Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers, 18244-18259 [2024-04766]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18244-18259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04766]



Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 18244]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058]
RIN 1904-AF59


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Consumer Clothes Dryers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''), 
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products 
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including consumer 
clothes dryers. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), the 
U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes amended energy 
conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers identical to those 
set forth in a direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of 
the Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse comment and determines 
that such comment may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 
direct final rule, DOE will publish a notice of withdrawal rule and 
will proceed with this proposed rule.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
NOPR no later than July 1, 2024. Comments regarding the likely 
competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the 
Department of Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or 
before April 11, 2024.

ADDRESSES: See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for details. If 
DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue 
of the Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for 
additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of 
any meeting in the Federal Register.
    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number 
EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by 
docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058, by any of the following methods:
    (1) Email: [email protected]. Include the 
docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058 in the subject line of the message.
    (2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    (3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case 
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section VII of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments 
through www.regulations.gov.
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites 
input from market participants and other interested persons with views 
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested 
persons may contact the Antitrust Division at 
[email protected] on or before the date specified in the DATES 
section. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of your email the 
title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-5649. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 597-6265. Email: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. Current Test Procedure
    3. The Joint Agreement
III. Proposed Standards
    A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer Clothes 
Dryers Standards
    B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
IV. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Public Meeting
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency 
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include consumer clothes dryers, the 
subject of this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
must, among other things, be designed to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.

[[Page 18245]]

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in 
significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(i), DOE is proposing this rule establishing and amending the 
energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers and is 
concurrently issuing a direct final rule published elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register. DOE will proceed with this notice of 
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') only if it determines it must withdraw 
the direct final rule pursuant to the criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4). The amended standard levels in this proposed rule and the 
direct final rule were proposed in a letter submitted to DOE jointly by 
groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, 
consumer groups, and a utility. This letter, titled ``Energy Efficiency 
Agreement of 2023'' (hereafter, the ``Joint Agreement'',\3\) recommends 
specific energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers. DOE 
subsequently received letters of support for the Joint Agreement from 
States including New York, California, and Massachusetts \4\ and 
utilities including San Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California 
Edison \5\ advocating for the adoption of the recommended standards. As 
discussed in more detail in the accompanying direct final rule and in 
accordance with the provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has 
determined that the recommendations contained in the Joint Agreement 
comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0055.
    \4\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0056.
    \5\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed 
in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards 
for consumer clothes dryers. The standards are expressed in terms of 
the combined energy factor (``CEFD2''), measured in pounds 
per kilowatt-hour (``lb/kWh''), as determined in accordance with DOE's 
consumer clothes dryer test procedure at title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix D2 
(``appendix D2''). The CEF metric includes active mode, standby mode, 
and off mode energy use.
    Table I.1 presents the proposed standards for consumer clothes 
dryers. The proposed standards are the same as those recommended by the 
Joint Agreement. These standards would apply to all products listed in 
Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States 
starting on March 1, 2028, as recommended in the Joint Agreement.

 Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes
                                 Dryers
                   [Compliance starting March 1, 2028]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Minimum CEFD2
                     Product class                          (lb/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (``ft3'') or                 3.93
 greater capacity)....................................
(ii) Electric, Compact (120 volts (``V'')) (less than               4.33
 4.4 ft3 capacity)....................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4                3.57
 ft3 capacity)........................................
(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater                       3.48
 capacity)............................................
(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity)..              2.02
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4               2.68
 ft3 capacity)........................................
(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer.....              2.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant 
historical background related to the establishment of standards for 
consumer clothes dryers.

A. Authority

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include consumer 
clothes dryers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(8)) 
EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 
U.S.C. 6295(g)(3)), and directed DOE to conduct future rulemakings to 
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)) EPCA 
further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any 
final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either 
a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to 
be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation 
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1))
    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal 
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include 
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), 
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal 
preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with 
the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 
U.S.C. 6297(d))
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products 
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 
representations to the public regarding

[[Page 18246]]

the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 
42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to 
determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant 
to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for consumer 
clothes dryers appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix D1 and appendix D2 (``appendix 
D1'' and ``appendix D2,'' respectively).
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products, including consumer clothes 
dryers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be 
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that 
the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) 
Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in 
the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by 
rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) (B)) In deciding whether a proposed 
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the 
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving 
comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest 
extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption 
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that 
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying 
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three 
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the 
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under 
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
    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))
    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 product 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))
    Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, final rules for new or amended energy conservation standards 
promulgated after July 1, 2010, are required to address standby mode 
and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE 
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if 
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into 
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate 
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for consumer clothes 
dryers address standby mode and off mode energy use, as do the 
standards proposed in this NOPR.
    Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE 
authority to directly issue a final rule (i.e., a ``direct final 
rule'') establishing an energy or water conservation standard upon 
receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are 
fairly representative of relevant points of view (including 
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and 
efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary, that contains 
recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the 
Secretary must also determine whether a jointly-submitted 
recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard satisfies 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.
    A NOPR that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must 
be published simultaneously with the direct final rule, and DOE must 
provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Based on the comments received during 
this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE 
will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if (1) one 
or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those 
comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the 
direct final rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 
direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) 
Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner. (Id.) After 
withdrawing a direct final rule, DOE must proceed with the NOPR 
published simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the 
Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn. 
(Id.)

[[Page 18247]]

    DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final 
rule authority. In a final rule amending the Department's ``Procedures, 
Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy 
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products'' at 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart C, appendix A, DOE noted that it may issue standards 
recommended by interested persons that are fairly representative of 
relative points of view as a direct final rule when the recommended 
standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But 
the direct final rule provision in EPCA, under which this proposed rule 
is issued, does not impose additional requirements applicable to other 
standards rulemakings, which is consistent with the unique 
circumstances of rules issued through consensus agreements under DOE's 
direct final rule authority. Id. DOE's discretion remains bounded by 
its statutory mandate to adopt a standard that results in the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified--a requirement found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Id. 
As such, DOE's review and analysis of the Joint Agreement is limited to 
whether the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o).

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    In a direct final rule published on April 21, 2011, (``April 2011 
Direct Final Rule'') DOE prescribed the current energy conservation 
standards for consumer clothes dryers manufactured on and after January 
1, 2015. 76 FR 22454.\6\ The current energy conservation standards, as 
amended in the 2011 Direct Final Rule, are in accordance with the 
appendix D1 test procedure as discussed in section II.B.2 of this 
document. They are based on combined energy factor (``CEF'')--a metric 
that incorporates energy use in active mode, standby mode, and off 
mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DOE published a confirmation of effective date and 
compliance date for the direct final rule on August 24, 2011. 76 FR 
52854.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current standards are defined in terms of a minimum allowable 
CEF, as measured according to appendix D1. Even though DOE maintained 
the same energy efficiency descriptor for both appendix D1 and appendix 
D2, DOE notes that the CEF values are not equivalent because of the 
extensive differences in test methods.\7\ To avoid potential confusion 
that would result from using the same efficiency descriptor for both 
test procedures as it relates to the standards discussed in this 
document, DOE is including a ``D1'' or ``D2'' subscript when referring 
to the appendix D1 CEF and appendix D2 CEF, respectively 
(``CEFD1'' and ``CEFD2'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ While the current standards are based on CEF as determined 
in accordance with appendix D1, manufacturers are permitted to use 
the appendix D2 test procedure to comply with the current standards, 
as long as they use a single appendix for all representations. 
Beginning on the compliance date of the amended standards 
established by this final rule, manufacturers will be required to 
use appendix D2 to comply with the amended standards.

   Table II.1 Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Clothes
                  Dryers as Measured Under Appendix D1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         CEFD1  (lb/kWh)
                     Product class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ or greater                 3.73
 capacity).............................................
(ii) Vented Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4                 3.61
 ft\3\ capacity).......................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4                3.27
 ft\3\ capacity).......................................
(iv) Vented Gas........................................             3.30
(v) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4                2.55
 ft\3\ capacity).......................................
(vi) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer.......             2.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Current Test Procedure
    On October 8, 2021, DOE published a final rule for the test 
procedure rulemaking (86 FR 56608) (the ``October 2021 TP Final 
Rule''), in which it amended appendix D1 and appendix D2, both entitled 
``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Clothes 
Dryers,'' to provide additional detail in response to questions from 
manufacturers and test laboratories, including additional detail 
regarding the testing of ``connected'' models, dryness level selection, 
and the procedures for maintaining the required heat input rate for gas 
consumer clothes dryers; additional detail for the test procedures for 
performing inactive and off mode power measurements; specifications for 
the final moisture content (``FMC'') required for testing automatic 
termination control dryers; specification of a narrower scale 
resolution for the weighing scale used to determine moisture content of 
test loads; and specification that the test load must be weighed within 
5 minutes after a test cycle has terminated. In addition, as part of 
the October 2021 TP Final Rule, DOE amended the test procedures to 
update the estimated number of annual use cycles for consumer clothes 
dryers; provide further direction for additional provisions within the 
test procedures; specify rounding requirements for all reported values; 
apply consistent use of nomenclature and correct typographical errors; 
remove obsolete sections of the test procedures, including appendix D; 
and update the reference to the applicable industry test procedure to 
the version certified by the American National Standards Institute 
(``ANSI''). 86 FR 56608, 56610.
    DOE's current energy conservation standards for consumer clothes 
dryers are expressed in terms of CEFD1. (See 10 CFR 
430.32(h)(3).) Appendix D1 tests timed drying cycles, and accounts for 
clothes dryers with automatic termination controls by applying a higher 
field use factor to units that have this feature. Appendix D2 tests 
``normal'' automatic termination cycles and more accurately measure the 
effects of automatic cycle termination.
    EPCA authorizes DOE to design test procedures that measure energy 
efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated annual operating cost 
of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or 
period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The appendix D2 test procedure, 
which is required for use to demonstrate compliance with the amended 
energy conservation standards established in this direct final rule, 
measures the energy consumption of a representative use cycle that 
dries a load of laundry from an initial moisture content of 57.5 
percent to an FMC of less than 2 percent. 86 FR 56624-56625. For timer 
clothes dryers, the test load is

[[Page 18248]]

dried until the FMC is between 1 and 2.5 percent of the bone-dry weight 
of the test load. The measured energy consumption is then normalized to 
determine the energy consumption required to dry the test load to 2-
percent FMC, with a field use factor applied to account for the over-
drying energy consumption. For automatic termination control clothes 
dryers, appendix D2 specifies that a ``normal'' program be selected for 
the test cycle, and for clothes dryers that do not have a ``normal'' 
program, the cycle recommended by the manufacturer for drying cotton or 
linen shall be selected. If the drying temperature and drying level 
settings can be chosen independently of the program, they shall be set 
at the maximum drying temperature setting, and at a ``normal'' or 
``medium'' dryness level setting. The test is considered valid if the 
FMC of the test load is 2 percent or less after the completion of the 
test cycle. If the FMC is greater than 2 percent, the test is 
considered invalid and a new run shall be conducted using the highest 
dryness level setting.
    The current 2-percent FMC requirement using the DOE test cloth was 
adopted as representative of approximately 5-percent FMC for ``real-
world'' clothing, based on data submitted in a joint petition for 
rulemaking.\8\ DOE determined in the final rule published on August 14, 
2013, that established the appendix D2 test procedure that the 
specified 2-percent FMC using the DOE test load was representative of 
consumer expectations for dryness of clothing in field use. 78 FR 
49608, 49620-49622, 49610-49611. DOE did not amend the FMC requirements 
in the October 2021 TP Final Rule. 86 FR 56626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The petition was submitted by AHAM, Whirlpool Corporation, 
General Electric Company, Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc., BSH, 
Alliance Laundry Systems, Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/
C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA 
Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik, 
Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and 
DeLonghi, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, 
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense 
Council, Alliance to Save Energy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, 
Northwest Power and Conservation Council, and Northeast Energy 
Efficiency Partnerships, Consumer Federation of America and the 
National Consumer Law Center. See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP- 0054, 
No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has conducted the rulemaking analysis for this proposed rule 
based on CEFD2 because compliance with the amended energy 
conservation standards established in the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register must be determined 
based on the use of appendix D2. DOE discusses additional details in 
section IV.C.1 of the accompanying direct final rule about how it 
developed the engineering baseline, in terms of CEFD2, from 
the current consumer clothes dryer standards that are in terms of 
CEFD1.
3. The Joint Agreement
    On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (i.e., the 
Joint Agreement) recommending standards for consumer clothes dryers, 
that was submitted by groups representing manufacturers, energy and 
environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.\9\ In addition 
to the recommended standards for consumer clothes dryers, the Joint 
Agreement also included separate recommendations for several other 
covered products.\10\ And, while acknowledging that DOE may implement 
these recommendations in separate rulemakings, the Joint Agreement also 
stated that the recommendations were recommended as a complete package 
and each recommendation is contingent upon the other parts being 
implemented. DOE understands this to mean that the Joint Agreement is 
contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes to adopt all of the 
recommended standards in the agreement. That is distinguished from an 
agreement where issuance of an amended energy conservation standard for 
a covered product is contingent on issuance of amended energy 
conservation standards for the other covered products. If the Joint 
Agreement were so construed, it would conflict with the anti-
backsliding provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), because it would imply 
the possibility that, if DOE were unable to issue an amended standard 
for a certain product, it would have to withdraw a previously issued 
standard for one of the other products. The anti-backsliding provision, 
however, prevents DOE from withdrawing or amending an energy 
conservation standard to be less stringent. As a result, DOE will be 
proceeding with individual rulemakings that will evaluate each of the 
recommended standards separately under the applicable statutory 
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include AHAM, 
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water 
Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer 
Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National 
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest 
Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 
Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that make the affected 
products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB; 
Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances 
Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; 
Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances; 
L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr USA, Co.; 
Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration 
Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of America; Perlick Corporation; 
Samsung Electronics America Inc.; Sharp Electronics Corporation; 
Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby Corporation; U-Line 
Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool Corporation.
    \10\ The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for six 
covered products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 
freezers; residential clothes washers; consumer clothes dryers; 
dishwashers; consumer conventional cooking products; and 
miscellaneous refrigeration products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A court decision issued after DOE received the Joint Agreement is 
also relevant to today's rule. On March 17, 2022, various States filed 
a petition seeking review of a final rule revoking two final rules that 
established product classes for residential dishwashers with a cycle 
time for the normal cycle of 60 minutes or less, top-loading 
residential clothes washers (``RCWs'') and certain classes of consumer 
clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, and front-
loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes (collectively, 
``short cycle product classes''). The petitioners argued that the final 
rule revoking the short cycle product classes violated EPCA and was 
arbitrary and capricious. On January 8, 2024, the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review and 
remanded the matter to DOE for further proceedings consistent with the 
Fifth Circuit's opinion. See Louisiana v. United States Department of 
Energy, 90 F.4th 461 (5th Cir. 2024).
    On February 14, 2024, following the Fifth Circuit's decision in 
Louisiana v. United States Department of Energy, DOE received a second 
joint statement from this same group of stakeholders in which the 
signatories reaffirmed the Joint Agreement, stating that the 
recommended standards represent the maximum levels of efficiency that 
are technologically feasible and economically justified.\11\ In the 
letter, the signatories clarified that ``short-cycle'' product classes 
for RCWs, consumer clothes dryers, and dishwashers did not exist at the 
time that the signatories submitted their recommendations and it is 
their understanding that these classes also do not exist at the current 
time. Accordingly, the parties clarified that the Joint Agreement did 
not address short-cycle product classes. The signatories also stated 
that they did not anticipate that the recommended energy conservation 
standards in the Joint Agreement will negatively affect

[[Page 18249]]

features or performance, including cycle time, for consumer clothes 
dryers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a recently issued request for information (``RFI''),\12\ DOE is 
commencing a rulemaking process on remand from the Fifth Circuit (the 
``Remand Proceeding'') by soliciting further information, relevant to 
the issues identified by the Fifth Circuit, regarding any short cycle 
product classes. In that Remand Proceeding, DOE will conduct the 
analysis required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B) to determine whether any 
short-cycle products have a ``capacity or other performance-related 
feature [that] . . . justifies a higher or lower standard from that 
which applies (or will apply) to other products. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Appliance Standards Rulemakings and Notices 
(energy.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Agreement recommends amended standard levels for consumer 
clothes dryers as presented in Table II.2. (Joint Agreement, No. 55 at 
p. 9) Details of the Joint Agreement recommendations for other products 
are provided in the Joint Agreement posted in the docket.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Joint Agreement available in the docket at 
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014--BT-STD-0058-0055.

    Table II.2--Recommended Amended Energy Conservation Standards for
                         Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Minimum energy
        Product class          efficiency ratio       Compliance date
                                   (lb/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, Standard (4.4                     3.93  March 1, 2028.
 cubic feet (``ft\3\'') or
 greater capacity).
Electric, Compact (120 volts                4.33
 (``V'')) (less than 4.4
 ft\3\ capacity).
Vented Electric, Compact                    3.57
 (240V) (less than 4.4 ft\3\
 capacity).
Vented Gas, Standard (4.4                   3.48
 ft\3\ or greater capacity).
Vented Gas, Compact (less                   2.02
 than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
Ventless Electric, Compact                  2.68
 (240V) (less than 4.4 ft\3\
 capacity).
Ventless Electric,                          2.33
 Combination Washer-Dryer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has evaluated the Joint Agreement and believes that it meets 
the EPCA requirements for issuance of a direct final rule. As a result, 
DOE published a direct final rule establishing energy conservation 
standards for consumer clothes dryers elsewhere in this issue of the 
Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse comments that may provide a 
reasonable basis for withdrawal and withdraws the direct final rule, 
DOE will consider those comments and any other comments received in 
determining how to proceed with this proposed rule. For further 
background information on these proposed standards and the supporting 
analyses, please see the direct final rule published elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register. That document and the accompanying 
technical support document (``TSD'') contain an in-depth discussion of 
the analyses conducted in evaluating the Joint Agreement, the 
methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses, and the analytical 
results.
    When the Joint Agreement was submitted, DOE was conducting a 
rulemaking to consider amending the standards for consumer clothes 
dryers. As part of that process, DOE published a NOPR and announced a 
public webinar to respond to initial comments on August 23, 2022 
(``August 2022 NOPR'') seeking comment on its proposed amended 
standards to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under 
EPCA and the Administrative Procedures Act (``APA''). 87 FR 51734. DOE 
subsequently held a public webinar on September 13, 2022, to discuss 
and receive comments on the August 2022 NOPR TSD. The August 2022 NOPR 
TSD is available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0034.

III. Proposed Standards

    When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the 
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, 
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for consumer 
clothes dryers at each trial standard level (``TSL''), beginning with 
the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') level, to determine 
whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level 
was not justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level 
and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest 
efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically 
justified and saves a significant amount of energy. DOE refers to this 
process as the ``walk-down'' analysis.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on 
employment.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers 
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of 
information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or 
aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant 
delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term, 
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings 
relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational 
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant 
tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example,

[[Page 18250]]

between renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less 
than perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the 
future, consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher 
than expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future 
energy cost savings.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to 
lost revenue is included in the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA''). 
Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products 
actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a standard 
decreases the number of products purchased by consumers, this decreases 
the potential energy savings from an energy conservation standard. DOE 
provides estimates of shipments and changes in the volume of product 
purchases in chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD \14\ available in 
the docket for this rulemaking. However, DOE's current analysis does 
not explicitly control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, 
preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, or 
consumer price sensitivity variation according to household income.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at 
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058/document.
    \15\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883. 
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer Clothes Dryers 
Standards

    Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for consumer clothes dryers. The national 
impacts are measured over the lifetime of consumer clothes dryers 
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of 
compliance with amended standards (2027-2056).\16\ The energy savings, 
emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer to full-
fuel-cycle (``FFC'') results. The efficiency levels contained in each 
TSL are described in section V.A of the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. DOE is presenting 
monetized benefits of greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions reductions in 
accordance with the applicable Executive Orders and DOE would reach the 
same conclusion presented in this notice in the absence of the social 
cost of greenhouse gases, including the Interim Estimates presented by 
the Interagency Working Group. The efficiency levels contained in each 
TSL are described in section V.A of the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 
2028-2057.

                              Table III.1--Summary of Analytical Results for Consumer Clothes Dryer TSLs: National Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Category                               TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4           TSL 5           TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads...................................................            0.57            1.58            2.66            3.52            9.70            9.76
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...............................            12.4            34.1            57.1            73.5           188.6           189.6
CH4 (thousand tons).....................................           114.8           311.4           527.6           661.6           1,646           1,654
N2O (thousand tons).....................................             0.1             0.3             0.5             0.6             1.7             1.7
NOX (thousand tons).....................................            25.4            69.0           116.5           146.7           364.1           366.0
SO2 (thousand tons).....................................             3.0             8.4            13.9            19.0            53.3            53.6
Hg (tons)...............................................            0.02             0.1             0.1             0.1             0.4             0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.........................             4.3            12.7            21.1            28.8            77.4            77.8
Climate Benefits *......................................             0.7             2.0             3.3             4.3            10.8            10.9
Health Benefits **......................................             1.4             3.8             6.3             8.2            20.8            20.9
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits [dagger].............................             6.4            18.5            30.7            41.3           108.9           109.5
Consumer Incremental Product Costs[Dagger]..............             0.2             0.4             1.0             8.9            46.2            47.3
Consumer Net Benefits...................................             4.1            12.3            20.1            19.9            31.2            30.5
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Net Benefits..................................             6.2            18.2            29.7            32.4            62.8            62.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.........................             2.0             6.1             9.8            13.7            35.2            35.4
Climate Benefits *......................................             0.7             2.0             3.3             4.3            10.8            10.9
Health Benefits **......................................             0.6             1.7             2.6             3.6             8.7             8.7
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits[dagger]..............................             3.4             9.8            15.8            21.6            54.7            55.0
Consumer Incremental Product Costs[Dagger]..............             0.1             0.2             0.6             5.3            26.2            26.8
Consumer Net Benefits...................................             1.9             5.9             9.2             8.4             9.0             8.6
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 18251]]

 
    Total Net Benefits..................................             3.3             9.6            15.2            16.3            28.5            28.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer clothes dryers shipped during the period 2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 3
  (the Recommended TSL) and 2028-2057 for TSL 3. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2056 from the products
  shipped during the period 2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 3 and 2057 from the products shipped during the period 2028-2057 for TSL 3.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-
  CH4), and nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate).
  Together, these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-
  percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG
  estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document:
  Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working
  Group (``IWG'') on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. See www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocumentSocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor
  health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health
  benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. For more details, see
  section IV.L of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent
  and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.


                                          Table III.2--Summary of Analytical Results for Consumer Clothes Dryer TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                        TSL 1 *                    TSL 2 *                    TSL 3 *                    TSL 4 *                   TSL 5 *                  TSL 6 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Manufacturer Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No-   2,080.3 to 2,084.3.......  2,061.1 to 2,069.5.......  1,971.2 to 1,995.8.......  1,501.9 to 1,724.8.......  679.9 to 1,800.8.......  604.3 to 1,753.5.
 new-standards case INPV =
 2,115.4).
Industry NPV (% change)...........  (1.7) to (1.5)...........  (2.6) to (2.2)...........  (6.8) to (5.7)...........  (29.0) to (18.5).........  (67.9) to (14.9).......  (71.4) to (17.1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, Standard................  $150.....................  $170.....................  $252.....................  $101.....................  $41....................  $41
Electric, Compact (120 V).........  $53......................  $83......................  $66......................  $66......................  $66....................  ($209)
Vented Electric, Compact (240 V)..  $38......................  $89......................  $90......................  $90......................  $22....................  ($230)
Vented Gas, Standard..............  $48......................  $112.....................  $102.....................  $102.....................  $13....................  $13
Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V)  $0.......................  $99......................  $99......................  $99......................  $99....................  ($102)
Ventless Electric, Combination      $0.......................  $10......................  $11......................  $10......................  $10....................  ($531)
 Washer-Dryer.
Shipment-Weighted Average \*\.....  $131.....................  $159.....................  $224.....................  $100.....................  $36....................  $29
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Consumer Simple PBP (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, Standard................  0.5......................  0.5......................  0.6......................  2.1......................  5.8....................  5.8
Electric, Compact (120 V).........  1.5......................  1.5......................  2.2......................  2.2......................  2.2....................  18.1
Vented Electric, Compact (240 V)..  2.1......................  1.5......................  2.0......................  2.0......................  6.6....................  20.4
Vented Gas, Standard..............  2.5......................  1.3......................  1.9......................  1.9......................  5.0....................  5.0
Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V)  0.0......................  0.4......................  0.4......................  0.4......................  0.4....................  11.4
Ventless Electric, Combination      0.0......................  0.0......................  0.0......................  0.0......................  0.0....................  46.3
 Washer-Dryer.
Shipment-Weighted Average \*\.....  0.9......................  0.6......................  0.8......................  2.1......................  5.6....................  6.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, Standard................  1.2%.....................  0.9%.....................  0.9%.....................  48.0%....................  63.1%..................  63.1%
Electric, Compact (120 V).........  4.8%.....................  5.1%.....................  21.4%....................  21.7%....................  21.7%..................  90.9%
Vented Electric, Compact (240 V)..  5.7%.....................  4.6%.....................  12.4%....................  12.6%....................  60.7%..................  92.8%
Vented Gas, Standard..............  2.7%.....................  1.7%.....................  7.1%.....................  7.0%.....................  68.7%..................  68.7%
Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V)  0.0%.....................  0.0%.....................  0.0%.....................  0.0%.....................  0.0%...................  58.6%
Ventless Electric, Combination      0.0%.....................  0.0%.....................  0.0%.....................  0.0%.....................  0.0%...................  95.0%
 Washer-Dryer.
Shipment-Weighted Average \*\.....  1.5%.....................  1.0%.....................  2.0%.....................  40.4%....................  63.3%..................  64.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027 for all TSLs except TSL 3 and in 2028 for TSL 3.

    DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency level and includes the design parameters of the most 
efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes for 
all product classes. The max-tech design options include heat pump 
technology for electric consumer clothes dryers and inlet air preheat 
technology for gas consumer clothes dryers. DOE's shipments analysis 
estimates approximately 1 percent of annual consumer clothes dryer 
shipments currently meet this level. TSL 6 would save an estimated 9.76 
quadrillion British thermal units (``quads'') of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 6, the net present value (``NPV'') of 
consumer benefit would be $8.6 billion using a discount

[[Page 18252]]

rate of 7 percent, and $30.5 billion using a discount rate of 3 
percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 would be 189.6 million 
tons (``Mt'') of CO2, 53.6 thousand tons of SO2, 
366.0 thousand tons of NOX, 0.4 ton of Hg, 1,654 thousand 
tons of CH4, and 1.7 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG 
emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount 
rate) at TSL 6 would be $10.9 billion. The estimated monetary value of 
the health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions at TSL 6 would be $8.7 billion using a 7-percent discount 
rate and $20.9 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 6 would be 
$28.2 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and 
costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 6 would be $62.2 billion. The 
estimated total NPV is provided for additional information; however, 
DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining 
whether a standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 6, the average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') impact on affected 
consumers would be a savings of $41 for electric standard, -$209 for 
electric compact (120V), -$230 for vented electric compact (240V), $13 
for vented gas standard, -$102 for ventless electric compact (240V), 
and -$531 for ventless electric combination washer-dryer. The simple 
payback period (``PBP'') would be 6 years for electric standard, 18 
years for electric compact (120V), 20 years for vented electric compact 
(240V), 5 years for vented gas standard, 11 years for ventless electric 
compact (240V), and 46 years for ventless electric combination washer-
dryer. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 
63 percent for electric standard, 91 percent for electric compact 
(120V), 93 percent for vented electric compact (240V), 69 percent for 
vented gas standard, 59 percent for ventless electric compact (240V), 
and 95 percent for ventless electric combination washer-dryer. Overall, 
across the product classes, the majority of consumers would experience 
a net LCC cost, especially for senior households. DOE estimated that 
more 72 percent of senior-only households would experience a net LCC 
cost at TSL 6.
    At TSL 6, the projected change in industry net present value 
(``INPV'') ranges from a decrease of $1,511.1 million to a decrease of 
$361.9 million, corresponding to decreases of 71.4 percent and 17.1 
percent, respectively. The loss in INPV is largely driven by industry 
conversion costs as manufacturers work to redesign their portfolios of 
model offerings and retool entire factories to comply with amended 
standards at this level. Industry conversion costs could reach $1,516.9 
million at this TSL.
    Conversion costs at TSL 6 are significant as nearly all existing 
consumer clothes dryer models would need to be redesigned to meet the 
max-tech efficiencies. Approximately 1 percent of industry shipments 
currently meet TSL 6. For the electric clothes dryer product classes, 
manufacturers would need to implement heat pump technology to meet max-
tech levels. Out of the 19 original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') 
that manufacture electric consumer clothes dryers, nine OEMs offer heat 
pump models for the U.S. market. The remaining 10 OEMs do not offer any 
models for the domestic market that utilize heat pump technology. A 
standard that could only be met using heat pump technology would 
require a total renovation of existing production facilities and would 
require most manufacturers to design completely new clothes dryer 
platforms, as they would not be able to maintain the resistive heating 
designs that currently dominate the U.S. electric clothes dryer market. 
In interviews, several manufacturers expressed concern about a 
potential shortage of products given the required scale of investment, 
redesign efforts, and 3-year compliance timeline.
    For gas consumer clothes dryers, manufacturers would need to 
implement inlet air preheat technology along with other design options 
to meet the efficiency levels required by TSL 6. Thus far, consumer 
clothes dryers with this technology and performance have not been 
observed in consumer clothes dryers available on the consumer market. 
Consumer clothes dryers with inlet air preheat designs have been 
observed only in laboratory settings. In interviews, some manufacturers 
raised concerns about implementing a relatively untested technology for 
the consumer market. There is very little industry experience with 
inlet air preheat designs. Several manufacturers speculated that 
implementing inlet air preheat technology would require a major 
overhaul of existing production facilities and a significant amount of 
engineering time.
    At this level, DOE estimates an 11-percent drop in shipments in the 
year the standard would take effect compared to the no-new-standards 
case, as price-sensitive consumers may forgo purchasing a new clothes 
dryer or rely on alternatives such as repair or purchasing a used dryer 
due to the increased upfront cost of baseline models.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 6 for consumer 
clothes dryers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of 
consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary 
value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic 
burden on many consumers, especially senior-only households, as well as 
the impacts on manufacturers, including the potential for large 
conversion costs and reduction in INPV.
    TSL 6, representing the most efficient heat pump technology on the 
market, would provide significant energy savings potential, as 
discussed. Despite the current and potential future benefits of heat 
pump technology, the analysis at TSL 6 indicates that a significant 
fraction of consumers of electric and vented gas standard clothes 
dryers, including low-income and senior-only households, would 
experience a net cost given the current relatively high incremental 
cost of electric and vented gas standard clothes dryers at the max-tech 
efficiency level. This is particularly pronounced for electric standard 
clothes dryers, where the incremental production cost at the max-tech 
efficiency level is comparable to the manufacturer production cost for 
the baseline efficiency level. Consumers with existing electric 
standard clothes dryers below EL 4 (about 55 percent) and consumers 
with existing vented gas standard clothes dryers below EL 3 (about 50 
percent) would be more likely to experience a net cost at TSL 6, given 
the relatively modest decrease in operating costs compared to the high 
incremental installed costs. Few products currently meet the efficiency 
levels required by TSL 6. DOE estimates that approximately 1 percent of 
current shipments meet the max-tech efficiencies. At max-tech, limited 
industry experience by certain manufacturers with the high-efficiency 
design options, the large conversion costs to update facilities and 
product designs, and expected drop in industry shipments would result 
in a reduction of INPV and a potential shortage of products given the 
required scale of investment, redesign efforts, and time constraints. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 6 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 5, which represents the maximum energy 
savings with positive NPV. TSL 5 corresponds

[[Page 18253]]

to the max-tech level (EL 7), which represents heat pump technology, 
for the electric standard product class, and the efficiency levels 
corresponding to modulating (2-stage) heating technology in the 
electric compact (120V) and inlet air preheat technology in the vented 
electric compact (240V) product classes considered in this analysis. 
For the vented gas standard product class, TSL 5 corresponds to the 
max-tech level (EL 4), which represents inlet air preheat technology. 
TSL 5 would save an estimated 9.70 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would 
be $9.0 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $31.2 billion 
using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 would be 188.6 Mt of 
CO2, 53.3 thousand tons of SO2, 364.1 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.4 ton of Hg, 1,646 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 1.7 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 5 would be $10.8 billion. The estimated monetary value of the 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions at TSL 5 would be $ 8.7 billion using a 7-percent discount 
rate and $20.8 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 5 would be 
$28.5 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and 
costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 5 would be $62.8 billion. The 
estimated total NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE 
primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining 
whether a standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 5, the average LCC impact on affected consumers would be a 
savings of $41 for electric standard, $66 for electric compact (120V), 
$22 for vented electric compact (240V), $13 for vented gas standard, 
$99 for ventless electric compact (240V), and $10 for ventless electric 
combination washer-dryer. The simple PBP would be 6 years for electric 
standard, 2 years for electric compact (120V), 7 years for vented 
electric compact (240V), 5 years for vented gas standard, 0.4 years for 
ventless electric compact (240V), and zero years for ventless electric 
combination washer-dryer. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net 
LCC cost would be 63 percent for electric standard, 22 percent for 
electric compact (120V), 61 percent for vented electric compact (240V), 
69 percent for vented gas standard, and zero percent for ventless 
electric compact (240V) and ventless electric combination washer-dryer. 
Overall, across the product classes, approximately 63 percent of 
consumers would experience a net LCC cost, especially for senior-only 
households. DOE estimated that more than 71 percent of senior-only 
households would experience a net LCC cost at TSL 5.
    At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$1,435.5 million to a decrease of $314.6 million, corresponding to 
decreases of 67.9 percent and 14.9 percent, respectively. Industry 
conversion costs could reach $1,436.9 million at this TSL.
    DOE's shipments analysis estimates approximately 2 percent of 
annual shipments currently meet this level. At TSL 5, the efficiency 
levels and analyzed design options for electric standard and vented gas 
standard dryers (which together account for approximately 98 percent of 
industry shipments) are the same as at max-tech. Thus, requiring heat 
pump technology for electric standard dryers and inlet air preheat for 
vented gas standard dryers would result in similar conversion costs, 
reduction in INPV, and drop in shipments as TSL 6.
    At this level, DOE estimates an 11-percent drop in shipments in the 
year the standard would take effect compared to the no-new-standards 
case, as price-sensitive consumers may forgo purchasing a new clothes 
dryer or rely on alternatives such as repair or purchasing a used dryer 
due to the increased upfront cost of baseline models.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 for consumer 
clothes dryers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of 
consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary 
value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic 
burden on many consumers, especially senior-only households, as well as 
the impacts on manufacturers, including the significant conversion 
costs and large potential reduction in INPV. A significant fraction of 
electric standard clothes dryer consumers, including low-income and 
senior-only households, would experience a net cost. This is due to the 
high incremental cost of electric standard clothes dryers at the max-
tech efficiency level. Consumers with existing electric standard 
clothes dryers below EL 4 would be more likely to experience a net cost 
at TSL 5, given the relatively modest decrease in operating costs 
compared to the high incremental installed costs. DOE estimates that 
approximately 2 percent of shipments currently meet the efficiencies 
required by this TSL. At TSL 5, the limited industry experience by 
certain manufacturers with the high-efficiency design options, the 
large conversion costs to update facilities and product designs, and 
expected drop in industry shipments would result in a reduction of INPV 
and a potential shortage of products given the required scale of 
investment, redesign efforts, and time constraints. Consequently, the 
Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 5 is not economically 
justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 4, which represents the maximum national 
energy savings with simple PBP less than 4 years for each product 
class. TSL 4 corresponds to the EL that represents inlet air preheat 
technology for the electric standard product class considered in this 
analysis. For the electric compact (120V) and vented electric compact 
(240V) product classes, TSL 4 corresponds to EL 4, which represents 
modulating (2-stage) heating technology. For the vented gas standard 
product class, TSL 4 corresponds to EL 3, which also represents 
modulating (2-stage) heating technology. TSL 4 would save an estimated 
3.52 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, 
the NPV of consumer benefit would be $8.4 billion using a discount rate 
of 7 percent, and $19.9 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 would be 73.5 Mt of 
CO2, 19.0 thousand tons of SO2, 146.7 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.1 ton of Hg, 661.6 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.6 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 4 would be $4.3 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 4 would be $3.6 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $8.2 
million using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 would be 
$16.3 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and 
costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 would be $32.4 billion. The 
estimated total NPV is

[[Page 18254]]

provided for additional information; however, DOE primarily relies upon 
the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a standard level 
is economically justified.
    At TSL 4, the average LCC impact on affected consumers would be a 
savings of $101 for electric standard, $66 for electric compact (120V), 
$90 for vented electric compact (240V), $102 for vented gas standard, 
$99 for ventless electric compact, and $10 for ventless electric 
combination washer-dryer. The simple PBP would be 2 years for electric 
standard, 2 years for electric compact (120V), 2 years for vented 
electric compact (240V), 2 years for vented gas standard, 0.4 years for 
ventless electric compact (240V), and zero years for ventless electric 
combination washer-dryer. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net 
LCC cost would be 48 percent for electric standard, 22 percent for 
electric compact (120V), 13 percent for vented electric compact (240V), 
7 percent for vented gas standard, and zero percent for ventless 
electric compact (240V) and ventless electric combination washer-dryer. 
Overall, across the product classes, approximately 40 percent of 
consumers would experience a net LCC cost, especially for senior 
households. DOE estimated that about 45 percent of senior-only 
households would experience a net LCC cost at TSL 4.
    At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$613.5 million to a decrease of $390.6 million, corresponding to 
decreases of 29.0 percent and 18.5 percent, respectively. Industry 
conversion costs could reach $667.5 million at this TSL.
    At TSL 4, the majority of consumer clothes dryer models would need 
to be redesigned to meet the efficiency levels required. DOE's 
shipments analysis estimates approximately 15 percent of current 
shipments meet this level. For electric standard dryers, the design 
options include implementing inlet air preheat and other features. As 
previously noted, electric standard dryers account for approximately 81 
percent of total shipments. At the current time, there is very little 
industry experience with inlet air preheat designs. Currently, DOE is 
not aware of any consumer clothes dryers on the market utilizing this 
design option. DOE's shipments analysis estimates that approximately 7 
percent of electric standard shipments currently meet the efficiency 
required by TSL 4. Implementing inlet air preheat for electric standard 
dryers would represent a major overhaul of existing product lines and 
manufacturing facilities. This change would necessitate significant 
investments in new equipment and tooling. Product conversion costs 
would be necessary for designing, prototyping, and testing new or 
updated platforms.
    For vented gas standard clothes dryers, the analyzed design option 
at TSL 4 includes modulating (2-stage) heat technology, among other 
design options. Out of the nine OEMs that manufacture vented gas 
standard clothes dryers, eight offer products that meet the 
efficiencies required at TSL 4. DOE does not believe that there are any 
substantive barriers to modulating (2-stage) heating technology. 
Capital conversion costs would be necessary as manufacturers increase 
tooling for 2-stage heating systems. Product conversion costs would be 
necessary for cost-optimizing and testing new designs for a market with 
potential amended standards.
    At this level, DOE does not expect a notable drop in shipments in 
the year the standard takes effect.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for consumer 
clothes dryers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of 
consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary 
value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic 
burden on many consumers, especially senior-only households, as well as 
the impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion costs and profit 
margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV. A 
significant fraction of electric standard clothes dryer consumers, 
including senior-only households, would experience a net cost. This is 
due to the high incremental cost of electric standard clothes dryers at 
the inlet air preheat technology efficiency level. Consumers with 
existing electric standard clothes dryers below EL 4 would be more 
likely to experience a net cost at TSL 4, given the relatively modest 
decrease in operating costs compared to the high incremental installed 
costs. For electric standard dryers, DOE estimates that approximately 7 
percent of shipments currently meet the efficiency level required by 
this TSL. At TSL 4, the limited industry experience of electric 
standard dryer manufacturers with inlet air preheat technology and the 
large conversion costs to update facilities and product designs, would 
result in a large reduction of INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has 
tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 3, which corresponds to the TSL recommended 
in the Joint Agreement (the ``Recommended TSL'') and, which also 
represents a set of intermediate efficiency levels between those 
designated in TSL 2 and TSL 4 and corresponds to the current ENERGY 
STAR efficiency levels for the electric standard and vented gas 
standard product classes, which represent approximately 98 percent of 
the market. The Recommended TSL corresponds to the EL that represents 
modulating (2-stage) heating technology for the electric standard and 
electric compact (120V) product classes. For the vented gas standard 
product class, the Recommended TSL corresponds to EL 3, which also 
represents modulating (2-stage) heating technology. For the vented gas 
compact product class, the Recommended TSL corresponds to baseline 
CEFD2. For the electric compact (240V) product classes, the 
Recommended TSL corresponds to EL 2 for vented consumer clothes dryers, 
which represents a model with an optimized heating system and EL 1 for 
ventless consumer clothes dryers, which represents a baseline model 
with a more advanced automatic termination control system. For the 
ventless electric combination washer-dryer product class, the 
Recommended TSL corresponds to EL 1, which represents a baseline model 
with high-speed spin technology. The Recommended TSL would save an 
estimated 2.66 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. 
Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $9.23 
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $20.08 billion using a 
discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at the Recommended TSL would be 
57.1 Mt of CO2, 13.9 thousand tons of SO2, 116.5 
thousand tons of NOX, 0.1 ton of Hg, 527.6 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.5 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 3 would be $3.3 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 3 would be $2.6 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $6.3 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended 
TSL would be $15.2 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 
benefits and costs, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended TSL 
would be $29.7 billion. The estimated total NPV is provided for 
additional information;

[[Page 18255]]

however, DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when 
determining whether a standard level is economically justified.
    At the Recommended TSL, the average LCC impact on affected 
consumers would be a savings of $252 for electric standard, $66 for 
electric compact (120V), $90 for vented electric compact (240V), $102 
for vented gas standard, $99 for ventless electric compact, and $11 for 
ventless electric combination washer-dryer. The simple PBP would be 1 
year for the largest product class (electric standard), 2 years for 
electric compact (120V), 2 years for vented electric compact (240V), 2 
years for vented gas standard, 0.4 years for ventless electric compact 
(240V), and zero years for ventless electric combination washer-dryer. 
The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 1 
percent for electric standard, 21 percent for electric compact (120V), 
12 percent for vented electric compact (240V), 7 percent for vented gas 
standard, and zero percent for ventless electric compact (240V) and 
ventless electric combination washer-dryer. Overall, across the product 
classes, approximately 2 percent of consumers, including low-income and 
senior-only households, would experience a net LCC cost.
    At the Recommended TSL, the projected change in INPV ranges from a 
decrease of $144.2 million to a decrease of $119.7 million, 
corresponding to decreases of 6.8 percent and 5.7 percent, 
respectively. Industry conversion costs could reach $180.7 million at 
this TSL.
    DOE expects that some existing consumer clothes dryer models would 
need to be redesigned to meet the Recommended TSL efficiencies, but 
there are a wide range of available models for vented electric standard 
dryers due to participation in the ENERGY STAR program. DOE's shipments 
analysis estimates approximately 48 percent of annual shipments 
currently meet this level. For electric standard, electric compact 
(120V), vented electric compact (240V), and vented gas standard clothes 
dryers, which account for approximately 99 percent of total annual 
shipments, the design options include implementing electronic controls, 
optimized heating systems, more advanced automatic termination 
controls, and modulating (2-stage) heat. Of the 19 electric dryer OEMs, 
14 offer products at or above the efficiencies required for the 
electric dryer product classes at the Recommended TSL. Out of the nine 
OEMs that manufacture vented gas standard clothes dryers, eight offer 
products that meet the efficiencies required at the Recommended TSL. 
Capital conversion costs may be necessary as manufacturers increase 
tooling for 2-stage heating systems. Manufacturers may choose to 
further cost-optimize and test new designs as a result of the 
standards, but DOE believes some of this has already occurred in 
response to ENERGY STAR. DOE does not expect any drop in shipments in 
the year the standard takes effect.
    For all TSLs considered in this NOPR--except for the Recommended 
TSL--DOE is bound by the 3-year lead time requirements in EPCA when 
determining compliance dates (i.e., compliance with amended standards 
required in 2027). For the Recommended TSL, DOE's analysis utilized the 
March 1, 2028, compliance date specified in the Joint Agreement as it 
was an integral part of the multi-product joint recommendation. A 2028 
compliance year would provide manufacturers additional flexibility to 
spread capital requirements, engineering resources, and conversion 
activities over a longer period of time depending on the individual 
needs of each manufacturer.
    At the Recommended TSL, DOE's data demonstrate no negative impact 
on consumer utility for consumer clothes dryers. In addition, the 
second joint statement from the same group of stakeholders that 
submitted the Joint Agreement states that DOE's test data show, and 
industry experience agrees, that the recommended standard level for 
consumer clothes dryers will not result in significant differences in 
cycle time and will adequately dry clothes.\17\ Based on the 
information available, DOE concludes that no lessening of product 
utility or performance would occur at the Recommended TSL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that a standard set at 
the Recommended TSL for consumer clothes dryers would result in the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified and also result in the significant 
conservation of energy. At this TSL, the average LCC savings for all 
consumer clothes dryer product classes would be positive. An estimated 
weighted average of 2 percent of consumer clothes dryer consumers would 
experience a net cost. The FFC national energy savings would be 
significant and the NPV of consumer benefits would be positive using 
both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the benefits to 
consumers would vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers. At the 
Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the 
more conservative discount rate of 7 percent, would be over 64 times 
higher than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The 
positive LCC savings--a different way of quantifying consumer 
benefits--reinforces this conclusion. The standard levels at the 
Recommended TSL are economically justified even without weighing the 
estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions 
reductions are included--representing $3.3 billion in climate benefits 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and 
$6.3 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $2.6 billion (using a 
7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--the rationale becomes 
stronger still.
    As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL 
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 
EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative 
analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of 
energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically 
justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 70892, 70908. 
Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select the 
proposed amended energy conservation standards, DOE notes that as 
compared to TSL 6, TSL 5, and TSL 4, the Recommended TSL would have 
higher average LCC savings, smaller percentages of consumers 
experiencing a net cost, a lower maximum decrease in INPV, and lower 
manufacturer conversion costs.
    Although DOE considered amended standard levels for consumer 
clothes dryers by grouping the efficiency levels for each product class 
into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its 
analysis. Accordingly, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that the 
Recommended TSL would offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that 
is technologically feasible and economically justified and would result 
in the significant conservation of energy. For electric standard and 
vented gas standard consumer clothes dryers, which account for 
approximately 98 percent of U.S. shipments, requiring efficiency levels 
above the levels required by the Recommended TSL would result in a 
large percentage of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost, in addition 
to significant manufacturer

[[Page 18256]]

impacts and reductions in INPV. Additionally, for consumer clothes 
dryers, most manufacturers offer products that can meet the Recommended 
TSL across both electric and gas consumer clothes dryers. In addition, 
the Recommended TSL corresponds to the current ENERGY STAR levels for 
electric standard and vented gas standard clothes dryers, which have 
significant market share and manufacturer support due to their 
promotion over the past couple of years as a voluntary energy 
efficiency program. The adoption of standards, if finalized, at this 
TSL may encourage ENERGY STAR to further consider more efficient levels 
for dryers in the year leadings up to the compliance of date of the 
standard, which would in turn likely spur additional market 
introductions of consumer clothes dryers with heat pump technology, 
foster maturation of the technology and downward price trends, and 
further support differentiation within the dryer market for energy 
efficient products. For electric and vented gas standard consumer 
clothes dryers, the Recommended TSL is comprised of EL 4 and EL 3, 
respectively, resulting in higher LCC savings, a significant reduction 
in the number of consumers experiencing a net cost, a lower maximum 
decrease in INPV, and lower conversion costs to the point where DOE has 
tentatively concluded they are economically justified, as discussed for 
the Recommended TSL in the preceding paragraphs.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes the 
energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers at the 
Recommended TSL.
    While DOE considered each potential TSL under the criteria laid out 
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the 
Recommended TSL for consumer clothes dryers proposed in this NOPR is 
part of a multi-product Joint Agreement covering six rulemakings 
(residential clothes washers; consumer clothes dryers; consumer 
conventional cooking products; dishwashers; refrigerators, 
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; and miscellaneous refrigeration 
products). The signatories indicate that the Joint Agreement for the 
six rulemakings should be considered as a joint statement of 
recommended standards, to be adopted in its entirety. As discussed in 
section V.B.2.e of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register, many consumer clothes dryer OEMs also 
manufacture residential clothes washers; consumer conventional cooking 
products; dishwashers; refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 
freezers; and miscellaneous refrigeration products. Therefore, there 
are potential integrated benefits to the Joint Agreement. Rather than 
requiring compliance with five amended standards in a single year 
(2027),\18\ the negotiated multi-product Joint Agreement staggers the 
compliance dates for the five amended standards over a 4-year period 
(2027-2030). DOE understands that the compliance dates recommended in 
the Joint Agreement would help reduce cumulative regulatory burden by 
allowing greater flexibility in the allocation of resources to comply 
with multiple concurrent amended standards and by aligning compliance 
dates for products that are typically designed or sold as matched pairs 
(i.e., clothes washers and clothes dryers). The Joint Agreement also 
provides additional years of regulatory certainty for manufacturers and 
their suppliers while still achieving the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The analyses for residential clothes washers (88 FR 13520); 
consumer clothes dryers (87 FR 51734); consumer conventional cooking 
products (88 FR 6818); dishwashers (88 FR 32514); and refrigerators, 
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (88 FR 12452) utilized a 2027 
compliance year for analysis at the proposed rule stage. 
Miscellaneous refrigeration products (88 FR 12452) utilized a 2029 
compliance year for the NOPR analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amended energy conservation standards for consumer 
clothes dryers, which are expressed as CEFD2, are shown in 
Table III.3.

Table III.3--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer
                             Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Product class                        CEFD2 (lb/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity)...             3.93
(ii) Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft3                    4.33
 capacity).............................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4                3.57
 ft3 capacity).........................................
(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity)             3.48
(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity)...             2.02
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4               2.68
 ft3 capacity).........................................
(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer......             2.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, 
minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized 
monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission 
reductions.
    Table II.4 shows the annualized values for consumer clothes dryers 
under the Recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$. The results under the 
primary estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOX and SO2 reductions, and the 3-percent 
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the 
proposed standards for consumer clothes dryers would be $60.0 million 
per year in increased equipment installed costs, while the estimated 
annual benefits would be $971.4 million from reduced equipment 
operating costs, $185.5 million in GHG reductions, and $259.9 million 
from reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this case, 
the net benefit would amount to $1,357 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards for consumer clothes dryers 
would be $57.2 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the 
estimated annual benefits would be $1,177 million in reduced operating 
costs, $185.5 million from GHG reductions, and $349.4 million from 
reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this case, the 
net benefit would amount to $1,654 million per year.

[[Page 18257]]



           Table II.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Million 2022$/year
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Low-net-        High-net-
                                                                       Primary       benefits        benefits
                                                                       estimate      estimate        estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings....................................        1,177           1,103           1,230
Climate Benefits *.................................................        185.5           178.9           187.8
Health Benefits **.................................................        349.4           337.2           353.7
Total Benefits [dagger]............................................        1,712           1,619           1,771
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]........................         57.2            58.9            54.4
Net Benefits.......................................................        1,654           1,560           1,717
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV[Dagger]).........................    (12)-(10)       (12)-(10)       (12)-(10)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings....................................        971.4           915.5           1,014
Climate Benefits *.................................................        185.5           178.9           187.8
Health Benefits **.................................................        259.9           251.5           262.8
Total Benefits [dagger]............................................        1,417           1,346           1,464
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]........................         60.0            61.2            57.7
Net Benefits.......................................................        1,357           1,285           1,407
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV[Dagger][Dagger]).................    (12)-(10)       (12)-(10)       (12)-(10)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer clothes dryers shipped during the
  period 2028-2057. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products
  shipped during the period 2028-2057. The Primary, Low-Net-Benefits, and High-Net-Benefits estimates utilize
  projections of energy prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic
  Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the
  Primary Estimate, a constant rate in the Low-Net-Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High-Net-
  Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and
  IV.H.3 of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Note that the
  Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of the
  direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register). For presentational purposes of
  this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown,
  but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of
  considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of
  reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document:
  Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in
  February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
  Register for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
[Dagger][Dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national
  impact analysis. See sections IV.F and IV.H of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
  Federal Register. DOE's NIA includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain
  beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase
  in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on
  manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
  Federal Register and chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers'
  pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA
  produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the
  present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital
  expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry
  weighted average cost of capital value of 7.5 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis
  (see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost
  of capital). For consumer clothes dryers, those values are -$12 million to -$10 million. DOE accounts for that
  range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of the direct
  final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. DOE is presenting the range of impacts
  to the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the
  manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the
  Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-
  unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of
  estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in chapter 12 of
  the direct final rule TSD, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposed
  rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's
  Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for
  this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $1,642 million to $1,644 million at 3-percent
  discount rate and would range from $1,345 million to $1,347 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses (
  ) indicate negative values.

IV. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule until the date provided in the DATES section at the 
beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit 
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document. 
Comments relating to the direct final rule published elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register, should be submitted as instructed 
therein.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed

[[Page 18258]]

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

B. Public Meeting

    As stated previously, if DOE withdraws the direct final rule 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register pursuant to 
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for 
additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of 
any meeting in the Federal Register.

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

    The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are 
identical to those conducted for the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Please see the direct 
final rule for further details.

A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required 
by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and 
policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of 
its rules on small entities are properly considered during the 
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and 
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website 
(www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has not prepared an 
IRFA for the products that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
    DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 
February 19, 2003. DOE certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted, 
would not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The factual basis of this certification is set forth in 
the following paragraphs.
    For manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers, the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those 
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the 
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine 
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the 
rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size standards are listed by North 
American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code and industry 
description and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. Manufacturing of consumer clothes dryers is classified 
under NAICS 335220, ``Major Household Appliance Manufacturing.'' The 
SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer for an entity to be 
considered as a small business for this category.
    To estimate the number of companies that could be small business 
manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers, DOE conducted a market survey 
using public information and subscription-based company reports to 
identify potential small business

[[Page 18259]]

manufacturers. DOE reviewed its Compliance Certification Database,\19\ 
California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database 
System,\20\ the ENERGY STAR Product Finder dataset,\21\ individual 
company websites, import/export logs, and product specifications to 
create a list of companies that manufacture, produce, import, or 
private label the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE relied on 
public information and market research tools (e.g., reports from Dun 
and Bradstreet \22\) to determine company structure, location, 
headcount, and annual revenue. DOE screened out companies that do not 
manufacture the products covered by this proposed rulemaking, do not 
meet the SBA's definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned 
and operated. DOE also asked stakeholders and industry representatives 
if they were aware of any small manufacturers during manufacturer 
interviews and through requests for comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification 
Database is available at regulations.doe.gov/certification-data 
(last accessed April 28, 2023).
    \20\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance 
Efficiency Database System is available at 
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx 
(last accessed April 28, 2023).
    \21\ ENERGY STAR Product Finder is available at 
www.energystar.gov/productfinder (last accessed April 28, 2023).
    \22\ The Dun & Bradstreet subscription login is available at 
app.dnbhoovers.com (last accessed June 8, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE identified 19 OEMs of consumer clothes dryers. Of these 19 
OEMs, DOE determined none of them qualify as a domestic ``small 
business manufacturer'' of consumer clothes dryers. Given the lack of 
small domestic OEMs with a direct compliance burden, DOE concludes that 
this proposed rule would not have ``a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.''
    DOE will transmit the certification and supporting statement of 
factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 
29, 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 March 1, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Amend Sec.  430.32 by adding paragraph (h)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and their 
compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) Clothes dryers manufactured on or after March 1, 2028, shall 
have a combined energy factor, determined in accordance with appendix 
D2 of this subpart, no less than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          CEFD2 (lb/kWh)
                     Product class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) *.             3.93
(ii) Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft3                    4.33
 capacity).............................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4                3.57
 ft3 capacity).........................................
(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater                       3.48
 capacity)**...........................................
(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity)...             2.02
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4               2.68
 ft3 capacity).........................................
(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer......             2.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The energy conservation standards in this product class do not apply
  to Vented Electric, Standard clothes dryers with a cycle time of less
  than 30 minutes, when tested according to appendix D2 in subpart B of
  this part.
** The energy conservation standards in this product class do not apply
  to Vented Gas, Standard clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than
  30 minutes, when tested according to appendix D2 in subpart B of this
  part.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-04766 Filed 3-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P