[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 52 (Friday, March 15, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18836-18854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04737]


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

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

[[Page 18836]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

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


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Residential Clothes Washers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: See section IV of this document, ``Public Participation,'' 
for details. If DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere 
in this issue of the Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting 
to allow for additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish 
notice of any meeting in the Federal Register.
    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number 
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by 
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014, by any of the following methods:
    (1) Email: [email protected]. Include the 
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014 in the subject line of the message.
    (2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    (3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 1000 
Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-
1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is 
not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section IV of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section IV of this document for information on how to submit comments 
through www.regulations.gov.
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites 
input from market participants and other interested persons with views 
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested 
persons may contact the Antitrust Division at 
[email protected] on or before the date specified in the DATES 
section. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of your email the 
title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-5649. Email: [email protected].
    Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 586-2588. Email: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

[[Page 18837]]

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

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

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

[[Page 18838]]

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

[[Page 18839]]

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

[[Page 18840]]

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

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

B. Background

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

[[Page 18841]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18842]]

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

    \11\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0509.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    \13\ The Joint Agreement is available in the docket at 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0505.

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

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

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

III. Proposed Standards

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

[[Page 18843]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18844]]

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


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

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

[[Page 18845]]

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

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

    For front-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path 
for TSL 4 (which represents EL 4 for this product class) incorporates 
the use of the most efficient available direct drive motor, the 
implementation of advanced sensors, the fastest achievable spin speeds, 
and lower cold water volume (but with no change to total hot water 
use). Among these design options, the direct drive motor, more advanced 
sensors, and faster spin speeds reduce energy use only; whereas the 
lower cold water volume reduces water use only.
    TSL 4 would save an estimated 2.12 quads of energy and 2.73 
trillion gallons of water, an amount DOE considers significant. Under 
TSL 4, the net present value (``NPV'') of consumer benefit would be 
$8.76 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $21.12 billion 
using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 55.77 million 
metric tons (``Mt'') of carbon dioxide (``CO2''), 10.33 
thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (``SO2''), 123.66 thousand 
tons of nitrogen oxides (``NOX''), 0.07 tons of mercury 
(``Hg''), 554.46 thousand tons of methane (``CH4''), and 
0.38 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (``N2O''). The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average social cost of GHG (``SC-GHG'') at a 3-
percent discount rate) at TSL 4 is $3.38 billion. The estimated 
monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO2 and 
NOX emissions at TSL 4 is $2.65 billion using a 7-percent 
discount rate and $6.10 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $14.79 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $30.59 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information; however, DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 4, the average life-cycle costs (``LCC'') impact is a 
savings of $133 for top-loading standard-size, $38 for front-loading 
compact, $49 for front-loading standard-size, and $188 for semi-
automatic clothes washers. The simple payback period is 5.4 years for 
top-loading standard-size, 8.0 years for front-loading compact, 1.7 
years for front-loading standard-size, and 0.6 years for semi-automatic 
clothes washers. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost 
is 26 percent for top-loading standard-size, 35 percent for front-
loading compact, 16 percent for front-loading standard-size, and zero 
percent for semi-automatic clothes washers. For the top-loading 
standard-size product class, which represents 71 percent of the market, 
TSL 4 would increase the first cost by $166, in comparison to an 
installed cost of $690 for baseline units. For the front-loading 
standard-size product class, which represents 25 percent of the market, 
TSL 4 would increase the first cost by $93, compared to an installed 
cost of $1,027 for baseline units. At TSL 4, the standard for top-
loading ultra-compact RCWs is at the baseline, resulting in no LCC 
impact, no simple PBP, and no consumers experiencing a net LCC cost. 
Additionally, as a result of lower costs associated with well water and 
septic tanks in rural areas, about 40 percent of well-water households 
would experience a net LCC cost at TSL 4.
    At TSL 4, the projected change in industry net present value 
(``INPV'') ranges from a decrease of $1,172.0 million to a decrease of 
$969.6 million, which correspond to a decrease of 68.6 percent and 56.8 
percent, respectively. The loss in INPV is largely driven by industry 
conversion costs as manufacturers work to redesign their portfolios of 
model offerings and re-tool entire factories to comply with amended 
standards at this level. Industry conversion costs could reach $1,321.2 
million at this TSL.
    Conversion costs at max-tech are significant, as nearly all 
existing RCW models would need to be redesigned to meet the required 
efficiencies. Currently, approximately 4 percent of RCW annual 
shipments meet the max-tech levels. For top-loading standard-size RCWs, 
which DOE projects will account for 71 percent of annual shipments in 
2027, less than 1 percent of current shipments meet this level. Of the 
nine original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') offering top-loading 
standard-size products, one OEM offers five basic models (representing 
approximately 1 percent of all top-loading standard-size basic models) 
that meet the efficiencies required by TSL 4. The remaining eight OEMs 
would need to overhaul their existing platforms and make significant 
updates to their production facilities. Those manufacturers may need to 
incorporate increased tub capacities, wash plate designs, direct drive 
motors, reinforced wash baskets, robust suspension and balancing 
systems, and advanced sensors. These product changes require 
significant investment. In interviews, several manufacturers expressed 
concerns about their ability to meet existing market demand given the 
required scale of investment, redesign effort, and 3-year compliance 
timeline.
    At TSL 3 and higher, manufacturers expressed concerns and presented 
data regarding potential impacts to product performance, including wash 
temperatures, cleaning and rinsing performance, and fabric care. At TSL 
4, such concerns and uncertainties would be further exacerbated. 
Consumers that experience any such negative impacts on product 
performance could potentially alter their usage patterns, for example 
by using more energy-intensive settings more frequently (e.g., Extra-
Hot temperature setting); using more water-intensive cycle options 
(e.g., Deep Fill option; extra rinse cycles); using non-regulated 
cycles (e.g., Heavy Duty cycle); or re-washing clothing that has not 
been cleaned sufficiently. Such changes to consumer usage patterns may 
counteract the energy and water savings that DOE has estimated would be 
achieved at TSL 4. For these reasons, DOE cannot be certain that the 
designs associated with TSL 4 efficiencies would not negatively impact 
certain aspects of standard-size RCW performance and consequently may 
jeopardize the energy and water savings that would be achieved at these 
efficiency levels. DOE emphasizes that its findings in this regard are 
based on the data available at this time and are predicated on the 
current state of clothes washer technology. Additional data that could 
become available, as well as future advances in washing technologies 
and design strategies, could alleviate any such concerns or 
uncertainties regarding product performance and could lead DOE to reach 
a different conclusion in a future rulemaking.
    Based upon the above considerations, the Secretary tentatively 
concludes that at TSL 4 for RCWs, the benefits of energy and water 
savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, and emission reductions 
would be outweighed by the potential for negative consumer utility 
impacts, which may jeopardize the energy and water savings that would 
be achieved at TSL 4, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the 
large

[[Page 18846]]

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

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

    For front-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path 
for TSL 3 (which represents EL 3 for this product class) incorporates 
the use of the most efficient direct drive motor available, spin speeds 
that are faster than the baseline level but not as fast as at TSL 4, 
and lower water volume (but with no change to total hot water heating). 
Among these design options, the direct drive motor and faster spin 
speeds reduce energy use only; whereas the lower water volume reduces 
water use only.
    TSL 3 would save an estimated 1.34 quads of energy and 2.33 
trillion gallons of water, an amount DOE considers significant. Under 
TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $5.96 billion using a 
discount rate of 7 percent, and $14.68 billion using a discount rate of 
3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 31.22 Mt of 
CO2, 6.97 thousand tons of SO2, 65.47 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.05 tons of Hg, 294.14 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.24 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 3 is $1.89 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 3 is $1.58 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $3.53 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $9.43 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $20.10 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information; however, DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $116 for top-
loading standard-size, $8 for front-loading compact, $15 for front-
loading standard-size, and $280 for semi-automatic clothes washers. The 
simple payback period is 5.7 years for top-loading standard-size, 9.5 
years for front-loading compact, 1.6 years for front-loading standard-
size, and 0.5 years for semi-automatic clothes washers. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 28 percent for top-loading 
standard-size, 22 percent for front-loading compact, 20 percent for 
front-loading standard-size, and zero percent for semi-automatic 
clothes washers. For the top-loading standard-size product class, TSL 3 
would increase the first cost by $160, in comparison to an installed 
cost of $690 for baseline units. For the front-loading standard-size 
product class, TSL 3 would increase the first cost by $78, compared to 
an installed cost of $1,027 for baseline units. At TSL 3, the standard 
for top-loading ultra-compact RCWs is at the baseline, resulting in no 
LCC impact, no simple PBP, and no consumers experiencing a net LCC 
cost. Overall, across all product classes, around 25 percent of 
consumers would experience a net LCC cost at TSL 3. DOE estimates that 
about 16 percent of low-income households would experience a net LCC 
cost at TSL 3, and as a result of having generally smaller households 
and lower annual usage, about 33 percent of senior-only households 
would experience a net LCC cost at TSL 3. Additionally, as a result of 
lower costs associated with well water and septic tanks in rural areas, 
about 41 percent of well-water households would experience a net LCC 
cost at TSL 3.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$654.1 million to a decrease of $473.3 million, which correspond to a 
decrease of 38.3 percent and 27.7 percent, respectively. The loss in 
INPV is largely driven by industry conversion costs as manufacturers 
work to redesign their portfolios of model offerings and update 
production facilities to comply with amended standards at this level. 
Industry conversion costs could reach $724.6 million at this TSL.
    For top-loading standard-size products, approximately 3 percent of 
shipments meet TSL 3. Of the nine OEMs offering top-loading standard-
size products, two OEMs offer 20 basic models (representing 
approximately 4 percent of all top-loading standard-size basic models) 
that meet the efficiencies required by TSL 3. At this level, the 
remaining seven manufacturers would likely implement largely similar 
design options as at TSL 4, but to a lesser extent for the increase in 
tub size and hardware changes associated with faster spin speeds (e.g., 
reinforced wash baskets, robust suspension and balancing systems, and 
advanced sensors)--which are faster than the baseline level but not as 
fast as TSL 4. Although top-loading standard-size RCW manufacturers 
indicated that meeting TSL 3 efficiencies would require a less-
extensive redesign than meeting TSL 4 efficiencies, these

[[Page 18847]]

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

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

    For front-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path 
for the Recommended TSL (which represents EL 2 for this product class) 
incorporates the use of a direct drive motor, spin speeds that are 
faster than the baseline level but not as fast as at TSL 3, and lower 
water volume (but with no change to total hot water heating energy). 
Among these design options, the direct drive motor and faster spin 
speeds reduce energy use only; whereas the lower water volume reduces 
water use only.
    The Recommended TSL would save an estimated 0.67 quads of energy 
and 1.89 trillion gallons of water, an amount DOE considers 
significant. Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer benefit 
would be $3.28 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $8.71 
billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at the Recommended TSL are 
13.96 Mt of CO2, 3.65 thousand tons of SO2, 27.74 
thousand tons of NOX, 0.02 tons of Hg, 124.57 thousand tons 
of CH4, and 0.12 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG 
emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount 
rate) at the Recommended TSL is $0.84 billion. The estimated monetary 
value of the health benefits from reduced SO2 and 
NOX emissions at the Recommended TSL is $0.73 billion using 
a 7-percent discount rate and $1.62 billion using a 3-percent discount 
rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended 
TSL is $4.85 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 
and costs, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended TSL is $11.18 
billion. The estimated total NPV is provided for additional 
information; however, DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer 
benefits when determining whether a proposed standard level is 
economically justified.
    At the Recommended TSL, the average LCC impact is a savings of $111 
for top-loading standard-size, $9 for front-loading compact, $46 for 
front-loading standard-size, and $284 for semi-automatic clothes 
washers. The simple payback period is 6.2 years for top-loading 
standard-size, 9.3 years for front-loading compact, 1.4 years for 
front-loading standard-size, and 0.5 years for semi-automatic clothes 
washers. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 27 
percent for top-loading standard-size, 21 percent for front-loading 
compact, 2 percent for front-loading standard-size, and zero percent 
for semi-automatic clothes washers. For the top-loading standard-size 
product class, The Recommended TSL would increase the first cost by 
$146, in comparison to an installed cost of $687 for baseline units in 
2028. For the front-loading standard-size product class, the 
Recommended TSL would increase the first cost by $67, compared to an 
installed cost of $1,021 for baseline units in 2028. At the Recommended 
TSL, the standard for top-loading ultra-compact RCWs is at

[[Page 18848]]

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

    \23\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0509.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 18849]]

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

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

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

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

B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less 
energy), minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the 
annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits.
    Table III.4 shows the annualized values for RCWs under the 
Recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$. The results under the primary 
estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards 
proposed in this rule is $530.1 million per year in increased equipment 
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $853.9 million in 
reduced equipment operating costs, $46.9 million in climate benefits, 
and $71.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit 
would amount to $442.5 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $513.1 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are 
$998.9 million in reduced operating costs, $46.9 million in climate 
benefits, and $90.3 million in health benefits. In this case, the net 
benefit would amount to $623.0 million per year.

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

[[Page 18850]]

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

IV. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

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

[[Page 18851]]

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

B. Public Meeting

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

V. Severability

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

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

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

A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

[[Page 18852]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18853]]

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

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

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

Signing Authority

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

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

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

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 18854]]

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