Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers, 81295-81305 [2024-23257]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 8, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81295-81305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23257]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

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


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Consumer Clothes Dryers

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

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective and compliance 
dates; technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') published a direct 
final rule to establish amended energy conservation standards for 
consumer clothes dryers in the Federal Register on March 12, 2024. DOE 
has determined that the comments received in response to the direct 
final rule do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct 
final rule. Therefore, DOE provides this document confirming the 
effective and compliance dates of those standards. This document also 
clarifies the introductory notes to the appendices for the consumer 
dryer test procedure to conform with the amended standards promulgated 
by direct final rule published on March 12, 2024.

DATES: The technical correction in this document is effective October 
8, 2024. The effective date of July 10, 2024 for the direct final rule 
published on March 12, 2024 (89 FR 18164) is confirmed. Compliance with 
the standards established in the direct final rule will be required on 
March 1, 2028.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal 
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for 
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed 
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in 
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt 
from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other 
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-5649. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Uchechukwu ``Emeka'' Eze, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 961-8879. Email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Authority
II. Consumer Clothes Dryers Direct Final Rule
    A. Background
III. Comments on the Direct Final Rule
    A. General Comments
    B. Anti-Backsliding
    C. Economic Justification
    1. Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
    2. Energy Price Trends
    3. Consumer Behavior
    4. Product Reliability
    5. SCC-GHG Analysis
    D. Unavailability of Performance Characteristics
    E. Stakeholder Representation
    F. Formal Rulemaking
    G. Conforming Updates To Test Procedure Introductory Notes
IV. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
V. Conclusion

I. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule 
establishing an energy conservation standard for a product 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 of Energy (``Secretary''), that contains 
recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation 
standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that proposes an energy or 
water conservation standard that is identical to the standard 
established in 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)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct 
final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct final rule if: (1) DOE 
receives one or more adverse public comments relating to the direct 
final rule or any alternative joint recommendation; and (2) based on 
the rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule, DOE determines 
that such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation 
may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) If DOE makes such

[[Page 81296]]

a determination, 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.)
    After review of comments received, DOE has determined that it did 
receive adverse comments on the direct final rule. However, based on 
the rulemaking record, the comments did not provide a reasonable basis 
for withdrawing the direct final rule under the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(C). As such, DOE did not withdraw this direct final rule and 
the direct final rule remains effective. Although not required under 
EPCA, where DOE does not withdraw a direct final rule, DOE typically 
publishes a summary of the comments received during the 110-day comment 
period and its responses to those comments. This document contains such 
a summary, as well as DOE's responses to the comments.

II. Consumer Clothes Dryers Direct Final Rule

A. Background

    In a direct final rule published on April 21, 2011, (``April 2011 
Direct Final Rule''), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation 
standards for consumer clothes dryers manufactured on or after January 
1, 2015. 76 FR 22454.\2\ These standards are set forth in DOE's 
regulations at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') 
section 430.32(h)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ DOE published a confirmation of effective date and 
compliance date for the direct final rule on August 24, 2011. 76 FR 
52854.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's current energy conservation standards for consumer clothes 
dryers are expressed in terms of combined energy factor (``CEF''), 
measured in pounds per kilowatt-hour (``lb/kWh''). To demonstrate 
compliance with the current energy conservation standards, 
manufacturers must use either the test procedure provided at 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1 (``appendix D1'') or the test 
procedure provided at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2 
(``appendix D2''). Appendix D1 tests timed drying cycles, and accounts 
for clothes dryers with automatic termination controls by applying a 
higher field use factor to units that have this feature. Appendix D2 
tests ``normal'' automatic termination cycles and more accurately 
measures the effects of automatic cycle termination.
    On August 23, 2022, DOE published a NOPR (``August 2022 NOPR'') 
proposing to establish amended standards for consumer clothes dryers 
expressed in terms of CEF as determined in accordance with the appendix 
D2 test procedure (denoted as CEFD2). 87 FR 51734.
    On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (``Joint 
Agreement'') recommending standards for consumer clothes dryers that 
was submitted by groups representing manufacturers, energy and 
environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.\3\ In addition 
to the recommended standards for consumer clothes dryers, the Joint 
Agreement also included separate recommendations for several other 
covered products.\4\ The amended standard levels recommended in the 
Joint Agreement for consumer clothes dryers are presented in table 
II.1. Details of the Joint Agreement recommendations for other products 
are provided in the Joint Agreement posted in the docket for this 
rulemaking.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include AHAM, 
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water 
Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer 
Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National 
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest 
Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 
Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that make the affected 
products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB; 
Beko U.S. Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances 
Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; 
Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier 
Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr 
USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances 
Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of America; Perlick 
Corporation; Samsung Electronics America Inc; Sharp Electronics 
Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby 
Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool 
Corporation.
    \4\ The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for six 
covered products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 
freezers; clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; cooking 
products; and miscellaneous refrigeration products.
    \5\ The Joint Agreement available in the docket at 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0055.

    Table II.1--Recommended Amended Energy Conservation Standards for
                         Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Minimum
          Product class            CEFD2 (lb/       Compliance date
                                      kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic            3.93  March 1, 2028.
 feet (``ft\3\'') or greater
 capacity).
Electric, Compact (120 volts             4.33
 (``V'')) (less than 4.4 ft\3\
 capacity).
Vented Electric, Compact (240V)          3.57
 (less than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft\3\          3.48
 or greater capacity).
Vented Gas, Compact (less than           2.02
 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
Ventless Electric, Compact               2.68
 (240V) (less than 4.4 ft \3\
 capacity).
Ventless Electric, Combination           2.33
 Washer-Dryer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After carefully considering the recommended energy conservation 
standards for consumer clothes dryers in the Joint Agreement, DOE 
determined that these recommendations were in accordance with the 
statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a 
direct final rule and published a direct final rule on March 12, 2024 
(``March 2024 Direct Final Rule''). 89 FR 18164. DOE evaluated whether 
the Joint Agreement satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as applicable, and 
found that the recommended standard levels would result in significant 
energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically 
justified. Id. at 89 FR 18230-18240. Accordingly, DOE adopted the 
recommended efficiency levels for consumer clothes dryers as the 
amended standard levels in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. Id.
    The standards adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule apply to 
product classes listed in table II.2 and that are manufactured in, or 
imported into, the United States starting on March 1, 2028. The March 
2024 Direct Final Rule provides a detailed discussion of DOE's analysis 
of the benefits and burdens of the new and amended standards pursuant 
to the criteria set forth in EPCA. Id. at 89 FR 18230-18240.

[[Page 81297]]



 Table II.2--Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes
                                 Dryers
                   [Compliance starting March 1, 2028]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Minimum CEFD2
                     Product class                           (lb/kWh)
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (``ft\3\'') or               3.93
 greater capacity) *...................................
(ii) Electric, Compact (120 volts (``V'')) (less than               4.33
 4.4 ft\3\ capacity)...................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4                3.57
 ft\3\ capacity).......................................
(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ or greater                     3.48
 capacity) **..........................................
(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).             2.02
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4               2.68
 ft\3\ capacity).......................................
(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer......             2.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The energy conservation standards in this product class do not apply
  to Vented Electric, Standard clothes dryers with a cycle time of less
  than 30 minutes, when tested according to appendix D2 in subpart B of
  this part.
** The energy conservation standards in this product class do not apply
  to Vented Gas, Standard clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than
  30 minutes, when tested according to appendix D2 in subpart B of this
  part.

    As required by EPCA, DOE also simultaneously published a NOPR 
proposing the identical standard levels contained in the March 2024 
Direct Final Rule. 89 FR 18244. DOE considered whether any adverse 
comment received during the 110-day comment period following the 
publication of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule provided a reasonable 
basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under the provisions in 
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C).

III. Comments on the Direct Final Rule

    As discussed in section I of this document, not later than 120 days 
after publication of a direct final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct 
final rule if: (1) DOE receives one or more adverse public comments 
relating to the direct final rule or any alternative joint 
recommendation; and (2) based on the rulemaking record relating to the 
direct final rule, DOE determines that such adverse public comments or 
alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for 
withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i))
    DOE received comments in response to the March 2024 Direct Final 
Rule from the interested parties listed in table III.1.

    Table III.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the March 2024 Direct Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Comment No. in
              Commenter(s)                       Abbreviation           the docket           Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Smith.............................  Smith....................                65  Individual.
Representative Stephanie Bice...........  Rep. Bice................                67  Federal Government
                                                                                        Official.
New York State Energy Research and        NYSERDA and CEC..........                68  State Agencies.
 Development Authority and California
 Energy Commission.
Association of Home Appliance             AHAM.....................                69  Trade Association.
 Manufacturers.
The Attorney General of Montana.........  AG of MT.................                70  State Government
                                                                                        Official.
The Consumer Federation of America,       CFA et al................                71  Advocacy Organizations.
 Consumer Reports, Green Energy
 Consumers Alliance, National Consumer
 Law Center, and U.S. Public Interest
 Research Group.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project,    ASAP et al...............                72  Advocacy Organizations.
 American Council for an Energy-
 Efficient Economy, 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.
The Attorneys General of the States of    AGs of TN et al..........                73  State Government
 Tennessee, Nebraska, Florida, Arkansas,                                                Officials.
 Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, Indiana,
 Kentucky, Texas, Iowa, South Carolina,
 Idaho, West Virginia, Missouri, New
 Hampshire, South Dakota, Alabama,
 Kansas, Utah, Mississippi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\6\ 
The following sections discuss the substantive comments DOE received on 
the March 2024 Direct Final Rule as well as DOE's determination that 
the comments do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 
direct final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers. (Docket 
No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058, which is maintained at: 
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged as follows: 
(commenter name, comment docket ID number at page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. General Comments

    NYSERDA and CEC reiterated their sustained support for the 
recommendations issued in their October 5, 2023 letter.\7\ (NYSERDA and 
CEC, No. 68 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NYSERDA and CEC letter available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Smith supported DOE's proposal to apply energy conservation 
standards to consumer clothes dryers and to periodically determine 
whether stricter standards are feasible. Smith commented that the 
benefits of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule outweigh

[[Page 81298]]

manufacturer concerns regarding initial costs. (Smith, No. 65 at p. 1)
    AHAM and ASAP et al. supported the March 2024 Direct Final Rule for 
consumer clothes dryers because it establishes standards that are 
consistent with recommendations submitted in the Joint Agreement. 
(AHAM, No. 69 at p. 1, ASAP et al. No. 72 at pp. 1-2) AHAM commented 
that it finds DOE has satisfied all EPCA criteria for issuing the March 
2024 Direct Final Rule because the recommended energy conservation 
standards were designed by the Joint Stakeholders (including 
manufacturers of various sizes as well as consumer, environmental, and 
efficiency advocacy groups; a utility; and some States) to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified in accordance with the provisions 
of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o); and because DOE issued the March 2024 Direct 
Final Rule together with a proposed rule identical to the standard 
established in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule and allowed 110 days 
for public comment, which is consistent with EPCA requirements. AHAM 
agreed with DOE's determination that the amended energy conservation 
standards levels in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule can be reached 
through technology options identified in the March 2024 Direct Final 
Rule, or through other pathways, and that under the March 2024 Direct 
Final Rule, about half of existing consumer clothes dryer shipments 
already meet the amended conservation standards. AHAM added that 
because the March 2024 Direct Final Rule levels for many product 
classes are equivalent to current ENERGY STAR levels, there are a wide 
range of these products currently on the market. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 
4, 5-6)
    AHAM further commented that DOE satisfactorily responded to AHAM's 
comments and concerns regarding clothes dryer performance, product 
classes, consideration of low-income consumers, the new Energy 
Information Administration's (``EIA's'') Residential Energy Consumption 
Survey of 2020 (``RECS 2020'') data, supply chain challenges, and 
harmonization of compliance dates for other laundry products. AHAM 
stated that the compliance timeline reduces the cumulative regulatory 
burden of this rulemaking and those for other major appliances. (AHAM, 
No. 69 at pp. 2-3, 6-7)
    CFA et al. supported the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, which they 
noted is one of many completed and pending efficiency standards that 
will together significantly reduce consumer costs and climate 
pollution, as well as reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, which cause 
health issues. (CFA et al., No. 71 at p. 1)
    Rep. Bice submitted a comment in opposition to the standards 
adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. (Rep. Bice, No. 67 at p. 
1)
    The AGs of TN et al. asserted that the March 2024 Direct Final Rule 
over-regulates American households and requested that DOE reconsider 
it. (AGs of TN et al., No. 73 at p. 1) The AG of MT expressed agreement 
with the AGs of TN et al.'s comments. (AG of MT, No. 70, p. 1)
    As discussed in more detail below, DOE has determined that these 
comments do not provide a reasonable basis to withdraw the March 2024 
Direct Final Rule.

B. Anti-Backsliding

    EPCA, as codified, 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))
    The AG of MT commented that the fact the Joint Agreement is 
contingent upon other parts being implemented conflicts with the anti-
backsliding provision of EPCA. (AG of MT, No. 70 at pp. 1-2). The AG of 
MT further implied that DOE's efficiency standards may violate the 
anti-backsliding prohibition in the EPCA when the full fuel cycle costs 
of shorter lifespans are taken into account. (Id. at p. 4)
    The AG of MT stated that DOE must consider energy efficiency over 
the entire product lifecycle. The AG of MT agreed with DOE's statement 
that conscientious energy use is more complicated than increasing 
efficiency alone, and the AG of MT referenced documents with quotes 
from DOE officials testifying to this sentiment. (AG of MT, No. 70 at 
p. 3)
    As discussed previously, DOE may not prescribe an amended standard 
that increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the energy 
efficiency of a covered product. Further, EPCA defines the term 
``energy use'' to mean the quantity of energy directly consumed by a 
consumer product at point of use, determined in accordance with test 
procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6293. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) EPCA similarly 
defines ``energy efficiency'' to mean the ratio of the useful output of 
services from a consumer product to the energy use [as that term is 
defined] of such product, determined in accordance with test procedures 
under 42 U.S.C. 6293. (42 U.S.C. 6291(5)) Neither the energy use nor 
the energy efficiency of a product, as those terms are defined in EPCA, 
or measured under the applicable test procedure, is dependent upon the 
lifespan of the product or the energy costs upstream from the point of 
use, i.e., full fuel cycle costs. As a result, product lifespan has no 
effect on whether an amended standard violates the anti-backsliding 
provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1).
    Additionally, DOE addressed its approach to implementing the Joint 
Agreement in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. As discussed there, the 
Joint Agreement was contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes 
to adopt all of the recommended standards. In other words, DOE could 
not pick and choose which recommendations in the Joint Agreement to 
implement. See 89 FR 18164, 18173. However, the Joint Agreement also 
acknowledged that DOE may evaluate and implement each of the package of 
recommended standard in separate rulemakings under the applicable 
statutory criteria. As described, DOE's adoption of the recommended 
standards conforms with the anti-backsliding provision in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(1).
    For the aforementioned reason, DOE has determined that the comments 
provided by the AG of MT does not provide a reasonable basis for 
withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule.

C. Economic Justification

    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products, including consumer clothes 
dryers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be 
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that 
the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 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

[[Page 81299]]

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))
    DOE received several comments on its determination of economic 
justification under the statutory criteria.
1. Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
    Rep. Bice asserted that increased standards will lead to increased 
production costs for manufacturers, which will subsequently lead to 
increased costs to consumers. Rep. Bice added that the adopted 
standards will limit consumer choice, drive up prices, and impose 
onerous regulations on American manufacturers, many of whom are small 
businesses. (Rep. Bice, No. 67, p. 1)
    The AGs of TN et al. commented that the March 2024 Direct Final 
Rule does not weigh heavily enough the appliance cost increase that the 
rule will cause and that will be borne by American consumers. (AGs of 
TN et al., No. 73 at p. 2) The AGs of TN et al. commented that DOE 
expects great savings over the life cycle of new, energy-efficient 
clothes dryers while failing to take into account the upfront costs to 
consumers and the preferences of lower socioeconomic buyers. The AGs of 
TN et al. commented that prior to the Joint Agreement, Whirlpool and 
AHAM expressed concern about the affordability of clothes dryers for 
low-income households and the fact that for most consumers, purchase 
cost is the leading factor in their purchase decision. The AGs of TN et 
al. added that many will opt to repair old machines rather than 
purchasing more expensive newer models. (Id. at pp. 3-4)
    DOE considered the impacts to manufacturers, including the 
potential increase in manufacturing costs, in the manufacturing impact 
analysis in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. 89 FR 18164, 18199-18202, 
18217-18224. DOE estimates that approximately 48 percent of annual 
shipments currently meet the adopted standard levels. Id. at 89 FR 
18236-18237. DOE notes that it did not identify any small business 
manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers. 89 FR 18244, 18258-18259. In 
the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, the life-cycle cost (``LCC'') 
analysis calculated the distribution of impacts across a nationally 
representative sample of U.S. households. As demonstrated by the LCC 
analysis, at the adopted standard, the LCC savings is positive for 
nearly all consumers; the fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC 
cost is less than 2 percent; the fraction of low-income households and 
senior-only households experiencing a net LCC cost is approximately 1.5 
percent and 2.5 percent, respectively. Id. Therefore, the March 2024 
Direct Final Rule did consider the economic impact of the standard on 
the manufacturers and on the consumers of the products subject to such 
standard (42 U.S.C. 4296(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)), and DOE has determined that 
the comments provided by the AGs of TN et al. and Rep. Bice do not 
provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct 
Final Rule.
    AHAM commented that under the standards adopted in the March 2024 
Direct Final Rule, only 2 percent of consumers would experience a net 
cost. AHAM commented that on average, consumers will save $223 with a 
payback period of 1.2 years, across all product classes. (Id.)
    ASAP et al. commented that the amended standards will particularly 
benefit low-income consumers, who spend three times more of their 
income on energy costs compared to non-low-income households. ASAP et 
al. commented that the standards will also benefit renters, whose 
landlords might not otherwise purchase energy-saving clothes dryers. 
(ASAP et al., No. 72 at p. 2)
    CFA et al. commented that clothes dryers are one of the biggest 
energy users in many homes, with today's least efficient models 
consuming nearly one-tenth of the average home's total electricity use. 
CFA et al. also commented that renters, who are disproportionately low-
income households, are often unable to choose their own clothes dryer 
yet pay the utility bills--a problem more pronounced in multifamily 
housing, which is predominantly occupied by renters. CFA et al. further 
commented that the standards adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final 
Rule will reduce energy use by 40 percent relative to the least 
efficient clothes dryers sold today, benefiting homeowners and renters 
alike; for a household replacing an inefficient electric clothes dryer, 
the new standards will provide annual electricity bill savings of $44 
on average. CFA et al. noted that the standards will also help ensure 
that clothes dryers don't over-dry clothes, which can shrink or 
otherwise damage them. CFA et al. added that for low-income households, 
the average payback period for electric clothes dryers, which make up 
about 80 percent of sales, is just four months; for gas clothes dryers, 
the average payback period is one year. (CFA et al., No. 71 at p. 1)
2. Energy Price Trends
    The AG of MT stated that DOE's reliance on 2022 data for energy 
prices and the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023'') for 
pricing trends is faulty due to Federal rulemakings being issued that 
will force existing generating capacity offline, spike electricity 
demand, and decrease fossil fuel supply, as illustrated with several 
documents attached to the comment. (AG of MT, No. 70 at p. 5)
    DOE contends that AEO2023 remains the best available source for 
projections of future energy price trends based on adopted energy 
policies. DOE also performed sensitivity analyses using alternate 
AEO2023 growth scenarios with low and high energy prices relative to 
the reference scenario in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule to assess 
the impact of alternative energy price projections. 89 FR 18164, 18198. 
The results of these scenarios are available in appendix 10C of the 
March 2024 Direct Final Rule technical support document (``TSD'') and 
show that consumers of consumer clothes dryers would still experience 
positive cumulative net present value (``NPV'') even when considering 
lower and higher energy prices.
    Therefore, the March 2024 Direct Final Rule did take into account 
energy price variability in its analysis, and DOE has determined that 
the comment provided by the AG of MT does not provide a reasonable 
basis for withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule.
3. Consumer Behavior
    The AG of MT stated that DOE acknowledges but disregards consumer 
preference and assumes consumers are ignorant. The AG of MT attached 
studies demonstrating consumer preference for product lifetime over 
energy consumption, and the AG of MT commented that these longer-life 
appliances may use less energy over the entire life cycle and be lower 
cost to the consumer, yet DOE did not address those issues. (AG of MT, 
No. 70, p. 2)

[[Page 81300]]

    DOE did not disregard consumer preference but rather noted in the 
March 2024 Direct Final Rule that the economics literature provides a 
wide-ranging discussion of how consumers trade off up-front costs and 
energy savings in the absence of government intervention. 89 FR 18164, 
18231. Much of this literature explains 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 trade-
offs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between renters 
and owners, or builders and purchasers). Id. 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. 
Id.
    Potential changes in the benefits and costs associated with a 
standard due to changes in consumer purchase decisions were included in 
the analysis for the March 2024 Direct Final Rule in two ways. Id. 
First, if consumers forgo the purchase of a product in the standards 
case, as estimated based on price elasticity related to empirical data 
on appliances, this decreases sales for product manufacturers, and the 
impact on manufacturers attributed to lost revenue is included in the 
manufacturer impact analysis. Id. Second, DOE accounts for energy 
savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the 
standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products 
purchased by consumers, leading to repair existing clothes dryers or 
purchase of used ones, this decreases the potential energy savings from 
an energy conservation standard.
4. Product Reliability
    Further, the AG of MT stated that the reliability of products 
affected by the rulemaking will decrease due to complexity increases, 
which the commenter asserted is supported by engineering facts 
illustrated in a document attached to their comment, yet DOE does not 
address this issue. The AG of MT also commented that complexity 
increases will lead to less economic viability of repair, which is not 
reflected in DOE's assumption that the rulemaking will have no impact 
on lifespan. The AG of MT commented DOE disregards the fact that 
reliability can be increased by lightening the electrical, mechanical, 
thermal, and other conditions of operation of the components, which 
tends to decrease energy efficiency but results in less repair downtime 
and longer times before replacement and, therefore, decreased costs, as 
illustrated in attached documents. (AG of MT, No. 70, pp. 3-5)
    The AG of MT referenced a previous comment made by Whirlpool \8\ in 
which Whirlpool asserted that consumers may continue replacing cheaper 
components well into the life of an electromechanically controlled 
clothes dryer, extending its life, while they may not decide to make a 
more expensive electronic component repair, like a user interface 
assembly, after several years of ownership of an electronic control 
clothes dryer. The AG of MT reiterated Whirlpool's statement that DOE's 
previously proposed standards may effectively shorten the useful life 
of a consumer clothes dryer because of this repair-versus-replacement 
calculus, resulting in loss of time-saving benefits of clothes dryer 
ownership. (Id. at p. 4) The AG of MT commented that DOE's use of a 
single lifespan in its analysis for this rulemaking was in error. (Id. 
at p.3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Whirlpool, No. 53 at pp. 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ASAP et al. commented that they do not expect the standards in the 
March 2024 Direct Final Rule to have any impact on product reliability 
because the amended standards can be met with simple design changes 
that have already been incorporated in many models on the market today. 
ASAP et al. presented a figure of historical RECS data showing that the 
distribution of clothes dryer age remained largely unchanged between 
2005 and 2020 as clothes dryer efficiency improved. (ASAP et al., No. 
72 at pp. 3-4)
    AHAM commented that the recommended standards are economically 
justified as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) and will not 
result in lessening of utility, reliability, performance or 
availability of the clothes dryers considered under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV).
    In contrast to the comment from the AG of MT and as noted in the 
March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE's review of clothes dryer product 
reliability information provides no indication that higher-efficiency 
products are less reliable at the adopted standard levels--i.e., ENERGY 
STAR efficiency level products relative to baseline products. Hence, 
notwithstanding theoretical conjecture that higher-efficiency products 
may have poor reliability based on simplified textbook models, no real-
world evidence or data related to the technologies used at the adopted 
standard levels can be found clearly supporting such a correlation. The 
AG of MT did not specify how the referenced documents on network node 
analysis and reliability theory correspond to the technologies used at 
the adopted standard levels for consumer clothes dryers. In the absence 
of data specific to the technologies used in clothes dryer products, 
DOE has no practical basis to model the theoretical concern from the AG 
of MT at the adopted standard levels.
    As described in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE did not use a 
single lifespan in its analysis for the consumer clothes dryer 
rulemaking. Instead, DOE assigned a range of lifespan from 1 to 30 
years, based on the Weibull lifetime distribution. DOE further notes 
that the lifetime distribution used in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule 
is based on actual lifetime values in the field, which were developed 
from historical shipments data and surveys. DOE observed that from the 
2015 RECS to the 2020 RECS, there was a 6 percent increase in the 
number of consumer clothes dryers retiring before reaching 4 years of 
age, and an additional 1 percent lasting beyond 15 years. However, DOE 
did not find that the average lifetime for consumer clothes dryers has 
significantly changed, as the increase in the Weibull distribution is 
reflected in both early appliance retirement and extended use beyond 15 
years. Therefore, the estimated average lifetime for consumer clothes 
dryers remains at 14 years. 89 FR 18164, 18191. In addition, DOE is 
unaware of data that suggests a different lifetime associated with the 
technology options considered in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, and 
no such data was provided by stakeholders.
    In response to the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, AHAM commented 
that the adopted standard will not impact the reliability of products 
at the adopted level, and it further stated that the standard levels 
are achievable by technology readily available on the market. (AHAM, 
No. 69 at p. 5)
    As discussed in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE did take into 
account product reliability, lifetimes, and cost of repair when 
considering the LCC of more efficient products when supported by 
available data. See 89 FR 18164, 18190. Therefore, the March 2024 
Direct Final Rule did take into account consumer purchase decisions in

[[Page 81301]]

its analysis, and DOE has determined that the comment provided by the 
AG of MT does not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 
March 2024 Direct Final Rule.
5. SCC-GHG Analysis
    The AG of MT commented that greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions and 
climate change impacts should not be part of EPCA rulemakings, but 
given their inclusion, DOE must consider them throughout the entire 
life cycle of the product, including manufacturing and potential 
reductions in lifespan due to increased complexity. (AG of MT, No. 70 
at p. 6) The AG of MT also referred to a statement made to the U.S. 
Senate Subcommittee on Energy to indicate that 40 to 60 percent of the 
carbon footprint for many consumer products can be attributed to the 
supply chain.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/3D26FA56-F102-9E9F-BEA4-52BB0085B19A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the McKinsey report, which is the primary source for the 
statement made to the U.S. Subcommittee on Energy, is only referring to 
the manufacturing company's energy and carbon footprint that can reside 
upstream in its supply chain and does not include the energy and 
emissions associated with the usage phase of the appliance life cycle, 
which represents more than 90 percent of the total for large 
appliances.\10\ As such, the energy and carbon footprint associated 
with supply chain likely accounts for approximately 4 to 6 percent of 
the overall carbon footprint of a product. In the March 2024 Direct 
Final Rule, DOE accounted for the environmental and public health 
benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy, including 
those connected to global climate change, as they are important to take 
into account when considering the need for national energy conservation 
under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 89 FR 18164, 18228-
18230. This analysis focused on the estimated reduced emissions 
expected to result during the lifetime of consumer clothes dryers 
shipped during the projection period. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Gonzalez, A., A. Chase, and N. Horowitz. 2012. ``What We 
Know and Don't Know about Embodied Energy and Greenhouse Gases for 
Electronics, Appliances, and Light Bulbs.'' Energy Solutions and 
Natural Resources Defense Council. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy 
Efficiency in Buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AG of MT stated that the Interagency Working Group's 
(``IWG's'') social cost of GHG (``SC-GHG'') based on global impacts is 
inconsistent with EPCA's requirements for standards to consider 
economic implications to U.S. consumers. The AG of MT claimed that DOE 
erroneously appears to assume that all benefits accrue to U.S. 
citizens, despite using global values. The AG of MT cited the case of 
Louisiana v. Biden to demonstrate questions related to the accuracy of 
the IWG's SC-GHG estimates. (AG of MT, No. 70, p. 6)
    First, as stated in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE 
determined that the rule was economically justified without accounting 
for the social cost of greenhouse gases. 89 FR 18164, 18232. DOE, 
however, reiterates its view that the environmental and public health 
benefits associated with more efficient use of energy, including those 
connected to global climate change, are important to take into account 
when considering the need for national energy conservation. (See 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) In addition, Executive Order 13563, which 
was reaffirmed on January 21, 2021, stated that each agency must, among 
other things, ``select, in choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including 
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).'' Regarding the use of 
global SC-GHG values, many climate impacts that affect the welfare of 
U.S. citizens and residents are better reflected by global measures of 
SC-GHG. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation 
activities requires consideration of how those actions may affect 
mitigation activities by other countries, as those international 
mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 
residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and 
residents.
    The AG of MT stated the monetized GHG benefits largely accrue 
centuries in the future, well beyond the rulemaking analysis period. 
Furthermore, the AG of MT stated that DOE improperly mixed discount 
rates in its cost-benefit analysis. (AG of MT, No. 70 at p. 6)
    DOE's March 2024 Direct Final Rule analysis considers the costs and 
benefits associated with 30 years of shipments of a covered product. 
Because a portion of products shipped within this 30-year period 
continue to operate beyond 30 years, DOE accounts for energy cost 
savings and reductions in emissions until all products shipped within 
the 30-year period are retired. 89 FR 18164, 19167, 19169. In the case 
of carbon dioxide emissions, which remain in the atmosphere and 
contribute to climate change for many decades, the benefits of 
reductions in emissions likewise occur over a lengthy period; to not 
include such benefits would be inappropriate. Id.
    With regards to discount rates used, the IWG found that the use of 
the social rate of return on capital (7 percent under current Office of 
Management and Budget Circular A-4 guidance) to discount the future 
benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately underestimates the 
impacts of climate change for the purposes of estimating the SC-GHG. 
Consistent with the findings of the National Academies and the economic 
literature, the IWG continued to conclude that the consumption rate of 
interest is the theoretically appropriate discount rate in an 
intergenerational context and recommended that discount rate 
uncertainty and relevant aspects of intergenerational ethical 
considerations be accounted for in selecting future discount rates. 
With regards to ``mixing discount rates'' (which DOE understands to 
refer to use of different discount rates for monetizing climate-related 
benefits and for estimating the NPV consumer benefits), DOE consulted 
the National Academies' 2017 recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates 
can ``be combined in Regulatory Impact Analyses (``RIAs'') with other 
cost and benefits estimates that may use different discount rates.'' 
The National Academies reviewed several options, including ``presenting 
all discount rate combinations of other costs and benefits with [SC-
GHG] estimates.'' 89 FR 18164, 18206.\11\ DOE's approach is consistent 
with the National Academies' recommendations and is not improper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Following the issuance of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, 
DOE issued a rulemaking document in an unrelated matter in which it 
preliminarily determined that new, updated SC-GHG estimates 
promulgated in 2023 by EPA (2023 SC-GHG estimates) represent a 
significant improvement in estimating SC-GHG. See 89 FR 59692, 
59700-59701. DOE preliminarily determined that the updated 2023 SC-
GHG estimates reflect the best available scientific and analytical 
evidence and methodologies, are accordingly the most appropriate for 
DOE analyses, and best facilitate sound decision-making by 
substantially improving the transparency of the estimates and 
representations of uncertainty inherent in such estimates. Id. DOE 
welcomed comment on that preliminary determination. Id.
    Because it issued the March 2024 Direct Final Rule prior to 
making that preliminary determination, DOE estimated the climate 
benefits of the standards adopted in this rule using the IWG's SC-
GHG estimates. As noted in the text, DOE's decision to adopt the 
March 2024 Direct Final Rule's standards did not depend on the cost 
of greenhouse gasses; nor would the decision change based on a 
revised estimate of the cost of greenhouse gasses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, DOE has determined that the comments provided by the AG 
of MT does not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the March 
2024 Direct Final Rule.

[[Page 81302]]

D. Unavailability of Performance Characteristics

    EPCA specifies 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))
    Rep. Bice asserted that the adopted standards will limit consumer 
choice. (Rep. Bice, No. 67 at p. 1). The AGs of TN et al. also 
commented that the adopted standards will limit consumer choice. (AGs 
of TN et al., No. 73 at p. 9)
    DOE's data demonstrates that manufacturers of consumer clothes 
dryers currently offer units that meet or exceed the adopted standards. 
As such, DOE determined the March 2024 Direct Final Rule would not 
result in the unavailability of products that are substantially the 
same as those currently available in the United States. 89 FR 18164, 
18226-18227. Therefore, DOE has determined that the comments provided 
by Rep. Bice and the AGs of TN et al. do not provide a reasonable basis 
for withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule.
    ASAP et al. commented that the amended standards, combined with the 
new test procedure, will ensure that consumer clothes dryers adequately 
dry clothing and will not negatively impact performance. ASAP et al. 
added that consumer clothes dryers that already meet the new standards 
provide improved drying performance relative to less-efficient models, 
as demonstrated by Consumer Reports studies and test data. (ASAP et 
al., No. 72 at pp. 2-3)
    ASAP et al. noted that the amended standards will not preclude the 
use of electro-mechanical controls, allowing consumers a preferred user 
experience. (Id. at p. 3)
    ASAP et al. noted that the amended standards will not require an 
increase in cycle time. ASAP et al. noted that there is no evidence 
that the frequency of running multiple clothes dryer cycles has 
increased over time or will increase in the future as a result of the 
amended standards. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that it supported the energy conservation standards 
in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule because DOE's data demonstrate that 
when tested under the applicable test procedure for amended standards, 
there is no significant difference in cycle time between clothes dryers 
in its data set that are less efficient than the amended standards and 
those that just meet the amended standard levels. AHAM cited as an 
example the difference in average cycle time of only about 2 minutes 
between electric standard clothes dryers in DOE's data set that are 
less efficient than AHAM's recommended standard and those that just 
meet its recommended standard level (with CEFs of 3.93 and 3.94, 
respectively). Thus, AHAM commented that it supported the energy 
conservation standards adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. 
(AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 1-2)
    AHAM commented that the energy conservation standards adopted in 
the March 2024 Direct Final Rule will not result in significant 
lessening of utility, reliability, performance, or availability of the 
covered products as prohibited under the so-called ``safe harbor'' 
exception of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(IV). (Id. at pp. 4-5)
    AHAM commented that the test procedure used to determine compliance 
with amended standards for consumer clothes dryers (i.e., appendix D2) 
requires that clothes dryers meet a threshold for ``final moisture 
content'' to be certified as compliant--the final moisture content 
requirement ensures that compliant clothes dryers will adequately dry 
clothes. AHAM added that more than 400 electric clothes dryer models 
and nearly 200 gas clothes dryer models meet the final moisture content 
threshold and are certified to the current ENERGY STAR specification, 
which is equivalent to AHAM's recommended standard levels and is based 
on appendix D2. AHAM therefore does not anticipate that the energy 
conservation standards recommended in the Joint Agreement and 
established in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule will negatively affect 
features or performance, including cycle time. (Id. at p. 5)
    NYSERDA and CEC reiterated their support for the recommendations in 
the Joint Agreement and echoed the clarification regarding ``short 
cycle'' products made in the February 15, 2024 letter to DOE by ASAP 
and AHAM. This clarification specified that the recommendations in the 
Joint Agreement did not address ``short cycle'' products for clothes 
washers, clothes dryers, and dishwashers as so-called ``short cycle'' 
product classes did not exist at the time the recommendations were 
submitted to DOE and do not exist at this time.\12\ This letter also 
highlighted that the signatories to the Joint Agreement do not 
anticipate that amended standards will negatively affect features or 
performance, including cycle time. (NYSERDA and CEC, No. 68 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ASAP and AHAM letter available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Stakeholder Representation

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), 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 DOE, may submit a joint recommendation to DOE for new 
or amended energy conservation standards.
    The AGs of TN et al. questioned the expertise and relevancy of 
several advocacy groups who contributed to the Joint Agreement (i.e., 
the Alliance for Water Efficiency, Earthjustice, the Northwest Energy 
Efficiency Alliance, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the 
National Consumer Law Center). The AGs of TN et al. asserted that most 
of the advocacy groups have no expertise in setting energy efficiency 
standards for consumer clothes dryers, and failed to raise concerns 
related to the upfront cost of more efficient appliances to low-income 
households. (AGs of TN et al., No. 73 at p. 3)
    The AGs of TN et al. commented that 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) requires a 
joint statement from ``interested persons that are fairly 
representative of the relevant points of view,'' and it must include 
``representatives of . . . States.'' The AGs of TN et al. asserted that 
the Joint Agreement does not meet that standard, as very few States 
supported DOE's consumer clothes dryer regulations and were not 
signatories to the Joint Agreement. The AGs of TN et al. stated that 
interested persons should include more States, which are the direct 
representatives of consumers. The AGs of TN et al. added that State 
entities are direct purchasers of these appliances and thus will 
directly bear the burden of increased costs for appliances, and the 
March 2024 Direct Final Rule also preempts State procurement standards 
with less stringent energy-efficiency rules in contradiction of Federal 
law. (Id. at pp. 4-5)
    The AG of MT agreed with the AGs of TN et al.'s concerns over the 
participants in the Joint Agreement underlying the March 2024 Direct 
Final Rule, along with their concerns that the group does not comply 
with EPCA. (AG of MT, No. 70 at pp. 1-2)
    AHAM commented that the stakeholders who submitted the Joint 
Agreement are representative of a wide range of expert and relevant 
points of view--including manufacturers of various sizes representing 
nearly 100

[[Page 81303]]

percent of the market for consumer clothes dryers; consumer, 
environmental, and efficiency advocacy groups; a utility; and several 
States that participated in the negotiation discussions and filed 
comments in support of the agreement. AHAM concluded that the March 
2024 Direct Final Rule benefits both the manufacturers and consumers 
that these organizations represent. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 3-4)
    In response to the comments regarding whether the Joint Agreement 
was submitted by persons fairly representative of relevant points of 
view, DOE reiterates that 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) states that if the 
criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) are met, the Secretary may issue a final 
rule that establishes an energy conservation standard ``[o]n receipt of 
a statement that is 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.'' (42 U.S.C. 
6295(p))
    As stated in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that 
this requirement was met. 89 FR 18164, 18174-18175. The Joint Agreement 
included a trade association, AHAM, which represents 11 manufacturers 
of the subject covered products--consumer clothes dryers. Id. The Joint 
Agreement also included environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy 
organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, and a gas and electric 
utility company. Id. Additionally, DOE received a letter in support of 
the Joint Agreement from the States of New York, California, and 
Massachusetts (see comment No. 56). Id. DOE also received a letter in 
support of the Joint Agreement from the gas and electric utility, San 
Diego Gas and Electric, and the electric utility, Southern California 
Edison (see comment No. 57). Id. Each of the listed categories of 
persons described in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) supported the Joint 
Agreement.
    DOE has ample authority to accept a joint statement in these 
circumstances. EPCA does not require that the Joint Agreement be 
representative of every point of view. Nor does it require that a 
statement be submitted by all interested persons. Rather, it requires a 
statement from a sufficient number and diversity of ``interested 
persons'' such that the statement is ``fairly representative of 
relevant points of view.'' The Joint Agreement presented here is such a 
statement, as the Secretary determined.
    Contrary to the commenters' suggestion, EPCA does not include any 
requirement that ``relevant points of view'' must include ideologically 
opposed points of view. Rather, EPCA ensures a diversity of opinions 
and interests by requiring that parties that provide a joint agreement 
must be fairly representative of relevant points of view (including 
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and 
efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(A))
    Moreover, regardless of whether amended energy conservation 
standards are recommended as part of a joint agreement or proposed by 
DOE, the standards have to satisfy the same criteria in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o). Thus, once DOE has determined that a joint agreement was 
submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of 
relevant points of view, DOE then determines whether the joint 
agreement satisfies the relevant statutory criteria. As a result, in 
evaluating whether comments provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing 
a direct final rule, it is the substance of the comments, not the 
number of stakeholders that submit statements in favor of, or opposed 
to, the joint agreement, that determines whether a rule should be 
withdrawn.
    DOE also finds meritless the contention that the Joint Agreement 
parties are not competent to present a statement for purposes of 
section 6295(p). Contrary to the characterizations by the AGs of TN et 
al. and AG of MT, the parties to the Joint Agreement have an 
established historical record of participation in DOE rulemakings and 
have submitted detailed comments in the past that demonstrate a 
thorough understanding of technical, legal, and economic aspects of 
appliance standards rulemakings, including factors affecting specific 
groups such as low-income households.
    In a follow-up letter from the parties to the Joint Agreement, each 
organization provided a brief description of its background. American 
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy is a nonprofit research 
organization and its independent analysis advances investments, 
programs, and behaviors that use energy more effectively and help build 
an equitable clean energy future. Alliance for Water Efficiency is a 
nonprofit dedicated to efficiency and sustainable use of water that 
provides a forum for collaboration around policy, information sharing, 
research, education, and stakeholder engagement. ASAP organizes and 
leads a broad-based coalition effort that works to advance new 
appliance, equipment, and lighting standards that cut emissions that 
contribute to climate change and other environmental and public health 
harms, save water, and reduce economic and environmental burdens for 
low- and moderate-income households. AHAM represents more than 150 
member companies that manufacture 90 percent of the major, portable and 
floor care appliances shipped for sale in the United States. CFA is an 
association of more than 250 non-profit consumer and cooperative groups 
that advances the consumer interest through research, advocacy, and 
education. Consumer Reports is a mission-driven, independent, nonprofit 
member organization that empowers and informs consumers, incentivizes 
corporations to act responsibly, and helps policymakers prioritize the 
rights and interests of consumers in order to shape a truly consumer-
driven marketplace. Earthjustice is a nonprofit public interest 
environmental law organization advocating to advance clean energy and 
combat climate change. National Consumer Law Center supports consumer 
justice and economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged 
people in the United States through its expertise in policy analysis 
and advocacy, publications, litigation, expert witness services, and 
training. National Resources Defense Council is an international 
nonprofit environmental organization with expertise from lawyers, 
scientists, and other environmental specialists. Northwest Energy 
Efficiency Alliance is a collaboration of 140 utilities and efficiency 
organizations working together to advance energy efficiency in the 
Northwest on behalf of more than 13 million consumers. Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company represents one of the largest combined gas and 
electric utilities in the Western United States, serving over 16 
million customers across northern and central California.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This document is available in the docket: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, DOE notes that it had no role in requesting that the 
parties to the Joint Agreement submit the Joint Agreement or in 
negotiating the terms of the Joint Agreement. As noted in the Joint 
Agreement itself, the parties negotiated and accepted the agreement 
based on the totality of the agreement. DOE's participation was limited 
to evaluating the joint submission under the criteria set forth in 42 
U.S.C. 6295(p). DOE also notes that the preemptive effect of Federal 
energy conservation standards

[[Page 81304]]

on State laws is clearly described in EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6297.
    Therefore, DOE reaffirms its determination that the Joint Agreement 
was submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of 
relevant points of view.

F. Formal Rulemaking

    The AGs of TN et al. recommended that before enacting these 
stringent new standards for consumer clothes dryers, DOE return to 
formal rulemaking or, at a minimum, to proceed with informal notice-
and-comment rulemaking to allow States and other relevant parties to 
participate in rulemaking processes that affect nearly every household 
appliance and also ensure a minimal level of political accountability 
by giving visibility to internal agency deliberations. The AGs of TN et 
al. further commented that the lack of a formal process does not allow 
people the opportunity to comment on rules that touch the lives of 
nearly all Americans. (AGs of TN et al., No. 73 at pp. 5-8) The AG of 
MT similarly recommended that DOE halt the rulemaking. (AG of MT, No. 
70 at p. 7)
    The AG of MT expressed concern about pretext and circumvention of 
the Administrative Procedure Act, regarding DOE's conduct in this 
rulemaking and in recent litigations. (Id. at pp. 1-2)
    AHAM stated that interested parties have had ample opportunity to 
comment through multiple stages of rulemaking. AHAM noted that, in 
fact, the March 2024 Direct Final Rule process provided an extra 110 
days for interested parties to review DOE's final rule and submit 
comments--which met EPCA requirements. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 3-4)
    In response, DOE notes that Congress granted DOE the authority to 
issue energy conservation standards as direct final rules subject to 
certain conditions and procedural requirements. As discussed in the 
March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that Joint Agreement was 
submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative 
of relevant points of view and the adopted energy conservation 
standards as recommended in the Joint Agreement would result in 
significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and 
economically justified as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and provided 
supporting analysis. 89 FR 18164, 18174-18175.
    Additionally, DOE notes it followed the procedures in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4) to publish a direct final rule in the Federal Register 
simultaneously with a NOPR proposing identical standards and allowed 
110 days for public comment. See 89 FR 18164 and 89 FR 18244. Regarding 
the comment about formal rulemaking, DOE has met all of its statutory 
requirements under its direct rule authority, which does not require 
formal rulemaking.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ DOE notes that outside of its direct rulemaking authority, 
DOE utilizes informal or legislative rulemaking (i.e., notice and 
comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 
553) when it promulgates rules under EPCA, not formal rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Conforming Updates To Test Procedure Introductory Notes

    The test procedures at appendix D1 and appendix D2 contain 
introductory notes that specify that either appendix D1 or appendix D2 
must be used to determine compliance with energy conservation standards 
for clothes dryers manufactured on or after January 1, 2015, among 
other details.
    The amended standards promulgated by the March 2024 Direct Final 
Rule are denoted in terms of CEF as determined in accordance with 
appendix D2 (i.e., appendix D1 may not be used to determine compliance 
with the amended standards). Accordingly, in this document, DOE updates 
the introductory notes to both appendix D1 and appendix D2 to specify 
that use of appendix D2 is required to demonstrate compliance with the 
amended standards promulgated by the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, 
which are codified at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(4). The amended introductory 
note to appendix D2 also specifies that manufacturers may use appendix 
D2 to certify compliance with the clothes dryer standards provided at 
10 CFR 430.32(h)(4) prior to the applicable compliance date for those 
standards.
    In addition, the introductory note in appendix D2 specifies using 
the value for the representative average number of clothes dryer cycles 
in a year as defined in section 4.5.1(a) of that appendix until the 
compliance date of any amended standards for these products; and using 
a revised value of this number as defined in section 4.5.1(b) of that 
appendix beginning on the compliance data of any amended standards for 
these products. This document also updates the introductory note of 
appendix D2 to specify explicitly the date ranges during which section 
4.5.1(a) or 4.5.1(b) must be used, corresponding to the compliance date 
of March 1, 2028 for the amended standards promulgated by the March 
2024 Direct Final Rule.

IV. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

    EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is 
likely to result from new or amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 
629(p)(4)(A)(i) and (C)(i)(II); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also 
directs the Attorney General of the United States (``Attorney 
General'') to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of 
competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit 
such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication 
of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent 
of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To assist 
the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE provided the 
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') with copies of the March 2024 Direct 
Final Rule, the corresponding NOPR, and the March 2024 Direct Final 
Rule TSD for review. DOE has published DOJ's comments at the end of 
this document.
    In its letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that, based on its 
review, the direct final rule standards for consumer clothes dryers are 
unlikely to have significant adverse impact on competition.

V. Conclusion

    In summary, based on the previous discussion, DOE has determined 
that the comments received in response to the direct final rule for 
amended energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers do 
not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. 
As a result, the energy conservation standards set forth in the direct 
final rule became effective on July 10, 2024. Compliance with these 
standards is required on and after March 1, 2028.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

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

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September 
30, 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

[[Page 81305]]

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 September 30, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, to read 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. Revise the introductory Note to appendix D1 to subpart B of part 430 
to read as follows:

Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers

    Note: The procedures in either this appendix or appendix D2 to 
this subpart must be used to determine compliance with the energy 
conservation standards for clothes dryers provided at Sec.  
430.32(h)(3). Manufacturers must use a single appendix for all 
representations, including certifications of compliance, and may not 
use this appendix for certain representations and appendix D2 to 
this subpart for other representations. The procedures in appendix 
D2 to this subpart must be used to determine compliance with the 
energy conservation standards for clothes dryers provided at Sec.  
430.32(h)(4).

* * * * *

0
3. Revise the introductory Note to appendix D2 to subpart B of part 430 
to read as follows:

Appendix D2 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers

    Note:  The procedures in either appendix D1 to this subpart or 
this appendix must be used to determine compliance with the energy 
conservation standards for clothes dryers provided at Sec.  
430.32(h)(3). Manufacturers must use a single appendix for all 
representations, including certifications of compliance, and may not 
use appendix D1 to this subpart for certain representations and this 
appendix for other representations. The procedures in this appendix 
must be used to determine compliance with the energy conservation 
standards for clothes dryers provided at Sec.  430.32(h)(4). 
Manufacturers may use this appendix to certify compliance with the 
clothes dryer standards provided at Sec.  430.32(h)(4) prior to the 
applicable compliance date for those standards.

    Per-cycle standby mode and off mode energy consumption in 
section 4.5 of this appendix is calculated using the value for the 
annual representative average number of clothes dryer cycles in a 
year specified in section 4.5.1(a) of this appendix until March 1, 
2028. Beginning on March 1, 2028, per-cycle standby mode and off 
mode energy consumption in section 4.5 of this appendix is 
calculated using the value for the annual representative average 
number of clothes dryer cycles in a year specified in section 
4.5.1(b) of this appendix.
* * * * *

    Note:  The following appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

Appendix A

May 16, 2024

Ami Grace-Tardy
Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy 
Efficiency
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
[email protected]

Re: Consumer Clothes Dryers Energy Conservation Standards

DOE Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058

Dear Assistant General Counsel Grace-Tardy:

    I am responding to your March 25, 2024, letter seeking the views 
of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of 
proposed energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers.
    Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to make a 
determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is 
likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation 
standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to 
requests from other departments about the effect of a program on 
competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for 
the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). The Assistant Attorney 
General for the Antitrust Division has authorized me, as the Policy 
Director for the Antitrust Division, to provide the Antitrust 
Division's views regarding the potential impact on competition of 
proposed energy conservation standards on his behalf.
    In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines 
whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by 
substantially limiting consumer choice, by placing certain 
manufacturers at an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or by 
inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of 
particular products. A lessening of competition could result in 
higher prices to manufacturers and consumers.
    We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (89 Fed. Reg. 18244, March 12, 2024), and the 
Direct Final Rule (89 Fed. Reg. 18164, March 12, 2024) and request 
for comments and the related Technical Support Documents. We have 
also reviewed public comments and reviewed the Docket. Based on this 
review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy conservation 
standards for consumer clothes dryers are unlikely to have a 
significant adverse impact on competition.

Sincerely,

/s/

David G.B. Lawrence,

Policy Director.

[FR Doc. 2024-23257 Filed 10-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P