Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers, 31096-31114 [2024-08211]
Download as PDF
31096
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE–2019–BT–STD–0039]
RIN 1904–AF60
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Dishwashers
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 dishwashers. In this notice of
proposed rulemaking, the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes
amended energy conservation standards
for dishwashers 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 August 12, 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 May 24, 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–2019–BT–STD–0039.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE–
2019–BT–STD–0039, by any of the
following methods:
(1) Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
EERE–2019–BT–STD–0039 in the
subject line of the message.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
(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
VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
not all documents listed in the index
may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public
disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2019-BT-STD-0039. The docket web
page contains instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket. See section VII
of this document for information on
how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General
to provide DOE a written determination
of whether the proposed standard is
likely to lessen competition. The U.S.
Department of Justice Antitrust Division
invites input from market participants
and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the
proposed standard. Interested persons
may contact the Antitrust Division at
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:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
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) 306–7097. 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 Dishwasher 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
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
dishwashers, the subject of this
proposed rulemaking. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(6))
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 dishwashers 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
(‘‘NOPR’’) only if it determines it must
withdraw the direct final rule pursuant
to the criteria provided in 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4). The amended standard
levels in the proposed rule and the
direct final rule were recommended in
a letter submitted to DOE jointly by
groups representing manufacturers,
energy and environmental advocates,
consumer groups, and a utility. This
letter, titled ‘‘Energy Efficiency
Agreement of 2023’’ (hereafter, the
‘‘Joint Agreement’’ 3), recommends
specific energy conservation standards
for dishwashers 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 4
and utilities including San Diego Gas
and Electric and Southern California
Edison 5 advocating for the adoption of
the recommended standards. As
discussed in more detail in the
accompanying direct final rule and in
accordance with the provisions at 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has determined
that the recommendations contained in
the Joint Agreement comply with the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
In accordance with these and other
statutory provisions discussed in this
document, DOE proposes amended
energy conservation standards for
dishwashers. The standards are
31097
expressed in terms of maximum
estimated annual energy use (‘‘EAEU’’)
in kilowatt hours per year (‘‘kWh/yr’’),
and maximum per cycle water
consumption in gallons per cycle (‘‘gal/
cycle’’), as determined in accordance
with DOE’s dishwashers test procedure
codified at title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 430,
subpart B, appendix C2 (‘‘appendix
C2’’).
Table I.1 presents the proposed
amended standards for dishwashers.
The proposed standards are the same as
those recommended by the Joint
Agreement. These standards would
apply to all products listed in Table I.1
and manufactured in, or imported into,
the United States starting on [Date 3
years after date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register], as
recommended in the Joint Agreement.
Table 1.1 Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers (Compliance
Startine: 3 Years After the Publication of the Final Rule)
Maximum Estimated Annual
Maximum Per-Cycle Water
Energy Use
Consumption
(kWh/year)
(2al/cyc/e)
PC 1: Standard-size Dishwasher*
223
3.3
PC 2: Compact-size Dishwasher
3.1
174
* The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to standard-size dishwashers with a cycle time
for the normal cycle of 60 minutes or less.
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 dishwashers,
the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(6)) EPCA prescribed energy
conservation design standards for these
products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(1) and
(10)(A)), and directed DOE to conduct
future rulemakings to determine
whether to amend these standards. (42
U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (10)(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
dishwashers manufactured after January
1, 2010, Congress directed DOE to
‘‘determine[e] whether to amend’’ those
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B))
Congress’s directive, in section
6295(g)(10)(B), to consider whether ‘‘to
amend the standards in effect for
dishwashers’’ refers to ‘‘the standards’’
established in the immediately
preceding section, 6295(g)(10)(A).
There, Congress established energy
conservation standards with both energy
and water use performance standards
for dishwashers. Indeed, the energy and
water use performance standards for
dishwashers (both standard and
compact size) are contained within a
single paragraph. See id. Everything in
section 6295(g) suggests that Congress
intended both of those twin standards to
be evaluated when it came time, ‘‘[n]ot
later than January 1, 2015,’’ to consider
amending them. (Id. 6295(g)(10)(B)(i))
Accordingly, DOE understands its
authority, under section 6295(g)(10)(B),
to include consideration of amended
energy and water use performance
standards for dishwashers.
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 dishwashers. Neither
section 6295(g)(10)(B) nor section
6295(m) limit their application to
‘‘energy use standards.’’ Rather, they
direct DOE to consider amending ‘‘the
standards,’’ 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B), or
simply ‘‘standards,’’ id. 6295(m)(1)(B),
3 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD0039-0055.
4 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD0039-0056.
5 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD0039-0057.
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 dishwashers.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Authority
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
EP24AP24.056
Product Class
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31098
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 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 other
relevant conditions are satisfied,
promulgate a direct final rule that
includes water use performance
standards for a covered product like
dishwashers, 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 energy
conservation standards directly to 42
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
U.S.C. 6295, the section of EPCA that
contains statutorily prescribed
standards as well as DOE’s standardsetting 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 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 drytype distribution transformers, traffic
signal modules and pedestrian modules,
certain lamps, dehumidifiers, and
commercial prerinse spray valves
(‘‘CPSVs’’) 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 energy conservation
standards for residential clothes
washers 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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
‘‘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)(10), energy conservation
standards for dishwashers that include
both energy and water use performance
standards, Congress intended that
energy conservation standards for
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
dishwashers 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 conservation
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)(10). 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 state
should control our construction of the
priority statute, even though it had not
been expressly amended.’’) Accordingly,
based on a complete reading of the state,
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant
waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions set forth under EPCA.
(See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Subject to certain criteria and
conditions, DOE is required to develop
test procedures to measure the energy
efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of each covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(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 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the
products comply with standards
adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for
dishwashers appear at title 10 of the
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C1
(‘‘appendix C1’’) and appendix C2.
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered products,
including dishwashers. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31099
consumers of the products subject to the
standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the covered products in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the
price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that
are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of
energy (or as applicable, water) savings
likely to result directly from the
standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered products
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and
water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary
considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII))
Further, EPCA, as codified,
establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified
if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a
product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less
than three times the value of the energy
savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the
standard, as calculated under the
applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what
is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’
provision, which prevents the Secretary
from prescribing any amended standard
that either increases the maximum
allowable energy use or decreases the
minimum required energy efficiency of
a covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not
prescribe an amended or new standard
if interested persons have established by
a preponderance of the evidence that
the standard is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States in
any covered product type (or class) of
performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the
United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
EPCA specifies requirements when
promulgating an energy conservation
standard for a covered product that has
two or more subcategories. A rule
prescribing an energy conservation
standard for a type (or class) of product
must specify a different standard level
for a type or class of products that has
the same function or intended use if
DOE determines that products within
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31100
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 must consider such
factors as the utility to the consumer of
the 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 EISA 2007,
any final rule for new or amended
energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is
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 dishwashers address
standby mode and off mode energy use.
The standards proposed in this rule
incorporate standby mode and off mode
energy use.
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 on 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 or water conservation standard
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a direct final rule published on
May 30, 2012 (‘‘May 2012 Direct Final
Rule’’), DOE adopted the current energy
conservation standards for dishwashers
manufactured on or after May 30, 2013,
consistent with the levels proposed in a
letter submitted to DOE by groups
representing manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, and consumer
groups on July 30, 2010. 77 FR 31918,
31918–31919. This collective set of
comments, titled ‘‘Agreement on
Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards,
Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives
and Related Matters for Specified
Appliances’’ (the ‘‘July 2010 Joint
Petition’’),6 recommended specific
energy conservation standards for
dishwashers that, in the commenters’
view, would satisfy the EPCA
requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 77
FR 31918, 31919. The July 2010 Joint
Petition proposed energy conservation
standard levels for the standard-size and
compact-size dishwasher product
classes based on the same capacity
definitions that existed at that time. 77
FR 31918, 31926. These product classes
are the same as the two current product
classes for dishwashers. In the May
2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE analyzed
the benefits and burdens of multiple
standard levels for dishwashers,
including a standard level that
corresponded to the recommended
levels in the July 2010 Joint Petition,
and determined that the levels
recommended in the Joint Petition
satisfied the EPCA requirements set
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 77 FR
31918, 31921, 31924.
In a final determination published on
December 13, 2016 (‘‘December 2016
Final Determination’’), DOE concluded
that amended energy conservation
standards would not be economically
justified at any level above the
standards established in the May 2012
Direct Final Rule, and therefore
determined not to amend the standards.
81 FR 90072. The current energy and
water conservation standards are set
forth in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR
part 430, § 430.32(f), and are repeated in
Table II.1. The currently applicable DOE
test procedure for dishwashers appears
at appendix C1.
6 DOE Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0060–
0001.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table 11.1 Federal Ener!!V Conservation Standards for Dishwashers
Maximum Per-Cycle Water
Consumption
(kWh/year)
(f.!a[/cycle)
307
5.0
3.5
Standard-Size Dishwasher
Compact-Size Dishwasher
* Using appendix Cl
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
The regulatory text at 10 CFR
430.32(f) references the Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers
(‘‘AHAM’’) standard AHAM DW–1–
2020 7 to define the items in the test
load that comprise the serving pieces
and each place setting. The number of
serving pieces and place settings help
determine the capacity of the
dishwasher, which is used to determine
the applicable product class.
2. Current Test Procedure
On December 22, 2021, DOE
published a test procedure NOPR
(‘‘December 2021 TP NOPR’’) proposing
amendments to the dishwasher test
procedure at appendix C1 and a new
test procedure at appendix C2. 86 FR
72738. On January 18, 2023, DOE
published a final rule amending the test
procedure at appendix C1 and
establishing a new test procedure at
appendix C2 (‘‘January 2023 TP Final
Rule’’). 88 FR 3234. The new appendix
C2 specifies updated annual cycles and
low-power mode hours, both of which
are used to calculate the EAEU metric,
and introduces a minimum cleaning
performance threshold to validate the
selected test cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3236.
Subsequently, on July 27, 2023, DOE
published a final rule adding clarifying
instructions to the dishwasher test
procedure at appendix C1 regarding the
allowable dosing options for each type
of detergent; clarifying the existing
detergent reporting requirements; and
adding an enforcement provision for
dishwashers to specify the detergent
and dosing method that DOE would use
for any enforcement testing of
dishwasher models certified in
accordance with the applicable
dishwasher test procedure prior to July
17, 2023 (i.e., the date by which the
January 2023 TP Final Rule became
mandatory for product testing). 88 FR
48351.
EPCA authorizes DOE to design test
procedures that measure energy
efficiency, energy use, water use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use. (42
7 Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy
Consumption of Dishwashers. AHAM DW–1–2020.
Copyright 2020.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
.
Maximum Estimated Annual
Energy Use
222
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In general, a
consumer-acceptable level of cleaning
performance (i.e., a representative
average use cycle) can be easier to
achieve through the use of higher
amounts of energy and water use during
the dishwasher cycle. Conversely,
maintaining acceptable cleaning
performance can be more difficult as
energy and water levels are reduced.
Improving one aspect of dishwasher
performance, such as reducing energy
and/or water use as a result of energy
conservation standards, may require a
trade-off with one or more other aspects
of performance, such as cleaning
performance. 88 FR 3234, 3250–3251.
As discussed, the currently applicable
energy conservation standards for
dishwashers are based on appendix C1,
which does not prescribe a method for
testing dishwasher cleaning
performance.
The January 2023 TP Final Rule
established a new test procedure at
appendix C2, which includes provisions
for a minimum cleaning index threshold
of 70 to validate the selected test cycle.
88 FR 3234, 3261. The cleaning index is
calculated based on the number and size
of particles remaining on each item of
the test load at the completion of a
dishwasher cycle as specified in AHAM
DW–2–2020.8 Items that do not have
any soil particles are scored 0 (i.e.,
completely clean). No single item in the
test load can exceed a score of 9.
Individual scores for each item in the
test load are combined as a weighted
average to calculate the per cycle
cleaning index. A cleaning index of 100
indicates a completely clean test load.
Id. at 3255. In the January 2023 TP Final
Rule, DOE specified that the cleaning
index is calculated by only scoring soil
particles on all items in the test load
and that spots, streaks, and rack contact
marks on glassware are not included in
the cleaning index calculation.9 Id. at
8 Household Electric Dishwashers. AHAM DW–2–
2020. Copyright 2020.
9 In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed
a cleaning index threshold of 65 calculated by
scoring soil particles on all items as well as spots,
streaks, and rack contact marks on glassware. 86 FR
72738, 72756, 72758. In the January 2023 TP Final
Rule, DOE noted that the specified cleaning index
threshold of 70 is equivalent to the cleaning index
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3248. Manufacturers must use the
results of testing under the new
appendix C2 to determine compliance
with the energy conservation standards
proposed in this NOPR. Accordingly,
DOE used appendix C2 as finalized in
the January 2023 TP Final Rule as the
basis for the analysis in the direct final
rule accompanying this NOPR. Id. at
3234.
DOE adopted a minimum cleaning
performance threshold in appendix C2
to determine if a dishwasher, when
tested according to the DOE test
procedure, ‘‘completely washes a
normally soiled load of dishes,’’ so as to
better represent consumer use of the
product (i.e., to produce test results that
are more representative of an average
consumer use cycle). 88 FR 3234, 3253,
3255. Based on the data available, DOE
determined that the cleaning
performance threshold provides a
reasonable proxy for when consumers
are likely to be dissatisfied with
performance on the normal cycle. 88 FR
3234, 3261. The cleaning index
threshold established as part of the new
appendix C2 ensures that energy and
water savings are being realized for
products that comply with the energy
conservation standards for dishwashers
proposed in this NOPR. 88 FR 3234,
3253, 3254.
The standards proposed in this NOPR
are expressed in terms of the EAEU and
water consumption metrics as measured
according to the newly established test
procedure contained in appendix C2.
3. The Joint Agreement
On September 25, 2023, DOE received
a joint statement (i.e., the Joint
Agreement) recommending standards
for dishwashers, that was submitted by
groups representing manufacturers,
energy and environmental advocates,
consumer groups, and a utility.10 In
threshold of 65 that was proposed in the December
2021 TP NOPR. 88 FR 3234, 3261.
10 The signatories to the Joint Agreement include
the AHAM, American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water Efficiency,
ASAP, 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
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
Continued
24APP1
EP24AP24.057
.
Product Class
31101
31102
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
addition to the recommended standards
for dishwashers, the Joint Agreement
also included separate
recommendations for several other
covered products.11 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 the Joint
Agreement is contingent upon DOE
initiating rulemaking processes to adopt
all the recommended standards in this
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 provisions 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 this 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
dishwashers with a cycle time for the
normal cycle of 60 minutes or less, toploading residential clothes washers and
certain classes of consumer clothes
dryers with a cycle time of less than 30
minutes, and front-loading residential
clothes washers with a cycle time of less
than 45 minutes (collectively, ‘‘shortcycle product classes’’). The petitioners
argued that the final rule revoking the
short-cycle product classes violated
EPCA and was arbitrary and capricious.
On January 8, 2024, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
granted the petition for review and
remanded the matter to DOE for further
proceedings consistent with the Fifth
Circuit’s opinion. See Louisiana v.
United States Department of Energy, 90
F.4th 461 (5th Cir. 2024).
On February 14, 2024, following the
Fifth Circuit’s decision in Louisiana v.
United States Department of Energy,
DOE received a second joint statement
from this same group of stakeholders in
which the signatories reaffirmed the
Joint Agreement, stating that the
recommended standards represent the
maximum levels of efficiency that are
technologically feasible and
economically justified.12 In the letter,
the signatories clarified that ‘‘shortcycle’’ product classes for residential
clothes washers, 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 dishwashers.
The Joint Agreement recommends
amended standard levels for
dishwashers as presented in Table II.2.
(Joint Agreement, No. 55 at p. 5) Details
of the Joint Agreement
recommendations for other products are
provided in the Joint Agreement posted
in the docket.13
Table 11.2 Recommended Amended Ener!!V Conservation Standards for Dishwashers
Standard Levels
Using Test Procedure Appendix C2
Estimated Annual
Per-Cycle Water
Energy Use
Consumption
(zal/cyc/e)
(kWhlvear)
Standard-Size Dishwasher
(2: 8 place settings plus 6
serving pieces)
223
3.3
Compact-Size Dishwasher
(< 8 place settings plus 6
serving pieces)
174
3.1
products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC;
Asko Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove
Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation;
Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux; 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
11 The Joint Agreement contained
recommendations for 6 covered products:
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers;
clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers;
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
Compliance Date
3 years after
publication of the
direct final rule
published elsewhere in
this issue of the
Federal Rezister
3 years after
publication of the
direct final rule
published elsewhere in
this issue of the
Federal Rezister
cooking products; and miscellaneous refrigeration
products.
12 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD0039-0059.
13 The Joint Agreement is available in the docket
at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BTSTD-0039-0055.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
EP24AP24.058
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Product Class
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 amending
energy conservation standards for
dishwashers 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 dishwashers. As part of
that process, on May 19, 2023, DOE
published a NOPR and announced a
public meeting (‘‘May 2023 NOPR’’)
seeking comment on its proposed
amended standard to inform its decision
consistent with its obligations under
EPCA and the Administrative Procedure
Act (‘‘APA’’). 88 FR 32514. DOE held a
public meeting on June 8, 2023, to
discuss and receive comments on the
NOPR and NOPR TSD. The NOPR TSD
is available at: https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2019-BT-STD-0039-0032.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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))
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
DOE considered the impacts of
amended standards for dishwashers 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 ‘‘walkdown’’ analysis.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses
the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL,
tables in this section present a summary
of the results of DOE’s quantitative
analysis for each TSL. In addition to the
quantitative results presented in the
tables, DOE also considers other
burdens and benefits that affect
economic justification. These include
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of
consumers who may be
disproportionately affected by a national
standard and impacts on employment.
DOE also notes that the economics
literature provides a wide-ranging
discussion of how consumers trade off
upfront costs and energy savings in the
absence of government intervention.
Much of this literature attempts to
explain why consumers appear to
undervalue energy efficiency
improvements. There is evidence that
consumers undervalue future energy
savings as a result of (1) a lack of
information; (2) a lack of sufficient
salience of the long-term or aggregate
benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings
to warrant delaying or altering
purchases; (4) excessive focus on the
short term, in the form of inconsistent
weighting of future energy cost savings
relative to available returns on other
investments; (5) computational or other
difficulties associated with the
evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6)
a divergence in incentives (for example,
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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31103
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 manufacturing impact
analysis (‘‘MIA’’). Second, DOE
accounts for energy and water 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 and
water savings from an energy
conservation standard. DOE provides
estimates of shipments and changes in
the volume of product purchases in
chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD 14
available in the docket for this
rulemaking. However, DOE’s current
analysis does not explicitly control for
heterogeneity in consumer preferences,
preferences across subcategories of
products or specific features, or
consumer price sensitivity variation
according to household income.15
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for Dishwasher Standards
Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize
the quantitative impacts estimated for
each TSL for dishwashers. The national
impacts are measured over the lifetime
of dishwashers purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the anticipated
year of compliance with amended
standards (2027–2056). The energy
savings, emissions reductions, and
value of emissions reductions refer to
full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) results. The
consumer operating savings are
inclusive of energy and water. 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.
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
14 The TSD is available in the docket for this
rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2019-BT-STD-0039.
15 P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household
Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic
Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853–883. doi: 10.1111/
0034–6527.00354.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
31104
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table 111.1 Summary of Analytical Results for Dishwaters TSLs: National Impacts
TSL5
1.28
0.92
38.89
406.30
0.23
91.86
5.73
0.03
1.75
2.20
3.85
7.80
21.87
(20.12)
(14.08)
0.68
2.20
1.52
4.40
12.86
(12.18)
(8.46)
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with dishwashers shipped during the period
2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped
during the period 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH 4and SC-N 2O. 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 ofreducing 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.s 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
PM 25 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of
the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register for more details.
t 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.
+
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
EP24AP24.059
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TSL 1
TSL2
TSL3
TSL4
Catee:orv
Cumulative FFC National Enere:y Savine:s
Quads
0.31
0.34
0.05
0.08
Cumulative Water Savine:s
Trillion gallons
0.11
0.24
0.26
0.09
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
CO2 (million metric tons)
2.34
3.18
10.33
9.48
CH4 (thousand tons)
26.70
35.53
98.97
107.80
N2O (thousand tons)
0.01
O.ot
0.06
0.06
NOx (thousand tons)
22.37
24.37
6.09
8.09
SO2 (thousand tons)
0.16
0.28
1.41
1.53
Hg (tons)
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$)
Consumer Operating Cost
0.43
0.63
3.16
3.36
Savings
Climate Benefits•
0.58
0.13
0.18
0.54
Health Benefits**
0.22
0.31
0.94
1.02
Total Benefitst
0.79
1.12
4.64
4.97
Consumer Incremental
0.26
0.41
0.26
0.41
Product Costs:
Consumer Net Benefits
0.17
0.22
2.90
2.95
Total Net Benefits
0.53
0.71
4.38
4.56
Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$)
Consumer Operating Cost
0.18
0.27
1.38
1.46
Savings
Climate Benefits•
0.13
0.18
0.54
0.58
Health Benefits**
0.09
0.12
0.37
0.40
Total Benefitst
0.41
0.57
2.29
2.45
Consumer Incremental
0.15
0.24
0.15
0.24
Product Costs:
Consumer Net Benefits
1.23
1.23
0.03
0.03
Total Net Benefits
0.25
2.13
2.21
0.33
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
31105
Table 111.2 Summary of Analytical Results for Dishwashers TSLs: Manufacturer and
Consumer Impacts
Category
Manufacturer lmoacts
Industry NPV (million
2022$) (No-newstandards case INPV =
735.8)
Industry NPV (% change)
TSL 1
TSL2
TSL3
TSL4
TSL5
680.8 to
729.7
673.7 to
723.3
587.1 to 639.1
579.9 to
632.8
334.4 to
414.6
(7.5) to (0.8)
(8.4) to (1.7)
(20.2) to (13.1)
(21.2) to
(14.0)
(54.5) to
(43.7)
$17
$17
($145)
$32
$4
$4
$17
$16
($142)
3.9
3.9
15.9
0.0
5.5
5.5
3.8
3.9
15.7
3%
3%
97%
0%
54%
54%
3%
4%
96%
Consumer Avera~e LCC Savin~s (2022$)
PC 1: Standard-size
$5
$5
dishwashers
PC 2: Compact-size
$32
$4
dishwashers
Shipment-Weighted
$5
$4
Average•
Consumer Simple PBP (years)
PC 1: Standard-size
4.9
4.9
dishwashers
PC 2: Compact-size
0.0
5.5
dishwashers
Shipment-Weighted
4.8
4.9
Average•
Percent of Consumers that Exoerience a Net Cost
PC 1: Standard-size
4%
4%
dishwashers
PC 2: Compact-size
0%
54%
dishwashers
Shipment-Weighted
4%
5%
Average•
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C
DOE first considered TSL 5, which
represents the max-tech efficiency levels
for both product classes. Specifically,
for a standard-size dishwasher, this
efficiency level includes design options
considered at the lower efficiency levels
(i.e., electronic controls, soil sensors,
multiple spray arms, improved water
filters and control strategies, separate
drain pump, tub insulation, hydraulic
system optimization, water diverter
assembly, temperature sensor, 3-phase
variable-speed motor, and flow meter)
and condensation drying, including use
of a stainless steel tub; flow-through
heating implemented as an in-sump
integrated heater; and control strategies.
The majority of these design options
reduce both energy and water use
together.16 For a compact-size
16 As discussed previously in section IV.A.2 of
the direct final rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register, because the energy
used to heat the water consumed by the dishwasher
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
dishwasher, this efficiency level
includes the design options considered
at the lower efficiency levels (i.e.,
improved control strategies) and
additionally includes the use of
permanent magnet motor, improved
filters, hydraulic system optimization,
heater incorporated into base of tub, and
reduced sump volume. Similar to
standard-size dishwashers, the majority
of these design options reduce both
energy and water use together. TSL 5
would save an estimated 1.28 quads of
energy and 0.92 trillion gallons of water,
an amount DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer
benefit (inclusive of both energy and
water) would be ¥$12.18 billion using
a discount rate of 7 percent, and
¥$20.12 billion using a discount rate of
3 percent.
is included as part of the EAEU energy use metric,
technologies that decrease water use also inherently
decrease energy use.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 5 would be 38.89 Mt of CO2, 5.73
thousand tons of SO2, 91.86 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.03 tons of Hg, 406.30
thousand tons of CH4, and 0.23
thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC–GHG at
a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 5
would be $2.20 billion. The estimated
monetary value of the health benefits
from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 5 would be $1.52 billion using a 7percent discount rate and $3.85 billion
using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs, health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
total NPV at TSL 5 would be ¥$8.46
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate
for all benefits and costs, the estimated
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
EP24AP24.060
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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31106
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
total NPV at TSL 5 would be ¥$14.08
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 5, the average LCC impact
would be a loss of $145 for standardsize dishwashers and a $4 savings for
compact-size dishwashers. The simple
payback period would be 15.9 years for
standard-size dishwashers and 5.5 years
for compact-size dishwashers. The
fraction of consumers experiencing a net
LCC cost would be 97 percent for
standard-size dishwashers and 54
percent for compact-size dishwashers.
Notably, for the standard-size product
class, which as discussed represents 98
percent of the market, TSL 5 (which
includes EL 4 for this product class)
would increase the first cost by $178.
This associated increase in first cost at
TSL 5 for standard-size dishwashers
could impact the number of new
shipments by approximately less than 2
percent annually due to consumers
shifting to extending the lives of their
existing dishwashers beyond their
useful life, repairing instead of
replacing, or handwashing their dishes.
In the national impact analysis, DOE
modeled a scenario where part of this 2percent of consumers forgoing the
purchase of a new dishwasher due to
price increases would substitute to
handwashing. This results in a small
increase in energy and water use, which
is then subtracted from the energy and
water savings projected to result from
the proposed amended standards at
TSL5.
For the low-income consumer group,
the average LCC impact would be a loss
of $29 for standard-size dishwashers
and a savings of $62 for compact-size
dishwashers. The simple payback
period would be 6.6 years for standardsize dishwashers and 2.3 years for
compact-size dishwashers. The fraction
of low-income consumers experiencing
a net LCC cost would be 46 percent for
standard-size dishwashers and 26
percent for compact-size dishwashers.
For the senior-only households
consumer group, the average LCC
impact would be a loss of $159 for
standard-size dishwashers and a loss of
$14 for compact-size dishwashers. The
simple payback period would be 19.8
years for standard-size dishwashers and
6.8 years for compact-size dishwashers.
The fraction of senior-only consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost would be
98 percent for standard-size
dishwashers and 62 percent for
compact-size dishwashers. For the
consumer sub-group of well-water
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
households, the average LCC impact
would be a loss of $162 for standardsize dishwashers and a loss of $19 for
compact-size dishwashers. The simple
payback period would be 21.4 years for
standard-size dishwashers and 6.9 years
for compact-size dishwashers. The
fraction of well-water consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost would be
98 percent for standard-size
dishwashers and 63 percent for
compact-size dishwashers.
At TSL 5, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $334.4
million to a decrease of $414.6 million,
which corresponds to decreases of 54.5
percent and 43.7 percent, respectively.
Industry conversion costs could reach
$681.0 million at this TSL, as
manufacturers work to redesign their
portfolios of model offerings, transition
their standard-size dishwasher
platforms entirely to stainless steel tubs,
and renovate manufacturing facilities to
accommodate changes to the production
line and manufacturing processes.
DOE estimates that less than 1 percent
of dishwasher shipments currently meet
the max-tech levels. Standard-size
dishwashers account for approximately
98 percent of annual shipments. Of the
19 standard-size dishwasher original
equipment manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’),
only one OEM, which accounts for
approximately 2 percent of basic models
in the CCD, currently offers products
that meet the max-tech efficiencies that
would be required. All manufacturers
interviewed, which together account for
approximately 90 percent of the
industry shipments, expressed
uncertainty as to whether they could
reliably meet the standard-size
dishwasher max-tech efficiencies and
the cleaning performance threshold and
noted meeting max-tech would require
a platform redesign and significant
investment in tooling, equipment, and
production line modifications. Many
manufacturers would need to increase
production capacity of stainless steel
tub designs. Some manufacturers noted
that a max-tech standard could
necessitate new tub architectures.
For compact-size dishwashers, which
account for the remaining 2 percent of
annual shipments, DOE estimates that
14 percent of shipments currently meet
the required max-tech efficiencies. Of
the five compact-size dishwasher OEMs,
two OEMs currently offer compact-size
products that meet max-tech. At TSL 5,
compact-size countertop dishwashers
with four or more place settings and insink dishwashers with less than four
place settings are not currently available
in the market. Meeting TSL 5 is
technologically feasible for those
products; however, DOE expects that it
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would take significant investment
relative to the size of the compact-size
dishwasher market to redesign products
to meet the max-tech efficiencies.
Based on the above considerations,
the Secretary tentatively concludes that
at TSL 5 for dishwashers, the benefits of
energy and water savings, emissions
reductions, and the estimated monetary
value of the health benefits and climate
benefits from emissions reductions
would be outweighed by the negative
NPV of consumer benefits and the
impacts on manufacturers, including the
large potential reduction in INPV. At
TSL 5, a majority of standard-size
dishwasher consumers (97 percent)
would experience a net cost and the
average LCC loss is $145 for this
product class. Additionally, at TSL 5,
manufacturers would need to make
significant upfront investments to
redesign product platforms and update
manufacturing facilities. Some
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 5 is not
economically justified.
DOE next considered TSL 4, which
represents the highest efficiency levels
providing positive LCC savings. TSL 4
comprises the gap-fill efficiency level
between the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 level
and the ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 level (EL
2) for standard-size dishwashers and the
max-tech efficiency level for compactsize dishwashers. Specifically, for a
standard-size dishwasher, this
efficiency level includes design options
considered at the lower efficiency levels
(i.e., electronic controls, soil sensors,
multiple spray arms, improved water
filters, separate drain pump, and tub
insulation) and additionally includes
the use of improved control strategies.
For a compact-size dishwasher, this
efficiency level includes the design
options considered at the lower
efficiency levels (i.e., improved control
strategies) and additionally includes the
use of a permanent magnet motor,
improved filters, hydraulic system
optimization, heater incorporated into
base of tub, and reduced sump volume.
The majority of these design options for
both standard-size and compact-size
dishwashers reduce both energy and
water use together. TSL 4 would save an
estimated 0.34 quads of energy and 0.26
trillion gallons of water, an amount DOE
considers significant. Under TSL 4, the
NPV of consumer benefit (inclusive of
energy and water) would be $1.23
billion using a discount rate of 7
percent, and $2.95 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 4 would be 10.33 Mt of CO2, 1.53
thousand tons of SO2, 24.37 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 107.80
thousand tons of CH4, and 0.06
thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC–GHG at
a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 4
would be $0.58 billion. The estimated
monetary value of the health benefits
from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 4 would be $0.40 billion using a 7percent discount rate and $1.02 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 would be $2.21
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate
for all benefits and costs, the estimated
total NPV at TSL 4 would be $4.56
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 LCC impact
would be a savings of $17 for standardsize dishwashers and $4 for compactsize dishwashers. The simple payback
period would be 3.9 years for standardsize dishwashers and 5.5 years for
compact-size dishwashers. The fraction
of consumers experiencing a net LCC
cost would be 3 percent for standardsize dishwashers and 54 percent for
compact-size dishwashers.
For the low-income consumer group,
the average LCC impact would be a
savings of $21 for standard-size
dishwashers and $62 for compact-size
dishwashers. The simple payback
period would be 1.6 years for standardsize dishwashers and 2.3 years for
compact-size dishwashers. The fraction
of low-income consumers experiencing
a net LCC cost would be 2 percent for
standard-size dishwashers and 26
percent for compact-size dishwashers.
For the senior-only households
consumer group, the average LCC
impact would be a savings of $13 for
standard-size dishwashers and a loss of
$14 for compact-size dishwashers. The
simple payback period would be 4.9
years for standard-size dishwashers and
6.8 years for compact-size dishwashers.
The fraction of senior-only consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost would be 4
percent for standard-size dishwashers
and 62 percent for compact-size
dishwashers. For the consumer subgroup of well-water households, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
average LCC impact would be a savings
of $12 for standard-size dishwashers
and a loss of $19 for compact-size
dishwashers. The simple payback
period would be 5.5 years for standardsize dishwashers and 6.9 years for
compact-size dishwashers. The fraction
of well-water consumers experiencing a
net LCC cost would be 4 percent for
standard-size dishwashers and 63
percent for compact-size dishwashers.
At TSL 4, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $155.9
million to a decrease of $103.1 million,
which corresponds to decreases of 21.2
percent and 14.0 percent, respectively.
Industry conversion costs could reach
$137.2 million at this TSL as some
manufacturers of standard-size
dishwashers would redesign products to
enable improved controls and better
design tolerances and manufacturers of
certain compact-size dishwashers would
redesign products to meet max-tech.
DOE estimates that approximately 10
percent of dishwasher shipments
currently meet the TSL 4 efficiencies, of
which approximately 9 percent of
standard-size dishwasher shipments
and 14 percent of compact-size
dishwasher shipments meet the
required efficiencies. Compared to maxtech, more manufacturers offer
standard-size dishwashers that meet the
required efficiencies. Furthermore, since
the May 2023 NOPR, more
manufacturers now offer standard-size
dishwasher models that meet the TSL 4
efficiencies. DOE believes that the
recent introduction of more highefficiency standard-size dishwashers is
largely in response to ENERGY STAR V.
7.0, which went into effect in July 2023.
Of the 19 OEMs offering standard-size
products, 16 OEMs offer products that
meet the efficiency level that would be
required. For compact-size dishwashers,
TSL 4 represents the same efficiency
level as for TSL 5. Just as with TSL 5,
compact-size countertop dishwashers
with four or more place settings and insink dishwashers with less than four
place settings are not currently available
in the market at TSL 4 levels. Meeting
TSL 4 is technologically feasible for
those products; however, DOE expects
that it would take significant investment
(nearly $11 million) relative to the size
of the compact-size dishwasher market
(no-new-standards case INPV of $15.4
million) for them to meet the max-tech
efficiencies.
Based upon the above considerations,
the Secretary tentatively concludes that
at TSL 4 for dishwashers, the benefits of
energy and water savings, positive NPV
of consumer benefits, emission
reductions, and the estimated monetary
value of the health benefits and climate
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31107
benefits from emissions reductions
would be outweighed by negative LCC
savings for the senior-only households
for the compact-size dishwasher
product class and the high percentage of
consumers with net costs for the
compact-size dishwasher product class.
Consequently, the Secretary has
tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not
economically justified.
DOE then considered the
Recommended TSL (i.e., TSL 3), which
comprises the gap-fill efficiency level
between the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 level
and the ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 level (EL
2) for standard-size dishwashers and the
ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 level (EL 1) for
compact-size dishwashers. Specifically,
for a standard-size dishwasher, this
efficiency level includes design options
considered at the lower efficiency levels
(i.e., electronic controls, soil sensors,
multiple spray arms, improved water
filters, separate drain pump, and tub
insulation) and additionally includes
the use of improved control strategies.
For a compact-size dishwasher, this
efficiency level represents the use of
improved controls. The majority of
these design options for both standardsize and compact-size dishwashers
reduce both energy and water use
together. The Recommended TSL would
save an estimated 0.31 quads of energy
and 0.24 trillion gallons of water, an
amount DOE considers significant.
Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV
of consumer benefit (inclusive of energy
and water) would be $1.23 billion using
a discount rate of 7 percent, and $2.90
billion using a discount rate of 3
percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at the Recommended TSL would be 9.48
Mt of CO2, 1.41 thousand tons of SO2,
22.37 thousand tons of NOX, 0.01 tons
of Hg, 98.97 thousand tons of CH4, and
0.06 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 would be $0.54
billion. The estimated monetary value of
the health benefits from reduced SO2
and NOX emissions at the
Recommended TSL would be $0.37
billion using a 7-percent discount rate
and $0.94 billion using a 3-percent
discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs, health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
total NPV at the Recommended TSL
would be $2.13 billion. Using a 3percent discount rate for all benefits and
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
31108
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
costs, the estimated total NPV at the
Recommended TSL would be $4.38
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 would be a savings
of $17 for standard-size dishwashers
and $32 for compact-size dishwashers.
The simple payback period would be
3.9 years for standard-size dishwashers
and 0.0 years for compact-size
dishwashers. The fraction of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost would be 3
percent for standard-size dishwashers
and 0 percent for compact-size
dishwashers.
For the low-income consumer group,
the average LCC impact would be a
savings of $21 for standard-size
dishwashers and $39 for compact-size
dishwashers. The simple payback
period would be 1.6 years for standardsize dishwashers and 0.0 years for
compact-size dishwashers. The fraction
of low-income consumers experiencing
a net LCC cost would be 2 percent for
standard-size dishwashers and 0 percent
for compact-size dishwashers. For the
senior-only households consumer
group, the average LCC impact would be
a savings of $13 for standard-size
dishwashers and $26 for compact-size
dishwashers. The simple payback
period would be 4.9 years for standardsize dishwashers and 0.0 years for
compact-size dishwashers. The fraction
of senior-only consumers experiencing a
net LCC cost would be 4 percent for
standard-size dishwashers and 0 percent
for compact-size dishwashers. For the
consumer sub-group of well water
households, the average LCC impact
would be a savings of $12 for standardsize dishwashers and $23 for compactsize dishwashers. The simple payback
period would be 5.5 years for standardsize dishwashers and 0.0 years for
compact-size dishwashers. The fraction
of well water consumers experiencing a
net LCC cost would be 4 percent for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
standard-size dishwashers and 0 percent
for compact-size dishwashers.
At the Recommended TSL, the
projected change in INPV ranges from a
decrease of $148.8 million to a decrease
of $96.7 million, which corresponds to
decreases of 20.2 percent and 13.1
percent, respectively. Industry
conversion costs could reach $126.9
million at this TSL as some
manufacturers would redesign standardsize products to enable improved
controls and better design tolerances.
DOE estimates that approximately 11
percent of dishwasher shipments
currently meet the Recommended TSL
efficiencies, of which approximately 9
percent of standard-size dishwasher
shipments and 87 percent of compactsize dishwasher shipments meet the
required efficiencies. At this level, the
decrease in conversion costs compared
to TSL 4 would be entirely due to the
lower efficiency level required for
compact-size dishwashers, as the
efficiency level that would be required
for standard-size dishwashers is the
same as for TSL 4 (EL 2). All the
compact-size dishwasher OEMs
currently offer products that meet the
Recommended TSL. At this level, DOE
expects manufacturers of compact-size
dishwashers would implement
improved controls, which would likely
require minimal upfront investment.
After considering the analysis and
weighing the benefits and burdens, the
Secretary has tentatively concluded that
a standard set at the Recommended TSL
for dishwashers would be economically
justified. At this TSL, the shipments
weighted-average LCC savings for both
product classes would be $17. The
shipments weighted-average share of
consumers with a net LCC cost for both
product classes would be 3 percent. For
all consumer sub-groups, the LCC
savings would be positive and the net
share of consumers with a net LCC cost
would be below 5 percent for both
product classes. The FFC national
energy and water savings would be
significant and the NPV of consumer
benefits would be $2.90 billion and
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$1.23 billion using both a 3-percent and
7-percent discount rate respectively.
Notably, the benefits to consumers
would vastly outweigh the cost to
manufacturers. At the Recommended
TSL, the NPV of consumer benefits,
even measured at the more conservative
discount rate of 7 percent, is over eight
times higher than the maximum
estimated manufacturers’ loss in INPV.
The standard levels at the
Recommended TSL would be
economically justified even without
weighing the estimated monetary value
of emissions reductions. When those
emissions reductions are included—
representing $0.54 billion in climate
benefits (associated with the average
SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate),
and $0.94 billion (using a 3-percent
discount rate) or $0.37 billion (using a
7-percent discount rate) in health
benefits—the rationale becomes stronger
still.
The proposed standards would be
applicable to the regulated cycle type
(i.e., normal cycle); manufacturers could
continue to provide currently available
additional, non-regulated cycle types
(e.g., quick cycles, pots and pans, heavy,
delicates, etc.). Specifically, DOE
expects quick cycles, many of which
clean a load within 1 hour or less, and
existing drying options would still be
available on dishwasher models that
currently offer such cycle types. DOE
has no information suggesting that any
aspect of this NOPR would limit the
other cycle options, especially quick
cycles. Additionally, in the January
2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE provided
data from its investigatory testing
sample that determined cycle time is
not substantively correlated with energy
and water consumption of the normal
cycle.17 Based on these results, DOE has
tentatively determined that the NOPR
would not have any substantive impact
to normal cycle durations.
17 See section 5.5.1 of the January 2022
Preliminary TSD. Available at www.energy.gov/
sites/default/files/2022-01/dw-tsd.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
The test procedure in appendix C2,
which includes provisions for a
minimum cleaning index threshold of
70 to validate the selected test cycle,
will go into effect at such time as
compliance would be required with any
amended energy conservation
standards. At the Recommended TSL,
both standard-size and compact-size
dishwasher models achieving the
efficiencies, as measured by appendix
C2, including the cleaning performance
threshold, are readily available on the
market.
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 proposed amended energy
conservation standards, DOE considers
amended standard levels for
dishwashers by grouping the efficiency
levels for each product class into TSLs
and evaluates all analyzed efficiency
levels in its LCC analysis and all
efficiency levels with positive LCC
savings for the NIA and MIA. For both
standard-size and compact-size
dishwashers, the proposed standard
level represents the maximum energy
savings that would not result in a large
percentage of consumers experiencing a
net LCC cost. The efficiency levels at the
proposed standard level would result in
positive LCC savings for both product
classes, significantly reduce the number
of consumers experiencing a net cost,
and reduce the decrease in INPV and
conversion costs to the point where
DOE has tentatively concluded they are
economically justified, as discussed for
the Recommended TSL in the preceding
paragraphs.
At the Recommended standard level
for the standard-size product class, the
average LCC savings would be $17, the
percentage of consumers experiencing a
net cost would be 3 percent (see Table
V.3 of the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register), and the FFC energy savings
would be 0.3 quads. At the
Recommended standard level for
compact-size product class, the average
LCC savings would be $32 and there are
no consumers that would experience a
net cost. DOE tentatively concludes that
there is economic justification to
propose the standards for standard-size
and compact-size dishwashers
independent of each other.
Therefore, based on the previous
considerations, DOE proposes the
energy conservation standards for
dishwashers 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, DOE notes that
the Recommended TSL for dishwashers
proposed in this NOPR is part of a
multi-product Joint Agreement covering
six rulemakings (refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers;
miscellaneous refrigeration products;
consumer conventional cooking
products; residential clothes washers;
consumer clothes dryers; and
dishwashers). The signatories indicate
31109
that the Joint Agreement for the six
rulemakings should be considered as a
joint statement of recommended
standards, to be adopted in its entirety.
As discussed in section V.B.2.e of the
direct final rule published elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register, many
dishwasher OEMs also manufacture
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers, miscellaneous refrigeration
products, consumer conventional
cooking products, residential clothes
washers, and consumer clothes dryers.
Rather than requiring compliance with
five amended standards in a single year
(2027),18 the negotiated multi-product
Joint Agreement staggers the compliance
dates for the five rulemakings over a 4year period (2027–2030). DOE
understands that the compliance dates
recommended in the Joint Agreement
would help reduce cumulative
regulatory burden. These compliance
dates help relieve concern on the part of
some manufacturers about their ability
to allocate sufficient resources to
comply with multiple concurrent
amended standards, about the need to
align compliance dates for products that
are typically designed or sold as
matched pairs, and about the ability of
their suppliers to ramp up production of
key components. 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 dishwashers, which are
expressed in EAEU and per-cycle water
consumption, shall not exceed the
values shown in Table III.3.
Table 111.3 Proposed Ener!!V Conservation Standards for Dishwashers
18 The refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers (88 FR 12452); consumer conventional
cooking products (88 FR 6818); residential clothes
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
(Fza/lcvcle)
223
3.3
174
3.1
washers (88 FR 13520); consumer clothes dryers (87
FR 51734); and dishwashers (88 FR 32514) utilized
a 2027 compliance year for analysis at the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
rule stage. Miscellaneous refrigeration products (88
FR 12452) utilized a 2029 compliance year for the
NOPR analysis.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
EP24AP24.061
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
(kWh/year}*
PC 1: Standard-size Dishwashers (~
8 place settings plus 6 serving
oieces)
PC 2: Compact-size Dishwashers(<
8 place settings plus 6 serving
pieces)
* Based on appendix C2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Per-Cycle Water
Consumption
Estimated Annual Energy Use
Product Class
31110
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the
Proposed Standards
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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 and
water, minus increases in product
purchase costs, and (2) the annualized
monetary value of the climate and
health benefits.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
Table III.4 shows the annualized
values for dishwashers under the
recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$.
The results under the primary estimate
are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs and NOX
and SO2 reductions, and the 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs,
the estimated cost of the standards
proposed in this rule would be $14.0
million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual
benefits would be $127.2 million in
reduced equipment operating costs,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$29.0 million in GHG reductions, and
$34.3 million in reduced NOX and SO2.
In this case, the net benefit would
amount to $176.4 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of
the proposed standards would be $14.0
million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual
benefits would be $171.2 million in
reduced operating costs, $29.0 million
in climate benefits, and $50.8 million in
health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $237.0 million
per year.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
31111
Table TH.4 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Dishwashers
Million 2022$/year
Primary Estimate
Low-Net-Benefits
Estimate
High-Net-Benefits
Estimate
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings
171.2
164.1
175.8
Climate Benefits*
29.0
28.3
29.3
Health Benefits**
50.8
49.6
51.3
Total Benefitst
251.0
242.0
256.4
14.0
17.0
13.2
237.0
224.9
243.1
(14)- (9)
(14)-(9)
(14)- (9)
Consumer Incremental Product Costs;
Net Monetized Benefits
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV)l:
7% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings
127.2
122.5
130.5
Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate)
29.0
28.3
29.3
Health Benefits**
34.3
33.5
34.5
Total Benefitst
190.5
184.3
194.3
Consumer Incremental Product Costs;
14.0
16.7
13.3
Net Monetized Benefits
176.4
167.6
181.0
(14)- (9)
(14)-(9)
(14)- (9)
~ote: This table presents the t:osts and benefits assodated with dishwashers shipped in 2027-2056. These results indude
consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056. The Primary, Low
~et 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 N.F and IV.H
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, A1ethane, 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.s 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.s emissions. See section IV.L of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register for more details.
t 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.
f Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
EP24AP24.062
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV):i
31112
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
IV. Public Participation
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule until the date provided in the DATES
section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information
using any of the methods described in
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
of this document. Comments relating to
the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register,
should be submitted as instructed
therein.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
EP24AP24.063
;; Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life-cycle cost analysis and national impact analysis as
discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.Hof the direct fmal rule published elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register. DOE's national impacts 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 (i.e., 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 weightedaverage cost of capital value of 8.5 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 dishwashers, the change
in INPV ranges from -$14 million to -$9 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing
whether a trial standard level is economically justified. See section V.C of the direct fmal 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 Tiered scenario,
which models a reduction of manufacturer markups due to reduced product differentiation as a result of
amended standards. 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. IfDOE were to include the INPV into annualized the net benefit calculation for this
proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $223 million to $228 million at 3-percent discount
rate and would range from $163 million to $168 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses() indicate
negative values.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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 (3) into section 10 CFR
430.32(f) to provide that each energy
and water conservation for each
dishwasher 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 not
prepared an IRFA for the products that
are the subject of this proposed
rulemaking.
DOE reviewed this proposed rule
under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19,
2003. DOE certifies that the proposed
rule, if adopted, would not have
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The factual basis of this certification is
set forth in the following paragraphs.
For manufacturers of dishwashers, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31113
dishwashers 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.19
DOE conducted a focused inquiry into
small business manufacturers of the
products covered by this rulemaking.
DOE reviewed its Compliance
Certification Database,20 California
Energy Commission’s Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database
System,21 and ENERGY STAR’s Product
Finder dataset 22 to create a list of
companies that import or otherwise
manufacture the products covered by
this proposal. DOE then consulted
publicly available data to identify OEMs
selling dishwashers in the United
States. DOE relied on public data and
subscription-based market research
tools (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet 23) to
determine company location,
headcount, and annual revenue. DOE
screened out companies that do not
offer products covered by this
rulemaking, do not meet SBA’s
definition of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are
foreign-owned and operated.
DOE identified 21 dishwasher OEMs.
Of the 21 OEMs identified, DOE
determined no companies qualify as a
small domestic business.
Based on the initial finding that there
are no dishwasher manufacturers who
would qualify as small businesses, DOE
certifies that the proposed rule, if
finalized, would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities and has not
prepared an IRFA for this rulemaking.
DOE will transmit the certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for
review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The following standard appears in the
proposed amendatory text of this
document and was previously approved
19 U.S. Small Business Administration. ‘‘Table of
Small Business Size Standards.’’ (Effective March
17, 2023). Available at www.sba.gov/document/
support-table-size-standards (last accessed Dec. 22,
2023).
20 U.S. Department of Energy Compliance
Certification Database, available at
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/
products.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (last
accessed Aug. 23, 2023).
21 California Energy Commission Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System, available at
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/
AdvancedSearch.aspx (last accessed Aug. 23, 2023).
22 ENERGY STAR Product Finder data set,
available at www.energystar.gov/productfinder (last
accessed Aug. 23, 2023).
23 The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription
login is accessible at app.dnbhoovers.com (last
accessed Dec. 22, 2023).
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
31114
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
for the locations in which it appears:
AHAM DW–1–2020.
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,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, and
Small businesses.
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 April 12,
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:
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on April 12, 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
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 (f) to read as follows:
■
§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation
standards and their compliance dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Dishwashers. (1) All dishwashers
manufactured on or after May 30, 2013,
shall meet the following standard—
(i) Standard size dishwashers shall
not exceed 307 kwh/year and 5.0
gallons per cycle. Standard size
dishwashers have a capacity equal to or
greater than eight place settings plus six
serving pieces as specified in AHAM
DW–1–2020 (incorporated by reference,
see § 430.3) using the test load specified
in section 2.3 of appendix C1 or section
2.4 of appendix C2 to subpart B of this
part, as applicable.
(ii) Compact size dishwashers shall
not exceed 222 kwh/year and 3.5
gallons per cycle. Compact size
dishwashers have a capacity less than
eight place settings plus six serving
pieces as specified in AHAM DW–1–
2020 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 430.3) using the test load specified in
section 2.3 of appendix C1 or section 2.4
of appendix C2 to subpart B of this part,
as applicable.
(2) All dishwashers manufactured on
or after [Date 3 years after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register], shall not exceed the
following standard—
Estimated annual
energy use
(kWh/year)
Product class
(i) Standard-size 1 (≥8 place settings plus 6 serving pieces) 2 ....................................................................
(ii) Compact-size (<8 place settings plus 6 serving pieces) 2 .....................................................................
Maximum
per-cycle water
consumption
(gal/cycle)
223
174
3.3
3.1
1 The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to standard-size dishwashers with a cycle time for the normal cycle of 60 minutes or less.
2 Place settings are as specified in AHAM DW–1–2020 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3) and the test load is as specified in section 2.4
of appendix C2 to subpart B of this part.
(3) The provisions of paragraph (f)(2)
of this section 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 provision of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–08211 Filed 4–23–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
11 CFR Part 100
[NOTICE 2024–12]
Amending Definition of Contribution to
Include ‘‘Valuable Information’’
Federal Election Commission.
Notification of Disposition of
Petition for Rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
The Commission announces
its disposition of a Petition for
Rulemaking filed on April 29, 2019. The
Petition asked the Commission to
amend the existing regulation defining
‘‘contribution’’ by adding a new section
to include within the definition of
contribution certain ‘‘valuable
information.’’ The Petition would
further require the Commission to
initiate investigations and report to a
law enforcement agency
‘‘automatically’’ and without a vote
whenever the Commission receives
notice that any person has received
certain ‘‘foreign information’’ or
‘‘compromising information.’’ The
Commission is not initiating a
rulemaking at this time because it lacks
the statutory authority to do so.
DATES: April 24, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Robert M. Knop, Assistant General
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Counsel, or Mr. Luis M. Lipchak,
Attorney, 1050 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650
or (800) 424–9530.
The
Federal Election Campaign Act, 52
U.S.C. 30101–45 (the ‘‘Act’’), and
Commission regulations define a
contribution as ‘‘any gift, subscription,
loan, advance, or deposit of money or
anything of value made by any person
for the purpose of influencing any
election for Federal office.’’ 1 ‘‘Anything
of value’’ includes all in-kind
contributions, such as the provision of
goods and services without charge or at
a charge that is less than the usual and
normal charge.2 Moreover, Commission
regulations identify the following as
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 52 U.S.C. 30101(8)(A)(i); see also 11 CFR
100.52(a).
2 11 CFR 100.52(d)(1).
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31096-31114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08211]
[[Page 31096]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039]
RIN 1904-AF60
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Dishwashers
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 dishwashers.
In this notice of proposed rulemaking, the U.S. Department of Energy
(``DOE'') proposes amended energy conservation standards for
dishwashers 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 August 12, 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 May 24, 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-2019-BT-STD-0039. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by
docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039, by any of the following methods:
(1) Email: [email protected]. Include the
docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039 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 VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments
through www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Antitrust Division at
[email protected] on or before the date specified in the DATES
section. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of your email the
title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-5649. Email: [email protected].
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) 306-7097. 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 Dishwasher
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
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 dishwashers, the subject of
this proposed rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(6))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must, among other things, be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in
[[Page 31097]]
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 dishwashers 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 (``NOPR'') only if
it determines it must withdraw the direct final rule pursuant to the
criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). The amended standard levels
in the proposed rule and the direct final rule were recommended in a
letter submitted to DOE jointly by groups representing manufacturers,
energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.
This letter, titled ``Energy Efficiency Agreement of 2023'' (hereafter,
the ``Joint Agreement'' \3\), recommends specific energy conservation
standards for dishwashers 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 \4\ and utilities including San
Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison \5\ advocating
for the adoption of the recommended standards. As discussed in more
detail in the accompanying direct final rule and in accordance with the
provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has determined that the
recommendations contained in the Joint Agreement comply with the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0055.
\4\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0056.
\5\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards
for dishwashers. The standards are expressed in terms of maximum
estimated annual energy use (``EAEU'') in kilowatt hours per year
(``kWh/yr''), and maximum per cycle water consumption in gallons per
cycle (``gal/cycle''), as determined in accordance with DOE's
dishwashers test procedure codified at title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix C2 (``appendix
C2'').
Table I.1 presents the proposed amended standards for dishwashers.
The proposed standards are the same as those recommended by the Joint
Agreement. These standards would apply to all products listed in Table
I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting
on [Date 3 years after date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register], as recommended in the Joint Agreement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.056
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
dishwashers.
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 dishwashers,
the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(6)) EPCA prescribed
energy conservation design standards for these products (42 U.S.C.
6295(g)(1) and (10)(A)), and directed DOE to conduct future rulemakings
to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)
and (10)(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 dishwashers manufactured after
January 1, 2010, Congress directed DOE to ``determine[e] whether to
amend'' those standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B)) Congress's
directive, in section 6295(g)(10)(B), to consider whether ``to amend
the standards in effect for dishwashers'' refers to ``the standards''
established in the immediately preceding section, 6295(g)(10)(A).
There, Congress established energy conservation standards with both
energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers. Indeed, the
energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers (both
standard and compact size) are contained within a single paragraph. See
id. Everything in section 6295(g) suggests that Congress intended both
of those twin standards to be evaluated when it came time, ``[n]ot
later than January 1, 2015,'' to consider amending them. (Id.
6295(g)(10)(B)(i)) Accordingly, DOE understands its authority, under
section 6295(g)(10)(B), to include consideration of amended energy and
water use performance standards for dishwashers.
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 dishwashers. Neither
section 6295(g)(10)(B) nor section 6295(m) limit their application to
``energy use standards.'' Rather, they direct DOE to consider amending
``the standards,'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B), or simply ``standards,''
id. 6295(m)(1)(B),
[[Page 31098]]
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 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 other relevant conditions are satisfied, promulgate a direct
final rule that includes water use performance standards for a covered
product like dishwashers, 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 energy conservation 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 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 (``CPSVs'') 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 energy conservation
standards for residential clothes washers 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 ``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)(10), energy conservation standards for
dishwashers that include both energy and water use performance
standards, Congress intended that energy conservation standards for
[[Page 31099]]
dishwashers 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 conservation 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)(10). 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 state should control our construction of the priority
statute, even though it had not been expressly amended.'') Accordingly,
based on a complete reading of the state, 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 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 42 U.S.C.
6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine
whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for dishwashers appear at
title 10 of the CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C1 (``appendix C1'')
and appendix C2.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including dishwashers. Any new
or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of
Energy (``Secretary'') determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may
not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by
rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a proposed
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving
comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4))
EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy
conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a
type (or class) of product must specify a different standard level for
a type or class of products that has the same function or intended use
if DOE determines that products within
[[Page 31100]]
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 must consider such factors as the utility to the
consumer of the 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 EISA 2007,
any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is 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 dishwashers
address standby mode and off mode energy use. The standards proposed in
this rule incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use.
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 on 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 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 30, 2012 (``May 2012 Direct
Final Rule''), DOE adopted the current energy conservation standards
for dishwashers manufactured on or after May 30, 2013, consistent with
the levels proposed in a letter submitted to DOE by groups representing
manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer groups
on July 30, 2010. 77 FR 31918, 31918-31919. This collective set of
comments, titled ``Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards,
Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related Matters for Specified
Appliances'' (the ``July 2010 Joint Petition''),\6\ recommended
specific energy conservation standards for dishwashers that, in the
commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o). 77 FR 31918, 31919. The July 2010 Joint Petition proposed
energy conservation standard levels for the standard-size and compact-
size dishwasher product classes based on the same capacity definitions
that existed at that time. 77 FR 31918, 31926. These product classes
are the same as the two current product classes for dishwashers. In the
May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of
multiple standard levels for dishwashers, including a standard level
that corresponded to the recommended levels in the July 2010 Joint
Petition, and determined that the levels recommended in the Joint
Petition satisfied the EPCA requirements set forth under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o). 77 FR 31918, 31921, 31924.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a final determination published on December 13, 2016 (``December
2016 Final Determination''), DOE concluded that amended energy
conservation standards would not be economically justified at any level
above the standards established in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, and
therefore determined not to amend the standards. 81 FR 90072. The
current energy and water conservation standards are set forth in DOE's
regulations at 10 CFR part 430, Sec. 430.32(f), and are repeated in
Table II.1. The currently applicable DOE test procedure for dishwashers
appears at appendix C1.
[[Page 31101]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.057
The regulatory text at 10 CFR 430.32(f) references the Association
of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') standard AHAM DW-1-2020 \7\
to define the items in the test load that comprise the serving pieces
and each place setting. The number of serving pieces and place settings
help determine the capacity of the dishwasher, which is used to
determine the applicable product class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of
Dishwashers. AHAM DW-1-2020. Copyright 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Current Test Procedure
On December 22, 2021, DOE published a test procedure NOPR
(``December 2021 TP NOPR'') proposing amendments to the dishwasher test
procedure at appendix C1 and a new test procedure at appendix C2. 86 FR
72738. On January 18, 2023, DOE published a final rule amending the
test procedure at appendix C1 and establishing a new test procedure at
appendix C2 (``January 2023 TP Final Rule''). 88 FR 3234. The new
appendix C2 specifies updated annual cycles and low-power mode hours,
both of which are used to calculate the EAEU metric, and introduces a
minimum cleaning performance threshold to validate the selected test
cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3236.
Subsequently, on July 27, 2023, DOE published a final rule adding
clarifying instructions to the dishwasher test procedure at appendix C1
regarding the allowable dosing options for each type of detergent;
clarifying the existing detergent reporting requirements; and adding an
enforcement provision for dishwashers to specify the detergent and
dosing method that DOE would use for any enforcement testing of
dishwasher models certified in accordance with the applicable
dishwasher test procedure prior to July 17, 2023 (i.e., the date by
which the January 2023 TP Final Rule became mandatory for product
testing). 88 FR 48351.
EPCA authorizes DOE to design test procedures that measure energy
efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated annual operating cost
of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or
period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In general, a consumer-acceptable
level of cleaning performance (i.e., a representative average use
cycle) can be easier to achieve through the use of higher amounts of
energy and water use during the dishwasher cycle. Conversely,
maintaining acceptable cleaning performance can be more difficult as
energy and water levels are reduced. Improving one aspect of dishwasher
performance, such as reducing energy and/or water use as a result of
energy conservation standards, may require a trade-off with one or more
other aspects of performance, such as cleaning performance. 88 FR 3234,
3250-3251. As discussed, the currently applicable energy conservation
standards for dishwashers are based on appendix C1, which does not
prescribe a method for testing dishwasher cleaning performance.
The January 2023 TP Final Rule established a new test procedure at
appendix C2, which includes provisions for a minimum cleaning index
threshold of 70 to validate the selected test cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3261.
The cleaning index is calculated based on the number and size of
particles remaining on each item of the test load at the completion of
a dishwasher cycle as specified in AHAM DW-2-2020.\8\ Items that do not
have any soil particles are scored 0 (i.e., completely clean). No
single item in the test load can exceed a score of 9. Individual scores
for each item in the test load are combined as a weighted average to
calculate the per cycle cleaning index. A cleaning index of 100
indicates a completely clean test load. Id. at 3255. In the January
2023 TP Final Rule, DOE specified that the cleaning index is calculated
by only scoring soil particles on all items in the test load and that
spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on glassware are not included in
the cleaning index calculation.\9\ Id. at 3248. Manufacturers must use
the results of testing under the new appendix C2 to determine
compliance with the energy conservation standards proposed in this
NOPR. Accordingly, DOE used appendix C2 as finalized in the January
2023 TP Final Rule as the basis for the analysis in the direct final
rule accompanying this NOPR. Id. at 3234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Household Electric Dishwashers. AHAM DW-2-2020. Copyright
2020.
\9\ In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed a cleaning index
threshold of 65 calculated by scoring soil particles on all items as
well as spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on glassware. 86 FR
72738, 72756, 72758. In the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE noted
that the specified cleaning index threshold of 70 is equivalent to
the cleaning index threshold of 65 that was proposed in the December
2021 TP NOPR. 88 FR 3234, 3261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE adopted a minimum cleaning performance threshold in appendix C2
to determine if a dishwasher, when tested according to the DOE test
procedure, ``completely washes a normally soiled load of dishes,'' so
as to better represent consumer use of the product (i.e., to produce
test results that are more representative of an average consumer use
cycle). 88 FR 3234, 3253, 3255. Based on the data available, DOE
determined that the cleaning performance threshold provides a
reasonable proxy for when consumers are likely to be dissatisfied with
performance on the normal cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3261. The cleaning index
threshold established as part of the new appendix C2 ensures that
energy and water savings are being realized for products that comply
with the energy conservation standards for dishwashers proposed in this
NOPR. 88 FR 3234, 3253, 3254.
The standards proposed in this NOPR are expressed in terms of the
EAEU and water consumption metrics as measured according to the newly
established test procedure contained in appendix C2.
3. The Joint Agreement
On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (i.e., the
Joint Agreement) recommending standards for dishwashers, that was
submitted by groups representing manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.\10\ In
[[Page 31102]]
addition to the recommended standards for dishwashers, the Joint
Agreement also included separate recommendations for several other
covered products.\11\ 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 the Joint Agreement is
contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes to adopt all the
recommended standards in this 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 provisions 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include the AHAM,
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water
Efficiency, ASAP, 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;
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.
\11\ The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for 6 covered
products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers;
clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; cooking products; and
miscellaneous refrigeration products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A court decision issued after DOE received the Joint Agreement is
also relevant to this 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 dishwashers with a cycle time for the
normal cycle of 60 minutes or less, top-loading residential clothes
washers and certain classes of consumer clothes dryers with a cycle
time of less than 30 minutes, and front-loading residential clothes
washers with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes (collectively,
``short-cycle product classes''). The petitioners argued that the final
rule revoking the short-cycle product classes violated EPCA and was
arbitrary and capricious. On January 8, 2024, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review and
remanded the matter to DOE for further proceedings consistent with the
Fifth Circuit's opinion. See Louisiana v. United States Department of
Energy, 90 F.4th 461 (5th Cir. 2024).
On February 14, 2024, following the Fifth Circuit's decision in
Louisiana v. United States Department of Energy, DOE received a second
joint statement from this same group of stakeholders in which the
signatories reaffirmed the Joint Agreement, stating that the
recommended standards represent the maximum levels of efficiency that
are technologically feasible and economically justified.\12\ In the
letter, the signatories clarified that ``short-cycle'' product classes
for residential clothes washers, 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 dishwashers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Agreement recommends amended standard levels for
dishwashers as presented in Table II.2. (Joint Agreement, No. 55 at p.
5) 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-2019-BT-STD-0039-0055.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.058
[[Page 31103]]
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 amending energy conservation
standards for dishwashers 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 dishwashers. As part
of that process, on May 19, 2023, DOE published a NOPR and announced a
public meeting (``May 2023 NOPR'') seeking comment on its proposed
amended standard to inform its decision consistent with its obligations
under EPCA and the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''). 88 FR 32514.
DOE held a public meeting on June 8, 2023, to discuss and receive
comments on the NOPR and NOPR TSD. The NOPR TSD is available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0032.
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 dishwashers at
each trial standard level (``TSL''), beginning with the maximum
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') level, to determine whether
that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not
justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and
undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency
level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified
and saves a significant amount of energy. DOE refers to this process as
the ``walk-down'' analysis.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on
employment.
DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of
information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or
aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant
delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term,
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings
relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant
tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, 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 manufacturing impact analysis
(``MIA''). Second, DOE accounts for energy and water 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 and water
savings from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of
shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9
of the direct final rule TSD \14\ available in the docket for this
rulemaking. However, DOE's current analysis does not explicitly control
for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, preferences across
subcategories of products or specific features, or consumer price
sensitivity variation according to household income.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039.
\15\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand,
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883.
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Dishwasher Standards
Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize the quantitative impacts
estimated for each TSL for dishwashers. The national impacts are
measured over the lifetime of dishwashers purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended
standards (2027-2056). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and
value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'')
results. The consumer operating savings are inclusive of energy and
water. 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.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 31104]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.059
[[Page 31105]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.060
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
DOE first considered TSL 5, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels for both product classes. Specifically, for a
standard-size dishwasher, this efficiency level includes design options
considered at the lower efficiency levels (i.e., electronic controls,
soil sensors, multiple spray arms, improved water filters and control
strategies, separate drain pump, tub insulation, hydraulic system
optimization, water diverter assembly, temperature sensor, 3-phase
variable-speed motor, and flow meter) and condensation drying,
including use of a stainless steel tub; flow-through heating
implemented as an in-sump integrated heater; and control strategies.
The majority of these design options reduce both energy and water use
together.\16\ For a compact-size dishwasher, this efficiency level
includes the design options considered at the lower efficiency levels
(i.e., improved control strategies) and additionally includes the use
of permanent magnet motor, improved filters, hydraulic system
optimization, heater incorporated into base of tub, and reduced sump
volume. Similar to standard-size dishwashers, the majority of these
design options reduce both energy and water use together. TSL 5 would
save an estimated 1.28 quads of energy and 0.92 trillion gallons of
water, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of
consumer benefit (inclusive of both energy and water) would be -$12.18
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$20.12 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ As discussed previously in section IV.A.2 of the direct
final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, because the energy used to heat the water consumed by the
dishwasher is included as part of the EAEU energy use metric,
technologies that decrease water use also inherently decrease energy
use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 would be 38.89 Mt of
CO2, 5.73 thousand tons of SO2, 91.86 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.03 tons of Hg, 406.30 thousand tons of
CH4, and 0.23 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 5 would be $2.20 billion. The estimated monetary value of the
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions at TSL 5 would be $1.52 billion using a 7-percent discount
rate and $3.85 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 5 would be -
$8.46 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and
costs, the estimated
[[Page 31106]]
total NPV at TSL 5 would be -$14.08 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 5, the average LCC impact would be a loss of $145 for
standard-size dishwashers and a $4 savings for compact-size
dishwashers. The simple payback period would be 15.9 years for
standard-size dishwashers and 5.5 years for compact-size dishwashers.
The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 97
percent for standard-size dishwashers and 54 percent for compact-size
dishwashers. Notably, for the standard-size product class, which as
discussed represents 98 percent of the market, TSL 5 (which includes EL
4 for this product class) would increase the first cost by $178. This
associated increase in first cost at TSL 5 for standard-size
dishwashers could impact the number of new shipments by approximately
less than 2 percent annually due to consumers shifting to extending the
lives of their existing dishwashers beyond their useful life, repairing
instead of replacing, or handwashing their dishes. In the national
impact analysis, DOE modeled a scenario where part of this 2-percent of
consumers forgoing the purchase of a new dishwasher due to price
increases would substitute to handwashing. This results in a small
increase in energy and water use, which is then subtracted from the
energy and water savings projected to result from the proposed amended
standards at TSL5.
For the low-income consumer group, the average LCC impact would be
a loss of $29 for standard-size dishwashers and a savings of $62 for
compact-size dishwashers. The simple payback period would be 6.6 years
for standard-size dishwashers and 2.3 years for compact-size
dishwashers. The fraction of low-income consumers experiencing a net
LCC cost would be 46 percent for standard-size dishwashers and 26
percent for compact-size dishwashers. For the senior-only households
consumer group, the average LCC impact would be a loss of $159 for
standard-size dishwashers and a loss of $14 for compact-size
dishwashers. The simple payback period would be 19.8 years for
standard-size dishwashers and 6.8 years for compact-size dishwashers.
The fraction of senior-only consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would
be 98 percent for standard-size dishwashers and 62 percent for compact-
size dishwashers. For the consumer sub-group of well-water households,
the average LCC impact would be a loss of $162 for standard-size
dishwashers and a loss of $19 for compact-size dishwashers. The simple
payback period would be 21.4 years for standard-size dishwashers and
6.9 years for compact-size dishwashers. The fraction of well-water
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 98 percent for standard-
size dishwashers and 63 percent for compact-size dishwashers.
At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$334.4 million to a decrease of $414.6 million, which corresponds to
decreases of 54.5 percent and 43.7 percent, respectively. Industry
conversion costs could reach $681.0 million at this TSL, as
manufacturers work to redesign their portfolios of model offerings,
transition their standard-size dishwasher platforms entirely to
stainless steel tubs, and renovate manufacturing facilities to
accommodate changes to the production line and manufacturing processes.
DOE estimates that less than 1 percent of dishwasher shipments
currently meet the max-tech levels. Standard-size dishwashers account
for approximately 98 percent of annual shipments. Of the 19 standard-
size dishwasher original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs''), only one
OEM, which accounts for approximately 2 percent of basic models in the
CCD, currently offers products that meet the max-tech efficiencies that
would be required. All manufacturers interviewed, which together
account for approximately 90 percent of the industry shipments,
expressed uncertainty as to whether they could reliably meet the
standard-size dishwasher max-tech efficiencies and the cleaning
performance threshold and noted meeting max-tech would require a
platform redesign and significant investment in tooling, equipment, and
production line modifications. Many manufacturers would need to
increase production capacity of stainless steel tub designs. Some
manufacturers noted that a max-tech standard could necessitate new tub
architectures.
For compact-size dishwashers, which account for the remaining 2
percent of annual shipments, DOE estimates that 14 percent of shipments
currently meet the required max-tech efficiencies. Of the five compact-
size dishwasher OEMs, two OEMs currently offer compact-size products
that meet max-tech. At TSL 5, compact-size countertop dishwashers with
four or more place settings and in-sink dishwashers with less than four
place settings are not currently available in the market. Meeting TSL 5
is technologically feasible for those products; however, DOE expects
that it would take significant investment relative to the size of the
compact-size dishwasher market to redesign products to meet the max-
tech efficiencies.
Based on the above considerations, the Secretary tentatively
concludes that at TSL 5 for dishwashers, the benefits of energy and
water savings, emissions reductions, and the estimated monetary value
of the health benefits and climate benefits from emissions reductions
would be outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer benefits and the
impacts on manufacturers, including the large potential reduction in
INPV. At TSL 5, a majority of standard-size dishwasher consumers (97
percent) would experience a net cost and the average LCC loss is $145
for this product class. Additionally, at TSL 5, manufacturers would
need to make significant upfront investments to redesign product
platforms and update manufacturing facilities. Some 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 5 is not
economically justified.
DOE next considered TSL 4, which represents the highest efficiency
levels providing positive LCC savings. TSL 4 comprises the gap-fill
efficiency level between the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 level and the ENERGY
STAR V. 6.0 level (EL 2) for standard-size dishwashers and the max-tech
efficiency level for compact-size dishwashers. Specifically, for a
standard-size dishwasher, this efficiency level includes design options
considered at the lower efficiency levels (i.e., electronic controls,
soil sensors, multiple spray arms, improved water filters, separate
drain pump, and tub insulation) and additionally includes the use of
improved control strategies. For a compact-size dishwasher, this
efficiency level includes the design options considered at the lower
efficiency levels (i.e., improved control strategies) and additionally
includes the use of a permanent magnet motor, improved filters,
hydraulic system optimization, heater incorporated into base of tub,
and reduced sump volume. The majority of these design options for both
standard-size and compact-size dishwashers reduce both energy and water
use together. TSL 4 would save an estimated 0.34 quads of energy and
0.26 trillion gallons of water, an amount DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit (inclusive of energy and
water) would be $1.23 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
$2.95 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
[[Page 31107]]
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 would be 10.33 Mt of
CO2, 1.53 thousand tons of SO2, 24.37 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 107.80 thousand tons of
CH4, and 0.06 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 4 would be $0.58 billion. The estimated monetary value of the
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions at TSL 4 would be $0.40 billion using a 7-percent discount
rate and $1.02 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 would be
$2.21 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and
costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 would be $4.56 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 LCC impact would be a savings of $17 for
standard-size dishwashers and $4 for compact-size dishwashers. The
simple payback period would be 3.9 years for standard-size dishwashers
and 5.5 years for compact-size dishwashers. The fraction of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost would be 3 percent for standard-size
dishwashers and 54 percent for compact-size dishwashers.
For the low-income consumer group, the average LCC impact would be
a savings of $21 for standard-size dishwashers and $62 for compact-size
dishwashers. The simple payback period would be 1.6 years for standard-
size dishwashers and 2.3 years for compact-size dishwashers. The
fraction of low-income consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 2
percent for standard-size dishwashers and 26 percent for compact-size
dishwashers. For the senior-only households consumer group, the average
LCC impact would be a savings of $13 for standard-size dishwashers and
a loss of $14 for compact-size dishwashers. The simple payback period
would be 4.9 years for standard-size dishwashers and 6.8 years for
compact-size dishwashers. The fraction of senior-only consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost would be 4 percent for standard-size
dishwashers and 62 percent for compact-size dishwashers. For the
consumer sub-group of well-water households, the average LCC impact
would be a savings of $12 for standard-size dishwashers and a loss of
$19 for compact-size dishwashers. The simple payback period would be
5.5 years for standard-size dishwashers and 6.9 years for compact-size
dishwashers. The fraction of well-water consumers experiencing a net
LCC cost would be 4 percent for standard-size dishwashers and 63
percent for compact-size dishwashers.
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$155.9 million to a decrease of $103.1 million, which corresponds to
decreases of 21.2 percent and 14.0 percent, respectively. Industry
conversion costs could reach $137.2 million at this TSL as some
manufacturers of standard-size dishwashers would redesign products to
enable improved controls and better design tolerances and manufacturers
of certain compact-size dishwashers would redesign products to meet
max-tech.
DOE estimates that approximately 10 percent of dishwasher shipments
currently meet the TSL 4 efficiencies, of which approximately 9 percent
of standard-size dishwasher shipments and 14 percent of compact-size
dishwasher shipments meet the required efficiencies. Compared to max-
tech, more manufacturers offer standard-size dishwashers that meet the
required efficiencies. Furthermore, since the May 2023 NOPR, more
manufacturers now offer standard-size dishwasher models that meet the
TSL 4 efficiencies. DOE believes that the recent introduction of more
high-efficiency standard-size dishwashers is largely in response to
ENERGY STAR V. 7.0, which went into effect in July 2023. Of the 19 OEMs
offering standard-size products, 16 OEMs offer products that meet the
efficiency level that would be required. For compact-size dishwashers,
TSL 4 represents the same efficiency level as for TSL 5. Just as with
TSL 5, compact-size countertop dishwashers with four or more place
settings and in-sink dishwashers with less than four place settings are
not currently available in the market at TSL 4 levels. Meeting TSL 4 is
technologically feasible for those products; however, DOE expects that
it would take significant investment (nearly $11 million) relative to
the size of the compact-size dishwasher market (no-new-standards case
INPV of $15.4 million) for them to meet the max-tech efficiencies.
Based upon the above considerations, the Secretary tentatively
concludes that at TSL 4 for dishwashers, the benefits of energy and
water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions,
and the estimated monetary value of the health benefits and climate
benefits from emissions reductions would be outweighed by negative LCC
savings for the senior-only households for the compact-size dishwasher
product class and the high percentage of consumers with net costs for
the compact-size dishwasher product class. Consequently, the Secretary
has tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered the Recommended TSL (i.e., TSL 3), which
comprises the gap-fill efficiency level between the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0
level and the ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 level (EL 2) for standard-size
dishwashers and the ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 level (EL 1) for compact-size
dishwashers. Specifically, for a standard-size dishwasher, this
efficiency level includes design options considered at the lower
efficiency levels (i.e., electronic controls, soil sensors, multiple
spray arms, improved water filters, separate drain pump, and tub
insulation) and additionally includes the use of improved control
strategies. For a compact-size dishwasher, this efficiency level
represents the use of improved controls. The majority of these design
options for both standard-size and compact-size dishwashers reduce both
energy and water use together. The Recommended TSL would save an
estimated 0.31 quads of energy and 0.24 trillion gallons of water, an
amount DOE considers significant. Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV of
consumer benefit (inclusive of energy and water) would be $1.23 billion
using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $2.90 billion using a discount
rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at the Recommended TSL would be
9.48 Mt of CO2, 1.41 thousand tons of SO2, 22.37
thousand tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 98.97 thousand tons
of CH4, and 0.06 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 would be $0.54 billion. The estimated
monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO2 and
NOX emissions at the Recommended TSL would be $0.37 billion
using a 7-percent discount rate and $0.94 billion using a 3-percent
discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended
TSL would be $2.13 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and
[[Page 31108]]
costs, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended TSL would be $4.38
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 would be a savings
of $17 for standard-size dishwashers and $32 for compact-size
dishwashers. The simple payback period would be 3.9 years for standard-
size dishwashers and 0.0 years for compact-size dishwashers. The
fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 3 percent
for standard-size dishwashers and 0 percent for compact-size
dishwashers.
For the low-income consumer group, the average LCC impact would be
a savings of $21 for standard-size dishwashers and $39 for compact-size
dishwashers. The simple payback period would be 1.6 years for standard-
size dishwashers and 0.0 years for compact-size dishwashers. The
fraction of low-income consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 2
percent for standard-size dishwashers and 0 percent for compact-size
dishwashers. For the senior-only households consumer group, the average
LCC impact would be a savings of $13 for standard-size dishwashers and
$26 for compact-size dishwashers. The simple payback period would be
4.9 years for standard-size dishwashers and 0.0 years for compact-size
dishwashers. The fraction of senior-only consumers experiencing a net
LCC cost would be 4 percent for standard-size dishwashers and 0 percent
for compact-size dishwashers. For the consumer sub-group of well water
households, the average LCC impact would be a savings of $12 for
standard-size dishwashers and $23 for compact-size dishwashers. The
simple payback period would be 5.5 years for standard-size dishwashers
and 0.0 years for compact-size dishwashers. The fraction of well water
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 4 percent for standard-
size dishwashers and 0 percent for compact-size dishwashers.
At the Recommended TSL, the projected change in INPV ranges from a
decrease of $148.8 million to a decrease of $96.7 million, which
corresponds to decreases of 20.2 percent and 13.1 percent,
respectively. Industry conversion costs could reach $126.9 million at
this TSL as some manufacturers would redesign standard-size products to
enable improved controls and better design tolerances.
DOE estimates that approximately 11 percent of dishwasher shipments
currently meet the Recommended TSL efficiencies, of which approximately
9 percent of standard-size dishwasher shipments and 87 percent of
compact-size dishwasher shipments meet the required efficiencies. At
this level, the decrease in conversion costs compared to TSL 4 would be
entirely due to the lower efficiency level required for compact-size
dishwashers, as the efficiency level that would be required for
standard-size dishwashers is the same as for TSL 4 (EL 2). All the
compact-size dishwasher OEMs currently offer products that meet the
Recommended TSL. At this level, DOE expects manufacturers of compact-
size dishwashers would implement improved controls, which would likely
require minimal upfront investment.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that a standard set at
the Recommended TSL for dishwashers would be economically justified. At
this TSL, the shipments weighted-average LCC savings for both product
classes would be $17. The shipments weighted-average share of consumers
with a net LCC cost for both product classes would be 3 percent. For
all consumer sub-groups, the LCC savings would be positive and the net
share of consumers with a net LCC cost would be below 5 percent for
both product classes. The FFC national energy and water savings would
be significant and the NPV of consumer benefits would be $2.90 billion
and $1.23 billion using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate
respectively. Notably, the benefits to consumers would vastly outweigh
the cost to manufacturers. At the Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer
benefits, even measured at the more conservative discount rate of 7
percent, is over eight times higher than the maximum estimated
manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard levels at the Recommended TSL
would be economically justified even without weighing the estimated
monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions
are included--representing $0.54 billion in climate benefits
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and
$0.94 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $0.37 billion (using
a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--the rationale becomes
stronger still.
The proposed standards would be applicable to the regulated cycle
type (i.e., normal cycle); manufacturers could continue to provide
currently available additional, non-regulated cycle types (e.g., quick
cycles, pots and pans, heavy, delicates, etc.). Specifically, DOE
expects quick cycles, many of which clean a load within 1 hour or less,
and existing drying options would still be available on dishwasher
models that currently offer such cycle types. DOE has no information
suggesting that any aspect of this NOPR would limit the other cycle
options, especially quick cycles. Additionally, in the January 2022
Preliminary TSD, DOE provided data from its investigatory testing
sample that determined cycle time is not substantively correlated with
energy and water consumption of the normal cycle.\17\ Based on these
results, DOE has tentatively determined that the NOPR would not have
any substantive impact to normal cycle durations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See section 5.5.1 of the January 2022 Preliminary TSD.
Available at www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/dw-tsd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31109]]
The test procedure in appendix C2, which includes provisions for a
minimum cleaning index threshold of 70 to validate the selected test
cycle, will go into effect at such time as compliance would be required
with any amended energy conservation standards. At the Recommended TSL,
both standard-size and compact-size dishwasher models achieving the
efficiencies, as measured by appendix C2, including the cleaning
performance threshold, are readily available on the market.
As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under
EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative
analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of
energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically
justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 70892, 70908.
Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select the
proposed amended energy conservation standards, DOE considers amended
standard levels for dishwashers by grouping the efficiency levels for
each product class into TSLs and evaluates all analyzed efficiency
levels in its LCC analysis and all efficiency levels with positive LCC
savings for the NIA and MIA. For both standard-size and compact-size
dishwashers, the proposed standard level represents the maximum energy
savings that would not result in a large percentage of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost. The efficiency levels at the proposed
standard level would result in positive LCC savings for both product
classes, significantly reduce the number of consumers experiencing a
net cost, and reduce the decrease in INPV and conversion costs to the
point where DOE has tentatively concluded they are economically
justified, as discussed for the Recommended TSL in the preceding
paragraphs.
At the Recommended standard level for the standard-size product
class, the average LCC savings would be $17, the percentage of
consumers experiencing a net cost would be 3 percent (see Table V.3 of
the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register), and the FFC energy savings would be 0.3 quads. At the
Recommended standard level for compact-size product class, the average
LCC savings would be $32 and there are no consumers that would
experience a net cost. DOE tentatively concludes that there is economic
justification to propose the standards for standard-size and compact-
size dishwashers independent of each other.
Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes the
energy conservation standards for dishwashers 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, DOE
notes that the Recommended TSL for dishwashers proposed in this NOPR is
part of a multi-product Joint Agreement covering six rulemakings
(refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; miscellaneous
refrigeration products; consumer conventional cooking products;
residential clothes washers; consumer clothes dryers; and dishwashers).
The signatories indicate that the Joint Agreement for the six
rulemakings should be considered as a joint statement of recommended
standards, to be adopted in its entirety. As discussed in section
V.B.2.e of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register, many dishwasher OEMs also manufacture
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, miscellaneous
refrigeration products, consumer conventional cooking products,
residential clothes washers, and consumer clothes dryers. Rather than
requiring compliance with five amended standards in a single year
(2027),\18\ the negotiated multi-product Joint Agreement staggers the
compliance dates for the five rulemakings over a 4-year period (2027-
2030). DOE understands that the compliance dates recommended in the
Joint Agreement would help reduce cumulative regulatory burden. These
compliance dates help relieve concern on the part of some manufacturers
about their ability to allocate sufficient resources to comply with
multiple concurrent amended standards, about the need to align
compliance dates for products that are typically designed or sold as
matched pairs, and about the ability of their suppliers to ramp up
production of key components. The Joint Agreement also provides
additional years of regulatory certainty for manufacturers and their
suppliers while still achieving the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (88
FR 12452); consumer conventional cooking products (88 FR 6818);
residential clothes washers (88 FR 13520); consumer clothes dryers
(87 FR 51734); and dishwashers (88 FR 32514) 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 dishwashers, which
are expressed in EAEU and per-cycle water consumption, shall not exceed
the values shown in Table III.3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.061
[[Page 31110]]
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
and water, 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 dishwashers under the
recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$. The results under the primary
estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NOX and SO2 reductions, and the 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
standards proposed in this rule would be $14.0 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits would be
$127.2 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $29.0 million in
GHG reductions, and $34.3 million in reduced NOX and
SO2. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $176.4
million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards would be $14.0 million per
year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits
would be $171.2 million in reduced operating costs, $29.0 million in
climate benefits, and $50.8 million in health benefits. In this case,
the net benefit would amount to $237.0 million per year.
[[Page 31111]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.062
[[Page 31112]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.063
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule until the date provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
Comments relating to the direct final rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register, should be submitted as instructed
therein.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
[[Page 31113]]
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 (3) into section 10 CFR
430.32(f) to provide that each energy and water conservation for each
dishwasher 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 not prepared an
IRFA for the products that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003. DOE certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The factual basis of this certification is set forth in
the following paragraphs.
For manufacturers of dishwashers, 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 dishwashers 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.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ U.S. Small Business Administration. ``Table of Small
Business Size Standards.'' (Effective March 17, 2023). Available at
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards (last accessed
Dec. 22, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers
of the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE reviewed its Compliance
Certification Database,\20\ California Energy Commission's Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System,\21\ and ENERGY STAR's Product
Finder dataset \22\ to create a list of companies that import or
otherwise manufacture the products covered by this proposal. DOE then
consulted publicly available data to identify OEMs selling dishwashers
in the United States. DOE relied on public data and subscription-based
market research tools (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet \23\) to determine
company location, headcount, and annual revenue. DOE screened out
companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not
meet SBA's definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and
operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification
Database, available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (last accessed Aug. 23, 2023).
\21\ California Energy Commission Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System, available at
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx
(last accessed Aug. 23, 2023).
\22\ ENERGY STAR Product Finder data set, available at
www.energystar.gov/productfinder (last accessed Aug. 23, 2023).
\23\ The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription login is
accessible at app.dnbhoovers.com (last accessed Dec. 22, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE identified 21 dishwasher OEMs. Of the 21 OEMs identified, DOE
determined no companies qualify as a small domestic business.
Based on the initial finding that there are no dishwasher
manufacturers who would qualify as small businesses, DOE certifies that
the proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities and has not prepared
an IRFA for this rulemaking. DOE will transmit the certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The following standard appears in the proposed amendatory text of
this document and was previously approved
[[Page 31114]]
for the locations in which it appears: AHAM DW-1-2020.
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,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Small businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 12,
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 April 12, 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 (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their
compliance dates.
* * * * *
(f) Dishwashers. (1) All dishwashers manufactured on or after May
30, 2013, shall meet the following standard--
(i) Standard size dishwashers shall not exceed 307 kwh/year and 5.0
gallons per cycle. Standard size dishwashers have a capacity equal to
or greater than eight place settings plus six serving pieces as
specified in AHAM DW-1-2020 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
430.3) using the test load specified in section 2.3 of appendix C1 or
section 2.4 of appendix C2 to subpart B of this part, as applicable.
(ii) Compact size dishwashers shall not exceed 222 kwh/year and 3.5
gallons per cycle. Compact size dishwashers have a capacity less than
eight place settings plus six serving pieces as specified in AHAM DW-1-
2020 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 430.3) using the test load
specified in section 2.3 of appendix C1 or section 2.4 of appendix C2
to subpart B of this part, as applicable.
(2) All dishwashers manufactured on or after [Date 3 years after
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], shall
not exceed the following standard--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum per-
Estimated annual cycle water
Product class energy use (kWh/ consumption (gal/
year) cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Standard-size \1\ (>=8 place 223 3.3
settings plus 6 serving pieces)
\2\..............................
(ii) Compact-size (<8 place 174 3.1
settings plus 6 serving pieces)
\2\..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to
standard-size dishwashers with a cycle time for the normal cycle of 60
minutes or less.
\2\ Place settings are as specified in AHAM DW-1-2020 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 430.3) and the test load is as specified in
section 2.4 of appendix C2 to subpart B of this part.
(3) The provisions of paragraph (f)(2) of this section 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 provision of this
section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-08211 Filed 4-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P