[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31096-31114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08211]



[[Page 31096]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039]
RIN 1904-AF60


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Dishwashers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

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

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
NOPR no later than August 12, 2024. Comments regarding the likely 
competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the 
Department of Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or 
before May 24, 2024.

ADDRESSES: See section IV of this document, ``Public Participation,'' 
for details. If DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere 
in this issue of the Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting 
to allow for additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish 
notice of any meeting in the Federal Register.
    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number 
EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by 
docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039, by any of the following methods:
    (1) Email: [email protected]. Include the 
docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039 in the subject line of the message.
    (2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    (3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 1000 
Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-
1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is 
not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section VII of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments 
through www.regulations.gov.
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites 
input from market participants and other interested persons with views 
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested 
persons may contact the Antitrust Division at 
[email protected] on or before the date specified in the DATES 
section. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of your email the 
title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-5649. Email: [email protected].
    Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 306-7097. Email: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. Current Test Procedure
    3. The Joint Agreement
III. Proposed Standards
    A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Dishwasher 
Standards
    B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
IV. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Public Meeting
V. Severability
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency 
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include dishwashers, the subject of 
this proposed rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(6))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
must, among other things, be designed to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in

[[Page 31097]]

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

    \3\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0055.
    \4\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0056.
    \5\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed 
in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards 
for dishwashers. The standards are expressed in terms of maximum 
estimated annual energy use (``EAEU'') in kilowatt hours per year 
(``kWh/yr''), and maximum per cycle water consumption in gallons per 
cycle (``gal/cycle''), as determined in accordance with DOE's 
dishwashers test procedure codified at title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix C2 (``appendix 
C2'').
    Table I.1 presents the proposed amended standards for dishwashers. 
The proposed standards are the same as those recommended by the Joint 
Agreement. These standards would apply to all products listed in Table 
I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting 
on [Date 3 years after date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register], as recommended in the Joint Agreement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.056

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include dishwashers, 
the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(6)) EPCA prescribed 
energy conservation design standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 
6295(g)(1) and (10)(A)), and directed DOE to conduct future rulemakings 
to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) 
and (10)(B)). EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after 
the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE 
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the 
product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed 
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
    In establishing energy conservation standards with both energy and 
water use performance standards for dishwashers manufactured after 
January 1, 2010, Congress directed DOE to ``determine[e] whether to 
amend'' those standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B)) Congress's 
directive, in section 6295(g)(10)(B), to consider whether ``to amend 
the standards in effect for dishwashers'' refers to ``the standards'' 
established in the immediately preceding section, 6295(g)(10)(A). 
There, Congress established energy conservation standards with both 
energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers. Indeed, the 
energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers (both 
standard and compact size) are contained within a single paragraph. See 
id. Everything in section 6295(g) suggests that Congress intended both 
of those twin standards to be evaluated when it came time, ``[n]ot 
later than January 1, 2015,'' to consider amending them. (Id. 
6295(g)(10)(B)(i)) Accordingly, DOE understands its authority, under 
section 6295(g)(10)(B), to include consideration of amended energy and 
water use performance standards for dishwashers.
    DOE similarly understands its authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m) to 
amend ``standards'' for covered products to include amending both the 
energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers. Neither 
section 6295(g)(10)(B) nor section 6295(m) limit their application to 
``energy use standards.'' Rather, they direct DOE to consider amending 
``the standards,'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B), or simply ``standards,'' 
id. 6295(m)(1)(B),

[[Page 31098]]

which may include both energy use standards and water use standards.
    Finally, DOE is proposing these standards in this companion NOPR to 
a direct final rule pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). That section also 
extends broadly to any ``energy or water conservation standard'' 
without qualification. Thus, pursuant to section 6295(p)(4), DOE may, 
so long as other relevant conditions are satisfied, promulgate a direct 
final rule that includes water use performance standards for a covered 
product like dishwashers, where Congress has already established energy 
and water use performance standards.
    DOE is aware that the definition of ``energy conservation 
standard,'' in section 6291(6), expressly references water use only for 
four products specifically named: showerheads, faucets, water closets, 
and urinals. See id. However, DOE does not read the language in 6291(6) 
as fully delineating the scope of DOE's authority under EPCA. Rather, 
as is required of agencies in applying a statute, individual 
provisions, including section 6291(6) of EPCA, must be read in the 
context of the statute as a whole.
    The energy conservation program was initially limited to addressing 
the energy use, meaning electricity and fossil fuels, of 13 covered 
products (See sections 321 and 322 of the Energy and Policy 
Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat 871 (December 22, 1975)). 
Since its inception, Congress has expanded the scope of the energy 
conservation program several times, including by adding covered 
products, prescribing energy conservation standards for various 
products, and by addressing water use for certain covered products. For 
example, in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress amended the list of 
covered products in 42 U.S.C. 6292 to include showerheads, faucets, 
water closets and urinals and expanded DOE's authority to regulate 
water use for these products. (See Sec. 123, Energy Policy Act of 1992, 
Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat 2776 (Oct. 24, 1992)). When it did so, 
Congress also made corresponding changes to the definition of 
``consumer product'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)), the definition of ``energy 
conservation standard'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)), the section governing the 
promulgation of test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), the criteria for 
prescribing new or amended energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)), and elsewhere in EPCA.
    Later, Congress further expanded the scope of the energy 
conservation program several times. For instance, Congress added 
products and energy conservation standards directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295, 
the section of EPCA that contains statutorily prescribed standards as 
well as DOE's standard-setting authorities. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(a) 
(stating that the ``purposes of this section are to--(1) provide 
Federal energy conservation standards applicable to covered products; 
and (2) authorize the Secretary to prescribe amended or new energy 
conservation standards for each type (or class) of covered 
product.'')). When Congress added these new standards and standard-
setting authorities to 42 U.S.C. 6295 after the Energy Policy Act of 
1992, it often did so without making any conforming changes to sections 
6291 or 6292. For example, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress 
prescribed standards by statute, or gave DOE the authority to set 
standards for, battery chargers, external power supplies, ceiling fans, 
ceiling fan light kits, beverage vending machines, illuminated exit 
signs, torchieres, low voltage dry-type distribution transformers, 
traffic signal modules and pedestrian modules, certain lamps, 
dehumidifiers, and commercial prerinse spray valves (``CPSVs'') in 42 
U.S.C. 6295 without updating the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C. 
6292. (See Sec. 135, Energy Policy Act of 2005, 119 Stat 594 (Aug. 8, 
2005))
    Congress also expanded the scope of the energy conservation program 
by directly adding water use performance standards for certain products 
to 42 U.S.C. 6295. For example, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 
Congress added a water use performance standard (but no energy use 
performance standard) for commercial prerinse spray valves (``CPSVs'') 
and did so without updating the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C. 
6292 to include CPSVs and without adding CPSVs to the list of 
enumerated products with water use performance standards in the 
``energy conservation standard'' definition in 42 U.S.C. 6291(6). In 
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), 
Congress amended 42 U.S.C. 6295 by prescribing energy conservation 
standards for residential clothes washers and dishwashers that included 
both energy and water use performance standards. (See Sec. 301, EISA 
2007, Pub. L. 110-140, 121 Stat 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007)). Again, when it 
did so, Congress did not add these products to the list of enumerated 
products with water use performance standards in the definition of 
``energy conservation standard'' in 42 U.S.C. 6291(6).
    In considering how to treat these products and standards that 
Congress has directly added to 42 U.S.C. 6295 without making conforming 
changes to the rest of the statute, including the list of covered 
products in 42 U.S.C. 6292, and the water-use products in the 
definition of an ``energy conservation standard,'' DOE construes the 
statute as a whole. When Congress added products and standards directly 
to 42 U.S.C. 6295, it must have meant those products to be covered 
products and those standards to be energy conservation standards, given 
that the purpose of 42 U.S.C. 6295 is to provide ``energy conservation 
standards applicable to covered products'' and to ``authorize the 
Secretary to prescribe amended or new energy conservation standards for 
each type (or class) of covered product.'' Elsewhere in EPCA, the 
statute's references to covered products and energy conservation 
standards can only be read coherently as including the covered products 
and energy conservation standards Congress added directly to section 
6295, even if Congress did not make conforming edits to 6291 or 6292. 
For example, manufacturers are prohibited from ``distribut[ing] in 
commerce any new covered product which is not in conformity with an 
applicable energy conservation standard.'' (42 U.S.C. 6302(a)(5) 
(emphasis added)) It would defeat congressional intent to allow a 
manufacturer to distribute a product, e.g., a CPSV or ceiling fan, that 
violates an applicable energy conservation standard that Congress 
prescribed simply because Congress added the product directly to 42 
U.S.C. 6295 without also updating the list of covered products in 42 
U.S.C. 6292(a). In addition, preemption in EPCA is based on ``the 
effective date of an energy conservation standard established in or 
prescribed under section 6295 of this title for any covered product.'' 
(42 U.S.C. 6297(c) (emphasis added)) Nothing in EPCA suggests that 
standards Congress adopted in 6295 lack preemptive effect, merely 
because Congress did not make conforming amendments to 6291, 6292, or 
6293.
    It would similarly defeat congressional intent for a manufacturer 
to be permitted to distribute a covered product, e.g., a clothes washer 
or dishwasher, that violates a water use performance standard because 
Congress added the standard to 42 U.S.C. 6295 without also updating the 
definition of energy conservation standard in 42 U.S.C. 6291(6). By 
prescribing directly, in 6295(g)(10), energy conservation standards for 
dishwashers that include both energy and water use performance 
standards, Congress intended that energy conservation standards for

[[Page 31099]]

dishwashers include both energy use and water use.
    DOE recognizes that some might argue that Congress's specific 
reference in section 6291(6) to water standards for showerheads, 
faucets, water closets, and urinals could ``create a negative 
implication'' that energy conservation standards for other covered 
products may not include water use standards. See Marx v. Gen. Revenue 
Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 381 (2013). ``The force of any negative 
implication, however, depends on context.'' Id.; see also NLRB v. SW 
Gen., Inc., 580 U.S. 288, 302 (2017) (``The expressio unius canon 
applies only when circumstances support a sensible inference that the 
term left out must have been meant to be excluded.'' (alterations and 
quotation marks omitted)). In this context, the textual and structural 
cues discussed above show that Congress did not intend to exclude from 
the definition of energy conservation standard the water use 
performance standards that it specifically prescribed, and directed DOE 
to amend, in section 6295. To conclude otherwise would negate the plain 
text of 6295(g)(10). Furthermore, to the extent the definition of 
energy conservation standards in section 6291(6), which was last 
amended in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, could be read as in conflict 
with the energy and water use performance standards prescribed by 
Congress in EISA 2007, any such conflict should be resolved in favor of 
the more recently enacted statute. See United States v. Estate of 
Romani, 523 U.S. 517, 530-31 (1998) (``[A] specific policy embodied in 
a later federal state should control our construction of the priority 
statute, even though it had not been expressly amended.'') Accordingly, 
based on a complete reading of the state, DOE has determined that 
products and standards added directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295 are 
appropriately considered ``covered products'' and ``energy conservation 
standards'' for the purposes of applying the various provisions in 
EPCA.
    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal 
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include 
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), 
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal 
preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with 
the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 
U.S.C. 6297(d))
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE 
test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products 
comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under 
EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy 
use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 
6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine 
whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for dishwashers appear at 
title 10 of the CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C1 (``appendix C1'') 
and appendix C2.
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products, including dishwashers. Any new 
or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of 
Energy (``Secretary'') determines is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may 
not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by 
rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a proposed 
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the 
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving 
comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest 
extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption 
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that 
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying 
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three 
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the 
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under 
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing 
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy 
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe 
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in 
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4))
    EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy 
conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more 
subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a 
type (or class) of product must specify a different standard level for 
a type or class of products that has the same function or intended use 
if DOE determines that products within

[[Page 31100]]

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

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    In a direct final rule published on May 30, 2012 (``May 2012 Direct 
Final Rule''), DOE adopted the current energy conservation standards 
for dishwashers manufactured on or after May 30, 2013, consistent with 
the levels proposed in a letter submitted to DOE by groups representing 
manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer groups 
on July 30, 2010. 77 FR 31918, 31918-31919. This collective set of 
comments, titled ``Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards, 
Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related Matters for Specified 
Appliances'' (the ``July 2010 Joint Petition''),\6\ recommended 
specific energy conservation standards for dishwashers that, in the 
commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o). 77 FR 31918, 31919. The July 2010 Joint Petition proposed 
energy conservation standard levels for the standard-size and compact-
size dishwasher product classes based on the same capacity definitions 
that existed at that time. 77 FR 31918, 31926. These product classes 
are the same as the two current product classes for dishwashers. In the 
May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of 
multiple standard levels for dishwashers, including a standard level 
that corresponded to the recommended levels in the July 2010 Joint 
Petition, and determined that the levels recommended in the Joint 
Petition satisfied the EPCA requirements set forth under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o). 77 FR 31918, 31921, 31924.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a final determination published on December 13, 2016 (``December 
2016 Final Determination''), DOE concluded that amended energy 
conservation standards would not be economically justified at any level 
above the standards established in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, and 
therefore determined not to amend the standards. 81 FR 90072. The 
current energy and water conservation standards are set forth in DOE's 
regulations at 10 CFR part 430, Sec.  430.32(f), and are repeated in 
Table II.1. The currently applicable DOE test procedure for dishwashers 
appears at appendix C1.

[[Page 31101]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.057

    The regulatory text at 10 CFR 430.32(f) references the Association 
of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') standard AHAM DW-1-2020 \7\ 
to define the items in the test load that comprise the serving pieces 
and each place setting. The number of serving pieces and place settings 
help determine the capacity of the dishwasher, which is used to 
determine the applicable product class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of 
Dishwashers. AHAM DW-1-2020. Copyright 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Current Test Procedure
    On December 22, 2021, DOE published a test procedure NOPR 
(``December 2021 TP NOPR'') proposing amendments to the dishwasher test 
procedure at appendix C1 and a new test procedure at appendix C2. 86 FR 
72738. On January 18, 2023, DOE published a final rule amending the 
test procedure at appendix C1 and establishing a new test procedure at 
appendix C2 (``January 2023 TP Final Rule''). 88 FR 3234. The new 
appendix C2 specifies updated annual cycles and low-power mode hours, 
both of which are used to calculate the EAEU metric, and introduces a 
minimum cleaning performance threshold to validate the selected test 
cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3236.
    Subsequently, on July 27, 2023, DOE published a final rule adding 
clarifying instructions to the dishwasher test procedure at appendix C1 
regarding the allowable dosing options for each type of detergent; 
clarifying the existing detergent reporting requirements; and adding an 
enforcement provision for dishwashers to specify the detergent and 
dosing method that DOE would use for any enforcement testing of 
dishwasher models certified in accordance with the applicable 
dishwasher test procedure prior to July 17, 2023 (i.e., the date by 
which the January 2023 TP Final Rule became mandatory for product 
testing). 88 FR 48351.
    EPCA authorizes DOE to design test procedures that measure energy 
efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated annual operating cost 
of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or 
period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In general, a consumer-acceptable 
level of cleaning performance (i.e., a representative average use 
cycle) can be easier to achieve through the use of higher amounts of 
energy and water use during the dishwasher cycle. Conversely, 
maintaining acceptable cleaning performance can be more difficult as 
energy and water levels are reduced. Improving one aspect of dishwasher 
performance, such as reducing energy and/or water use as a result of 
energy conservation standards, may require a trade-off with one or more 
other aspects of performance, such as cleaning performance. 88 FR 3234, 
3250-3251. As discussed, the currently applicable energy conservation 
standards for dishwashers are based on appendix C1, which does not 
prescribe a method for testing dishwasher cleaning performance.
    The January 2023 TP Final Rule established a new test procedure at 
appendix C2, which includes provisions for a minimum cleaning index 
threshold of 70 to validate the selected test cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3261. 
The cleaning index is calculated based on the number and size of 
particles remaining on each item of the test load at the completion of 
a dishwasher cycle as specified in AHAM DW-2-2020.\8\ Items that do not 
have any soil particles are scored 0 (i.e., completely clean). No 
single item in the test load can exceed a score of 9. Individual scores 
for each item in the test load are combined as a weighted average to 
calculate the per cycle cleaning index. A cleaning index of 100 
indicates a completely clean test load. Id. at 3255. In the January 
2023 TP Final Rule, DOE specified that the cleaning index is calculated 
by only scoring soil particles on all items in the test load and that 
spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on glassware are not included in 
the cleaning index calculation.\9\ Id. at 3248. Manufacturers must use 
the results of testing under the new appendix C2 to determine 
compliance with the energy conservation standards proposed in this 
NOPR. Accordingly, DOE used appendix C2 as finalized in the January 
2023 TP Final Rule as the basis for the analysis in the direct final 
rule accompanying this NOPR. Id. at 3234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Household Electric Dishwashers. AHAM DW-2-2020. Copyright 
2020.
    \9\ In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed a cleaning index 
threshold of 65 calculated by scoring soil particles on all items as 
well as spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on glassware. 86 FR 
72738, 72756, 72758. In the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE noted 
that the specified cleaning index threshold of 70 is equivalent to 
the cleaning index threshold of 65 that was proposed in the December 
2021 TP NOPR. 88 FR 3234, 3261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE adopted a minimum cleaning performance threshold in appendix C2 
to determine if a dishwasher, when tested according to the DOE test 
procedure, ``completely washes a normally soiled load of dishes,'' so 
as to better represent consumer use of the product (i.e., to produce 
test results that are more representative of an average consumer use 
cycle). 88 FR 3234, 3253, 3255. Based on the data available, DOE 
determined that the cleaning performance threshold provides a 
reasonable proxy for when consumers are likely to be dissatisfied with 
performance on the normal cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3261. The cleaning index 
threshold established as part of the new appendix C2 ensures that 
energy and water savings are being realized for products that comply 
with the energy conservation standards for dishwashers proposed in this 
NOPR. 88 FR 3234, 3253, 3254.
    The standards proposed in this NOPR are expressed in terms of the 
EAEU and water consumption metrics as measured according to the newly 
established test procedure contained in appendix C2.
3. The Joint Agreement
    On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (i.e., the 
Joint Agreement) recommending standards for dishwashers, that was 
submitted by groups representing manufacturers, energy and 
environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.\10\ In

[[Page 31102]]

addition to the recommended standards for dishwashers, the Joint 
Agreement also included separate recommendations for several other 
covered products.\11\ And, while acknowledging that DOE may implement 
these recommendations in separate rulemakings, the Joint Agreement also 
stated that the recommendations were recommended as a complete package 
and each recommendation is contingent upon the other parts being 
implemented. DOE understands this to mean the Joint Agreement is 
contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes to adopt all the 
recommended standards in this agreement. That is distinguished from an 
agreement where issuance of an amended energy conservation standard for 
a covered product is contingent on issuance of amended energy 
conservation standards for the other covered products. If the Joint 
Agreement were so construed, it would conflict with the anti-
backsliding provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), because it would imply 
the possibility that, if DOE were unable to issue an amended standard 
for a certain product, it would have to withdraw a previously issued 
standard for one of the other products. The anti-backsliding provision, 
however, prevents DOE from withdrawing or amending an energy 
conservation standard to be less stringent. As a result, DOE will be 
proceeding with individual rulemakings that will evaluate each of the 
recommended standards separately under the applicable statutory 
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include the AHAM, 
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water 
Efficiency, ASAP, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, 
Earthjustice, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources 
Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific 
Gas and Electric Company. Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division 
that make the affected products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, 
LLC; Asko Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH 
Home Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux; 
Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier 
Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr 
USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances 
Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of America; Perlick 
Corporation; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Sharp Electronics 
Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby 
Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool 
Corporation.
    \11\ The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for 6 covered 
products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; 
clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; cooking products; and 
miscellaneous refrigeration products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A court decision issued after DOE received the Joint Agreement is 
also relevant to this rule. On March 17, 2022, various States filed a 
petition seeking review of a final rule revoking two final rules that 
established product classes for dishwashers with a cycle time for the 
normal cycle of 60 minutes or less, top-loading residential clothes 
washers and certain classes of consumer clothes dryers with a cycle 
time of less than 30 minutes, and front-loading residential clothes 
washers with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes (collectively, 
``short-cycle product classes''). The petitioners argued that the final 
rule revoking the short-cycle product classes violated EPCA and was 
arbitrary and capricious. On January 8, 2024, the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review and 
remanded the matter to DOE for further proceedings consistent with the 
Fifth Circuit's opinion. See Louisiana v. United States Department of 
Energy, 90 F.4th 461 (5th Cir. 2024).
    On February 14, 2024, following the Fifth Circuit's decision in 
Louisiana v. United States Department of Energy, DOE received a second 
joint statement from this same group of stakeholders in which the 
signatories reaffirmed the Joint Agreement, stating that the 
recommended standards represent the maximum levels of efficiency that 
are technologically feasible and economically justified.\12\ In the 
letter, the signatories clarified that ``short-cycle'' product classes 
for residential clothes washers, consumer clothes dryers, and 
dishwashers did not exist at the time that the signatories submitted 
their recommendations and it is their understanding that these classes 
also do not exist at the current time. Accordingly, the parties 
clarified that the Joint Agreement did not address short-cycle product 
classes. The signatories also stated that they did not anticipate that 
the recommended energy conservation standards in the Joint Agreement 
will negatively affect features or performance, including cycle time, 
for dishwashers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Agreement recommends amended standard levels for 
dishwashers as presented in Table II.2. (Joint Agreement, No. 55 at p. 
5) Details of the Joint Agreement recommendations for other products 
are provided in the Joint Agreement posted in the docket.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Joint Agreement is available in the docket at 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0055.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.058


[[Page 31103]]


    DOE has evaluated the Joint Agreement and believes that it meets 
the EPCA requirements for issuance of a direct final rule. As a result, 
DOE published a direct final rule amending energy conservation 
standards for dishwashers elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register. If DOE receives adverse comments that may provide a 
reasonable basis for withdrawal and withdraws the direct final rule, 
DOE will consider those comments and any other comments received in 
determining how to proceed with this proposed rule.
    For further background information on these proposed standards and 
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. That document and the 
accompanying technical support document (``TSD'') contain an in-depth 
discussion of the analyses conducted in evaluating the Joint Agreement, 
the methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses, and the 
analytical results.
    When the Joint Agreement was submitted, DOE was conducting a 
rulemaking to consider amending the standards for dishwashers. As part 
of that process, on May 19, 2023, DOE published a NOPR and announced a 
public meeting (``May 2023 NOPR'') seeking comment on its proposed 
amended standard to inform its decision consistent with its obligations 
under EPCA and the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''). 88 FR 32514. 
DOE held a public meeting on June 8, 2023, to discuss and receive 
comments on the NOPR and NOPR TSD. The NOPR TSD is available at: 
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0032.

III. Proposed Standards

    When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the 
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, 
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for dishwashers at 
each trial standard level (``TSL''), beginning with the maximum 
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') level, to determine whether 
that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not 
justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and 
undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency 
level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified 
and saves a significant amount of energy. DOE refers to this process as 
the ``walk-down'' analysis.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on 
employment.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers 
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of 
information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or 
aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant 
delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term, 
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings 
relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational 
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant 
tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between 
renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than 
perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, 
consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than 
expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy 
cost savings.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to 
lost revenue is included in the manufacturing impact analysis 
(``MIA''). Second, DOE accounts for energy and water savings 
attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the 
standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products 
purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy and water 
savings from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of 
shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 
of the direct final rule TSD \14\ available in the docket for this 
rulemaking. However, DOE's current analysis does not explicitly control 
for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, preferences across 
subcategories of products or specific features, or consumer price 
sensitivity variation according to household income.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at 
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039.
    \15\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883. 
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Dishwasher Standards

    Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for dishwashers. The national impacts are 
measured over the lifetime of dishwashers purchased in the 30-year 
period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended 
standards (2027-2056). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and 
value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') 
results. The consumer operating savings are inclusive of energy and 
water. DOE is presenting monetized benefits of greenhouse gas (``GHG'') 
emissions reductions in accordance with the applicable Executive Orders 
and DOE would reach the same conclusion presented in this notice in the 
absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases, including the Interim 
Estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group. The efficiency 
levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of the direct 
final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 31104]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.059


[[Page 31105]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.060

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    DOE first considered TSL 5, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels for both product classes. Specifically, for a 
standard-size dishwasher, this efficiency level includes design options 
considered at the lower efficiency levels (i.e., electronic controls, 
soil sensors, multiple spray arms, improved water filters and control 
strategies, separate drain pump, tub insulation, hydraulic system 
optimization, water diverter assembly, temperature sensor, 3-phase 
variable-speed motor, and flow meter) and condensation drying, 
including use of a stainless steel tub; flow-through heating 
implemented as an in-sump integrated heater; and control strategies. 
The majority of these design options reduce both energy and water use 
together.\16\ For a compact-size dishwasher, this efficiency level 
includes the design options considered at the lower efficiency levels 
(i.e., improved control strategies) and additionally includes the use 
of permanent magnet motor, improved filters, hydraulic system 
optimization, heater incorporated into base of tub, and reduced sump 
volume. Similar to standard-size dishwashers, the majority of these 
design options reduce both energy and water use together. TSL 5 would 
save an estimated 1.28 quads of energy and 0.92 trillion gallons of 
water, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of 
consumer benefit (inclusive of both energy and water) would be -$12.18 
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$20.12 billion using a 
discount rate of 3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As discussed previously in section IV.A.2 of the direct 
final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register, because the energy used to heat the water consumed by the 
dishwasher is included as part of the EAEU energy use metric, 
technologies that decrease water use also inherently decrease energy 
use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 would be 38.89 Mt of 
CO2, 5.73 thousand tons of SO2, 91.86 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.03 tons of Hg, 406.30 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.23 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 5 would be $2.20 billion. The estimated monetary value of the 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions at TSL 5 would be $1.52 billion using a 7-percent discount 
rate and $3.85 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 5 would be -
$8.46 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and 
costs, the estimated

[[Page 31106]]

total NPV at TSL 5 would be -$14.08 billion. The estimated total NPV is 
provided for additional information; however, DOE primarily relies upon 
the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a proposed 
standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 5, the average LCC impact would be a loss of $145 for 
standard-size dishwashers and a $4 savings for compact-size 
dishwashers. The simple payback period would be 15.9 years for 
standard-size dishwashers and 5.5 years for compact-size dishwashers. 
The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 97 
percent for standard-size dishwashers and 54 percent for compact-size 
dishwashers. Notably, for the standard-size product class, which as 
discussed represents 98 percent of the market, TSL 5 (which includes EL 
4 for this product class) would increase the first cost by $178. This 
associated increase in first cost at TSL 5 for standard-size 
dishwashers could impact the number of new shipments by approximately 
less than 2 percent annually due to consumers shifting to extending the 
lives of their existing dishwashers beyond their useful life, repairing 
instead of replacing, or handwashing their dishes. In the national 
impact analysis, DOE modeled a scenario where part of this 2-percent of 
consumers forgoing the purchase of a new dishwasher due to price 
increases would substitute to handwashing. This results in a small 
increase in energy and water use, which is then subtracted from the 
energy and water savings projected to result from the proposed amended 
standards at TSL5.
    For the low-income consumer group, the average LCC impact would be 
a loss of $29 for standard-size dishwashers and a savings of $62 for 
compact-size dishwashers. The simple payback period would be 6.6 years 
for standard-size dishwashers and 2.3 years for compact-size 
dishwashers. The fraction of low-income consumers experiencing a net 
LCC cost would be 46 percent for standard-size dishwashers and 26 
percent for compact-size dishwashers. For the senior-only households 
consumer group, the average LCC impact would be a loss of $159 for 
standard-size dishwashers and a loss of $14 for compact-size 
dishwashers. The simple payback period would be 19.8 years for 
standard-size dishwashers and 6.8 years for compact-size dishwashers. 
The fraction of senior-only consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would 
be 98 percent for standard-size dishwashers and 62 percent for compact-
size dishwashers. For the consumer sub-group of well-water households, 
the average LCC impact would be a loss of $162 for standard-size 
dishwashers and a loss of $19 for compact-size dishwashers. The simple 
payback period would be 21.4 years for standard-size dishwashers and 
6.9 years for compact-size dishwashers. The fraction of well-water 
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 98 percent for standard-
size dishwashers and 63 percent for compact-size dishwashers.
    At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$334.4 million to a decrease of $414.6 million, which corresponds to 
decreases of 54.5 percent and 43.7 percent, respectively. Industry 
conversion costs could reach $681.0 million at this TSL, as 
manufacturers work to redesign their portfolios of model offerings, 
transition their standard-size dishwasher platforms entirely to 
stainless steel tubs, and renovate manufacturing facilities to 
accommodate changes to the production line and manufacturing processes.
    DOE estimates that less than 1 percent of dishwasher shipments 
currently meet the max-tech levels. Standard-size dishwashers account 
for approximately 98 percent of annual shipments. Of the 19 standard-
size dishwasher original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs''), only one 
OEM, which accounts for approximately 2 percent of basic models in the 
CCD, currently offers products that meet the max-tech efficiencies that 
would be required. All manufacturers interviewed, which together 
account for approximately 90 percent of the industry shipments, 
expressed uncertainty as to whether they could reliably meet the 
standard-size dishwasher max-tech efficiencies and the cleaning 
performance threshold and noted meeting max-tech would require a 
platform redesign and significant investment in tooling, equipment, and 
production line modifications. Many manufacturers would need to 
increase production capacity of stainless steel tub designs. Some 
manufacturers noted that a max-tech standard could necessitate new tub 
architectures.
    For compact-size dishwashers, which account for the remaining 2 
percent of annual shipments, DOE estimates that 14 percent of shipments 
currently meet the required max-tech efficiencies. Of the five compact-
size dishwasher OEMs, two OEMs currently offer compact-size products 
that meet max-tech. At TSL 5, compact-size countertop dishwashers with 
four or more place settings and in-sink dishwashers with less than four 
place settings are not currently available in the market. Meeting TSL 5 
is technologically feasible for those products; however, DOE expects 
that it would take significant investment relative to the size of the 
compact-size dishwasher market to redesign products to meet the max-
tech efficiencies.
    Based on the above considerations, the Secretary tentatively 
concludes that at TSL 5 for dishwashers, the benefits of energy and 
water savings, emissions reductions, and the estimated monetary value 
of the health benefits and climate benefits from emissions reductions 
would be outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer benefits and the 
impacts on manufacturers, including the large potential reduction in 
INPV. At TSL 5, a majority of standard-size dishwasher consumers (97 
percent) would experience a net cost and the average LCC loss is $145 
for this product class. Additionally, at TSL 5, manufacturers would 
need to make significant upfront investments to redesign product 
platforms and update manufacturing facilities. Some manufacturers 
expressed concern that they would not be able to complete product and 
production line updates within the 3-year conversion period. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 5 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE next considered TSL 4, which represents the highest efficiency 
levels providing positive LCC savings. TSL 4 comprises the gap-fill 
efficiency level between the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 level and the ENERGY 
STAR V. 6.0 level (EL 2) for standard-size dishwashers and the max-tech 
efficiency level for compact-size dishwashers. Specifically, for a 
standard-size dishwasher, this efficiency level includes design options 
considered at the lower efficiency levels (i.e., electronic controls, 
soil sensors, multiple spray arms, improved water filters, separate 
drain pump, and tub insulation) and additionally includes the use of 
improved control strategies. For a compact-size dishwasher, this 
efficiency level includes the design options considered at the lower 
efficiency levels (i.e., improved control strategies) and additionally 
includes the use of a permanent magnet motor, improved filters, 
hydraulic system optimization, heater incorporated into base of tub, 
and reduced sump volume. The majority of these design options for both 
standard-size and compact-size dishwashers reduce both energy and water 
use together. TSL 4 would save an estimated 0.34 quads of energy and 
0.26 trillion gallons of water, an amount DOE considers significant. 
Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit (inclusive of energy and 
water) would be $1.23 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
$2.95 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.

[[Page 31107]]

    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 would be 10.33 Mt of 
CO2, 1.53 thousand tons of SO2, 24.37 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 107.80 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.06 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 4 would be $0.58 billion. The estimated monetary value of the 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions at TSL 4 would be $0.40 billion using a 7-percent discount 
rate and $1.02 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 would be 
$2.21 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and 
costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 would be $4.56 billion. The 
estimated total NPV is provided for additional information; however, 
DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining 
whether a proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 4, the average LCC impact would be a savings of $17 for 
standard-size dishwashers and $4 for compact-size dishwashers. The 
simple payback period would be 3.9 years for standard-size dishwashers 
and 5.5 years for compact-size dishwashers. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost would be 3 percent for standard-size 
dishwashers and 54 percent for compact-size dishwashers.
    For the low-income consumer group, the average LCC impact would be 
a savings of $21 for standard-size dishwashers and $62 for compact-size 
dishwashers. The simple payback period would be 1.6 years for standard-
size dishwashers and 2.3 years for compact-size dishwashers. The 
fraction of low-income consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 2 
percent for standard-size dishwashers and 26 percent for compact-size 
dishwashers. For the senior-only households consumer group, the average 
LCC impact would be a savings of $13 for standard-size dishwashers and 
a loss of $14 for compact-size dishwashers. The simple payback period 
would be 4.9 years for standard-size dishwashers and 6.8 years for 
compact-size dishwashers. The fraction of senior-only consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost would be 4 percent for standard-size 
dishwashers and 62 percent for compact-size dishwashers. For the 
consumer sub-group of well-water households, the average LCC impact 
would be a savings of $12 for standard-size dishwashers and a loss of 
$19 for compact-size dishwashers. The simple payback period would be 
5.5 years for standard-size dishwashers and 6.9 years for compact-size 
dishwashers. The fraction of well-water consumers experiencing a net 
LCC cost would be 4 percent for standard-size dishwashers and 63 
percent for compact-size dishwashers.
    At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$155.9 million to a decrease of $103.1 million, which corresponds to 
decreases of 21.2 percent and 14.0 percent, respectively. Industry 
conversion costs could reach $137.2 million at this TSL as some 
manufacturers of standard-size dishwashers would redesign products to 
enable improved controls and better design tolerances and manufacturers 
of certain compact-size dishwashers would redesign products to meet 
max-tech.
    DOE estimates that approximately 10 percent of dishwasher shipments 
currently meet the TSL 4 efficiencies, of which approximately 9 percent 
of standard-size dishwasher shipments and 14 percent of compact-size 
dishwasher shipments meet the required efficiencies. Compared to max-
tech, more manufacturers offer standard-size dishwashers that meet the 
required efficiencies. Furthermore, since the May 2023 NOPR, more 
manufacturers now offer standard-size dishwasher models that meet the 
TSL 4 efficiencies. DOE believes that the recent introduction of more 
high-efficiency standard-size dishwashers is largely in response to 
ENERGY STAR V. 7.0, which went into effect in July 2023. Of the 19 OEMs 
offering standard-size products, 16 OEMs offer products that meet the 
efficiency level that would be required. For compact-size dishwashers, 
TSL 4 represents the same efficiency level as for TSL 5. Just as with 
TSL 5, compact-size countertop dishwashers with four or more place 
settings and in-sink dishwashers with less than four place settings are 
not currently available in the market at TSL 4 levels. Meeting TSL 4 is 
technologically feasible for those products; however, DOE expects that 
it would take significant investment (nearly $11 million) relative to 
the size of the compact-size dishwasher market (no-new-standards case 
INPV of $15.4 million) for them to meet the max-tech efficiencies.
    Based upon the above considerations, the Secretary tentatively 
concludes that at TSL 4 for dishwashers, the benefits of energy and 
water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, 
and the estimated monetary value of the health benefits and climate 
benefits from emissions reductions would be outweighed by negative LCC 
savings for the senior-only households for the compact-size dishwasher 
product class and the high percentage of consumers with net costs for 
the compact-size dishwasher product class. Consequently, the Secretary 
has tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered the Recommended TSL (i.e., TSL 3), which 
comprises the gap-fill efficiency level between the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 
level and the ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 level (EL 2) for standard-size 
dishwashers and the ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 level (EL 1) for compact-size 
dishwashers. Specifically, for a standard-size dishwasher, this 
efficiency level includes design options considered at the lower 
efficiency levels (i.e., electronic controls, soil sensors, multiple 
spray arms, improved water filters, separate drain pump, and tub 
insulation) and additionally includes the use of improved control 
strategies. For a compact-size dishwasher, this efficiency level 
represents the use of improved controls. The majority of these design 
options for both standard-size and compact-size dishwashers reduce both 
energy and water use together. The Recommended TSL would save an 
estimated 0.31 quads of energy and 0.24 trillion gallons of water, an 
amount DOE considers significant. Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV of 
consumer benefit (inclusive of energy and water) would be $1.23 billion 
using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $2.90 billion using a discount 
rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at the Recommended TSL would be 
9.48 Mt of CO2, 1.41 thousand tons of SO2, 22.37 
thousand tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 98.97 thousand tons 
of CH4, and 0.06 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG 
emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount 
rate) at the Recommended TSL would be $0.54 billion. The estimated 
monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO2 and 
NOX emissions at the Recommended TSL would be $0.37 billion 
using a 7-percent discount rate and $0.94 billion using a 3-percent 
discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended 
TSL would be $2.13 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 
benefits and

[[Page 31108]]

costs, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended TSL would be $4.38 
billion. The estimated total NPV is provided for additional 
information; however, DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer 
benefits when determining whether a proposed standard level is 
economically justified.
    At the Recommended TSL, the average LCC impact would be a savings 
of $17 for standard-size dishwashers and $32 for compact-size 
dishwashers. The simple payback period would be 3.9 years for standard-
size dishwashers and 0.0 years for compact-size dishwashers. The 
fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 3 percent 
for standard-size dishwashers and 0 percent for compact-size 
dishwashers.
    For the low-income consumer group, the average LCC impact would be 
a savings of $21 for standard-size dishwashers and $39 for compact-size 
dishwashers. The simple payback period would be 1.6 years for standard-
size dishwashers and 0.0 years for compact-size dishwashers. The 
fraction of low-income consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 2 
percent for standard-size dishwashers and 0 percent for compact-size 
dishwashers. For the senior-only households consumer group, the average 
LCC impact would be a savings of $13 for standard-size dishwashers and 
$26 for compact-size dishwashers. The simple payback period would be 
4.9 years for standard-size dishwashers and 0.0 years for compact-size 
dishwashers. The fraction of senior-only consumers experiencing a net 
LCC cost would be 4 percent for standard-size dishwashers and 0 percent 
for compact-size dishwashers. For the consumer sub-group of well water 
households, the average LCC impact would be a savings of $12 for 
standard-size dishwashers and $23 for compact-size dishwashers. The 
simple payback period would be 5.5 years for standard-size dishwashers 
and 0.0 years for compact-size dishwashers. The fraction of well water 
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 4 percent for standard-
size dishwashers and 0 percent for compact-size dishwashers.
    At the Recommended TSL, the projected change in INPV ranges from a 
decrease of $148.8 million to a decrease of $96.7 million, which 
corresponds to decreases of 20.2 percent and 13.1 percent, 
respectively. Industry conversion costs could reach $126.9 million at 
this TSL as some manufacturers would redesign standard-size products to 
enable improved controls and better design tolerances.
    DOE estimates that approximately 11 percent of dishwasher shipments 
currently meet the Recommended TSL efficiencies, of which approximately 
9 percent of standard-size dishwasher shipments and 87 percent of 
compact-size dishwasher shipments meet the required efficiencies. At 
this level, the decrease in conversion costs compared to TSL 4 would be 
entirely due to the lower efficiency level required for compact-size 
dishwashers, as the efficiency level that would be required for 
standard-size dishwashers is the same as for TSL 4 (EL 2). All the 
compact-size dishwasher OEMs currently offer products that meet the 
Recommended TSL. At this level, DOE expects manufacturers of compact-
size dishwashers would implement improved controls, which would likely 
require minimal upfront investment.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that a standard set at 
the Recommended TSL for dishwashers would be economically justified. At 
this TSL, the shipments weighted-average LCC savings for both product 
classes would be $17. The shipments weighted-average share of consumers 
with a net LCC cost for both product classes would be 3 percent. For 
all consumer sub-groups, the LCC savings would be positive and the net 
share of consumers with a net LCC cost would be below 5 percent for 
both product classes. The FFC national energy and water savings would 
be significant and the NPV of consumer benefits would be $2.90 billion 
and $1.23 billion using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate 
respectively. Notably, the benefits to consumers would vastly outweigh 
the cost to manufacturers. At the Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer 
benefits, even measured at the more conservative discount rate of 7 
percent, is over eight times higher than the maximum estimated 
manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard levels at the Recommended TSL 
would be economically justified even without weighing the estimated 
monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions 
are included--representing $0.54 billion in climate benefits 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and 
$0.94 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $0.37 billion (using 
a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--the rationale becomes 
stronger still.
    The proposed standards would be applicable to the regulated cycle 
type (i.e., normal cycle); manufacturers could continue to provide 
currently available additional, non-regulated cycle types (e.g., quick 
cycles, pots and pans, heavy, delicates, etc.). Specifically, DOE 
expects quick cycles, many of which clean a load within 1 hour or less, 
and existing drying options would still be available on dishwasher 
models that currently offer such cycle types. DOE has no information 
suggesting that any aspect of this NOPR would limit the other cycle 
options, especially quick cycles. Additionally, in the January 2022 
Preliminary TSD, DOE provided data from its investigatory testing 
sample that determined cycle time is not substantively correlated with 
energy and water consumption of the normal cycle.\17\ Based on these 
results, DOE has tentatively determined that the NOPR would not have 
any substantive impact to normal cycle durations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See section 5.5.1 of the January 2022 Preliminary TSD. 
Available at www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/dw-tsd.pdf.

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

[[Page 31109]]

    The test procedure in appendix C2, which includes provisions for a 
minimum cleaning index threshold of 70 to validate the selected test 
cycle, will go into effect at such time as compliance would be required 
with any amended energy conservation standards. At the Recommended TSL, 
both standard-size and compact-size dishwasher models achieving the 
efficiencies, as measured by appendix C2, including the cleaning 
performance threshold, are readily available on the market.
    As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL 
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 
EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative 
analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of 
energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically 
justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 70892, 70908. 
Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select the 
proposed amended energy conservation standards, DOE considers amended 
standard levels for dishwashers by grouping the efficiency levels for 
each product class into TSLs and evaluates all analyzed efficiency 
levels in its LCC analysis and all efficiency levels with positive LCC 
savings for the NIA and MIA. For both standard-size and compact-size 
dishwashers, the proposed standard level represents the maximum energy 
savings that would not result in a large percentage of consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost. The efficiency levels at the proposed 
standard level would result in positive LCC savings for both product 
classes, significantly reduce the number of consumers experiencing a 
net cost, and reduce the decrease in INPV and conversion costs to the 
point where DOE has tentatively concluded they are economically 
justified, as discussed for the Recommended TSL in the preceding 
paragraphs.
    At the Recommended standard level for the standard-size product 
class, the average LCC savings would be $17, the percentage of 
consumers experiencing a net cost would be 3 percent (see Table V.3 of 
the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register), and the FFC energy savings would be 0.3 quads. At the 
Recommended standard level for compact-size product class, the average 
LCC savings would be $32 and there are no consumers that would 
experience a net cost. DOE tentatively concludes that there is economic 
justification to propose the standards for standard-size and compact-
size dishwashers independent of each other.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes the 
energy conservation standards for dishwashers at the Recommended TSL.
    While DOE considered each potential TSL under the criteria laid out 
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, DOE 
notes that the Recommended TSL for dishwashers proposed in this NOPR is 
part of a multi-product Joint Agreement covering six rulemakings 
(refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; miscellaneous 
refrigeration products; consumer conventional cooking products; 
residential clothes washers; consumer clothes dryers; and dishwashers). 
The signatories indicate that the Joint Agreement for the six 
rulemakings should be considered as a joint statement of recommended 
standards, to be adopted in its entirety. As discussed in section 
V.B.2.e of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of 
the Federal Register, many dishwasher OEMs also manufacture 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, miscellaneous 
refrigeration products, consumer conventional cooking products, 
residential clothes washers, and consumer clothes dryers. Rather than 
requiring compliance with five amended standards in a single year 
(2027),\18\ the negotiated multi-product Joint Agreement staggers the 
compliance dates for the five rulemakings over a 4-year period (2027-
2030). DOE understands that the compliance dates recommended in the 
Joint Agreement would help reduce cumulative regulatory burden. These 
compliance dates help relieve concern on the part of some manufacturers 
about their ability to allocate sufficient resources to comply with 
multiple concurrent amended standards, about the need to align 
compliance dates for products that are typically designed or sold as 
matched pairs, and about the ability of their suppliers to ramp up 
production of key components. The Joint Agreement also provides 
additional years of regulatory certainty for manufacturers and their 
suppliers while still achieving the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (88 
FR 12452); consumer conventional cooking products (88 FR 6818); 
residential clothes washers (88 FR 13520); consumer clothes dryers 
(87 FR 51734); and dishwashers (88 FR 32514) utilized a 2027 
compliance year for analysis at the proposed rule stage. 
Miscellaneous refrigeration products (88 FR 12452) utilized a 2029 
compliance year for the NOPR analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed energy conservation standards for dishwashers, which 
are expressed in EAEU and per-cycle water consumption, shall not exceed 
the values shown in Table III.3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.061


[[Page 31110]]



B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy 
and water, minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the 
annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits.
    Table III.4 shows the annualized values for dishwashers under the 
recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$. The results under the primary 
estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOX and SO2 reductions, and the 3-percent 
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the 
standards proposed in this rule would be $14.0 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits would be 
$127.2 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $29.0 million in 
GHG reductions, and $34.3 million in reduced NOX and 
SO2. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $176.4 
million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards would be $14.0 million per 
year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits 
would be $171.2 million in reduced operating costs, $29.0 million in 
climate benefits, and $50.8 million in health benefits. In this case, 
the net benefit would amount to $237.0 million per year.

[[Page 31111]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.062


[[Page 31112]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AP24.063

IV. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule until the date provided in the DATES section at the 
beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit 
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document. 
Comments relating to the direct final rule published elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register, should be submitted as instructed 
therein.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If 
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file

[[Page 31113]]

format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in 
English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should 
not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if 
possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

B. Public Meeting

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

V. Severability

    DOE proposes adding a new paragraph (3) into section 10 CFR 
430.32(f) to provide that each energy and water conservation for each 
dishwasher category is separate and severable from one another, and 
that if any energy or water conservation standard is stayed or 
determined to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the 
remaining standards shall continue in effect. This severability clause 
is intended to clearly express the Department's intent that should an 
energy or water conservation standard for any product class be stayed 
or invalidated, the other conservation standards shall continue in 
effect. In the event a court were to stay or invalidate one or more 
energy or water conservation standards for any product class as 
finalized, the Department would want the remaining energy conservation 
standards as finalized to remain in full force and legal effect.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

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

A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

    \19\ U.S. Small Business Administration. ``Table of Small 
Business Size Standards.'' (Effective March 17, 2023). Available at 
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards (last accessed 
Dec. 22, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers 
of the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE reviewed its Compliance 
Certification Database,\20\ California Energy Commission's Modernized 
Appliance Efficiency Database System,\21\ and ENERGY STAR's Product 
Finder dataset \22\ to create a list of companies that import or 
otherwise manufacture the products covered by this proposal. DOE then 
consulted publicly available data to identify OEMs selling dishwashers 
in the United States. DOE relied on public data and subscription-based 
market research tools (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet \23\) to determine 
company location, headcount, and annual revenue. DOE screened out 
companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not 
meet SBA's definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and 
operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification 
Database, available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (last accessed Aug. 23, 2023).
    \21\ California Energy Commission Modernized Appliance 
Efficiency Database System, available at 
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx 
(last accessed Aug. 23, 2023).
    \22\ ENERGY STAR Product Finder data set, available at 
www.energystar.gov/productfinder (last accessed Aug. 23, 2023).
    \23\ The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription login is 
accessible at app.dnbhoovers.com (last accessed Dec. 22, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE identified 21 dishwasher OEMs. Of the 21 OEMs identified, DOE 
determined no companies qualify as a small domestic business.
    Based on the initial finding that there are no dishwasher 
manufacturers who would qualify as small businesses, DOE certifies that 
the proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities and has not prepared 
an IRFA for this rulemaking. DOE will transmit the certification and 
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    The following standard appears in the proposed amendatory text of 
this document and was previously approved

[[Page 31114]]

for the locations in which it appears: AHAM DW-1-2020.

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

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

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 12, 
2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on April 12, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

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

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

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


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

* * * * *
    (f) Dishwashers. (1) All dishwashers manufactured on or after May 
30, 2013, shall meet the following standard--
    (i) Standard size dishwashers shall not exceed 307 kwh/year and 5.0 
gallons per cycle. Standard size dishwashers have a capacity equal to 
or greater than eight place settings plus six serving pieces as 
specified in AHAM DW-1-2020 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
430.3) using the test load specified in section 2.3 of appendix C1 or 
section 2.4 of appendix C2 to subpart B of this part, as applicable.
    (ii) Compact size dishwashers shall not exceed 222 kwh/year and 3.5 
gallons per cycle. Compact size dishwashers have a capacity less than 
eight place settings plus six serving pieces as specified in AHAM DW-1-
2020 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.3) using the test load 
specified in section 2.3 of appendix C1 or section 2.4 of appendix C2 
to subpart B of this part, as applicable.
    (2) All dishwashers manufactured on or after [Date 3 years after 
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], shall 
not exceed the following standard--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Maximum  per-
                                     Estimated annual     cycle water
           Product class            energy use  (kWh/  consumption  (gal/
                                          year)              cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Standard-size \1\ (>=8 place                  223                3.3
 settings plus 6 serving pieces)
 \2\..............................
(ii) Compact-size (<8 place                       174                3.1
 settings plus 6 serving pieces)
 \2\..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The energy conservation standards in this table do not apply to
  standard-size dishwashers with a cycle time for the normal cycle of 60
  minutes or less.
\2\ Place settings are as specified in AHAM DW-1-2020 (incorporated by
  reference, see Sec.   430.3) and the test load is as specified in
  section 2.4 of appendix C2 to subpart B of this part.

    (3) The provisions of paragraph (f)(2) of this section are separate 
and severable from one another. Should a court of competent 
jurisdiction hold any provision(s) of this section to be stayed or 
invalid, such action shall not affect any other provision of this 
section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-08211 Filed 4-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P