[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