Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-04737

Proposed Rule2024-04737

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

March 15, 2024

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

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

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 52 (Friday, March 15, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 52 (Friday, March 15, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18836-18854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04737]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 52 / Friday, March 15, 2024 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 18836]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014]
RIN 1904-AF58

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Washers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

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

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
NOPR no later than July 3, 2024. Comments regarding the likely
competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the
Department of Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or
before April 15, 2024.

ADDRESSES: See section IV of this document, ``Public Participation,''
for details. If DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting
to allow for additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish
notice of any meeting in the Federal Register.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under docket number
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014, by any of the following methods:
(1) Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7839080814111b19161b1d2b0c19161c190a1c0b290d1d0b0c1117160b381d1d561c171d561f170e">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include the
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 1000
Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-
1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is
not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section IV of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the
docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section IV of this document for information on how to submit comments
through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0762696275607e2974736669636675637447727463686d29606871">[email&#160;protected]</a> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#59182929353038373a3c0a2d38373d382b3d2a082c3c2a2d3036372a193c3c773d363c773e362f">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 586-2588. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d6c404841444c037a45445944434a6d455c03494248034a425b">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aeefdedec2c7cfc0cdcbfddacfc0cacfdccaddffdbcbdddac7c1c0ddeecbcb80cac1cb80c9c1d8">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. Current Test Procedure
3. The Joint Agreement
III. Proposed Standards
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential
Clothes Washer Standards
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
V. Severability
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in

[[Page 18837]]

Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include consumer (residential) \3\
clothes washers (``RCWs''), the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\3\ DOE uses the ``residential'' nomenclature and ``RCW''
abbreviation for consumer clothes washers in order to distinguish
from the ``CCW'' abbreviation used for commercial clothes washers,
which are also regulated equipment under EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must, among other things, be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is proposing this rule amending the energy
conservation standards for RCWs and is concurrently issuing a direct
final rule elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. DOE will
proceed with this notice of proposed rulemaking only if it determines
it must withdraw the direct final rule pursuant to the criteria
provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). The amended standard levels in the
proposed rule and the direct final rule were proposed in a letter
submitted to DOE jointly by groups representing manufacturers, energy
and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility. This
letter, titled ``Energy Efficiency Agreement of 2023'' (hereafter, the
``Joint Agreement'' \4\), recommends specific energy conservation
standards for RCWs that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the
EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE subsequently received
letters of support for the Joint Agreement from States including New
York, California, and Massachusetts \5\ and utilities including San
Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison \6\ advocating
for the adoption of the recommended standards. As discussed in more
detail in the accompanying direct final rule and in accordance with the
provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has determined that the
recommendations contained in the Joint Agreement comply with the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ This document is available in the docket at:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0505">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0505</a>.
\5\ This document is available in the docket at:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0506">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0506</a>.
\6\ This document is available in the docket at:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0507">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0507</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards
for RCWs. The standards are expressed in terms of energy efficiency
ratio (``EER''), measured in pounds per kilowatt-hour per cycle (``lb/
kWh/cycle''), and water efficiency ratio (``WER''), measured in pounds
per gallon per cycle (``lb/gal/cycle''), as determined in accordance
with DOE's clothes washer test procedure codified at title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix J
(``appendix J''). The EER metric includes active mode, inactive mode,
and off mode energy use.
Table I.1 presents the proposed energy conservation standards for
RCWs. The proposed standards are the same as those recommended by the
Joint Agreement. These standards apply to all products listed in Table
I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into the United States starting on
March 1, 2028, as recommended in the Joint Agreement.

Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential
Clothes Washers
[Compliance Starting March 1, 2028]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum energy Minimum water
efficiency efficiency
Product class ratio (lb/kWh/ ratio (lb/gal/
cycle) cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact (less than 3.79 0.29
1.6 ft\3\ capacity)................
Top-Loading Standard-Size (1.6 ft\3\ 4.27 0.57
or greater capacity) with an
average cycle time of 30 minutes or
greater............................
Front-Loading Compact (less than 3.0 5.02 0.71
ft\3\ capacity) *..................
Front-Loading Standard-Size (3.0 5.52 0.77
ft\3\ or greater capacity) with an
average cycle time of 45 minutes or
greater............................
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers.......... 2.12 0.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The standards in this table do not apply to front-loading clothes
washers with a capacity greater than or equal to 1.6 ft\3\ and less
than 3.0 ft\3\ with an average cycle time of less than 45 minutes.

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include RCWs, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) EPCA prescribed energy
conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and
(g)(9)(A)), and directed DOE to conduct

[[Page 18838]]

future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42
U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (g)(9)(B)) EPCA further provides that, not later
than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination
that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
In establishing energy conservation standards with both energy and
water use performance standards for RCWs manufactured after January 1,
2011, Congress also directed DOE to ``determin[e] whether to amend''
those standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B)) Congress's directive, in
section 6295(g)(9)(B), to consider whether ``to amend the standards in
effect for RCWs'' refers to ``the standards'' established in the
immediately preceding paragraph, 6295(g)(9)(A). There, Congress
established energy conservation standards with both energy and water
use performance standards for RCWs. Indeed, the energy and water use
performance standards for RCWs (both top-loading and front-loading) are
each contained within a single subparagraph. See id. Everything in
section 6295(g)(9) suggests that Congress intended both of those twin
standards to be evaluated when it came time, ``[n]ot later than
December 13, 2011,'' to consider amending them. (Id. 6295(g)(9)(B)(i))
Accordingly, DOE understands its authority, under 6295(g)(9)(B), to
include consideration of amended energy and water use performance
standards for RCWs.
DOE similarly understands its authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m) to
amend ``standards'' for covered products to include amending both the
energy and water use performance standards for RCWs. Neither section
6295(g)(9)(B) nor section 6295(m) limit their application to ``energy
use standards.'' Rather, they direct DOE to consider amending ``the
standards,'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B), or simply ``standards,'' id.
6295(m)(1)(B), which may include both energy use standards and water
use standards.
Finally, DOE is proposing these standards in this companion NOPR to
a direct final rule pursuant to section 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). That
section also extends broadly to any ``energy or water conservation
standard'' without qualification. Thus, pursuant to section 6295(p)(4),
DOE may, so long as the other relevant conditions are satisfied,
promulgate a direct final rule that includes water use performance
standards for a covered product like RCWs, where Congress has already
established energy and water use performance standards.
DOE is aware that the definition of ``energy conservation
standard,'' in section 6291(6), expressly references water use only for
four products specifically named: showerheads, faucets, water closets,
and urinals. See id. However, DOE does not read the language in 6291(6)
as fully delineating the scope of DOE's authority under EPCA. Rather,
as is required of agencies in applying a statute, individual
provisions, including section 6291(6) of EPCA, must be read in the
context of the statute as a whole.
The energy conservation program was initially limited to addressing
the energy use, meaning electricity and fossil fuels, of 13 covered
products. (See sections 321 and 322 of the Energy and Policy
Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat 871 (December 22, 1975)).
Since its inception, Congress has expanded the scope of the energy
conservation program several times, including by adding covered
products, prescribing energy conservation standards for various
products, and by addressing water use for certain covered products. For
example, in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress amended the list of
covered products in 42 U.S.C. 6292 to include showerheads, faucets,
water closets and urinals and expanded DOE's authority to regulate
water use for these products. (See Sec. 123, Energy Policy Act of 1992,
Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat 2776 (Oct. 24, 1992)). When it did so,
Congress also made corresponding changes to the definition of
``consumer product'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)), the definition of ``energy
conservation standard'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)), the section governing the
promulgation of test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), the criteria for
prescribing new or amended energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)), and elsewhere in EPCA.
Later, Congress further expanded the scope of the energy
conservation program several times. For instance, Congress added
products and standards directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295, the section of EPCA
that contains statutorily prescribed standards as well as DOE's
standard-setting authorities. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(a) (stating that the
``purposes of this section are to--(1) provide Federal energy
conservation standards applicable to covered products; and (2)
authorize the Secretary to prescribe amended or new energy conservation
standards for each type (or class) of covered product.'')). When
Congress added these new standards and standard-setting authorities to
42 U.S.C. 6295 after the Energy Policy Act of 1992, it often did so
without making any conforming changes to other provisions in EPCA,
e.g., sections 6291 or 6292. For example, in the Energy Policy Act of
2005, Congress prescribed standards by statute, or gave DOE the
authority to set standards for, battery chargers, external power
supplies, ceiling fans, ceiling fan light kits, beverage vending
machines, illuminated exit signs, torchieres, low voltage dry-type
distribution transformers, traffic signal modules and pedestrian
modules, certain lamps, dehumidifiers, and commercial prerinse spray
valves in 42 U.S.C. 6295 without updating the list of covered products
in 42 U.S.C. 6292. (See Sec. 135, Energy Policy Act of 2005, 119 Stat
594 (Aug. 8, 2005)).
Congress also expanded the scope of the energy conservation program
by directly adding water use performance standards for certain products
to 42 U.S.C. 6295. For example, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
Congress added a water use performance standard (but no energy use
performance standard) for commercial prerinse spray valves (``CPSVs'')
and did so without updating the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C.
6292 to include CPSVs and without adding CPSVs to the list of
enumerated products with water use performance standards in the
``energy conservation standard'' definition in 42 U.S.C. 6291(6). In
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''),
Congress amended 42 U.S.C. 6295 by prescribing standards for RCWs and
dishwashers that included both energy and water use performance
standards. (See Sec. 301, EISA 2007, Pub. L. 110-140, 121 Stat 1492
(Dec. 19, 2007)). Again, when it did so, Congress did not add these
products to the list of enumerated products with water use performance
standards in the definition of ``energy conservation standard'' in 42
U.S.C. 6291(6).
In considering how to treat these products and standards that
Congress has directly added to 42 U.S.C. 6295 without making conforming
changes to the rest of the statute, including the list of covered
products in 42 U.S.C. 6292, and the water-use products in the
definition of an ``energy conservation standard,'' DOE construes the
statute as a whole. When Congress added products and standards directly
to 42 U.S.C. 6295 it must have meant those products to be covered
products and those standards to be energy conservation standards, given
that the purpose of 42 U.S.C. 6295 is to provide ``energy conservation
standards applicable to covered products'' and to

[[Page 18839]]

``authorize the Secretary to prescribe amended or new energy
conservation standards for each type (or class) of covered product.''
Elsewhere in EPCA, the statute's references to covered products and
energy conservation standards can only be read coherently as including
the covered products and energy conservation standards Congress added
directly to section 6295, even if Congress did not make conforming
edits to 6291 or 6292. For example, manufacturers are prohibited from
``distribut[ing] in commerce any new covered product which is not in
conformity with an applicable energy conservation standard.'' (42
U.S.C. 6302(a)(5) (emphasis added)) It would defeat congressional
intent to allow a manufacturer to distribute a product, e.g., a CPSV or
ceiling fan, that violates an applicable energy conservation standard
that Congress prescribed simply because Congress added the product
directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295 without also updating the list of covered
products in 42 U.S.C. 6292(a). In addition, preemption in EPCA is based
on ``the effective date of an energy conservation standard established
in or prescribed under section 6295 of this title for any covered
product.'' (42 U.S.C. 6297(c)(emphasis added)) Nothing in EPCA suggests
that standards Congress adopted in 6295 lack preemptive effect, merely
because Congress did not make conforming amendments to 6291, 6292, or
6293.
It would similarly defeat congressional intent for a manufacturer
to be permitted to distribute a covered product, e.g., a clothes washer
or dishwasher, that violates a water use performance standard because
Congress added the standard to 42 U.S.C. 6295 without also updating the
definition of energy conservation standard in 42 U.S.C. 6291(6). By
prescribing directly, in 6295(g)(9), energy conservation standards for
RCWs that include both energy and water use performance standards,
Congress intended that energy conservation standards for RCWs include
both energy use and water use.
DOE recognizes that some might argue that Congress's specific
reference in section 6291(6) to water standards for showerheads,
faucets, water closets, and urinals could ``create a negative
implication'' that energy conservations standards for other covered
products may not include water use standards. See Marx v. Gen. Revenue
Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 381 (2013). ``The force of any negative
implication, however, depends on context.'' Id.; see also NLRB v. SW
Gen., Inc., 580 U.S. 288, 302 (2017) (``The expressio unius canon
applies only when circumstances support a sensible inference that the
term left out must have been meant to be excluded.'' (alterations and
quotation marks omitted)). In this context, the textual and structural
cues discussed above show that Congress did not intend to exclude from
the definition of energy conservation standard the water use
performance standards that it specifically prescribed, and directed DOE
to amend, in section 6295. To conclude otherwise would negate the plain
text of 6295(g)(9). Furthermore, to the extent the definition of energy
conservation standards in section 6291(6), which was last amended in
the Energy Policy Act of 1992, could be read as in conflict with the
energy and water use performance standards prescribed by Congress in
EISA 2007, any such conflict should be resolved in favor of the more
recently enacted statute. See United States v. Estate of Romani, 523
U.S. 517, 530-31 (1998) (``[A] specific policy embodied in a later
federal statute should control our construction of the priority
statute, even though it had not been expressly amended.'').
Accordingly, based on a complete reading of the statute, DOE has
determined that products and standards added directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295
are appropriately considered ``covered products'' and ``energy
conservation standards'' for the purposes of applying the various
provisions in EPCA.
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE
test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products
comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under
EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy
use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s))
Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the
products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for RCWs appear at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix J (``appendix J'') and appendix J2 (``appendix
J2'').
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including RCWs. Any new or
amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy
(``Secretary'') determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any
standard that would not result in the significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by
rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a proposed
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving
comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or, as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing

[[Page 18840]]

by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4))
EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy
conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a
type (or class) of product must specify a different standard level for
a type or class of products that has the same function or intended use
if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) consume a
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products
within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.) Any rule
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(2))
Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, final rules for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, are required to address standby mode
and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for RCWs address
standby mode and off mode energy use, as do the standards proposed in
this NOPR.
Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE
authority to directly issue a final rule (i.e., a ``direct final
rule'') establishing an energy conservation standard upon receipt of a
statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates),
as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with
respect to an energy or water conservation standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also
determine whether a jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or
water conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.
A NOPR that proposes an identical energy efficiency or water
conservation standard must be published simultaneously with the direct
final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least
110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Based on the
comments received during this period, the direct final rule will either
become effective, or DOE will withdraw it not later than 120 days after
its issuance if: (1) one or more adverse comments is received, and (2)
DOE determines that those comments, when viewed in light of the
rulemaking record related to the direct final rule, may provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42
U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an alternative
joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of the direct
final rule in the same manner. (Id.) After withdrawing a direct final
rule, DOE must proceed with the NOPR published simultaneously with the
direct final rule and publish in the Federal Register the reasons why
the direct final rule was withdrawn. (Id.)
DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final
rule authority. In a final rule amending the Department's ``Procedures,
Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products'' at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A, DOE noted that it may issue standards
recommended by interested persons that are fairly representative of
relative points of view as a direct final rule when the recommended
standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But
the direct final rule provision in EPCA, under which this proposed rule
is issued, does not impose additional requirements applicable to other
standards rulemakings, which is consistent with the unique
circumstances of rules issued through consensus agreements under DOE's
direct final rule authority. Id. DOE's discretion remains bounded by
its statutory mandate to adopt a standard that results in the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified--a requirement found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Id.
As such, DOE's review and analysis of the Joint Agreement is limited to
whether the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o).

B. Background

1. Current Standards
In a direct final rule published on May 31, 2012 (``May 2012 Direct
Final Rule''), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards
for RCWs manufactured on or after January 1, 2018. 77 FR 32308.\7\
These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR
430.32(g)(4). These standards are consistent with a prior joint
proposal submitted to DOE by interested parties representing
manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer
groups.\8\ The current standards are defined in terms of a minimum
allowable integrated modified energy factor (``IMEF''), measured in
cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle (``ft\3\/kWh/cycle''), and
maximum allowable integrated water factor (``IWF''), measured in
gallons per cycle per cubic

[[Page 18841]]

foot (``gal/cycle/ft\3\''), as measured according to appendix J2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ DOE published a confirmation of effective date and
compliance date for the direct final rule on October 1, 2012. 77 FR
59719.
\8\ Available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0032">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0032</a>.

Table II.1--Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Clothes
Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
integrated Maximum
modified integrated
Product class energy factor water factor
(ft\3\/kWh/ (gal/cycle/
cycle) ft\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 1.15 12.0
ft\3\ capacity)........................
Top-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft\3\ or 1.57 6.5
greater capacity)......................
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 1.13 8.3
ft\3\ capacity)........................
Front-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft\3\ or 1.84 4.7
greater capacity)......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers, a design standard
currently applies, which requires such products to have an unheated
rinse water option. 10 CFR 430.32(g)(1).
2. Current Test Procedure
As discussed, DOE's current energy conservation standards for RCWs
are expressed in terms of IMEF and IWF as measured using appendix J2.
(See 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4).)
In a final rule published on June 1, 2022 (``June 2022 TP Final
Rule''), DOE finalized a new test procedure at appendix J, which
defines new energy efficiency metrics: an energy efficiency ratio
(i.e., EER) and a water efficiency ratio (i.e., WER). 87 FR 33316,
33319. EER is defined as the quotient of the weighted-average load size
divided by the total clothes washer energy consumption per cycle, with
such energy consumption expressed as the sum of (1) the machine
electrical energy consumption, (2) the hot water energy consumption,
(3) the energy required for removal of the remaining moisture in the
wash load, and (4) the combined low-power mode energy consumption. 10
CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix J section 1. WER is defined as the
quotient of the weighted-average load size divided by the total
weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles in gallons.
Id. For both EER and WER, a higher value indicates more efficient
performance. The standard levels proposed in this NOPR are expressed in
terms of the EER and WER metrics as measured according to the newly
established test procedure contained in appendix J.
3. The Joint Agreement
On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (i.e., the
Joint Agreement) recommending standards for RCWs, that was submitted by
groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates,
consumer groups, and a utility.\9\ In addition to the recommended
standards for RCWs, the Joint Agreement also included separate
recommendations for several other covered products.\10\ And, while
acknowledging that DOE may implement these recommendations in separate
rulemakings, the Joint Agreement also stated that the recommendations
were recommended as a complete package and each recommendation is
contingent upon the other parts being implemented. DOE understands this
to mean that the Joint Agreement is contingent upon DOE initiating
rulemaking processes to adopt all of the recommended standards in the
agreement. That is distinguished from an agreement where issuance of an
amended energy conservation standard for a covered product is
contingent on issuance of amended energy conservation standards for the
other covered products. If the Joint Agreement were so construed, it
would conflict with the anti-backsliding provision in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1), because it would imply the possibility that, if DOE were
unable to issue an amended standard for a certain product, it would
have to withdraw a previously issued standard for one of the other
products. The anti-backsliding provision, however, prevents DOE from
withdrawing or amending an energy conservation standard to be less
stringent. As a result, DOE will be proceeding with individual
rulemakings that will evaluate each of the recommended standards
separately under the applicable statutory criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include the
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM''), American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water
Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer
Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that make the affected
products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB;
Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances
Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.;
Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier
Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr
USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances
Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of America; Perlick
Corporation; Samsung Electronics America Inc.; Sharp Electronics
Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby
Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool
Corporation.
\10\ The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for 6 covered
products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers;
residential clothes washers; consumer clothes dryers; dishwashers;
consumer conventional cooking products; and miscellaneous
refrigeration products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A court decision issued after DOE received the Joint Agreement is
also relevant to today's rule. On March 17, 2022, various States filed
a petition seeking review of a final rule revoking two final rules that
established product classes for residential dishwashers with a cycle
time for the normal cycle of 60 minutes or less, top-loading RCWs and
certain classes of consumer clothes dryers with a cycle time of less
than 30 minutes, and front-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than
45 minutes (collectively, ``short cycle product classes''). The
petitioners argued that the final rule revoking the short cycle product
classes violated EPCA and was arbitrary and capricious. On January 8,
2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted
the petition for review and remanded the matter to DOE for further
proceedings consistent with the Fifth Circuit's opinion. See Louisiana
v. United States Department of Energy, 90 F.4th 461 (5th Cir. 2024).
On February 14, 2024, following the Fifth Circuit's decision in
Louisiana v. United States Department of Energy, DOE received a second
joint statement from this same group of stakeholders in which the
signatories reaffirmed the Joint Agreement, stating that the
recommended standards represent the maximum levels of efficiency that
are technologically feasible and

[[Page 18842]]

economically justified.\11\ In the letter, the signatories clarified
that ``short-cycle'' product classes for RCWs, consumer clothes dryers,
and dishwashers did not exist at the time that the signatories
submitted their recommendations and it is their understanding that
these classes also do not exist at the current time. Accordingly, the
parties clarified that the Joint Agreement did not address short-cycle
product classes. The signatories also stated that they did not
anticipate that the recommended energy conservation standards in the
Joint Agreement will negatively affect features or performance,
including cycle time, for RCWs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ This document is available in the docket at:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0509">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0509</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

\12\ See Appliance Standards Rulemakings and Notices
(<a href="http://energy.gov">energy.gov</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Joint Agreement recommends amended standard levels for RCWs as
presented in Table II.2. (Joint Agreement, No. 505 at p. 9) Details of
the Joint Agreement recommendations for other products are provided in
the Joint Agreement posted in the docket.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The Joint Agreement is available in the docket at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0505">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0505</a>.

Table II.2--Recommended Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum energy Minimum water
Product class efficiency ratio efficiency ratio Compliance date
(lb/kWh/cycle) (lb/gal/cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less than 3.79 0.29 March 1, 2028.
1.6 ft\3\ capacity).
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft\3\ or 4.27 0.57
greater capacity).
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 5.02 0.71
ft\3\ capacity).
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft\3\ 5.52 0.77
or greater capacity).
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers.......... 2.12 0.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has evaluated the Joint Agreement and believes that it meets
the EPCA requirements for issuance of a direct final rule. As a result,
DOE published a direct final rule establishing energy conservation
standards for RCWs elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. If
DOE receives adverse comments that may provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal and withdraws the direct final rule, DOE will consider those
comments and any other comments received in determining how to proceed
with this proposed rule.
For further background information on these proposed standards and
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. That document and the
accompanying technical support document (``TSD'') contain an in-depth
discussion of the analyses conducted in evaluating the Joint Agreement,
the methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses, and the
analytical results.
When the Joint Agreement was submitted, DOE was conducting a
rulemaking to consider amending the standards for RCWs. As part of that
process, DOE published a NOPR and announced a public meeting on March
3, 2023, (``March 2023 NOPR'') seeking comment on its proposed amended
standards to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under
EPCA and the Administrative Procedures Act (``APA''). 88 FR 13520. The
March 2023 NOPR proposed amended standards defined in terms of the EER
and WER metrics as measured according to appendix J. Id. at 88 FR
13522. The March 2023 NOPR also proposed to re-establish a product
class, and establish new performance standards, for semi-automatic
clothes washers. Id. at 88 FR 13541.\14\ The March 2023 NOPR TSD is
available at: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0058">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0058</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers were subject to
a design standard requiring an unheated rinse water option, as
established by section 5(g) of the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Act of 1987, Public Law 100-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Standards

When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by,
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for RCWs at each
trial standard level (``TSL''), beginning with the maximum
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') level, to determine whether
that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not
justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and
undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency
level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified
and saves a significant amount of energy. DOE refers to this process as
the ``walk-down'' analysis.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on
employment.
DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to

[[Page 18843]]

undervalue energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that
consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of
information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or
aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant
delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term,
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings
relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant
tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between
renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than
perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future,
consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than
expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy
cost savings.
In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to
lost revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy
savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the
standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products
purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings
from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of
shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9
of the direct final rule TSD \15\ available in the docket for this
rulemaking. However, DOE's current analysis does not explicitly control
for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, preferences across
subcategories of products or specific features, or consumer price
sensitivity variation according to household income.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document</a>.
\16\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand,
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883.
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential Clothes
Washer Standards

Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize the quantitative impacts
estimated for each TSL for RCWs. The national impacts are measured over
the lifetime of RCWs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the
anticipated year of compliance with amended standards (2027-2056 for
all TSLs except TSL 2, i.e., the ``Recommended TSL'' for RCWs, and
2028-2057 for TSL 2). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and
value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'')
results. DOE is presenting monetized benefits of greenhouse gas
(``GHG'') emissions reductions in accordance with the applicable
Executive Orders and DOE would reach the same conclusion presented in
this notice in the absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases,
including the Interim Estimates presented by the Interagency Working
Group. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in
section V.A of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register.

Table III.1--Summary of Analytical Results for Residential Clothes Washer TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads........................................... 0.58 0.67 1.34 2.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)....................... 12.88 13.96 31.22 55.77
CH4 (thousand tons)............................. 116.74 124.57 294.14 554.46
N2O (thousand tons)............................. 0.11 0.12 0.24 0.38
NOX (thousand tons)............................. 26.03 27.74 65.47 123.66
SO2 (thousand tons)............................. 3.18 3.65 6.97 10.33
Hg (tons)....................................... 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................. 12.99 17.92 26.18 34.19
Climate Benefits *.............................. 0.79 0.84 1.89 3.38
Health Benefits **.............................. 1.51 1.62 3.53 6.10
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]..................... 15.30 20.38 31.60 43.66
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..... 4.51 9.20 11.50 13.07
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Net Benefits....................... 8.48 8.71 14.68 21.12
Total Net Benefits...................... 10.79 11.18 20.10 30.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................. 6.61 8.65 12.90 16.61
Climate Benefits *.............................. 0.79 0.84 1.89 3.38
Health Benefits **.............................. 0.70 0.73 1.58 2.65
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]..................... 8.11 10.22 16.37 22.64
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..... 2.83 5.37 6.94 7.86
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Net Benefits....................... 3.78 3.28 5.96 8.76

[[Page 18844]]

Total Net Benefits...................... 5.28 4.85 9.43 14.79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped during the period 2027-2056 for
all TSLs except for TSL 2 (the Recommended TSL). These results include benefits to consumers which accrue
after 2056 from the products shipped during the period 2027-2056. For TSL 2, this table presents the costs and
benefits associated with RCWs shipped during the period 2028-2057.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together,
these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated
with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and
value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits
of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support
Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990
published in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

Table III.2--Summary of Analytical Results for Residential Clothes Washer TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer
Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 ** TSL 3 TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No- 1,639.0 to 1,710.7 1,429.6 to 1,560.9 1,053.8 to 1,234.5 535.8 to 738.2.
new-standards case INPV =
1,707.9).
Industry NPV (% change)......... (4.0) to 0.2...... (16.3) to (8.6)... (38.3) to (27.7).. (68.6) to (56.8).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact....... n.a............... n.a............... n.a............... n.a.
Top-Loading Standard-Size....... $122.............. $111.............. $116.............. $133.
Front-Loading Compact........... 0................. 9................. 8................. 38.
Front-Loading Standard-Size..... 26................ 46................ 15................ 49.
Semi-Automatic.................. 280............... 284............... 280............... 188.
Shipment-Weighted Average *..... 98................ 96................ 91................ 111.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Simple PBP (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact....... n.a............... n.a............... n.a............... n.a.
Top-Loading Standard-Size....... 4.4............... 6.2............... 5.7............... 5.4.
Front-Loading Compact........... 9.6............... 9.3............... 9.5............... 8.0.
Front-Loading Standard-Size..... 0.9............... 1.4............... 1.6............... 1.7.
Semi-Automatic.................. 0.5............... 0.5............... 0.5............... 0.6.
Shipment-Weighted Average *..... 3.6............... 4.9............... 4.6............... 4.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact....... n.a............... n.a............... n.a............... n.a.
Top-Loading Standard-Size....... 16%............... 27%............... 28%............... 26%.
Front-Loading Compact........... 0%................ 21%............... 22%............... 35%.
Front-Loading Standard-Size..... 1%................ 2%................ 20%............... 16%.
Semi-Automatic.................. 0%................ 0%................ 0%................ 0%.
Shipment-Weighted Average *..... 12%............... 20%............... 25%............... 23%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. The entry ``n.a.'' means not applicable because there is no change in
the standard at certain TSLs.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027 except for TSL 2 (the
Recommended TSL).
** For TSL 2 (the Recommended TSL), shipment-weighted averages are weighted by shares of each product class in
total projected shipments in 2028.

DOE first considered TSL 4, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels for all product classes. Specifically for top-loading
standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path for TSL 4 (which
represents EL 4 for this product class) incorporates the use of a
direct drive motor, stainless steel basket and more robust suspension
and balancing systems (as methods for enabling faster spin speeds), a
wash plate (as a means for enabling reduced water levels), reduced hot
and warm wash water temperatures compared to temperatures available on
baseline units, spray rinse, the fastest achievable spin speeds, and an
increase in tub size compared to the baseline (as a means for reducing
energy and water use on a per-pound of clothing basis).\17\ Among these
design options, use of a direct drive motor, stainless steel basket and
more robust suspension and balancing systems, reduced wash water
temperatures, and fastest achievable spin speeds reduce energy use
only; spray rinse reduces

[[Page 18845]]

water use only; and the wash plate and increase in tub size reduce both
energy and water use together.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ As discussed in the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, DOE's direct final rule
analysis indicates that an increase in tub capacity is not required
to achieve EL 5; however, manufacturers are currently implementing
this design option in EL 5 models currently available on the market.
\18\ As discussed in the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, because the energy used to
heat the water consumed by the RCW is included as part of the EER
energy use metric, technologies that decrease hot water use also
inherently decrease energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For front-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path
for TSL 4 (which represents EL 4 for this product class) incorporates
the use of the most efficient available direct drive motor, the
implementation of advanced sensors, the fastest achievable spin speeds,
and lower cold water volume (but with no change to total hot water
use). Among these design options, the direct drive motor, more advanced
sensors, and faster spin speeds reduce energy use only; whereas the
lower cold water volume reduces water use only.
TSL 4 would save an estimated 2.12 quads of energy and 2.73
trillion gallons of water, an amount DOE considers significant. Under
TSL 4, the net present value (``NPV'') of consumer benefit would be
$8.76 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $21.12 billion
using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 55.77 million
metric tons (``Mt'') of carbon dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 10.33
thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 123.66 thousand
tons of nitrogen oxides (``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 0.07 tons of mercury
(``Hg''), 554.46 thousand tons of methane (``CH<INF>4</INF>''), and
0.38 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (``N<INF>2</INF>O''). The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average social cost of GHG (``SC-GHG'') at a 3-
percent discount rate) at TSL 4 is $3.38 billion. The estimated
monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions at TSL 4 is $2.65 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate and $6.10 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $14.79
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $30.59 billion. The estimated total
NPV is provided for additional information; however, DOE primarily
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a
proposed standard level is economically justified.
At TSL 4, the average life-cycle costs (``LCC'') impact is a
savings of $133 for top-loading standard-size, $38 for front-loading
compact, $49 for front-loading standard-size, and $188 for semi-
automatic clothes washers. The simple payback period is 5.4 years for
top-loading standard-size, 8.0 years for front-loading compact, 1.7
years for front-loading standard-size, and 0.6 years for semi-automatic
clothes washers. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost
is 26 percent for top-loading standard-size, 35 percent for front-
loading compact, 16 percent for front-loading standard-size, and zero
percent for semi-automatic clothes washers. For the top-loading
standard-size product class, which represents 71 percent of the market,
TSL 4 would increase the first cost by $166, in comparison to an
installed cost of $690 for baseline units. For the front-loading
standard-size product class, which represents 25 percent of the market,
TSL 4 would increase the first cost by $93, compared to an installed
cost of $1,027 for baseline units. At TSL 4, the standard for top-
loading ultra-compact RCWs is at the baseline, resulting in no LCC
impact, no simple PBP, and no consumers experiencing a net LCC cost.
Additionally, as a result of lower costs associated with well water and
septic tanks in rural areas, about 40 percent of well-water households
would experience a net LCC cost at TSL 4.
At TSL 4, the projected change in industry net present value
(``INPV'') ranges from a decrease of $1,172.0 million to a decrease of
$969.6 million, which correspond to a decrease of 68.6 percent and 56.8
percent, respectively. The loss in INPV is largely driven by industry
conversion costs as manufacturers work to redesign their portfolios of
model offerings and re-tool entire factories to comply with amended
standards at this level. Industry conversion costs could reach $1,321.2
million at this TSL.
Conversion costs at max-tech are significant, as nearly all
existing RCW models would need to be redesigned to meet the required
efficiencies. Currently, approximately 4 percent of RCW annual
shipments meet the max-tech levels. For top-loading standard-size RCWs,
which DOE projects will account for 71 percent of annual shipments in
2027, less than 1 percent of current shipments meet this level. Of the
nine original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') offering top-loading
standard-size products, one OEM offers five basic models (representing
approximately 1 percent of all top-loading standard-size basic models)
that meet the efficiencies required by TSL 4. The remaining eight OEMs
would need to overhaul their existing platforms and make significant
updates to their production facilities. Those manufacturers may need to
incorporate increased tub capacities, wash plate designs, direct drive
motors, reinforced wash baskets, robust suspension and balancing
systems, and advanced sensors. These product changes require
significant investment. In interviews, several manufacturers expressed
concerns about their ability to meet existing market demand given the
required scale of investment, redesign effort, and 3-year compliance
timeline.
At TSL 3 and higher, manufacturers expressed concerns and presented
data regarding potential impacts to product performance, including wash
temperatures, cleaning and rinsing performance, and fabric care. At TSL
4, such concerns and uncertainties would be further exacerbated.
Consumers that experience any such negative impacts on product
performance could potentially alter their usage patterns, for example
by using more energy-intensive settings more frequently (e.g., Extra-
Hot temperature setting); using more water-intensive cycle options
(e.g., Deep Fill option; extra rinse cycles); using non-regulated
cycles (e.g., Heavy Duty cycle); or re-washing clothing that has not
been cleaned sufficiently. Such changes to consumer usage patterns may
counteract the energy and water savings that DOE has estimated would be
achieved at TSL 4. For these reasons, DOE cannot be certain that the
designs associated with TSL 4 efficiencies would not negatively impact
certain aspects of standard-size RCW performance and consequently may
jeopardize the energy and water savings that would be achieved at these
efficiency levels. DOE emphasizes that its findings in this regard are
based on the data available at this time and are predicated on the
current state of clothes washer technology. Additional data that could
become available, as well as future advances in washing technologies
and design strategies, could alleviate any such concerns or
uncertainties regarding product performance and could lead DOE to reach
a different conclusion in a future rulemaking.
Based upon the above considerations, the Secretary tentatively
concludes that at TSL 4 for RCWs, the benefits of energy and water
savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, and emission reductions
would be outweighed by the potential for negative consumer utility
impacts, which may jeopardize the energy and water savings that would
be achieved at TSL 4, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the
large

[[Page 18846]]

potential reduction in INPV. DOE estimated the potential loss in INPV
to be as high as 68 percent. The potential losses in INPV are primarily
driven by large conversion costs that must be made ahead of the
compliance date. At max-tech, manufacturers would need to make
significant upfront investments to update nearly all product lines and
manufacturing facilities. Manufacturers expressed concern that they
would not be able to complete product and production line updates
within the 3-year conversion period. Consequently, the Secretary has
tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 3, which represents the ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient level for the front-loading product classes, the CEE Tier 1
level for the top-loading standard-size product class, and a gap fill
level for the semi-automatic product classes.\19\ Specifically, for
top-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path for TSL 3
(which represents EL 3 for this product class) incorporates many of the
same technologies and design strategies as described for TSL 4. At TSL
3, top-loading standard-size units would incorporate a direct drive
motor, stainless steel basket and more robust suspension and balancing
systems (as methods for enabling faster spin speeds), a wash plate (as
a means for enabling reduced water levels), and spray rinse, consistent
with TSL 4. Models at TSL 3 would also incorporate slightly reduced hot
wash water temperatures compared to temperatures available on baseline
units, faster spin speeds compared to the baseline (although not as
fast as TSL 4), and an increase in tub size compared to the baseline
(as a means for reducing energy and water use on a per-pound of
clothing basis).\20\ Among these design options, use of a direct drive
motor, stainless steel basket and more robust suspension and balancing
systems, reduced wash water temperatures, and faster spin speeds reduce
energy use only; spray rinse reduces water use only; and the wash plate
and increase in tub size reduce both energy and water use together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ As discussed in the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, tables in section IV.C.2.b of
that direct final rule provide the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient and
CEE Tier 1 equivalencies between the current metrics (IMEF and IWF)
and the new metrics (EER and WER) for the top-loading and front-
loading standard size product classes, respectively.
\20\ As discussed in the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, DOE's direct final rule
analysis indicates that an increase in tub capacity is not required
to achieve EL 3; however, manufacturers are currently implementing
this design option in EL 3 models currently available on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For front-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path
for TSL 3 (which represents EL 3 for this product class) incorporates
the use of the most efficient direct drive motor available, spin speeds
that are faster than the baseline level but not as fast as at TSL 4,
and lower water volume (but with no change to total hot water heating).
Among these design options, the direct drive motor and faster spin
speeds reduce energy use only; whereas the lower water volume reduces
water use only.
TSL 3 would save an estimated 1.34 quads of energy and 2.33
trillion gallons of water, an amount DOE considers significant. Under
TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $5.96 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $14.68 billion using a discount rate of
3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 31.22 Mt of
CO<INF>2</INF>, 6.97 thousand tons of SO<INF>2</INF>, 65.47 thousand
tons of NO<INF>X</INF>, 0.05 tons of Hg, 294.14 thousand tons of
CH<INF>4</INF>, and 0.24 thousand tons of N<INF>2</INF>O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 3 is $1.89 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions at
TSL 3 is $1.58 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $3.53
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $9.43
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $20.10 billion. The estimated total
NPV is provided for additional information; however, DOE primarily
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a
proposed standard level is economically justified.
At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $116 for top-
loading standard-size, $8 for front-loading compact, $15 for front-
loading standard-size, and $280 for semi-automatic clothes washers. The
simple payback period is 5.7 years for top-loading standard-size, 9.5
years for front-loading compact, 1.6 years for front-loading standard-
size, and 0.5 years for semi-automatic clothes washers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 28 percent for top-loading
standard-size, 22 percent for front-loading compact, 20 percent for
front-loading standard-size, and zero percent for semi-automatic
clothes washers. For the top-loading standard-size product class, TSL 3
would increase the first cost by $160, in comparison to an installed
cost of $690 for baseline units. For the front-loading standard-size
product class, TSL 3 would increase the first cost by $78, compared to
an installed cost of $1,027 for baseline units. At TSL 3, the standard
for top-loading ultra-compact RCWs is at the baseline, resulting in no
LCC impact, no simple PBP, and no consumers experiencing a net LCC
cost. Overall, across all product classes, around 25 percent of
consumers would experience a net LCC cost at TSL 3. DOE estimates that
about 16 percent of low-income households would experience a net LCC
cost at TSL 3, and as a result of having generally smaller households
and lower annual usage, about 33 percent of senior-only households
would experience a net LCC cost at TSL 3. Additionally, as a result of
lower costs associated with well water and septic tanks in rural areas,
about 41 percent of well-water households would experience a net LCC
cost at TSL 3.
At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$654.1 million to a decrease of $473.3 million, which correspond to a
decrease of 38.3 percent and 27.7 percent, respectively. The loss in
INPV is largely driven by industry conversion costs as manufacturers
work to redesign their portfolios of model offerings and update
production facilities to comply with amended standards at this level.
Industry conversion costs could reach $724.6 million at this TSL.
For top-loading standard-size products, approximately 3 percent of
shipments meet TSL 3. Of the nine OEMs offering top-loading standard-
size products, two OEMs offer 20 basic models (representing
approximately 4 percent of all top-loading standard-size basic models)
that meet the efficiencies required by TSL 3. At this level, the
remaining seven manufacturers would likely implement largely similar
design options as at TSL 4, but to a lesser extent for the increase in
tub size and hardware changes associated with faster spin speeds (e.g.,
reinforced wash baskets, robust suspension and balancing systems, and
advanced sensors)--which are faster than the baseline level but not as
fast as TSL 4. Although top-loading standard-size RCW manufacturers
indicated that meeting TSL 3 efficiencies would require a less-
extensive redesign than meeting TSL 4 efficiencies, these

[[Page 18847]]

product changes would still require significant investment.
As discussed above, manufacturers expressed concerns and presented
data regarding potential impacts to product performance, including wash
temperatures, cleaning and rinsing performance, and fabric care. DOE's
analysis of third-party clothes washer performance ratings as well as
DOE's own performance testing on a representative sample of top-loading
standard-size and front-loading standard-size RCWs suggested that TSL 3
can be achieved with key performance attributes (e.g., wash
temperatures, stain removal, mechanical action, and cycle duration)
that are largely comparable to the performance of lower-efficiency
units available on the market today. However, manufacturers presented
additional data suggesting that other attributes of clothes washer
performance not specifically evaluated by DOE may be negatively
impacted at TSL 3 for particularly heavily soiled clothing loads, given
current design technologies and approaches. For these reasons, DOE
cannot be certain that the designs associated with TSL 3 efficiencies
would not negatively impact certain aspects of standard-size RCW
performance and consequently may jeopardize the energy and water
savings that would be achieved at these efficiency levels. As with TSL
4, DOE emphasizes that its findings in this regard are based on the
data available at this time and are predicated on the current state of
clothes washer technology. Additional data that could become available,
as well as future advances in washing technologies and design
strategies, could alleviate any such concerns or uncertainties
regarding product performance and could lead DOE to reach a different
conclusion in a future rulemaking.
Based upon the above considerations, the Secretary tentatively
concludes that at TSL 3 for RCWs, the benefits of energy and water
savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, and emission reductions
would be outweighed by the potential for negative consumer utility
impacts, which may jeopardize the energy and water savings that could
be achieved at TSL 3, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the
large potential reduction in INPV. DOE estimates the potential loss in
INPV to be as high as 38 percent. The potential losses in INPV are
primarily driven by large conversion costs associated with redesigning
top-loading standard-size RCWs that must be made ahead of the
compliance date. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded
that TSL 3 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 2, which corresponds to the TSL recommended
in the Joint Agreement (the ``Recommended TSL'') and which also
represents the ENERGY STAR v.8.1 level for the top-loading and front-
loading standard-size product classes, the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient
level for the front-loading compact, and a gap fill level for the semi-
automatic product classes.\21\ DOE's expected design path for top-
loading standard-size RCWs at the Recommended TSL (which represents EL
2 for this product class) incorporates a direct drive motor, stainless
steel basket and more robust suspension and balancing systems (as
methods for enabling faster spin speeds), and spray rinse. Models at
the Recommended TSL would also require faster spin speeds compared to
the baseline (although not as fast as at TSL 3), lower water volume
(but with no change to total hot water heating energy), and may include
an increase in tub size compared to the baseline (as a potential means
for reducing energy and water use on a per-pound of clothing
basis).\22\ Among these design options, use of a direct drive motor,
stainless steel basket and more robust suspension and balancing
systems, and faster spin speeds reduce energy use only; spray rinse
reduces water use only; and the lower water volume reduces water use
only. Any potential increase in tub size would reduce both energy and
water use together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ As discussed in the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, tables in section IV.C.2.b of
that direct final rule provide the ENERGY STAR v.8.1 and ENERGY STAR
Most Efficient equivalencies between the current metrics (IMEF and
IWF) and the new metrics (EER and WER) for the top-loading and
front-loading standard size product classes, respectively.
\22\ As discussed in the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, DOE's direct final rule
analysis indicates that an increase in tub capacity is not required
to achieve EL 2; however, manufacturers are currently implementing
this design option in EL 2 models currently available on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For front-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path
for the Recommended TSL (which represents EL 2 for this product class)
incorporates the use of a direct drive motor, spin speeds that are
faster than the baseline level but not as fast as at TSL 3, and lower
water volume (but with no change to total hot water heating energy).
Among these design options, the direct drive motor and faster spin
speeds reduce energy use only; whereas the lower water volume reduces
water use only.
The Recommended TSL would save an estimated 0.67 quads of energy
and 1.89 trillion gallons of water, an amount DOE considers
significant. Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer benefit
would be $3.28 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $8.71
billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at the Recommended TSL are
13.96 Mt of CO<INF>2</INF>, 3.65 thousand tons of SO<INF>2</INF>, 27.74
thousand tons of NO<INF>X</INF>, 0.02 tons of Hg, 124.57 thousand tons
of CH<INF>4</INF>, and 0.12 thousand tons of N<INF>2</INF>O. The
estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG
emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount
rate) at the Recommended TSL is $0.84 billion. The estimated monetary
value of the health benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions at the Recommended TSL is $0.73 billion using
a 7-percent discount rate and $1.62 billion using a 3-percent discount
rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended
TSL is $4.85 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits
and costs, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended TSL is $11.18
billion. The estimated total NPV is provided for additional
information; however, DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer
benefits when determining whether a proposed standard level is
economically justified.
At the Recommended TSL, the average LCC impact is a savings of $111
for top-loading standard-size, $9 for front-loading compact, $46 for
front-loading standard-size, and $284 for semi-automatic clothes
washers. The simple payback period is 6.2 years for top-loading
standard-size, 9.3 years for front-loading compact, 1.4 years for
front-loading standard-size, and 0.5 years for semi-automatic clothes
washers. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 27
percent for top-loading standard-size, 21 percent for front-loading
compact, 2 percent for front-loading standard-size, and zero percent
for semi-automatic clothes washers. For the top-loading standard-size
product class, The Recommended TSL would increase the first cost by
$146, in comparison to an installed cost of $687 for baseline units in
2028. For the front-loading standard-size product class, the
Recommended TSL would increase the first cost by $67, compared to an
installed cost of $1,021 for baseline units in 2028. At the Recommended
TSL, the standard for top-loading ultra-compact RCWs is at

[[Page 18848]]

the baseline, resulting in no LCC impact, no simple PBP, and no
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost. Overall, across all product
classes, around 20 percent of consumers would experience a net LCC cost
at the Recommended TSL. DOE estimates that about 12 percent of low-
income households would experience a net LCC cost at the Recommended
TSL, and as a result of smaller households and lower annual usage,
about 26 percent of senior-only households would experience a net LCC
cost at the Recommended TSL. Additionally, as a result of lower costs
associated with well water and septic tanks in rural areas, about 37
percent of well-water households would experience a net LCC cost at the
Recommended TSL.
At the Recommended TSL, the projected change in INPV ranges from a
decrease of $278.3 million to a decrease of $146.9 million, which
corresponds to decreases of 16.3 percent and 8.6 percent, respectively.
Industry conversion costs could reach $320.0 million at this TSL.
At this level, many existing top-loading standard-size products
would need to be redesigned to meet the Recommended TSL efficiencies;
however, there are a wide range of top-loading standard-size models
currently available on the market due to manufacturers' participation
in the ENERGY STAR program. Currently, approximately 49 percent of RCW
shipments meet the Recommended TSL efficiencies, including
approximately 31 percent of all top-loading standard-size shipments. Of
the nine OEMs with top-loading standard-size products, six OEMs offer
166 basic models (representing approximately 30 percent of all top-
loading standard-size basic models) that meet the Recommended TSL
efficiencies. These six OEMs that currently offer top-loading standard-
size RCW models that meet the Recommended TSL efficiencies collectively
account for over 95 percent of overall top-loading standard-size RCW
shipments. At this level, a substantial number of front-loading
standard-size products are available on the market due to
manufacturers' participation in the ENERGY STAR program. Currently,
approximately 92 percent of front-loading standard-size shipments meet
the Recommended TSL. Of the seven OEMs with front-loading standard-size
products, six OEMs offer 169 basic models (representing approximately
89 percent of all front-loading standard-size basic models) that meet
the Recommended TSL efficiencies.
For all TSLs considered in this proposed rule--except for the
Recommended TSL--DOE is bound by the 3-year lead time requirements in
EPCA when determining compliance dates (i.e., compliance with amended
standards required in 2027). For the Recommended TSL, DOE's analysis
utilized the March 1, 2028, compliance date specified in the Joint
Agreement as it was an integral part of the multi-product joint
recommendation. A 2028 compliance year provides manufacturers
additional flexibility to spread capital requirements, engineering
resources, and conversion activities over a longer period of time
depending on the individual needs of each manufacturer. Furthermore,
these delayed compliance dates provide additional lead time and
certainty for suppliers of components that improve efficiency.
At the Recommended TSL, DOE's data demonstrates no negative impact
on consumer utility for both top-loading and front-loading RCWs.
Manufacturers did not provide any specific data nor express any
specific concerns regarding clothes washer performance at the
Recommended TSL. In addition, in the second joint statement from the
same group of stakeholders that submitted the Joint Agreement states
that the DOE's test data and industry experience agrees that the
recommended standard level for clothes washer can maintain good
cleaning performance and do not preclude the ability to provide high
wash temperatures.\23\ Based on the information available, DOE
concludes that no lessening of product utility or performance would
occur at the Recommended TSL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ This document is available in the docket at:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0509">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0509</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that at a standard set
at the Recommended TSL for RCWs would be economically justified. At the
Recommended TSL, the average LCC savings for all product classes is
positive. An estimated 27 percent of top-loading standard-size users,
21 percent of front-loading compact, 2 percent of front-loading
standard-size, and zero percent of semi-automatic clothes washer
consumers experience a net cost. At the Recommended TSL, the positive
average LCC savings across all product classes and cost savings for
approximately two-thirds of RCWs consumers, outweigh the negative
average LLC savings of $20 for well-water households and the 37 percent
of these households that might experience a net cost. DOE notes that
its analysis ensures that the financial implications for households
with wells and/or septic systems are comprehensively incorporated into
the national LCC analysis. In addition, the FFC national energy savings
are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive using both
a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the benefits to
consumers vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers. At the Recommended
TSL, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the more
conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 11 times higher than
the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard levels
at the Recommended TSL are economically justified even without weighing
the estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When those
emissions reductions are included--representing $ 0.84 billion in
climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent
discount rate), and $ 1.62 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or
$ 0.73 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--
the rationale becomes stronger still.
As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under
EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative
analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of
energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically
justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 70892, 70908.
Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select the
amended energy conservation standards, DOE notes that as compared to
TSL 4 and TSL 3, the Recommended TSL has a lower maximum decrease in
INPV and lower manufacturer conversion costs.
Accordingly, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that the
Recommended TSL would offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that
is technologically feasible and economically justified and would result
in the significant conservation of energy.
Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to
adopt the energy conservation standards for RCWs at the Recommended
TSL.
While DOE considered each potential TSL under the criteria laid out
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the
Recommended TSL for RCWs proposed

[[Page 18849]]

in this NOPR is part of a multi-product Joint Agreement covering six
rulemakings (RCWs; consumer clothes dryers; consumer conventional
cooking products; dishwashers; refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers,
and freezers; and miscellaneous refrigeration products). The
signatories indicate that the Joint Agreement for the six rulemakings
should be considered as a joint statement of recommended standards, to
be adopted in its entirety. (Joint Agreement, No. 505 at p. 3) As
discussed in section V.B.2.e of the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, many RCW OEMs also
manufacture consumer clothes dryers; consumer conventional cooking
products; dishwashers; refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers; and miscellaneous refrigeration products. Therefore, there
are potential integrated benefits to the Joint Agreement. Rather than
requiring compliance with five amended standards in a single year
(2027),\24\ the negotiated multi-product Joint Agreement staggers the
compliance dates for the five amended standards over a 4-year period
(2027-2030). DOE understands that the compliance dates recommended in
the Joint Agreement would help reduce cumulative regulatory burden by
allowing greater flexibility in the allocation of resources to comply
with multiple concurrent amended standards and by aligning compliance
dates for products that are typically designed or sold as matched pairs
(i.e., clothes washers and clothes dryers). The Joint Agreement also
provides additional years of regulatory certainty for manufacturers and
their suppliers while still achieving the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ The analyses for residential clothes washers (88 FR 13520);
consumer clothes dryers (87 FR 51734); consumer conventional cooking
products (88 FR 6818); dishwashers (88 FR 32514); and refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (88 FR 12452) utilized a 2027
compliance year for analysis at the proposed rule stage.
Miscellaneous refrigeration products (88 FR 12452) utilized a 2029
compliance year for the NOPR analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed energy conservation standards for RCWs, which are
expressed in EER and WER, are shown in Table III.3.

Table III.3--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential
Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum energy Minimum water
Product class efficiency ratio efficiency ratio
(lb/kWh/cycle) (lb/gal/cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading Ultra-Compact (less 3.79 0.29
than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity).......
Top-Loading Standard-Size (1.6 4.27 0.57
ft\3\ or greater capacity).....
Front-Loading Compact (less than 5.02 0.71
3.0 ft\3\ capacity)............
Front-Loading Standard-Size (3.0 5.52 0.77
ft\3\ or greater capacity).....
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers.. 2.12 0.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022$) of the
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less
energy), minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the
annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits.
Table III.4 shows the annualized values for RCWs under the
Recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$. The results under the primary
estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards
proposed in this rule is $530.1 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $853.9 million in
reduced equipment operating costs, $46.9 million in climate benefits,
and $71.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit
would amount to $442.5 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $513.1 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are
$998.9 million in reduced operating costs, $46.9 million in climate
benefits, and $90.3 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $623.0 million per year.

Table III.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards (Recommended TSL) for Residential Clothes
Washers
[2028-2057]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2022$/year
--------------------------------------------------------
Low-net-benefits High-net-benefits
Primary estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 998.9 957.2 1,020.9
Climate Benefits *..................................... 46.9 45.2 47.5
Health Benefits **..................................... 90.3 87.1 91.6
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]............................ 1,136.1 1,089.5 1,160.0
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............ 513.1 551.8 468.6
--------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits....................................... 623.0 537.7 691.4

[[Page 18850]]

Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])... (27)-(14) (27)-(14) (27)-(14)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 853.9 821.2 871.7
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate).................. 46.9 45.2 47.5
Health Benefits **..................................... 71.9 69.6 72.8
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]............................ 972.6 935.9 992.0
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............ 530.1 564.6 489.5
--------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits....................................... 442.5 371.3 502.5
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])... (27)-(14) (27)-(14) (27)-(14)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped in 2028-2057. These results
include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028-2057.
The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the
AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition,
incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the
Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to
derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net
Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of the
direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register). For presentational purposes of
this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown,
but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of
considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of
reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in
February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
[dagger][dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national
impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. DOE's national impact analysis includes all impacts (both
costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to
manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately
conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (MIA). See section IV.J of the direct final rule
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers'
pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA
produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the
present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital
expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry
weighted average cost of capital value of 9.3 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the
direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For RCWs,
the annualized change in INPV ranges from -$27 million to -$14 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely
impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of the direct final rule
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV
under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer
markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation
of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating
profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated
annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of the
direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register to provide additional context for
assessing the estimated impacts of this proposed rule to society, including potential changes in production
and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the
annualized change in INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized
net benefits, using the primary estimate, would range from $596 million to $609 million at 3-percent discount
rate and would range from $415 million to $428 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( ) indicate
negative values.

IV. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule unit the date provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
Comments relating to the direct final rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register, should be submitted as instructed
therein.
Submitting comments via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. The
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment.

[[Page 18851]]

Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and
last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and
any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>
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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. If
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).

B. Public Meeting

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

V. Severability

DOE proposes adding a new paragraph (ii) into section 10 CFR
430.32(g)(2) to provide that each energy and water conservation for
each RCW category is separate and severable from one another, and that
if any energy or water conservation standard is stayed or determined to
be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining
standards shall continue in effect. This severability clause is
intended to clearly express the Department's intent that should an
energy or water conservation standard for any product class be stayed
or invalidated, the other conservation standards shall continue in
effect. In the event a court were to stay or invalidate one or more
energy or water conservation standards for any product class as
finalized, the Department would want the remaining energy conservation
standards as finalized to remain in full force and legal effect.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

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

A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and
policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of
its rules on small entities are properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website
(<a href="http://www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel">www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel</a>). DOE has prepared the
following IRFA for the products that are the subject of this proposed
rulemaking.
For manufacturers of RCWs, the SBA has set a size threshold, which
defines those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the
purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size
standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to
the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size standards
are listed by North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'')
code and industry description and are available at <a href="http://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards">www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards</a>. Manufacturing of RCWs is
classified under NAICS 335220, ``Major Household Appliance
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer
for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products
(42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and (9)(A)), and directs DOE to conduct future
rulemakings to

[[Page 18852]]

determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and
(9)(B)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) This proposed rulemaking is in
accordance with DOE's obligations under EPCA.
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new
or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In light of the above and the requirements under 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)-(B), DOE is issuing this NOPR proposing energy
conservation standards for RCWs. These standard levels were submitted
jointly to DOE on September 25, 2023, by groups representing
manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and
a utility.\25\ This letter, titled ``Energy Efficiency Agreement of
2023'' (hereafter, the ``Joint Agreement'' \26\), recommends specific
energy conservation standards for RCWs that, in the commenters' view,
would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include AHAM,
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water
Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer
Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that manufacture the
affected products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko
Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home
Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home
Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE
Appliances, a Haier Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG;
LGEUSA; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.;
Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of
America; Perlick Corporation; Samsung Electronics America Inc.;
Sharp Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The
Middleby Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and
Whirlpool Corporation.
\26\ The Joint Agreement is available in the docket at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0505">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0505</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy
efficiency and established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include RCWs, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) EPCA prescribed energy
conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and
(9)(A)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine
whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (9)(B))
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. DOE conducted a market survey to
identify potential small manufacturers of RCWs. DOE began its
assessment by reviewing DOE's CCD,\27\ California Energy Commission's
Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System,\28\ ENERGY STAR's
Product Finder data set,\29\ individual company websites, and prior RCW
rulemakings to identify manufacturers of the covered product. DOE then
consulted publicly available data, such as manufacturer websites,
manufacturer specifications and product literature, import/export logs
(e.g., bills of lading from Panjiva \30\), and basic model numbers, to
identify original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') of RCWs. DOE
further relied on public data and subscription-based market research
tools (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet reports \31\) to determine company
location, headcount, and annual revenue. DOE also asked industry
representatives if they were aware of any small manufacturers during
manufacturer interviews. DOE screened out companies that do not offer
products covered by this proposed rulemaking, do not meet the SBA's
definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification
Database is available at <a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*">www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*</a> (last accessed June 29, 2023).
\28\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System is available at
<a href="http://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx">cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx</a> (last
accessed June 29, 2023).
\29\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGY STAR Product
Finder is available at <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/">www.energystar.gov/productfinder/</a> (last
accessed June 29, 2023).
\30\ S&P Global. Panjiva Market Intelligence is available at
<a href="http://panjiva.com/import-export/United-States">panjiva.com/import-export/United-States</a> (last accessed June 30,
2023).
\31\ D&B Hoovers subscription login is accessible at:
<a href="http://app.dnbhoovers.com/">app.dnbhoovers.com/</a> (last accessed November 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE identified 22 OEMs that sell covered RCWs in the United States.
Of the 22 OEMs identified, DOE determined that one company qualifies as
a small business and is not foreign-owned and operated.
In support of the March 2023 NOPR, DOE reached out to the small
business and invited participation in a voluntary interview. The small
business did not respond to DOE's interview request. DOE also requested
information about small businesses and potential impacts on small
businesses while interviewing large manufacturers.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
DOE is proposing TSL 2 in this NOPR. As stated in the previous
section, DOE identified one OEM that qualifies as a small business.
This small business manufactures one top-loading standard-size clothes
washer model for residential use. DOE identified this manufacturer
through the prior rulemaking analysis. 77 FR 32307. There is limited
public information about the energy and water efficiency of this small
business's RCW model. Furthermore, DOE's review of the product suggests
that the manufacturer would likely need to make significant investments
to redesign the product to meet this efficiency level. Therefore, DOE
is unable to conclude that the proposed rule would not have a
``significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small
businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by
TSL 2. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed standards, DOE
examined energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels.
While TSL 1 would reduce the impacts on small business manufacturers,
it would come at the expense of a reduction in energy and water
savings. TSL 1 achieves 13 percent lower energy savings and 38

[[Page 18853]]

percent lower water savings compared to the energy and water savings at
TSL 2.
Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 2
balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 2 with the potential
burdens placed on RCW manufacturers, including small business
manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does not propose one of the other TSLs
considered in the analysis, or the other policy alternatives examined
as part of the regulatory impact analysis and included in chapter 17 of
the direct final rule TSD.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally,
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

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

Signing Authority

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February
29, 2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.

Signed in Washington, DC, on March 1, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec. 430.32 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
(g) Clothes washers. (1) Clothes washers manufactured on or after
January 1, 2018, shall have an Integrated Modified Energy Factor no
less than, and an Integrated Water Factor no greater than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated
modified energy Integrated water
Product class factor (cu.ft./ factor (gal/cycle/
kWh/cycle) cu.ft.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Top-loading, Compact (less 1.15 12.0
than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity).........
(ii) Top-loading, Standard (1.6 1.57 6.5
ft\3\ or greater capacity).......
(iii) Front-loading, Compact (less 1.13 8.3
than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity).........
(iv) Front-loading, Standard (1.6 1.84 4.7
ft\3\ or greater capacity).......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Clothes washers manufactured on or after March 1, 2028:
(i) Shall have an Energy Efficiency Ratio and a Water Efficiency
Ratio no less than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy efficiency Water efficiency
Product class ratio (lb/kWh/ ratio (lb/gal/
cycle) cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Automatic Clothes Washers:
(1) Top-Loading Ultra-Compact 3.79 0.29
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity)....................
(2) Top-Loading Standard-Size 4.27 0.57
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity) \1\................
(3) Front-Loading Compact 5.02 0.71
(less than 3.0 ft\3\
capacity) \2\................
(4) Front-Loading Standard- 5.52 0.77
Size (3.0 ft\3\ or greater
capacity) \3\................
(B) Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers 2.12 0.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to top-
loading standard-size clothes washers with an average cycle time less
than 30 minutes.
\2\ The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to
front-loading clothes washers with a capacity greater than or equal to
1.6 ft\3\ and less than 3.0 ft\3\ with an average cycle time of less
than 45 minutes.
\3\ The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to
front-loading standard-size clothes washers with an average cycle time
less than 45 minutes.

[[Page 18854]]

(ii) The provisions of this paragraph (g)(2) are separate and
severable from one another. Should a court of competent jurisdiction
hold any provision(s) of this section to be stayed or invalid, such
action shall not affect any other provisions of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-04737 Filed 3-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on March 15, 2024.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.