```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 105408-105429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30797]

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

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: Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

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 has considered the 
factors outlined by the Fifth Circuit on whether ``short-cycle'' 
product classes for dishwashers, residential clothes washers, and 
consumer clothes dryers are warranted under the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act and confirms the withdrawal of ``short-cycle'' product 
classes in the January 19, 2022, final rule.

DATES: The effective date of the final rule published on January 19, 
2022 (87 FR 2673) is confirmed as February 18, 2022, without change.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, 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, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact the 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by 
email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-5649. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (240) 961-1189. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
II. Discussion
    A. Dishwashers
    1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature
    2. Justification of Different Standards for Dishwashers With a 
Short-Cycle Feature
    3. Response to Other Comments
    a. Historical Cycle Time Trends
    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
    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
    D. Other Topics Addressed by the Fifth Circuit
    1. Water Authority
    2. Test Procedure Authority
    3. Preservation of Product Utility and Potential for Increased 
Energy or Water Use
    a. Dishwashers
    b. Residential Clothes Washers
    c. Consumer Clothes Dryers
III. Conclusions
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction

    The following sections briefly discuss the statutory authority 
underlying this 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, 
DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its 
burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination 
after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, 
to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory 
factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

[[Page 105409]]

    (7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) through (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 
(``March 2018 Petition'') 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 the March 
2018 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 standard-size RCWs and 
certain classes of consumer clothes dryers with a cycle time of less 
than 30 minutes, and front-loading standard-size 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 has considered 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

[[Page 105410]]

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 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.
    Subsequently, on November 8, 2024, DOE published a proposed 
confirmation of withdrawal (``November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal''), 
which considered the factors outlined by the Fifth Circuit and proposed 
to confirm the elimination of short-cycle product classes in the 
January 2022 Final Rule. 89 FR 88661. DOE received comments in response 
to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal from the interested parties 
listed in Table I.1.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Table I.1 excludes two non-substantive comments received 
from anonymous commenters, which were considered in the development 
of this confirmation but not cited individually.

   Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Reference in this final  Comment No. in
           Commenter(s)                       rule             the docket               Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance for Water Efficiency.....  AWE....................              20  Efficiency Organization.
Association of Home Appliance       AHAM...................              23  Trade Organization.
 Manufacturers.
Appliance Standards Awareness       ASAP et al.............              21  Efficiency Organizations.
 Project, AWE, American Council
 for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
 Consumer Federation of America,
 Earthjustice, and National
 Consumer Law Center.
California Energy Commission......  CEC....................              17  State Agency.
Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern  CA IOUs................              22  Utilities.
 California Edison, San Diego Gas
 and Electric (collectively, the
 California Investor-Owned
 Utilities).
Competitive Enterprise Institute..  CEI....................              18  Advocacy Organization.
Michael Ravnitzky.................  Ravnitzky..............              15  Individual.
Northwest Energy Efficiency         NEEA...................              19  Efficiency Organization.
 Alliance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE considered whether an 
alternative to withdrawing the Short-Cycle Final Rules--establishing 
standards for the short-cycle product classes--would be justified under 
EPCA. 89 FR 88661, 88664. Specifically, DOE tentatively concluded that 
the short-cycle features of dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes 
dryers do not justify standards different from those applicable to 
those products generally. Id. DOE also considered the effect of 
withdrawing the short-cycle product classes 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). Id.
    AWE, AHAM, ASAP et al., CEC, CA IOUs, NEEA, and Ravnitzky commented 
in support of the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and noted that 
short-cycle product classes do not warrant different energy 
conservation standards than those generally applicable to dishwashers, 
RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers. (AWE, No. 20 at p. 1; AHAM, No. 23 
at p. 2; ASAP et al., No. 21 at pp. 1-2; CEC, No. 17 at p. 1; CA IOUs, 
No. 22 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 19 at pp. 1-2; Ravnitzky, No. 15 at p. 1)
    CEI asserted that terminating the short-cycle product classes for 
dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers would ignore the 
consumer protections in EPCA as well as recent Federal court precedent 
and should not be finalized. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 1) CEI also commented 
that the Fifth

[[Page 105411]]

Circuit held that DOE's failure to consider any alternative other than 
refusing to promulgate a rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious. CEI 
stated that an alternative would have been to set a new standard for 
short-cycle product classes while taking other relevant features into 
account, as required by EPCA. (Id. at p. 5)
    DOE notes that in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE did, 
in fact, consider whether an alternative to withdrawing the Short-Cycle 
Final Rules would be justified under EPCA, as required by the Fifth 
Circuit's decision remanding the January 2022 Final Rule to DOE. 89 FR 
88661. As discussed in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and in the 
following sections of this document, DOE concludes that the short-cycle 
features of dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers do not 
justify standards different from those applicable to these products 
generally.

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 
discussed in section II.A.2 of this document, DOE 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 November 2024 
Proposed Withdrawal 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 the November 2024 Proposed 
Withdrawal and 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 November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, AHAM 
commented that cycle time is an important consumer feature. (AHAM, No. 
23 at p. 2) The CA IOUs, however, commented that the March 2018 
Petition from CEI, the Short-Cycle Final Rules, and the November 2024 
Proposed Withdrawal did not include sufficient justification from DOE 
or CEI for why these specific short-cycle times offered a unique 
consumer utility. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2) The CA IOUs requested that 
DOE assess the merits of the selected cycle time delineations and the 
consumer utility they may or may not provide in future rulemakings. 
(Id.)
    In response to the comment from the CA IOUs, DOE notes that the 
specific short-cycle time considered, 60 minutes or less, is less than 
the average cycle time for this product. As such, DOE believes this 
short-cycle time can provide utility to some consumers, e.g., consumers 
needing to complete multiple cycles in a limited amount of time. For 
the reasons stated in the July 2019 NOPR and October 2020 Final Rule, 
and consistent with the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE 
reconfirms in this 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.
    To address the concerns of the Fifth Circuit regarding DOE's 
previous consideration of ``quick'' cycles as the basis for concluding 
whether separate standards are justified for short-cycle dishwashers, 
for the analysis conducted in support of the November 2024 Proposed 
Withdrawal, DOE did not consider any ``quick'' cycles that do not 
perform equivalently to a normal cycle. In the November 2024 Proposed 
Withdrawal, DOE considered a dishwasher to have a ``short-cycle 
feature'' only if it provides a cycle with the capability of 
``completely washing'' \6\ a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 
minutes or less, as would be the consumer expectation for a normal 
cycle. 89 FR 88661, 88665. In accordance with the Fifth Circuit's 
January 8, 2024, decision, DOE did not consider any ``quick'' cycles 
intended

[[Page 105412]]

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. Id. In this regard, the analyses 
performed in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal differed 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 avoided 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As discussed elsewhere in 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 
confirmation of withdrawal, and consistent with the November 2024 
Proposed 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 response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, Ravnitzky 
commented that, in his experience, he occasionally uses the shorter 
cycles on his dishwasher when the dishes are not very dirty or when the 
task needs to be completed quickly. Ravnitzky further commented that 
these occasions are relatively infrequent and that, for the majority of 
the time, he relies on the standard cycles to ensure thorough cleaning 
and drying. (Ravnitzky, No. 15 at p. 1)
    AHAM commented that consumers are satisfied with existing normal 
cycle times and most products also have short-cycle options for when 
quicker cycles are needed. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 1)
    CEI asserted that the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal repeated 
the claim from the January 2022 Final Rule that the availability of 
quick cycles on many dishwasher models obviates the need for the short-
cycle product class, which would be applicable to the normal cycle. CEI 
noted that the Fifth Circuit criticized and rejected this argument and 
asserted that DOE did not address this concern in the November 2024 
Proposed Withdrawal. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 6)
    In response to the comment from CEI, DOE reiterates that it did, in 
fact, address the concerns of the Fifth Circuit regarding DOE's 
previous consideration of ``quick'' cycles as the basis for concluding 
whether separate standards are justified for short-cycle dishwashers. 
Specifically, as discussed, DOE's analysis conducted in support of the 
November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal did not consider any ``quick'' cycles 
that do not perform equivalently to a normal cycle. Rather, in the 
November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE considered in its determination 
of a short-cycle feature only those dishwasher cycles that could 
completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or 
less, as would be the consumer expectation for a normal cycle.\7\ 89 FR 
88661, 88665. DOE specifically noted that this distinction to only 
consider cycles that met both the cleaning performance threshold and 
cycle time threshold was a key difference in the analyses performed in 
the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal from the analyses performed in 
the January 2022 Final Rule. 89 FR 88661, 88665, 88667-88668.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Specifically, DOE defined ``completely washing'' a full load 
of normally soiled dishes as those cycles that were soiled with the 
same soil loads as is used in the DOE test procedure to test the 
normal cycle (i.e., heavy, medium, and light soil loads as defined 
in the DOE test procedure at appendix C1 and appendix C2) and 
achieved a cleaning index of at least 70 on each of the three soil 
loads as specified in appendix C2. 89 FR 88661, 88665.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this document, consistent with the November 2024 Proposed 
Withdrawal, DOE continues to consider a dishwasher to have a short-
cycle feature only if it provides any cycle with the capability of 
completely washing a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes 
or less, as would be the consumer expectation for the normal cycle. In 
the sections that follow, DOE evaluates whether such a short-cycle 
feature justifies a separate product class in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 
6295(q).
2. Justification of Different Standards for Dishwashers With a Short-
Cycle Feature
    As discussed, EPCA authorizes DOE to prescribe a higher or lower 
standard than that which applies (or would apply) for such type (or 
class) for any group of covered products which have the same function 
or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) 
consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered 
products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, 
DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a 
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.)
    A typical application of this provision of EPCA is for DOE to 
establish comparatively less stringent standards for classes of covered 
products that have a performance-related feature that 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE 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. 89 FR 88661, 88666. 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). In the 
November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE next evaluated whether 
dishwashers with a short-cycle feature necessitate more energy and 
water use

[[Page 105413]]

than dishwashers without such feature, which could justify a 
comparatively less stringent standard for dishwashers that provide such 
a feature. Id.
    To evaluate the energy and water use of a short-cycle feature in 
comparison to the currently applicable energy and water standards, in 
the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE considered all data 
available from recent rulemakings, including data from testing 
conducted in support of the October 2020 Final Rule \9\ and the April 
2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule and confidential data from AHAM. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DOE test data are available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data from testing conducted in support of the October 2020 
Final Rule included energy and water use, cycle time, and cleaning 
performance scores. Because there was no established DOE test procedure 
to evaluate dishwasher cleaning performance at the time of the October 
2020 Final Rule, the cleaning performance scores in the October 2020 
Final Rule dataset were based on the 2014 ENERGY STAR Test Method for 
Determining Residential Dishwasher Cleaning Performance \10\ (``2014 
ENERGY STAR Test Method''). 85 FR 68723, 68725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Test Method for Determining Residential Dishwasher Cleaning 
Performance. Rev. Feb-2014. Available at www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/specs//ENERGY%20STAR%20Final%20Test%20Method%20for%20Determining%20Residential%20Dishwasher%20Cleaning%20Perfor%20%20%20_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix C2 
(``appendix C2''), which in addition to measuring the energy and water 
use of a dishwasher, specifies a methodology to evaluate the cleaning 
performance of a dishwasher and establishes a minimum cleaning index 
threshold as criteria for a valid test cycle.\11\ In the January 2023 
TP Final Rule, DOE discussed that it was implementing this minimum 
cleaning index threshold as criteria for a valid test cycle to ensure 
that the measured energy and water results are reflective of a cycle 
that meets consumer expectations (i.e., to ensure that the DOE test 
procedure produces results that are representative of an average use 
cycle). 88 FR 3234, 3250-3267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ DOE notes that manufacturers will be required to use the 
test procedure at appendix C2 on and after April 23, 2027, which is 
the compliance date of the amended standards in the April 2024 
Dishwashers Direct Final Rule. See 88 FR 3234; 89 FR 31398.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conducting the analyses for the November 2024 Proposed 
Withdrawal, DOE identified that the 2014 ENERGY STAR Test Method that 
was used at the time of the October 2020 Final Rule to evaluate 
cleaning performance produces test results with greater variability and 
less repeatability in comparison to test results produced by DOE's 
appendix C2 test procedure.\12\ For consistency with the analysis 
conducted for the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and to ensure 
representativeness of the cleaning performance indices resulting from 
the testing for the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE translated the October 
2020 Final Rule test data to be equivalent to test results achieved 
under appendix C2,\13\ which DOE has established to be representative 
of an average consumer use cycle. 89 FR 88661, 88666.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Specifically, in addition to scoring soil particles on all 
items of the test load, the February 2014 ENERGY STAR Test Method 
also scores spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on glassware. In 
the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE explained that because the DOE 
test is conducted without rinse aid--which can impact the scoring of 
spots of streaks on glassware--DOE finalized the cleaning 
performance test method to exclude the scoring of spots, streaks, 
and rack contact marks on glassware. 88 FR 3234, 3255-3256.
    \13\ DOE's test data translated to be equivalent to test results 
achieved under appendix C2 is available in the Technical Appendix to 
this document, available in the docket for this rulemaking at 
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, in the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE used the cleaning 
performance scores produced by the 2014 ENERGY STAR Test Method for 
comparison purposes only, stating that DOE did not have information at 
the time to relate the cleaning scores produced by that test method to 
minimum consumer acceptance of cleaning performance. 85 FR 68723, 
68726. It was not until the January 2023 TP Final Rule that DOE 
determined that a score of 70 as tested according to appendix C2 
reflects the threshold of consumer acceptability for cleaning 
performance of a normal cycle. Accordingly, DOE established in appendix 
C2 a minimum cleaning index threshold of 70 as a condition for a valid 
test cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3259-3263. Appendix C2 also requires that, as a 
condition for a valid test, the threshold cleaning index of 70 be 
achieved on each of the heavy, medium, and light soil loads required 
for testing, which collectively represent typical consumer usage 
patterns of dishwashers.
    Consistent with this determination of the threshold for a consumer-
acceptable level of cleaning performance, in the November 2024 Proposed 
Withdrawal and in this document, DOE only considered a dishwasher as 
having a ``short-cycle feature'' if it had a cycle time less than 60 
minutes and a per-cycle cleaning index threshold of at least 70.
    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. 89 FR 88661, 88666. 
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.\14\ 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 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. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE 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 
demonstrated 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. Id.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE discussed that 
further evaluation of consumer survey data and comments from dishwasher 
manufacturers indicates that the limited

[[Page 105414]]

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. Id. On average, a 
consumer runs 184 dishwasher cycles per year, or, said another way, 
consumers run their dishwasher approximately once every two days. 88 FR 
3234, 3244. This usage pattern doesn't demonstrate a need for faster 
cycle times, further supporting the low market demand for the short-
cycle feature.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE re-analyzed the 
provisions of a previous rulemaking (i.e., the January 2022 Final Rule) 
that withdrew short-cycle product and tentatively determined, based on 
the available test data--which demonstrated that it is feasible to 
design a short-cycle feature while meeting current standards--as well 
as stakeholder comments and market survey data, 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. 89 FR 88661, 88667. 
Accordingly, DOE did not propose to establish separate energy 
conservation standards for dishwashers with a short-cycle feature. Id.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE sought comment on 
these proposed determinations. Id.
    The CA IOUs commented that DOE had demonstrated that the applicable 
standards for dishwashers do not preclude manufacturers from developing 
products that meet the intention of the short-cycle product class and 
agreed that the technological feasibility of developing such products 
is the appropriate factor when determining if a performance 
characteristic merits a different standard level. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at 
p. 2)
    ASAP et al. commented in support of DOE's proposal to confirm the 
withdrawal of the short-cycle product class for dishwashers on the 
basis that there is at least one model available on the market that 
provides the short-cycle feature and uses less energy and water than 
the current standard. ASAP et al. noted that DOE considered a model to 
have the short-cycle feature only if it meets the consumer expectation 
of a normal cycle (i.e., completely washing a full load of normally 
soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less). ASAP et al. stated that the 
availability of such a model demonstrates that the current standards 
for these products are not precluding manufacturers from offering 
products with short cycle times and good product performance on a 
normal cycle. (ASAP et al., No. 21 at pp. 1-2)
    CEC agreed with DOE that standards do not impact the ability of 
manufacturers to provide dishwashers with the short-cycle feature, as 
evidenced by existing product offerings. CEC further asserted that 
manufacturer comments on the rulemaking make it clear that a short-
cycle product class is neither necessary nor warranted for dishwashers, 
and accordingly, a separate product class is not justified. (CEC, No. 
17 at p. 1)
    Ravnitzky supported DOE's tentative determination that a short-
cycle feature for dishwashers does not justify a separate product class 
with separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) to not impose separate 
requirements for short-cycle features. (Ravnitzky, No. 15 at p. 1)
    NEEA supported DOE's proposal in the November 2024 Proposed 
Withdrawal to eliminate ``short-cycle'' product classes for 
dishwashers. NEEA stated that its comments build upon past NEEA letters 
submitted to DOE, which demonstrated that short-cycle product classes 
were unnecessary for these products because (1) consumers already have 
access to short cycle settings on dishwashers; (2) consumers use short 
cycles relatively infrequently; (3) consumers are satisfied with high-
efficiency appliances; and (4) consumers are satisfied with appliances 
that have fast cycle options. NEEA added that leveraged sales data from 
the Northwest, consumer use data from regional field studies 
(``RBSA''), surveys of online retail catalogs, technology research, and 
laboratory tear-down studies support these conclusions. (NEEA, No. 4 at 
p. 2)
    AHAM asserted that for its members, the consumer is always top of 
mind, and accordingly, manufacturers make appliances that last longer, 
perform better, and respond to consumer needs and preferences. AHAM 
stated that manufacturers pay careful attention to consumer needs and 
desires for particular features and utilities and products currently on 
the market have a demonstrated capability to achieve the recommended 
energy and water conservation standards and retain consumer 
satisfaction with a range of performance considerations, utilities, and 
features. (AHAM, No. 23 at pp. 1-2)
    CEI asserted that DOE recently ``relaxed'' its test procedure for 
dishwashers by not including spots, streaks, and rack contact marks in 
the calculation of the cleaning index. CEI also commented that although 
DOE presented data showing at least one dishwasher model that has a 
quick cycle that meets the cleaning index criteria established by the 
DOE test procedure, CEI stated that it is not aware of any manufacturer 
claiming that its quick cycle is equivalent to the normal cycle. CEI 
also questioned why such a cycle would not be designated as the normal 
cycle. CEI asserted that DOE suggested that a dishwasher with a normal 
cycle that takes 2 hours or more, accompanied by a quick cycle that can 
meet the criteria of the new test procedure at appendix C2, is good 
enough to comply with the law. CEI further asserted that EPCA does not 
allow for any diminished features and performance resulting from its 
standards and claimed that a quick cycle meeting the criteria of the 
appendix C2 test procedure represents a decline in performance as 
compared to the normal cycle. CEI commented that such a decline 
justifies creating a separate short-cycle product class for 
dishwashers. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 6)
    Contrary to CEI's claim, DOE has not ``relaxed'' its test 
procedure. As discussed previously, the new appendix C2 test procedure 
established by the January 2023 TP Final Rule is the first time DOE has 
finalized a test procedure that evaluates dishwasher cleaning 
performance and specifies a minimum cleaning index threshold that 
ensures that test results produced by the test procedure are 
representative of consumer use and consumer expectations of a normal 
cycle.\15\ The cleaning performance threshold discussed in the October 
2020 Final Rule, which was based on using the 2014 ENERGY STAR Test 
Method, does not correspond to the cleaning performance threshold that 
DOE has

[[Page 105415]]

since determined to be indicative of consumer-acceptable cleaning 
performance for a normal cycle. Translating the October 2020 Final Rule 
data set to reflect cleaning indices equivalent to cleaning indices 
obtained using the appendix C2 test method was necessary to provide a 
consistent data set with which to identify dishwasher cycles that meet 
consumer expectations of a normal cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ DOE's dishwasher test procedure at appendix C1 and appendix 
C2 requires that testing be conducted without the use of rinse aid 
consistent with the specifications in the industry test standard, 
AHAM DW-1-2020, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy 
Consumption of Dishwashers.'' In the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE 
found the use of rinse aid, or lack thereof, impacts the scoring of 
spots or streaks. As a result, DOE adopted a cleaning index 
calculation that scores only soils and does not include the scores 
of spots, streaks, or rack contact marks on the glassware. 88 FR 
3234, 3248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, DOE did not suggest that a dishwasher with a normal cycle 
that takes 2 hours or more, accompanied by a quick cycle that provides 
a short-cycle feature, is ``good enough to comply with the law.'' 
Rather, DOE concluded that the availability of a short-cycle feature 
that meets consumer expectations of a normal cycle (i.e., completely 
washing a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less) 
while using no more energy and water than the current standard level 
indicates that it is technologically feasible to design a ``normal 
cycle'' with a cycle time of 60 minutes or less without diminishing any 
features or compromising dishwasher performance. In other words, energy 
conservation standards are not precluding manufacturers from designing 
a normal cycle with a cycle time of 60 minutes or less, and therefore 
the short-cycle feature would not justify less stringent standards.
    In response to CEI's question about why such a cycle would not be 
designated on the normal cycle, or why no manufacturer is claiming that 
its quick cycle is equivalent to the normal cycle, DOE reiterates its 
conclusion 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. 89 
FR 88661, 88666.
    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 in response to the 
March 2024 RFI and November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and market survey 
data, DOE has 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 determined that a short-cycle feature 
for dishwashers does not justify a separate product class with 
different standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).
3. Response to Other Comments
    In the sections that follow, DOE addresses comments received in 
response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal that pertain to other 
dishwasher topics discussed in this document.
a. 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.\16\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The March 2018 Petition is available at 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-0006, page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE discussed 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. Whereas trends in market-average 
cycle times have largely been driven by other factors, discussed in the 
following paragraphs. 89 FR 88661, 88668.
    Based on the data shared by CEI in the March 2018 Petition, DOE 
noted in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal that 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--as apparent in 
the Consumer Reports data--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. Id.
    Additionally, in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE noted 
that 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. DOE stated that 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 the potential 
impact of dishwasher sound levels and detergent formulation on cycle 
time). In other words, the totality of data available indicate that 
current standards are not precluding manufacturers from offering 
dishwashers with a short-cycle feature. Id.
    In response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, CEI commented 
that DOE should address the issue of longer cycle times that CEI 
asserted have been caused by previous appliance regulations by creating 
new standards that are achievable by short-cycle product classes. (CEI, 
No. 18 at p. 1) CEI also asserted that the impact of previous 
dishwasher standards on cycle time is an example of a DOE appliance 
regulation that ``crossed the line,'' and stated that DOE should 
withdraw the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and instead consider a 
rulemaking process to establish standards for the short-cycle product 
classes. (Id. at p. 7)
    CEI also commented that dishwashers that can complete a normal 
cycle in 1 hour or less were widely available prior to the imposition 
of DOE standards but are not available anymore. Therefore, according to 
CEI, a separate standard for

[[Page 105416]]

short-cycle product classes is required. (Id. at p. 7)
    As stated in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE reiterates 
that based on the data shared by CEI in the March 2018 Petition, 
minimum cycle times have generally increased during periods when 
standards were not amended. In fact, 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. 89 FR 88661, 
88668. The Consumer Reports data shared by CEI in the March 2018 
Petition do not support CEI's assumption that minimum cycle times have 
increased due to DOE standards. On the contrary, the Consumer Reports 
data specifically fail to show a causal linkage between technologically 
feasible (i.e., minimum) cycle times and DOE standards, because minimum 
cycle time increases generally occurred without a change in standards, 
yet decreases in minimum cycle time took place while standards became 
more stringent. Thus, DOE concludes, consistent with its position in 
the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, that the technological 
feasibility of providing dishwasher cycles with shorter durations has 
not been impacted due to DOE standards.
    Further, as discussed, DOE has identified at least one model 
currently available on the market that provides a short-cycle feature 
and has a cycle time of 41 minutes, demonstrating that dishwasher 
standards are not preventing manufacturers from designing a dishwasher 
that can completely wash a normally soiled load in 1 hour or less. 
Therefore, a short-cycle feature for dishwashers does not justify a 
separate product class with separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).
    Regarding CEI's assertion that dishwashers that can complete a 
normal cycle in 1 hour or less were widely available prior to the 
imposition of DOE standards, the data provided by CEI do not support 
this conclusion. An analysis of the Consumer Reports data presented by 
CEI in the March 2018 Petition indicates that only 3 out of 16 models 
from 1983 had cycle times of 60 minutes or less, and only 1 out of 20 
models from 1990 had a cycle time of 60 minutes or less. These data do 
not provide any indication that dishwashers with normal cycle times of 
60 minutes or less were ``widely available'' in the past, particularly 
since the data do not include any shipments information. Instead, the 
Consumer Reports data provided by CEI are consistent with DOE's 
tentative findings in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal that there 
is a lack of correlation solely between cycle time, energy/water use, 
and cleaning performance. The August 1983 Consumer Reports \17\ and May 
1990 Consumer Reports \18\ indicate that all 4 models with cycle times 
of 60 minutes or less had only ``average'' washing performance based on 
a rating scale of ``worse,'' ``bad,'' ``average,'' ``good,'' and 
``better.'' In contrast, some of the units with ``good'' cleaning 
performance (i.e., better than ``average'') used less energy and water 
than units with ``average'' cleaning performance--and in fact were some 
of the most energy and water efficient units of that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Consumer Reports, ``Dishwashers,'' Consumer Reports, Aug. 
1983, at p. 406.
    \18\ Consumer Reports, ``Dishwashers Plain and Fancy,'' Consumer 
Reports, May 1990, at p. 342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, DOE reiterates the discussion provided by ASAP et 
al.'s \19\ comment in response to the March 2024 RFI that was presented 
in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal. DOE notes that 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,\20\ which stated 
that older dishwashers had sound levels around 60 decibels, while 
modern dishwashers average between 40 and 50 decibels. ASAP et al. also 
cited Reviewed to explain that ``there are lots of ways to reduce 
noise, but most of them involve reducing the machine's cleaning power, 
and that in turn means lengthening cycle times to compensate.'' (ASAP 
et al., No. 8 at p. 4) ASAP et al. also stated that by 2010, many 
states had banned the sale of dishwasher detergents containing 
phosphates, which resulted in newer detergents that use enzymes. ASAP 
et al. cited information from Reviewed explaining that enzyme-based 
detergents require more time to work, lengthening cycle times. (Id.) 
ASAP et al. further commented that short cycle times would likely 
result in trade-offs with other aspects of dishwasher performance such 
as cleaning performance or noise. ASAP et al. asserted that 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Note that when responding to the March 2024 RFI, the 
comments from ASAP et al. included Natural Resources Defense Council 
and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority in 
addition to the commenters identified in this document.
    \20\ Reviewed is part of the USA TODAY Network. See 
reviewed.usatoday.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE recognized that 
dishwasher manufacturers design dishwashers to achieve many different 
performance requirements (e.g., cleaning performance, drying 
performance, noise, efficiency, cycle time). DOE reiterated that one 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. However, as noted in the November 2024 
Proposed Withdrawal, DOE did not collect noise data in its previous 
testing so that it could not independently corroborate the extent to 
which there may be a trade-off between noise and cycle time. 89 FR 
88661, 88678.
    In response to this discussion in the November 2024 Proposed 
Withdrawal, CEI commented that DOE asserted that cycle times have not 
increased due to historical dishwasher standards (as conceded by DOE in 
the past, according to CEI) but they may be a side-effect to creating 
quieter dishwashers. CEI stated that consumer preference for quieter 
dishwashers in lieu of longer cycle times was not raised in the January 
2022 Final Rule. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 4)
    CEI asserted also that even if dishwasher cycle time has increased 
to make dishwashers quieter, EPCA would still require a 1-hour standard 
because EPCA does not allow for the sacrifice of one performance 
feature in pursuit of another. CEI further asserted that there is 
public dissatisfaction with longer cycle times and that noise levels 
would need to be factored into determining the stringency of the 
standard for the short-cycle product class. (Id. at p. 5)
    CEI stated that DOE's reference to stakeholder comments that longer 
cycle times may have been necessitated by new dishwasher detergent 
requirements in some States conflicts with DOE's earlier 
acknowledgement in the 2016 DOE Technical Support Document that longer 
cycle times are the result of DOE's energy and water conservation 
standards. CEI further commented that even if this were true, DOE 
should consider the impact of new detergent formulations when 
establishing a standard for the dishwashers short-cycle product class 
rather than foregoing the product class altogether. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 
5)
    Contrary to CEI's assertion, DOE did not acknowledge that longer 
cycle times are the result of DOE's energy and water conservation 
standards in a technical

[[Page 105417]]

support document (``TSD'') posted in the docket of the final 
determination published on December 13, 2016 (``December 2016 Final 
Determination'') in which DOE determined that more stringent 
residential dishwasher standards would not be economically justified at 
the time. 81 FR 90072. In the December 2016 Final Determination TSD, 
DOE explained the ``control strategies'' technology option as follows:

. . . effective dishwashing requires water, heat, mechanical action 
(spraying of water), time, and detergent. Manufacturers may adjust 
the controls of a residential dishwasher to limit the amount of 
water used, or the set-point temperature of the wash or rinse water. 
This improves efficiency by decreasing the amount of energy 
associated with water heating. To help compensate for the negative 
impact on cleaning performance associated with decreasing water use 
and water temperature, manufacturers will typically increase the 
cycle time. This allows more time for the smaller volume of water to 
be circulated within the cabinet, helping to maintain wash 
performance.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ DOE discussed technology options in Chapter 3 of the TSD. 
Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0021-0029.

    This discussion in the December 2016 Final Determination TSD 
explains that manufacturers may (emphasis added) adjust dishwasher 
controls to improve the water and energy efficiency of a dishwasher; 
this discussion was not intended to suggest that implementing control 
strategies would be necessary, or would be the only design pathway to 
improve efficiency. Further, DOE also noted that the implementation of 
control strategies would typically (emphasis added) increase cycle 
time, not that it would necessarily increase cycle time. The discussion 
in the December 2016 Final Determination TSD describes one potential 
pathway to DOE evaluated to improve efficiency at the time of the 
December 2016 Final Determination, but it was not the only pathway to 
improved efficiency. Manufacturers are free to choose any design 
options to meet or exceed a given water and energy efficiency standard.
    Finally, as discussed in section II.A.2 of this document, DOE's 
most recent testing and analyses of test data show that it is 
technologically feasible to achieve cycle times as low as 41 minutes 
while meeting the current DOE standard and also providing a consumer-
acceptable level of cleaning performance (i.e., it is technologically 
feasible to design a short-cycle feature while meeting current 
standards). It is also important to note that, in the April 2024 
Dishwashers Final Rule, DOE found that the amended standards adopted in 
that rule do not have a negative impact on cleaning performance because 
technology options likely to be used to meet the amended standards for 
dishwashers would not have a significant adverse impact on the utility 
of the product to subgroups of consumers and the dishwashers test 
procedure at appendix C2 requires that a test cycle achieve a minimum 
cleaning performance threshold to determine if a dishwasher, when 
tested according to the DOE test procedure, completely washes a 
normally soiled load of dishes, meaning that the standards cannot 
compromise the utility that consumers expect from dishwashers. 89 FR 
31398, 31436. Therefore, even if there was a potential for a negative 
impact on cleaning performance associated with decreasing water use and 
water temperature, that potential is no longer applicable as 
dishwashers must meet the cleaning performance threshold.
    Finally, CEI commented that dishwasher features other than cycle 
times do not negate DOE's obligation to set a separate standard for 
short-cycle dishwashers. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 4) CEI referenced comments 
in the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule and data submitted in 
response to the March 2024 RFI to support CEI's assertion that 
consumers are not satisfied with current cycle times. (Id. at pp. 4-5) 
CEI concluded that the DOE should establish a standard for short-cycle 
dishwashers to respond to the Fifth Circuit's January 8, 2024, decision 
that DOE did not consider any alternatives than repealing the Short-
Cycle Final Rules. (Id. at p. 5)
    With respect to the comment from CEI regarding DOE's obligation to 
set standards for short-cycle dishwashers, DOE notes that its 
obligation is to follow its statutory authority under EPCA. As DOE 
stated in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and confirms in this 
document, DOE reiterated that cycle time is a performance-related 
feature of dishwashers in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B), but 
that is only the first step for establishing a product class under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q). 89 FR 88661, 88665. Contrary to the assertion from CEI, 
the existence of a performance-related feature is not enough to justify 
a separate product class. DOE then needed to evaluate whether a 
different standard level is justified for short-cycle products. Id. 
Because available test data, market survey data, and stakeholder 
comments in response to the March 2024 RFI and November 2024 Proposed 
Withdrawal, show that it is technically feasible for a short-cycle 
feature to completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 
minutes or less, current standards do not prevent dishwasher 
manufacturers from providing such a short-cycle feature. In fact, there 
is a dishwasher currently available on the market that provides such a 
short-cycle feature and meets the currently applicable energy and water 
standards. For these reasons, DOE has 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).

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.\22\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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

[[Page 105418]]

assessment in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and 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 March 2018 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 November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, the CA IOUs 
stated that they continue to disagree with DOE's determination that 
cycle time is a performance-related feature. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2) 
The CA IOUs further asserted that DOE or CEI did not include sufficient 
justification in the October 2020 Final Rule for why a 30-minute or 45-
minute cycle time threshold offered a unique consumer utility. The CA 
IOUs stated that DOE should assess the merits of the selected cycle 
time threshold and the consumer utility that it may or may not provide. 
(Id. at pp. 2-3)
    AHAM commented that it continues to believe that cycle time is an 
important consumer feature. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 2) AHAM also commented 
that consumers are satisfied with existing normal cycle times and most 
products also have short-cycle options for when quicker cycles are 
needed. (Id. at p. 1)
    Ravnitzky commented that in his experience, he occasionally uses 
the shorter cycles on his RCW when the clothing is not heavily soiled 
or when the task needs to be completed quickly. Ravnitzky further 
commented that these occasions are relatively infrequent and that for 
the majority of the time, he relies on the standard cycles to ensure 
thorough cleaning and drying. (Ravnitzky, No. 15 at p. 1)
    In response to the comment from the CA IOUs, DOE notes that the 
specific short-cycle times considered, less than 30 minutes for top-
loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes for front-loading RCWs, are less 
than the average cycle time for these products.\23\ As such, DOE 
believes these short-cycle times can provide utility to some consumers, 
e.g., consumers needing to complete multiple cycles in a limited amount 
of time. For the reasons stated in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, 
August 2020 NOPR, and December 2020 Final Rule, and consistent with the 
November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE reconfirms in this confirmation 
of withdrawal that cycle time is a performance-related feature of RCWs 
for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The average cycle times among units within DOE's top-
loading and front-loading RCW test samples were 49 and 59 minutes, 
respectively. See Method 2: Weighted Average Cycle Time column in 
Table II.1 and Table II.2 of the August 2020 NOPR. 85 FR 49297, 
49301-49302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE 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. 89 FR 88661, 88670.

[[Page 105419]]

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). In the November 2024 Proposed 
Withdrawal, 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. Id.
    To evaluate the energy and water use of a short-cycle feature in 
comparison to the currently applicable energy and water standards, in 
the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, 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.\24\ Id. 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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.\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ DOE's cycle time data for RCWs is available in the 
Technical Appendix to this document, available in the docket for 
this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Id.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE then assessed the 
energy and water use of the short-cycle feature on these units in 
comparison to the currently applicable DOE standards. Id. 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 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. Id.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE 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). 
Id. 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 tentatively 
determined that a short-cycle feature is technologically feasible and 
that current standards do not prevent manufacturers from providing a 
short-cycle feature. Id.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, based on the available 
test data--which demonstrate that it is feasible to design a short-
cycle feature while meeting current standards--DOE 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. Id.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE requested comment on 
these proposed determinations. Id.
    The CA IOUs commented that DOE had demonstrated that the applicable 
standards for RCWs do not preclude manufacturers from developing 
products that meet the intention of the short-cycle product classes and 
agreed that the technological feasibility of developing such products 
is the appropriate factor when determining if a performance 
characteristic merits a different standard level. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at 
p. 2)
    ASAP et al. commented in support of DOE's proposal to confirm the 
withdrawal of the short-cycle product classes for RCWs on the basis 
that there is at least one model available on the market that provides 
the short-cycle feature and uses less energy and water than the current 
standard. ASAP et al. stated that the availability of such a model 
demonstrates that the current standards for these products are not 
precluding manufacturers from offering products with short cycle times 
and good product performance on a normal cycle. (ASAP et al., No. 21 at 
pp. 1-2)
    CEC agreed with DOE that standards do not impact the ability of 
manufacturers to provide RCWs with the short-cycle feature, as 
evidenced by existing product offerings. CEC further asserted that 
manufacturer comments on the rulemaking make it clear that short-cycle 
product classes are neither necessary nor warranted for RCWs, and 
accordingly, separate product classes are not justified. (CEC, No. 17 
at p. 1)
    NEEA supported DOE's proposal in the November 2024 Proposed 
Withdrawal to eliminate ``short-cycle'' product classes for RCWs. NEEA 
stated that its comments build upon past NEEA letters submitted to DOE, 
which demonstrated that short-cycle product classes were unnecessary 
for these products because (1) consumers already have access to short 
cycle settings on RCWs; (2) consumers use short cycles relatively 
infrequently; (3) consumers are satisfied with high-efficiency 
appliances; (4) consumers are satisfied with appliances that have fast 
cycle options; and (5) cost-effective technologies are available to 
improve the efficiency of RCWs while reducing cycle times. NEEA added 
that leveraged sales data from the Northwest, consumer use data from 
regional field studies (``RBSA''), surveys of online retail catalogs, 
technology research, and laboratory tear-down studies support these 
conclusions. (NEEA, No. 4 at p. 2)
    AHAM asserted that for its members, the consumer is always top of 
mind, and accordingly, manufacturers make appliances that last longer, 
perform better, and respond to consumer needs and preferences. AHAM 
stated that

[[Page 105420]]

manufacturers pay careful attention to consumer needs and desires for 
particular features and utilities, and products currently on the market 
have a demonstrated capability to achieve the recommended energy and 
water conservation standards and retain consumer satisfaction with a 
range of performance considerations, utilities, and features. (AHAM, 
No. 23 at pp. 1-2)
    Ravnitzky supported DOE's tentative determination that a short-
cycle feature for RCWs does not justify a separate product class with 
separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and to not impose separate 
requirements for short-cycle products. (Ravnitzky, No. 15 at p. 1)
    CEI commented that although its comment focuses on dishwashers (see 
section II.A of this document), it believes there are equally valid 
reasons for setting separate new standards protecting faster RCWs. 
(CEI, No. 18 at p. 3)
    In response to the comment from CEI, DOE notes that all of the data 
and information that CEI submitted pertained to dishwashers, and that 
CEI did not provide any data or information specific to RCWs that would 
support its assertion regarding new standards for RCWs.
    In conclusion, for the reasons discussed in the November 2024 
Proposed Withdrawal and in this document, DOE has determined that a 
short-cycle feature for RCWs does not justify separate product classes 
with separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).

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 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 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.
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 the November 2024 
Proposed Withdrawal and 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 March 2018 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 November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, the CA IOUs 
stated that they continue to disagree with DOE's determination that 
cycle time is a performance-related feature. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2) 
The CA IOUs commented that the March 2018 Petition from CEI, the Short-
Cycle Final Rules, and the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal did not 
include sufficient justification from DOE or CEI for why these specific 
short-cycle times offered a unique consumer utility. (Id.) The CA IOUs 
requested that DOE assess the merits of the selected cycle time 
delineations and the consumer utility they may or may not provide in 
future rulemakings. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that it continues to believe that cycle time is an 
important consumer feature. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 2) AHAM also commented 
that consumers are satisfied with existing normal cycle times and most 
products also have short-cycle options for when quicker cycles are 
needed. (Id. at p. 1)
    In response to the comment from the CA IOUs, DOE notes that the 
specific short-cycle time considered, less than 30 minutes for consumer 
clothes dryers, is less than the average cycle time for this 
product.\26\ As such, DOE believes this short-cycle can provide utility 
to some consumers, e.g., consumers needing to complete multiple cycles 
in a limited amount of time. For the reasons stated in the August 2020 
NOPR and December 2020 Final Rule, and consistent with the November 
2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE reconfirms in this 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The average cycle times among units within DOE's vented 
electric standard-size and vented gas clothes dryer test samples 
were 48 and 55 minutes, respectively. See Table II.3 and Table II.4 
of the August 2020 NOPR. 85 FR 49297, 49303-49304.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 105421]]

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.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE 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. 89 FR 88661, 88672. 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). In 
the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, 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. Id.
    To evaluate the energy use of a short-cycle feature in comparison 
to the currently applicable energy standards, in the November 2024 
Proposed Withdrawal, 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. Id. at 89 FR 88673. 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 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, appendix D2 (``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.\27\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ DOE notes that manufacturers will be required to use the 
test procedure at appendix D2 on and after March 1, 2028, which is 
the compliance date of the amended standards in March 2024 Dryers 
Direct Final Rule. See 86 FR 56608; 89 FR 18164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    None of the units in DOE's test sample had a normal cycle time less 
than 30 minutes. 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. Id.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE then assessed the 
energy use of the short-cycle feature on these units in comparison to 
the current applicable DOE standards. Id. 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 noted in the November 2024 
Proposed Withdrawal that it 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. 89 FR 
88661, 88673.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE tentatively concluded 
that the availability of a short-cycle feature currently on the 
market--at energy efficiency 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). Id. 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 
tentatively determined that a short-cycle feature is technologically 
feasible and that current standards do not prevent manufacturers from 
providing a short-cycle feature. Id.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE noted that it was not 
proposing to add any new regulations for consumer clothes dryers. Id. 
Instead, the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal reanalyzed the 
provisions of a previous rulemaking (i.e., the January 2022 Final Rule) 
that withdrew short-cycle product classes. Id.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, based on the available 
test data--which demonstrate that it is feasible to design a short-
cycle feature while meeting current standards--DOE 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 
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. Id. at 89 FR 88673-88674.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE requested comment on 
these proposed determinations. Id. at 89 FR 88674.
    The CA IOUs commented that DOE had demonstrated that the applicable 
standards for consumer clothes dryers do not preclude manufacturers 
from developing products that meet the

[[Page 105422]]

intention of the short-cycle product classes and agreed that the 
technological feasibility of developing such products is the 
appropriate factor when determining if a performance characteristic 
merits a different standard level. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2)
    ASAP et al. commented in support of DOE's proposal to confirm the 
withdrawal of the short-cycle product classes for consumer clothes 
dryers on the basis that there is at least one model available on the 
market that provides the short-cycle feature and uses less energy than 
the current standard. ASAP et al. noted that DOE considered a model to 
have the short-cycle feature only if it meets the consumer expectation 
of a normal cycle in 30 minutes or less. ASAP et al. stated that the 
availability of such a model demonstrates that the current standards 
for these products are not precluding manufacturers from offering 
products with short cycle times and good product performance on a 
normal cycle. (ASAP et al., No. 21 at pp. 1-2)
    CEC agreed with DOE that standards do not impact the ability of 
manufacturers to provide consumer clothes dryers with the short-cycle 
feature, as evidenced by existing product offerings. CEC further 
asserted that manufacturer comments on the rulemaking make it clear 
that short-cycle product classes are neither necessary nor warranted 
for consumer clothes dryers, and accordingly, separate product classes 
are not justified. (CEC, No. 17 at p. 1)
    NEEA supported DOE's proposal in the November 2024 Proposed 
Withdrawal to eliminate ``short-cycle'' product classes for consumer 
clothes dryers. NEEA stated that its comments build upon past NEEA 
letters submitted to DOE, which demonstrated that short-cycle product 
classes were unnecessary for these products because (1) consumers 
already have access to short cycle settings on consumer clothes dryers; 
(2) consumers use short cycles relatively infrequently; (3) consumers 
are satisfied with high-efficiency appliances; (4) consumers are 
satisfied with appliances that have fast cycle options; and (5) cost-
effective technologies are available to improve the efficiency of 
consumer clothes dryers while reducing cycle times. NEEA added that 
leveraged sales data from the Northwest, consumer use data from 
regional field studies (``RBSA''), surveys of online retail catalogs, 
technology research, and laboratory tear-down studies support these 
conclusions. (NEEA, No. 4 at p. 2)
    AHAM asserted that for its members, the consumer is always top of 
mind, and accordingly, manufacturers make appliances that last longer, 
perform better, and respond to consumer needs and preferences. AHAM 
stated that manufacturers pay careful attention to consumer needs and 
desires for particular features and utilities and products currently on 
the market have a demonstrated capability to achieve the recommended 
energy and water conservation standards and retain consumer 
satisfaction with a range of performance considerations, utilities, and 
features. (AHAM, No. 23 at pp. 1-2)
    Ravnitzky supported DOE's tentative determination that a short-
cycle feature for consumer clothes dryers does not justify a separate 
product class with separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and to 
not impose separate requirements for short-cycle features. (Ravnitzky, 
No. 15 at p. 1)
    CEI commented that although its comment focuses on dishwashers (see 
section II.A of this document), it believes there are equally valid 
reasons for setting separate new standards protecting faster consumer 
clothes dryers. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 3)
    In response to the comment from CEI, DOE notes that all of the data 
and information that CEI submitted pertained to dishwashers, and that 
CEI did not provide any data or information specific to consumer 
clothes dryers that would support its assertion regarding new standards 
for consumer clothes dryers.
    In conclusion, for the reasons discussed in the November 2024 
Proposed Withdrawal and in this document, DOE has 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).

D. 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 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 initial 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, DOE noted in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal 
that it had considered (where appropriate) whether the relevant short-
cycle features justify both different water and energy standards. 89 FR 
88661, 88676.
    In response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, AWE commented 
supporting DOE's continued attention to dishwasher and RCW water use. 
AWE asserted that the existing water consumption standards for 
dishwashers and RCWs are well within DOE's authority, notwithstanding 
the Fifth Circuit's dictum. (AWE, No. 20 at p. 4) AWE asserted that the 
Fifth Circuit's suggestion that DOE has authority to regulate water use 
only for showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals is incorrect. 
(Id. at pp. 1-2)
    AWE stated that although the Fifth Circuit's January 8, 2024, 
decision included dictum suggesting DOE has

[[Page 105423]]

authority over water use only for showerheads, faucets, water closets, 
and urinals, the Fifth Circuit did not have the benefit of argument and 
full information about the basis for DOE's water regulation, as the 
hypothesis about DOE's authority was not raised by parties in the 
litigation. (AWE, No. 20 at p. 1)
    AWE stated that, in the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule 
and March 2024 RCW Direct Final Rule, DOE correctly explained that 42 
U.S.C. 6295(g)(9) and (10) expressly authorize DOE to amend the water 
consumption standards initially established by those paragraphs. AWE 
asserted that the Fifth Circuit briefly mentioned these same provisions 
but ignored the actual text when it said that their ``plain text'' give 
DOE ``only [the] power to amend energy-use standards for dishwashers 
and [RCWs].'' (Id.)
    AWE asserted that, under 42 U.S.C. 6291(6), DOE is authorized to 
impose requirements that do not, themselves, specify energy efficiency 
requirements or energy use--namely, ``design requirements'' for certain 
types of products (including dishwashers and RCW) and ``any other 
requirements.'' According to AWE, similar to the qualitative design 
requirement on certain boilers having constant-burning pilots and 
quantitative design requirement that a showerhead's flow-restricting 
insert resist a pulling force of 8.0 pounds, a limitation on the per-
cycle water consumption of a dishwasher or RCW is qualified as a design 
requirement because these products' water consumption is important for 
regulating their energy consumption. AWE asserted that reducing the 
per-cycle water consumption of dishwashers and RCWs is a requirement 
that reduces energy consumption, not just water itself, and 
accordingly, DOE is justified to impose a limit on water consumption as 
a design requirement. AWE also stated that potable water in a 
residential pipe embeds the energy needed for water supply, treatment, 
and distribution of water; and wastewater from the appliance also 
requires energy for treatment. (Id. at p. 2)
    AWE stated that DOE has authority to establish both performance 
standards and design requirements for a given requirement given the 
word ``or'' in the definition of ``energy conservation standards at 42 
U.S.C. 6291(6). According to AWE, although the Fifth Circuit has 
declined to read ``or'' as establishing mutually exclusive 
alternatives, this would mean only that a given standard is not 
categorized as either a performance standard or a design standard but 
not as both, and would not restrict DOE to imposing only one 
requirement or force DOE to choose one or the other. AWE noted that 
Congress added ``design requirements'' to the definition of ``energy 
conservation standards'' in the same statute that added dishwashers, 
RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers as covered products, which then 
specified design requirements for each of these products (e.g., 
dishwashers must provide an option to dry without heat) and required 
DOE to determine whether those standards should be amended. According 
to AWE, it is highly unlikely that when Congress added ``design 
requirement'' to the definition of ``energy conservation standard'' 
while specifying updates to the standards for dishwashers, RCWs, and 
consumer clothes dryers, if it meant that DOE must choose, for 
dishwashers, either to retain a design requirement (i.e., no-heat 
drying option) or to have a minimum efficiency, and could not require 
both. (Id. at pp. 2-3)
    AWE additionally asserted that the 2007 amendments to EPCA in the 
Energy Independence and Security Act expressly authorized DOE to set 
maximum water consumption standards for dishwashers and RCWs, contrary 
to the Fifth Circuit's statement that these provisions allow DOE to set 
only energy conservation standards. AWE asserted that Congress 
established in the statute an energy and water-consumption standard for 
each product type, and then authorized DOE to amend those standards. 
AWE stated that Congress intentionally referred to standards more 
broadly, giving DOE the power to amend both of the standards stated in 
42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9) and (10), consistent with the structure of EPCA 
overall. (Id. at p. 3)
    AWE further asserted that DOE's general authority to revise 
standards for consumer products, which is specified in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(m), also instructs DOE to consider, within six years after 
``establishing or amending a standard,'' whether to amend the 
``standards'' and not ``energy conservation standard.'' AWE also stated 
that 42 U.S.C. 6295(n) allows petitions for amendments to ``standards'' 
and not ``energy conservation standards.'' (Id. at pp. 3-4)
    AWE further stated that 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), which authorizes product 
classes, is different than the previously mentioned provisions of EPCA 
in that it does not allow DOE to create product classes for standards 
other than energy conservation standards, or to specify class-specific 
parameters other than energy use or efficiency. According to AWE, if 
the water-consumption standards for dishwashers and RCWs were 
authorized solely by 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)-(10), and were not themselves 
energy conservation standards, DOE would not be allowed to set 
different water-consumption standards for the putative short-cycle 
classes. (Id. at p. 4)
    DOE agrees that EPCA authorizes DOE to consider amended energy and 
water use standards for RCWs and dishwashers.
    In conclusion, in conducting the analyses in both the November 2024 
Proposed Withdrawal and this 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

[[Page 105424]]

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 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. 86 FR 72738. 
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 (``Whirlpool'') 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). Id. at 86 FR 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 the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE noted that absent data that 
reflects national use and frequency of use of other cycle types, DOE 
was not proposing changes to cycle selections for testing. Id. Further, 
according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (``EIA's'') 
2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS''),\28\ over 80 
percent of consumers use normal cycles most of the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    In response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, the CA IOUs 
commented supporting the recently updated test procedure for 
dishwashers. The CA IOUs stated that the update to the dishwasher test 
procedure to include a cleaning index threshold ensures that consumers 
continue to receive high-performing efficient products. The CA IOUs 
asserted that improving the representativeness in the test procedure, 
ensures that consumers will not need to re-run a dishwasher due to 
unsatisfactory performance. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2)
    ASAP et al. commented that the new test procedure for dishwashers 
at appendix C2 requiring a minimum cleaning index threshold for a test 
cycle to be considered valid will ensure that all new dishwashers 
provide good cleaning performance. (ASAP et al., No. 21 at p. 4)
    Based on stakeholder comments, nationally representative survey 
data, and DOE's analyses, DOE reaffirms its previous conclusions 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, appendix J 
(``appendix J'') and appendix J2.
    For the final rule that established 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
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

[[Page 105425]]

requires testing using it. 87 FR 33316, 33351 (June 1, 2022).
    In response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, the CA IOUs 
commented supporting the recently updated test procedure for RCWs. The 
CA IOUs stated that the update to the RCW test procedure to include 
measurements of remaining moisture content for all test cycles ensures 
that consumers continue to receive high-performing efficient products. 
(CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2)
    Based on stakeholder comments and DOE's analyses, DOE reaffirms its 
previous conclusions that the normal cycle is the representative 
average use cycle for RCWs.
    For all consumer clothes dryers in the test procedure at 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1 (``appendix D1'') and for timer dryers 
in the test procedure at 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 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 
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.
    In response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, the CA IOUs 
commented supporting the recently updated test procedure for consumer 
clothes dryers. The CA IOUs stated that the update to the consumer 
clothes dryers test procedure to include a testing requirement for the 
automatic termination of all clothes dryers equipped with such a 
feature ensures that consumers continue to receive high-performing 
efficient products. CA IOUs asserted that improving the 
representativeness in the test procedure, ensures that consumers will 
not need to re-run a consumer clothes dryer due to unsatisfactory 
performance. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2)
    ASAP et al. commented that the new test procedure for consumer 
clothes dryers at appendix D2 requiring a final moisture content 
threshold in order to be certified as compliant will ensure that all 
new consumer clothes dryers provide good drying performance. (ASAP et 
al., No. 21 at p. 4)
    Based on stakeholder comments and DOE's analyses, DOE reaffirms its 
previous conclusions that the normal cycle is the representative 
average use cycle for consumer clothes dryers.
    DOE has thereby promulgated new and amended test procedures in 
accordance with EPCA's requirements to ensure that manufacturers are 
certifying dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers that comply 
with the currently applicable energy conservation standards. As 
discussed in section II.D.3 of this document, DOE has also developed 
provisions within its test procedures for dishwashers, RCWs, and 
consumer clothes dryers that ensure that the tested cycles maintain 
product utility that meets consumer expectations.
3. Preservation of Product Utility and Potential for Increased Energy 
or Water Use
    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, in 
the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE also addressed stakeholder 
comments on this topic in response to the March 2024 RFI. Specifically, 
DOE presented comments from the AGs of MT et al. stating that, 
according to survey results presented by CEI in response to the July 
2019 NOPR,\29\ 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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 also presented data and conclusions from other stakeholders 
that contradicted the data and conclusions presented by the AGs of MT 
et al. 89 FR 88661, 88677.
    Specifically, with regard to handwashing dishes because the 
dishwasher takes too long, AHAM submitted data \30\ 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 \31\ and commented that this study 
showed that recommended practices for dishwasher use are not always 
performed, with 67 percent of dishwasher owners typically pre-rinsing 
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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Appliance Impact Research--Regulatory Findings, conducted 
for AHAM by DIG Insights (February 2021).
    \31\ 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 the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE tentatively concluded 
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, in the 
November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE stated that it did not expect 
increased handwashing or pre-washing (above levels resulting

[[Page 105426]]

from consumer preferences or misunderstandings) in the future. 89 FR 
88661, 88678.
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE also noted 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, in the November 2024 
Proposed Withdrawal, DOE noted that findings from the University of 
Bonn and the Impulse Reach national survey 32 33 also 
suggest that the primary factor contributing to consumers handwashing 
dishes is not the dishwasher cycle duration, but rather a misconception 
by consumers that dishwashers require more energy and water than 
handwashing. 89 FR 88661, 88678.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 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.
    \33\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, CEI asserted 
that AHAM and Whirlpool's comment in the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct 
Final Rule that ``energy conservation standards beyond EL 1 will cause 
rebound consumer behavior, such as running the dishwasher more than 
once to reach the desired cleanliness, re-rinsing dishes before placing 
them in the dishwasher, or handwashing, all of which undercut projected 
energy and water savings'' (89 FR 31398, 31435), contradicts AHAM's 
comment in response to the March 2024 RFI that ``consumers are 
satisfied with current cycle times'' and that ``consumers are choosing 
to wash their dishes by hand because of perceived longer cycle times.'' 
(CEI, No. 18 at p. 4).
    DOE notes that while AHAM and Whirlpool had previously commented in 
response to a NOPR published on May 19, 2023 (88 FR 32514) that energy 
conservation standards beyond EL 1 would cause rebound consumer 
behavior, they were also signatories to a Joint Agreement \34\ 
submitted to DOE later, on September 25, 2023, that recommended 
dishwasher standards that exceeded the EL 1 as proposed in the May 2023 
NOPR. The dishwasher standards recommended in the Joint Agreement were 
adopted in the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, CEI commented 
that AHAM did not provide its survey questions or scope, which CEI 
asserted makes AHAM's survey data unreliable. CEI further stated that 
AHAM asked only if people were ``satisfied'' with current cycle times, 
not whether consumers would prefer a faster cycle time. (CEI, No. 18 at 
p. 5)
    DOE notes that the AHAM survey data are proprietary and DOE is not 
able to assess the methodology used for AHAM's estimate of consumer 
satisfaction with cycle times.
    CEI also commented that the 2020 University of Michigan study cited 
by AHAM showed that 67 percent of consumers pre-wash their dishes, 
which CEI asserted demonstrates a lack of confidence in the performance 
of dishwashers. CEI further commented the study cited by AHAM that 
consumers handwash dishes due to low consumer knowledge were 
specifically talking about countries other than the United States, and 
CEI stated that DOE should not use studies that talk about other 
countries when making claims about the United States. (CEI, No. 18 at 
p. 4)
    DOE disagrees with CEI's assessment that the 2020 University of 
Michigan study demonstrated a lack of consumer confidence in dishwasher 
performance. The 2020 University of Michigan study focused on consumer 
behavior in using a dishwasher and did not assess participant 
confidence in dishwasher performance. The authors of the study also 
note that pre-rinsing was not necessary to achieve acceptable cleaning 
performance. Although DOE agrees caution is needed in interpreting 
results from outside of the United States in the context of U.S. 
dishwasher usage, the results of such studies are still useful in 
understanding overall consumer perceptions of dishwashers. DOE notes 
that the 2020 University of Michigan study focuses on U.S. dishwasher 
users. Additionally, the Berkholz (2011) study includes U.S. 
participants and provides results by global region.
    CEI commented that the Fifth Circuit opined that the lack of a 
short-cycle product class not only violates the law and harms consumers 
but also undercuts the energy and water efficiency goals of DOE's 
program because the longer cycle times and reduced cleaning performance 
of currently available models encourage some consumers to ``use more 
energy and more water to preclean, reclean, or handwash their stuff 
before, after, or in lieu of using DOE-regulated appliances.'' (CEI, 
No. 18 at p. 6)
    CEI asserted that DOE continues to ignore handwashing that occurs 
due to long cycle times. (Id. at p. 4) CEI also claimed that DOE's 
conclusion ``that any consumer handwashing or pre-washing is unlikely 
to have been the result of past or current standards'' is false and 
without substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 5)
    DOE disagrees with CEI's assertion that efficiency standards have 
conclusively led to dishwasher users using more energy and water to 
pre-clean, re-clean, or handwash dishes as a result of longer cycle 
times. As noted in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, the available 
research on dishwasher consumer behavior attributes handwashing and 
pre-washing dishes to a misconception that dishwashers require more 
energy and water than handwashing. In the absence of data demonstrating 
a causal relationship between efficiency standards and handwashing 
behavior, DOE maintains its position that previous or current standards 
have not influenced handwashing or pre-washing behavior.
    ASAP et al. stated that there is no evidence that energy 
conservation standards have resulted in increased energy and water use 
as stated by the Fifth Circuit, noting that there is no evidence that 
standards have resulted in consumers running multiple cycles on the 
same load or that energy and water use have increased as a result of 
improved efficiency. ASAP et al. noted that data from RECS \35\ and the 
Water Research Foundation \36\ have shown that the average number of 
cycles per year for dishwashers, along with dishwasher water use, have 
declined with improved efficiency. ASAP et al. also agreed with DOE's 
tentative conclusion that any handwashing or prewashing is unlikely to 
have been the result of past or current standards. (ASAP et al., No. 21 
at pp. 3-4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/index.php.
    \36\ Available at committee.iso.org/files/live/users/aj/bc/fe/tc282contributor%40iso.org/files/Residential%20End%20Use%20of%20Water (Last accessed on December 11, 
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CEI asserted that DOE's analysis in the December 2016 Dishwashers 
Final Determination TSD regarding shipment declines under new standards 
presents a flawed view because DOE states it ``assumed that those 
consumers who forego buying a dishwasher because of the higher purchase 
price would then

[[Page 105427]]

wash their dishes by hand,'' but, when comparing standards, DOE states, 
``it would be inappropriate to count energy savings that result from 
shipments that decline because of higher efficiency cases,'' without 
explaining why it would be inappropriate to count the increased water 
and energy use that will occur from delayed purchases due to more 
stringent standards. CEI opined that DOE ignored handwashing due to 
price and cycle time as inappropriate to consider, which CEI 
characterized as arbitrary and capricious. (CEI, No. 18 at pp. 6-7)
    DOE affirms that its methodology for calculating energy and water 
savings in the December 2016 Dishwashers Final Determination and the 
April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule accounts for increased 
handwashing for households that choose not to purchase a standards-
compliant dishwasher due to a price increase associated with a 
standard. DOE's statement that it does not ``count energy savings that 
result from shipments that decline because of higher efficiency cases'' 
refers specifically to the reduction in energy and water consumption of 
dishwasher stock in a standards case with fewer shipments compared to 
the no-new-standards case. DOE does not include reductions in energy 
and water savings from reduced product stock in estimates of benefits 
attributed to a standard. DOE does, however, reduce the energy savings 
in standards cases to account for households that choose to handwash 
dishes instead of purchasing a standards-compliant unit in the 
standards case. See section 10.3.2 of chapter 10 of the December 2016 
Dishwasher Final Determination TSD \37\ and section 10.4.2 of chapter 
10 of the April 2024 Dishwasher Direct Final Rule TSD for additional 
details on DOE's methodology.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0021-0029.
    \38\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CEI also reiterated its survey data, submitted in support of the 
March 2018 Petition, saying that it was a representative sample of 
public opinion, in which 82 percent of the people found a dishwasher 
that cleans in less than 1 hour to be useful; 49 percent of people 
always or often handwash dishes because the dishwasher takes too long; 
and 36 percent sometimes do so. CEI commented that 14 percent of people 
never handwash dishes and opined that it is likely these are the people 
who complain about dishwasher noise level and their opinion should not 
govern what the standard should be, according to CEI. (CEI, No. 18 at 
pp. 4-5)
    AWE commented that the survey results from CEI are unreliable given 
the lack of information from the State AGs of MT et al. and CEI on the 
methodology of the survey necessary for assessing the meaning, 
significance, reliability, or accuracy of the asserted survey results. 
AWE noted that information on how the survey was conducted; how 
participants were selected; whether the survey was online, by phone, or 
in paper; the extent to which participants responded and how non-
responses were handled in data analysis; and how the survey questions 
were designed was not provided by the State AGs of MT et al. or CEI. 
(AWE, No. 20 at pp. 4-5)
    DOE agrees with AWE's assertion that it is challenging to interpret 
the results of CEI's survey due to a lack of information on the survey 
methodology and techniques used to construct its sample. Although 
described as a representative sample of public opinion, it is not clear 
if their sample includes households that do not currently own a 
dishwasher and how these households would have been handled in the data 
analysis. Additionally, it is unclear whether CEI performed any 
weighting analysis to make its raw sample representative of the U.S. 
population or the U.S. population of dishwasher owners. Regardless, 
even taking the CEI survey results at face value, there is no evidence 
provided indicating that standards have impacted consumer behavior 
towards handwashing dishes. As noted in the November 2024 Proposed 
Withdrawal, a 2020 study by the University of Michigan 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. With regards to CEI's 
survey result indicating 82 percent of respondents would find a 
dishwasher that cleans in less than 1 hour to be useful, DOE emphasizes 
that manufacturers already provide quick cycles in current models to 
meet this preference. As demonstrated in section II.A.2 of this 
document, it is also technologically feasible to design a short-cycle 
feature for dishwashers while meeting current standards.
    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 at all tested soil loads, and thus consumer 
expectations of cleanability. In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, 
DOE noted that 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. 89 FR 88661, 88678.
    AWE noted that in the survey data provided by CEI, 18 percent of 
respondents purchased dishwashers well before the compliance date of 
the current standard (i.e., 2013). AWE further noted that CEI's survey 
results stating that 33 percent of respondents were dissatisfied with 
the cleaning performance of their dishwashers could be indicative that 
the majority of those respondents had older dishwashers whose 
performance may have degraded over time. AWE commented that the AGs of 
MT et al. and CEI gave no basis for concluding that current 
dishwashers, compliant with existing standards, fail to clean dishes 
adequately. (AWE, No. 20 at p. 5)
    CEI stated that dishwasher standards have compromised dishwasher 
quality in several ways, including poorer cleaning performance, reduced 
reliability, and cycle length. (CEI, No. 18 at pp. 2-3)
    As discussed in section II.A.3.a of this document, data has shown 
that

[[Page 105428]]

minimum cycle times have not increased due to standards. Further, as 
discussed in section II.A.2 and elsewhere in this document, DOE has 
identified a dishwasher basic model that meets the current standard 
while providing the short-cycle feature; that is, it is technologically 
feasible to design a dishwasher that provides a cycle time of 60 
minutes or less, while achieving a cleaning index of at least 70 on 
each of the three soil loads specified in the DOE test procedure, and 
while meeting the current standard. As evidenced by the availability of 
a dishwasher with this feature currently on the market, designing such 
a dishwasher does not necessitate compromises to cleaning performance 
or cycle length.
    Additionally, DOE does not have any evidence that dishwasher 
standards have reduced reliability. In fact, as noted in the November 
2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE has not found any evidence of average 
product lifetime being correlated with any specific higher-efficiency 
design options or efficiency levels. 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. 89 FR 88661, 88675. The lifetime data 
over the past 33 years shows that standards have not compromised 
dishwasher reliability.
    CEI commented that, while DOE has established a minimum cleaning 
performance requirement, it should allow manufacturers to exceed the 
minimum threshold because consumers desire dishwashers that provide 
excellent cleaning performance. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 4)
    The minimum cleaning index threshold specified in the DOE test 
procedure at appendix C2 is exactly that; a minimum threshold. 
Manufacturers are free to design dishwashers with cleaning performance 
that exceeds this threshold.
    In conclusion, the weight of the evidence available supports the 
determination that increased re-washing, handwashing, or pre-washing 
(above levels resulting from consumer preferences or misunderstandings) 
are unlikely to result in the future as a result of standards; nor does 
DOE expect any negative impact to cleaning performance or cycle length 
of dishwashers. Available data from RECS and the Water Foundation show 
that the average number of cycles for dishwashers has declined over 
time, indicating households have not needed to run multiple cycles on 
the same load. The DOE test procedure at appendix C2 requires test 
samples to meet a cleaning index threshold consistent with consumer 
expectations, which would ensure a consumer-acceptable level of 
cleaning performance. Finally, as noted elsewhere in this document, it 
is technologically feasible to provide the short-cycle feature on 
dishwashers. Therefore, DOE also does not expect any impact to cycle 
length.
b. Residential Clothes Washers
    In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE recognized 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 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. 89 FR 88661, 88678-
88679.
    ASAP et al. stated that there is no evidence that energy 
conservation standards have resulted in increased energy and water use 
as stated by the Fifth Circuit, noting that there is no evidence that 
standards have resulted in consumers running multiple cycles on the 
same load or that energy and water use have increased as a result of 
improved efficiency. ASAP et al. noted that data from RECS and the 
Water Research Foundation has shown that average number of cycles per 
year for RCWs along with RCW water use has declined with improved 
efficiency. ASAP et al. also agreed with DOE's tentative conclusion 
that any handwashing or prewashing is unlikely to have been the result 
of past or current standards. (ASAP et al., No. 21 at pp. 3-4)
    DOE agrees with ASAP's assessment that available nationally 
representative data from RECS and the Water Research Foundation show 
that the average numbers of cycles for RCWs has declined over time, 
indicating that households have not needed to run multiple cycles on 
the same load as a result of past or current standards.
    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 NOPR preceding the 
March 2024 RCW Direct Final Rule, 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.\39\ 88 FR 
26511 (May 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 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

[[Page 105429]]

(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 the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE recognized 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. 89 FR 88661, 88679.
    ASAP et al. stated that there is no evidence that energy 
conservation standards have resulted in increased energy use as stated 
by the Fifth Circuit, noting that there is no evidence that standards 
have resulted in consumers running multiple cycles on the same load or 
that energy use has increased as a result of improved efficiency. ASAP 
et al. noted that data from RECS has shown that average number of 
cycles per year for consumer clothes dryers has declined with improved 
efficiency. (ASAP et al., No. 21 at pp. 3-4)
    DOE agrees with ASAP's assessment that available nationally 
representative data from RECS shows that the average numbers of cycles 
for consumer clothes dryers has declined over time indicating 
households have not needed to run multiple cycles on the same load.
    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. Conclusions

    In conclusion, and for the reasons discussed in the preceding 
sections of this document, DOE has 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. Therefore, products with short-cycle features remain 
subject to the currently applicable standards as 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 confirmation of that rule. These 
determinations are set forth in the January 2022 Final Rule. 87 FR 
2673, 2686-2688.

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule; confirmation of effective date.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 
19, 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 December 19, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2024-30797 Filed 12-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```