycles with programmed 

cycle times, and consumers run these 

cycles multiple times per week on 

average. As such, the impact of cycle 

time on consumer utility identified by 

CEI in its petition regarding 

dishwashers is also relevant to RCWs. 

Based on these considerations, DOE 

concluded that cycle time for RCWs is 

a performance-related feature for the 

purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 85 FR 

49297, 49299. 

DOE reiterated this conclusion in the 

December 2020 Final Rule. Specifically, 

DOE concluded in the December 2020 

Final Rule that RCWs with a short 

normal cycle (i.e., with a cycle time less 

than 30 minutes for top-loading RCWs 

and less than 45 minutes for frontloading RCWs) provide a distinct utility 

to consumers that other RCWs do not 

provide, and that consumers receive a 

utility from the short normal cycle 

feature to support the establishment of 

new product classes under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)(B). 85 FR 81359, 81363– 

81364. The ‘‘normal cycle’’ refers to the 

cycle recommended to the consumer for 

normal, regular, or typical use for 

washing up to a full load of normally 

soiled cotton clothing. In the January 

2022 Final Rule, DOE did not question 

the validity of those prior 

determinations made that short cycles 

provide a performance-related feature. 

87 FR 2673, 2682. 

In response to the March 2024 RFI, 

AHAM stated that cycle time is an 

important consumer feature. (AHAM, 

No. 5 at p. 1). The AGs of MT et al. 

stated that consumers find distinct 

utility in appliances that are actually 

capable of washing clothes on a short 

cycle. (AGs of MT et al., No. 9 at p. 5). 

The CA IOUs commented that shortcycle product classes for RCWs are 

unwarranted because they do not meet 

the requirements for a separate product 

class under EPCA. The CA IOUs stated 

that ‘‘cycle time’’ is not a ‘‘capacity or 

other performance-related feature’’ that 

justifies a higher or lower standard as 

specified under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1). 

The CA IOUs further noted that under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), the types of 

features that are considered for 

establishing a higher or lower standard, 

and thus, separate product class, 

include reliability, size, capacity, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88670 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

18 DOE test data from the December 2020 Final 

Rule are available at www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0001-0007. 

Information on the March 2024 RCW Direct Final 

Rule models is available in the technical support 

document for the March 2024 RCW Direct Final 

Rule, which is available at www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0510. 

volume, and similar attributes. The CA 

IOUs further asserted that cycle time, for 

the products at issue, is outside the 

scope of what EPCA permits DOE to 

consider in establishing or maintaining 

separate product classes. (CA IOUs, No. 

6 at p. 8) 

For the reasons stated in the May 

2012 Direct Final Rule, August 2020 

NOPR, and December 2020 Final Rule, 

DOE reconfirms in this proposed 

confirmation of withdrawal that cycle 

time is a performance-related feature of 

RCWs for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q). In the sections that follow, DOE 

evaluates whether such a short-cycle 

feature justifies separate product classes 

in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 

2. Justification of Different Standards for 

Residential Clothes Washers With a 

Short-Cycle Feature 

As discussed, EPCA authorizes DOE 

to prescribe a higher or lower standard 

than that which applies (or would 

apply) for such type (or class) for any 

group of covered products which have 

the same function or intended use if 

DOE determines that products within 

such group (A) consume a different kind 

of energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE considers such factors as 

the utility to the consumer of such a 

feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. (Id.) 

DOE stated in the August 2020 NOPR, 

and reiterated in the December 2020 

Final Rule, that it presumed 

manufacturers were implementing the 

shortest possible cycle times that 

enabled a clothes washer to achieve 

satisfactory cleaning performance (and 

other aspects of clothes washer 

performance) while meeting the 

applicable energy and water 

conservation standards. 85 FR 81359, 

81361. DOE stated its belief that the 

current energy conservation standards 

may have been precluding or 

discouraging manufacturers from 

introducing models to the market with 

substantially shorter cycle times. Id. 

DOE further stated in the December 

2020 Final Rule that its actions (i.e., 

establishing short-cycle product classes 

for top-loading and front-loading RCWs) 

were intended to incentivize 

manufacturers to provide consumers 

with new options when purchasing 

RCWs, asserting that creation of these 

new product classes would incentivize 

manufacturers to develop innovative 

products with short cycle times for 

those consumers that receive a value 

from the time saved washing and drying 

their clothing. Id. at 85 FR 81360– 

81361. DOE further stated its intent to 

determine the specific energy and water 

consumption limits for the new product 

classes in a separate rulemaking. Id. 

DOE has conducted an analysis of the 

energy and water use of a short-cycle 

feature for RCWs to evaluate whether 

different (i.e., comparatively less 

stringent) standards would be warranted 

for RCWs that provide a short-cycle 

feature. As discussed in the previous 

section of this document, DOE has 

determined that a normal cycle of less 

than 30 minutes for top-loading RCWs 

and less than 45 minutes for frontloading RCWs is a performance-related 

feature that provides consumer utility 

for the purpose of consideration of 

potential product class distinction 

under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q). DOE next evaluated whether 

RCWs with a short-cycle feature 

necessitate more energy and water use 

than RCWs without such feature, which 

could justify a comparatively less 

stringent standard for RCWs that 

provide such a feature. 

To evaluate the energy and water use 

of a short-cycle feature in comparison to 

the currently applicable energy and 

water standards, DOE considered all 

data available from recent rulemakings, 

including DOE’s data from testing 

conducted in support of the December 

2020 Final Rule and the March 2024 

RCW Direct Final Rule and confidential 

data received from AHAM.18 All RCW 

test data evaluated in this manner was 

based on testing of the Normal cycle as 

defined in section 1 of appendix J2, 

corresponding to the cycle 

recommended by the manufacturer for 

normal, regular, or typical use for 

washing up to a full load of normally 

soiled cotton clothing. 

From among DOE’s test samples, DOE 

identified 3 top-loading RCWs and 9 

front-loading RCWs that provide a shortcycle feature. Specifically, these units 

have a normal cycle time of less than 30 

minutes for the top-loading RCWs and 

less than 45 minutes for the frontloading RCWs. 

From AHAM’s test sample, DOE 

identified 1 top-loading standard-size 

RCW with a normal cycle time of less 

than 30 minutes and 4 front-loading 

RCWs with a normal cycle time of less 

than 45 minutes. 

DOE then assessed the energy and 

water use of the short-cycle feature on 

these units in comparison to the 

currently applicable DOE standards. For 

all of these units, the short-cycle feature 

uses no more energy and water than the 

maximum allowable standard levels for 

standard-size RCWs, demonstrating that 

providing a short-cycle feature 

consistent with consumer expectations 

of a normal cycle (i.e., a cycle that can 

completely wash a full load of normally 

soiled cotton clothing in less than 30 or 

45 minutes for top-loading and frontloading RCWs respectively) does not 

necessitate using more energy and water 

than an RCW without such feature that 

meets the current standards. DOE 

further evaluated the technologies and 

design strategies used by these RCW 

models and has tentatively concluded 

that these units do not incorporate any 

proprietary technologies or design 

strategies and are designed no 

differently than other RCW models of 

comparable efficiency without a shortcycle feature. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

the availability of this feature currently 

on the market—at energy and water 

levels that comply with the current 

standards—in units with no identifiable 

proprietary designs or control strategies 

demonstrates that an RCW with a shortcycle feature does not inherently use 

more energy and water than an RCW 

without such feature, and that the 

current RCW standards do not preclude 

manufacturers from offering a shortcycle feature (i.e., a normal cycle time 

of less than 30 minutes for top-loading 

RCWs and less than 45 minutes for 

front-loading RCWs). On the basis that 

both top-loading and front-loading 

RCWs with short-cycle features are 

currently available on the market with 

no identifiable proprietary designs or 

control strategies, DOE has tentatively 

determined that a short-cycle feature is 

technologically feasible and that current 

standards do not prevent manufacturers 

from providing a short-cycle feature. 

In response to the March 2024 RFI, 

DOE received the following comments 

regarding establishing separate shortcycle product classes for RCWs. 

AHAM stated that new product 

classes to protect the short-cycle feature 

are not justified at this time under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q) for the following reasons: 

(1) consumers are satisfied with existing 

normal cycle times based on AHAM’s 

2021 Consumer Research, which found 

that 78 percent of respondents were 

satisfied with the length of the normal 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88671 

19NEEA noted that these models represent 75 

percent of the top-loading market, 80 percent of the 

front-loading market, and 77 percent of overall sales 

for 2023. 

20Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/ 

EERE-2020-BT-STD-0001-0044. 

cycle of their laundry appliance; (2) 

most RCWs already provide consumers 

with short cycle time options; and, (3) 

data shows that standards are not 

expected to increase cycle time 

significantly. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 5) 

NEEA commented that short-cycle 

product classes for RCWs are 

unwarranted. NEEA stated that its 

comments build upon past NEEA letters 

submitted to DOE, which demonstrated 

that short-cycle product classes were 

not appropriate for these appliances. 

NEEA added that recent research clearly 

reinforces these conclusions. (NEEA, 

No. 4 at p. 2) 

China commented that DOE should 

remove the short-cycle product classes. 

China commented that the short-cycle 

product class is not defined in the 

regulations and standards, which makes 

it difficult for manufacturers to clearly 

classify their products into this product 

class. (China, No. 11 at p. 2) 

An individual commented expressing 

support for short-cycle product classes 

for RCWs and stated that products with 

a ‘‘short cycle’’ as the normal cycle 

should be subject to different standards 

than products without a ‘‘short cycle’’ as 

the normal cycle. The individual noted 

that such a rulemaking would save 

consumers money by lowering the cost 

of their electric bills. (McCray, No. 3 at 

p. 1) 

LG commented that, after internal 

discussions and discussions with 

industry partners to evaluate market 

changes since the January 2022 Final 

Rule, LG is supportive of DOE’s 

decision in the January 2022 Final Rule 

and opposes new product classes for 

short-cycle products. LG added that for 

appliances to satisfy cleaning and 

drying performance in a shorter amount 

of time while achieving the same 

performance, it would be inevitable that 

they would consume more energy—an 

outcome that contradicts DOE’s 

objective to adopt standards that would 

result in more energy conservation. (LG, 

No. 7 at pp. 1–2) 

As noted earlier in this section, both 

top-loading and front-loading RCWs 

with short-cycle features are currently 

available on the market with no 

identifiable proprietary designs or 

control strategies. That is, RCWs with 

shorter cycle times do not need to 

consume more energy than the current 

standard to provide the same 

performance. 

Rep. Bice commented in opposition to 

multiple rulemakings recently 

published by DOE that add new 

regulations to consumer products. Rep. 

Bice asserted that the standards would 

increase costs for manufacturers and 

prices for consumers. Rep. Bice 

commented that regulation limits 

consumer choice and is onerous for 

American manufacturers, including 

many small businesses. (Rep. Bice, No. 

2 at p. 1) 

DOE notes that this proposed 

confirmation of withdrawal does not 

propose to add any new regulations for 

RCWs. Instead, this proposed 

confirmation of withdrawal reanalyzes 

the provisions of a previous rulemaking 

(i.e., the January 2022 Final Rule) that 

withdrew short-cycle product classes. 

In conclusion, based on the available 

test data—which demonstrate that it is 

feasible to design a short-cycle feature 

while meeting current standards—DOE 

has tentatively determined that (1) a 

short-cycle feature for normal, regular, 

or typical use for washing up to a full 

load of normally soiled cotton clothing 

is technologically feasible; (2) current 

standards do not prevent RCW 

manufacturers from providing such a 

short-cycle feature; and (3) multiple 

RCW models are currently available on 

the market that provide such a shortcycle feature that meet the currently 

applicable energy and water standards. 

For these reasons, DOE has tentatively 

determined that a short-cycle feature for 

RCWs does not justify separate product 

classes with separate standards under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE requests 

comment on these proposed 

determinations. 

3. Response to Other Comments 

DOE received comments in response 

to the March 2024 RFI from 

stakeholders discussing the prevalence 

of quick cycles on current RCW models. 

NEEA stated that consumers can 

already access quick cycles on current 

RCW models. NEEA stated that its 

review of the 58 best-selling models in 

the northwest United States 19 indicated 

that 94 percent of RCW models 

provided a quick-cycle program, noting 

that quick cycles are widely available in 

both top-loading and front-loading 

models. NEEA further commented that 

consumer-use data found that the quick 

cycle is used relatively infrequently in 

RCWs, citing their previous letter 20

showing that the quick cycle is selected 

8 percent of the time. (NEEA, No. 4 at 

p. 3) 

LG commented that that there are 

RCWs currently on the market that have 

default cycles comparable to DOE’s 

definition of short cycles while also 

offering additional short cycles as an 

option and because such products are 

already prevalent, it would be 

counterproductive to establish new 

product classes, which would involve 

simply setting a short cycle as the 

default cycle. (LG, No. 7 at p. 1) 

The CA IOUs commented that shortcycle product classes for RCWs are 

unwarranted, as other products of the 

same type are already available with 

quick cycles that meet current and 

future DOE energy conservation 

standards. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 1) The 

CA IOUs also stated that they could not 

find substantial evidence that 

consumers largely prefer shorter cycle 

times. The CA IOUs presented results 

from a 2024 in-store survey, showing 

that consumers were satisfied with a 45- 

to 60-minute RCW cycle. The CA IOUs 

additionally stated that survey results 

showed that 57 percent of consumers 

favored an ENERGY STAR-qualified 

RCW, 27 percent preferred a quiet RCW, 

and only 16 percent preferred an RCW 

with a cycle time of 30 minutes or less. 

(Id. at pp. 1–2) 

Confidential data submitted to DOE 

by AHAM in response to the March 

2024 RFI show that 91 percent of RCW 

models offer a quick cycle with cycle 

times ranging from 15 minutes to 59 

minutes and the recommended soil 

level for the quick cycle is ‘‘normal’’ for 

6 percent of these RCW models. 

The prevalence and variety of quickcycle offerings as reflected in these data 

presented by stakeholders support 

DOE’s conclusions in section II.B.1 of 

this document that cycle time is a 

performance-related feature for the 

purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 

In consideration of the Fifth Circuit’s 

opinion that DOE’s prior reasoning in 

the January 2022 Final Rule improperly 

relied upon the prevalence of ‘‘quick’’ 

cycles that do not address the 

foundational concerns underlying the 

December 2020 Final Rule, DOE 

considered in this analysis only those 

cycles that are consistent with consumer 

expectations of a normal cycle (i.e., a 

cycle for normal, regular, or typical use 

for washing up to a full load of normally 

soiled cotton clothing) and have a cycle 

time of less than 30 minutes for toploading RCWs and less than 45 minutes 

for front-loading RCWs. 

C. Consumer Clothes Dryers 

The following sections apply DOE’s 

authority under EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q) to determine whether a ‘‘shortcycle’’ feature for consumer clothes 

dryers is a performance-related feature 

that justifies the establishment of a 

separate product class. DOE considers a 

short-cycle feature for consumer clothes 

dryers to be a normal cycle that offers 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88672 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

cycle times of less than 30 minutes. 

DOE first reiterates its prior 

determinations that cycle time is a 

performance-related feature of consumer 

clothes dryers and details its specific 

consideration of the short-cycle feature 

(see section II.C.1 of this document). As 

discussed in section II.C.2 of this 

document, DOE tentatively determines 

in this analysis that the short-cycle 

feature does not justify a different 

standard. Data and information from the 

Short-cycle Final Rules, the consumer 

clothes dryers direct final rule 

published on March 12, 2024 (‘‘March 

2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule’’; 89 FR 

18164), and the March 2024 RFI show 

that products with a normal cycle of less 

than 30 minutes can meet the current 

energy conservation standards using the 

same design strategies as other 

consumer clothes dryers of comparable 

efficiency without a short-cycle feature. 

Finally, in section II.C.3 of this 

document, DOE addresses other 

pertinent comments received in 

response to the March 2024 RFI that 

pertain to the consumer clothes dryer 

topics discussed in this document. 

1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related 

Feature 

DOE first considered whether cycle 

time is a performance-related feature of 

consumer clothes dryers in accordance 

with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). Consistent 

with DOE’s assessment in previous 

rulemakings, discussed as follows, DOE 

reiterates that cycle time is a 

performance-related feature of consumer 

clothes dryers. 

In the August 2020 NOPR, DOE 

discussed that consumer use of 

consumer clothes dryers is similar to 

that of dishwashers, in that the products 

provide consumer utility over discrete 

cycles with programmed cycle times, 

and consumers run these cycles 

multiple times per week on average. As 

such, the impact of cycle time on 

consumer utility identified by CEI in its 

petition regarding dishwashers is also 

relevant to consumer clothes dryers. 

Based on these considerations, DOE 

concluded that cycle time for consumer 

clothes dryers is a performance-related 

feature for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q). 85 FR 49297, 49299. 

DOE reiterated this conclusion in the 

December 2020 Final Rule. 85 FR 81359, 

81363–81364. Specifically, DOE 

concluded in the December 2020 Final 

Rule that consumer clothes dryers with 

a short normal cycle (i.e., with a cycle 

time of less than 30 minutes) provide a 

distinct utility to consumers that other 

consumer clothes dryers do not provide, 

and that consumers receive a utility 

from the short normal cycle feature to 

support the establishment of a new 

product class under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)(B). Id. at 85 FR 81363, 81364. 

The ‘‘normal cycle’’ refers to the cycle 

recommended by the manufacturer to 

the consumer for drying cotton or linen 

clothes, among other criteria. In the 

January 2022 Final Rule, DOE did not 

question the validity of those prior 

determinations made about whether that 

short cycles provide a performancerelated feature. 87 FR 2673, 2682. 

In response to the March 2024 RFI, 

AHAM stated that cycle time is an 

important consumer feature, (AHAM, 

No. 5 at p. 1). 

The CA IOUs commented that shortcycle product classes for consumer 

clothes dryers are unwarranted because 

they do not meet the requirements for a 

separate product class under EPCA. The 

CA IOUs stated that ‘‘cycle time’’ is not 

a ‘‘capacity or other performance-related 

feature’’ that justifies a higher or lower 

standard as specified under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1). The CA IOUs further noted 

that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), the 

types of features that are considered for 

establishing a higher or lower standard, 

and thus, separate product class, 

include reliability, size, capacity, 

volume, and similar attributes. The CA 

IOUs further asserted that cycle time, for 

the products at issue, is outside the 

scope of what EPCA permits DOE to 

consider in establishing or maintaining 

separate product classes. (CA IOUs, No. 

6 at p. 8). (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 8) 

For the reasons stated in the August 

2020 NOPR and December 2020 Final 

Rule, DOE reconfirms in this proposed 

confirmation of withdrawal its previous 

determinations that cycle time is a 

performance-related feature of consumer 

clothes dryers for the purposes of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q). 

In the sections that follow, DOE 

evaluates whether such a short-cycle 

feature justifies separate product classes 

in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 

2. Justification of Different Standards for 

Consumer Clothes Dryers With a ShortCycle Feature 

As discussed, EPCA authorizes DOE 

to prescribe a higher or lower standard 

than that which applies (or would 

apply) for such type (or class) for any 

group of covered products which have 

the same function or intended use if 

DOE determines that products within 

such group (A) consume a different kind 

of energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE considers such factors as 

the utility to the consumer of such a 

feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. (Id.) 

DOE stated in the August 2020 NOPR, 

and reiterated in the December 2020 

Final Rule, that vented electric 

standard-size and vented gas clothes 

dryers that comply with the current 

energy conservation standards exhibit 

cycle times of approximately 30 minutes 

or longer. 85 FR 81359, 81361. Based on 

a presumption that manufacturers were 

already implementing the shortest 

possible cycle times that enabled a 

clothes dryer to achieve satisfactory 

drying performance (and other aspects 

of clothes dryer performance) while 

meeting the applicable energy 

conservation standards, DOE asserted 

that the standards may have 

discouraged manufacturers from 

developing clothes dryers for consumers 

that provide the utility of 30-minute-orless cycle times. Id. DOE further stated 

in the December 2020 Final Rule that its 

actions (i.e., establishing short-cycle 

product classes for consumer clothes 

dryers) were intended to incentivize 

manufacturers to provide consumers 

with new options when purchasing 

clothes dryers, asserting that creation of 

this new product class would 

incentivize manufacturers to develop 

innovative products with short cycle 

times for those consumers that receive 

a value from the time saved washing 

and drying their clothing. Id. at 85 FR 

81360–81361. DOE further stated its 

intent to determine the specific energy 

conservation standards of the new 

product classes in a separate 

rulemaking. Id. 

DOE has conducted an analysis of the 

energy use of a short-cycle feature for 

consumer clothes dryers to evaluate 

whether different (i.e., comparatively 

less stringent) standards would be 

warranted for consumer clothes dryers 

that provide a short-cycle feature. As 

discussed in the previous section of this 

document, DOE has determined that a 

short-cycle feature on a consumer 

clothes dryer is a performance-related 

feature that provides consumer utility 

for the purpose of consideration of 

potential product class distinction 

under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q). DOE next evaluated whether 

consumer clothes dryers with a shortcycle feature necessitate more energy 

use than consumer clothes dryers 

without such feature, which could 

justify a comparatively less stringent 

standard for consumer clothes dryers 

that provide such a feature. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88673 

21 Information on these models is available in the 

technical support document for the March 2024 

Dryers Direct Final Rule, which is available at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BTSTD-0058-0059. 

To evaluate the energy use of a shortcycle feature in comparison to the 

currently applicable energy standards, 

DOE considered all data available from 

recent rulemakings, including DOE’s 

data from testing conducted in support 

of the December 2020 Final Rule, the 

March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule, 

and confidential data from AHAM. All 

consumer clothes dryer test data 

evaluated in this manner was based on 

testing of the Normal cycle as defined in 

section 3.3.2 of appendix D2, 

corresponding to the program labeled 

‘‘normal’’ or, for clothes dryers that do 

not have a ‘‘normal’’ program, the cycle 

recommended by the manufacturer for 

drying cotton or linen clothes. In 

addition, all test data represent cycles 

that achieve a final moisture content of 

2 percent or less, which DOE has 

determined to be representative of the 

consumer-acceptable dryness level after 

completion of a drying cycle. 

None of the units in DOE’s test 

sample had a normal cycle time less 

than 30 minutes.21 However, from the 

confidential data received from AHAM, 

DOE identified 3 electric standard-size 

clothes dryers and 1 vented gas 

standard-size clothes dryer with normal 

cycle times of less than 30 minutes. 

DOE then assessed the energy use of 

the short-cycle feature on these units in 

comparison to the current applicable 

DOE standards. For all of these units, 

the short-cycle feature uses no more 

energy than the maximum allowable 

standard levels for standard-size 

consumer clothes dryers, demonstrating 

that providing a short-cycle feature 

consistent with consumer expectations 

of a normal cycle (i.e., cycle 

recommended by the manufacturer to 

the consumer for drying cotton or linen 

clothes in less than 30 minutes) does 

not necessitate using more energy than 

a consumer clothes dryer without such 

feature that meets the current standards. 

In the engineering analysis conducted 

for the March 2024 Dryers Direct Final 

Rule, DOE did not identify any 

proprietary technologies in use among 

clothes dryers currently on the market. 

89 FR 18164, 18178–18179. Therefore, 

although AHAM’s data set did not 

identify specific model numbers 

associated with each data point, DOE 

has no reason to believe that any 

proprietary technologies or design 

strategies are being used in those clothes 

dryer models with cycle times of less 

than 30 minutes. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

the availability of a short-cycle feature 

currently on the market—at energy 

levels that comply with the current 

standards—in units with no identifiable 

proprietary designs or control strategies 

demonstrates that a consumer clothes 

dryer with a short-cycle feature does not 

inherently use more energy than a 

consumer clothes dryer without such a 

feature, and that the current consumer 

clothes dryer standards do not preclude 

manufacturers from offering a shortcycle feature (i.e., a normal cycle time 

of less than 30 minutes). On the basis 

that both vented electric standard-size 

and vented gas clothes dryers with 

short-cycle features (i.e., normal cycles 

less than 30 minutes) are currently 

available on the market with no 

identifiable proprietary designs or 

control strategies, DOE has tentatively 

determined that a short-cycle feature is 

technologically feasible and that current 

standards do not prevent manufacturers 

from providing a short-cycle feature. 

In response to the March 2024 RFI, 

DOE received the following comments 

regarding establishing separate shortcycle product classes for consumer 

clothes dryers. 

AHAM stated that new product 

classes to protect the short-cycle feature 

are not justified at this time under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q) for the following reasons: 

(1) consumers are satisfied with existing 

normal cycle times based on AHAM’s 

2021 Consumer Research, which found 

that 78 percent of respondents were 

satisfied with the length of the normal 

cycle of their laundry appliance; (2) 

most consumer clothes dryers already 

provide consumers with short cycle 

time options; and, (3) data shows that 

standards are not expected to increase 

cycle time significantly. (AHAM, No. 5 

at p. 5) 

NEEA commented that the short-cycle 

product class for consumer clothes 

dryers is unwarranted. NEEA stated that 

its comments build upon past NEEA 

letters submitted to DOE, which 

demonstrated that short-cycle product 

classes were not appropriate for these 

appliances. NEEA added that recent 

research clearly reinforces these 

conclusions. (NEEA, No. 4 at p. 2) 

China commented that DOE should 

remove the short-cycle product classes. 

China commented that the short-cycle 

product class is not defined in the 

regulations and standards, which makes 

it difficult for manufacturers to clearly 

classify their products into this product 

class. (China, No. 11 at p. 2) 

An individual commented expressing 

support for short-cycle product classes 

for consumer clothes dryers and stated 

that products with a ‘‘short cycle’’ as the 

normal cycle should be subject to 

different standards than products 

without a ‘‘short cycle’’ as the normal 

cycle. The individual noted that such a 

rulemaking would save consumers 

money by lowering the cost of their 

electric bills. (McCray, No. 3 at p. 1) 

LG commented that, after internal 

discussions and discussions with 

industry partners to evaluate market 

changes since the January 2022 Final 

Rule, LG is supportive of DOE’s 

decision in the January 2022 Final Rule 

and opposes new product classes for 

short-cycle products. LG added that for 

appliances to satisfy cleaning and 

drying performance in a shorter amount 

of time while achieving the same 

performance, it would be inevitable that 

they would consume more energy—an 

outcome that contradicts DOE’s 

objective to adopt standards that would 

result in more energy conservation. (LG, 

No. 7 at pp. 1–2) 

As noted earlier in this section, test 

data show that both vented electric 

standard-size and vented gas clothes 

dryers with short-cycle features (i.e., 

normal cycles less than 30 minutes) are 

currently available on the market at 

energy levels that comply with the 

current standards with no identifiable 

proprietary designs or control strategies. 

That is, consumer clothes dryers with 

shorter cycle times do not need to 

consume more energy than the current 

standard to provide the same 

performance. 

Rep. Bice commented in opposition to 

multiple rulemakings recently 

published by DOE that add new 

regulations to consumer products. Rep. 

Bice asserted that the standards would 

increase costs for manufacturers and 

prices for consumers. Rep. Bice 

commented that regulation limits 

consumer choice and is onerous for 

American manufacturers, including 

many small businesses. (Rep. Bice, No. 

2 at p. 1) 

DOE notes that this proposed 

confirmation of withdrawal does not 

propose to add any new regulations for 

consumer clothes dryers. Instead, this 

proposed confirmation of withdrawal 

reanalyzes the provisions of a previous 

rulemaking (i.e., the January 2022 Final 

Rule) that withdrew short-cycle product 

classes. 

In conclusion, based on the available 

test data—which demonstrate that it is 

feasible to design a short-cycle feature 

while meeting current standards—DOE 

has tentatively determined that (1) a 

short-cycle feature as the normal cycle 

for drying cotton or linen clothes is 

technologically feasible; (2) current 

standards do not prevent consumer 

clothes dryer manufacturers from 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88674 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

providing such a short-cycle feature; 

and (3) multiple consumer clothes dryer 

models are currently available on the 

market that provide such a short-cycle 

feature that meet the currently 

applicable energy and water standards. 

For these reasons, DOE has tentatively 

determined that a short-cycle feature for 

consumer clothes dryers does not justify 

separate product classes with separate 

standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE 

requests comment on these proposed 

determinations. 

3. Response to Other Comments 

DOE received comments in response 

to the March 2024 RFI from 

stakeholders discussing the prevalence 

of quick cycles on current consumer 

clothes dryer models. 

NEEA stated that consumers can 

already access quick cycles on current 

consumer clothes dryer models. NEEA 

stated that its review of available 

products on Lowe’s website indicated 

that 92 percent of standard-size clothes 

dryer models provided a quick cycle 

program. NEEA further commented that 

preliminary consumer clothes dryer 

field data from the 2024 NEEA 

Residential Building Stock Assessment 

Laundry Field Study revealed that the 

quick-dry program is used infrequently 

(1 percent of the time). NEEA also stated 

that consumers continue to be satisfied 

with existing products that provide the 

option of a quick cycle, and that 

consumers of one national retail chain 

highly rated more than 90 percent of 

consumer clothes dryer models with a 

quick cycle. NEEA asserted that 

selecting an available quick cycle by 

pressing a button or shifting a dial is not 

an unreasonable consumer burden when 

a faster cycle is preferred. (NEEA, No. 4 

at p. 3) NEEA also commented that 

according to its market research, 

emerging combination washer-dryer 

models are gaining popularity, and 

according to NEEA data from its 

ENERGY STAR Residential Products 

Portfolio participation, one combination 

washer-dryer is among the top-selling 

models of RCWs and consumer clothes 

dryers on the market. NEEA commented 

that this option changes consumer 

views of cycle timing because it is no 

longer necessary to wait for a cycle to 

end to switch the load from the clothes 

washer into the clothes dryer. (Id. at p. 

4) 

LG commented that there are 

consumer clothes dryers currently on 

the market that have default cycles 

comparable to DOE’s definition of short 

cycle while also offering additional 

short cycles as an option, and since 

such products are already prevalent, it 

would be counterproductive to establish 

‘‘new’’ product classes, which would 

involve simply setting a short cycle as 

the default cycle. (LG, No. 7 at p. 1) 

The CA IOUs commented that shortcycle product classes for consumer 

clothes dryers are unwarranted, as other 

products of the same type are already 

available with quick cycles that meet 

current and future DOE energy 

conservation standards. (CA IOUs, No. 6 

at p. 1) 

Confidential data submitted to DOE 

by AHAM in response to the March 

2024 RFI show that 78 percent of 

consumer clothes dryer models offer a 

quick cycle with cycle times ranging 

from 23 minutes to 77 minutes, of 

which, 81 percent of the models are 

recommended for small load sizes and 

for 19 percent of these consumer clothes 

dryer models, the manufacturer did not 

recommend any specific load size for 

the quick cycle. 

The prevalence and variety of quickcycle offerings as reflected in these data 

presented by stakeholders support 

DOE’s conclusions in section II.C.1 of 

this document that cycle time is a 

performance-related feature for the 

purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 

In consideration of the Fifth Circuit’s 

opinion that DOE’s prior reasoning in 

the January 2022 Final Rule improperly 

relied upon the prevalence of ‘‘quick’’ 

cycles that do not address the 

foundational concerns underlying the 

December 2020 Final Rule, DOE 

considered in this analysis only those 

cycles that are consistent with consumer 

expectations of a normal cycle (i.e., a 

normal cycle or the cycle recommended 

by the manufacturer for drying cotton or 

linen clothes if a ‘‘normal’’ cycle is not 

available). 

D. Other Comments 

1. Process 

China commented that the comment 

period for the March 2024 RFI was less 

than 60 days, but Article 6.3.1.8(a) of 

Agreement on Technical Barriers to 

Trade (Document No. G/TBT/1/Rev.15) 

specifies that ‘‘the normal time limit for 

comments on notifications should be 60 

days.’’ Accordingly, China suggested 

extending the comment period for the 

March 2024 RFI. (China, No. 11 at p. 3) 

In response, DOE notes that the time 

limits referenced in Article 6.3.1.8 of the 

Agreement on Technical Barriers to 

Trade apply to notified technical 

regulations and conformity assessment 

procedures and not to documents like 

the March 2024 RFI. DOE finds that the 

30-day comment period in the March 

2024 RFI was appropriate as 

stakeholders have already been afforded 

multiple opportunities to provide 

comments on this topic as part of the 

October 2020 Final Rule, the December 

2020 Final Rule, and January 2022 Final 

Rule. 85 FR 68723; 85 FR 81359; 87 FR 

2673. 

2. Legal 

NRDC and Earthjustice included as an 

attachment to their comments on the 

March 2024 RFI, their previous 

comments with ASAP et al. and 

commented that the creation of the 

short-cycle product classes violated 

numerous provisions of EPCA and 

standards of reasoned decision-making, 

including the statute’s anti-backsliding 

provision, product class provision, and 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards. NRDC and Earthjustice 

commented that if DOE were to attempt 

to unwind its revocation of the shortcycle product classes, DOE would be 

repeating these violations of the statute 

and compounding its unlawful prior 

actions. (NRDC and Earthjustice, No. 10 

at p. 2) 

The CA IOUs commented that the 

Short-cycle Final Rules reduced or 

removed efficiency standards for 

dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer 

clothes dryers, which conflicts with 

EPCA under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). (CA 

IOUs, No. 6 at p. 9) 

As discussed elsewhere in this 

document, DOE applied EPCA’s 

authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and 

has tentatively determined that separate 

product classes with separate standards 

are not justified for dishwashers, RCWs, 

and consumer clothes dryers that 

provide a short-cycle feature. 

AHAM commented that while it 

remains opposed to new short-cycle 

product classes for dishwashers, RCWs, 

and consumer clothes dryers, AHAM 

questioned DOE’s legal interpretation 

that the anti-backsliding provision in 

EPCA prohibits new product classes 

from having less-stringent standards. 

AHAM commented that Congress 

provided DOE the authority to develop 

separate classes that can have higher or 

lower standards and would not have 

included this provision if DOE could 

never use it. AHAM commented that the 

intent behind the creation of a new 

product class is to ensure features are 

protected and if standards threaten 

those features, DOE is authorized to 

create new product classes that have a 

less (or more) stringent standard than 

other products of that type. AHAM 

commented that if the anti-backsliding 

provision is interpreted to prohibit 

lower standards from being 

implemented, it would render this 

section of EPCA almost useless once 

initial product classes have been 

established, and that does not seem 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88675 

consistent with Congressional intent. 

(AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 6–7) 

In the January 2022 Final Rule, DOE 

concluded that it did not adequately 

consider EPCA’s requirements, 

including the anti-backsliding provision 

in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), when it 

finalized the Short-cycle Final Rules. 87 

FR 2673, 2680. DOE did not provide a 

legal interpretation on the antibacksliding provision beyond that it was 

not adequately considered in the Shortcycle Final Rules. In this proposed 

confirmation of withdrawal, DOE 

applied EPCA’s authority under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q) and tentatively 

determined that a short-cycle feature 

does not justify a separate product class 

with separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q) for dishwashers, RCWs, and 

consumer clothes dryers. As a result, the 

anti-backsliding provision is not 

applicable because DOE is not 

proposing to establish a separate 

product class requiring different 

standards. 

DOE also received a comment 

regarding pending litigation, which is 

outside of the scope of this proposed 

confirmation of withdrawal. 

3. Impacts on Average Lifetime 

The AGs of MT et al. commented that 

increased energy efficiency tends to 

increase appliance complexity, which 

decreases mean time to failure and 

makes many appliances either not 

repairable in a cost-effective manner or 

not repairable at all. The AGs of MT et 

al. asserted that one method to increase 

reliability is to decrease time of 

continuous operation (i.e., cycle time); 

another method is to operate 

components well short of their rated 

load—which would be less energy 

efficient but would be more reliable and 

last longer (i.e., less downtime for repair 

and longer time before replacement), 

which would make overall costs lower. 

The AGs of MT et al. stated that a 

significant subset of consumers prefer, 

and find distinct utility in, morefunctional and longer-lasting short-cycle 

appliances. The AGs of MT et al. 

asserted that the expected increased 

reliability and increased lifespan of 

short-cycle appliances likely aligns with 

lower life-cycle energy use vis-a`-vis 

appliance models in the pre-existing 

classes. (AGs of MT et al., No. 9 at p. 

6) 

In response, to the extent that any 

technology option considered by DOE as 

the basis for achieving higher levels of 

efficiency could result in an increase in 

repair frequency or cost, DOE’s 

rulemaking analysis incorporates such 

impacts into the life-cycle cost analysis, 

where supported by data. For example, 

in the life-cycle cost analysis conducted 

for the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct 

Final Rule, DOE accounted for slightly 

higher repair frequency for efficiency 

levels above baseline and doubled the 

estimated repair frequency for products 

at the maximum technologically feasible 

efficiency level due to the increased 

complexity and less mature 

technologies required at those levels, 

based on discussions with 

manufacturers. DOE also modeled repair 

costs as being proportional to the 

equipment cost, based on 

manufacturers’ inputs. 89 FR 31398, 

31424. 

However, DOE has not found any 

evidence of average product lifetime 

being correlated with any specific 

higher-efficiency design options or 

efficiency levels and did not receive any 

comments on the NOPR preceding the 

April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final 

Rule (88 FR 32514 (May 19, 2023)) 

regarding DOE’s dishwasher lifetime 

assumptions. Among the dishwasher 

standards rulemakings conducted over 

the course of the last 30 years, the data 

sources that DOE uses to derive 

estimates of average product lifetime 

have not provided any indication of a 

substantial change in lifetime during 

this time period. In fact, the data suggest 

that current product lifetimes are 

actually longer than the lifetime 

estimates used in 1991. Specifically, 

DOE’s estimates of average lifetime for 

dishwashers have been as follows: 12.6 

years in the May 1991 Final Rule, 12.3 

years in the 2007 Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 15.4 years in the 

May 2012 Direct Final Rule, 15.2 years 

in the December 2016 Final 

Determination, and 15.2 years in the 

April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final 

Rule. 56 FR 22250, 22276 (May 14, 

1991); 72 FR 64432, 64435 (Nov. 15, 

2007); 77 FR 31918, 31933 (May 30, 

2012); 81 FR 90072, 90088 (Dec. 13, 

2016); 89 FR 31398, 31430. 

Similarly, in the life-cycle cost 

analysis conducted for the March 2024 

RCW Direct Final Rule, DOE accounted 

for slightly higher repair costs for 

ENERGY STAR-qualified RCWs due to 

the increased complexity and less 

mature technologies required at those 

levels, based on discussions with 

manufacturers. 

However, DOE has not found any 

evidence of average product lifetime 

being correlated with any specific 

higher-efficiency design options or 

efficiency levels and did not receive any 

comments on the NOPR preceding the 

March 2024 RCW Direct Final Rule 

(‘‘May 2023 RCW NOPR’’; 88 FR 26511 

(May 1, 2023)) objecting to DOE’s RCW 

lifetime assumptions. Among the RCW 

standards rulemakings conducted over 

the course of the last 30 years, the data 

sources that DOE uses to derive 

estimates of average product lifetime 

have not provided any indication of a 

substantial change in lifetime during 

this time period. DOE’s estimates of 

average lifetime for RCWs have been as 

follows: 14.1 years in the May 1991 and 

January 2001 Final Rules, 14.2 years in 

the December 2012 Direct Final Rule, 

and 13.4 years in the March 2024 RCW 

Direct Final Rule. 56 FR 22250, 22270 

(May 14, 1991); 77 FR 32308, 32342 

(May 31, 2012); 89 FR 19026, 19060. 

Further, in the life-cycle cost analysis 

conducted for the March 2024 Dryers 

Direct Final Rule, DOE accounted for 

slightly higher repair frequency for 

ENERGY STAR-qualified consumer 

clothes dryers due to the increased 

complexity and less mature 

technologies required at those levels, 

based on discussions with 

manufacturers. 

However, DOE has not found any 

evidence of average product lifetime 

being correlated with any specific 

higher-efficiency design options or 

efficiency levels and did not receive any 

comments on the NOPR preceding the 

March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule (87 

FR 51734 (August 22, 2022)) objecting to 

DOE’s consumer clothes dryer lifetime 

assumptions. Among the consumer 

clothes dryer standards rulemakings 

conducted over the course of the last 30 

years, the data sources that DOE uses to 

derive estimates of average product 

lifetime have not provided any 

indication of a substantial change in 

lifetime during this time period. DOE’s 

estimates of average lifetime for 

consumer clothes dryers have been as 

follows: 17.1 years in the May 1991 

Final Rule, 16 years in the April 2011 

Direct Final Rule, and 14 years in the 

March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule. 56 

FR 22250, 22273 (May 14, 1991); 76 FR 

22454, 22514 (April 21, 2011); 89 FR 

18164, 18166. 

In summary, the best available data— 

which have been vetted publicly 

through multiple rounds of standards 

rulemakings since 1991—indicate a very 

stable trend in dishwasher, RCW, and 

consumer clothes dryer lifetimes over 

the past 30 years even as improvements 

in energy and water efficiency have 

been achieved through those 

rulemakings over that time. 

E. Other Topics Addressed by the Fifth 

Circuit 

1. Water Authority 

In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit stated 

that ‘‘[n]o part of [EPCA] indicates 

Congress gave DOE power to regulate 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88676 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

water use for energy-using appliances 

(like dishwashers and [RCWs]),’’ and 

stated that it is unclear that DOE has 

any statutory authority to regulate water 

use in dishwashers and RCWs. See 

Louisiana, 90 F.4th at 470–471. 

In response, DOE notes, as did the 

Fifth Circuit, that EPCA prescribed 

energy conservation standards with both 

energy and water use requirements for 

RCWs and dishwashers. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(9)(A) and (10)(A)). In 

establishing energy conservation 

standards with both energy and water 

use performance standards for RCWs 

and dishwashers, Congress also directed 

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

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

and (10)(B)) Congress’s directive, in 

section 6295(g)(9)(B), to consider 

whether ‘‘to amend the standards in 

effect for RCWs,’’ and in section 

6295(g)(10)(B), to consider whether ‘‘to 

amend the standards for dishwashers,’’ 

refers to ‘‘the standards’’ established in 

the immediately preceding paragraphs, 

where Congress established energy 

conservation standards with both energy 

and water use performance standards 

for RCWs and dishwashers. Indeed, the 

energy and water use performance 

standards for RCWs (both top-loading 

and front-loading) are each contained 

within a single subparagraph, as are the 

energy and water use performance 

standards for dishwashers (both 

standard-size and compact-size). (See 

id.) Accordingly, DOE’s authority, under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B) and (10)(B), 

includes consideration of amended 

energy and water use performance 

standards for RCWs and dishwashers, 

respectively. 

Similarly, DOE’s authority under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(m) to amend ‘‘standards’’ 

for covered products includes amending 

both the energy and water use 

performance standards for RCWs and 

dishwashers. Neither section 

6295(g)(9)(B) or (10)(B) nor section 

6295(m) limit their application to 

‘‘energy use standards.’’ Rather, they 

direct DOE to consider amending ‘‘the 

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

(10)(B), or simply ‘‘standards,’’ 42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B), which may 

include both energy and water use 

performance standards. 

Accordingly, in conducting the 

analyses in this proposed confirmation 

of withdrawal, DOE has considered 

(where appropriate) whether the 

relevant short-cycle features justify both 

different water and energy standards. 

2. Test Procedure Authority 

The Fifth Circuit noted that DOE tests 

only some of the settings on 

dishwashers and ‘‘laundry machines’’ 

(i.e., RCWs and consumer clothes 

dryers) and stated that DOE concluded 

in the January 2022 Final Rule that 

‘‘manufacturers are free to deploy other, 

non-tested settings that use as much 

energy and water as necessary to 

actually clean consumers’ things,’’ 

indicating that this could create a 

loophole for manufacturers to deploy 

unregulated cycles. Louisiana, 90 F.4th 

at 474. 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered products. 

EPCA requires that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use or water 

use (in the case of showerheads, faucets, 

water closets and urinals), or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use, as 

determined by the Secretary, and shall 

not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 

(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

DOE has established test procedures 

for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer 

clothes dryers in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendices C1 and C2, J and 

J2, and D1 and D2, respectively. For 

each test procedure, DOE has 

determined through its rulemaking 

process, which included ample 

manufacturer input, that the tested 

cycle(s)—i.e., the normal cycle for 

dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer 

clothes dryers—produce representative 

measures of energy efficiency, energy 

use or water use, or estimated annual 

operating cost, as applicable for each 

product, without the undue burden that 

would be associated with requiring 

every available cycle to be tested. 

To ensure that the normal cycle 

produces measures of energy use, 

efficiency, and estimated annual 

operating cost specifically for a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use, DOE has developed 

definitions and testing instructions in 

each test procedure to guide the 

appropriate selection of cycles to be 

tested, which corresponds to a 

representative average use cycle of how 

such appliance are used by consumers 

in their households. 

For dishwashers, the normal cycle is 

‘‘[t]he cycle type, including washing 

and drying temperature options, 

recommended in the manufacturer’s 

instructions for daily, regular, or typical 

use to completely wash a full load of 

normally soiled dishes including the 

power-dry feature. If no cycle or more 

than one cycle is recommended in the 

manufacturer’s instructions for daily, 

regular, or typical use to completely 

wash a full load of normally soiled 

dishes, the most energy intensive of 

these cycles shall be considered the 

normal cycle. In the absence of a 

manufacturer recommendation on 

washing and drying temperature 

options, the highest energy 

consumption options must be selected.’’ 

Section 1 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendices C1 and C2. 

In the January 2023 TP Final Rule, 

DOE noted that it was maintaining the 

dishwasher test cycle selections and 

cycle options to test on the normal 

cycle. DOE additionally added a 

cleaning performance requirement to 

validate that the tested cycle was 

representative of an average use cycle. 

88 FR 3234, 3243. Prior to publishing 

this final rule, in a NOPR published on 

December 22, 2021, (‘‘December 2021 

TP NOPR’’) DOE summarized and 

addressed stakeholder comments 

regarding the representative test cycle 

for dishwashers. Specifically, AHAM 

commented that consumers still most 

frequently select the normal cycle, and 

when consumers decide on a cycle 

selection, they typically use it for most 

of their cycles. Both GE Appliances and 

Whirlpool Corporation supported 

AHAM’s comment that the normal cycle 

should remain the tested cycle. Both 

manufacturers submitted confidential 

data that supported the position that the 

manufacturer-designated normal cycle 

still represents consumer preference 

regarding cycle selection. These 

confidential data indicated, in the 

aggregate, that roughly 55 to 75 percent 

of all dishwasher cycles are conducted 

on the normal cycle. DOE further 

observed that among the other selected 

cycle types, some would be expected to 

be less energy-intensive than the normal 

cycle (e.g., a glassware cycle type), 

while others would be expected to be 

more energy-intensive than the normal 

cycle (e.g., a pots and pans cycle type). 

86 FR 72738, 72757. The CA IOUs 

referenced PG&E’s 2016 Home Energy 

Use Survey to support their claim that 

the tested normal cycle including any 

power-dry feature, in the current test 

procedure, is still the cycle most 

representative of how consumers 

operate dishwashers. In this survey, 

PG&E found that 75 percent of 

households use the normal cycle. The 

CA IOUs further stated that consumers 

would be less likely to switch from 

using the normal cycle if DOE were to 

incorporate cleaning performance in the 

test procedure, and recommended DOE 

investigate incorporating a cleaning 

performance test. Id. at 86 FR 72747. In 

that NOPR, DOE noted that absent data 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88677 

22CEI submitted results from a survey it 

conducted in late 2019 based on 1,062 respondents 

to understand consumers’ dishwasher usage 

patterns as well as their opinions on dishwasher 

cycle length. Available as attachment B at 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-STD0002-0239. 

23Appliance Impact Research—Regulatory 

Findings, conducted for AHAM by DIG Insights 

(February 2021). 

24 Gabriela Y Porras et al., 2020. A Guide to 

Household Manual and Machine Dishwashing 

Continued 

that reflects national use and frequency 

of use of other cycle types, DOE was not 

proposing changes to cycle selections 

for testing. Further, as noted in section 

II.A.3.c of this document, according to 

EIA’s 2020 RECS, over 80 percent of 

consumers use normal cycles most of 

the time. 

In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE 

noted that it was proposing a minimum 

cleaning index threshold for a test cycle 

to be considered valid. That is, if the 

normal cycle does not meet a specified 

threshold at any soil-load, DOE 

proposed that the most energy-intensive 

cycle be tested and used for certification 

purposes at that soil load. DOE noted 

that this alternative approach would 

better represent an average use cycle by 

capturing those consumers that may 

select other cycles for washing dishes if 

the cleaning performance of the normal 

cycle does not meet their expectations, 

because higher energy use provides 

increased thermal and mechanical 

action for removing soils, thus 

correlating generally with improved 

cleaning performance. Id. DOE adopted 

these proposals in the January 2023 TP 

Final Rule. 88 FR 3234, 3243. 

Based on stakeholder comments, 

nationally representative survey data, 

and DOE’s analyses, DOE concluded 

that the normal cycle is the 

representative average use cycle for 

dishwashers. 

For RCWs, the normal cycle is ‘‘the 

cycle recommended by the 

manufacturer (considering manufacturer 

instructions, control panel labeling and 

other markings on the clothes washer) 

for normal, regular, or typical use for 

washing up to a full load of normally 

soiled cotton clothing. For machines 

where multiple cycle settings are 

recommended by the manufacturer for 

normal, regular, or typical use for 

washing up to a full load of normally 

soiled cotton clothing, then the Normal 

cycle is the cycle selection that results 

in the lowest [energy efficiency] value.’’ 

Section 1 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendices J and J2. 

For the final rule that established 

appendix J1, which was a precursor to 

the current appendices J and J2, DOE 

reviewed Procter & Gamble data 

indicating that the normal cycle on a 

typical RCW is used approximately 75 

percent of the time, and DOE noted that 

its test procedure uses the normal cycle 

to approximate typical use by 

consumers. 62 FR 45484, 45493 (Aug. 

27, 1997). In a test procedure final rule 

published on August 5, 2015, DOE 

changed the draft language for the 

definition of the normal cycle from 

referencing ‘‘the most common 

consumer cycle’’ to referencing ‘‘the 

cycle recommended by the 

manufacturer [. . .] for normal, regular, 

or typical use,’’ noting that the updated 

phrasing represented the same intent. 80 

FR 46730, 46742. In the most recently 

published test procedure for RCWs that 

established the current appendices J and 

J2 (‘‘June 2022 TP Final Rule’’), DOE 

noted that its test procedure identifies 

the ‘‘normal cycle’’ as the cycle 

representative of consumer use and 

requires testing using it. 87 FR 33316, 

33351 (June 1, 2022). 

For all consumer clothes dryers in the 

test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D1 and for timer 

dryers in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix D2, the consumer clothes 

dryer is operated for the test cycle at the 

maximum temperature setting and, if 

equipped with a timer, at the maximum 

time setting. If the consumer clothes 

dryer does not have a separate 

temperature setting selection on the 

control panel, the maximum time 

settings is used for the drying test cycle. 

For automatic termination control 

dryers in the test procedure at 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, the 

‘‘normal’’ program shall be selected for 

the test cycle. Automatic termination 

control dryers that do not have a 

‘‘normal’’ program are tested using the 

cycle recommended by the 

manufacturer for drying cotton or linen 

clothes. Section 3.3 of 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendices D1 and D2. 

In a NOPR published on January 2, 

2013, DOE first proposed the use of the 

‘‘normal’’ program for the drying test 

cycle in conjunction with test methods 

that would more accurately measure the 

energy use of automatic termination 

control dryers, which comprise the 

majority of consumer clothes dryer 

shipments. DOE determined this 

program to be most representative of 

consumer use based on data from 

NEEA’s residential laundry field use 

study, which showed that the average 

household surveyed used the ‘‘normal’’ 

or an equivalent program cycle for 

nearly 60 percent of all drying. 78 FR 

152, 170–171. DOE received comments 

from Samsung stating that the proposed 

test procedure would be representative 

of consumer use because it measures the 

energy use of the most commonly 

selected cycle (Normal/Cottons and 

Linens) for automatic termination 

control dryers. DOE adopted this 

proposal and established appendix D2 

in a final rule published on August 14, 

2013. 78 FR 49608, 49624. 

DOE has thereby promulgated new 

and amended test procedures in 

accordance with EPCA’s requirements 

to ensure that manufacturers are 

certifying dishwashers, RCWs, and 

clothes dryers that comply with the 

currently applicable energy 

conservation standards. As discussed in 

section II.E.3 of this document, DOE has 

also developed provisions within its test 

procedures for dishwashers, RCWs, and 

clothes dryers that ensure that the tested 

cycles maintain product utility that 

meets consumer expectations. 

3. Preservation of Product Utility 

In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit stated 

that ‘‘Americans who want clean dishes 

or clothes may use more energy and 

more water to preclean, reclean, or 

handwash their stuff before, after, or in 

lieu of using DOE-regulated 

appliances,’’ and that DOE did not 

adequately respond to this potential for 

more energy and water use in the 

January 2022 Final Rule. Louisiana, 90 

F.4th at 472–473. In the following 

sections, DOE addresses stakeholder 

concerns regarding preservation of 

product utility for each product type. 

a. Dishwashers 

In addition to the Fifth Circuit’s 

opinion on product utility, DOE also 

received stakeholder comments on this 

topic in response to the March 2024 RFI. 

The AGs of MT et al., commented that, 

according to survey results presented by 

CEI in response to the July 2019 

NOPR,22 over 85 percent of consumers 

hand-wash dishes at least sometimes 

‘‘because the dishwasher takes too 

long’’; roughly 33 percent of consumers 

reported that their dishwasher does not 

clean their dishes well; and 34 percent 

reported that they run their dishwasher 

multiple times to get their dishes clean. 

(AGs of MT et al., No. 9 at p. 5) 

DOE notes that the data and 

conclusions presented by the AGs of MT 

et al., are contradicted by data and 

conclusions presented by other 

stakeholders in response to the March 

2024 RFI. 

With regard to handwashing dishes 

because the dishwasher takes too long, 

AHAM presented data 23 indicating that 

81 percent of respondents were satisfied 

with the length of the normal cycle of 

their dishwashers. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 

3) AHAM also referenced a 2020 

University of Michigan study 24 and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88678 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Through a Life Cycle Perspective. Environmental 

Research Communications. 2 021004. 

25Berkholz, P., V. Kobersky, and R. Stamminger. 

2011. ‘‘Comparative analysis of global consumer 

behaviour in the context of different manual 

dishwashing methods.’’ International Journal of 

Consumer Studies, 37(1), 46–58. doi.org/10.1111/ 

j.1470-6431.2011.01051.x. 

26Wolf, A. 2011. ‘‘Consumers: Dishwashers 

Second to Kids in Noise.’’ Twice: This Week in 

Consumer Electronics, 26(18), 64. www.twice.com/ 

product/consumers-dishwashers-second-kids-noise37554. 

27Available at www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2021-BT-STD-0002-0002. 

commented that this study showed that 

recommended practices for dishwasher 

use are not always performed, with 67 

percent of dishwasher owners typically 

prerinsing dishes before loading. 

However, AHAM stated that its member 

data do not indicate that consumers are 

choosing to wash their dishes by hand 

because of perceived longer cycle times. 

(Id., at p. 5) AHAM further commented 

that consumers are satisfied with 

current cycle times, choosing to rely on 

their dishwashers regularly. (Id., at p. 6) 

In addition, DOE notes that the 2020 

Michigan study cited by AHAM 

discussed the role of behavioral barriers 

in explaining why certain consumers 

may be reluctant to switch from 

handwashing to machine washing, as 

these consumers believe handwashing 

outperforms machine washing in terms 

of resource consumption and cleaning 

performance. Likewise, findings from 

the University of Bonn and the Impulse 

Reach national survey 25 26 also suggest 

that the primary factor contributing to 

consumers hand-washing dishes is not 

the dishwasher cycle duration, but 

rather a misconception by consumers 

that dishwashers require more energy 

and water than handwashing. 

With regard to the portion of 

consumers who report their dishwasher 

does not clean well or they run the 

dishwasher multiple times to get dishes 

clean, DOE noted in January 2023 TP 

Final Rule that the cleaning 

performance at the completion of a 

dishwasher cycle influences how a 

consumer uses the product. DOE 

acknowledged that if the cleanliness of 

the dishware after completion of a 

cleaning cycle does not meet consumer 

expectations, consumers may alter their 

use of the dishwasher by selecting a 

different cycle type that consumes more 

energy and water, operating the selected 

cycle type multiple times, or 

prewashing the dishware items. DOE 

recognized the need to ensure that the 

cycle type tested in the DOE test 

procedure is representative of consumer 

use as the dishwasher market 

continuously evolves to higher levels of 

efficiency. DOE therefore established a 

new cleaning performance threshold in 

the newly established appendix C2 test 

procedure that represents what 

constitutes ‘‘completely washing’’ a full 

load of normally soiled dishes (i.e., a 

threshold below which the dishwasher 

would not meet consumer expectations 

of cleanability). 88 FR 3234, 3250–3267. 

Under appendix C2, a dishwasher must 

meet the cleaning performance 

threshold, and thus consumer 

expectations of cleanability. To the 

extent that any individual dishwashers 

on the market have not met consumer 

expectations for cleanability, such 

historical performance issues should be 

remedied moving forward, as the test 

procedure at appendix C2 ensures that 

any dishwasher tested for certification 

will have a valid energy and water 

representation only if the dishwasher 

also meets or exceeds a minimum level 

of cleaning performance. 

Finally, as discussed previously, 

DOE’s data demonstrate that 

dishwashers with a short-cycle feature 

can meet the current standards. That is, 

dishwasher cycles that achieve the 

cleaning performance requirements 

specified in appendix C2 and are 60 

minutes or less in duration are 

technologically feasible. As noted by 

ASAP et al., there are more than 400 

dishwasher models on the current 

market that are certified to the current 

ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 specification— 

which DOE notes is more stringent than 

the current standards—and all ENERGY 

STAR-qualified products are required to 

meet a minimum cleaning index 

requirement. (See ASAP et al., No. 8 at 

p. 6) 

In response to the March 2024 RFI, 

ASAP et al., commented that shorter 

cycle times would likely result in tradeoffs with other aspects of dishwasher 

performance. ASAP et al., asserted that 

there are many product attributes of 

dishwashers that are important to 

consumers, such as cleaning/drying 

performance, noise, efficiency, and 

cycle time, and that manufacturers have 

to balance these attributes. ASAP et al., 

referenced DOE’s dishwasher test data, 

noting that cycles with a cycle time of 

less than 60 minutes generally provided 

worse cleaning performance than the 

‘‘normal’’ cycles on the same machines, 

in particular for the heavy and medium 

soil loads. ASAP et al., further asserted 

that in addition to sacrificing cleaning 

performance, quick cycles would likely 

be noisier, because one way of reducing 

cycle time is to increase mechanical 

action, which in turn increases noise 

levels. (ASAP et al., No. 8 at p. 6) 

DOE recognizes that dishwasher 

manufacturers design dishwashers to 

achieve many different performance 

requirements (e.g., cleaning 

performance, drying performance, noise, 

efficiency, cycle time). Manufacturers 

also provide multiple cycle types to 

meet different consumer needs (e.g., 

normal, heavy, light, quick). However, 

DOE reiterates that 1 of the units in 

DOE’s test sample meets the cleaning 

index threshold specified in appendix 

C2 while also having a cycle time of less 

than 60 minutes and meeting the 

current standards, demonstrating that 

current standards do not require 

manufacturers to trade off cleaning 

performance with cycle time. 

Regarding ASAP et al.,s comment on 

the potential trade-off between cycle 

time and noise, DOE notes that it did 

not collect noise data in its previous 

testing. Accordingly, DOE cannot 

independently corroborate the extent to 

which there may be a trade-off between 

noise and cycle time. 

In sum, DOE tentatively concludes 

that any consumer handwashing or prewashing is unlikely to have been the 

result of past or current standards. 

Further, the amended test procedure at 

appendix C2 requires test samples to 

meet a cleaning index threshold 

consistent with consumer expectations. 

Accordingly, DOE does not expect 

increased handwashing or pre-washing 

(above levels resulting from consumer 

preferences or misunderstandings) in 

the future. 

b. Residential Clothes Washers 

In response to the March 2024 RFI, 

ASAP et al., commented that shorter 

cycle times would likely result in tradeoffs with other aspects of RCW 

performance. ASAP et al., asserted that 

there are many product attributes of 

RCWs that are important to consumers, 

such as cleaning performance, noise, 

efficiency, and cycle time, and that 

manufacturers have to balance these 

attributes. ASAP et al., referenced 

AHAM’s petition for reconsideration of 

the December 2020 Final Rule,27

wherein AHAM noted that in order to 

reduce cycle time, ‘‘many manufacturers 

may elect to reduce clothes washer spin 

time.’’ ASAP et al., further noted that 

AHAM explained that reducing spin 

time would mean that clothes would 

come out of the clothes washer wetter, 

which would have the effect of 

increasing clothes dryer cycle time. 

(ASAP et al., No. 8 at p. 6) 

DOE recognizes that RCW 

manufacturers design RCWs to achieve 

many different performance 

requirements (e.g., cleaning 

performance, rinsing performance, 

noise, efficiency, cycle time). 

Manufacturers also provide multiple 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88679 

28 DOE published the results of this testing in a 

report available at www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0059. 

29Available at www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2021-BT-STD-0002-0002. 

cycle types to meet different consumer 

needs (e.g., normal, heavy, light, quick, 

delicates). However, DOE reiterates that 

multiple top-loading RCW models 

currently on the market provide a cycle 

time of less than 30 minutes, and 

multiple front-loading RCW models 

provide a cycle time of less than 45 

minutes, all of which meet the current 

standards—demonstrating that current 

standards do not require manufacturers 

to trade off cycle time with energy and 

water use. 

Although DOE’s current RCW test 

procedures do not include a measure of 

cleaning performance, DOE does 

consider multiple aspects of clothes 

washer performance as it evaluates 

potential energy and water conservation 

standards for RCWs to ensure that no 

lessening of the utility or performance 

of the product is likely to result from an 

amended standard. For example, in 

support of the May 2023 RCW NOPR, 

DOE conducted extensive testing to 

evaluate any potential impacts of 

amended standards on of several 

performance characteristics including 

cycle time, hot wash water temperature, 

soil and stain removal, and mechanical 

action.28 88 FR 26511. 

Even though DOE’s analyses 

conducted as part the standards 

rulemaking process have demonstrated 

that performance can be maintained 

under the current standards for RCWs, 

DOE has previously discussed, for 

example in the June 2022 TP Final Rule, 

that the cleaning performance at the 

completion of a wash cycle could 

influence how a consumer uses the 

product. If the cleanliness of the 

clothing after completion of a wash 

cycle were to not meet consumer 

expectations, consumers could be 

expected to alter their use of the clothes 

washer. For example, consumers could 

alter the use of the product by choosing 

cycle modifiers to enhance the 

performance of the selected cycle; 

selecting an alternate cycle that 

consumes more energy and water to 

provide a higher level of cleaning; 

operating the selected cycle multiple 

times; or pre-treating (e.g., pre-soaking 

in water) clothing items before loading 

into the clothes washer to achieve an 

acceptable level of cleaning. 87 FR 

33316, 33352. 

As discussed, the dishwasher test 

procedure defines a cleaning 

performance threshold that represents 

what constitutes ‘‘completely washing’’ 

a full load of normally soiled dishes 

(i.e., a threshold below which the 

dishwasher would not meet consumer 

expectations of cleanability). However, 

the current RCW test procedures do not 

define what constitutes ‘‘washing’’ up to 

a full load of normally soiled cotton 

clothing (i.e., the cleaning performance). 

In the June 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE 

discussed its consideration of adding a 

cleaning performance metric to its RCW 

test procedures, but ultimately DOE was 

unable to make a determination whether 

existing test procedures for determining 

cleaning performance would produce 

results for DOE’s purposes that are 

representative of an average use cycle, 

as required by EPCA. Furthermore, DOE 

was unable to assess whether the 

additional burden resulting from these 

additional tests would be outweighed by 

the benefits of incorporating these tests. 

Therefore, DOE did not include a 

measure of cleaning performance in the 

RCW test procedures in the June 2022 

TP Final Rule. 87 FR 33316, 33352. 

DOE continues, however, to evaluate 

the potential benefits and burdens of 

incorporating a measure of performance 

into its RCW test procedures, akin to the 

cleaning performance threshold 

incorporated into the appendix C2 test 

procedure for dishwashers. Any such 

amendments to the RCW test procedures 

would be considered in a separate 

rulemaking. 

c. Consumer Clothes Dryers 

In response to the March 2024 RFI, 

ASAP et al., commented that shorter 

cycle times would likely result in tradeoffs with other aspects of consumer 

clothes dryer performance. ASAP et al., 

asserted that there are many product 

attributes of consumer clothes dryers 

that are important to consumers, such as 

drying performance, noise, efficiency, 

and cycle time, and that manufacturers 

have to balance these attributes. ASAP 

et al., referenced AHAM’s petition for 

reconsideration of the December 2020 

Final Rule,29 wherein AHAM noted that 

shorter cycle times than those available 

today would likely require higher heat 

levels and/or the use of high heat for 

longer periods of time, which could 

damage the clothes being dried. (ASAP 

et al., No. 8 at p. 6) 

DOE recognizes that consumer clothes 

dryer manufacturers design consumer 

clothes dryers to achieve many different 

performance requirements (e.g., drying 

performance, noise, efficiency, cycle 

time). Manufacturers also provide 

multiple cycle types to meet different 

consumer needs (e.g., normal, heavy, 

light, quick, delicates). However, DOE 

reiterates that multiple clothes dryer 

models currently on the market provide 

a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, all 

of which meet the current standards— 

demonstrating that current standards do 

not require manufacturers to trade off 

cycle time with energy use. 

Similar to dishwashers, for consumer 

clothes dryers DOE noted in the test 

procedure final rule published on 

October 8, 2021, that drying 

performance at the completion of a 

clothes dryer cycle may influence how 

a consumer uses the product. 86 FR 

56608. DOE acknowledged that if the 

dryness of the clothes after completion 

of a during cycle does not meet 

consumer expectations, consumers may 

alter their use of their consumer clothes 

dryer by selecting a different cycle type 

that consumers more energy, or 

operating the selected cycle type 

multiple times. DOE recognized the 

need to ensure that the cycle type tested 

in the DOE test procedure is 

representative of consumer use as the 

consumer clothes dryer market 

continuously evolves to higher levels of 

efficiency. DOE therefore established a 

2-percent final moisture content dryness 

threshold in the appendix D2 test 

procedure that was shown to be 

representative of the consumeracceptable dryness level after 

completion of a drying cycle. 86 FR 

56608, 56627–56628. Under appendix 

D2, a consumer clothes dryer must 

achieve this dryness threshold in order 

for the tested cycle to be considered 

valid for certifying compliance with the 

applicable standard. 

To the extent that any individual 

consumer clothes dryers on the market 

have not met consumer expectations for 

dryness, such historical performance 

issues should be remedied moving 

forward, as the test procedure at 

appendix D2 ensures that any consumer 

clothes dryer tested for certification will 

have a valid energy and water 

representation only if the consumer 

clothes dryer meets or exceeds this 

threshold of dryness performance. 

III. Conclusion 

In conclusion, and for the reasons 

discussed in the preceding sections of 

this document, DOE has tentatively 

determined that a short-cycle feature 

does not justify separate product classes 

with separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q) for dishwashers, RCWs, and 

consumer clothes dryers. As a result, 

there is no basis for remedying the 

Short-cycle Final Rules by establishing 

a different standard level for short-cycle 

products. Therefore, products with 

short-cycle features remain subject to 

the currently applicable standards as 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88680 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

specified in 10 CFR 430.32(f), (g), and 

(h), respectively. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

DOE has concluded that the 

determinations made pursuant to the 

various procedural requirements 

applicable to the January 2022 Final 

Rule remain unchanged for this 

proposed confirmation of that rule. 

These determinations are set forth in the 

January 2022 Final Rule. 87 FR 2673, 

2686–2688. 

V. Public Participation 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

confirmation of withdrawal before or 

after the public meeting, but no later 

than the date provided in the DATES

section at the beginning of this 

document. Interested parties may 

submit comments, data, and other 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or postal mail. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email, hand delivery/courier, or 

postal mail also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ 

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible, in which case it is not 

necessary to submit printed copies. No 

telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed 

confirmation of withdrawal and request 

for comment. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on October 30, 2024, 

by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on October 30, 

2024. 

Jennifer Hartzell, 

Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

U.S. Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25617 Filed 11–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1