105408 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

Authority: The Constitution of the United 

States, Article I, Section 9; 5 U.S.C. 7342; 22 

U.S.C. 2694; 42 U.S.C. 7254 and 7262; 28 

U.S.C. 2461 note. 

■ 31. Section 1050.303 is amended by 

revising the last sentence in paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 1050.303 Enforcement. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * The court in which such 

action is brought may assess a civil 

penalty against such employee in any 

amount not to exceed the retail value of 

the gift improperly solicited or received 

plus $25,622. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30697 Filed 12–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2024–BT–STD–0002] 

RIN 1904–AF69 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Dishwashers, Residential Clothes 

Washers, and Consumer Clothes 

Dryers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: 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/EERE2024-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: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287– 

5649. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (240) 961–1189. Email: 

Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Discussion 

A. Dishwashers 

1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related 

Feature 

2. Justification of Different Standards for 

Dishwashers With a Short-Cycle Feature 

3. Response to Other Comments 

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 ShortCycle 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)) 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 105409 

2See document IDs 0006 and 0007 at 

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

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

section 1 of the DOE test procedure at title 10 of 

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

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

cycle type, including washing and drying 

temperature options, recommended in the 

manufacturer’s instructions for daily, regular, or 

typical use to completely wash a full load of 

normally soiled dishes including the power-dry 

feature,’’ among other criteria. 

(7) Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) 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 standardsize dishwashers with a cycle time for 

the normal cycle 3 of 60 minutes or less. 

85 FR 68723 (‘‘October 2020 Final 

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

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 frontloading 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
105410 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

4Table I.1 excludes two non-substantive 

comments received from anonymous commenters, 

which were considered in the development of this 

confirmation but not cited individually. 

5The 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). 

that which applies to other products 

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

time was a performance-related feature 

and that some products had shorter 

cycle times than others. 85 FR 68723, 

68726; 85 FR 81359, 81361. But the 

Short-Cycle Final Rules did not 

determine whether cycle time justified 

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

determine specific standards in a 

separate rulemaking. Id. Therefore, to 

establish separate energy conservation 

standards for short-cycle product 

classes, DOE must first confirm the 

determination made in the Short-Cycle 

Final Rules that cycle time is a 

performance-related feature for these 

three covered products. DOE must then 

determine that a different standard level 

is justified for short-cycle products, as 

there is no basis for establishing a 

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

that would be subject to the same 

standard level. Finally, assuming DOE 

determines that cycle time is a 

performance-related feature and a 

different standard level is justified for 

short-cycle products, DOE must apply 

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

prescribe energy conservation standards 

that, among other things, are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and would result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

As part of this process, DOE 

published a request for information on 

March 11, 2024 (‘‘March 2024 RFI’’), 

seeking data and other information on, 

among other things, the presence of any 

short-cycle products in the market and 

any relationship between cycle time and 

performance. 89 FR 17338. 

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

TABLE I.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE NOVEMBER 2024 PROPOSED

WITHDRAWAL

Commenter(s) Reference in 

this final rule 

Comment No. 

in the docket Commenter type 

Alliance for Water Efficiency ....................................................................................... AWE ............... 20 Efficiency Organization. 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers .......................................................... AHAM ............ 23 Trade Organization. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, AWE, American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, and National 

Consumer Law Center.

ASAP et al ..... 21 Efficiency Organizations. 

California Energy Commission ................................................................................... CEC ............... 17 State Agency. 

Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric 

(collectively, the California Investor-Owned Utilities).

CA IOUs ........ 22 Utilities. 

Competitive Enterprise Institute .................................................................................. CEI ................. 18 Advocacy Organization. 

Michael Ravnitzky ....................................................................................................... Ravnitzky ....... 15 Individual. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ......................................................................... NEEA ............. 19 Efficiency Organization. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.5

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 ShortCycle 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 105411 

6As 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. 

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 ‘‘shortcycle’’ feature for dishwashers is a 

performance-related feature that justifies 

the establishment of a separate product 

class. DOE considers a short-cycle 

feature for dishwashers to be a cycle 

that can completely wash a full load of 

normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or 

less. DOE first reiterates its prior 

determinations that cycle time is a 

performance-related feature of 

dishwashers and details its specific 

consideration of the short-cycle feature 

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

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 shortcycle 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
105412 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

7Specifically, 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. 

8Separate 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). 

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. 

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. 

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

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 shortcycle 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 105413 

9 DOE test data are available at 

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

10Test Method for Determining Residential 

Dishwasher Cleaning Performance. Rev. Feb-2014. 

Available at www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ 

specs//ENERGY%20STAR%20Final%20Test%20

Method%20for%20Determining%

20Residential%20Dishwasher%20Cleaning%20Per

for%20%20%20_0.pdf. 

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. 

12Specifically, 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-STD0002. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 percycle 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 standardsize 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. 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
105414 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 shortcycle 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 highefficiency 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 105415 

16The March 2018 Petition is available at 

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

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. 

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. 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
105416 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

17Consumer Reports, ‘‘Dishwashers,’’ Consumer 

Reports, Aug. 1983, at p. 406. 

18Consumer Reports, ‘‘Dishwashers Plain and 

Fancy,’’ Consumer Reports, May 1990, at p. 342. 

19Note 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. 

20Reviewed is part of the USA TODAY Network. 

See reviewed.usatoday.com. 

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. 

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) 

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 shortcycle 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 105417 

21 DOE discussed technology options in Chapter 

3 of the TSD. Available at https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BTSTD-0021-0029. 

22This 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. 

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

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 performancerelated 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 ‘‘shortcycle’’ feature for RCWs is a 

performance-related feature that justifies 

the establishment of separate product 

classes. DOE considers a short-cycle 

feature for top-loading RCWs to be a 

cycle that can completely wash a full 

load of normally soiled cotton clothing 

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

completely wash a full load of normally 

soiled cotton clothing in less than 45 

minutes.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 shortcycle feature. 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
105418 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

23The 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. 

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 frontloading RCWs versus cycle times for 

top-loading RCWs are likely to impact 

consumer utility. 77 FR 32308, 32319. 

Because the wash cycle times for frontloaders arise from the reduced 

mechanical action of agitation as 

compared to top-loaders, DOE stated 

that it believes that such longer cycles 

may be required to achieve the 

necessary cleaning, and thereby 

constitute a performance-related utility 

of front-loading versus top-loading 

RCWs pursuant to the meaning of 42 

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

In a NOPR published on August 13, 

2020 (‘‘August 2020 NOPR’’), DOE 

discussed that consumer use of RCWs is 

similar to that of dishwashers, in that 

the products provide consumer utility 

over discrete cycles with programmed 

cycle times, and consumers run these 

cycles multiple times per week on 

average. As such, the impact of cycle 

time on consumer utility identified by 

CEI in its 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 frontloading RCWs) provide a distinct utility 

to consumers that other RCWs do not 

provide, and that consumers receive a 

utility from the short normal cycle 

feature to support the establishment of 

new product classes under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)(B). 85 FR 81359, 81363– 

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

cycle recommended to the consumer for 

normal, regular, or typical use for 

washing up to a full load of normally 

soiled cotton clothing. In the January 

2022 Final Rule, DOE did not question 

the validity of those prior 

determinations made that short cycles 

provide a performance-related feature. 

87 FR 2673, 2682. 

In response to the 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). 

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 shortcycle 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 105419 

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. 

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-STD0002. 

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. 

From among DOE’s test samples, DOE 

identified 3 top-loading RCWs and 9 

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

have a normal cycle time of less than 30 

minutes for the top-loading RCWs and 

less than 45 minutes for the frontloading RCWs.25 Id. 

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 shortcycle 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 toploading 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 toploading 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 shortcycle feature for normal, regular, or 

typical use for washing up to a full load 

of normally soiled cotton clothing is 

technologically feasible; (2) current 

standards do not prevent RCW 

manufacturers from providing such a 

short-cycle feature; and (3) multiple 

RCW models are currently available on 

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

applicable energy and water standards. 

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 shortcycle 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
105420 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

26The 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. 

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 shortcycle 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 ‘‘shortcycle’’ feature for consumer clothes 

dryers is a performance-related feature 

that justifies the establishment of a 

separate product class. DOE considers a 

short-cycle feature for consumer clothes 

dryers to be a normal cycle that offers 

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 performancerelated 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). 

In the sections that follow, DOE 

evaluates whether such a short-cycle 

feature justifies separate product classes 

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

2. Justification of Different Standards for 

Consumer Clothes Dryers With a ShortCycle Feature 

As discussed, EPCA authorizes DOE 

to prescribe a higher or lower standard 

than that which applies (or would 

apply) for such type (or class) for any 

group of covered products which have 

the same function or intended use if 

DOE determines that products within 

such group (A) consume a different kind 

of energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

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

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

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

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

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 105421 

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. 

products, DOE considers such factors as 

the utility to the consumer of such a 

feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. (Id.) 

DOE stated in the August 2020 NOPR, 

and reiterated in the December 2020 

Final Rule, that vented electric 

standard-size and vented gas clothes 

dryers that comply with the current 

energy conservation standards exhibit 

cycle times of approximately 30 minutes 

or longer. 85 FR 81359, 81361. Based on 

a presumption that manufacturers were 

already implementing the shortest 

possible cycle times that enabled a 

clothes dryer to achieve satisfactory 

drying performance (and other aspects 

of clothes dryer performance) while 

meeting the applicable energy 

conservation standards, DOE asserted 

that the standards may have 

discouraged manufacturers from 

developing clothes dryers for consumers 

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

in the December 2020 Final Rule that its 

actions (i.e., establishing short-cycle 

product classes for consumer clothes 

dryers) were intended to incentivize 

manufacturers to provide consumers 

with new options when purchasing 

clothes dryers, asserting that creation of 

this new product class would 

incentivize manufacturers to develop 

innovative products with short cycle 

times for those consumers that receive 

a value from the time saved washing 

and drying their clothing. Id. at 85 FR 

81360–81361. DOE further stated its 

intent to determine the specific energy 

conservation standards of the new 

product classes in a separate 

rulemaking. Id. 

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 shortcycle 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. 

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 standardsize consumer clothes dryers, 

demonstrating that providing a shortcycle 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 shortcycle feature does not inherently use 

more energy than a consumer clothes 

dryer without such a feature, and that 

the current consumer clothes dryer 

standards do not preclude 

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

of less than 30 minutes). 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 shortcycle 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
105422 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 shortcycle 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 shortcycle 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 shortcycle 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 flowrestricting 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 percycle 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
105424 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

28U.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. 

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. 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 105425 

29CEI submitted results from a survey it 

conducted in late 2019 based on 1,062 respondents 

to understand consumers’ dishwasher usage 

patterns as well as their opinions on dishwasher 

cycle length. Available as attachment B at 

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

30Appliance 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. 

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 highperforming 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) 

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) 

In the November 2024 Proposed 

Withdrawal, DOE tentatively concluded 

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

result of past or current standards. 

Further, the amended test procedure at 

appendix C2 requires test samples to 

meet a cleaning index threshold 

consistent with consumer expectations. 

Accordingly, in the November 2024 

Proposed Withdrawal, DOE stated that it 

did not expect increased handwashing 

or pre-washing (above levels resulting 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
105426 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

32Berkholz, 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. 

33Wolf, A. 2011. ‘‘Consumers: Dishwashers 

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

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

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

34This document is available in the docket at: 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD0039-0055. 

35U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey, https://www.eia.gov/consumption/ 

residential/index.php. 

36Available 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). 

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. 

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, rerinsing 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. 

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 prewashing 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 preclean, 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 prewashing 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) 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 105427 

37This document is available in the docket at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BTSTD-0021-0029. 38This document is available in the docket at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2019-BTSTD-0039-0061. 

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-newstandards 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

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
105428 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

39 DOE published the results of this testing in a 

report available at www.regulations.gov/document/ 

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

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 rewashing, 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). 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 consumeracceptable dryness level after 

completion of a drying cycle. 86 FR 

56608, 56627–56628. Under appendix 

D2, a consumer clothes dryer must 

achieve this dryness threshold in order 

for the tested cycle to be considered 

valid for certifying compliance with the 

applicable standard. 

To the extent that any individual 

consumer clothes dryers on the market 

have not met consumer expectations for 

dryness, such historical performance 

issues should be remedied moving 

forward, as the test procedure at 

appendix D2 ensures that any consumer 

clothes dryer tested for certification will 

have a valid energy and water 

representation only if the consumer 

clothes dryer meets or exceeds this 

threshold of dryness performance. 

III. 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 

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

BUREAU 

12 CFR Part 1003 

Home Mortgage Disclosure 

(Regulation C) Adjustment to AssetSize Exemption Threshold 

AGENCY: Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau. 

ACTION: Final rule; official 

interpretation. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (CFPB) is amending 

official commentary interpreting 

requirements of the CFPB’s Regulation C 

to reflect the asset-size exemption 

threshold for banks, savings 

associations, and credit unions based on 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES