[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 217 (Friday, November 8, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 88661-88680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25617]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002]
RIN 1904-AF69


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Dishwashers, Residential Clothes Washers, and Consumer Clothes Dryers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notification of proposed confirmation of withdrawal and request 
for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In light of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit granting a petition for review of a final rule published by the 
U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') on January 19, 2022, and remanding 
the matter to DOE for further proceedings, DOE issued a

[[Page 88662]]

request for information on whether ``short-cycle'' product classes for 
dishwashers, residential clothes washers, and consumer clothes dryers 
are warranted under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. In this 
document, DOE considers the factors outlined by the Fifth Circuit and 
proposes to confirm the elimination of ``short-cycle'' product classes 
in the January 19, 2022, final rule.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposal no later than December 9, 2024. See section IV, ``Public 
Participation,'' for details.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket 
number EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments may 
submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002, by 
any of the following methods:
    (1) Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3e0dbdcc1c7f0cad0dfd681838187e0e7f783838381f3d6d69dd7dcd69dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d4e75726f695e647e71782f2d2f294e49592d2d2d2f5d787833797278337a726b">[email protected]</span></a>. 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#58192828343139363b3d0b2c39363c392a3c2b092d3d2b2c3137362b183d3d763c373d763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="79380909151018171a1c2a0d18171d180b1d0a280c1c0a0d1016170a391c1c571d161c571e160f">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3363564756411d705c505b41525d735b421d575c561d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8edeebfaebfca0cde1ede6fcefe0cee6ffa0eae1eba0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
II. Discussion
    A. Dishwashers
    1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature
    2. Justification of Different Standards for Dishwashers With a 
Short-Cycle Feature
    3. Response to Other Comments
    B. Residential Clothes Washers
    1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature
    2. Justification of Different Standards for Residential Clothes 
Washers With a Short-Cycle Feature
    3. Response to Other Comments
    C. Consumer Clothes Dryers
    1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature
    2. Justification of Different Standards for Consumer Clothes 
Dryers With a Short-Cycle Feature
    3. Response to Other Comments
    D. Other Comments
    1. Process
    2. Legal
    3. Impacts on Average Lifetime
    E. Other Topics Addressed by the Fifth Circuit
    1. Water Authority
    2. Test Procedure Authority
    3. Preservation of Product Utility
III. Conclusion
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
IV. Public Participation
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction

    The following sections briefly discuss the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed confirmation of withdrawal, as well as some of 
the historical background relevant to dishwashers, residential clothes 
washers (``RCWs''), and consumer clothes dryers.

A. Authority

    The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') must follow specific 
statutory criteria under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public 
Law 94-163,\1\ as amended, (``EPCA'') for prescribing new or amended 
standards for covered products, including dishwashers, RCWs, and 
consumer clothes dryers. Any new or amended standard for a covered 
product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') determines is 
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would 
not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by 
rule that the establishment of such standard will not result in 
significant conservation of energy (or, for certain products, water), 
or is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is 
economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceeds its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must 
make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed 
standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the 
following seven statutory factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

[[Page 88663]]

    (7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

    (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing 
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy 
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe 
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in 
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4))
    Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an 
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more 
subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a 
type (or class) of product must specify a different standard level for 
a type or class of products that has the same function or intended use 
if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a 
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products 
within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, 
DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a 
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.) Any rule 
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on 
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(2))

B. Background

    The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., 
provides, among other things, that ``[e]ach agency shall give an 
interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or 
repeal of a rule.'' (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) Pursuant to this provision of the 
APA, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (``CEI'') petitioned DOE for 
the issuance of a rule establishing a new product class under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(q) that would cover dishwashers with a cycle time of less than 60 
minutes from washing through drying, asserting that it is not 
technologically feasible to create dishwashers that both meet the 
current standards and have cycle times of 60 minutes or less.\2\ On 
October 30, 2020, DOE published a final rule that established a product 
class for standard-size dishwashers with a cycle time for the normal 
cycle \3\ of 60 minutes or less. 85 FR 68723 (``October 2020 Final 
Rule''). Contrary to CEI's claim in its petition that it is not 
technologically feasible for a dishwasher with a cycle time of 60 
minutes or less to meet the current standards, in the October 2020 
Final Rule DOE identified several dishwashers that had cycles that were 
less than 60 minutes and met the current standards, but asserted that 
establishing a product class for dishwashers with a normal cycle of 60 
minutes or less could spur manufacturer innovation to generate 
additional product offerings. Id. at 85 FR 68726. The October 2020 
Final Rule additionally specified that the current standards for 
dishwashers no longer apply to short-cycle products and that DOE 
intended to conduct the necessary rulemaking to determine standards 
that would provide the maximum energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result 
in a significant conservation of energy. Id. at 85 FR 68733, 68741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See document IDs 0006 and 0007 at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005.
    \3\ The ``normal cycle'' is specifically defined in section 1 of 
the DOE test procedure at title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (``CFR''), part 430, subpart B, appendix C1 (``appendix 
C1''), as ``the cycle type, including washing and drying temperature 
options, recommended in the manufacturer's instructions for daily, 
regular, or typical use to completely wash a full load of normally 
soiled dishes including the power-dry feature,'' among other 
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the October 2020 Final Rule, having determined that 
similarities exist between the consumer use of dishwashers, RCWs, and 
consumer clothes dryers (i.e., that these products offer several cycles 
with varying times, and that consumers run these cycles multiple times 
per week on average), DOE published a final rule on December 16, 2020, 
that established product classes for top-loading RCWs and certain 
classes of consumer clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 
minutes, and front-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 
minutes (``December 2020 Final Rule''). 85 FR 81359. Similar to the 
October 2020 Final Rule, the December 2020 Final Rule also specified 
that the current standards for RCWs and consumer clothes dryers no 
longer apply to short-cycle products. 85 FR 68723, 68742; 85 FR 81359, 
81376.
    On January 19, 2022, DOE published a final rule (``January 2022 
Final Rule'') revoking the October 2020 Final Rule and the December 
2020 Final Rule (collectively, ``Short-cycle Final Rules''). In that 
rule, DOE noted that the appropriate time for establishing a new 
product class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) is during a rulemaking 
prescribing new or amended standards. 87 FR 2673, 2682. And, as the 
Short-cycle Final Rules stated that they were not applying the 
rulemaking analysis pursuant to the seven factors specified in 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o) for the establishment of standards, DOE found that these 
rules were improperly promulgated. Id. at 87 FR 2673. The January 2022 
Final Rule reinstated the prior product classes and applicable 
standards for these covered products. Id. at 87 FR 2686.
    On March 17, 2022, various States filed a petition in the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (``Fifth Circuit'') 
seeking review of the January 2022 Final Rule, which eliminated the 
short-cycle product classes and reinstated the applicable energy 
conservation standards. The petitioners argued that the January 2022 
Final Rule withdrawing the Short-cycle Final Rules violated EPCA and 
was arbitrary and capricious. On January 8, 2024, the Fifth Circuit 
granted the petition for review and remanded the matter to DOE for 
further proceedings consistent with the Fifth Circuit's opinion. In 
remanding the January 2022 Final Rule for further consideration, the 
Court held that even if the Short-cycle Final Rules were invalid, DOE 
was obligated to consider other remedies short of withdrawal. See 
Louisiana, et al. v. United States Department of Energy, et al., 90 
F.4th 461, 477 (5th Cir. 2024). Specifically, the Court noted that 
instead of withdrawing the Short-cycle Final Rules, DOE could have 
promulgated energy conservation standards for the short-cycle product 
classes. Id. at 476.
    As a result, DOE is considering whether short-cycle product classes 
and standards can be established under the applicable statutory 
criteria. Under EPCA, DOE establishes product classes based on: (1) 
fuel type; or (2) performance-related features. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) 
With regards to product classes based on performance-related features, 
the product must have a feature which other products within such type 
do not have and such feature must justify a different standard from 
that which applies to other products within such type. (Id.). In the 
Short-cycle Final Rules, DOE found that cycle time was a performance-
related feature and that some products had shorter

[[Page 88664]]

cycle times than others. 85 FR 68723, 68726; 85 FR 81359, 81361. But 
the Short-cycle Final Rules did not determine whether cycle time 
justified different standards. Instead, the Short-cycle Final Rules 
stated DOE would determine specific standards in a separate rulemaking. 
Id. Therefore, to establish separate energy conservation standards for 
short-cycle product classes, DOE must first confirm the determination 
made in the Short-cycle Final Rules that cycle time is a performance-
related feature for these three covered products. DOE must then 
determine that a different standard level is justified for short-cycle 
products as there is no basis for establishing a product class under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q) that would be subject to the same standard level. 
Finally, assuming DOE determines that cycle time is a performance-
related feature and a different standard level is justified for short-
cycle products, DOE must apply the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) to 
prescribe energy conservation standards that, among other things, are 
technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in 
significant conservation of energy.
    As part of this process, DOE published a request for information on 
March 11, 2024 (``March 2024 RFI''), seeking data and other information 
on, among other things, the presence of any short-cycle products in the 
market and any relationship between cycle time and performance. 89 FR 
17338. DOE received comments in response to the March 2024 RFI from the 
interested parties listed in Table II.1.

            Table II.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the March 2024 RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Reference in this final   Comment number
              Commenter(s)                           rule              in the docket        Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness Project,    ASAP et al................               8  Efficiency Organizations.
 Alliance for Water Energy, American
 Council for an Energy-Efficient
 Economy, Consumer Federation of
 America, Earthjustice, National
 Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources
 Defense Council, New York State Energy
 Research and Development Authority.
Association of Home Appliance             AHAM......................               5  Trade Association.
 Manufacturers.
Attorneys General of MT, AL, AR, FL, GA,  AGs of MT et al...........               9  State Government
 ID, IA, KY, LA, MS, MO, NE, OH, SC, TN,                                               Officials.
 TX, UT, VA.
California Investor-Owned Utilities       CA IOUs...................               6  Utilities.
 (Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern
 California Edison, San Diego Gas and
 Electric).
China via National Center of Standards    China.....................              11  International Government.
 Evaluation and State Administration for
 Market Regulation.
LG Corporation..........................  LG........................               7  Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance....  NEEA......................               4  Efficiency Organization.
Natural Resources Defense Council and     NRDC and Earthjustice.....              10  Efficiency Organizations.
 Earthjustice.
New York State Energy Research and        NYSERDA and CEC...........              12  State Agencies.
 Development Authority and California
 Energy Commission.
U.S. Representative Stephanie Bice......  Rep. Bice.................               2  Federal Government
                                                                                       Official.
Joshua McCray...........................  McCray....................               3  Individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket for this rulemaking. (Docket No. 
EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002, which is maintained at: www.regulations.gov). 
The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment 
docket ID number at page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    This discussion responds to the Fifth Circuit's January 8, 2024, 
decision remanding this matter to DOE for further proceedings 
consistent with its opinion. In remanding the January 2022 Final Rule 
for further consideration, the Fifth Circuit found the January 2022 
Final Rule arbitrary and capricious for two principal reasons:
    (1) It failed to adequately consider appliance performance, 
substitution effects, and the ``ample record evidence'' that DOE's 
conservation standards are causing Americans to use more energy and 
water rather than less; and
    (2) It rested instead on DOE's view that the Short-cycle Final 
Rules were legally invalid--but even if true, that does not excuse DOE 
from considering other remedies short of repealing the Short-cycle 
Final Rules in toto.
    Louisiana, 90 F.4th at 477.
    With regards to the second reason, the Court noted that instead of 
withdrawing the Short-cycle Final Rules, DOE could have promulgated 
energy conservation standards for the short-cycle product classes. Id. 
at 476.
    In the discussion that follows, DOE considers whether an 
alternative to withdrawing the Short-cycle Final Rules--establishing 
standards for the short-cycle product classes--would be justified under 
EPCA. As discussed below, DOE tentatively concludes that the short-
cycle features of dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers do not 
justify standards different from those applicable to those products 
generally. DOE has also considered the effect of withdrawing the short-
cycle product class on product performance and energy and water use 
savings, including cleaning and drying performance, the potential for 
increased substitution (e.g., by hand washing or pre-washing), and the 
risk that standards are unintentionally increasing energy use (e.g., 
via consumers relying on multiple cycles or unregulated cycles).

A. Dishwashers

    The following sections apply DOE's authority under EPCA at 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q) to determine whether a ``short-cycle'' feature for 
dishwashers is a performance-related feature that justifies the 
establishment of a separate product class. DOE considers a short-cycle 
feature for dishwashers to be a cycle that can completely wash a full 
load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less. DOE first 
reiterates its prior determinations that cycle time is a performance-
related feature of dishwashers and details its specific consideration 
of the short-cycle feature (see section II.A.1 of this document). As

[[Page 88665]]

discussed in section II.A.2 of this document, DOE tentatively 
determines in this analysis that the short-cycle feature does not 
justify a different standard. Data and information from the Short-cycle 
Final Rules, March 2024 RFI, and dishwashers direct final rule 
published on April 24, 2024 (``April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final 
Rule''; 89 FR 31398) show that products with a normal cycle of less 
than 60 minutes can meet the current energy conservation standards 
using the same design strategies as other dishwashers of comparable 
efficiency without a short-cycle feature. Finally, in section II.A.3 of 
this document, DOE addresses other pertinent comments received in 
response to the March 2024 RFI that pertain to the dishwasher topics 
discussed in this document.
1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature
    DOE first considered whether cycle time is a performance-related 
feature of dishwashers in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). 
Consistent with DOE's assessment in previous rulemakings, discussed as 
follows, DOE reiterates that cycle time is a performance-related 
feature of dishwashers.
    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') published on July 16, 
2019 (``July 2019 NOPR''), DOE noted that while some individual 
consumers commented in response to the Notice of Petition for 
Rulemaking that was published on April 24, 2018 (83 FR 17768) that they 
were not concerned with a shorter cycle time, other individual 
consumers expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of time necessary 
to run their dishwashers. 84 FR 33869, 33873. In the July 2019 NOPR, 
DOE further discussed that the data and comments from dissatisfied 
consumers indicated that for many consumers, there is a utility in 
shorter cycle times to clean a normally soiled load of dishes. Id. 
Based on these considerations, DOE concluded that cycle time for 
dishwashers is a performance-related feature for the purposes of 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q). Id.
    DOE reiterated this conclusion in the October 2020 Final Rule. 85 
FR 68723, 68726-68732. Specifically, DOE concluded in the October 2020 
Final Rule that dishwashers with a normal cycle with a cycle time of 60 
minutes or less have a performance-related feature that other 
dishwashers currently on the market lack. Id. at 85 FR 68726, citing 84 
FR 33869, 33871. As defined in section 1 of appendix C1, the normal 
cycle refers to the cycle recommended to the consumer to completely 
wash a full load of normally soiled dishes.
    As discussed, CEI petitioned DOE in March 2018 to establish a 
separate product class for dishwashers for which the normal cycle is 
less than 60 minutes. In the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE finalized the 
creation of a new product class for standard-size dishwashers with a 
normal cycle of 60 minutes or less. 85 FR 68723, 68733. In the January 
2022 Final Rule, DOE did not question the validity of those prior 
determinations that short cycles provide a performance-related feature. 
87 FR 2673, 2682.
    In response to the March 2024 RFI, AHAM stated that cycle time is 
an important consumer feature. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 1) The AGs of MT et 
al. stated that consumers find distinct utility in appliances that are 
actually capable of cleaning dishes on a short cycle. (AGs of MT et 
al., No. 9 at p. 5)
    The CA IOUs commented that short-cycle product classes for 
dishwashers are unwarranted because they do not meet the requirements 
for a separate product class under EPCA. The CA IOUs stated that 
``cycle time'' is not a ``capacity or other performance-related 
feature'' that justifies a higher or lower standard as specified under 
42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1). The CA IOUs further noted that under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4), the types of features that are considered for establishing 
a higher or lower standard, and thus, separate product class, include 
reliability, size, capacity, volume, and similar attributes. The CA 
IOUs further asserted that cycle time, for the products at issue, is 
outside the scope of what EPCA permits DOE to consider in establishing 
or maintaining separate product classes. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 8) For 
the reasons stated in the July 2019 NOPR and October 2020 Final Rule, 
DOE reconfirms in this proposed confirmation of withdrawal that cycle 
time is a performance-related feature of dishwashers for the purposes 
of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). The following paragraphs discuss DOE's specific 
consideration of the short-cycle feature for dishwashers.
    Within the context of the CEI petition, in this document, DOE 
considers a dishwasher to have a ``short-cycle feature'' only if it 
provides a cycle with the capability of ``completely washing'' \5\ a 
full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less on any 
available cycle, as would be the consumer expectation for a normal 
cycle. DOE does not consider a cycle intended for washing only a 
partial load of dishes, or a cycle unable to completely wash a full 
load of normally soiled dishes, to be a short-cycle feature for the 
purpose of this analysis--even if such cycle has a cycle time of 60 
minutes or less. In this regard, the analyses performed in support of 
this proposed confirmation of withdrawal differ from the analyses DOE 
performed in support of the January 2022 Final Rule, in which DOE 
considered all ``quick'' cycles with a cycle time of 60 minutes or 
less, regardless of dish load size or cleaning ability. By considering 
only cycles that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled 
dishes, DOE avoids considering ``quick'' cycles designed for addressing 
niche applications (e.g., light soils, delicate items, etc.) that are 
not capable of washing a full load of normally soiled dishes, as would 
be the consumer expectation for a normal cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As discussed further in section II.E.3.a of this document, 
DOE's test procedure for dishwashers at 10 CFR 430, subpart B, 
appendix C2 (``appendix C2''), which references the latest industry 
test standard, defines a minimum cleaning index of 70 as the level 
that represents ``completely washing'' a full load of normally 
soiled dishes--as measured on each of the three soil loads that are 
tested in the DOE test procedure (i.e., the heavy, medium, and light 
soil loads). See 88 FR 3234, 3251-3263. For the purpose of this 
proposed confirmation of withdrawal, DOE considers ``completely 
washing a full load of normally soiled dishes'' to mean achieving a 
cleaning index of at least 70 on each of the three soil loads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the sections that follow, DOE evaluates whether such a short-
cycle feature justifies a separate product class in accordance with 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q).
2. Justification of Different Standards for Dishwashers With a Short-
Cycle Feature
    As discussed, EPCA authorizes DOE to prescribe a higher or lower 
standard than that which applies (or would apply) for such type (or 
class) for any group of covered products which have the same function 
or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) 
consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered 
products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, 
DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a 
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.)
    A typical application of this provision of EPCA is for DOE to 
establish comparatively less stringent standards for classes of covered 
products that have a performance-related feature that

[[Page 88666]]

inherently uses more energy than products without such feature, and for 
which DOE has determined that such feature provides a utility to the 
consumer that justifies the comparatively less stringent standard. For 
example, when establishing standards for consumer refrigerators, DOE 
determined through-the-door ice service to be a performance-related 
feature of refrigerators that provides utility to the consumer and that 
affects efficiency; i.e., inherently uses more energy (see discussion 
of product class segregation at 52 FR 46367, 46371 (Dec. 7, 1987)). 
Accordingly, DOE established comparatively less stringent standards for 
refrigerators with through-the-door ice service than for equivalent 
refrigerators without such a feature. 54 FR 47916, 47943-47944 (Nov. 
17, 1989). DOE has maintained a product class distinction with 
comparatively less stringent standards for refrigerators with through-
the-door ice service through successive amendments to the standards for 
consumer refrigerators.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Separate refrigerator product class distinctions are made 
for additional product features as well, such as automatic defrost 
and transparent doors. See 10 CFR 430.32(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE acknowledged that designing a 
dishwasher with a normal cycle time of 60 minutes or less is achievable 
and asserted that establishing a short-cycle product class could spur 
manufacturer innovation to generate additional product offerings to 
fill the market gap that exists for dishwashers with this feature 
(i.e., the ability to clean a load of normally soiled dishes in under 
60 minutes). DOE further stated its intent to determine the specific 
energy and water conservation standards of the new product class in a 
separate rulemaking. 85 FR 68723, 68724.
    DOE has conducted an analysis of the energy and water use of a 
short-cycle feature for dishwashers to evaluate whether different 
(i.e., comparatively less stringent) standards would be warranted for 
dishwashers that provide a short-cycle feature. As discussed in the 
previous section of this document, DOE has determined that a normal 
cycle of 60 minutes or less on a dishwasher is a performance-related 
feature that provides consumer utility for the purpose of consideration 
of potential product class distinction under the provisions of 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE next evaluated whether dishwashers with a short-
cycle feature necessitate more energy and water use than dishwashers 
without such feature, which could justify a comparatively less 
stringent standard for dishwashers that provide such a feature.
    To evaluate the energy and water use of a short-cycle feature in 
comparison to the currently applicable energy and water standards, DOE 
considered all data available from recent rulemakings, including data 
from testing conducted in support of the October 2020 Final Rule \7\ 
and the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule and confidential data 
from AHAM. DOE notes that the test data published in support of the 
October 2020 Final Rule include cleaning indices calculated by scoring 
soil particles on all items as well as spots, streaks, and rack contact 
marks on glassware. However, in a final rule amending the test 
procedure for dishwashers published on January 18, 2023 (``January 2023 
TP Final Rule''), DOE established a new test procedure at appendix C2, 
which specifies a minimum cleaning index threshold of 70 as a condition 
for a valid test cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3248. The test procedure at 
appendix C2 specifies that the cleaning index is calculated by scoring 
only soil particles, and that spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on 
glassware are not included in the cleaning index calculation. 
Accordingly, DOE reanalyzed the October 2020 Final Rule test data, 
revising the cleaning index for all test cycles at each soil load to 
include only soil particles and not spots, streaks, or rack contact 
marks, consistent with the adopted test procedure. The analyses 
presented in this document are based on these revised cleaning indices. 
While AHAM's data includes energy and water use data for standard-size 
dishwashers on the normal cycle and cycle time data for the same units 
on the normal cycle and quick cycle, it does not include cleaning 
performance for each unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ DOE test data are available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From its test sample, DOE identified one unit that provides a 
``short-cycle feature''--as DOE has described that term in this 
document--that uses less energy and water than the maximum allowable 
standard level for standard-size dishwashers. Specifically, this unit 
achieves a cleaning index of at least 70 on the heavy, medium, and 
light soil loads that are required for testing the normal cycle, with a 
cycle time less than 60 minutes; i.e., provides a ``short-cycle 
feature'' consistent with consumer expectations of a normal cycle.\8\ 
This unit's test results demonstrate that providing a short-cycle 
feature consistent with consumer expectations of a normal cycle (i.e., 
a cycle that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes 
in 60 minutes or less) does not necessitate using more energy and water 
than a dishwasher without such feature that meets the current 
standards. DOE further evaluated the technologies and design strategies 
used by this dishwasher and has tentatively concluded that this unit 
does not incorporate any proprietary technologies or design strategies 
and is designed no differently than other dishwashers of comparable 
efficiency without a short-cycle feature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In consideration of the Fifth Circuit's opinion that in the 
short-cycle rulemakings DOE pointed to existing ``quick'' cycles 
that did not address the foundational concerns underlying these 
rules, DOE considers in this analysis that the other units in the 
test sample that provide a dishwasher cycle less than 60 minutes, 
but that do not ``completely wash'' a full load of normally soiled 
dishes, do not have what DOE is describing as a ``short-cycle 
feature'' in this document, and therefore do not factor into DOE's 
consideration of whether a separate product class is justified for 
dishwashers with a short-cycle feature. See Louisiana, 90 F.4th at 
474-75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the availability of this feature 
currently on the market--at lower energy and water levels than the 
current standard allows--in a unit with no identifiable proprietary 
design or control strategy demonstrates that a dishwasher with a short-
cycle feature does not inherently use more energy and water than a 
dishwasher without such feature to achieve an acceptable cleaning 
performance, and that the current dishwasher standards do not preclude 
manufacturers from offering a normal cycle of 60 minutes or less. This 
tentative conclusion is consistent with the October 2020 Final Rule, 
which found that manufacturers already offered ``quick'' cycles that 
were less than 60 minutes and could meet the current DOE standards. 85 
FR 68724.
    Further evaluation of consumer survey data and comments from 
dishwasher manufacturers (discussed further in section II.A.3.c of this 
document) indicates that the limited availability of short-cycle 
features on the current market is not indicative of energy conservation 
standards precluding or discouraging the availability of such feature, 
but rather reflects the prioritization of product offerings by 
manufacturers commensurate with a relatively low level of market demand 
for this feature in comparison to other features more important to 
consumers.
    In response to the March 2024 RFI, DOE received the following 
comments regarding establishing a separate short-cycle product class 
for dishwashers.
    AHAM stated that new product classes to protect the short-cycle 
feature

[[Page 88667]]

are not justified at this time under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) for the 
following reasons: (1) consumers are satisfied with existing normal 
cycle times based on AHAM's 2021 Consumer Research, which found that 81 
percent of respondents were satisfied with the length of the normal 
cycle of their dishwasher; (2) most dishwashers already provide 
consumers with short cycle time options; and, (3) data shows that 
standards are not expected to increase cycle time significantly. (AHAM, 
No. 5 at p. 5)
    NEEA commented that the short-cycle product class for dishwashers 
is unwarranted. NEEA stated that its comments build upon past NEEA 
letters submitted to DOE, which demonstrated that short-cycle product 
classes were not appropriate for these appliances. NEEA added that 
recent research clearly reinforces these conclusions. (NEEA, No. 4 at 
p. 2)
    China commented that DOE should remove the short-cycle product 
classes. China commented that the short-cycle product class is not 
defined in the regulations and standards, which makes it difficult for 
manufacturers to clearly classify their products into this product 
class. (China, No. 11 at p. 2)
    An individual commented expressing support for short-cycle product 
classes for dishwashers and stated that products with a ``short cycle'' 
as the normal cycle should be subject to different standards than 
products without a ``short cycle'' as the normal cycle. The individual 
noted that such a rulemaking would save consumers money by lowering the 
cost of their electric bills. (McCray, No. 3 at p. 1)
    LG commented that, after internal discussions and discussions with 
industry partners to evaluate market changes since the January 2022 
Final Rule, LG is supportive of DOE's decision in the January 2022 
Final Rule and opposes new product classes for short-cycle products. LG 
added that for appliances to satisfy cleaning and drying performance in 
a shorter amount of time while achieving the same performance, it would 
be inevitable that they would consume more energy--an outcome that 
contradicts DOE's objective to adopt standards that would result in 
more energy conservation. (LG, No. 7 at pp. 1-2)
    As noted earlier in this section, test data show that it is 
technologically feasible to design dishwashers with a short-cycle 
feature while meeting current standards. That is, dishwashers with 
shorter cycle times do not need to consume more energy than the current 
standard to provide the same performance.
    Rep. Bice commented in opposition to multiple rulemakings recently 
published by DOE that add new regulations to consumer products. Rep. 
Bice asserted that the standards would increase costs for manufacturers 
and prices for consumers. Rep. Bice commented that regulation limits 
consumer choice and is onerous for American manufacturers, including 
many small businesses. (Rep. Bice, No. 2 at p. 1)
    DOE notes that this proposed confirmation of withdrawal does not 
propose to add any new regulations for dishwashers. Instead, this 
proposed confirmation of withdrawal reanalyzes the provisions of a 
previous rulemaking (i.e., the January 2022 Final Rule) that withdrew 
short-cycle product classes.
    In conclusion, based on the available test data--which demonstrate 
that it is feasible to design a short-cycle feature while meeting 
current standards--as well as stakeholder comments and market survey 
data, DOE has tentatively determined that (1) a short-cycle feature 
that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 
minutes or less is technologically feasible; (2) current standards do 
not prevent dishwasher manufacturers from providing such a short-cycle 
feature; and (3) there is a dishwasher currently available on the 
market that provides such a short-cycle feature and meets the currently 
applicable energy and water standard. For these reasons, DOE has 
tentatively determined that a short-cycle feature for dishwashers does 
not justify a separate product class with separate standards under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE seeks comment on these proposed determinations.
3. Response to Other Comments
    In the sections that follow, DOE addresses comments received in 
response to the March 2024 RFI that pertain to the dishwasher topics 
discussed in this document.
a. Prevalence of Quick Cycles on the Market
    DOE received comments from stakeholders discussing the prevalence 
of quick cycle options in current dishwasher models.
    ASAP et al. reiterated data that AHAM had previously presented in 
response to the July 2019 NOPR, which ASAP et al. summarized as 
indicating that 87 percent of dishwasher shipments in 2017 provided the 
option for a quick \9\ cycle, and about half of those quick cycles were 
designed for normally soiled loads. ASAP et al. commented that short-
cycle product classes are unwarranted, as there are many products with 
quick cycles that meet existing energy and water conservation standards 
on the market. (ASAP et al., No. 8 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DOE notes that ASAP et al. referred to these cycles as 
``short cycles.'' However, in this proposed confirmation of 
withdrawal, DOE uses the term ``quick cycles'' to refer to all 
cycles with a cycle time of around 60 minutes. DOE uses the term 
``short-cycle feature'' only to refer to cycles that are 60 minutes 
or less in duration and can completely wash a full load of normally 
soiled dishes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEEA stated that consumers can already access quick cycles on 
current dishwasher models. NEEA stated that its review of available 
products on Lowe's website indicated that 84 percent of 24-inch 
dishwasher models provided a quick-cycle program. NEEA further 
commented that consumers continue to be satisfied with existing 
products that provide the option of a quick cycle, and that consumers 
of one national retail chain highly rated more than 90 percent of 
dishwasher models with a quick cycle. NEEA asserted that selecting an 
available quick cycle by pressing a button or shifting a dial is not an 
unreasonable consumer burden when a faster cycle is preferred. (NEEA, 
No. 4 at p. 3)
    Confidential data submitted to DOE by AHAM in response to the March 
2024 RFI show that 92 percent of dishwasher models offer a quick cycle 
with cycle times ranging from 30 minutes to 124 minutes, and for 22 
percent of these dishwasher models, the recommended soil level for the 
quick cycle is ``normal,'' ``heavy,'' or ``any'' soil loads.
    The prevalence and variety of quick-cycle offerings, as reflected 
in these data presented by stakeholders, support DOE's conclusions in 
section II.A.1 of this document that cycle time is a performance-
related feature for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).
    In consideration of the Fifth Circuit's opinion that DOE's prior 
reasoning in the January 2022 Final Rule improperly relied upon the 
prevalence of ``quick'' cycles that do not address the foundational 
concerns underlying the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE considered in this 
analysis only those cycles that are consistent with consumer 
expectations of a normal cycle to completely wash a full load of 
normally soiled dishes and are 60 minutes or less (i.e., cycles that 
achieved a cleaning index of at least 70 on the heavy,

[[Page 88668]]

medium, and light soil loads and had a weighted-average cycle time of 
60 minutes or less).
b. Historical Cycle Time Trends
    In its March 2018 Petition, CEI presented dishwasher cycle time 
data compiled from annual Consumer Reports data. These data include the 
range of cycle times measured by Consumer Reports as well as an 
approximate market-average cycle time for each year. Based on the 
Consumer Reports data, CEI concluded that the historical increase in 
the average normal cycle time demonstrates that current standards have 
precluded manufacturers from offering products with short cycles as the 
normal cycle.\10\ In particular, CEI noted that the average cycle time 
had not been about 1 hour since 1983, before any standards were 
adopted; average cycle time in 2018 was 2 hours and 20 minutes, and, 
according to CEI, had ``more than doubled due to current energy 
standards.'' CEI further asserted that ``when a new energy standard is 
adopted by the DOE, the result is an increase in dishwasher cycle 
time.'' CEI also asserted that dishwasher average cycle times of less 
than 1 hour had been eliminated from the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The March 2018 Petition is available at 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-0006, page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding CEI's conclusion that the historical increase in the 
average normal cycle time demonstrates that current standards have 
precluded manufacturers from offering products with short cycles as the 
normal cycle, DOE notes that market-average cycle time is not an 
appropriate indicator to demonstrate any causality with standards. 
Instead, the minimum available cycle time is a more appropriate 
indicator to assess any impact of standards on dishwasher cycle time, 
because the minimum available cycle time on the market can provide an 
indication of the technological feasibility of providing shorter cycle 
times while meeting more stringent standards. Trends in market-average 
cycle times have largely been driven by other factors, discussed in the 
following paragraphs.
    Based on the data shared by CEI in its petition, minimum cycle 
times (as represented by the lowest cycle time measured by Consumer 
Reports each year) have generally increased only during periods when 
standards were not amended. For example, the minimum cycle time 
increased from 65 minutes in 1993 to 85 minutes in 2006, a period 
during which there were no changes to dishwasher standards. 
Furthermore, the minimum cycle time as measured by Consumer Reports has 
decreased over the past 15 years, even while standards became more 
stringent during that time period.
    Additionally, the short-cycle feature currently available on the 
market has a cycle time (41 minutes) that is lower than the minimum 
cycle time measured by Consumer Reports in 1983 (55 minutes), prior to 
the introduction of any standards for dishwashers. This demonstrates 
that amended standards have not prevented the technological feasibility 
of providing a short-cycle feature even as dishwasher standards have 
become more stringent, and even as the market-weighted average cycle 
time has increased due to other factors (see discussion in the 
following paragraphs regarding potential impact of dishwasher sound 
levels and detergent formulation on cycle time). In other words, 
Consumer Reports data (as well as the other data discussed elsewhere in 
this document) show that current standards are not precluding 
manufacturers from offering dishwashers with a short-cycle feature.
    Consistent with DOE's observations, in response to the March 2024 
RFI, ASAP et al. noted that the Consumer Reports data presented in 
CEI's March 2018 Petition show that the greatest cycle-time increase 
came during a period when no new standards were adopted. ASAP et al. 
asserted that the increase in cycle time was likely driven by other 
factors, such as consumer preference for quieter products and changes 
to detergent formulation. ASAP et al. cited Reviewed,\11\ which stated 
that older dishwashers had sound levels around 60 decibels, while 
modern dishwashers average between 40 and 50 decibels. ASAP et al. also 
cited Reviewed to explain that ``there are lots of ways to reduce 
noise, but most of them involve reducing the machine's cleaning power, 
and that in turn means lengthening cycle times to compensate.'' (ASAP 
et al., No. 8 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Reviewed is part of the USA TODAY Network. See 
reviewed.usatoday.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ASAP et al. also stated that by 2010, many states had banned the 
sale of dishwasher detergents containing phosphates, which resulted in 
newer detergents that use enzymes. ASAP et al. cited information from 
Reviewed explaining that enzyme-based detergents require more time to 
work, lengthening cycle times. (Id.)
    In summary, the available data demonstrate that amended standards 
have not affected the technological feasibility of providing a short-
cycle feature, even as dishwasher standards have become more stringent, 
and that current standards are not precluding manufacturers from 
offering dishwashers with a short-cycle feature. Rather, the data 
provided by CEI in its petition are reflective of the expanding range 
of product availability on the market since the early 2000s, 
corresponding to a proliferation of other distinguishing features on 
the market.
c. Consumer Preferences
    With regard to market competition and consumer preferences, the AGs 
of MT et al. referenced AHAM's comments from its Petition for 
Reconsideration of the October 2020 Final Rule \12\ to state that 
consumers do not want what DOE and industry have offered historically 
and that distinct short-cycle product classes would increase 
competition and consumer choice. (AGs of MT et al., No. 9 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3224. The Joint Attorneys General referenced AHAM's comment in 
this Petition for Reconsideration that the October 2020 Final Rule 
disrupted AHAM's members who ``have invested heavily in innovating 
to meet energy conservation standards for dishwashers,'' with the 
October 2020 Final Rule resulting in ``stranded investments as 
manufacturers are required to consider abandoning these innovations 
in efficiency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AGs of MT et al. noted that CEI's survey included 2,200 
individual public comments in support of the short-cycle product class, 
with only 16 opposed, which the AGs of MT et al. assert is evidence 
that consumers find it important to clean dishes using a short cycle. 
(Id.)
    Contrary to the claims made by the AGs of MT et al., the CA IOUs 
asserted that the absence of dishwasher products with a normal cycle of 
60 minutes or less is due to lack of consumer demand. The CA IOUs cited 
an LBNL report that studied dishwasher consumer preferences based on a 
survey of 1,201 consumers, ranking from most to least important 
attributes affecting consumers' purchase decision,\13\ and provided a 
figure illustrating its findings that dishwasher cycle time ranked 14 
out of 18 attributes, well below average importance for consumers and 
significantly lower than energy efficiency, which was ranked fifth, and 
energy bill cost savings, which was ranked sixth. The CA IOUs stated 
that based on multiple stakeholders'

[[Page 88669]]

comments,<SUP>14 15</SUP> consumers prioritize cleaning performance, 
dish rack features, drying performance, energy and water efficiency, 
and low noise levels. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at pp. 5-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Stratton, H., et al. 2021. Dishwashers in the Residential 
Section: A Survey of Product Characteristics, Usage, and Consumer 
Preferences (last accessed July 17, 2024). eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/osg_lbnl_report_dishwashers_final_4.pdf.
    \14\ Comments from Electrolux Home Products, Inc. in response to 
the July 2019 NOPR. Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3134.
    \15\ Comments from AHAM in response to the July 2019 NOPR. 
Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the comment from the CA IOUs regarding the 
importance of energy efficiency to consumers, ASAP et al. noted that 
the market penetration of ENERGY STAR[supreg]-qualified dishwashers 
ranged between 84 percent and 100 percent between 2010 and 2022, which 
ASAP et al. asserted provides an indication that consumers are choosing 
to buy highly efficient dishwashers. (ASAP et al., No. 8 at p. 4)
    AHAM stated that manufacturers pay careful attention to consumer 
needs and desires for particular features and utilities. (AHAM, No. 5 
at p. 4)
    In addition to the data cited by commenters, DOE notes that 
according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (``EIA's'') 
2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS''),\16\ over 80 
percent of consumers use normal cycles, as currently designed (i.e., 
generally longer than 60 minutes) most of the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 2015 Public 
Use Microdata Files, 2020. Washington, DC. Available at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/index.php?view=microdata.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the comments and data discussed in the preceding 
paragraphs, DOE tentatively concludes that consumers on the whole 
prioritize other attributes over cycle length, and product design is 
largely driven by these consumer preferences. To the extent that 
manufacturers prioritize other attributes of dishwasher performance 
over providing a short-cycle feature, such prioritization is a result 
of manufacturers targeting broad consumer preferences and not an 
indication that DOE's energy conservation standards are precluding 
manufacturers from offering a short-cycle feature.

B. Residential Clothes Washers

    The following sections apply DOE's authority under EPCA at 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q) to determine whether a ``short-cycle'' feature for RCWs 
is a performance-related feature that justifies the establishment of 
separate product classes. DOE considers a short-cycle feature for top-
loading RCWs to be a cycle that can completely wash a full load of 
normally soiled cotton clothing in less than 30 minutes, and for front-
loading RCWs to be a cycle that can completely wash a full load of 
normally soiled cotton clothing in less than 45 minutes.\17\ DOE first 
reiterates its prior determinations that cycle time is a performance-
related feature of RCWs and details its specific consideration of the 
short-cycle feature (see section II.B.1 of this document). As discussed 
in section II.B.2 of this document, DOE tentatively determines in this 
analysis that the short-cycle feature does not justify a different 
standard. Data and information from the Short-cycle Final Rules, the 
RCW direct final rule published on March 15, 2024 (``March 2024 RCW 
Direct Final Rule''; 89 FR 19026), and the March 2024 RFI show that 
RCWs currently available with a short normal cycle (i.e., with a cycle 
time less than 30 minutes for top-loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes 
for front-loading RCWs) can meet the current energy conservation 
standards using the same design strategies as other RCWs of comparable 
efficiency without a short-cycle feature. Finally, in section II.B.3 of 
this document, DOE addresses other pertinent comments received in 
response to the March 2024 RFI that pertain to the RCW topics discussed 
in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This consideration corresponds to DOE's definition of 
``normal cycle'' in section 1 of the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 
430, subpart B, appendix J2 (``appendix J2''), which is defined as 
``the cycle recommended by the manufacturer [. . .] for normal, 
regular, or typical use for washing up to a full load of normally 
soiled cotton clothing,'' among other criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature
    DOE first considered whether cycle time is a performance-related 
feature of RCWs in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). Consistent 
with DOE's assessment in previous rulemakings, discussed as follows, 
DOE reiterates that cycle time is a performance-related feature of 
RCWs.
    DOE has previously considered cycle time as a consumer utility for 
the purposes of establishing product classes for RCWs. In a direct 
final rule published on May 31, 2012, (``May 2012 Direct Final Rule'') 
DOE determined that the longer cycle times of front-loading RCWs versus 
cycle times for top-loading RCWs are likely to impact consumer utility. 
77 FR 32308, 32319. Because the wash cycle times for front-loaders 
arise from the reduced mechanical action of agitation as compared to 
top-loaders, DOE stated that it believes that such longer cycles may be 
required to achieve the necessary cleaning, and thereby constitute a 
performance-related utility of front-loading versus top-loading RCWs 
pursuant to the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 77 FR 32308, 32319.
    In a NOPR published on August 13, 2020 (``August 2020 NOPR''), DOE 
discussed that consumer use of RCWs is similar to that of dishwashers, 
in that the products provide consumer utility over discrete cycles with 
programmed cycle times, and consumers run these cycles multiple times 
per week on average. As such, the impact of cycle time on consumer 
utility identified by CEI in its petition regarding dishwashers is also 
relevant to RCWs. Based on these considerations, DOE concluded that 
cycle time for RCWs is a performance-related feature for the purposes 
of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 85 FR 49297, 49299.
    DOE reiterated this conclusion in the December 2020 Final Rule. 
Specifically, DOE concluded in the December 2020 Final Rule that RCWs 
with a short normal cycle (i.e., with a cycle time less than 30 minutes 
for top-loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes for front-loading RCWs) 
provide a distinct utility to consumers that other RCWs do not provide, 
and that consumers receive a utility from the short normal cycle 
feature to support the establishment of new product classes under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). 85 FR 81359, 81363-81364. The ``normal cycle'' 
refers to the cycle recommended to the consumer for normal, regular, or 
typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton 
clothing. In the January 2022 Final Rule, DOE did not question the 
validity of those prior determinations made that short cycles provide a 
performance-related feature. 87 FR 2673, 2682.
    In response to the March 2024 RFI, AHAM stated that cycle time is 
an important consumer feature. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 1). The AGs of MT et 
al. stated that consumers find distinct utility in appliances that are 
actually capable of washing clothes on a short cycle. (AGs of MT et 
al., No. 9 at p. 5).
    The CA IOUs commented that short-cycle product classes for RCWs are 
unwarranted because they do not meet the requirements for a separate 
product class under EPCA. The CA IOUs stated that ``cycle time'' is not 
a ``capacity or other performance-related feature'' that justifies a 
higher or lower standard as specified under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1). The 
CA IOUs further noted that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), the types of 
features that are considered for establishing a higher or lower 
standard, and thus, separate product class, include reliability, size, 
capacity,

[[Page 88670]]

volume, and similar attributes. The CA IOUs further asserted that cycle 
time, for the products at issue, is outside the scope of what EPCA 
permits DOE to consider in establishing or maintaining separate product 
classes. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 8)
    For the reasons stated in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, August 
2020 NOPR, and December 2020 Final Rule, DOE reconfirms in this 
proposed confirmation of withdrawal that cycle time is a performance-
related feature of RCWs for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). In the 
sections that follow, DOE evaluates whether such a short-cycle feature 
justifies separate product classes in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 
6295(q).
2. Justification of Different Standards for Residential Clothes Washers 
With a Short-Cycle Feature
    As discussed, EPCA authorizes DOE to prescribe a higher or lower 
standard than that which applies (or would apply) for such type (or 
class) for any group of covered products which have the same function 
or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) 
consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered 
products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, 
DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a 
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.)
    DOE stated in the August 2020 NOPR, and reiterated in the December 
2020 Final Rule, that it presumed manufacturers were implementing the 
shortest possible cycle times that enabled a clothes washer to achieve 
satisfactory cleaning performance (and other aspects of clothes washer 
performance) while meeting the applicable energy and water conservation 
standards. 85 FR 81359, 81361. DOE stated its belief that the current 
energy conservation standards may have been precluding or discouraging 
manufacturers from introducing models to the market with substantially 
shorter cycle times. Id. DOE further stated in the December 2020 Final 
Rule that its actions (i.e., establishing short-cycle product classes 
for top-loading and front-loading RCWs) were intended to incentivize 
manufacturers to provide consumers with new options when purchasing 
RCWs, asserting that creation of these new product classes would 
incentivize manufacturers to develop innovative products with short 
cycle times for those consumers that receive a value from the time 
saved washing and drying their clothing. Id. at 85 FR 81360-81361. DOE 
further stated its intent to determine the specific energy and water 
consumption limits for the new product classes in a separate 
rulemaking. Id.
    DOE has conducted an analysis of the energy and water use of a 
short-cycle feature for RCWs to evaluate whether different (i.e., 
comparatively less stringent) standards would be warranted for RCWs 
that provide a short-cycle feature. As discussed in the previous 
section of this document, DOE has determined that a normal cycle of 
less than 30 minutes for top-loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes for 
front-loading RCWs is a performance-related feature that provides 
consumer utility for the purpose of consideration of potential product 
class distinction under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE next 
evaluated whether RCWs with a short-cycle feature necessitate more 
energy and water use than RCWs without such feature, which could 
justify a comparatively less stringent standard for RCWs that provide 
such a feature.
    To evaluate the energy and water use of a short-cycle feature in 
comparison to the currently applicable energy and water standards, DOE 
considered all data available from recent rulemakings, including DOE's 
data from testing conducted in support of the December 2020 Final Rule 
and the March 2024 RCW Direct Final Rule and confidential data received 
from AHAM.\18\ All RCW test data evaluated in this manner was based on 
testing of the Normal cycle as defined in section 1 of appendix J2, 
corresponding to the cycle recommended by the manufacturer for normal, 
regular, or typical use for washing up to a full load of normally 
soiled cotton clothing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ DOE test data from the December 2020 Final Rule are 
available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0001-0007. Information on the March 2024 RCW Direct Final Rule models is 
available in the technical support document for the March 2024 RCW 
Direct Final Rule, which is available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From among DOE's test samples, DOE identified 3 top-loading RCWs 
and 9 front-loading RCWs that provide a short-cycle feature. 
Specifically, these units have a normal cycle time of less than 30 
minutes for the top-loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes for the 
front-loading RCWs.
    From AHAM's test sample, DOE identified 1 top-loading standard-size 
RCW with a normal cycle time of less than 30 minutes and 4 front-
loading RCWs with a normal cycle time of less than 45 minutes.
    DOE then assessed the energy and water use of the short-cycle 
feature on these units in comparison to the currently applicable DOE 
standards. For all of these units, the short-cycle feature uses no more 
energy and water than the maximum allowable standard levels for 
standard-size RCWs, demonstrating that providing a short-cycle feature 
consistent with consumer expectations of a normal cycle (i.e., a cycle 
that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing 
in less than 30 or 45 minutes for top-loading and front-loading RCWs 
respectively) does not necessitate using more energy and water than an 
RCW without such feature that meets the current standards. DOE further 
evaluated the technologies and design strategies used by these RCW 
models and has tentatively concluded that these units do not 
incorporate any proprietary technologies or design strategies and are 
designed no differently than other RCW models of comparable efficiency 
without a short-cycle feature.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that the availability of this feature 
currently on the market--at energy and water levels that comply with 
the current standards--in units with no identifiable proprietary 
designs or control strategies demonstrates that an RCW with a short-
cycle feature does not inherently use more energy and water than an RCW 
without such feature, and that the current RCW standards do not 
preclude manufacturers from offering a short-cycle feature (i.e., a 
normal cycle time of less than 30 minutes for top-loading RCWs and less 
than 45 minutes for front-loading RCWs). On the basis that both top-
loading and front-loading RCWs with short-cycle features are currently 
available on the market with no identifiable proprietary designs or 
control strategies, DOE has tentatively determined that a short-cycle 
feature is technologically feasible and that current standards do not 
prevent manufacturers from providing a short-cycle feature.
    In response to the March 2024 RFI, DOE received the following 
comments regarding establishing separate short-cycle product classes 
for RCWs.
    AHAM stated that new product classes to protect the short-cycle 
feature are not justified at this time under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) for the 
following reasons: (1) consumers are satisfied with existing normal 
cycle times based on AHAM's 2021 Consumer Research, which found that 78 
percent of respondents were satisfied with the length of the normal

[[Page 88671]]

cycle of their laundry appliance; (2) most RCWs already provide 
consumers with short cycle time options; and, (3) data shows that 
standards are not expected to increase cycle time significantly. (AHAM, 
No. 5 at p. 5)
    NEEA commented that short-cycle product classes for RCWs are 
unwarranted. NEEA stated that its comments build upon past NEEA letters 
submitted to DOE, which demonstrated that short-cycle product classes 
were not appropriate for these appliances. NEEA added that recent 
research clearly reinforces these conclusions. (NEEA, No. 4 at p. 2)
    China commented that DOE should remove the short-cycle product 
classes. China commented that the short-cycle product class is not 
defined in the regulations and standards, which makes it difficult for 
manufacturers to clearly classify their products into this product 
class. (China, No. 11 at p. 2)
    An individual commented expressing support for short-cycle product 
classes for RCWs and stated that products with a ``short cycle'' as the 
normal cycle should be subject to different standards than products 
without a ``short cycle'' as the normal cycle. The individual noted 
that such a rulemaking would save consumers money by lowering the cost 
of their electric bills. (McCray, No. 3 at p. 1)
    LG commented that, after internal discussions and discussions with 
industry partners to evaluate market changes since the January 2022 
Final Rule, LG is supportive of DOE's decision in the January 2022 
Final Rule and opposes new product classes for short-cycle products. LG 
added that for appliances to satisfy cleaning and drying performance in 
a shorter amount of time while achieving the same performance, it would 
be inevitable that they would consume more energy--an outcome that 
contradicts DOE's objective to adopt standards that would result in 
more energy conservation. (LG, No. 7 at pp. 1-2)
    As noted earlier in this section, both top-loading and front-
loading RCWs with short-cycle features are currently available on the 
market with no identifiable proprietary designs or control strategies. 
That is, RCWs with shorter cycle times do not need to consume more 
energy than the current standard to provide the same performance.
    Rep. Bice commented in opposition to multiple rulemakings recently 
published by DOE that add new regulations to consumer products. Rep. 
Bice asserted that the standards would increase costs for manufacturers 
and prices for consumers. Rep. Bice commented that regulation limits 
consumer choice and is onerous for American manufacturers, including 
many small businesses. (Rep. Bice, No. 2 at p. 1)
    DOE notes that this proposed confirmation of withdrawal does not 
propose to add any new regulations for RCWs. Instead, this proposed 
confirmation of withdrawal reanalyzes the provisions of a previous 
rulemaking (i.e., the January 2022 Final Rule) that withdrew short-
cycle product classes.
    In conclusion, based on the available test data--which demonstrate 
that it is feasible to design a short-cycle feature while meeting 
current standards--DOE has tentatively determined that (1) a short-
cycle feature for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to a 
full load of normally soiled cotton clothing is technologically 
feasible; (2) current standards do not prevent RCW manufacturers from 
providing such a short-cycle feature; and (3) multiple RCW models are 
currently available on the market that provide such a short-cycle 
feature that meet the currently applicable energy and water standards. 
For these reasons, DOE has tentatively determined that a short-cycle 
feature for RCWs does not justify separate product classes with 
separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE requests comment on 
these proposed determinations.
3. Response to Other Comments
    DOE received comments in response to the March 2024 RFI from 
stakeholders discussing the prevalence of quick cycles on current RCW 
models.
    NEEA stated that consumers can already access quick cycles on 
current RCW models. NEEA stated that its review of the 58 best-selling 
models in the northwest United States \19\ indicated that 94 percent of 
RCW models provided a quick-cycle program, noting that quick cycles are 
widely available in both top-loading and front-loading models. NEEA 
further commented that consumer-use data found that the quick cycle is 
used relatively infrequently in RCWs, citing their previous letter \20\ 
showing that the quick cycle is selected 8 percent of the time. (NEEA, 
No. 4 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NEEA noted that these models represent 75 percent of the 
top-loading market, 80 percent of the front-loading market, and 77 
percent of overall sales for 2023.
    \20\ Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0001-0044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LG commented that that there are RCWs currently on the market that 
have default cycles comparable to DOE's definition of short cycles 
while also offering additional short cycles as an option and because 
such products are already prevalent, it would be counterproductive to 
establish new product classes, which would involve simply setting a 
short cycle as the default cycle. (LG, No. 7 at p. 1)
    The CA IOUs commented that short-cycle product classes for RCWs are 
unwarranted, as other products of the same type are already available 
with quick cycles that meet current and future DOE energy conservation 
standards. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 1) The CA IOUs also stated that they 
could not find substantial evidence that consumers largely prefer 
shorter cycle times. The CA IOUs presented results from a 2024 in-store 
survey, showing that consumers were satisfied with a 45- to 60-minute 
RCW cycle. The CA IOUs additionally stated that survey results showed 
that 57 percent of consumers favored an ENERGY STAR-qualified RCW, 27 
percent preferred a quiet RCW, and only 16 percent preferred an RCW 
with a cycle time of 30 minutes or less. (Id. at pp. 1-2)
    Confidential data submitted to DOE by AHAM in response to the March 
2024 RFI show that 91 percent of RCW models offer a quick cycle with 
cycle times ranging from 15 minutes to 59 minutes and the recommended 
soil level for the quick cycle is ``normal'' for 6 percent of these RCW 
models.
    The prevalence and variety of quick-cycle offerings as reflected in 
these data presented by stakeholders support DOE's conclusions in 
section II.B.1 of this document that cycle time is a performance-
related feature for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).
    In consideration of the Fifth Circuit's opinion that DOE's prior 
reasoning in the January 2022 Final Rule improperly relied upon the 
prevalence of ``quick'' cycles that do not address the foundational 
concerns underlying the December 2020 Final Rule, DOE considered in 
this analysis only those cycles that are consistent with consumer 
expectations of a normal cycle (i.e., a cycle for normal, regular, or 
typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton 
clothing) and have a cycle time of less than 30 minutes for top-loading 
RCWs and less than 45 minutes for front-loading RCWs.

C. Consumer Clothes Dryers

    The following sections apply DOE's authority under EPCA at 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q) to determine whether a ``short-cycle'' feature for 
consumer clothes dryers is a performance-related feature that justifies 
the establishment of a separate product class. DOE considers a short-
cycle feature for consumer clothes dryers to be a normal cycle that 
offers

[[Page 88672]]

cycle times of less than 30 minutes. DOE first reiterates its prior 
determinations that cycle time is a performance-related feature of 
consumer clothes dryers and details its specific consideration of the 
short-cycle feature (see section II.C.1 of this document). As discussed 
in section II.C.2 of this document, DOE tentatively determines in this 
analysis that the short-cycle feature does not justify a different 
standard. Data and information from the Short-cycle Final Rules, the 
consumer clothes dryers direct final rule published on March 12, 2024 
(``March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule''; 89 FR 18164), and the March 
2024 RFI show that products with a normal cycle of less than 30 minutes 
can meet the current energy conservation standards using the same 
design strategies as other consumer clothes dryers of comparable 
efficiency without a short-cycle feature. Finally, in section II.C.3 of 
this document, DOE addresses other pertinent comments received in 
response to the March 2024 RFI that pertain to the consumer clothes 
dryer topics discussed in this document.
1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature
    DOE first considered whether cycle time is a performance-related 
feature of consumer clothes dryers in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(1)(B). Consistent with DOE's assessment in previous 
rulemakings, discussed as follows, DOE reiterates that cycle time is a 
performance-related feature of consumer clothes dryers.
    In the August 2020 NOPR, DOE discussed that consumer use of 
consumer clothes dryers is similar to that of dishwashers, in that the 
products provide consumer utility over discrete cycles with programmed 
cycle times, and consumers run these cycles multiple times per week on 
average. As such, the impact of cycle time on consumer utility 
identified by CEI in its petition regarding dishwashers is also 
relevant to consumer clothes dryers. Based on these considerations, DOE 
concluded that cycle time for consumer clothes dryers is a performance-
related feature for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 85 FR 49297, 
49299.
    DOE reiterated this conclusion in the December 2020 Final Rule. 85 
FR 81359, 81363-81364. Specifically, DOE concluded in the December 2020 
Final Rule that consumer clothes dryers with a short normal cycle 
(i.e., with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes) provide a distinct 
utility to consumers that other consumer clothes dryers do not provide, 
and that consumers receive a utility from the short normal cycle 
feature to support the establishment of a new product class under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). Id. at 85 FR 81363, 81364. The ``normal cycle'' 
refers to the cycle recommended by the manufacturer to the consumer for 
drying cotton or linen clothes, among other criteria. In the January 
2022 Final Rule, DOE did not question the validity of those prior 
determinations made about whether that short cycles provide a 
performance-related feature. 87 FR 2673, 2682.
    In response to the March 2024 RFI, AHAM stated that cycle time is 
an important consumer feature, (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 1).
    The CA IOUs commented that short-cycle product classes for consumer 
clothes dryers are unwarranted because they do not meet the 
requirements for a separate product class under EPCA. The CA IOUs 
stated that ``cycle time'' is not a ``capacity or other performance-
related feature'' that justifies a higher or lower standard as 
specified under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1). The CA IOUs further noted that 
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), the types of features that are considered 
for establishing a higher or lower standard, and thus, separate product 
class, include reliability, size, capacity, volume, and similar 
attributes. The CA IOUs further asserted that cycle time, for the 
products at issue, is outside the scope of what EPCA permits DOE to 
consider in establishing or maintaining separate product classes. (CA 
IOUs, No. 6 at p. 8). (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 8)
    For the reasons stated in the August 2020 NOPR and December 2020 
Final Rule, DOE reconfirms in this proposed confirmation of withdrawal 
its previous determinations that cycle time is a performance-related 
feature of consumer clothes dryers for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 
6295(q).
    In the sections that follow, DOE evaluates whether such a short-
cycle feature justifies separate product classes in accordance with 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q).
2. Justification of Different Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers 
With a Short-Cycle Feature
    As discussed, EPCA authorizes DOE to prescribe a higher or lower 
standard than that which applies (or would apply) for such type (or 
class) for any group of covered products which have the same function 
or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) 
consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered 
products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, 
DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a 
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.)
    DOE stated in the August 2020 NOPR, and reiterated in the December 
2020 Final Rule, that vented electric standard-size and vented gas 
clothes dryers that comply with the current energy conservation 
standards exhibit cycle times of approximately 30 minutes or longer. 85 
FR 81359, 81361. Based on a presumption that manufacturers were already 
implementing the shortest possible cycle times that enabled a clothes 
dryer to achieve satisfactory drying performance (and other aspects of 
clothes dryer performance) while meeting the applicable energy 
conservation standards, DOE asserted that the standards may have 
discouraged manufacturers from developing clothes dryers for consumers 
that provide the utility of 30-minute-or-less cycle times. Id. DOE 
further stated in the December 2020 Final Rule that its actions (i.e., 
establishing short-cycle product classes for consumer clothes dryers) 
were intended to incentivize manufacturers to provide consumers with 
new options when purchasing clothes dryers, asserting that creation of 
this new product class would incentivize manufacturers to develop 
innovative products with short cycle times for those consumers that 
receive a value from the time saved washing and drying their clothing. 
Id. at 85 FR 81360-81361. DOE further stated its intent to determine 
the specific energy conservation standards of the new product classes 
in a separate rulemaking. Id.
    DOE has conducted an analysis of the energy use of a short-cycle 
feature for consumer clothes dryers to evaluate whether different 
(i.e., comparatively less stringent) standards would be warranted for 
consumer clothes dryers that provide a short-cycle feature. As 
discussed in the previous section of this document, DOE has determined 
that a short-cycle feature on a consumer clothes dryer is a 
performance-related feature that provides consumer utility for the 
purpose of consideration of potential product class distinction under 
the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE next evaluated whether 
consumer clothes dryers with a short-cycle feature necessitate more 
energy use than consumer clothes dryers without such feature, which 
could justify a comparatively less stringent standard for consumer 
clothes dryers that provide such a feature.

[[Page 88673]]

    To evaluate the energy use of a short-cycle feature in comparison 
to the currently applicable energy standards, DOE considered all data 
available from recent rulemakings, including DOE's data from testing 
conducted in support of the December 2020 Final Rule, the March 2024 
Dryers Direct Final Rule, and confidential data from AHAM. All consumer 
clothes dryer test data evaluated in this manner was based on testing 
of the Normal cycle as defined in section 3.3.2 of appendix D2, 
corresponding to the program labeled ``normal'' or, for clothes dryers 
that do not have a ``normal'' program, the cycle recommended by the 
manufacturer for drying cotton or linen clothes. In addition, all test 
data represent cycles that achieve a final moisture content of 2 
percent or less, which DOE has determined to be representative of the 
consumer-acceptable dryness level after completion of a drying cycle.
    None of the units in DOE's test sample had a normal cycle time less 
than 30 minutes.\21\ However, from the confidential data received from 
AHAM, DOE identified 3 electric standard-size clothes dryers and 1 
vented gas standard-size clothes dryer with normal cycle times of less 
than 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Information on these models is available in the technical 
support document for the March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule, which 
is available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE then assessed the energy use of the short-cycle feature on 
these units in comparison to the current applicable DOE standards. For 
all of these units, the short-cycle feature uses no more energy than 
the maximum allowable standard levels for standard-size consumer 
clothes dryers, demonstrating that providing a short-cycle feature 
consistent with consumer expectations of a normal cycle (i.e., cycle 
recommended by the manufacturer to the consumer for drying cotton or 
linen clothes in less than 30 minutes) does not necessitate using more 
energy than a consumer clothes dryer without such feature that meets 
the current standards. In the engineering analysis conducted for the 
March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule, DOE did not identify any 
proprietary technologies in use among clothes dryers currently on the 
market. 89 FR 18164, 18178-18179. Therefore, although AHAM's data set 
did not identify specific model numbers associated with each data 
point, DOE has no reason to believe that any proprietary technologies 
or design strategies are being used in those clothes dryer models with 
cycle times of less than 30 minutes.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that the availability of a short-
cycle feature currently on the market--at energy levels that comply 
with the current standards--in units with no identifiable proprietary 
designs or control strategies demonstrates that a consumer clothes 
dryer with a short-cycle feature does not inherently use more energy 
than a consumer clothes dryer without such a feature, and that the 
current consumer clothes dryer standards do not preclude manufacturers 
from offering a short-cycle feature (i.e., a normal cycle time of less 
than 30 minutes). On the basis that both vented electric standard-size 
and vented gas clothes dryers with short-cycle features (i.e., normal 
cycles less than 30 minutes) are currently available on the market with 
no identifiable proprietary designs or control strategies, DOE has 
tentatively determined that a short-cycle feature is technologically 
feasible and that current standards do not prevent manufacturers from 
providing a short-cycle feature.
    In response to the March 2024 RFI, DOE received the following 
comments regarding establishing separate short-cycle product classes 
for consumer clothes dryers.
    AHAM stated that new product classes to protect the short-cycle 
feature are not justified at this time under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) for the 
following reasons: (1) consumers are satisfied with existing normal 
cycle times based on AHAM's 2021 Consumer Research, which found that 78 
percent of respondents were satisfied with the length of the normal 
cycle of their laundry appliance; (2) most consumer clothes dryers 
already provide consumers with short cycle time options; and, (3) data 
shows that standards are not expected to increase cycle time 
significantly. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 5)
    NEEA commented that the short-cycle product class for consumer 
clothes dryers is unwarranted. NEEA stated that its comments build upon 
past NEEA letters submitted to DOE, which demonstrated that short-cycle 
product classes were not appropriate for these appliances. NEEA added 
that recent research clearly reinforces these conclusions. (NEEA, No. 4 
at p. 2)
    China commented that DOE should remove the short-cycle product 
classes. China commented that the short-cycle product class is not 
defined in the regulations and standards, which makes it difficult for 
manufacturers to clearly classify their products into this product 
class. (China, No. 11 at p. 2)
    An individual commented expressing support for short-cycle product 
classes for consumer clothes dryers and stated that products with a 
``short cycle'' as the normal cycle should be subject to different 
standards than products without a ``short cycle'' as the normal cycle. 
The individual noted that such a rulemaking would save consumers money 
by lowering the cost of their electric bills. (McCray, No. 3 at p. 1)
    LG commented that, after internal discussions and discussions with 
industry partners to evaluate market changes since the January 2022 
Final Rule, LG is supportive of DOE's decision in the January 2022 
Final Rule and opposes new product classes for short-cycle products. LG 
added that for appliances to satisfy cleaning and drying performance in 
a shorter amount of time while achieving the same performance, it would 
be inevitable that they would consume more energy--an outcome that 
contradicts DOE's objective to adopt standards that would result in 
more energy conservation. (LG, No. 7 at pp. 1-2)
    As noted earlier in this section, test data show that both vented 
electric standard-size and vented gas clothes dryers with short-cycle 
features (i.e., normal cycles less than 30 minutes) are currently 
available on the market at energy levels that comply with the current 
standards with no identifiable proprietary designs or control 
strategies. That is, consumer clothes dryers with shorter cycle times 
do not need to consume more energy than the current standard to provide 
the same performance.
    Rep. Bice commented in opposition to multiple rulemakings recently 
published by DOE that add new regulations to consumer products. Rep. 
Bice asserted that the standards would increase costs for manufacturers 
and prices for consumers. Rep. Bice commented that regulation limits 
consumer choice and is onerous for American manufacturers, including 
many small businesses. (Rep. Bice, No. 2 at p. 1)
    DOE notes that this proposed confirmation of withdrawal does not 
propose to add any new regulations for consumer clothes dryers. 
Instead, this proposed confirmation of withdrawal reanalyzes the 
provisions of a previous rulemaking (i.e., the January 2022 Final Rule) 
that withdrew short-cycle product classes.
    In conclusion, based on the available test data--which demonstrate 
that it is feasible to design a short-cycle feature while meeting 
current standards--DOE has tentatively determined that (1) a short-
cycle feature as the normal cycle for drying cotton or linen clothes is 
technologically feasible; (2) current standards do not prevent consumer 
clothes dryer manufacturers from

[[Page 88674]]

providing such a short-cycle feature; and (3) multiple consumer clothes 
dryer models are currently available on the market that provide such a 
short-cycle feature that meet the currently applicable energy and water 
standards. For these reasons, DOE has tentatively determined that a 
short-cycle feature for consumer clothes dryers does not justify 
separate product classes with separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(q). DOE requests comment on these proposed determinations.
3. Response to Other Comments
    DOE received comments in response to the March 2024 RFI from 
stakeholders discussing the prevalence of quick cycles on current 
consumer clothes dryer models.
    NEEA stated that consumers can already access quick cycles on 
current consumer clothes dryer models. NEEA stated that its review of 
available products on Lowe's website indicated that 92 percent of 
standard-size clothes dryer models provided a quick cycle program. NEEA 
further commented that preliminary consumer clothes dryer field data 
from the 2024 NEEA Residential Building Stock Assessment Laundry Field 
Study revealed that the quick-dry program is used infrequently (1 
percent of the time). NEEA also stated that consumers continue to be 
satisfied with existing products that provide the option of a quick 
cycle, and that consumers of one national retail chain highly rated 
more than 90 percent of consumer clothes dryer models with a quick 
cycle. NEEA asserted that selecting an available quick cycle by 
pressing a button or shifting a dial is not an unreasonable consumer 
burden when a faster cycle is preferred. (NEEA, No. 4 at p. 3) NEEA 
also commented that according to its market research, emerging 
combination washer-dryer models are gaining popularity, and according 
to NEEA data from its ENERGY STAR Residential Products Portfolio 
participation, one combination washer-dryer is among the top-selling 
models of RCWs and consumer clothes dryers on the market. NEEA 
commented that this option changes consumer views of cycle timing 
because it is no longer necessary to wait for a cycle to end to switch 
the load from the clothes washer into the clothes dryer. (Id. at p. 4)
    LG commented that there are consumer clothes dryers currently on 
the market that have default cycles comparable to DOE's definition of 
short cycle while also offering additional short cycles as an option, 
and since such products are already prevalent, it would be 
counterproductive to establish ``new'' product classes, which would 
involve simply setting a short cycle as the default cycle. (LG, No. 7 
at p. 1)
    The CA IOUs commented that short-cycle product classes for consumer 
clothes dryers are unwarranted, as other products of the same type are 
already available with quick cycles that meet current and future DOE 
energy conservation standards. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 1)
    Confidential data submitted to DOE by AHAM in response to the March 
2024 RFI show that 78 percent of consumer clothes dryer models offer a 
quick cycle with cycle times ranging from 23 minutes to 77 minutes, of 
which, 81 percent of the models are recommended for small load sizes 
and for 19 percent of these consumer clothes dryer models, the 
manufacturer did not recommend any specific load size for the quick 
cycle.
    The prevalence and variety of quick-cycle offerings as reflected in 
these data presented by stakeholders support DOE's conclusions in 
section II.C.1 of this document that cycle time is a performance-
related feature for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).
    In consideration of the Fifth Circuit's opinion that DOE's prior 
reasoning in the January 2022 Final Rule improperly relied upon the 
prevalence of ``quick'' cycles that do not address the foundational 
concerns underlying the December 2020 Final Rule, DOE considered in 
this analysis only those cycles that are consistent with consumer 
expectations of a normal cycle (i.e., a normal cycle or the cycle 
recommended by the manufacturer for drying cotton or linen clothes if a 
``normal'' cycle is not available).

D. Other Comments

1. Process
    China commented that the comment period for the March 2024 RFI was 
less than 60 days, but Article 6.3.1.8(a) of Agreement on Technical 
Barriers to Trade (Document No. G/TBT/1/Rev.15) specifies that ``the 
normal time limit for comments on notifications should be 60 days.'' 
Accordingly, China suggested extending the comment period for the March 
2024 RFI. (China, No. 11 at p. 3)
    In response, DOE notes that the time limits referenced in Article 
6.3.1.8 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade apply to 
notified technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures and 
not to documents like the March 2024 RFI. DOE finds that the 30-day 
comment period in the March 2024 RFI was appropriate as stakeholders 
have already been afforded multiple opportunities to provide comments 
on this topic as part of the October 2020 Final Rule, the December 2020 
Final Rule, and January 2022 Final Rule. 85 FR 68723; 85 FR 81359; 87 
FR 2673.
2. Legal
    NRDC and Earthjustice included as an attachment to their comments 
on the March 2024 RFI, their previous comments with ASAP et al. and 
commented that the creation of the short-cycle product classes violated 
numerous provisions of EPCA and standards of reasoned decision-making, 
including the statute's anti-backsliding provision, product class 
provision, and criteria for prescribing new or amended standards. NRDC 
and Earthjustice commented that if DOE were to attempt to unwind its 
revocation of the short-cycle product classes, DOE would be repeating 
these violations of the statute and compounding its unlawful prior 
actions. (NRDC and Earthjustice, No. 10 at p. 2)
    The CA IOUs commented that the Short-cycle Final Rules reduced or 
removed efficiency standards for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer 
clothes dryers, which conflicts with EPCA under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). 
(CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 9)
    As discussed elsewhere in this document, DOE applied EPCA's 
authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and has tentatively determined that 
separate product classes with separate standards are not justified for 
dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers that provide a short-
cycle feature.
    AHAM commented that while it remains opposed to new short-cycle 
product classes for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers, 
AHAM questioned DOE's legal interpretation that the anti-backsliding 
provision in EPCA prohibits new product classes from having less-
stringent standards. AHAM commented that Congress provided DOE the 
authority to develop separate classes that can have higher or lower 
standards and would not have included this provision if DOE could never 
use it. AHAM commented that the intent behind the creation of a new 
product class is to ensure features are protected and if standards 
threaten those features, DOE is authorized to create new product 
classes that have a less (or more) stringent standard than other 
products of that type. AHAM commented that if the anti-backsliding 
provision is interpreted to prohibit lower standards from being 
implemented, it would render this section of EPCA almost useless once 
initial product classes have been established, and that does not seem

[[Page 88675]]

consistent with Congressional intent. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 6-7)
    In the January 2022 Final Rule, DOE concluded that it did not 
adequately consider EPCA's requirements, including the anti-backsliding 
provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), when it finalized the Short-cycle 
Final Rules. 87 FR 2673, 2680. DOE did not provide a legal 
interpretation on the anti-backsliding provision beyond that it was not 
adequately considered in the Short-cycle Final Rules. In this proposed 
confirmation of withdrawal, DOE applied EPCA's authority under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q) and tentatively determined that a short-cycle feature 
does not justify a separate product class with separate standards under 
42 U.S.C. 6295(q) for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers. 
As a result, the anti-backsliding provision is not applicable because 
DOE is not proposing to establish a separate product class requiring 
different standards.
    DOE also received a comment regarding pending litigation, which is 
outside of the scope of this proposed confirmation of withdrawal.
3. Impacts on Average Lifetime
    The AGs of MT et al. commented that increased energy efficiency 
tends to increase appliance complexity, which decreases mean time to 
failure and makes many appliances either not repairable in a cost-
effective manner or not repairable at all. The AGs of MT et al. 
asserted that one method to increase reliability is to decrease time of 
continuous operation (i.e., cycle time); another method is to operate 
components well short of their rated load--which would be less energy 
efficient but would be more reliable and last longer (i.e., less 
downtime for repair and longer time before replacement), which would 
make overall costs lower. The AGs of MT et al. stated that a 
significant subset of consumers prefer, and find distinct utility in, 
more-functional and longer-lasting short-cycle appliances. The AGs of 
MT et al. asserted that the expected increased reliability and 
increased lifespan of short-cycle appliances likely aligns with lower 
life-cycle energy use vis-[agrave]-vis appliance models in the pre-
existing classes. (AGs of MT et al., No. 9 at p. 6)
    In response, to the extent that any technology option considered by 
DOE as the basis for achieving higher levels of efficiency could result 
in an increase in repair frequency or cost, DOE's rulemaking analysis 
incorporates such impacts into the life-cycle cost analysis, where 
supported by data. For example, in the life-cycle cost analysis 
conducted for the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule, DOE 
accounted for slightly higher repair frequency for efficiency levels 
above baseline and doubled the estimated repair frequency for products 
at the maximum technologically feasible efficiency level due to the 
increased complexity and less mature technologies required at those 
levels, based on discussions with manufacturers. DOE also modeled 
repair costs as being proportional to the equipment cost, based on 
manufacturers' inputs. 89 FR 31398, 31424.
    However, DOE has not found any evidence of average product lifetime 
being correlated with any specific higher-efficiency design options or 
efficiency levels and did not receive any comments on the NOPR 
preceding the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule (88 FR 32514 
(May 19, 2023)) regarding DOE's dishwasher lifetime assumptions. Among 
the dishwasher standards rulemakings conducted over the course of the 
last 30 years, the data sources that DOE uses to derive estimates of 
average product lifetime have not provided any indication of a 
substantial change in lifetime during this time period. In fact, the 
data suggest that current product lifetimes are actually longer than 
the lifetime estimates used in 1991. Specifically, DOE's estimates of 
average lifetime for dishwashers have been as follows: 12.6 years in 
the May 1991 Final Rule, 12.3 years in the 2007 Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 15.4 years in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, 15.2 
years in the December 2016 Final Determination, and 15.2 years in the 
April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule. 56 FR 22250, 22276 (May 14, 
1991); 72 FR 64432, 64435 (Nov. 15, 2007); 77 FR 31918, 31933 (May 30, 
2012); 81 FR 90072, 90088 (Dec. 13, 2016); 89 FR 31398, 31430.
    Similarly, in the life-cycle cost analysis conducted for the March 
2024 RCW Direct Final Rule, DOE accounted for slightly higher repair 
costs for ENERGY STAR-qualified RCWs due to the increased complexity 
and less mature technologies required at those levels, based on 
discussions with manufacturers.
    However, DOE has not found any evidence of average product lifetime 
being correlated with any specific higher-efficiency design options or 
efficiency levels and did not receive any comments on the NOPR 
preceding the March 2024 RCW Direct Final Rule (``May 2023 RCW NOPR''; 
88 FR 26511 (May 1, 2023)) objecting to DOE's RCW lifetime assumptions. 
Among the RCW standards rulemakings conducted over the course of the 
last 30 years, the data sources that DOE uses to derive estimates of 
average product lifetime have not provided any indication of a 
substantial change in lifetime during this time period. DOE's estimates 
of average lifetime for RCWs have been as follows: 14.1 years in the 
May 1991 and January 2001 Final Rules, 14.2 years in the December 2012 
Direct Final Rule, and 13.4 years in the March 2024 RCW Direct Final 
Rule. 56 FR 22250, 22270 (May 14, 1991); 77 FR 32308, 32342 (May 31, 
2012); 89 FR 19026, 19060.
    Further, in the life-cycle cost analysis conducted for the March 
2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule, DOE accounted for slightly higher repair 
frequency for ENERGY STAR-qualified consumer clothes dryers due to the 
increased complexity and less mature technologies required at those 
levels, based on discussions with manufacturers.
    However, DOE has not found any evidence of average product lifetime 
being correlated with any specific higher-efficiency design options or 
efficiency levels and did not receive any comments on the NOPR 
preceding the March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule (87 FR 51734 (August 
22, 2022)) objecting to DOE's consumer clothes dryer lifetime 
assumptions. Among the consumer clothes dryer standards rulemakings 
conducted over the course of the last 30 years, the data sources that 
DOE uses to derive estimates of average product lifetime have not 
provided any indication of a substantial change in lifetime during this 
time period. DOE's estimates of average lifetime for consumer clothes 
dryers have been as follows: 17.1 years in the May 1991 Final Rule, 16 
years in the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, and 14 years in the March 
2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule. 56 FR 22250, 22273 (May 14, 1991); 76 FR 
22454, 22514 (April 21, 2011); 89 FR 18164, 18166.
    In summary, the best available data--which have been vetted 
publicly through multiple rounds of standards rulemakings since 1991--
indicate a very stable trend in dishwasher, RCW, and consumer clothes 
dryer lifetimes over the past 30 years even as improvements in energy 
and water efficiency have been achieved through those rulemakings over 
that time.

E. Other Topics Addressed by the Fifth Circuit

1. Water Authority
    In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit stated that ``[n]o part of [EPCA] 
indicates Congress gave DOE power to regulate

[[Page 88676]]

water use for energy-using appliances (like dishwashers and [RCWs]),'' 
and stated that it is unclear that DOE has any statutory authority to 
regulate water use in dishwashers and RCWs. See Louisiana, 90 F.4th at 
470-471.
    In response, DOE notes, as did the Fifth Circuit, that EPCA 
prescribed energy conservation standards with both energy and water use 
requirements for RCWs and dishwashers. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(A) and 
(10)(A)). In establishing energy conservation standards with both 
energy and water use performance standards for RCWs and dishwashers, 
Congress also directed DOE to ``determin[e] whether to amend'' those 
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B) and (10)(B)) Congress's directive, 
in section 6295(g)(9)(B), to consider whether ``to amend the standards 
in effect for RCWs,'' and in section 6295(g)(10)(B), to consider 
whether ``to amend the standards for dishwashers,'' refers to ``the 
standards'' established in the immediately preceding paragraphs, where 
Congress established energy conservation standards with both energy and 
water use performance standards for RCWs and dishwashers. Indeed, the 
energy and water use performance standards for RCWs (both top-loading 
and front-loading) are each contained within a single subparagraph, as 
are the energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers 
(both standard-size and compact-size). (See id.) Accordingly, DOE's 
authority, under 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B) and (10)(B), includes 
consideration of amended energy and water use performance standards for 
RCWs and dishwashers, respectively.
    Similarly, DOE's authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m) to amend 
``standards'' for covered products includes amending both the energy 
and water use performance standards for RCWs and dishwashers. Neither 
section 6295(g)(9)(B) or (10)(B) nor section 6295(m) limit their 
application to ``energy use standards.'' Rather, they direct DOE to 
consider amending ``the standards,'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B) and 
(10)(B), or simply ``standards,'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B), which may 
include both energy and water use performance standards.
    Accordingly, in conducting the analyses in this proposed 
confirmation of withdrawal, DOE has considered (where appropriate) 
whether the relevant short-cycle features justify both different water 
and energy standards.
2. Test Procedure Authority
    The Fifth Circuit noted that DOE tests only some of the settings on 
dishwashers and ``laundry machines'' (i.e., RCWs and consumer clothes 
dryers) and stated that DOE concluded in the January 2022 Final Rule 
that ``manufacturers are free to deploy other, non-tested settings that 
use as much energy and water as necessary to actually clean consumers' 
things,'' indicating that this could create a loophole for 
manufacturers to deploy unregulated cycles. Louisiana, 90 F.4th at 474.
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or 
amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test 
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or water use (in 
the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets and urinals), or 
estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a 
representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the 
Secretary, and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(3))
    DOE has established test procedures for dishwashers, RCWs, and 
consumer clothes dryers in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices C1 
and C2, J and J2, and D1 and D2, respectively. For each test procedure, 
DOE has determined through its rulemaking process, which included ample 
manufacturer input, that the tested cycle(s)--i.e., the normal cycle 
for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers--produce 
representative measures of energy efficiency, energy use or water use, 
or estimated annual operating cost, as applicable for each product, 
without the undue burden that would be associated with requiring every 
available cycle to be tested.
    To ensure that the normal cycle produces measures of energy use, 
efficiency, and estimated annual operating cost specifically for a 
representative average use cycle or period of use, DOE has developed 
definitions and testing instructions in each test procedure to guide 
the appropriate selection of cycles to be tested, which corresponds to 
a representative average use cycle of how such appliance are used by 
consumers in their households.
    For dishwashers, the normal cycle is ``[t]he cycle type, including 
washing and drying temperature options, recommended in the 
manufacturer's instructions for daily, regular, or typical use to 
completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes including the 
power-dry feature. If no cycle or more than one cycle is recommended in 
the manufacturer's instructions for daily, regular, or typical use to 
completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes, the most energy 
intensive of these cycles shall be considered the normal cycle. In the 
absence of a manufacturer recommendation on washing and drying 
temperature options, the highest energy consumption options must be 
selected.'' Section 1 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices C1 and 
C2.
    In the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE noted that it was 
maintaining the dishwasher test cycle selections and cycle options to 
test on the normal cycle. DOE additionally added a cleaning performance 
requirement to validate that the tested cycle was representative of an 
average use cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3243. Prior to publishing this final 
rule, in a NOPR published on December 22, 2021, (``December 2021 TP 
NOPR'') DOE summarized and addressed stakeholder comments regarding the 
representative test cycle for dishwashers. Specifically, AHAM commented 
that consumers still most frequently select the normal cycle, and when 
consumers decide on a cycle selection, they typically use it for most 
of their cycles. Both GE Appliances and Whirlpool Corporation supported 
AHAM's comment that the normal cycle should remain the tested cycle. 
Both manufacturers submitted confidential data that supported the 
position that the manufacturer-designated normal cycle still represents 
consumer preference regarding cycle selection. These confidential data 
indicated, in the aggregate, that roughly 55 to 75 percent of all 
dishwasher cycles are conducted on the normal cycle. DOE further 
observed that among the other selected cycle types, some would be 
expected to be less energy-intensive than the normal cycle (e.g., a 
glassware cycle type), while others would be expected to be more 
energy-intensive than the normal cycle (e.g., a pots and pans cycle 
type). 86 FR 72738, 72757. The CA IOUs referenced PG&E's 2016 Home 
Energy Use Survey to support their claim that the tested normal cycle 
including any power-dry feature, in the current test procedure, is 
still the cycle most representative of how consumers operate 
dishwashers. In this survey, PG&E found that 75 percent of households 
use the normal cycle. The CA IOUs further stated that consumers would 
be less likely to switch from using the normal cycle if DOE were to 
incorporate cleaning performance in the test procedure, and recommended 
DOE investigate incorporating a cleaning performance test. Id. at 86 FR 
72747. In that NOPR, DOE noted that absent data

[[Page 88677]]

that reflects national use and frequency of use of other cycle types, 
DOE was not proposing changes to cycle selections for testing. Further, 
as noted in section II.A.3.c of this document, according to EIA's 2020 
RECS, over 80 percent of consumers use normal cycles most of the time.
    In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE noted that it was proposing a 
minimum cleaning index threshold for a test cycle to be considered 
valid. That is, if the normal cycle does not meet a specified threshold 
at any soil-load, DOE proposed that the most energy-intensive cycle be 
tested and used for certification purposes at that soil load. DOE noted 
that this alternative approach would better represent an average use 
cycle by capturing those consumers that may select other cycles for 
washing dishes if the cleaning performance of the normal cycle does not 
meet their expectations, because higher energy use provides increased 
thermal and mechanical action for removing soils, thus correlating 
generally with improved cleaning performance. Id. DOE adopted these 
proposals in the January 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 3234, 3243.
    Based on stakeholder comments, nationally representative survey 
data, and DOE's analyses, DOE concluded that the normal cycle is the 
representative average use cycle for dishwashers.
    For RCWs, the normal cycle is ``the cycle recommended by the 
manufacturer (considering manufacturer instructions, control panel 
labeling and other markings on the clothes washer) for normal, regular, 
or typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton 
clothing. For machines where multiple cycle settings are recommended by 
the manufacturer for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to 
a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing, then the Normal cycle 
is the cycle selection that results in the lowest [energy efficiency] 
value.'' Section 1 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices J and J2.
    For the final rule that established appendix J1, which was a 
precursor to the current appendices J and J2, DOE reviewed Procter & 
Gamble data indicating that the normal cycle on a typical RCW is used 
approximately 75 percent of the time, and DOE noted that its test 
procedure uses the normal cycle to approximate typical use by 
consumers. 62 FR 45484, 45493 (Aug. 27, 1997). In a test procedure 
final rule published on August 5, 2015, DOE changed the draft language 
for the definition of the normal cycle from referencing ``the most 
common consumer cycle'' to referencing ``the cycle recommended by the 
manufacturer [. . .] for normal, regular, or typical use,'' noting that 
the updated phrasing represented the same intent. 80 FR 46730, 46742. 
In the most recently published test procedure for RCWs that established 
the current appendices J and J2 (``June 2022 TP Final Rule''), DOE 
noted that its test procedure identifies the ``normal cycle'' as the 
cycle representative of consumer use and requires testing using it. 87 
FR 33316, 33351 (June 1, 2022).
    For all consumer clothes dryers in the test procedure at 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1 and for timer dryers in 10 CFR part 
430, subpart B, appendix D2, the consumer clothes dryer is operated for 
the test cycle at the maximum temperature setting and, if equipped with 
a timer, at the maximum time setting. If the consumer clothes dryer 
does not have a separate temperature setting selection on the control 
panel, the maximum time settings is used for the drying test cycle. For 
automatic termination control dryers in the test procedure at 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, the ``normal'' program shall be 
selected for the test cycle. Automatic termination control dryers that 
do not have a ``normal'' program are tested using the cycle recommended 
by the manufacturer for drying cotton or linen clothes. Section 3.3 of 
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices D1 and D2.
    In a NOPR published on January 2, 2013, DOE first proposed the use 
of the ``normal'' program for the drying test cycle in conjunction with 
test methods that would more accurately measure the energy use of 
automatic termination control dryers, which comprise the majority of 
consumer clothes dryer shipments. DOE determined this program to be 
most representative of consumer use based on data from NEEA's 
residential laundry field use study, which showed that the average 
household surveyed used the ``normal'' or an equivalent program cycle 
for nearly 60 percent of all drying. 78 FR 152, 170-171. DOE received 
comments from Samsung stating that the proposed test procedure would be 
representative of consumer use because it measures the energy use of 
the most commonly selected cycle (Normal/Cottons and Linens) for 
automatic termination control dryers. DOE adopted this proposal and 
established appendix D2 in a final rule published on August 14, 2013. 
78 FR 49608, 49624.
    DOE has thereby promulgated new and amended test procedures in 
accordance with EPCA's requirements to ensure that manufacturers are 
certifying dishwashers, RCWs, and clothes dryers that comply with the 
currently applicable energy conservation standards. As discussed in 
section II.E.3 of this document, DOE has also developed provisions 
within its test procedures for dishwashers, RCWs, and clothes dryers 
that ensure that the tested cycles maintain product utility that meets 
consumer expectations.
3. Preservation of Product Utility
    In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit stated that ``Americans who want 
clean dishes or clothes may use more energy and more water to preclean, 
reclean, or handwash their stuff before, after, or in lieu of using 
DOE-regulated appliances,'' and that DOE did not adequately respond to 
this potential for more energy and water use in the January 2022 Final 
Rule. Louisiana, 90 F.4th at 472-473. In the following sections, DOE 
addresses stakeholder concerns regarding preservation of product 
utility for each product type.
a. Dishwashers
    In addition to the Fifth Circuit's opinion on product utility, DOE 
also received stakeholder comments on this topic in response to the 
March 2024 RFI. The AGs of MT et al., commented that, according to 
survey results presented by CEI in response to the July 2019 NOPR,\22\ 
over 85 percent of consumers hand-wash dishes at least sometimes 
``because the dishwasher takes too long''; roughly 33 percent of 
consumers reported that their dishwasher does not clean their dishes 
well; and 34 percent reported that they run their dishwasher multiple 
times to get their dishes clean. (AGs of MT et al., No. 9 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ CEI submitted results from a survey it conducted in late 
2019 based on 1,062 respondents to understand consumers' dishwasher 
usage patterns as well as their opinions on dishwasher cycle length. 
Available as attachment B at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0002-0239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that the data and conclusions presented by the AGs of MT 
et al., are contradicted by data and conclusions presented by other 
stakeholders in response to the March 2024 RFI.
    With regard to handwashing dishes because the dishwasher takes too 
long, AHAM presented data \23\ indicating that 81 percent of 
respondents were satisfied with the length of the normal cycle of their 
dishwashers. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 3) AHAM also referenced a 2020 
University of Michigan study \24\ and

[[Page 88678]]

commented that this study showed that recommended practices for 
dishwasher use are not always performed, with 67 percent of dishwasher 
owners typically prerinsing dishes before loading. However, AHAM stated 
that its member data do not indicate that consumers are choosing to 
wash their dishes by hand because of perceived longer cycle times. 
(Id., at p. 5) AHAM further commented that consumers are satisfied with 
current cycle times, choosing to rely on their dishwashers regularly. 
(Id., at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Appliance Impact Research--Regulatory Findings, conducted 
for AHAM by DIG Insights (February 2021).
    \24\ Gabriela Y Porras et al., 2020. A Guide to Household Manual 
and Machine Dishwashing Through a Life Cycle Perspective. 
Environmental Research Communications. 2 021004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, DOE notes that the 2020 Michigan study cited by AHAM 
discussed the role of behavioral barriers in explaining why certain 
consumers may be reluctant to switch from handwashing to machine 
washing, as these consumers believe handwashing outperforms machine 
washing in terms of resource consumption and cleaning performance. 
Likewise, findings from the University of Bonn and the Impulse Reach 
national survey <SUP>25 26</SUP> also suggest that the primary factor 
contributing to consumers hand-washing dishes is not the dishwasher 
cycle duration, but rather a misconception by consumers that 
dishwashers require more energy and water than handwashing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Berkholz, P., V. Kobersky, and R. Stamminger. 2011. 
``Comparative analysis of global consumer behaviour in the context 
of different manual dishwashing methods.'' International Journal of 
Consumer Studies, 37(1), 46-58. doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01051.x.
    \26\ Wolf, A. 2011. ``Consumers: Dishwashers Second to Kids in 
Noise.'' Twice: This Week in Consumer Electronics, 26(18), 64. 
www.twice.com/product/consumers-dishwashers-second-kids-noise-37554.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the portion of consumers who report their dishwasher 
does not clean well or they run the dishwasher multiple times to get 
dishes clean, DOE noted in January 2023 TP Final Rule that the cleaning 
performance at the completion of a dishwasher cycle influences how a 
consumer uses the product. DOE acknowledged that if the cleanliness of 
the dishware after completion of a cleaning cycle does not meet 
consumer expectations, consumers may alter their use of the dishwasher 
by selecting a different cycle type that consumes more energy and 
water, operating the selected cycle type multiple times, or prewashing 
the dishware items. DOE recognized the need to ensure that the cycle 
type tested in the DOE test procedure is representative of consumer use 
as the dishwasher market continuously evolves to higher levels of 
efficiency. DOE therefore established a new cleaning performance 
threshold in the newly established appendix C2 test procedure that 
represents what constitutes ``completely washing'' a full load of 
normally soiled dishes (i.e., a threshold below which the dishwasher 
would not meet consumer expectations of cleanability). 88 FR 3234, 
3250-3267. Under appendix C2, a dishwasher must meet the cleaning 
performance threshold, and thus consumer expectations of cleanability. 
To the extent that any individual dishwashers on the market have not 
met consumer expectations for cleanability, such historical performance 
issues should be remedied moving forward, as the test procedure at 
appendix C2 ensures that any dishwasher tested for certification will 
have a valid energy and water representation only if the dishwasher 
also meets or exceeds a minimum level of cleaning performance.
    Finally, as discussed previously, DOE's data demonstrate that 
dishwashers with a short-cycle feature can meet the current standards. 
That is, dishwasher cycles that achieve the cleaning performance 
requirements specified in appendix C2 and are 60 minutes or less in 
duration are technologically feasible. As noted by ASAP et al., there 
are more than 400 dishwasher models on the current market that are 
certified to the current ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 specification--which DOE 
notes is more stringent than the current standards--and all ENERGY 
STAR-qualified products are required to meet a minimum cleaning index 
requirement. (See ASAP et al., No. 8 at p. 6)
    In response to the March 2024 RFI, ASAP et al., commented that 
shorter cycle times would likely result in trade-offs with other 
aspects of dishwasher performance. ASAP et al., asserted that there are 
many product attributes of dishwashers that are important to consumers, 
such as cleaning/drying performance, noise, efficiency, and cycle time, 
and that manufacturers have to balance these attributes. ASAP et al., 
referenced DOE's dishwasher test data, noting that cycles with a cycle 
time of less than 60 minutes generally provided worse cleaning 
performance than the ``normal'' cycles on the same machines, in 
particular for the heavy and medium soil loads. ASAP et al., further 
asserted that in addition to sacrificing cleaning performance, quick 
cycles would likely be noisier, because one way of reducing cycle time 
is to increase mechanical action, which in turn increases noise levels. 
(ASAP et al., No. 8 at p. 6)
    DOE recognizes that dishwasher manufacturers design dishwashers to 
achieve many different performance requirements (e.g., cleaning 
performance, drying performance, noise, efficiency, cycle time). 
Manufacturers also provide multiple cycle types to meet different 
consumer needs (e.g., normal, heavy, light, quick). However, DOE 
reiterates that 1 of the units in DOE's test sample meets the cleaning 
index threshold specified in appendix C2 while also having a cycle time 
of less than 60 minutes and meeting the current standards, 
demonstrating that current standards do not require manufacturers to 
trade off cleaning performance with cycle time.
    Regarding ASAP et al.,s comment on the potential trade-off between 
cycle time and noise, DOE notes that it did not collect noise data in 
its previous testing. Accordingly, DOE cannot independently corroborate 
the extent to which there may be a trade-off between noise and cycle 
time.
    In sum, DOE tentatively concludes that any consumer handwashing or 
pre-washing is unlikely to have been the result of past or current 
standards. Further, the amended test procedure at appendix C2 requires 
test samples to meet a cleaning index threshold consistent with 
consumer expectations. Accordingly, DOE does not expect increased 
handwashing or pre-washing (above levels resulting from consumer 
preferences or misunderstandings) in the future.
b. Residential Clothes Washers
    In response to the March 2024 RFI, ASAP et al., commented that 
shorter cycle times would likely result in trade-offs with other 
aspects of RCW performance. ASAP et al., asserted that there are many 
product attributes of RCWs that are important to consumers, such as 
cleaning performance, noise, efficiency, and cycle time, and that 
manufacturers have to balance these attributes. ASAP et al., referenced 
AHAM's petition for reconsideration of the December 2020 Final 
Rule,\27\ wherein AHAM noted that in order to reduce cycle time, ``many 
manufacturers may elect to reduce clothes washer spin time.'' ASAP et 
al., further noted that AHAM explained that reducing spin time would 
mean that clothes would come out of the clothes washer wetter, which 
would have the effect of increasing clothes dryer cycle time. (ASAP et 
al., No. 8 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0002-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE recognizes that RCW manufacturers design RCWs to achieve many 
different performance requirements (e.g., cleaning performance, rinsing 
performance, noise, efficiency, cycle time). Manufacturers also provide 
multiple

[[Page 88679]]

cycle types to meet different consumer needs (e.g., normal, heavy, 
light, quick, delicates). However, DOE reiterates that multiple top-
loading RCW models currently on the market provide a cycle time of less 
than 30 minutes, and multiple front-loading RCW models provide a cycle 
time of less than 45 minutes, all of which meet the current standards--
demonstrating that current standards do not require manufacturers to 
trade off cycle time with energy and water use.
    Although DOE's current RCW test procedures do not include a measure 
of cleaning performance, DOE does consider multiple aspects of clothes 
washer performance as it evaluates potential energy and water 
conservation standards for RCWs to ensure that no lessening of the 
utility or performance of the product is likely to result from an 
amended standard. For example, in support of the May 2023 RCW NOPR, DOE 
conducted extensive testing to evaluate any potential impacts of 
amended standards on of several performance characteristics including 
cycle time, hot wash water temperature, soil and stain removal, and 
mechanical action.\28\ 88 FR 26511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ DOE published the results of this testing in a report 
available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even though DOE's analyses conducted as part the standards 
rulemaking process have demonstrated that performance can be maintained 
under the current standards for RCWs, DOE has previously discussed, for 
example in the June 2022 TP Final Rule, that the cleaning performance 
at the completion of a wash cycle could influence how a consumer uses 
the product. If the cleanliness of the clothing after completion of a 
wash cycle were to not meet consumer expectations, consumers could be 
expected to alter their use of the clothes washer. For example, 
consumers could alter the use of the product by choosing cycle 
modifiers to enhance the performance of the selected cycle; selecting 
an alternate cycle that consumes more energy and water to provide a 
higher level of cleaning; operating the selected cycle multiple times; 
or pre-treating (e.g., pre-soaking in water) clothing items before 
loading into the clothes washer to achieve an acceptable level of 
cleaning. 87 FR 33316, 33352.
    As discussed, the dishwasher test procedure defines a cleaning 
performance threshold that represents what constitutes ``completely 
washing'' a full load of normally soiled dishes (i.e., a threshold 
below which the dishwasher would not meet consumer expectations of 
cleanability). However, the current RCW test procedures do not define 
what constitutes ``washing'' up to a full load of normally soiled 
cotton clothing (i.e., the cleaning performance). In the June 2022 TP 
Final Rule, DOE discussed its consideration of adding a cleaning 
performance metric to its RCW test procedures, but ultimately DOE was 
unable to make a determination whether existing test procedures for 
determining cleaning performance would produce results for DOE's 
purposes that are representative of an average use cycle, as required 
by EPCA. Furthermore, DOE was unable to assess whether the additional 
burden resulting from these additional tests would be outweighed by the 
benefits of incorporating these tests. Therefore, DOE did not include a 
measure of cleaning performance in the RCW test procedures in the June 
2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 33316, 33352.
    DOE continues, however, to evaluate the potential benefits and 
burdens of incorporating a measure of performance into its RCW test 
procedures, akin to the cleaning performance threshold incorporated 
into the appendix C2 test procedure for dishwashers. Any such 
amendments to the RCW test procedures would be considered in a separate 
rulemaking.
c. Consumer Clothes Dryers
    In response to the March 2024 RFI, ASAP et al., commented that 
shorter cycle times would likely result in trade-offs with other 
aspects of consumer clothes dryer performance. ASAP et al., asserted 
that there are many product attributes of consumer clothes dryers that 
are important to consumers, such as drying performance, noise, 
efficiency, and cycle time, and that manufacturers have to balance 
these attributes. ASAP et al., referenced AHAM's petition for 
reconsideration of the December 2020 Final Rule,\29\ wherein AHAM noted 
that shorter cycle times than those available today would likely 
require higher heat levels and/or the use of high heat for longer 
periods of time, which could damage the clothes being dried. (ASAP et 
al., No. 8 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0002-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE recognizes that consumer clothes dryer manufacturers design 
consumer clothes dryers to achieve many different performance 
requirements (e.g., drying performance, noise, efficiency, cycle time). 
Manufacturers also provide multiple cycle types to meet different 
consumer needs (e.g., normal, heavy, light, quick, delicates). However, 
DOE reiterates that multiple clothes dryer models currently on the 
market provide a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, all of which meet 
the current standards--demonstrating that current standards do not 
require manufacturers to trade off cycle time with energy use.
    Similar to dishwashers, for consumer clothes dryers DOE noted in 
the test procedure final rule published on October 8, 2021, that drying 
performance at the completion of a clothes dryer cycle may influence 
how a consumer uses the product. 86 FR 56608. DOE acknowledged that if 
the dryness of the clothes after completion of a during cycle does not 
meet consumer expectations, consumers may alter their use of their 
consumer clothes dryer by selecting a different cycle type that 
consumers more energy, or operating the selected cycle type multiple 
times. DOE recognized the need to ensure that the cycle type tested in 
the DOE test procedure is representative of consumer use as the 
consumer clothes dryer market continuously evolves to higher levels of 
efficiency. DOE therefore established a 2-percent final moisture 
content dryness threshold in the appendix D2 test procedure that was 
shown to be representative of the consumer-acceptable dryness level 
after completion of a drying cycle. 86 FR 56608, 56627-56628. Under 
appendix D2, a consumer clothes dryer must achieve this dryness 
threshold in order for the tested cycle to be considered valid for 
certifying compliance with the applicable standard.
    To the extent that any individual consumer clothes dryers on the 
market have not met consumer expectations for dryness, such historical 
performance issues should be remedied moving forward, as the test 
procedure at appendix D2 ensures that any consumer clothes dryer tested 
for certification will have a valid energy and water representation 
only if the consumer clothes dryer meets or exceeds this threshold of 
dryness performance.

III. Conclusion

    In conclusion, and for the reasons discussed in the preceding 
sections of this document, DOE has tentatively determined that a short-
cycle feature does not justify separate product classes with separate 
standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer 
clothes dryers. As a result, there is no basis for remedying the Short-
cycle Final Rules by establishing a different standard level for short-
cycle products. Therefore, products with short-cycle features remain 
subject to the currently applicable standards as

[[Page 88680]]

specified in 10 CFR 430.32(f), (g), and (h), respectively.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

    DOE has concluded that the determinations made pursuant to the 
various procedural requirements applicable to the January 2022 Final 
Rule remain unchanged for this proposed confirmation of that rule. 
These determinations are set forth in the January 2022 Final Rule. 87 
FR 2673, 2686-2688.

V. Public Participation

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed confirmation of withdrawal before or after the public meeting, 
but no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the 
beginning of this document. Interested parties may submit comments, 
data, and other information using any of the methods described in the 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If 
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed 
confirmation of withdrawal and request for comment.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 30, 
2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on October 30, 2024.
Jennifer Hartzell,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2024-25617 Filed 11-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>