Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers, 18836-18854 [2024-04737]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
18836
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 89, No. 52
Friday, March 15, 2024
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0014]
RIN 1904–AF58
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Washers
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy
conservation standards for various
consumer products and certain
commercial and industrial equipment,
including residential clothes washers
(‘‘RCWs’’). In this notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’), the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes
amended energy conservation standards
for RCWs 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 and
will proceed with this proposed rule.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,
and information regarding this NOPR no
later than July 3, 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 15, 2024.
ADDRESSES: See section IV of this
document, ‘‘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
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0014.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE–
2017–BT–STD–0014, by any of the
following methods:
(1) Email: ApplicanceStandards
Questions@ee.doe.gov. Include the
docket number EERE–2017–BT–STD–
0014 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact
disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 1000
Independence Ave. SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–
1445. If possible, please submit all items
on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
IV of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
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/EERE2017-BT-STD-0014. The docket web
page contains instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket. See section IV
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
energy.standards@usdoj.gov 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: ApplianceStandards
Questions@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (240) 586–2588. Email:
Amelia.Whiting@hq.doe.gov.
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: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
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 Residential Clothes
Washer Standards
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the
Proposed Standards
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
V. Severability
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is
Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance
Requirements Including Differences in
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
18837
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of
Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With
Other Rules and Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
VII. 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
(residential) 3 clothes washers
(‘‘RCWs’’), the subject of this proposed
rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))
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.
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)(A)(i), DOE is proposing this
rule amending the energy conservation
standards for RCWs and is concurrently
issuing a direct final rule elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register. DOE
will proceed with this notice of
proposed rulemaking 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 the
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’’ 4),
recommends specific energy
conservation standards for RCWs that,
in the commenters’ view, would satisfy
the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o). DOE subsequently received
letters of support for the Joint
Agreement from States including New
York, California, and Massachusetts 5
and utilities including San Diego Gas
and Electric and Southern California
Edison 6 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).
In accordance with these and other
statutory provisions discussed in this
document, DOE proposes amended
energy conservation standards for
RCWs. The standards are expressed in
terms of energy efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’),
measured in pounds per kilowatt-hour
per cycle (‘‘lb/kWh/cycle’’), and water
efficiency ratio (‘‘WER’’), measured in
pounds per gallon per cycle (‘‘lb/gal/
cycle’’), as determined in accordance
with DOE’s clothes washer test
procedure codified at title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’)
part 430, subpart B, appendix J
(‘‘appendix J’’). The EER metric includes
active mode, inactive mode, and off
mode energy use.
Table I.1 presents the proposed
energy conservation standards for
RCWs. The proposed standards are the
same as those recommended by the Joint
Agreement. These standards 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 RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
[Compliance Starting March 1, 2028]
Product class
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ..................................................................................
Top-Loading Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) with an average cycle time of 30 minutes or greater ...................................................................................................................................................................
Front-Loading Compact (less than 3.0 ft3 capacity) * ......................................................................................
Front-Loading Standard-Size (3.0 ft3 or greater capacity) with an average cycle time of 45 minutes or
greater ...........................................................................................................................................................
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers ...........................................................................................................................
Minimum
energy
efficiency ratio
(lb/kWh/cycle)
Minimum
water
efficiency ratio
(lb/gal/cycle)
3.79
0.29
4.27
5.02
0.57
0.71
5.52
2.12
0.77
0.27
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
* The standards in this table do not apply to front-loading clothes washers with a capacity greater than or equal to 1.6 ft3 and less than 3.0 ft3
with an average cycle time of less than 45 minutes.
II. Introduction
A. Authority
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 RCWs.
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
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.
3 DOE uses the ‘‘residential’’ nomenclature and
‘‘RCW’’ abbreviation for consumer clothes washers
in order to distinguish from the ‘‘CCW’’
abbreviation used for commercial clothes washers,
which are also regulated equipment under EPCA.
4 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD0014-0505.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Products Other Than Automobiles.
These products include RCWs, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(7)) EPCA prescribed energy
conservation standards for these
products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and
(g)(9)(A)), and directed DOE to conduct
5 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD0014-0506.
6 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD0014-0507.
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18838
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
future rulemakings to determine
whether to amend these standards. (42
U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (g)(9)(B)) 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))
In establishing energy conservation
standards with both energy and water
use performance standards for RCWs
manufactured after January 1, 2011,
Congress also directed DOE to
‘‘determin[e] whether to amend’’ those
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B))
Congress’s directive, in section
6295(g)(9)(B), to consider whether ‘‘to
amend the standards in effect for
RCWs’’ refers to ‘‘the standards’’
established in the immediately
preceding paragraph, 6295(g)(9)(A).
There, Congress established energy
conservation standards with both energy
and water use performance standards
for RCWs. Indeed, the energy and water
use performance standards for RCWs
(both top-loading and front-loading) are
each contained within a single
subparagraph. See id. Everything in
section 6295(g)(9) suggests that Congress
intended both of those twin standards to
be evaluated when it came time, ‘‘[n]ot
later than December 13, 2011,’’ to
consider amending them. (Id.
6295(g)(9)(B)(i)) Accordingly, DOE
understands its authority, under
6295(g)(9)(B), to include consideration
of amended energy and water use
performance standards for RCWs.
DOE similarly understands its
authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m) to
amend ‘‘standards’’ for covered
products to include amending both the
energy and water use performance
standards for RCWs. Neither section
6295(g)(9)(B) nor section 6295(m) limit
their application to ‘‘energy use
standards.’’ Rather, they direct DOE to
consider amending ‘‘the standards,’’ 42
U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B), or simply
‘‘standards,’’ id. 6295(m)(1)(B), which
may include both energy use standards
and water use standards.
Finally, DOE is proposing these
standards in this companion NOPR to a
direct final rule pursuant to section 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). That section also
extends broadly to any ‘‘energy or water
conservation standard’’ without
qualification. Thus, pursuant to section
6295(p)(4), DOE may, so long as the
other relevant conditions are satisfied,
promulgate a direct final rule that
includes water use performance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
standards for a covered product like
RCWs, where Congress has already
established energy and water use
performance standards.
DOE is aware that the definition of
‘‘energy conservation standard,’’ in
section 6291(6), expressly references
water use only for four products
specifically named: showerheads,
faucets, water closets, and urinals. See
id. However, DOE does not read the
language in 6291(6) as fully delineating
the scope of DOE’s authority under
EPCA. Rather, as is required of agencies
in applying a statute, individual
provisions, including section 6291(6) of
EPCA, must be read in the context of the
statute as a whole.
The energy conservation program was
initially limited to addressing the
energy use, meaning electricity and
fossil fuels, of 13 covered products. (See
sections 321 and 322 of the Energy and
Policy Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94–
163, 89 Stat 871 (December 22, 1975)).
Since its inception, Congress has
expanded the scope of the energy
conservation program several times,
including by adding covered products,
prescribing energy conservation
standards for various products, and by
addressing water use for certain covered
products. For example, in the Energy
Policy Act of 1992, Congress amended
the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C.
6292 to include showerheads, faucets,
water closets and urinals and expanded
DOE’s authority to regulate water use for
these products. (See Sec. 123, Energy
Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102–486, 106
Stat 2776 (Oct. 24, 1992)). When it did
so, Congress also made corresponding
changes to the definition of ‘‘consumer
product’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)), the
definition of ‘‘energy conservation
standard’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)), the
section governing the promulgation of
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), the
criteria for prescribing new or amended
energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)), and elsewhere in EPCA.
Later, Congress further expanded the
scope of the energy conservation
program several times. For instance,
Congress added products and standards
directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295, the section of
EPCA that contains statutorily
prescribed standards as well as DOE’s
standard-setting authorities. See 42
U.S.C. 6295(a) (stating that the
‘‘purposes of this section are to—(1)
provide Federal energy conservation
standards applicable to covered
products; and (2) authorize the
Secretary to prescribe amended or new
energy conservation standards for each
type (or class) of covered product.’’)).
When Congress added these new
standards and standard-setting
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
authorities to 42 U.S.C. 6295 after the
Energy Policy Act of 1992, it often did
so without making any conforming
changes to other provisions in EPCA,
e.g., sections 6291 or 6292. For example,
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
Congress prescribed standards by
statute, or gave DOE the authority to set
standards for, battery chargers, external
power supplies, ceiling fans, ceiling fan
light kits, beverage vending machines,
illuminated exit signs, torchieres, low
voltage dry-type distribution
transformers, traffic signal modules and
pedestrian modules, certain lamps,
dehumidifiers, and commercial prerinse
spray valves in 42 U.S.C. 6295 without
updating the list of covered products in
42 U.S.C. 6292. (See Sec. 135, Energy
Policy Act of 2005, 119 Stat 594 (Aug.
8, 2005)).
Congress also expanded the scope of
the energy conservation program by
directly adding water use performance
standards for certain products to 42
U.S.C. 6295. For example, in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, Congress added a
water use performance standard (but no
energy use performance standard) for
commercial prerinse spray valves
(‘‘CPSVs’’) and did so without updating
the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C.
6292 to include CPSVs and without
adding CPSVs to the list of enumerated
products with water use performance
standards in the ‘‘energy conservation
standard’’ definition in 42 U.S.C.
6291(6). In the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’),
Congress amended 42 U.S.C. 6295 by
prescribing standards for RCWs and
dishwashers that included both energy
and water use performance standards.
(See Sec. 301, EISA 2007, Pub. L. 110–
140, 121 Stat 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007)).
Again, when it did so, Congress did not
add these products to the list of
enumerated products with water use
performance standards in the definition
of ‘‘energy conservation standard’’ in 42
U.S.C. 6291(6).
In considering how to treat these
products and standards that Congress
has directly added to 42 U.S.C. 6295
without making conforming changes to
the rest of the statute, including the list
of covered products in 42 U.S.C. 6292,
and the water-use products in the
definition of an ‘‘energy conservation
standard,’’ DOE construes the statute as
a whole. When Congress added
products and standards directly to 42
U.S.C. 6295 it must have meant those
products to be covered products and
those standards to be energy
conservation standards, given that the
purpose of 42 U.S.C. 6295 is to provide
‘‘energy conservation standards
applicable to covered products’’ and to
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
‘‘authorize the Secretary to prescribe
amended or new energy conservation
standards for each type (or class) of
covered product.’’ Elsewhere in EPCA,
the statute’s references to covered
products and energy conservation
standards can only be read coherently as
including the covered products and
energy conservation standards Congress
added directly to section 6295, even if
Congress did not make conforming edits
to 6291 or 6292. For example,
manufacturers are prohibited from
‘‘distribut[ing] in commerce any new
covered product which is not in
conformity with an applicable energy
conservation standard.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6302(a)(5) (emphasis added)) It would
defeat congressional intent to allow a
manufacturer to distribute a product,
e.g., a CPSV or ceiling fan, that violates
an applicable energy conservation
standard that Congress prescribed
simply because Congress added the
product directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295
without also updating the list of covered
products in 42 U.S.C. 6292(a). In
addition, preemption in EPCA is based
on ‘‘the effective date of an energy
conservation standard established in or
prescribed under section 6295 of this
title for any covered product.’’ (42
U.S.C. 6297(c)(emphasis added))
Nothing in EPCA suggests that
standards Congress adopted in 6295
lack preemptive effect, merely because
Congress did not make conforming
amendments to 6291, 6292, or 6293.
It would similarly defeat
congressional intent for a manufacturer
to be permitted to distribute a covered
product, e.g., a clothes washer or
dishwasher, that violates a water use
performance standard because Congress
added the standard to 42 U.S.C. 6295
without also updating the definition of
energy conservation standard in 42
U.S.C. 6291(6). By prescribing directly,
in 6295(g)(9), energy conservation
standards for RCWs that include both
energy and water use performance
standards, Congress intended that
energy conservation standards for RCWs
include both energy use and water use.
DOE recognizes that some might argue
that Congress’s specific reference in
section 6291(6) to water standards for
showerheads, faucets, water closets, and
urinals could ‘‘create a negative
implication’’ that energy conservations
standards for other covered products
may not include water use standards.
See Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 568
U.S. 371, 381 (2013). ‘‘The force of any
negative implication, however, depends
on context.’’ Id.; see also NLRB v. SW
Gen., Inc., 580 U.S. 288, 302 (2017)
(‘‘The expressio unius canon applies
only when circumstances support a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
sensible inference that the term left out
must have been meant to be excluded.’’
(alterations and quotation marks
omitted)). In this context, the textual
and structural cues discussed above
show that Congress did not intend to
exclude from the definition of energy
conservation standard the water use
performance standards that it
specifically prescribed, and directed
DOE to amend, in section 6295. To
conclude otherwise would negate the
plain text of 6295(g)(9). Furthermore, to
the extent the definition of energy
conservation standards in section
6291(6), which was last amended in the
Energy Policy Act of 1992, could be read
as in conflict with the energy and water
use performance standards prescribed
by Congress in EISA 2007, any such
conflict should be resolved in favor of
the more recently enacted statute. See
United States v. Estate of Romani, 523
U.S. 517, 530–31 (1998) (‘‘[A] specific
policy embodied in a later federal
statute should control our construction
of the priority statute, even though it
had not been expressly amended.’’).
Accordingly, based on a complete
reading of the statute, DOE has
determined that products and standards
added directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295 are
appropriately considered ‘‘covered
products’’ and ‘‘energy conservation
standards’’ for the purposes of applying
the various provisions in EPCA.
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 in
limited instances 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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18839
product. (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 the energy use or
efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C.
6293(c) and 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 RCWs appear at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix J
(‘‘appendix J’’) and appendix J2
(‘‘appendix J2’’).
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered products,
including RCWs. 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
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18840
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 products that has
the same function or intended use if
DOE determines that products within
such group: (A) consume a different
kind of energy from that consumed by
other covered products within such type
(or class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other
products within such type (or class) do
not have and such feature justifies a
higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard for a group of
products, DOE considers such factors as
the utility to the consumer of such a
feature and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. (Id.) Any rule prescribing
such a standard must include an
explanation of the basis on which such
higher or lower level was established.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 RCWs 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
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 or water conservation
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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and publish in the Federal Register the
reasons why the direct final rule was
withdrawn. (Id.)
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
May 31, 2012 (‘‘May 2012 Direct Final
Rule’’), DOE prescribed the current
energy conservation standards for RCWs
manufactured on or after January 1,
2018. 77 FR 32308.7 These standards are
set forth in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR
430.32(g)(4). These standards are
consistent with a prior joint proposal
submitted to DOE by interested parties
representing manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, and consumer
groups.8 The current standards are
defined in terms of a minimum
allowable integrated modified energy
factor (‘‘IMEF’’), measured in cubic feet
per kilowatt-hour per cycle (‘‘ft3/kWh/
cycle’’), and maximum allowable
integrated water factor (‘‘IWF’’),
measured in gallons per cycle per cubic
7 DOE published a confirmation of effective date
and compliance date for the direct final rule on
October 1, 2012. 77 FR 59719.
8 Available at www.regulations.gov/document/
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0032.
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
18841
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
foot (‘‘gal/cycle/ft3’’), as measured
according to appendix J2.
TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Minimum
integrated
modified
energy factor
3
(ft /kWh/cycle)
Product class
Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) .................................................................................................
Top-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ...............................................................................................
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ..............................................................................................
Front-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) .............................................................................................
For top-loading semi-automatic
clothes washers, a design standard
currently applies, which requires such
products to have an unheated rinse
water option. 10 CFR 430.32(g)(1).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Current Test Procedure
As discussed, DOE’s current energy
conservation standards for RCWs are
expressed in terms of IMEF and IWF as
measured using appendix J2. (See 10
CFR 430.32(g)(4).)
In a final rule published on June 1,
2022 (‘‘June 2022 TP Final Rule’’), DOE
finalized a new test procedure at
appendix J, which defines new energy
efficiency metrics: an energy efficiency
ratio (i.e., EER) and a water efficiency
ratio (i.e., WER). 87 FR 33316, 33319.
EER is defined as the quotient of the
weighted-average load size divided by
the total clothes washer energy
consumption per cycle, with such
energy consumption expressed as the
sum of (1) the machine electrical energy
consumption, (2) the hot water energy
consumption, (3) the energy required for
removal of the remaining moisture in
the wash load, and (4) the combined
low-power mode energy consumption.
10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix J
section 1. WER is defined as the
quotient of the weighted-average load
size divided by the total weighted percycle water consumption for all wash
cycles in gallons. Id. For both EER and
WER, a higher value indicates more
efficient performance. The standard
levels proposed in this NOPR are
expressed in terms of the EER and WER
metrics as measured according to the
newly established test procedure
contained in appendix J.
3. The Joint Agreement
On September 25, 2023, DOE received
a joint statement (i.e., the Joint
Agreement) recommending standards
for RCWs, that was submitted by groups
representing manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, consumer
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
groups, and a utility.9 In addition to the
recommended standards for RCWs, 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
9 The signatories to the Joint Agreement include
the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
(‘‘AHAM’’), American Council for an EnergyEfficient 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, a Haier Company; 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 6 covered products:
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers;
residential clothes washers; consumer clothes
dryers; dishwashers; consumer conventional
cooking products; and miscellaneous refrigeration
products.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1.15
1.57
1.13
1.84
Maximum
integrated
water factor
(gal/cycle/ft3)
12.0
6.5
8.3
4.7
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 antibacksliding 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.
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 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
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
18842
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
economically justified.11 In the letter,
the signatories clarified that ‘‘shortcycle’’ 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
features or performance, including cycle
time, for RCWs.
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. . . .’’
The Joint Agreement recommends
amended standard levels for RCWs as
presented in Table II.2. (Joint
Agreement, No. 505 at p. 9) Details of
the Joint Agreement recommendations
for other products are provided in the
Joint Agreement posted in the docket.13
TABLE II.2—RECOMMENDED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Minimum energy
efficiency ratio
(lb/kWh/cycle)
Product class
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ............................................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ...........................................
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ..................................................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) .........................................
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers ...............................................................................
3.79
4.27
5.02
5.52
2.12
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 RCWs
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 RCWs. As part of that
process, DOE published a NOPR and
announced a public meeting on March
3, 2023, (‘‘March 2023 NOPR’’) seeking
comment on its proposed amended
standards to inform its decision
consistent with its obligations under
EPCA and the Administrative
Procedures Act (‘‘APA’’). 88 FR 13520.
The March 2023 NOPR proposed
amended standards defined in terms of
the EER and WER metrics as measured
according to appendix J. Id. at 88 FR
13522. The March 2023 NOPR also
proposed to re-establish a product class,
and establish new performance
standards, for semi-automatic clothes
washers. Id. at 88 FR 13541.14 The
March 2023 NOPR TSD is available at:
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2017-BT-STD-0014-0058.
11 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD0014-0509.
12 See Appliance Standards Rulemakings and
Notices (energy.gov).
13 The Joint Agreement is available in the docket
at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0014-0505.
14 Top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers
were subject to a design standard requiring an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
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))
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Minimum water
efficiency ratio
(lb/gal/cycle)
0.29
0.57
0.71
0.77
0.27
Compliance date
March 1, 2028.
DOE considered the impacts of
amended standards for RCWs 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
unheated rinse water option, as established by
section 5(g) of the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Act of 1987, Public Law 100–12.
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
18843
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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,
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 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 15 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.16
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for Residential Clothes
Washer Standards
Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize
the quantitative impacts estimated for
each TSL for RCWs. The national
impacts are measured over the lifetime
of RCWs purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the anticipated
year of compliance with amended
standards (2027–2056 for all TSLs
except TSL 2, i.e., the ‘‘Recommended
TSL’’ for RCWs, and 2028–2057 for TSL
2). The energy savings, emissions
reductions, and value of emissions
reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle
(‘‘FFC’’) results. 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.
TABLE III.1—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHER TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
Quads ..............................................................................................................
0.58
0.67
1.34
2.12
13.96
124.57
0.12
27.74
3.65
0.02
31.22
294.14
0.24
65.47
6.97
0.05
55.77
554.46
0.38
123.66
10.33
0.07
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................
CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................
N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................
NOX (thousand tons) .......................................................................................
SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................
Hg (tons) ..........................................................................................................
12.88
116.74
0.11
26.03
3.18
0.02
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$)
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................................................
Climate Benefits * .............................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .............................................................................................
12.99
0.79
1.51
17.92
0.84
1.62
26.18
1.89
3.53
34.19
3.38
6.10
Total Benefits † .........................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ..........................................................
15.30
4.51
20.38
9.20
31.60
11.50
43.66
13.07
Consumer Net Benefits ............................................................................
Total Net Benefits ..............................................................................
8.48
10.79
8.71
11.18
14.68
20.10
21.12
30.59
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$)
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................................................
Climate Benefits * .............................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .............................................................................................
6.61
0.79
0.70
8.65
0.84
0.73
12.90
1.89
1.58
16.61
3.38
2.65
Total Benefits † .........................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ..........................................................
8.11
2.83
10.22
5.37
16.37
6.94
22.64
7.86
Consumer Net Benefits ............................................................................
3.78
3.28
5.96
8.76
15 The TSD is available in the docket for this
rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2014-BT-STD-0005/document.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
16 P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household
Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853–883. doi: 10.1111/
0034–6527.00354.
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
18844
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.1—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHER TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS—
Continued
Category
TSL 1
Total Net Benefits ..............................................................................
TSL 2
5.28
TSL 3
4.85
TSL 4
9.43
14.79
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped during the period 2027–2056 for all TSLs except for TSL 2
(the Recommended TSL). These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped during the period
2027–2056. For TSL 2, this table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped during the period 2028–2057.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC–CO2, SC–CH4 and SC–N2O. 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 IWG.
** 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. See section IV.L of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register for more details.
† 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.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
TABLE III.2—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHER TSLS: MANUFACTURER AND
CONSUMER IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2 **
TSL 3
TSL 4
Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No-new-standards case INPV = 1,707.9).
Industry NPV (% change) ..............................
1,639.0 to 1,710.7 ......
1,429.6 to 1,560.9 ......
1,053.8 to 1,234.5 ......
535.8 to 738.2.
(4.0) to 0.2 .................
(16.3) to (8.6) .............
(38.3) to (27.7) ...........
(68.6) to (56.8).
n.a ..............................
$116 ...........................
8 .................................
15 ...............................
280 .............................
91 ...............................
n.a.
$133.
38.
49.
188.
111.
n.a
5.7
9.5
1.6
0.5
4.6
n.a.
5.4.
8.0.
1.7.
0.6.
4.4.
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$)
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact ...........................
Top-Loading Standard-Size ...........................
Front-Loading Compact .................................
Front-Loading Standard-Size .........................
Semi-Automatic ..............................................
Shipment-Weighted Average * .......................
n.a ..............................
$122 ...........................
0 .................................
26 ...............................
280 .............................
98 ...............................
n.a ..............................
$111 ...........................
9 .................................
46 ...............................
284 .............................
96 ...............................
Consumer Simple PBP (years)
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact ...........................
Top-Loading Standard-Size ...........................
Front-Loading Compact .................................
Front-Loading Standard-Size .........................
Semi-Automatic ..............................................
Shipment-Weighted Average * .......................
n.a
4.4
9.6
0.9
0.5
3.6
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
n.a
6.2
9.3
1.4
0.5
4.9
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact ...........................
Top-Loading Standard-Size ...........................
Front-Loading Compact .................................
Front-Loading Standard-Size .........................
Semi-Automatic ..............................................
Shipment-Weighted Average * .......................
n.a ..............................
16% ............................
0% ..............................
1% ..............................
0% ..............................
12% ............................
n.a ..............................
27% ............................
21% ............................
2% ..............................
0% ..............................
20% ............................
n.a ..............................
28% ............................
22% ............................
20% ............................
0% ..............................
25% ............................
n.a.
26%.
35%.
16%.
0%.
23%.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. The entry ‘‘n.a.’’ means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain TSLs.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027 except for TSL 2 (the Recommended TSL).
** For TSL 2 (the Recommended TSL), shipment-weighted averages are weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments
in 2028.
DOE first considered TSL 4, which
represents the max-tech efficiency levels
for all product classes. Specifically for
top-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE’s
expected design path for TSL 4 (which
represents EL 4 for this product class)
incorporates the use of a direct drive
motor, stainless steel basket and more
robust suspension and balancing
systems (as methods for enabling faster
spin speeds), a wash plate (as a means
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
for enabling reduced water levels),
reduced hot and warm wash water
temperatures compared to temperatures
available on baseline units, spray rinse,
the fastest achievable spin speeds, and
an increase in tub size compared to the
baseline (as a means for reducing energy
and water use on a per-pound of
clothing basis).17 Among these design
17 As discussed in the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
options, use of a direct drive motor,
stainless steel basket and more robust
suspension and balancing systems,
reduced wash water temperatures, and
fastest achievable spin speeds reduce
energy use only; spray rinse reduces
DOE’s direct final rule analysis indicates that an
increase in tub capacity is not required to achieve
EL 5; however, manufacturers are currently
implementing this design option in EL 5 models
currently available on the market.
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
water use only; and the wash plate and
increase in tub size reduce both energy
and water use together.18
For front-loading standard-size RCWs,
DOE’s expected design path for TSL 4
(which represents EL 4 for this product
class) incorporates the use of the most
efficient available direct drive motor,
the implementation of advanced
sensors, the fastest achievable spin
speeds, and lower cold water volume
(but with no change to total hot water
use). Among these design options, the
direct drive motor, more advanced
sensors, and faster spin speeds reduce
energy use only; whereas the lower cold
water volume reduces water use only.
TSL 4 would save an estimated 2.12
quads of energy and 2.73 trillion gallons
of water, an amount DOE considers
significant. Under TSL 4, the net present
value (‘‘NPV’’) of consumer benefit
would be $8.76 billion using a discount
rate of 7 percent, and $21.12 billion
using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 4 are 55.77 million metric tons
(‘‘Mt’’) of carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’), 10.33
thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (‘‘SO2’’),
123.66 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(‘‘NOX’’), 0.07 tons of mercury (‘‘Hg’’),
554.46 thousand tons of methane
(‘‘CH4’’), and 0.38 thousand tons of
nitrous oxide (‘‘N2O’’). The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average social cost
of GHG (‘‘SC–GHG’’) at a 3-percent
discount rate) at TSL 4 is $3.38 billion.
The estimated monetary value of the
health benefits from reduced SO2 and
NOX emissions at TSL 4 is $2.65 billion
using a 7-percent discount rate and
$6.10 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 4 is $14.79 billion.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated total
NPV at TSL 4 is $30.59 billion. The
estimated total NPV is provided for
additional information; however, DOE
primarily relies upon the NPV of
consumer benefits when determining
whether a proposed standard level is
economically justified.
At TSL 4, the average life-cycle costs
(‘‘LCC’’) impact is a savings of $133 for
18 As discussed in the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
because the energy used to heat the water
consumed by the RCW is included as part of the
EER energy use metric, technologies that decrease
hot water use also inherently decrease energy use.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
top-loading standard-size, $38 for frontloading compact, $49 for front-loading
standard-size, and $188 for semiautomatic clothes washers. The simple
payback period is 5.4 years for toploading standard-size, 8.0 years for
front-loading compact, 1.7 years for
front-loading standard-size, and 0.6
years for semi-automatic clothes
washers. The fraction of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost is 26
percent for top-loading standard-size, 35
percent for front-loading compact, 16
percent for front-loading standard-size,
and zero percent for semi-automatic
clothes washers. For the top-loading
standard-size product class, which
represents 71 percent of the market, TSL
4 would increase the first cost by $166,
in comparison to an installed cost of
$690 for baseline units. For the frontloading standard-size product class,
which represents 25 percent of the
market, TSL 4 would increase the first
cost by $93, compared to an installed
cost of $1,027 for baseline units. At TSL
4, the standard for top-loading ultracompact RCWs is at the baseline,
resulting in no LCC impact, no simple
PBP, and no consumers experiencing a
net LCC cost. Additionally, as a result
of lower costs associated with well
water and septic tanks in rural areas,
about 40 percent of well-water
households would experience a net LCC
cost at TSL 4.
At TSL 4, the projected change in
industry net present value (‘‘INPV’’)
ranges from a decrease of $1,172.0
million to a decrease of $969.6 million,
which correspond to a decrease of 68.6
percent and 56.8 percent, respectively.
The loss in INPV is largely driven by
industry conversion costs as
manufacturers work to redesign their
portfolios of model offerings and re-tool
entire factories to comply with amended
standards at this level. Industry
conversion costs could reach $1,321.2
million at this TSL.
Conversion costs at max-tech are
significant, as nearly all existing RCW
models would need to be redesigned to
meet the required efficiencies.
Currently, approximately 4 percent of
RCW annual shipments meet the maxtech levels. For top-loading standardsize RCWs, which DOE projects will
account for 71 percent of annual
shipments in 2027, less than 1 percent
of current shipments meet this level. Of
the nine original equipment
manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) offering toploading standard-size products, one
OEM offers five basic models
(representing approximately 1 percent
of all top-loading standard-size basic
models) that meet the efficiencies
required by TSL 4. The remaining eight
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18845
OEMs would need to overhaul their
existing platforms and make significant
updates to their production facilities.
Those manufacturers may need to
incorporate increased tub capacities,
wash plate designs, direct drive motors,
reinforced wash baskets, robust
suspension and balancing systems, and
advanced sensors. These product
changes require significant investment.
In interviews, several manufacturers
expressed concerns about their ability to
meet existing market demand given the
required scale of investment, redesign
effort, and 3-year compliance timeline.
At TSL 3 and higher, manufacturers
expressed concerns and presented data
regarding potential impacts to product
performance, including wash
temperatures, cleaning and rinsing
performance, and fabric care. At TSL 4,
such concerns and uncertainties would
be further exacerbated. Consumers that
experience any such negative impacts
on product performance could
potentially alter their usage patterns, for
example by using more energy-intensive
settings more frequently (e.g., Extra-Hot
temperature setting); using more waterintensive cycle options (e.g., Deep Fill
option; extra rinse cycles); using nonregulated cycles (e.g., Heavy Duty
cycle); or re-washing clothing that has
not been cleaned sufficiently. Such
changes to consumer usage patterns may
counteract the energy and water savings
that DOE has estimated would be
achieved at TSL 4. For these reasons,
DOE cannot be certain that the designs
associated with TSL 4 efficiencies
would not negatively impact certain
aspects of standard-size RCW
performance and consequently may
jeopardize the energy and water savings
that would be achieved at these
efficiency levels. DOE emphasizes that
its findings in this regard are based on
the data available at this time and are
predicated on the current state of
clothes washer technology. Additional
data that could become available, as
well as future advances in washing
technologies and design strategies,
could alleviate any such concerns or
uncertainties regarding product
performance and could lead DOE to
reach a different conclusion in a future
rulemaking.
Based upon the above considerations,
the Secretary tentatively concludes that
at TSL 4 for RCWs, the benefits of
energy and water savings, positive NPV
of consumer benefits, and emission
reductions would be outweighed by the
potential for negative consumer utility
impacts, which may jeopardize the
energy and water savings that would be
achieved at TSL 4, and the impacts on
manufacturers, including the large
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
18846
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
potential reduction in INPV. DOE
estimated the potential loss in INPV to
be as high as 68 percent. The potential
losses in INPV are primarily driven by
large conversion costs that must be
made ahead of the compliance date. At
max-tech, manufacturers would need to
make significant upfront investments to
update nearly all product lines and
manufacturing facilities. Manufacturers
expressed concern that they would not
be able to complete product and
production line updates within the 3year conversion period. Consequently,
the Secretary has tentatively concluded
that TSL 4 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 3, which
represents the ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient level for the front-loading
product classes, the CEE Tier 1 level for
the top-loading standard-size product
class, and a gap fill level for the semiautomatic product classes.19
Specifically, for top-loading standardsize RCWs, DOE’s expected design path
for TSL 3 (which represents EL 3 for this
product class) incorporates many of the
same technologies and design strategies
as described for TSL 4. At TSL 3, toploading standard-size units would
incorporate a direct drive motor,
stainless steel basket and more robust
suspension and balancing systems (as
methods for enabling faster spin
speeds), a wash plate (as a means for
enabling reduced water levels), and
spray rinse, consistent with TSL 4.
Models at TSL 3 would also incorporate
slightly reduced hot wash water
temperatures compared to temperatures
available on baseline units, faster spin
speeds compared to the baseline
(although not as fast as TSL 4), and an
increase in tub size compared to the
baseline (as a means for reducing energy
and water use on a per-pound of
clothing basis).20 Among these design
options, use of a direct drive motor,
stainless steel basket and more robust
suspension and balancing systems,
reduced wash water temperatures, and
faster spin speeds reduce energy use
only; spray rinse reduces water use
only; and the wash plate and increase in
19 As discussed in the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
tables in section IV.C.2.b of that direct final rule
provide the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient and CEE
Tier 1 equivalencies between the current metrics
(IMEF and IWF) and the new metrics (EER and
WER) for the top-loading and front-loading standard
size product classes, respectively.
20 As discussed in the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
DOE’s direct final rule analysis indicates that an
increase in tub capacity is not required to achieve
EL 3; however, manufacturers are currently
implementing this design option in EL 3 models
currently available on the market.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
tub size reduce both energy and water
use together.
For front-loading standard-size RCWs,
DOE’s expected design path for TSL 3
(which represents EL 3 for this product
class) incorporates the use of the most
efficient direct drive motor available,
spin speeds that are faster than the
baseline level but not as fast as at TSL
4, and lower water volume (but with no
change to total hot water heating).
Among these design options, the direct
drive motor and faster spin speeds
reduce energy use only; whereas the
lower water volume reduces water use
only.
TSL 3 would save an estimated 1.34
quads of energy and 2.33 trillion gallons
of water, an amount DOE considers
significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of
consumer benefit would be $5.96 billion
using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
$14.68 billion using a discount rate of
3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 3 are 31.22 Mt of CO2, 6.97
thousand tons of SO2, 65.47 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.05 tons of Hg, 294.14
thousand tons of CH4, and 0.24
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 is
$1.89 billion. The estimated monetary
value of the health benefits from
reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL
3 is $1.58 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate and $3.53 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 3 is $9.43 billion.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated total
NPV at TSL 3 is $20.10 billion. The
estimated total NPV is provided for
additional information; however, DOE
primarily relies upon the NPV of
consumer benefits when determining
whether a proposed standard level is
economically justified.
At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is
a savings of $116 for top-loading
standard-size, $8 for front-loading
compact, $15 for front-loading standardsize, and $280 for semi-automatic
clothes washers. The simple payback
period is 5.7 years for top-loading
standard-size, 9.5 years for front-loading
compact, 1.6 years for front-loading
standard-size, and 0.5 years for semiautomatic clothes washers. The fraction
of consumers experiencing a net LCC
cost is 28 percent for top-loading
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
standard-size, 22 percent for frontloading compact, 20 percent for frontloading standard-size, and zero percent
for semi-automatic clothes washers. For
the top-loading standard-size product
class, TSL 3 would increase the first
cost by $160, in comparison to an
installed cost of $690 for baseline units.
For the front-loading standard-size
product class, TSL 3 would increase the
first cost by $78, compared to an
installed cost of $1,027 for baseline
units. At TSL 3, the standard for toploading ultra-compact RCWs is at the
baseline, resulting in no LCC impact, no
simple PBP, and no consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost. Overall,
across all product classes, around 25
percent of consumers would experience
a net LCC cost at TSL 3. DOE estimates
that about 16 percent of low-income
households would experience a net LCC
cost at TSL 3, and as a result of having
generally smaller households and lower
annual usage, about 33 percent of
senior-only households would
experience a net LCC cost at TSL 3.
Additionally, as a result of lower costs
associated with well water and septic
tanks in rural areas, about 41 percent of
well-water households would
experience a net LCC cost at TSL 3.
At TSL 3, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $654.1
million to a decrease of $473.3 million,
which correspond to a decrease of 38.3
percent and 27.7 percent, respectively.
The loss in INPV is largely driven by
industry conversion costs as
manufacturers work to redesign their
portfolios of model offerings and update
production facilities to comply with
amended standards at this level.
Industry conversion costs could reach
$724.6 million at this TSL.
For top-loading standard-size
products, approximately 3 percent of
shipments meet TSL 3. Of the nine
OEMs offering top-loading standard-size
products, two OEMs offer 20 basic
models (representing approximately 4
percent of all top-loading standard-size
basic models) that meet the efficiencies
required by TSL 3. At this level, the
remaining seven manufacturers would
likely implement largely similar design
options as at TSL 4, but to a lesser
extent for the increase in tub size and
hardware changes associated with faster
spin speeds (e.g., reinforced wash
baskets, robust suspension and
balancing systems, and advanced
sensors)—which are faster than the
baseline level but not as fast as TSL 4.
Although top-loading standard-size
RCW manufacturers indicated that
meeting TSL 3 efficiencies would
require a less-extensive redesign than
meeting TSL 4 efficiencies, these
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
product changes would still require
significant investment.
As discussed above, manufacturers
expressed concerns and presented data
regarding potential impacts to product
performance, including wash
temperatures, cleaning and rinsing
performance, and fabric care. DOE’s
analysis of third-party clothes washer
performance ratings as well as DOE’s
own performance testing on a
representative sample of top-loading
standard-size and front-loading
standard-size RCWs suggested that TSL
3 can be achieved with key performance
attributes (e.g., wash temperatures, stain
removal, mechanical action, and cycle
duration) that are largely comparable to
the performance of lower-efficiency
units available on the market today.
However, manufacturers presented
additional data suggesting that other
attributes of clothes washer performance
not specifically evaluated by DOE may
be negatively impacted at TSL 3 for
particularly heavily soiled clothing
loads, given current design technologies
and approaches. For these reasons, DOE
cannot be certain that the designs
associated with TSL 3 efficiencies
would not negatively impact certain
aspects of standard-size RCW
performance and consequently may
jeopardize the energy and water savings
that would be achieved at these
efficiency levels. As with TSL 4, DOE
emphasizes that its findings in this
regard are based on the data available at
this time and are predicated on the
current state of clothes washer
technology. Additional data that could
become available, as well as future
advances in washing technologies and
design strategies, could alleviate any
such concerns or uncertainties regarding
product performance and could lead
DOE to reach a different conclusion in
a future rulemaking.
Based upon the above considerations,
the Secretary tentatively concludes that
at TSL 3 for RCWs, the benefits of
energy and water savings, positive NPV
of consumer benefits, and emission
reductions would be outweighed by the
potential for negative consumer utility
impacts, which may jeopardize the
energy and water savings that could be
achieved at TSL 3, and the impacts on
manufacturers, including the large
potential reduction in INPV. DOE
estimates the potential loss in INPV to
be as high as 38 percent. The potential
losses in INPV are primarily driven by
large conversion costs associated with
redesigning top-loading standard-size
RCWs that must be made ahead of the
compliance date. Consequently, the
Secretary has tentatively concluded that
TSL 3 is not economically justified.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
DOE then considered TSL 2, which
corresponds to the TSL recommended
in the Joint Agreement (the
‘‘Recommended TSL’’) and which also
represents the ENERGY STAR v.8.1
level for the top-loading and frontloading standard-size product classes,
the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient level
for the front-loading compact, and a gap
fill level for the semi-automatic product
classes.21 DOE’s expected design path
for top-loading standard-size RCWs at
the Recommended TSL (which
represents EL 2 for this product class)
incorporates a direct drive motor,
stainless steel basket and more robust
suspension and balancing systems (as
methods for enabling faster spin
speeds), and spray rinse. Models at the
Recommended TSL would also require
faster spin speeds compared to the
baseline (although not as fast as at TSL
3), lower water volume (but with no
change to total hot water heating
energy), and may include an increase in
tub size compared to the baseline (as a
potential means for reducing energy and
water use on a per-pound of clothing
basis).22 Among these design options,
use of a direct drive motor, stainless
steel basket and more robust suspension
and balancing systems, and faster spin
speeds reduce energy use only; spray
rinse reduces water use only; and the
lower water volume reduces water use
only. Any potential increase in tub size
would reduce both energy and water use
together.
For front-loading standard-size RCWs,
DOE’s expected design path for the
Recommended TSL (which represents
EL 2 for this product class) incorporates
the use of a direct drive motor, spin
speeds that are faster than the baseline
level but not as fast as at TSL 3, and
lower water volume (but with no change
to total hot water heating energy).
Among these design options, the direct
drive motor and faster spin speeds
reduce energy use only; whereas the
lower water volume reduces water use
only.
The Recommended TSL would save
an estimated 0.67 quads of energy and
1.89 trillion gallons of water, an amount
21 As discussed in the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
tables in section IV.C.2.b of that direct final rule
provide the ENERGY STAR v.8.1 and ENERGY
STAR Most Efficient equivalencies between the
current metrics (IMEF and IWF) and the new
metrics (EER and WER) for the top-loading and
front-loading standard size product classes,
respectively.
22 As discussed in the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
DOE’s direct final rule analysis indicates that an
increase in tub capacity is not required to achieve
EL 2; however, manufacturers are currently
implementing this design option in EL 2 models
currently available on the market.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18847
DOE considers significant. Under the
Recommended TSL, the NPV of
consumer benefit would be $3.28 billion
using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
$8.71 billion using a discount rate of 3
percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at the Recommended TSL are 13.96 Mt
of CO2, 3.65 thousand tons of SO2, 27.74
thousand tons of NOX, 0.02 tons of Hg,
124.57 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.12
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 the
Recommended TSL is $0.84 billion. The
estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions at the Recommended TSL is
$0.73 billion using a 7-percent discount
rate and $1.62 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 is
$4.85 billion. Using a 3-percent
discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at the
Recommended TSL is $11.18 billion.
The estimated total NPV is provided for
additional information; however, DOE
primarily relies upon the NPV of
consumer benefits when determining
whether a proposed standard level is
economically justified.
At the Recommended TSL, the
average LCC impact is a savings of $111
for top-loading standard-size, $9 for
front-loading compact, $46 for frontloading standard-size, and $284 for
semi-automatic clothes washers. The
simple payback period is 6.2 years for
top-loading standard-size, 9.3 years for
front-loading compact, 1.4 years for
front-loading standard-size, and 0.5
years for semi-automatic clothes
washers. The fraction of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost is 27
percent for top-loading standard-size, 21
percent for front-loading compact, 2
percent for front-loading standard-size,
and zero percent for semi-automatic
clothes washers. For the top-loading
standard-size product class, The
Recommended TSL would increase the
first cost by $146, in comparison to an
installed cost of $687 for baseline units
in 2028. For the front-loading standardsize product class, the Recommended
TSL would increase the first cost by
$67, compared to an installed cost of
$1,021 for baseline units in 2028. At the
Recommended TSL, the standard for
top-loading ultra-compact RCWs is at
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18848
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the baseline, resulting in no LCC
impact, no simple PBP, and no
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost.
Overall, across all product classes,
around 20 percent of consumers would
experience a net LCC cost at the
Recommended TSL. DOE estimates that
about 12 percent of low-income
households would experience a net LCC
cost at the Recommended TSL, and as
a result of smaller households and lower
annual usage, about 26 percent of
senior-only households would
experience a net LCC cost at the
Recommended TSL. Additionally, as a
result of lower costs associated with
well water and septic tanks in rural
areas, about 37 percent of well-water
households would experience a net LCC
cost at the Recommended TSL.
At the Recommended TSL, the
projected change in INPV ranges from a
decrease of $278.3 million to a decrease
of $146.9 million, which corresponds to
decreases of 16.3 percent and 8.6
percent, respectively. Industry
conversion costs could reach $320.0
million at this TSL.
At this level, many existing toploading standard-size products would
need to be redesigned to meet the
Recommended TSL efficiencies;
however, there are a wide range of toploading standard-size models currently
available on the market due to
manufacturers’ participation in the
ENERGY STAR program. Currently,
approximately 49 percent of RCW
shipments meet the Recommended TSL
efficiencies, including approximately 31
percent of all top-loading standard-size
shipments. Of the nine OEMs with toploading standard-size products, six
OEMs offer 166 basic models
(representing approximately 30 percent
of all top-loading standard-size basic
models) that meet the Recommended
TSL efficiencies. These six OEMs that
currently offer top-loading standard-size
RCW models that meet the
Recommended TSL efficiencies
collectively account for over 95 percent
of overall top-loading standard-size
RCW shipments. At this level, a
substantial number of front-loading
standard-size products are available on
the market due to manufacturers’
participation in the ENERGY STAR
program. Currently, approximately 92
percent of front-loading standard-size
shipments meet the Recommended TSL.
Of the seven OEMs with front-loading
standard-size products, six OEMs offer
169 basic models (representing
approximately 89 percent of all frontloading standard-size basic models) that
meet the Recommended TSL
efficiencies.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
For all TSLs considered in this
proposed rule—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 multiproduct joint recommendation. A 2028
compliance year provides
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. Furthermore, these
delayed compliance dates provide
additional lead time and certainty for
suppliers of components that improve
efficiency.
At the Recommended TSL, DOE’s
data demonstrates no negative impact
on consumer utility for both top-loading
and front-loading RCWs. Manufacturers
did not provide any specific data nor
express any specific concerns regarding
clothes washer performance at the
Recommended TSL. In addition, in the
second joint statement from the same
group of stakeholders that submitted the
Joint Agreement states that the DOE’s
test data and industry experience agrees
that the recommended standard level for
clothes washer can maintain good
cleaning performance and do not
preclude the ability to provide high
wash temperatures.23 Based on the
information available, DOE concludes
that no lessening of product utility or
performance would occur at the
Recommended TSL.
After considering the analysis and
weighing the benefits and burdens, the
Secretary has tentatively concluded that
at a standard set at the Recommended
TSL for RCWs would be economically
justified. At the Recommended TSL, the
average LCC savings for all product
classes is positive. An estimated 27
percent of top-loading standard-size
users, 21 percent of front-loading
compact, 2 percent of front-loading
standard-size, and zero percent of semiautomatic clothes washer consumers
experience a net cost. At the
Recommended TSL, the positive average
LCC savings across all product classes
and cost savings for approximately twothirds of RCWs consumers, outweigh
the negative average LLC savings of $20
for well-water households and the 37
percent of these households that might
23 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD0014-0509.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
experience a net cost. DOE notes that its
analysis ensures that the financial
implications for households with wells
and/or septic systems are
comprehensively incorporated into the
national LCC analysis. In addition, the
FFC national energy savings are
significant and the NPV of consumer
benefits is positive using both a 3percent and 7-percent discount rate.
Notably, the benefits to consumers
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 is over 11
times higher than the maximum
estimated manufacturers’ loss in INPV.
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 $
0.84 billion in climate benefits
(associated with the average SC–GHG at
a 3-percent discount rate), and $ 1.62
billion (using a 3-percent discount rate)
or $ 0.73 billion (using a 7-percent
discount rate) in health benefits—the
rationale becomes stronger still.
As stated, DOE conducts the walkdown 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 amended energy conservation
standards, DOE notes that as compared
to TSL 4 and TSL 3, the Recommended
TSL has a lower maximum decrease in
INPV and lower manufacturer
conversion costs.
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.
Therefore, based on the previous
considerations, DOE proposes to adopt
the energy conservation standards for
RCWs 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 RCWs proposed
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
18849
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
in this NOPR is part of a multi-product
Joint Agreement covering six
rulemakings (RCWs; 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. (Joint
Agreement, No. 505 at p. 3) As
discussed in section V.B.2.e of the direct
final rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register, many
RCW OEMs also manufacture consumer
clothes dryers; 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),24 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.
The proposed energy conservation
standards for RCWs, which are
expressed in EER and WER, are shown
in Table III.3.
TABLE III.3—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Minimum energy
efficiency ratio
(lb/kWh/cycle)
Product class
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ..........................................................................
Top-Loading Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) .........................................................................
Front-Loading Compact (less than 3.0 ft3 capacity) ................................................................................
Front-Loading Standard-Size (3.0 ft3 or greater capacity) .......................................................................
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers ............................................................................................................
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$) of
the benefits from operating products
that meet the proposed standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost
savings from using less energy), minus
increases in product purchase costs, and
(2) the annualized monetary value of the
climate and health benefits.
Table III.4 shows the annualized
values for RCWs under the
Recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$.
The results under the primary estimate
are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs and health
benefits from reduced NOX and SO2
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
cost of the standards proposed in this
rule is $530.1 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $853.9
million in reduced equipment operating
3.79
4.27
5.02
5.52
2.12
Minimum water
efficiency ratio
(lb/gal/cycle)
0.29
0.57
0.71
0.77
0.27
costs, $46.9 million in climate benefits,
and $71.9 million in health benefits. In
this case, the net benefit would amount
to $442.5 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of
the proposed standards is $513.1
million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $998.9 million in reduced
operating costs, $46.9 million in climate
benefits, and $90.3 million in health
benefits. In this case, the net benefit
would amount to $623.0 million per
year.
TABLE III.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS (RECOMMENDED TSL) FOR RESIDENTIAL
CLOTHES WASHERS
[2028–2057]
Million 2022$/year
Primary estimate
Low-net-benefits
estimate
High-net-benefits
estimate
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings ...........................................................................
Climate Benefits * .......................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .......................................................................................................
998.9
46.9
90.3
957.2
45.2
87.1
1,020.9
47.5
91.6
Total Benefits † ...................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ....................................................................
1,136.1
513.1
1,089.5
551.8
1,160.0
468.6
Net Benefits ........................................................................................................
623.0
537.7
691.4
24 The analyses for residential clothes washers (88
FR 13520); consumer clothes dryers (87 FR 51734);
consumer conventional cooking products (88 FR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
6818); dishwashers (88 FR 32514); and refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (88 FR 12452)
utilized a 2027 compliance year for analysis at the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proposed rule stage. Miscellaneous refrigeration
products (88 FR 12452) utilized a 2029 compliance
year for the NOPR analysis.
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
18850
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS (RECOMMENDED TSL) FOR RESIDENTIAL
CLOTHES WASHERS—Continued
[2028–2057]
Million 2022$/year
Primary estimate
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV ‡‡) ................................................................
Low-net-benefits
estimate
High-net-benefits
estimate
(27)–(14)
(27)–(14)
(27)–(14)
Consumer Operating Cost Savings ...........................................................................
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ........................................................................
Health Benefits ** .......................................................................................................
853.9
46.9
71.9
821.2
45.2
69.6
871.7
47.5
72.8
Total Benefits † ...................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ....................................................................
972.6
530.1
935.9
564.6
992.0
489.5
Net Benefits ........................................................................................................
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV ‡‡) ................................................................
442.5
(27)–(14)
371.3
(27)–(14)
502.5
(27)–(14)
7% discount rate
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped in 2028–2057. These results include consumer, climate, and
health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 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 low decline 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.
† 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.
† Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
†† Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See
sections IV.F and IV.H of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. DOE’s national impact analysis 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 (MIA). See section IV.J of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. 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 9.3 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the direct final
rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For RCWs, the annualized change in INPV ranges from
¥$27 million to ¥$14 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 section IV.J of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register 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 annualized change in INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits, using the primary
estimate, would range from $596 million to $609 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $415 million to $428 million at 7-percent
discount rate. Parentheses ( ) indicate negative values.
IV. Public Participation
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule unit 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
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. Severability
DOE proposes adding a new
paragraph (ii) into section 10 CFR
430.32(g)(2) to provide that each energy
and water conservation for each RCW
category is separate and severable from
one another, and that if any energy or
water conservation standard is stayed or
determined to be invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the remaining
standards shall continue in effect. This
severability clause is intended to clearly
express the Department’s intent that
should an energy or water conservation
standard for any product class be stayed
or invalidated, the other conservation
standards shall continue in effect. In the
event a court were to stay or invalidate
one or more energy or water
conservation standards for any product
class as finalized, the Department would
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18851
want the remaining energy conservation
standards as finalized to remain in full
force and legal effect.
VI. 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
prepared the following IRFA for the
products that are the subject of this
proposed rulemaking.
For manufacturers of RCWs, the 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-tablesize-standards. Manufacturing of RCWs
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.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is
Being Considered
EPCA prescribed energy conservation
standards for these products (42 U.S.C.
6295(g)(2) and (9)(A)), and directs DOE
to conduct future rulemakings to
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
18852
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
determine whether to amend these
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and
(9)(B)) 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))
This proposed rulemaking is in
accordance with DOE’s obligations
under EPCA.
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or
amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
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 the
requirements under 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)–(B), DOE is issuing this
NOPR proposing energy conservation
standards for RCWs. These standard
levels were submitted jointly to DOE on
September 25, 2023, by groups
representing manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, consumer
groups, and a utility.25 This letter, titled
‘‘Energy Efficiency Agreement of 2023’’
(hereafter, the ‘‘Joint Agreement’’ 26),
recommends specific energy
conservation standards for RCWs that,
in the commenters’ view, would satisfy
the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o).
25 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
manufacture 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, a Haier
Company; L’Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG;
LGEUSA; 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; SubZero Group, Inc.; The Middleby Corporation; ULine Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and
Whirlpool Corporation.
26 The Joint Agreement is available in the docket
at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0014-0505.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for,
Rule
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of
EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency
and established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles. These products
include RCWs, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) EPCA
prescribed energy conservation
standards for these products (42 U.S.C.
6295(g)(2) and (9)(A)), and directs DOE
to conduct future rulemakings to
determine whether to amend these
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and
(9)(B))
3. Description and Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
DOE reviewed this proposed rule
under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19,
2003. 68 FR 7990. DOE conducted a
market survey to identify potential
small manufacturers of RCWs. DOE
began its assessment by reviewing
DOE’s CCD,27 California Energy
Commission’s Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System,28 ENERGY
STAR’s Product Finder data set,29
individual company websites, and prior
RCW rulemakings to identify
manufacturers of the covered product.
DOE then consulted publicly available
data, such as manufacturer websites,
manufacturer specifications and product
literature, import/export logs (e.g., bills
of lading from Panjiva 30), and basic
model numbers, to identify original
equipment manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) of
RCWs. DOE further relied on public
data and subscription-based market
research tools (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet
reports 31) to determine company
location, headcount, and annual
revenue. DOE also asked industry
representatives if they were aware of
27 U.S. Department of Energy’s Compliance
Certification Database is available at
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/
#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (last accessed June 29,
2023).
28 California Energy Commission’s Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System is available
at cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/
ApplianceSearch.aspx (last accessed June 29, 2023).
29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
ENERGY STAR Product Finder is available at
www.energystar.gov/productfinder/ (last accessed
June 29, 2023).
30 S&P Global. Panjiva Market Intelligence is
available at panjiva.com/import-export/UnitedStates (last accessed June 30, 2023).
31 D&B Hoovers subscription login is accessible
at: app.dnbhoovers.com/ (last accessed November 1,
2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
any small manufacturers during
manufacturer interviews. DOE screened
out companies that do not offer
products covered by this proposed
rulemaking, do not meet the SBA’s
definition of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are
foreign-owned and operated.
DOE identified 22 OEMs that sell
covered RCWs in the United States. Of
the 22 OEMs identified, DOE
determined that one company qualifies
as a small business and is not foreignowned and operated.
In support of the March 2023 NOPR,
DOE reached out to the small business
and invited participation in a voluntary
interview. The small business did not
respond to DOE’s interview request.
DOE also requested information about
small businesses and potential impacts
on small businesses while interviewing
large manufacturers.
4. Description and Estimate of
Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different
Groups of Small Entities
DOE is proposing TSL 2 in this NOPR.
As stated in the previous section, DOE
identified one OEM that qualifies as a
small business. This small business
manufactures one top-loading standardsize clothes washer model for
residential use. DOE identified this
manufacturer through the prior
rulemaking analysis. 77 FR 32307.
There is limited public information
about the energy and water efficiency of
this small business’s RCW model.
Furthermore, DOE’s review of the
product suggests that the manufacturer
would likely need to make significant
investments to redesign the product to
meet this efficiency level. Therefore,
DOE is unable to conclude that the
proposed rule would not have a
‘‘significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.’’
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict
with Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or
regulations that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The discussion in the previous
section analyzes impacts on small
businesses that would result from DOE’s
proposed rule, represented by TSL 2. In
reviewing alternatives to the proposed
standards, DOE examined energy
conservation standards set at lower
efficiency levels. While TSL 1 would
reduce the impacts on small business
manufacturers, it would come at the
expense of a reduction in energy and
water savings. TSL 1 achieves 13
percent lower energy savings and 38
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
18853
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
percent lower water savings compared
to the energy and water savings at TSL
2.
Based on the presented discussion,
establishing standards at TSL 2 balances
the benefits of the energy savings at TSL
2 with the potential burdens placed on
RCW manufacturers, including small
business manufacturers. Accordingly,
DOE does not propose one of the other
TSLs considered in the analysis, or the
other policy alternatives examined as
part of the regulatory impact analysis
and included in chapter 17 of the direct
final rule TSD.
Additional compliance flexibilities
may be available through other means.
EPCA provides that a manufacturer
whose annual gross revenue from all of
its operations does not exceed $8
million may apply for an exemption
from all or part of an energy
conservation standard for a period not
longer than 24 months after the effective
date of a final rule establishing the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t))
Additionally, manufacturers subject to
DOE’s energy efficiency standards may
apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings and
Appeals for exception relief under
certain circumstances. Manufacturers
should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional
details.
VII. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of proposed
rulemaking.
Signed in Washington, DC, on March 1,
2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, 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
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
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.
2. Amend § 430.32 by revising
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
■
§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation
standards and their compliance dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Clothes washers. (1) Clothes
washers manufactured on or after
January 1, 2018, shall have an Integrated
Modified Energy Factor no less than,
and an Integrated Water Factor no
greater than:
Integrated
modified
energy factor
(cu.ft./kWh/cycle)
Product class
(i) Top-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) .................................................................................
(ii) Top-loading, Standard (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ...............................................................................
(iii) Front-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ..............................................................................
(iv) Front-loading, Standard (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ............................................................................
(2) Clothes washers manufactured on
or after March 1, 2028:
1.15
1.57
1.13
1.84
12.0
6.5
8.3
4.7
(i) Shall have an Energy Efficiency
Ratio and a Water Efficiency Ratio no
less than:
Energy
efficiency ratio
(lb/kWh/cycle)
Product class
(A) Automatic Clothes Washers:
(1) Top-Loading Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ................................................................
(2) Top-Loading Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) 1 .............................................................
(3) Front-Loading Compact (less than 3.0 ft3 capacity) 2 ....................................................................
(4) Front-Loading Standard-Size (3.0 ft3 or greater capacity) 3 ...........................................................
(B) Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers .........................................................................................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Integrated
water factor
(gal/cycle/cu.ft.)
3.79
4.27
5.02
5.52
2.12
Water
efficiency ratio
(lb/gal/cycle)
0.29
0.57
0.71
0.77
0.27
1 The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to top-loading standard-size clothes washers with an average cycle time less
than 30 minutes.
2 The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to front-loading clothes washers with a capacity greater than or equal to 1.6 ft3
and less than 3.0 ft3 with an average cycle time of less than 45 minutes.
3 The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to front-loading standard-size clothes washers with an average cycle time less
than 45 minutes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
18854
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(ii) The provisions of this paragraph
(g)(2) are separate and severable from
one another. Should a court of
competent jurisdiction hold any
provision(s) of this section to be stayed
or invalid, such action shall not affect
any other provisions of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–04737 Filed 3–14–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2024–0517; Airspace
Docket No. 23–AGL–41]
RIN 2120–AA66
Amendment of Very High Frequency
Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
Airways V–233 and V–420; Gaylord, MI
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
This action proposes to
amend Very High Frequency
Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
Airways V–233 and V–420 in the
vicinity of Gaylord, MI. The
amendments are due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of
the Gaylord, MI (GLR), VOR/Distance
Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME)
navigational aid (NAVAID). The
Gaylord VOR is being decommissioned
as part of the FAA’s VOR Minimum
Operational Network (MON) program.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 29, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified
by FAA Docket No. FAA–2024–0517
and Airspace Docket No. 23–AGL–41
using any of the following methods:
* Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
* Mail: Send comments to Docket
Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
* Hand Delivery or Courier: Take
comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12–140 of the West Building
Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
* Fax: Fax comments to Docket
Operations at (202) 493–2251.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Mar 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
Docket: Background documents or
comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov at any time.
Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket
Operations in Room W12–140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed
online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/
publications/. You may also contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Office of
Policy, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone: (202) 267–8783.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
comments if comments are filed in
writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all
comments it receives, as well as a report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning
this proposed rulemaking. Before acting
on this proposal, the FAA will consider
all comments it receives on or before the
closing date for comments. The FAA
will consider comments filed after the
comment period has closed if it is
possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. The FAA may change
this proposal in light of the comments
it receives.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking
process. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code.
Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator.
Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the
agency’s authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use
of the airspace necessary to ensure the
safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority as it would
modify the National Airspace System
(NAS) as necessary to preserve the safe
and efficient flow of air traffic.
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov.
Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through
the FAA’s web page at www.faa.gov/air_
traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments
received and any final disposition in
person in the Dockets Operations office
(see ADDRESSES section for address,
phone number, and hours of
operations). An informal docket may
also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the
Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177.
Comments Invited
Incorporation by Reference
The FAA invites interested persons to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written comments, data, or
views. Comments are specifically
invited on the overall regulatory,
aeronautical, economic, environmental,
and energy-related aspects of the
proposal. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. To ensure the docket
does not contain duplicate comments,
commenters should submit only one
time if comments are filed
electronically, or commenters should
send only one copy of written
VOR Federal airways are published in
paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO
7400.11, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an
annual basis. This document proposes
to amend the current version of that
order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated
August 11, 2023, and effective
September 15, 2023. These updates
would be published in the next update
to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is
publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic
service routes, and reporting points.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 52 (Friday, March 15, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18836-18854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04737]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 18836]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014]
RIN 1904-AF58
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Washers
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 residential
clothes washers (``RCWs''). In this notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR''), the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes amended
energy conservation standards for RCWs 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 and will proceed
with this proposed rule.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
NOPR no later than July 3, 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 15, 2024.
ADDRESSES: See section IV of this document, ``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-2017-BT-STD-0014. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014, by any of the following methods:
(1) Email: [email protected]. Include the
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 1000
Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-
1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is
not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section IV of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, 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-2017-BT-STD-0014. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section IV 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].
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 586-2588. 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 Residential
Clothes Washer Standards
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
V. Severability
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in
[[Page 18837]]
Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
VII. 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 (residential) \3\
clothes washers (``RCWs''), the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\3\ DOE uses the ``residential'' nomenclature and ``RCW''
abbreviation for consumer clothes washers in order to distinguish
from the ``CCW'' abbreviation used for commercial clothes washers,
which are also regulated equipment under EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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)(A)(i), DOE is proposing this rule amending the energy
conservation standards for RCWs and is concurrently issuing a direct
final rule elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. DOE will
proceed with this notice of proposed rulemaking 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 the
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'' \4\), recommends specific energy conservation
standards for RCWs that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the
EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE subsequently received
letters of support for the Joint Agreement from States including New
York, California, and Massachusetts \5\ and utilities including San
Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison \6\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0505.
\5\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0506.
\6\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards
for RCWs. The standards are expressed in terms of energy efficiency
ratio (``EER''), measured in pounds per kilowatt-hour per cycle (``lb/
kWh/cycle''), and water efficiency ratio (``WER''), measured in pounds
per gallon per cycle (``lb/gal/cycle''), as determined in accordance
with DOE's clothes washer test procedure codified at title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix J
(``appendix J''). The EER metric includes active mode, inactive mode,
and off mode energy use.
Table I.1 presents the proposed energy conservation standards for
RCWs. The proposed standards are the same as those recommended by the
Joint Agreement. These standards 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 Residential
Clothes Washers
[Compliance Starting March 1, 2028]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum energy Minimum water
efficiency efficiency
Product class ratio (lb/kWh/ ratio (lb/gal/
cycle) cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact (less than 3.79 0.29
1.6 ft\3\ capacity)................
Top-Loading Standard-Size (1.6 ft\3\ 4.27 0.57
or greater capacity) with an
average cycle time of 30 minutes or
greater............................
Front-Loading Compact (less than 3.0 5.02 0.71
ft\3\ capacity) *..................
Front-Loading Standard-Size (3.0 5.52 0.77
ft\3\ or greater capacity) with an
average cycle time of 45 minutes or
greater............................
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers.......... 2.12 0.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The standards in this table do not apply to front-loading clothes
washers with a capacity greater than or equal to 1.6 ft\3\ and less
than 3.0 ft\3\ with an average cycle time of less than 45 minutes.
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
RCWs.
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 RCWs, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) EPCA prescribed energy
conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and
(g)(9)(A)), and directed DOE to conduct
[[Page 18838]]
future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42
U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (g)(9)(B)) 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))
In establishing energy conservation standards with both energy and
water use performance standards for RCWs manufactured after January 1,
2011, Congress also directed DOE to ``determin[e] whether to amend''
those standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B)) Congress's directive, in
section 6295(g)(9)(B), to consider whether ``to amend the standards in
effect for RCWs'' refers to ``the standards'' established in the
immediately preceding paragraph, 6295(g)(9)(A). There, Congress
established energy conservation standards with both energy and water
use performance standards for RCWs. Indeed, the energy and water use
performance standards for RCWs (both top-loading and front-loading) are
each contained within a single subparagraph. See id. Everything in
section 6295(g)(9) suggests that Congress intended both of those twin
standards to be evaluated when it came time, ``[n]ot later than
December 13, 2011,'' to consider amending them. (Id. 6295(g)(9)(B)(i))
Accordingly, DOE understands its authority, under 6295(g)(9)(B), to
include consideration of amended energy and water use performance
standards for RCWs.
DOE similarly understands its authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m) to
amend ``standards'' for covered products to include amending both the
energy and water use performance standards for RCWs. Neither section
6295(g)(9)(B) nor section 6295(m) limit their application to ``energy
use standards.'' Rather, they direct DOE to consider amending ``the
standards,'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B), or simply ``standards,'' id.
6295(m)(1)(B), which may include both energy use standards and water
use standards.
Finally, DOE is proposing these standards in this companion NOPR to
a direct final rule pursuant to section 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). That
section also extends broadly to any ``energy or water conservation
standard'' without qualification. Thus, pursuant to section 6295(p)(4),
DOE may, so long as the other relevant conditions are satisfied,
promulgate a direct final rule that includes water use performance
standards for a covered product like RCWs, where Congress has already
established energy and water use performance standards.
DOE is aware that the definition of ``energy conservation
standard,'' in section 6291(6), expressly references water use only for
four products specifically named: showerheads, faucets, water closets,
and urinals. See id. However, DOE does not read the language in 6291(6)
as fully delineating the scope of DOE's authority under EPCA. Rather,
as is required of agencies in applying a statute, individual
provisions, including section 6291(6) of EPCA, must be read in the
context of the statute as a whole.
The energy conservation program was initially limited to addressing
the energy use, meaning electricity and fossil fuels, of 13 covered
products. (See sections 321 and 322 of the Energy and Policy
Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat 871 (December 22, 1975)).
Since its inception, Congress has expanded the scope of the energy
conservation program several times, including by adding covered
products, prescribing energy conservation standards for various
products, and by addressing water use for certain covered products. For
example, in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress amended the list of
covered products in 42 U.S.C. 6292 to include showerheads, faucets,
water closets and urinals and expanded DOE's authority to regulate
water use for these products. (See Sec. 123, Energy Policy Act of 1992,
Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat 2776 (Oct. 24, 1992)). When it did so,
Congress also made corresponding changes to the definition of
``consumer product'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)), the definition of ``energy
conservation standard'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)), the section governing the
promulgation of test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), the criteria for
prescribing new or amended energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)), and elsewhere in EPCA.
Later, Congress further expanded the scope of the energy
conservation program several times. For instance, Congress added
products and standards directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295, the section of EPCA
that contains statutorily prescribed standards as well as DOE's
standard-setting authorities. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(a) (stating that the
``purposes of this section are to--(1) provide Federal energy
conservation standards applicable to covered products; and (2)
authorize the Secretary to prescribe amended or new energy conservation
standards for each type (or class) of covered product.'')). When
Congress added these new standards and standard-setting authorities to
42 U.S.C. 6295 after the Energy Policy Act of 1992, it often did so
without making any conforming changes to other provisions in EPCA,
e.g., sections 6291 or 6292. For example, in the Energy Policy Act of
2005, Congress prescribed standards by statute, or gave DOE the
authority to set standards for, battery chargers, external power
supplies, ceiling fans, ceiling fan light kits, beverage vending
machines, illuminated exit signs, torchieres, low voltage dry-type
distribution transformers, traffic signal modules and pedestrian
modules, certain lamps, dehumidifiers, and commercial prerinse spray
valves in 42 U.S.C. 6295 without updating the list of covered products
in 42 U.S.C. 6292. (See Sec. 135, Energy Policy Act of 2005, 119 Stat
594 (Aug. 8, 2005)).
Congress also expanded the scope of the energy conservation program
by directly adding water use performance standards for certain products
to 42 U.S.C. 6295. For example, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
Congress added a water use performance standard (but no energy use
performance standard) for commercial prerinse spray valves (``CPSVs'')
and did so without updating the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C.
6292 to include CPSVs and without adding CPSVs to the list of
enumerated products with water use performance standards in the
``energy conservation standard'' definition in 42 U.S.C. 6291(6). In
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''),
Congress amended 42 U.S.C. 6295 by prescribing standards for RCWs and
dishwashers that included both energy and water use performance
standards. (See Sec. 301, EISA 2007, Pub. L. 110-140, 121 Stat 1492
(Dec. 19, 2007)). Again, when it did so, Congress did not add these
products to the list of enumerated products with water use performance
standards in the definition of ``energy conservation standard'' in 42
U.S.C. 6291(6).
In considering how to treat these products and standards that
Congress has directly added to 42 U.S.C. 6295 without making conforming
changes to the rest of the statute, including the list of covered
products in 42 U.S.C. 6292, and the water-use products in the
definition of an ``energy conservation standard,'' DOE construes the
statute as a whole. When Congress added products and standards directly
to 42 U.S.C. 6295 it must have meant those products to be covered
products and those standards to be energy conservation standards, given
that the purpose of 42 U.S.C. 6295 is to provide ``energy conservation
standards applicable to covered products'' and to
[[Page 18839]]
``authorize the Secretary to prescribe amended or new energy
conservation standards for each type (or class) of covered product.''
Elsewhere in EPCA, the statute's references to covered products and
energy conservation standards can only be read coherently as including
the covered products and energy conservation standards Congress added
directly to section 6295, even if Congress did not make conforming
edits to 6291 or 6292. For example, manufacturers are prohibited from
``distribut[ing] in commerce any new covered product which is not in
conformity with an applicable energy conservation standard.'' (42
U.S.C. 6302(a)(5) (emphasis added)) It would defeat congressional
intent to allow a manufacturer to distribute a product, e.g., a CPSV or
ceiling fan, that violates an applicable energy conservation standard
that Congress prescribed simply because Congress added the product
directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295 without also updating the list of covered
products in 42 U.S.C. 6292(a). In addition, preemption in EPCA is based
on ``the effective date of an energy conservation standard established
in or prescribed under section 6295 of this title for any covered
product.'' (42 U.S.C. 6297(c)(emphasis added)) Nothing in EPCA suggests
that standards Congress adopted in 6295 lack preemptive effect, merely
because Congress did not make conforming amendments to 6291, 6292, or
6293.
It would similarly defeat congressional intent for a manufacturer
to be permitted to distribute a covered product, e.g., a clothes washer
or dishwasher, that violates a water use performance standard because
Congress added the standard to 42 U.S.C. 6295 without also updating the
definition of energy conservation standard in 42 U.S.C. 6291(6). By
prescribing directly, in 6295(g)(9), energy conservation standards for
RCWs that include both energy and water use performance standards,
Congress intended that energy conservation standards for RCWs include
both energy use and water use.
DOE recognizes that some might argue that Congress's specific
reference in section 6291(6) to water standards for showerheads,
faucets, water closets, and urinals could ``create a negative
implication'' that energy conservations standards for other covered
products may not include water use standards. See Marx v. Gen. Revenue
Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 381 (2013). ``The force of any negative
implication, however, depends on context.'' Id.; see also NLRB v. SW
Gen., Inc., 580 U.S. 288, 302 (2017) (``The expressio unius canon
applies only when circumstances support a sensible inference that the
term left out must have been meant to be excluded.'' (alterations and
quotation marks omitted)). In this context, the textual and structural
cues discussed above show that Congress did not intend to exclude from
the definition of energy conservation standard the water use
performance standards that it specifically prescribed, and directed DOE
to amend, in section 6295. To conclude otherwise would negate the plain
text of 6295(g)(9). Furthermore, to the extent the definition of energy
conservation standards in section 6291(6), which was last amended in
the Energy Policy Act of 1992, could be read as in conflict with the
energy and water use performance standards prescribed by Congress in
EISA 2007, any such conflict should be resolved in favor of the more
recently enacted statute. See United States v. Estate of Romani, 523
U.S. 517, 530-31 (1998) (``[A] specific policy embodied in a later
federal statute should control our construction of the priority
statute, even though it had not been expressly amended.'').
Accordingly, based on a complete reading of the statute, DOE has
determined that products and standards added directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295
are appropriately considered ``covered products'' and ``energy
conservation standards'' for the purposes of applying the various
provisions in EPCA.
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 in limited instances 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(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 the energy
use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 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 RCWs appear at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix J (``appendix J'') and appendix J2 (``appendix
J2'').
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including RCWs. 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
[[Page 18840]]
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 products that has the same function or intended use
if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) consume a
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products
within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.) Any rule
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(2))
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 RCWs 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 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 or water
conservation 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.)
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 May 31, 2012 (``May 2012 Direct
Final Rule''), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards
for RCWs manufactured on or after January 1, 2018. 77 FR 32308.\7\
These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR
430.32(g)(4). These standards are consistent with a prior joint
proposal submitted to DOE by interested parties representing
manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer
groups.\8\ The current standards are defined in terms of a minimum
allowable integrated modified energy factor (``IMEF''), measured in
cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle (``ft\3\/kWh/cycle''), and
maximum allowable integrated water factor (``IWF''), measured in
gallons per cycle per cubic
[[Page 18841]]
foot (``gal/cycle/ft\3\''), as measured according to appendix J2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ DOE published a confirmation of effective date and
compliance date for the direct final rule on October 1, 2012. 77 FR
59719.
\8\ Available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0032.
Table II.1--Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Clothes
Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
integrated Maximum
modified integrated
Product class energy factor water factor
(ft\3\/kWh/ (gal/cycle/
cycle) ft\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 1.15 12.0
ft\3\ capacity)........................
Top-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft\3\ or 1.57 6.5
greater capacity)......................
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 1.13 8.3
ft\3\ capacity)........................
Front-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft\3\ or 1.84 4.7
greater capacity)......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers, a design standard
currently applies, which requires such products to have an unheated
rinse water option. 10 CFR 430.32(g)(1).
2. Current Test Procedure
As discussed, DOE's current energy conservation standards for RCWs
are expressed in terms of IMEF and IWF as measured using appendix J2.
(See 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4).)
In a final rule published on June 1, 2022 (``June 2022 TP Final
Rule''), DOE finalized a new test procedure at appendix J, which
defines new energy efficiency metrics: an energy efficiency ratio
(i.e., EER) and a water efficiency ratio (i.e., WER). 87 FR 33316,
33319. EER is defined as the quotient of the weighted-average load size
divided by the total clothes washer energy consumption per cycle, with
such energy consumption expressed as the sum of (1) the machine
electrical energy consumption, (2) the hot water energy consumption,
(3) the energy required for removal of the remaining moisture in the
wash load, and (4) the combined low-power mode energy consumption. 10
CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix J section 1. WER is defined as the
quotient of the weighted-average load size divided by the total
weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles in gallons.
Id. For both EER and WER, a higher value indicates more efficient
performance. The standard levels proposed in this NOPR are expressed in
terms of the EER and WER metrics as measured according to the newly
established test procedure contained in appendix J.
3. The Joint Agreement
On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (i.e., the
Joint Agreement) recommending standards for RCWs, that was submitted by
groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates,
consumer groups, and a utility.\9\ In addition to the recommended
standards for RCWs, 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 the
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``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, a Haier
Company; 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 6 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 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
[[Page 18842]]
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 features or performance,
including cycle time, for RCWs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0509.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 RCWs as
presented in Table II.2. (Joint Agreement, No. 505 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 is available in the docket at
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0505.
Table II.2--Recommended Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum energy Minimum water
Product class efficiency ratio efficiency ratio Compliance date
(lb/kWh/cycle) (lb/gal/cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less than 3.79 0.29 March 1, 2028.
1.6 ft\3\ capacity).
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft\3\ or 4.27 0.57
greater capacity).
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 5.02 0.71
ft\3\ capacity).
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft\3\ 5.52 0.77
or greater capacity).
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers.......... 2.12 0.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 RCWs 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 RCWs. As part of that
process, DOE published a NOPR and announced a public meeting on March
3, 2023, (``March 2023 NOPR'') seeking comment on its proposed amended
standards to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under
EPCA and the Administrative Procedures Act (``APA''). 88 FR 13520. The
March 2023 NOPR proposed amended standards defined in terms of the EER
and WER metrics as measured according to appendix J. Id. at 88 FR
13522. The March 2023 NOPR also proposed to re-establish a product
class, and establish new performance standards, for semi-automatic
clothes washers. Id. at 88 FR 13541.\14\ The March 2023 NOPR TSD is
available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers were subject to
a design standard requiring an unheated rinse water option, as
established by section 5(g) of the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Act of 1987, Public Law 100-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 RCWs 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
[[Page 18843]]
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, 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 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 \15\ 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document.
\16\ 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 Residential Clothes
Washer Standards
Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize the quantitative impacts
estimated for each TSL for RCWs. The national impacts are measured over
the lifetime of RCWs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the
anticipated year of compliance with amended standards (2027-2056 for
all TSLs except TSL 2, i.e., the ``Recommended TSL'' for RCWs, and
2028-2057 for TSL 2). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and
value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'')
results. 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.
Table III.1--Summary of Analytical Results for Residential Clothes Washer TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads........................................... 0.58 0.67 1.34 2.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)....................... 12.88 13.96 31.22 55.77
CH4 (thousand tons)............................. 116.74 124.57 294.14 554.46
N2O (thousand tons)............................. 0.11 0.12 0.24 0.38
NOX (thousand tons)............................. 26.03 27.74 65.47 123.66
SO2 (thousand tons)............................. 3.18 3.65 6.97 10.33
Hg (tons)....................................... 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................. 12.99 17.92 26.18 34.19
Climate Benefits *.............................. 0.79 0.84 1.89 3.38
Health Benefits **.............................. 1.51 1.62 3.53 6.10
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]..................... 15.30 20.38 31.60 43.66
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..... 4.51 9.20 11.50 13.07
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Net Benefits....................... 8.48 8.71 14.68 21.12
Total Net Benefits...................... 10.79 11.18 20.10 30.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................. 6.61 8.65 12.90 16.61
Climate Benefits *.............................. 0.79 0.84 1.89 3.38
Health Benefits **.............................. 0.70 0.73 1.58 2.65
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]..................... 8.11 10.22 16.37 22.64
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..... 2.83 5.37 6.94 7.86
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Net Benefits....................... 3.78 3.28 5.96 8.76
[[Page 18844]]
Total Net Benefits...................... 5.28 4.85 9.43 14.79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped during the period 2027-2056 for
all TSLs except for TSL 2 (the Recommended TSL). These results include benefits to consumers which accrue
after 2056 from the products shipped during the period 2027-2056. For TSL 2, this table presents the costs and
benefits associated with RCWs shipped during the period 2028-2057.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. 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 IWG.
** 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. See section IV.L
of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register for more details.
[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 Residential Clothes Washer TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer
Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 ** TSL 3 TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No- 1,639.0 to 1,710.7 1,429.6 to 1,560.9 1,053.8 to 1,234.5 535.8 to 738.2.
new-standards case INPV =
1,707.9).
Industry NPV (% change)......... (4.0) to 0.2...... (16.3) to (8.6)... (38.3) to (27.7).. (68.6) to (56.8).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact....... n.a............... n.a............... n.a............... n.a.
Top-Loading Standard-Size....... $122.............. $111.............. $116.............. $133.
Front-Loading Compact........... 0................. 9................. 8................. 38.
Front-Loading Standard-Size..... 26................ 46................ 15................ 49.
Semi-Automatic.................. 280............... 284............... 280............... 188.
Shipment-Weighted Average *..... 98................ 96................ 91................ 111.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Simple PBP (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact....... n.a............... n.a............... n.a............... n.a.
Top-Loading Standard-Size....... 4.4............... 6.2............... 5.7............... 5.4.
Front-Loading Compact........... 9.6............... 9.3............... 9.5............... 8.0.
Front-Loading Standard-Size..... 0.9............... 1.4............... 1.6............... 1.7.
Semi-Automatic.................. 0.5............... 0.5............... 0.5............... 0.6.
Shipment-Weighted Average *..... 3.6............... 4.9............... 4.6............... 4.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact....... n.a............... n.a............... n.a............... n.a.
Top-Loading Standard-Size....... 16%............... 27%............... 28%............... 26%.
Front-Loading Compact........... 0%................ 21%............... 22%............... 35%.
Front-Loading Standard-Size..... 1%................ 2%................ 20%............... 16%.
Semi-Automatic.................. 0%................ 0%................ 0%................ 0%.
Shipment-Weighted Average *..... 12%............... 20%............... 25%............... 23%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. The entry ``n.a.'' means not applicable because there is no change in
the standard at certain TSLs.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027 except for TSL 2 (the
Recommended TSL).
** For TSL 2 (the Recommended TSL), shipment-weighted averages are weighted by shares of each product class in
total projected shipments in 2028.
DOE first considered TSL 4, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels for all product classes. Specifically for top-loading
standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path for TSL 4 (which
represents EL 4 for this product class) incorporates the use of a
direct drive motor, stainless steel basket and more robust suspension
and balancing systems (as methods for enabling faster spin speeds), a
wash plate (as a means for enabling reduced water levels), reduced hot
and warm wash water temperatures compared to temperatures available on
baseline units, spray rinse, the fastest achievable spin speeds, and an
increase in tub size compared to the baseline (as a means for reducing
energy and water use on a per-pound of clothing basis).\17\ Among these
design options, use of a direct drive motor, stainless steel basket and
more robust suspension and balancing systems, reduced wash water
temperatures, and fastest achievable spin speeds reduce energy use
only; spray rinse reduces
[[Page 18845]]
water use only; and the wash plate and increase in tub size reduce both
energy and water use together.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As discussed in the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, DOE's direct final rule
analysis indicates that an increase in tub capacity is not required
to achieve EL 5; however, manufacturers are currently implementing
this design option in EL 5 models currently available on the market.
\18\ As discussed in the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, because the energy used to
heat the water consumed by the RCW is included as part of the EER
energy use metric, technologies that decrease hot water use also
inherently decrease energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For front-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path
for TSL 4 (which represents EL 4 for this product class) incorporates
the use of the most efficient available direct drive motor, the
implementation of advanced sensors, the fastest achievable spin speeds,
and lower cold water volume (but with no change to total hot water
use). Among these design options, the direct drive motor, more advanced
sensors, and faster spin speeds reduce energy use only; whereas the
lower cold water volume reduces water use only.
TSL 4 would save an estimated 2.12 quads of energy and 2.73
trillion gallons of water, an amount DOE considers significant. Under
TSL 4, the net present value (``NPV'') of consumer benefit would be
$8.76 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $21.12 billion
using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 55.77 million
metric tons (``Mt'') of carbon dioxide (``CO2''), 10.33
thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (``SO2''), 123.66 thousand
tons of nitrogen oxides (``NOX''), 0.07 tons of mercury
(``Hg''), 554.46 thousand tons of methane (``CH4''), and
0.38 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (``N2O''). The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average social cost of GHG (``SC-GHG'') at a 3-
percent discount rate) at TSL 4 is $3.38 billion. The estimated
monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO2 and
NOX emissions at TSL 4 is $2.65 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate and $6.10 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 4 is $14.79
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $30.59 billion. The estimated total
NPV is provided for additional information; however, DOE primarily
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a
proposed standard level is economically justified.
At TSL 4, the average life-cycle costs (``LCC'') impact is a
savings of $133 for top-loading standard-size, $38 for front-loading
compact, $49 for front-loading standard-size, and $188 for semi-
automatic clothes washers. The simple payback period is 5.4 years for
top-loading standard-size, 8.0 years for front-loading compact, 1.7
years for front-loading standard-size, and 0.6 years for semi-automatic
clothes washers. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost
is 26 percent for top-loading standard-size, 35 percent for front-
loading compact, 16 percent for front-loading standard-size, and zero
percent for semi-automatic clothes washers. For the top-loading
standard-size product class, which represents 71 percent of the market,
TSL 4 would increase the first cost by $166, in comparison to an
installed cost of $690 for baseline units. For the front-loading
standard-size product class, which represents 25 percent of the market,
TSL 4 would increase the first cost by $93, compared to an installed
cost of $1,027 for baseline units. At TSL 4, the standard for top-
loading ultra-compact RCWs is at the baseline, resulting in no LCC
impact, no simple PBP, and no consumers experiencing a net LCC cost.
Additionally, as a result of lower costs associated with well water and
septic tanks in rural areas, about 40 percent of well-water households
would experience a net LCC cost at TSL 4.
At TSL 4, the projected change in industry net present value
(``INPV'') ranges from a decrease of $1,172.0 million to a decrease of
$969.6 million, which correspond to a decrease of 68.6 percent and 56.8
percent, respectively. The loss in INPV is largely driven by industry
conversion costs as manufacturers work to redesign their portfolios of
model offerings and re-tool entire factories to comply with amended
standards at this level. Industry conversion costs could reach $1,321.2
million at this TSL.
Conversion costs at max-tech are significant, as nearly all
existing RCW models would need to be redesigned to meet the required
efficiencies. Currently, approximately 4 percent of RCW annual
shipments meet the max-tech levels. For top-loading standard-size RCWs,
which DOE projects will account for 71 percent of annual shipments in
2027, less than 1 percent of current shipments meet this level. Of the
nine original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') offering top-loading
standard-size products, one OEM offers five basic models (representing
approximately 1 percent of all top-loading standard-size basic models)
that meet the efficiencies required by TSL 4. The remaining eight OEMs
would need to overhaul their existing platforms and make significant
updates to their production facilities. Those manufacturers may need to
incorporate increased tub capacities, wash plate designs, direct drive
motors, reinforced wash baskets, robust suspension and balancing
systems, and advanced sensors. These product changes require
significant investment. In interviews, several manufacturers expressed
concerns about their ability to meet existing market demand given the
required scale of investment, redesign effort, and 3-year compliance
timeline.
At TSL 3 and higher, manufacturers expressed concerns and presented
data regarding potential impacts to product performance, including wash
temperatures, cleaning and rinsing performance, and fabric care. At TSL
4, such concerns and uncertainties would be further exacerbated.
Consumers that experience any such negative impacts on product
performance could potentially alter their usage patterns, for example
by using more energy-intensive settings more frequently (e.g., Extra-
Hot temperature setting); using more water-intensive cycle options
(e.g., Deep Fill option; extra rinse cycles); using non-regulated
cycles (e.g., Heavy Duty cycle); or re-washing clothing that has not
been cleaned sufficiently. Such changes to consumer usage patterns may
counteract the energy and water savings that DOE has estimated would be
achieved at TSL 4. For these reasons, DOE cannot be certain that the
designs associated with TSL 4 efficiencies would not negatively impact
certain aspects of standard-size RCW performance and consequently may
jeopardize the energy and water savings that would be achieved at these
efficiency levels. DOE emphasizes that its findings in this regard are
based on the data available at this time and are predicated on the
current state of clothes washer technology. Additional data that could
become available, as well as future advances in washing technologies
and design strategies, could alleviate any such concerns or
uncertainties regarding product performance and could lead DOE to reach
a different conclusion in a future rulemaking.
Based upon the above considerations, the Secretary tentatively
concludes that at TSL 4 for RCWs, the benefits of energy and water
savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, and emission reductions
would be outweighed by the potential for negative consumer utility
impacts, which may jeopardize the energy and water savings that would
be achieved at TSL 4, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the
large
[[Page 18846]]
potential reduction in INPV. DOE estimated the potential loss in INPV
to be as high as 68 percent. The potential losses in INPV are primarily
driven by large conversion costs that must be made ahead of the
compliance date. At max-tech, manufacturers would need to make
significant upfront investments to update nearly all product lines and
manufacturing facilities. Manufacturers expressed concern that they
would not be able to complete product and production line updates
within the 3-year conversion period. Consequently, the Secretary has
tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 3, which represents the ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient level for the front-loading product classes, the CEE Tier 1
level for the top-loading standard-size product class, and a gap fill
level for the semi-automatic product classes.\19\ Specifically, for
top-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path for TSL 3
(which represents EL 3 for this product class) incorporates many of the
same technologies and design strategies as described for TSL 4. At TSL
3, top-loading standard-size units would incorporate a direct drive
motor, stainless steel basket and more robust suspension and balancing
systems (as methods for enabling faster spin speeds), a wash plate (as
a means for enabling reduced water levels), and spray rinse, consistent
with TSL 4. Models at TSL 3 would also incorporate slightly reduced hot
wash water temperatures compared to temperatures available on baseline
units, faster spin speeds compared to the baseline (although not as
fast as TSL 4), and an increase in tub size compared to the baseline
(as a means for reducing energy and water use on a per-pound of
clothing basis).\20\ Among these design options, use of a direct drive
motor, stainless steel basket and more robust suspension and balancing
systems, reduced wash water temperatures, and faster spin speeds reduce
energy use only; spray rinse reduces water use only; and the wash plate
and increase in tub size reduce both energy and water use together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ As discussed in the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, tables in section IV.C.2.b of
that direct final rule provide the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient and
CEE Tier 1 equivalencies between the current metrics (IMEF and IWF)
and the new metrics (EER and WER) for the top-loading and front-
loading standard size product classes, respectively.
\20\ As discussed in the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, DOE's direct final rule
analysis indicates that an increase in tub capacity is not required
to achieve EL 3; however, manufacturers are currently implementing
this design option in EL 3 models currently available on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For front-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path
for TSL 3 (which represents EL 3 for this product class) incorporates
the use of the most efficient direct drive motor available, spin speeds
that are faster than the baseline level but not as fast as at TSL 4,
and lower water volume (but with no change to total hot water heating).
Among these design options, the direct drive motor and faster spin
speeds reduce energy use only; whereas the lower water volume reduces
water use only.
TSL 3 would save an estimated 1.34 quads of energy and 2.33
trillion gallons of water, an amount DOE considers significant. Under
TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $5.96 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $14.68 billion using a discount rate of
3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 31.22 Mt of
CO2, 6.97 thousand tons of SO2, 65.47 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.05 tons of Hg, 294.14 thousand tons of
CH4, and 0.24 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 is $1.89 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 3 is $1.58 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $3.53
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 3 is $9.43
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $20.10 billion. The estimated total
NPV is provided for additional information; however, DOE primarily
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a
proposed standard level is economically justified.
At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $116 for top-
loading standard-size, $8 for front-loading compact, $15 for front-
loading standard-size, and $280 for semi-automatic clothes washers. The
simple payback period is 5.7 years for top-loading standard-size, 9.5
years for front-loading compact, 1.6 years for front-loading standard-
size, and 0.5 years for semi-automatic clothes washers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 28 percent for top-loading
standard-size, 22 percent for front-loading compact, 20 percent for
front-loading standard-size, and zero percent for semi-automatic
clothes washers. For the top-loading standard-size product class, TSL 3
would increase the first cost by $160, in comparison to an installed
cost of $690 for baseline units. For the front-loading standard-size
product class, TSL 3 would increase the first cost by $78, compared to
an installed cost of $1,027 for baseline units. At TSL 3, the standard
for top-loading ultra-compact RCWs is at the baseline, resulting in no
LCC impact, no simple PBP, and no consumers experiencing a net LCC
cost. Overall, across all product classes, around 25 percent of
consumers would experience a net LCC cost at TSL 3. DOE estimates that
about 16 percent of low-income households would experience a net LCC
cost at TSL 3, and as a result of having generally smaller households
and lower annual usage, about 33 percent of senior-only households
would experience a net LCC cost at TSL 3. Additionally, as a result of
lower costs associated with well water and septic tanks in rural areas,
about 41 percent of well-water households would experience a net LCC
cost at TSL 3.
At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$654.1 million to a decrease of $473.3 million, which correspond to a
decrease of 38.3 percent and 27.7 percent, respectively. The loss in
INPV is largely driven by industry conversion costs as manufacturers
work to redesign their portfolios of model offerings and update
production facilities to comply with amended standards at this level.
Industry conversion costs could reach $724.6 million at this TSL.
For top-loading standard-size products, approximately 3 percent of
shipments meet TSL 3. Of the nine OEMs offering top-loading standard-
size products, two OEMs offer 20 basic models (representing
approximately 4 percent of all top-loading standard-size basic models)
that meet the efficiencies required by TSL 3. At this level, the
remaining seven manufacturers would likely implement largely similar
design options as at TSL 4, but to a lesser extent for the increase in
tub size and hardware changes associated with faster spin speeds (e.g.,
reinforced wash baskets, robust suspension and balancing systems, and
advanced sensors)--which are faster than the baseline level but not as
fast as TSL 4. Although top-loading standard-size RCW manufacturers
indicated that meeting TSL 3 efficiencies would require a less-
extensive redesign than meeting TSL 4 efficiencies, these
[[Page 18847]]
product changes would still require significant investment.
As discussed above, manufacturers expressed concerns and presented
data regarding potential impacts to product performance, including wash
temperatures, cleaning and rinsing performance, and fabric care. DOE's
analysis of third-party clothes washer performance ratings as well as
DOE's own performance testing on a representative sample of top-loading
standard-size and front-loading standard-size RCWs suggested that TSL 3
can be achieved with key performance attributes (e.g., wash
temperatures, stain removal, mechanical action, and cycle duration)
that are largely comparable to the performance of lower-efficiency
units available on the market today. However, manufacturers presented
additional data suggesting that other attributes of clothes washer
performance not specifically evaluated by DOE may be negatively
impacted at TSL 3 for particularly heavily soiled clothing loads, given
current design technologies and approaches. For these reasons, DOE
cannot be certain that the designs associated with TSL 3 efficiencies
would not negatively impact certain aspects of standard-size RCW
performance and consequently may jeopardize the energy and water
savings that would be achieved at these efficiency levels. As with TSL
4, DOE emphasizes that its findings in this regard are based on the
data available at this time and are predicated on the current state of
clothes washer technology. Additional data that could become available,
as well as future advances in washing technologies and design
strategies, could alleviate any such concerns or uncertainties
regarding product performance and could lead DOE to reach a different
conclusion in a future rulemaking.
Based upon the above considerations, the Secretary tentatively
concludes that at TSL 3 for RCWs, the benefits of energy and water
savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, and emission reductions
would be outweighed by the potential for negative consumer utility
impacts, which may jeopardize the energy and water savings that could
be achieved at TSL 3, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the
large potential reduction in INPV. DOE estimates the potential loss in
INPV to be as high as 38 percent. The potential losses in INPV are
primarily driven by large conversion costs associated with redesigning
top-loading standard-size RCWs that must be made ahead of the
compliance date. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded
that TSL 3 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 2, which corresponds to the TSL recommended
in the Joint Agreement (the ``Recommended TSL'') and which also
represents the ENERGY STAR v.8.1 level for the top-loading and front-
loading standard-size product classes, the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient
level for the front-loading compact, and a gap fill level for the semi-
automatic product classes.\21\ DOE's expected design path for top-
loading standard-size RCWs at the Recommended TSL (which represents EL
2 for this product class) incorporates a direct drive motor, stainless
steel basket and more robust suspension and balancing systems (as
methods for enabling faster spin speeds), and spray rinse. Models at
the Recommended TSL would also require faster spin speeds compared to
the baseline (although not as fast as at TSL 3), lower water volume
(but with no change to total hot water heating energy), and may include
an increase in tub size compared to the baseline (as a potential means
for reducing energy and water use on a per-pound of clothing
basis).\22\ Among these design options, use of a direct drive motor,
stainless steel basket and more robust suspension and balancing
systems, and faster spin speeds reduce energy use only; spray rinse
reduces water use only; and the lower water volume reduces water use
only. Any potential increase in tub size would reduce both energy and
water use together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ As discussed in the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, tables in section IV.C.2.b of
that direct final rule provide the ENERGY STAR v.8.1 and ENERGY STAR
Most Efficient equivalencies between the current metrics (IMEF and
IWF) and the new metrics (EER and WER) for the top-loading and
front-loading standard size product classes, respectively.
\22\ As discussed in the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, DOE's direct final rule
analysis indicates that an increase in tub capacity is not required
to achieve EL 2; however, manufacturers are currently implementing
this design option in EL 2 models currently available on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For front-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path
for the Recommended TSL (which represents EL 2 for this product class)
incorporates the use of a direct drive motor, spin speeds that are
faster than the baseline level but not as fast as at TSL 3, and lower
water volume (but with no change to total hot water heating energy).
Among these design options, the direct drive motor and faster spin
speeds reduce energy use only; whereas the lower water volume reduces
water use only.
The Recommended TSL would save an estimated 0.67 quads of energy
and 1.89 trillion gallons of water, an amount DOE considers
significant. Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer benefit
would be $3.28 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $8.71
billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at the Recommended TSL are
13.96 Mt of CO2, 3.65 thousand tons of SO2, 27.74
thousand tons of NOX, 0.02 tons of Hg, 124.57 thousand tons
of CH4, and 0.12 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 the Recommended TSL is $0.84 billion. The estimated monetary
value of the health benefits from reduced SO2 and
NOX emissions at the Recommended TSL is $0.73 billion using
a 7-percent discount rate and $1.62 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 is $4.85 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits
and costs, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended TSL is $11.18
billion. The estimated total NPV is provided for additional
information; however, DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer
benefits when determining whether a proposed standard level is
economically justified.
At the Recommended TSL, the average LCC impact is a savings of $111
for top-loading standard-size, $9 for front-loading compact, $46 for
front-loading standard-size, and $284 for semi-automatic clothes
washers. The simple payback period is 6.2 years for top-loading
standard-size, 9.3 years for front-loading compact, 1.4 years for
front-loading standard-size, and 0.5 years for semi-automatic clothes
washers. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 27
percent for top-loading standard-size, 21 percent for front-loading
compact, 2 percent for front-loading standard-size, and zero percent
for semi-automatic clothes washers. For the top-loading standard-size
product class, The Recommended TSL would increase the first cost by
$146, in comparison to an installed cost of $687 for baseline units in
2028. For the front-loading standard-size product class, the
Recommended TSL would increase the first cost by $67, compared to an
installed cost of $1,021 for baseline units in 2028. At the Recommended
TSL, the standard for top-loading ultra-compact RCWs is at
[[Page 18848]]
the baseline, resulting in no LCC impact, no simple PBP, and no
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost. Overall, across all product
classes, around 20 percent of consumers would experience a net LCC cost
at the Recommended TSL. DOE estimates that about 12 percent of low-
income households would experience a net LCC cost at the Recommended
TSL, and as a result of smaller households and lower annual usage,
about 26 percent of senior-only households would experience a net LCC
cost at the Recommended TSL. Additionally, as a result of lower costs
associated with well water and septic tanks in rural areas, about 37
percent of well-water households would experience a net LCC cost at the
Recommended TSL.
At the Recommended TSL, the projected change in INPV ranges from a
decrease of $278.3 million to a decrease of $146.9 million, which
corresponds to decreases of 16.3 percent and 8.6 percent, respectively.
Industry conversion costs could reach $320.0 million at this TSL.
At this level, many existing top-loading standard-size products
would need to be redesigned to meet the Recommended TSL efficiencies;
however, there are a wide range of top-loading standard-size models
currently available on the market due to manufacturers' participation
in the ENERGY STAR program. Currently, approximately 49 percent of RCW
shipments meet the Recommended TSL efficiencies, including
approximately 31 percent of all top-loading standard-size shipments. Of
the nine OEMs with top-loading standard-size products, six OEMs offer
166 basic models (representing approximately 30 percent of all top-
loading standard-size basic models) that meet the Recommended TSL
efficiencies. These six OEMs that currently offer top-loading standard-
size RCW models that meet the Recommended TSL efficiencies collectively
account for over 95 percent of overall top-loading standard-size RCW
shipments. At this level, a substantial number of front-loading
standard-size products are available on the market due to
manufacturers' participation in the ENERGY STAR program. Currently,
approximately 92 percent of front-loading standard-size shipments meet
the Recommended TSL. Of the seven OEMs with front-loading standard-size
products, six OEMs offer 169 basic models (representing approximately
89 percent of all front-loading standard-size basic models) that meet
the Recommended TSL efficiencies.
For all TSLs considered in this proposed rule--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 provides 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. Furthermore,
these delayed compliance dates provide additional lead time and
certainty for suppliers of components that improve efficiency.
At the Recommended TSL, DOE's data demonstrates no negative impact
on consumer utility for both top-loading and front-loading RCWs.
Manufacturers did not provide any specific data nor express any
specific concerns regarding clothes washer performance at the
Recommended TSL. In addition, in the second joint statement from the
same group of stakeholders that submitted the Joint Agreement states
that the DOE's test data and industry experience agrees that the
recommended standard level for clothes washer can maintain good
cleaning performance and do not preclude the ability to provide high
wash temperatures.\23\ Based on the information available, DOE
concludes that no lessening of product utility or performance would
occur at the Recommended TSL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0509.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that at a standard set
at the Recommended TSL for RCWs would be economically justified. At the
Recommended TSL, the average LCC savings for all product classes is
positive. An estimated 27 percent of top-loading standard-size users,
21 percent of front-loading compact, 2 percent of front-loading
standard-size, and zero percent of semi-automatic clothes washer
consumers experience a net cost. At the Recommended TSL, the positive
average LCC savings across all product classes and cost savings for
approximately two-thirds of RCWs consumers, outweigh the negative
average LLC savings of $20 for well-water households and the 37 percent
of these households that might experience a net cost. DOE notes that
its analysis ensures that the financial implications for households
with wells and/or septic systems are comprehensively incorporated into
the national LCC analysis. In addition, the FFC national energy savings
are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive using both
a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the benefits to
consumers 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 is over 11 times higher than
the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. 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 $ 0.84 billion in
climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent
discount rate), and $ 1.62 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or
$ 0.73 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
amended energy conservation standards, DOE notes that as compared to
TSL 4 and TSL 3, the Recommended TSL has a lower maximum decrease in
INPV and lower manufacturer conversion costs.
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.
Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to
adopt the energy conservation standards for RCWs 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 RCWs proposed
[[Page 18849]]
in this NOPR is part of a multi-product Joint Agreement covering six
rulemakings (RCWs; 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. (Joint Agreement, No. 505 at p. 3) As
discussed in section V.B.2.e of the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, many RCW OEMs also
manufacture consumer clothes dryers; 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),\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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 energy conservation standards for RCWs, which are
expressed in EER and WER, are shown in Table III.3.
Table III.3--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential
Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum energy Minimum water
Product class efficiency ratio efficiency ratio
(lb/kWh/cycle) (lb/gal/cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact (less 3.79 0.29
than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity).......
Top-Loading Standard-Size (1.6 4.27 0.57
ft\3\ or greater capacity).....
Front-Loading Compact (less than 5.02 0.71
3.0 ft\3\ capacity)............
Front-Loading Standard-Size (3.0 5.52 0.77
ft\3\ or greater capacity).....
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers.. 2.12 0.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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$) of the
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less
energy), minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the
annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits.
Table III.4 shows the annualized values for RCWs under the
Recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$. The results under the primary
estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards
proposed in this rule is $530.1 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $853.9 million in
reduced equipment operating costs, $46.9 million in climate benefits,
and $71.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit
would amount to $442.5 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $513.1 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are
$998.9 million in reduced operating costs, $46.9 million in climate
benefits, and $90.3 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $623.0 million per year.
Table III.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards (Recommended TSL) for Residential Clothes
Washers
[2028-2057]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2022$/year
--------------------------------------------------------
Low-net-benefits High-net-benefits
Primary estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 998.9 957.2 1,020.9
Climate Benefits *..................................... 46.9 45.2 47.5
Health Benefits **..................................... 90.3 87.1 91.6
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]............................ 1,136.1 1,089.5 1,160.0
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............ 513.1 551.8 468.6
--------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits....................................... 623.0 537.7 691.4
[[Page 18850]]
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])... (27)-(14) (27)-(14) (27)-(14)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 853.9 821.2 871.7
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate).................. 46.9 45.2 47.5
Health Benefits **..................................... 71.9 69.6 72.8
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]............................ 972.6 935.9 992.0
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............ 530.1 564.6 489.5
--------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits....................................... 442.5 371.3 502.5
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])... (27)-(14) (27)-(14) (27)-(14)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped in 2028-2057. These results
include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 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 low decline 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 as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. DOE's national impact analysis 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 (MIA). See section IV.J of the direct final rule
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. 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 9.3 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the
direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For RCWs,
the annualized change in INPV ranges from -$27 million to -$14 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 section IV.J of the
direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register 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
annualized change in INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized
net benefits, using the primary estimate, would range from $596 million to $609 million at 3-percent discount
rate and would range from $415 million to $428 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 unit 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 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.
[[Page 18851]]
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. Severability
DOE proposes adding a new paragraph (ii) into section 10 CFR
430.32(g)(2) to provide that each energy and water conservation for
each RCW category is separate and severable from one another, and that
if any energy or water conservation standard is stayed or determined to
be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining
standards shall continue in effect. This severability clause is
intended to clearly express the Department's intent that should an
energy or water conservation standard for any product class be stayed
or invalidated, the other conservation standards shall continue in
effect. In the event a court were to stay or invalidate one or more
energy or water conservation standards for any product class as
finalized, the Department would want the remaining energy conservation
standards as finalized to remain in full force and legal effect.
VI. 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 prepared the
following IRFA for the products that are the subject of this proposed
rulemaking.
For manufacturers of RCWs, the 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 RCWs 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.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products
(42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and (9)(A)), and directs DOE to conduct future
rulemakings to
[[Page 18852]]
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and
(9)(B)) 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)) This proposed rulemaking is in
accordance with DOE's obligations under EPCA.
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 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 the requirements under 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)-(B), DOE is issuing this NOPR proposing energy
conservation standards for RCWs. These standard levels were submitted
jointly to DOE on September 25, 2023, by groups representing
manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and
a utility.\25\ This letter, titled ``Energy Efficiency Agreement of
2023'' (hereafter, the ``Joint Agreement'' \26\), recommends specific
energy conservation standards for RCWs that, in the commenters' view,
would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 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 manufacture 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, a Haier Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG;
LGEUSA; 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.
\26\ The Joint Agreement is available in the docket at
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy
efficiency and established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include RCWs, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) EPCA prescribed energy
conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and
(9)(A)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine
whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (9)(B))
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. DOE conducted a market survey to
identify potential small manufacturers of RCWs. DOE began its
assessment by reviewing DOE's CCD,\27\ California Energy Commission's
Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System,\28\ ENERGY STAR's
Product Finder data set,\29\ individual company websites, and prior RCW
rulemakings to identify manufacturers of the covered product. DOE then
consulted publicly available data, such as manufacturer websites,
manufacturer specifications and product literature, import/export logs
(e.g., bills of lading from Panjiva \30\), and basic model numbers, to
identify original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') of RCWs. DOE
further relied on public data and subscription-based market research
tools (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet reports \31\) to determine company
location, headcount, and annual revenue. DOE also asked industry
representatives if they were aware of any small manufacturers during
manufacturer interviews. DOE screened out companies that do not offer
products covered by this proposed rulemaking, do not meet the SBA's
definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification
Database is available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (last accessed June 29, 2023).
\28\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System is available at
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx (last
accessed June 29, 2023).
\29\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGY STAR Product
Finder is available at www.energystar.gov/productfinder/ (last
accessed June 29, 2023).
\30\ S&P Global. Panjiva Market Intelligence is available at
panjiva.com/import-export/United-States (last accessed June 30,
2023).
\31\ D&B Hoovers subscription login is accessible at:
app.dnbhoovers.com/ (last accessed November 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE identified 22 OEMs that sell covered RCWs in the United States.
Of the 22 OEMs identified, DOE determined that one company qualifies as
a small business and is not foreign-owned and operated.
In support of the March 2023 NOPR, DOE reached out to the small
business and invited participation in a voluntary interview. The small
business did not respond to DOE's interview request. DOE also requested
information about small businesses and potential impacts on small
businesses while interviewing large manufacturers.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
DOE is proposing TSL 2 in this NOPR. As stated in the previous
section, DOE identified one OEM that qualifies as a small business.
This small business manufactures one top-loading standard-size clothes
washer model for residential use. DOE identified this manufacturer
through the prior rulemaking analysis. 77 FR 32307. There is limited
public information about the energy and water efficiency of this small
business's RCW model. Furthermore, DOE's review of the product suggests
that the manufacturer would likely need to make significant investments
to redesign the product to meet this efficiency level. Therefore, DOE
is unable to conclude that the proposed rule would not have a
``significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small
businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by
TSL 2. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed standards, DOE
examined energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels.
While TSL 1 would reduce the impacts on small business manufacturers,
it would come at the expense of a reduction in energy and water
savings. TSL 1 achieves 13 percent lower energy savings and 38
[[Page 18853]]
percent lower water savings compared to the energy and water savings at
TSL 2.
Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 2
balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 2 with the potential
burdens placed on RCW manufacturers, including small business
manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does not propose one of the other TSLs
considered in the analysis, or the other policy alternatives examined
as part of the regulatory impact analysis and included in chapter 17 of
the direct final rule TSD.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally,
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
VII. 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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
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 revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their
compliance dates.
* * * * *
(g) Clothes washers. (1) Clothes washers manufactured on or after
January 1, 2018, shall have an Integrated Modified Energy Factor no
less than, and an Integrated Water Factor no greater than:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated
modified energy Integrated water
Product class factor (cu.ft./ factor (gal/cycle/
kWh/cycle) cu.ft.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Top-loading, Compact (less 1.15 12.0
than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity).........
(ii) Top-loading, Standard (1.6 1.57 6.5
ft\3\ or greater capacity).......
(iii) Front-loading, Compact (less 1.13 8.3
than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity).........
(iv) Front-loading, Standard (1.6 1.84 4.7
ft\3\ or greater capacity).......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Clothes washers manufactured on or after March 1, 2028:
(i) Shall have an Energy Efficiency Ratio and a Water Efficiency
Ratio no less than:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy efficiency Water efficiency
Product class ratio (lb/kWh/ ratio (lb/gal/
cycle) cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Automatic Clothes Washers:
(1) Top-Loading Ultra-Compact 3.79 0.29
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity)....................
(2) Top-Loading Standard-Size 4.27 0.57
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity) \1\................
(3) Front-Loading Compact 5.02 0.71
(less than 3.0 ft\3\
capacity) \2\................
(4) Front-Loading Standard- 5.52 0.77
Size (3.0 ft\3\ or greater
capacity) \3\................
(B) Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers 2.12 0.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to top-
loading standard-size clothes washers with an average cycle time less
than 30 minutes.
\2\ The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to
front-loading clothes washers with a capacity greater than or equal to
1.6 ft\3\ and less than 3.0 ft\3\ with an average cycle time of less
than 45 minutes.
\3\ The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to
front-loading standard-size clothes washers with an average cycle time
less than 45 minutes.
[[Page 18854]]
(ii) The provisions of this paragraph (g)(2) are separate and
severable from one another. Should a court of competent jurisdiction
hold any provision(s) of this section to be stayed or invalid, such
action shall not affect any other provisions of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-04737 Filed 3-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
