Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81359 

distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is 

designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected effects on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that the 

regulatory action in this document, 

reinterpreting the definition of 

‘‘showerhead’’, is not a significant 

energy action because it would not have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, 

nor has it been designated as a 

significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects for this rule. 

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

In this final rule, DOE incorporates by 

reference the industry standard 

published by ISEA, titled ‘‘American 

National Standard for Emergency 

Eyewash and Shower Equipment,’’ 

ANSI/ISEA Z358.1–2014. ANSI/ISEA 

Z358.1 is an industry-accepted standard 

that established use and performance 

requirements for eyewash and 

emergency shower equipment. DOE 

incorporates by reference this industry 

consensus standard at 10 CFR 430.2, 

which defines term associated with 

energy conservation standards and test 

procedures for consumer products. 

Copies of ANSI/ISEA Z358.1–2014, 

can be obtained from the International 

Safety Equipment Association, 1901 

North Moore Street, Suite 808, 

Arlington, Virginia 22209, 

www.safetyequipment.org or American 

National Standards Institute, 25 West 43 

St., 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036. 

http://ansi.org. 

N. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule before its effective date. The 

report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

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, Small 

businesses. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on December 8, 2020, 

by Daniel R Simmons, 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 December 8, 

2020. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 430 of title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Section 430.2 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, 

definitions for ‘‘Body spray’’ and 

‘‘Safety shower showerhead’’; and 

■ b. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Showerhead’’. 

The addition and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Body spray means a shower device for 

spraying water onto a bather from other 

than the overhead position. A body 

spray is not a showerhead. 

* * * * * 

Safety shower showerhead means a 

showerhead designed to meet the 

requirements of ISEA Z358.1 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3). 

* * * * * 

Showerhead means any showerhead 

(including a handheld showerhead) 

other than a safety showerhead. DOE 

interprets the term ‘‘showerhead’’ to 

mean an accessory to a supply fitting for 

spraying water onto a bather, typically 

from an overhead position. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 430.3 is amended by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(3)(iii) 

through (v) as paragraphs (c)(3)(iv) 

through (vi); 

■ b. Redesignating the second paragraph 

(c)(3)(ii) as new paragraph (c)(3)(iii); 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (q) 

through (u) and paragraphs (r) through 

(v); and 

■ d. Adding new paragraph (q). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(q) International Safety Equipment 

Association, 1901 North Moore Street, 

Suite 808, Arlington, Virginia 22209, 

(703) 525–1695, 

www.safetyequipment.org. 

(1) ANSI/ISEA Z358.1–2014 (‘‘ISEA 

Z358.1’’), American National Standard 

for Emergency Eyewash and Shower 

Equipment, ANSI-approved January 8, 

2015, IBR approved for § 430.2. 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2020–27280 Filed 12–15–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2020–BT–STD–0001] 

RIN 1904–AE86 

Energy Conservation Program: 

Establishment of New Product Classes 

for Residential Clothes Washers and 

Consumer Clothes Dryers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including residential clothes washers 

and consumer clothes dryers. In this 

final rule, the U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or ‘‘the Department’’) 

establishes separate product classes for 

top-loading consumer clothes washers 

and consumer clothes dryers that offer 

cycle times for a normal cycle of less 

than 30 minutes, and for front-loading 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81360 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

1When seeking ENERGY STAR qualification for 

a consumer clothes dryer basic model, 

manufacturers must report cycle time as tested 

under Appendix D2. ENERGY STAR product 

database for clothes dryers is available at https://

www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/ 

certified-clothes-dryers/results. Last accessed 

November 24, 2020. 

2For clothes dryers, 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix D1, does not provide data that can be 

used to determine a ‘‘cycle time’’ because the 

drying cycle is artificially terminated. The 

artificially terminated cycle has a field use factor 

applied to calculate representative energy 

consumption. DOE used appendix D2 because it 

provides representative energy use and a 

corresponding cycle time as the cycle is run from 

start to completion without being artificially 

terminated. 85 FR 49297, 49303 (Aug. 13, 2020). 

residential clothes washers that offer 

cycle times for a normal cycle of less 

than 45 minutes. DOE’s decision to 

establish these new product classes is 

based on the comments received in 

response to the proposed rule as well as 

testing and evaluation conducted by the 

Department. This rulemaking sets out 

the basis for the new product classes. 

DOE intends to determine the specific 

energy and water consumption limits 

for the new product classes in separate 

rulemakings in accordance with the 

requirements of the Department’s 

Process Rule. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

January 15, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Docket: The docket for this 

activity, which includes Federal 

Register notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at http://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http://

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 

https://beta.regulations.gov/docket/ 

EERE-2020-BT-STD-0001. The docket 

web page contains instructions on how 

to access all documents, including 

public comments, in the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Bryan Berringer, 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. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287– 

6111. Email: Jennifer.Tiedeman@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

II. Introduction 

A. Background 

B. DOE Testing and Analysis of Results 

III. Discussion 

A. Establishment of Short-Cycle Product 

Classes Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) 

B. Anti-Backsliding Consideration, 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) 

C. Other Statutory Challenges 

D. Additional Comments 

IV. Conclusion 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ 

B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 

and 13777 

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

E. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

I. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

J. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

K. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

L. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

M. Congressional Notification 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

In this final rule, DOE establishes 

separate product classes for top-loading 

consumer (residential) clothes washers 

and consumer clothes dryers that offer 

cycle times for a normal cycle of less 

than 30 minutes, and for front-loading 

residential clothes washers that offer 

cycle times for a normal cycle of less 

than 45 minutes, as identified under 42 

U.S.C. 6292(a)(7) and (8). Relying on its 

own analysis and the comments 

received in response to the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’), 85 FR 

49297 (Aug. 13, 2020), DOE has 

determined that the establishment of 

these new product classes would protect 

a consumer utility (i.e., cycle time), and 

could spur manufacturer innovation to 

generate additional product offerings to 

fill the market gap that exists for these 

products. 

In establishing short cycle product 

classes offering 30 and 45 minute cycle 

times for clothes washers and clothes 

dryers, DOE is introducing additional 

consumer choice to the clothes washer 

and clothes dryer market. DOE’s actions 

are intended to incentivize 

manufacturers to provide consumers 

with new options when purchasing toploading residential clothes washers and 

consumer clothes dryers with a normal 

cycle of less than 30 minutes, and frontloading residential clothes washers that 

offer cycle times for a normal cycle of 

less than 45 minutes. This activity does 

not prevent consumers from choosing to 

purchase clothes washers and dryers 

from the currently-existing product 

classes that offer longer normal cycles as 

well as quick or alternative cycle 

options. The distinction created through 

the establishment of these new product 

classes rests on the length of the normal 

cycle, which is the cycle that would be 

subject to product testing for 

compliance with a future energy or 

water conservation standard. 

As stated in the NOPR, the data 

gathered by the Department on cycle 

times, which was based on a range of 

products and demonstrated the wide 

range of cycle times available among 

clothes washer and clothes dryer 

models. For residential clothes washers, 

DOE evaluated the cycle times of a 

representative sample of units within 

the top-loading standard-size and frontloading standard-size product classes. 

For top-loading standard-size units, this 

testing included 23 units covering 10 

brands across 7 manufacturers. For the 

front-loading standard-size product 

class, DOE tested 20 units representing 

14 brands across 12 manufacturers. 

Generally, this testing was performed 

using the ‘‘normal’’ cycle (i.e., wash 

program), which is defined as the wash 

program recommended for normal, 

regular, or typical use for washing up to 

a full load of normally-soiled cotton 

clothing. For consumer clothes dryers, 

DOE evaluated the cycle times of a 

representative sample of units within 

the vented electric standard-size and 

vented gas product classes. For vented 

electric standard-size product classes, 

DOE tested 6 units representing 4 

brands across 4 manufacturers. DOE 

also considered cycle time data from the 

ENERGY STAR product database for an 

additional 245 vented electric standardsize units representing 14 brands across 

7 manufacturers. For the vented gas 

product class, DOE tested 8 units 

representing 4 brands across 4 

manufacturers. DOE evaluated cycle 

time data from the ENERGY STAR 

product database for an additional 110 

vented gas units representing 9 brands 

across 5 manufacturers.1 Under 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix D2 

(‘‘appendix D2’’), clothes dryers with 

automatic cycle termination are 

operated using the ‘‘normal’’ program 

(or the cycle recommended by the 

manufacturer for drying cotton or linen 

clothes in the absence of a normal 

program) until the completion of the 

cycle, as indicated to the consumer.2


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81361 

3The Technical Appendix provides additional 

details of the technical attributes of each of the 

units DOE evaluated in support of this rulemaking. 

4Procedures for Use in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment (‘‘Process Rule’’), 85 FR 8626 (Feb. 14, 

2020); Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430— 

Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for 

Consideration of New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/ 

Industrial Equipment. 

5The technical appendix provides additional 

details of the technical attributes of each of the 

units evaluated. 

DOE’s analysis, in total, considered the 

cycle times of units representing over 50 

percent of residential clothes dryer basic 

models.3 (See Section II.B for more 

information). 85 FR 49297, 49300– 

49306 (Aug. 13, 2020). 

DOE’s data revealed that the shortest 

available cycle time for standard-size 

top-loading clothes washers on the 

market was appropriately 30 minutes 

and that for standard-size front-loading 

clothes washers the shortest cycle time 

was approximately 45 minutes. DOE’s 

data indicated that the shortest available 

cycle time for vented electric standardsize and vented gas clothes dryers with 

cycle time was also approximately 30 

minutes. DOE believes the creation of 

these new product classes will 

incentivize manufacturers, if they so 

choose, to develop innovative products 

with short cycle times for those 

consumers that receive a value from the 

time saved washing and drying their 

clothing. DOE intends to determine the 

specific energy and water conservation 

standards for the new short cycle 

product classes in a separate rulemaking 

following the procedures set out in the 

Process Rule.4

II. Introduction 

A. Background 

On August 13, 2020, DOE published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking, 

(‘‘NOPR’’), setting out the Department’s 

intent to establish new product classes 

for residential clothes washers and 

consumer clothes dryers, and requesting 

comments and data on the proposed 

short cycle product classes. 85 FR 

49297. The recently finalized 

rulemaking establishing a normal short 

cycle product class for standard 

residential dishwashers (85 FR 68724 

(Oct. 30, 2020)) re-affirmed the 

Department’s recognition of cycle time 

as a valuable consumer utility and 

performance-related feature. In light of 

that rulemaking, the Department 

determined that similarities existed 

between the consumer use of 

dishwashers and residential clothes 

washers and consumer clothes dryers 

(i.e., products that provide consumer 

utility over discrete cycles with 

programmed cycle times, and 

consumers run these cycles multiple 

times per week on average). DOE 

conducted its own analysis on clothes 

washer and dryer cycle times and 

presented its analysis in Section II of the 

NOPR in support of the proposed 

product classes. There, DOE explained 

that based on the length of available 

cycle times that it was reasonable to 

propose establishing separate product 

classes for these products to preserve a 

performance-related feature of both 

residential clothes washers and 

consumer clothes dryers (i.e., the 

consumer utility of a short cycle time). 

85 FR 49297, 49298 (Aug. 13, 2020). 

B. DOE Testing and Analysis of Results 

The testing and analysis conducted as 

part of the NOPR included a review of 

the normal cycles currently available for 

a range of clothes washers and clothes 

dryers.5 These cycle times were 

measured under the DOE test procedure 

(i.e., the ‘‘normal’’ cycles only). 

DOE’s proposed rule presumed that 

certain manufacturers were 

implementing the shortest possible 

cycle times that enabled a clothes 

washer to achieve satisfactory cleaning 

performance (and other aspects of 

clothes washer performance) while 

meeting the applicable energy and water 

conservation standards. DOE believed 

the current energy conservation 

standards may have been precluding 

manufacturers from introducing models 

to the market with substantially shorter 

cycle times. To facilitate the 

opportunity for manufacturers to 

innovate and develop products that 

would provide consumers the utility of 

such shorter cycle times, DOE proposed 

to establish separate product classes for 

top-loading standard-size residential 

clothes washers with average cycle 

times less than 30 minutes and frontloading standard-size residential clothes 

washers with average cycle times less 

than 45 minutes. 85 FR 49297, 49305 

(Aug. 13, 2020). 

Similarly, DOE’s data indicated that 

vented electric standard-size and vented 

gas clothes dryers that comply with the 

current energy conservation standards 

exhibit cycle times of approximately 30 

minutes or longer. Thus, assuming 

certain manufacturers were already 

implementing the shortest possible 

cycle times that enabled a clothes dryer 

to achieve satisfactory drying 

performance (and other aspects of 

clothes dryer performance) while 

meeting the applicable energy 

conservation standards, DOE’s 

standards may have discouraged 

manufacturers from developing such 

products for consumers that provide the 

utility of 30 minute or less cycle times. 

For these reasons, DOE proposed to 

establish separate product classes for 

vented electric standard-size and vented 

gas clothes dryers with cycle times less 

than 30 minutes. 85 FR 49297, 49306 

(Aug. 13, 2020). 

III. Discussion 

Based on the evaluation of comments 

submitted in response to the NOPR and 

the data the Department compiled (see 

Section II.B of this document), DOE 

establishes separate product classes for 

top-loading residential clothes washers 

and consumer clothes dryers that offer 

cycle times for a normal cycle of less 

than 30 minutes, and for front-loading 

residential clothes washers that offer 

cycle times for a normal cycle of less 

than 45 minutes. DOE intends to 

conduct separate rulemakings to 

determine energy conservation 

standards for these new product classes 

that provide the maximum energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

will result in a significant conservation 

of energy, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A), as 

well as to establish the applicable test 

procedure. DOE will complete these 

associated rulemakings following the 

procedures outlined in the Process Rule. 

A. Establishment of Short-Cycle Product 

Classes Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) 

EPCA directs that when prescribing 

an energy conservation standard for a 

type (or class) of a covered product, 

DOE must specify a level of energy use 

or efficiency higher or lower than that 

which applies (or would apply) for such 

type (or class) for any group of covered 

products which have the same function 

or intended use, if DOE determines that 

covered products within such a group: 

• Consume a different kind of energy 

from that consumed by other covered 

products within such type (or class); or 

• Have a capacity or other such 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard from that 

which applies (or will apply) to other 

products within such type. 

In making a determination concerning 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies the establishment of a higher or 

lower standard, DOE must consider 

such factors as the utility to the 

consumer of such a feature, and such 

other factors as DOE deems appropriate. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) 

EPCA authorizes DOE to establish 

separate product classes for residential 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81362 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

6Commenters challenging DOE’s position that 

cycle time is a performance related feature 

included: Anonymous Anonymous, No. 0002; 

Cohen, No. 0009; Rubang, No. 0011; Anonymous, 

No. 0014; Cyra-Korsgaard, No. 0015; Walnut Valley 

Water District (‘‘WVWD’’), No. 0017; City of 

Sacramento Department of Utilities, No. 0020; 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council, No. 

0021; Davis, No. 0022; Metropolitan North Georgia 

Water Planning District (‘‘MNGWPD’’), No. 0025; 

Spire Inc., the American Public Gas Association, 

the American Gas Association, and the National 

Propane Gas Association (‘‘Gas Industry’’), No. 

0028; Alliance for Water Efficiency, et al. (‘‘AWE, 

et al.’’), No. 0029; Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’), No. 0030; Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project (‘‘ASAP’’), Alliance 

for Water Efficiency, Consumer Federation of 

America, National Consumer Law Center, on behalf 

of its low-income clients, and Natural Resources 

Defense Council (‘‘ASAP et al.’’) No. 0033; 

California State Water Resources Control Board 

(‘‘CA SWRCB’’), No. 0034; Attorneys General Of 

Oregon, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New 

Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, 

Vermont, Washington, And The District Of 

Columbia, And The Corporation Counsel Of The 

City Of New York (‘‘Attorneys General and the 

Corporation Counsel of the City of New York’’), No. 

0035; California Energy Commission (‘‘CEC’’), No. 

0038; Sierra Club and Earthjustice (‘‘Joint 

Environmental Commenters’’), No. 0041; Valley 

Water, No. 0042; Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance (‘‘NEEA’’), No. 0044; and GE Appliances 

(‘‘GEA’’), No. 0045. 

clothes washers and consumer clothes 

dryers characterized by offering short 

normal cycles of less than 30 or 45 

minutes pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 

Products with a short normal cycle offer 

consumers a specific utility that justifies 

the establishment of such product 

classes subject to a higher or lower 

standard than that currently applicable 

to products currently on the market. 85 

FR 49297, 49298 (Aug. 13, 2020). With 

this final rule, DOE intends to 

incentivize manufacturers to provide 

products that best meet the specific 

needs of consumers with competing 

interests. Consumers who place a higher 

value on time saved while running 

single or multiple loads of laundry can 

select a washer or dryer characterized 

by a shorter normal cycle, while 

consumers who prioritize energy and 

water efficiency will continue to be able 

to purchase models characterized by a 

longer normal cycle. Consistent with the 

position taken in prior rulemakings, 

DOE maintains that products offering 

quick and alternative cycles are not the 

same as the products that will be 

available under this new product class. 

This is because quick and alternative 

cycles are designed not as the normal 

use cycle, but provide consumers with 

other wash or dry cycles for specific 

washing or drying needs. The creation 

of short normal cycle washers and 

dryers in this final rule opens the door 

for manufacturers to develop short cycle 

products intended specifically for 

normal activity. See, 85 FR 68723, 

68727 (Oct. 30, 2020). 

In response to the NOPR, DOE 

received multiple comments 

challenging the Department’s position 

that cycle time was a performancerelated feature that justified the 

establishment of new short normal cycle 

product classes for residential clothes 

washers and consumer clothes dryers.6

These commenters focused on the 

Department’s identification of cycle 

time as a performance-related feature. 

These commenters argued that product 

classes characterized by short normal 

cycles did not offer a consumer utility 

and were unnecessary based on a lack 

of data or evidence demonstrating the 

utility consumers would receive from 

the new product classes. 

Specifically, some commenters argued 

that DOE failed to meet the 

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) 

because the NOPR did not establish 

cycle time as a consumer utility 

justifying the creation of the new 

product classes. (CEC, No. 0038, pp. 

6–7). AHAM argued that DOE failed to 

demonstrate that shorter cycle times 

were a performance related feature that 

provided a utility to consumers and 

submitted data to argue that the creation 

of normal cycle times shorter than those 

available today were unlikely to provide 

a significant consumer utility. AHAM 

continued that unless DOE could 

demonstrate that cycle time is a 

performance related feature, then it 

cannot rely solely on cycle time to 

establish the new product class. DOE 

would need cycle time plus something 

else like consumer preference or data 

supporting the new product class to 

justify the creation of the proposed 

product classes. AHAM distinguished 

the parallel DOE referenced in the 

NOPR between new product classes for 

certain clothes washers and clothes 

dryers and the separation of product 

classes for top- and front-loading 

commercial clothes washers by noting 

that the previous rulemaking rested not 

solely on cycle time as a performance 

related feature, but also on the 

consumer preference for the axis of 

loading which justified the new product 

class. AHAM argued that its data show 

that there is not a strong correlation 

between cycle time and consumer 

satisfaction, meaning consumers are not 

looking for products with shorter cycles 

and that consumers already have the 

option to use shorter cycles when 

needed as most washers and dryers offer 

quick cycles. (No. 0030, pp. 7–8). 

Similarly, comments submitted by the 

Attorneys General and the Corporation 

Counsel of the City of New York argued 

that the proposal failed to meet the 

requirements of section 6295(q) because 

a reduced or shorter cycle time is not a 

performance related feature as the 

consumer utility of clothes washers and 

dryers is to clean and dry clothes, 

regardless of cycle time. While short 

cycles may lead to consumers receiving 

clean and dry clothes faster, short cycles 

do not provide an additional distinct 

utility beyond the purposes of washing 

and drying. (No. 0035, pp. 8–9). 

Commenters explained that while 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B) does not define 

performance-related feature, the 

legislative history offers guidance on 

DOE’s authority under the section and 

instructs DOE to ‘‘use [its] discretion 

carefully, and establish separate 

standards only if the feature justifies a 

separate standard, based upon the 

utility to the consumer and other 

appropriate criteria’’ because ‘‘if [DOE] 

established a separate standard for every 

appliance having a detectable difference 

in features, no matter how slight, . . . 

then hundreds of standards might 

result.’’ (No. 0035, p. 9 referencing H.R. 

Rep. 95–1751, at 115; Joint 

Environmental Commenters, No. 0041, 

p. 4). These commenters continued that 

different classes should be based on the 

product’s capacity to provide consumers 

with a utility beyond what is provided 

by the corresponding basic product 

class. Here, commenters contend the 

short cycle washer and dryer classes 

provide the same utility as normal 

washer and dryer classes—clean and 

dry clothing. Without a detectable 

difference, DOE lacks sufficient 

justification to establish separate energy 

efficiency classes and standards for 

these products. (No. 0035, p. 9). 

The Attorneys General and the 

Corporation Counsel of the City of New 

York also argued that this rulemaking 

presented an inappropriate 

interpretation of section 6295(q) when 

compared with prior rulemakings. This 

is because DOE’s prior rulemakings 

resulted in a new product class only 

when a product type offered a 

substantial and distinct consumer 

utility, which cycle time does not. 

These commenters looked to DOE’s 

water heater and self-cleaning oven 

rulemakings to demonstrate this 

distinction. In its water heater 

rulemaking, commenters argued that 

DOE determined the differences 

between heat pump and electric 

resistance storage water heaters did not 

justify separate product classes because 

both provided the same customer 

utility: Hot water. Whereas in the selfcleaning oven rulemaking, DOE 

determined the self-cleaning feature 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81363 

7Comments from the Gas Industry Commenters 

also called it unreasonable for DOE to suggest 

features desired by consumers warrant protection 

only if they are ‘‘accessible to the laypersons’’ or 

to dismiss the need for building modifications as a 

matter of the associated economic cost of 

modification. (No. 0028, p. 4). These comments 

were submitted in relation to a separate rulemaking, 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 

Standards for Residential Furnaces and Commercial 

Water Heaters, 84 FR 33011 (July 11, 2019), and are 

outside the scope of the rulemaking action 

addressed here. 

justified a separate product class 

because the self-cleaning function was a 

distinct feature that standard ovens did 

not provide. Commenters assert that the 

NOPR most closely resembles the water 

heater rulemaking because clothes 

washers and dryers, regardless of cycle 

length, provide the same consumer 

utility of clean and dry clothes, like heat 

pump and electric resistance water 

heaters provide the same utility of hot 

water. The proposal thus is inconsistent 

with prior rulemakings. (No. 0035, pp. 

9–10). Commenters also note that DOE 

incorrectly relies on the previous 

residential clothes washer rulemaking 

because that rulemaking considered 

cycle time only to the extent that 

differential cycle times existed between 

front-loading and top-loading clothes 

washers. DOE determined that the 

method of loading was a feature, not the 

cycle time itself. (No. 0035, p. 10). 

These commenters continued that 

DOE misstates the conclusions reached 

in other prior rulemakings to support 

the NOPR by equating a performancerelated feature with mere consumer 

preference. The electric cooking 

products rulemaking did not result in a 

determination that oven windows were 

a feature justifying a product class, but 

concluded that windowless oven doors 

should not be considered as a potential 

design option because the windows 

provide consumer utility and in fact 

increase efficiency by reducing oven 

door openings. (Attorneys General and 

the Corporation Counsel of the City of 

New York, No. 0035, p. 10, referencing 

63 FR 48038, 48040 (Sept. 8, 1998)). The 

establishment of refrigerator-freezer 

product classes based on freezer 

placement were justified by the unique 

utility provided by different 

configurations and efficiency 

capabilities. (No. 0035, p. 10 referencing 

53 FR 48798, 48807 (Dec. 2, 1988)). 

These commenters continued that the 

NOPR is distinguishable from these 

prior rulemakings as they demonstrate 

the type of substantial consumer utility 

differences that necessitate a separate 

energy efficiency standard to maintain 

the utility that then justifies a separate 

product class. Therefore, these 

rulemakings demonstrate that a 

performance-related feature must be 

more substantial and qualitatively 

different than cycle time. (No. 0035, p. 

10). 

The Competitive Enterprise Institute 

(‘‘CEI’’) agreed with DOE’s proposal that 

the time savings consumers would 

receive from the shorter cycles is a 

performance related feature and that 

this utility justifies a different efficiency 

level than other similar products. (No. 

0031, p. 4). To support its position, CEI 

noted consumers are already sacrificing 

their time when washing and drying 

their clothing. CEI received feedback 

from consumers that (in CEI’s view) 

demonstrates that a need does exist for 

new washers and dryers that operate 

faster. CEI commented that consumers 

are moving towards faster washing 

machines over those that offer higher 

efficiency ratings. This preference is 

demonstrated by 38 percent of 

consumers moving away from slower 

front-loading machines (70–120 minute 

cycles) to faster top-loading machines. 

(No. 0031, p. 3). CEI continued that 

consumers would benefit from being 

able to access an increased range of 

products to meet their specific needs 

and free up time for other things in their 

lives. (No. 0031, p. 2). The time saved 

resulting from short cycles is the utility 

and appliances that can clean or dry 

clothing more quickly offer a specific 

utility not available from those 

appliances that require longer cycles to 

accomplish the same task. 

Similarly, the 60 Plus Association 

applauded the Department’s recognition 

of cycle time as a performance-related 

feature. This commenter, arguing on 

behalf of its senior citizen members, 

believed the rulemaking will offer a 

significant benefit to individuals 

looking to make the most of their time. 

This commenter noted that the time 

saved through the use of future, short 

normal cycles will make a noticeable 

difference in the lives of its 

underrepresented members. (No. 0043, 

p. 1). 

Comments from Spire Inc., the 

American Public Gas Association, the 

American Gas Association, and the 

National Propane Gas Association (‘‘Gas 

Industry Commenters’’) also agreed that 

appliances that can clean or dry 

clothing more quickly are appliances 

that offer a specific utility not available 

from appliances that require more time 

to accomplish the same task. These 

commenters continued that while this 

utility may not be significant for all 

consumers, many consumers have a 

strong preference for getting things done 

materially faster, even potentially at the 

expense of some increase in operating 

costs. (No. 0028, p. 3). 

Additional support for the new 

clothes washer and clothes dryer 

product classes included some 

commenters recognizing the importance 

of consumer access to products that 

would offer features that address 

individual family needs, even if this 

could come with additional energy use. 

(Tanner, No. 0024). Another commenter 

suggested that the rulemaking would 

create greater competition between 

manufactures for the development of 

efficient appliances within the new 

product class and ultimately provide 

consumers with product options that 

best meet their different needs. 

(Anonymous, No. 0040). 

As an initial matter, DOE maintains 

that short normal cycle product classes 

for clothes washers and clothes dryers 

will provide a distinct utility to 

consumers that other clothes washers 

and clothes dryers do not provide; i.e., 

time saved. Some commenters may not 

recognize the benefit from saving small 

increments of time here and there over 

the course of a week or month and think 

that this rulemaking lacks value. But 

there are other consumers that do value 

this benefit and look for any time saved 

that can then be repurposed for other 

tasks. Households with greater 

frequency of use (i.e., households that 

cycle multiple loads of laundry) are 

likelier to see the cumulative benefits of 

time saved from not having to wait as 

long for a normal cycle to complete. 

Time is an irreplaceable resource. This 

rulemaking would benefit those 

consumers who have chosen to place an 

additional value on their time. This 

category may include households of 

senior citizens, families with small 

children, and other categories of 

consumers for whom frequency of use 

or other factors may affect their 

valuation of time savings relative to 

other features. 

DOE has taken the view in its prior 

rulemakings that consumer utility is an 

aspect of the product that is accessible 

to the layperson and based on user 

operation, rather than performing a 

theoretical function.7 This 

interpretation has been implemented in 

DOE’s determinations of utility through 

the value the particular feature brings to 

the consumer, rather than through 

analyzing more complicated design 

features or costs that anyone, including 

the consumer, manufacturer, installer, 

or utility may bear. DOE has determined 

that this approach is consistent with 

EPCA’s requirement for considering the 

economic justification for adopting of 

any new or amended energy 

conservation standard. 85 FR 49297, 

49298 (Aug. 13, 2020). DOE maintains, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81364 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

8 75 FR 59469 (Sept. 27, 2010) (creating a separate 

product class for refrigerators with bottom-mounted 

freezers). 9 63 FR 48038, 48041 (Sept. 8, 1998) (determined 

that the window in an oven door was a ‘‘feature’’ 

which eliminated from consideration the design 

option that would have removed the window 

feature). 

10 77 FR 32308, 32319 (May 31, 2012) (creating a 

separate product class for compact front-loading 

residential clothes washers). 

11 74 FR 65852, 65871 (Dec. 11, 2009) (No 

separate product class was needed as DOE did not 

believe heat pump water heaters provided a 

different utility from traditional electric resistance 

water heaters. Heat pump water heaters provide hot 

water to a residence just as a traditional electric 

storage water heater). 

12 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A) provides that DOE may 

establish a new product class for a type of covered 

product that consumes a different kind of energy 

(fuel or capacity) than other covered products 

within that same class. 

under this approach, that cycle time is 

a consumer utility. 

In prior rulemakings, DOE has 

determined that refrigerator-freezer 

configurations,8 oven door windows,9

and top loading clothes washer 

configurations 10 offered performancerelated features that justified the 

creation of new product classes. DOE 

has also determined cycle time, in 

addition to axis of access, is a 

performance-related feature with respect 

to commercial clothes washers (77 FR 

32308, 32319 (May 31, 2012)) and 

residential dishwashers (85 FR 68723 

(Oct. 30, 2020). The creation of a 

product class characterized by offering a 

short normal cycle is no different than 

the conclusions reached previously. 

Like these prior rulemakings, DOE has 

recognized that consumers received a 

utility from the feature to support the 

establishment of the new product class 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). 

DOE has previously rejected the 

notion that the Department can 

determine a product attribute is a 

performance-related feature only if the 

feature adds a performance 

characteristic or utility distinct from the 

primary purpose of the product. To act 

otherwise would mean that a 

refrigerator-freezer’s primary utility is 

only to store and preserve fresh food, 

and that consumers are not benefited 

from being able to access the contents 

through different door configurations. 

Because an oven’s primary utility is to 

cook food, and food cooks in both a 

windowless oven and in an oven with 

a door window, DOE would be 

prohibited from recognizing the utility 

consumers receive from being able to 

see the contents cooking. Even though 

an oven with a door window uses more 

energy than an oven without a window, 

DOE has recognized that the window 

offers consumers a distinct consumer 

utility that goes beyond the oven’s 

primary function of cooking food. 85 FR 

68723, 68727 (Oct. 30, 2020). DOE’s 

prior rulemakings support the 

determination that shorter normal cycle 

times are features that provide a 

consumer utility and justify the creation 

of a new product class for clothes 

washers and dryers. 

DOE maintains that consumer 

preference for a particular feature 

indicates that the feature provides a 

utility to the consumer, even if that 

feature is related to the primary function 

or purpose of the product. In DOE’s 

prior commercial clothes washer 

standards rulemaking, for example, DOE 

determined not only that the ‘‘axis of 

loading’’ constituted a feature that 

justified separate product classes for 

top-loading and front-loading clothes 

washers, but also the cycle time 

difference between the two models 

warranted separate product classes. 79 

FR 74492, 74498 (Sept. 15, 2014). The 

split in preference between the models, 

DOE stated, indicated that a certain 

percentage of the market expressed a 

preference for (i.e., derived a utility 

from) the faster top-loading 

configuration. DOE has also noted that 

the various refrigerator-freezer 

configurations provide no additional 

performance related utility other than 

consumer preference as all 

configurations still result in the storage 

of fresh food. This means that it is the 

location of access itself that provides a 

distinct consumer utility, which is 

unrelated to the primary purpose or 

function of the refrigerator. 79 FR 

74492, 74499 (Sept. 15, 2014). 

Additionally, comments arguing that 

this rulemaking more closely resembles 

DOE’s prior hot water rulemaking are 

misplaced. In that rulemaking, DOE 

maintained the single product class for 

water heaters regardless of the 

technology utilized to heat the water. 

There, DOE acknowledged that it did 

not believe heat-pump and electric 

storage water heaters offered a different 

utility, but offered the same utility to 

the consumer (i.e., hot water).11 This is 

distinguishable from the utility 

consumers will receive when using 

clothes washers and clothes dryers with 

short normal cycles because these 

consumers will receive time savings as 

a result of the shorter cycles. DOE 

maintains that the products that can 

clean or dry clothing in less time offer 

consumers a utility not available from 

products that require more time to 

complete a comparable normal wash or 

dry cycle. 

DOE recognizes that the comments 

submitted by CEI, 60 Plus Association, 

and individual members of the public 

evidence a consumer preference for 

shorter normal cycles. Looking again to 

DOE’s rulemaking history, the 

Department maintains that establishing 

a short normal cycle for clothes washers 

and clothes dryers is no different from 

establishing product classes based on 

the axis of loading or the configuration 

of other covered products. DOE has also 

recognized the consumer value in being 

able to see inside an oven when 

cooking, as opposed to opening the oven 

door, and retained the window as a 

performance related feature. In each of 

these rulemakings, DOE identified a 

feature that provides a utility to the 

consumer. Comments challenging DOE’s 

action on the basis that a feature must 

be accompanied by something else or 

offer a utility beyond the primary 

purpose of the product, are inconsistent 

with conclusions DOE reached in prior 

rulemakings. 

To act otherwise, as these commenters 

suggest, would limit the Department’s 

ability to establish product classes for 

features that may augment, but are not 

somehow separate from, the primary 

purpose for a product even if consumers 

received a recognizable utility from the 

feature as set out in 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 

DOE’s authority to establish a product 

class based on capacity and fuel type 

casts doubt on commenters’ belief that 

features must go beyond the primary 

purpose of a product under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)(A).12 As provided in EPCA, 

DOE may consider other criteria when 

exercising its discretion to identify the 

utility a feature provides consumers 

such as fuel type and capacity, which 

do not specifically add to the primary 

purpose of a product. As a result, DOE 

realizes it would be unreasonable to 

limit the authority granted in EPCA 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) to only 

recognize new product classes on the 

basis of a feature’s direct relationship to 

the primary purpose of the product. 85 

FR 68723, 68728 (Oct. 30, 2020). Here, 

DOE maintains that the time consumers 

will save from using short normal cycles 

for clothes washers and clothes dryers 

justifies the creation of the new product 

classes. 

DOE also received a variety of 

comments arguing that the 

establishment of the new product 

classes were not necessary given the 

availability of quick or alternative cycles 

available on current clothes washer and 

dryer models. AHAM argued that DOE 

failed to demonstrate that a new product 

class based on cycle time is necessary 

and that such action will have 

unintended consequences on laundry 

products, consumers, and 

manufacturers. (No. 0030, p. 2). Other 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81365 

commenters noted that the proposal is 

unnecessary because products meeting 

the short cycle times are already 

available, thereby making such actions 

not justified. (Joint Environmental 

Commenters, No. 0043, pp. 4–5; Cohen, 

No. 0009; Davis, No. 0022; ASAP et al., 

No. 0033, p. 2). GE Appliances 

commented that while cycle time is an 

important consideration, the current 

product classes, standards, and test 

procedures already allow for a short 

cycle, making this action unnecessary. 

(GEA, No. 0045, p. 2). 

Many commenters also called the 

proposal unnecessary because DOE 

failed to provide any documentation or 

evidence of a need for shorter normal 

cycles and that consumers want such 

products. Commenters’ continued that 

the data DOE provided actually show 

the availability of products that can 

meet the cycle times proposed, and DOE 

needs additional data to demonstrate 

necessity of the rule. (AWE, et al., No. 

0029, p. 1; WVWD, No, 0017, p. 1; CA 

SWRCB, No. 0034, pp. 1–2; Valley 

Water, No. 0042, p. 1; AHAM, No. 0030, 

p. 3; CEC, No. 0038, p. 7; ASAP et al., 

No. 0033, p. 3; Rubang, No. 0011; 

Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council, No. 0021, pp. 2–3; MNGWDP, 

No. 0025, p. 2). Other commenters note 

that there is no evidence as to whether 

the new classes will be affordable to 

consumers or whether consumers will 

be harmed as a result of increased 

energy and water use. (‘‘Anonymous’’_

WC, No. 0012; Cyra-Korsgaard. No. 

0015; Armstrong, No. 0004). 

AHAM offered its weighted data to 

show the prevalence of each washer 

model on the market. AHAM’s data 

indicate that there are laundry products 

already on the market that provide 

consumers with reasonable cycle times 

and comply with the current energy 

conservation standards. According to 

AHAM’s data, top-loading and frontloading clothes washers have shipment 

weighted average normal cycle times of 

43 and 57 minutes, and for clothes 

dryers, the shipment weighted average 

cycle time is 34 minutes. AHAM’s relies 

on this data set to show that almost 20 

percent of top-loading clothes washer 

shipments, about 45 percent of frontloading washer shipments, and about 75 

percent of clothes dryer shipments are 

at or very near (within 10 minutes of) 

DOE’s proposed product class division 

line. AHAM concluded that DOE’s 

limited data sample proves that the 

market already has products that can 

meet the cycle times proposed. (AHAM, 

No. 0030, pp. 4–5). 

These comments challenged the data 

and analysis provided in the NOPR as 

demonstrating that the new product 

classes are not necessary because 

similar products are already available. 

In response, DOE notes that commenters 

are correct that DOE’s data shows the 

cycle time of products currently 

available to consumers and identifies a 

small number of models that have 

cycles close to the cycle times proposed 

in the NOPR. However, this information 

validates the view that clothes washers 

and dryers on the market that have a 

normal cycle that is less than 30 

minutes or 45 minutes for top- or frontloading clothes washers are not widely 

available. According to AHAM’s data, 

top-loading and front-loading clothes 

washers have shipment weighted 

average normal cycle times longer than 

the product class thresholds established 

in this final rule (43 and 57 minutes). 

AHAM’s data for clothes dryers also 

show that the shipment weighted 

average cycle time is longer than the 

product class threshold established in 

this final rule (34 minutes). These data, 

which indicate that more than half of 

the shipments for both consumer 

clothes washers and consumer clothes 

dryers have cycle times longer than the 

established cycle times for the new 

product class thresholds, therefore 

support the appropriateness of these 

product class thresholds established by 

DOE. AHAM’s and other similar 

comments noting that there are current 

models close to the 30 or 45 minute 

short cycle thresholds do not negate the 

need for short normal cycle products, 

but reveal that there is demand—and 

therefore, consumer preference—for 

products with shorter cycles, and offer 

a starting point for manufacturer 

innovation. 

CEC also argued that DOE has not met 

its burden to establish the new product 

classes based on a cycle time as a 

performance-related feature because 

most clothes washers and dryers offer a 

short cycle already. CEC takes this to 

mean that DOE’s proposal therefore 

identifies the actual customer utility as 

the benefit of not having to press a 

button to access the short cycle from the 

models settings. (No. 0038, pp. 6–7). 

DOE notes that many appliances, not 

just clothes washers and dryers, are 

operated through selecting a specific 

setting or cycle. As with dishwashers, 

manufacturers describe in product 

literature the different intended uses for 

various products, and DOE presumes 

that manufacturers must intend 

something other than the ‘‘normal’’ 

cycle when describing a ‘‘quick’’ or 

lightly soiled-type cycle. In addition, 

while some commenters such as CEC 

associate pressing the start button as the 

same utility as utilizing a desired cycle 

feature, DOE realizes that not every 

consumer will use the variety of cycles 

on a device, or want to spend the time 

completing multiple cycles to 

adequately clean or dry their clothing. 

Some consumers may just want the 

availability of one short cycle, provided 

as the normal cycle, which can be used 

every time they wash or dry their 

clothing. That is what this rulemaking 

seeks to provide. Offering short normal 

wash and dry cycles as standard 

features on their appliances will 

reasonably provide a utility to those 

consumers seeking to cut down on the 

time they spend waiting for their 

clothing to be clean and dry. 

In response to DOE’s request for 

information in the NOPR, NEEA 

submitted comments arguing that 

market data, consumer-use data, and 

technology research for both clothes 

washers and clothes dryers suggest that 

short-cycle product classes as proposed 

in the NOPR are unnecessary. (No. 0044, 

pp. 2–5, 6–8). 

NEEA’s market data showed that a 

shorter cycle option is already available 

on the majority of bestselling clothes 

washers, both top- and front-loading 

styles. Short or fast cycles are widely 

available, with 79 percent of washers 

offering this option. NEEA noted that 

the wide availability of these and 

alternative cycles supported the 

conclusion that a product class based on 

cycle time is unnecessary. NEEA also 

commented that, based on high 

consumer demand for efficient washers, 

consumers are currently satisfied with 

the current cycle and technology 

options. NEEA also relied on high 

market penetration for ENERGY STARqualified washers to indicate a strong 

consumer demand for washers with 

high efficiency and satisfaction with 

current cycle times. Additionally, NEEA 

noted that consumer demand for 

efficient machines continues to grow 

based on its consumer-use data that 

showed consumers use fast cycles 

relatively infrequently, with a NEEA’s 

RBSA Laundry Study revealing that 

consumers only use the fast cycle 8 

percent of the time. Consumers select 

the Normal cycle most frequently, at 

about 59 percent of the time. NEAA 

noted that there is also good cleaning 

performance for many fast wash cycles 

available today. NEEA’s laundry study 

also showed that while Normal is the 

most common cycle, consumers also 

select a variety of alternative wash 

cycles, which include Delicate (6 

percent), Heavy Duty (4 percent), and 

others that also use more water and 

energy than the Normal cycle. Thus, 

having a fast cycle as the Normal cycle 

does not offer consumers a unique 

utility given that most consumers can 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81366 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

access fast cycle choices on many 

machines. (No. 0044, pp. 2–5). 

Similar to clothes washers, NEEA’s 

market data showed that current clothes 

dryer models already offer consumers 

fast cycles. Additionally, consumer 

demand for efficient clothes dryers 

remains high, which indicates that 

consumers are satisfied with the 

available technology and cycle times. 

Similar high market penetration for 

ENERGY STAR qualified dryers also 

exists and provides additional support 

for consumer satisfaction with cycle 

times and demand for high efficiency 

products. NEAA argued that the 

availability of setting options offered 

with today’s dryers sufficiently meets 

the demand for fast dryer cycle times. 

NEEA’s RBSA Laundry Study revealed 

that medium heat is the most common 

temperature selection for dryers (52 

percent). Virtually all dryers have a fast 

(high heat) cycle option for use when a 

shorter cycle is needed, but high heat 

can cause more wear and tear on cotton 

fabric and is often not recommended at 

all for synthetic fabrics. Fabric care 

guidelines and consumer concern about 

clothing wear and tear contribute to the 

lower use of high heat, which is used 

about one-third of the time. Taken 

together, NEEA concluded that today’s 

dryers sufficiently meet consumer 

demand for fast dryer cycle times. 

(NEEA, No. 44, pp. 6–8). 

In response, DOE acknowledges 

NEEA’s comment that, based on high 

consumer demand for efficient washers 

and dryers, consumers are currently 

satisfied with the current cycle and 

technology options, and that the high 

market penetration for ENERGY STAR 

qualified products indicates a strong 

consumer demand for washers with 

high efficiency and satisfaction with 

current cycle times. In both cases, 

NEEA’s data prove only that consumers 

are purchasing the products that are 

available. The data has no bearing on 

whether consumers would purchase a 

clothes washer or dryer with a short, 

normal cycle, if such product were 

available. Moreover, NEEA’s data 

demonstrate that the majority of 

consumers select the normal cycle for 

operation of their device, and choose 

more specific settings in a very small 

percentage of cycles. The high 

percentage selection of the normal is 

cycle would seem to support 

establishment of a short-cycle product 

class so that those consumers who want 

that utility can purchase models 

designed to provide that cycle as the 

default, i.e., normal, choice. 

In finalizing the short-cycle product 

classes in this final rule, DOE intends to 

spur manufacturer innovation and push 

for the development of short-cycle 

products, as the normal cycle, which 

will wash and dry a normal load of 

laundry and be subject to manufacturers 

testing. This is distinguishable from 

calling existing fast or quick cycles the 

new short normal cycle, as these 

comments seem to suggest, because 

those cycles are not designed to satisfy 

consumers’ normal washing and drying 

needs. Based on descriptions in 

manufacturer literature, these existing 

quick cycles are for situations when a 

consumer wants to, for example, wash 

lightly soiled garments or get wrinkles 

out of already dry clothing. DOE’s 

actions here seek to accomplish a very 

different outcome. 

In its comments, NEEA argued that 

the proposal was unnecessary, in part, 

because technologies already exist to 

improve water extraction and reduce 

dryer energy consumption that could 

substantially improve the efficiency of 

washers as measured by the integrated 

modified energy factor (‘‘IMEF’’) rating, 

which is used in DOE’s test procedure. 

NEEA further asserts that these 

advances to washers could also include 

lowering the remaining moisture 

content to reduce the energy needed for 

drying. NEEA also states that there are 

a number of technologies (increased 

spin speed; increased basket diameter; 

alternate basket perforation patterns; 

and ribbed drums) available for both 

front-and top-loading washers that can 

reduce remaining moisture without 

lengthening cycle time and enable faster 

cycle times. (No. 0044, pp. 2–5). For 

consumer clothes dryers, NEEA 

identified technologies available to 

reduce cycle time and improve 

efficiency. These technologies include 

alternate refrigerants and venting, 

modulating burners, and improved 

termination controls. (NEEA, No. 44, pp. 

6–8). 

Additionally, some commenters 

argued that the proposal rested on a 

presumption that the current standards 

for clothes washers and clothes dryers 

are preventing manufacturers from 

creating products with shorter cycle 

times. Commenters noted that such a 

presumption was unsupported by the 

evidence included in the NOPR and also 

lacks consideration of the impact 

shorter, hotter dryer cycles could have 

on clothing. (ASAP et al., No. 0033, p. 

3; Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council No. 0021, p. 2; Anonymous, No. 

0002). 

In response, Consumers’ Research 

argued against this comment by noting 

that under the current standards, cycle 

times for clothes washers have in fact 

become very long for some consumers. 

(No. 0037, p. 2) This commenter agreed 

with DOE that even though quick or 

alternative cycles are available, those 

cycles are recommended only for lightly 

soiled clothing meaning that a quick 

cycle will not clean or dry normally 

soiled clothing. DOE’s proposal 

therefore provides consumers with 

added choice and convenience. (No. 

0037, p. 2) 

Countering those commenters that 

contented short cycles were 

unnecessary or lacked a justified utility, 

CEI noted that consumers are already 

forced to sacrifice their time when 

cleaning and drying their clothing. 

DOE’s proposal offered consumers a 

benefit by increasing the range of 

products on the market that would 

allow those consumers with a need or 

desire for short washer or dryer cycles 

to purchase the product that best fit 

their lifestyle. The proposal therefore 

eliminated impediments to these 

choices and provided manufacturers the 

means of meeting consumer demand for 

new products. CEI based this position 

on the feedback it received from 

consumers who have expressed a need 

for clothes washers and dryers that 

operate faster with comparable 

performance. CEI’s comments also 

recognized the growing consumer 

dissatisfaction with current cycle times 

that have increased in length due to 

water and energy use regulations that 

have added time needed so that 

detergents can penetrate clothes and 

remove soils as a result of decreased 

water and agitation. CEI also noted that 

while current products offer faster 

cycles for lightly soiled clothing, those 

cycles are ineffective on normally soiled 

garments. (No. 0031, pp. 2–3). 

DOE realizes that consumers have 

different opinions on the current length 

of time needed to run a full normal 

cycle for washing and drying clothing. 

AHAM’s comments indicated that 

consumers do value cycle time as an 

important feature and noted that if cycle 

time becomes too long, consumers will 

not be satisfied with their products. (No. 

0030, p. 2). In the NOPR and comments 

received from CEI and 60 Plus 

Association, DOE’s rulemaking has 

shown that some consumers already 

believe cycle times are in fact too long 

and that shorter cycles are possible to 

support of the necessity of the proposal. 

DOE seeks to use this rulemaking as an 

opportunity for manufacturers to 

respond to the consumer utility 

recognized in this rulemaking for short 

normal cycle clothes washers and 

clothes dryers. DOE will consider 

appropriate standards in a separate 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, analyzing the factors 

specified in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81367 

13Similarly, EPCA’s anti-backsliding provision 

cannot be used to prohibit the development of 

product classes that allow for covered products to 

be connected to a network simply because 

standards for those products were established prior 

to the development of network connectivity and 

eliminating the ability to implement this option. 

Some commenters argued that the 

conditions precedent to DOE’s 

application of the product class 

provision have not been satisfied in this 

rulemaking. Commenters assert that 

DOE may only create a new product 

class when there are products that have 

a capacity or other performance-related 

feature which other like products do not 

have. This feature then justifies a 

different standard after taking into 

consideration the utility the consumer 

receives from the feature at issue. (No. 

0041, p. 4). Commenters look to support 

their position by arguing that the 

product class provision uses the present 

tense to describe a feature that may 

trigger DOE action whereas the NOPR 

presents the provision as offering DOE 

the discretion to determine that some 

products should have a capacity or 

other performance-related feature they 

presently lack. (Joint Environmental 

Commenters, No. 0041, pp. 4–5). 

Commenters conclude that DOE’s 

interpretation is incorrect and 

inconsistent with prior rulemakings 

because 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) actually 

enables DOE to react to features that 

manufacturers bring to market and does 

not facilitate the introduction of 

nonexistent features into existing 

products. (No. 0041, p. 6 referencing 76 

FR 22454, 22485 (Apr. 21, 2011)). 

In response, DOE affirms that EPCA 

does not specify how prevalent a 

specific feature must be on the market 

(i.e., stipulate that DOE can act only 

when there are covered products with 

that feature already part of an existing 

product class) when establishing a new 

product class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 

If this were true, such products may 

never come onto the market because 

they may not comply with existing 

energy conservation standards and 

therefore be unlawful to produce. In 

addition, and as a point of reference, 

DOE is currently exploring the energy 

use associated with the network 

connectivity of covered products. 

Network connectivity is clearly a 

desirable consumer utility and is 

quickly becoming a common component 

of new models of covered products. 

Network connectivity, however, comes 

with attendant energy use. EPCA’s 

product class provision cannot be read 

to prohibit DOE from establishing 

product classes for products that offer 

network mode connectivity simply 

because that feature is not currently 

common on the market.13 Such a 

reading of the statute would prevent 

manufacturers from innovating and 

developing new product designs in 

response to consumer demand and 

technological developments. Likewise, 

for clothes washers and clothes dryers, 

EPCA’s product class provision 

authorizes DOE to establish standards 

for new product features that provide 

consumer utilities, such as shorter cycle 

times. 

Even if products with short normal 

cycle times for clothes washers and 

clothes dryers were readily available, 

the product class provision would still 

be appropriately applied in this 

rulemaking. DOE has previously 

established product classes based on 

existing features. Ventless clothes dryers 

had been on the market for at least 25 

years before the Department established 

separate energy conservation standards 

because ventless clothes dryers could 

not comply with the energy 

conservation standards applicable to 

vented units. There, DOE reasoned that 

because ventless clothes dryers 

provided a unique utility to consumers 

(available for installation in areas where 

vents were otherwise impossible to 

install) that a separate product class was 

justified. 76 FR 22454, 22485 (Apr. 21, 

2011). DOE reiterates that the impact of 

this rulemaking is not to require 

manufacturers to develop clothes 

washers and dryers with short normal 

cycle times, but rather to establish 

product classes based on that criterion 

and incentivize manufacturers to 

develop such products. 

Comments submitted by the Joint 

Environmental Commenters and others 

argued that the Department cannot use 

the product class provision to avoid 

prescribing energy conservation 

standards for the new product classes. 

These commenters explain that DOE 

misapplies the new product class 

provision in the NOPR by attempting to 

exempt certain clothes washers and 

dryers from the applicable energy 

conservation standard by postponing 

the adoption of replacement standards. 

These commenters believe that DOE 

must read EPCA’s product class 

provision with the requirements for 

conservation standards and to do 

otherwise ignores the limitations placed 

on the Department’s discretion when 

creating a new product class. (No. 0041, 

pp. 6–7; WVWD, No. 0017, pp. 1–2; 

Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council, No. 0021, p. 3; Davis, No. 0022, 

p. 1). Some commenters also note that 

such a process makes it increasingly 

difficult for manufacturers to accurately 

predict the costs associated with the 

new product classes. (AHAM, No. 0030, 

p. 9). 

Other commenters note that the 

associated impact of finalizing these 

product classes without accompanying 

standards would result in the creation of 

unregulated products that would then 

negatively impact consumers by causing 

product confusion, increased water and 

energy use, and higher utility bills. 

(MNGWPD, No. 0025, p. 1; AWE, et al., 

No. 0029, p. 1 Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council, No. 0021, p. 3). 

Similarly, comments submitted by the 

Attorneys General and the Corporation 

Counsel of the City of New York argued 

that DOE has violated 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1) by failing to specify a level of 

energy use in the NOPR for the new 

product classes. Section 6295(q)(2) is 

also violated by DOE’s failure to provide 

an explanation on the basis for which a 

lower or higher level was established 

because DOE offers no such 

accompanying explanation. (No. 0035, 

p. 6) These and other commenters 

argued that all clothes washers and 

dryers must adhere to the current energy 

and water use standards regardless of 

cycle time. (City of Sacramento 

Department of Utilities, No. 0020, p. 2; 

CEC, No. 0038, pp. 3–4). These 

commenters contend that DOE believes 

it can override the existing efficiency 

standards for clothes washers and 

dryers by stating that the proposed 

product classes would not be subject to 

energy or water conservations 

standards. (No. 0035, p. 8). 

Consumers’ Research supported a 

future standards rulemaking for short 

cycle products and stated that it would 

be the appropriate next step. (No. 0037, 

p. 2). 

As stated in the NOPR, DOE intends 

to complete the necessary conservation 

standards rulemaking once the product 

classes for short cycle clothes washers 

and clothes dryers are established. 85 

FR 49297, 49300 (Aug. 13, 2020). DOE 

has previously explained that EPCA, 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B), does not require 

the Department to simultaneously 

establish energy conservation standards 

in the same rulemaking as the 

determination of a new product class. 

DOE reminds commenters that the 

establishment of a new product class is 

similar to situations where DOE has 

finalized a coverage determination and 

a covered product exists without an 

applicable standard until the 

Department completes a test procedure 

rulemaking for that product. See 42 

U.S.C. 6292(b). Commenters can look to 

the Department’s 2009 beverage vending 

machines (‘‘BVM’’) energy 

conservations standard rulemaking and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81368 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

the 2007 distribution transformer energy 

conservation standards rulemaking as 

examples of prior instances where DOE 

established a new product class without 

simultaneously prescribing an 

associated conservation standard. 81 FR 

44914, 44920 (Aug. 31, 2009); 72 FR 

58190, 58197 (Oct. 12, 2007). 

When DOE initially considered 

energy conservation standards for 

BVMs, DOE did not consider 

combination vending machines as a 

separate equipment class, but instead 

considered that equipment with all 

other Class A and Class B BVMs. DOE 

later recognized that combination 

vending machines offered a distinct 

utility and concluded that those 

machines were a separate class of 

BVMs. DOE was unable to determine, at 

the same time as the product class 

determination, whether energy 

conservation standards for combination 

vending machines were economically 

justified and would result in significant 

energy savings. DOE subsequently 

decided to not set standards for the 

equipment class at that time. DOE 

reserved standards for combination 

vending machines and modified the 

definition of Class A and Class B BVMs 

to accommodate a definition for 

combination vending machines. 74 FR 

44914, 44920 (Aug. 31, 2009). DOE’s 

action thereby reserved a place for the 

development of future standards for 

combination vending machines that 

DOE then established in 2016. 81 FR 

1028, 1035 (Jan. 08, 2016). 

Similarly, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for distribution 

transformers in 2007 provides another 

example of this activity by the 

Department. There, DOE clarified that 

although it believed underground 

mining distribution transformers were 

within the scope of coverage, it 

recognized that mining transformers 

were subject to unique and extreme 

dimensional constraints that impacted 

their efficiency and performance 

capabilities, and decided to not 

establish energy conservation standards 

for underground mining transformers. In 

the final rule DOE established a separate 

equipment class for mining transformers 

and reserved a section with the intent to 

develop the analysis required to 

establish an appropriate energy 

conservation standard in the future. 72 

FR 58190, 58197 (Oct. 12, 2007). DOE 

later reached a similar conclusion in 

2013 when it decided to again not set 

standards for mining distribution 

transformers. 78 FR 23336, 23353 (Apr. 

18, 2013). In both rulemakings, DOE 

reserved a place for the future 

development of the necessary standards 

and did not set standards at the same 

time as creating the separate product 

classes. 

Here, DOE is following the same 

practice by first establishing new 

product classes for short normal cycle 

clothes washers and clothes dryers and 

reserving a place for future energy 

conservation standards. DOE intends to 

conduct the necessary rulemakings that 

will consider and evaluate the energy 

and water consumption limits for the 

new product classes to determine the 

applicable standards that provide the 

maximum energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 

in a significant conservation of energy, 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). DOE will 

provide interested members of the 

public an opportunity to comment on 

any preliminary rulemaking documents 

and proposed energy conservation 

standards for these product classes 

during these future rulemaking 

proceedings. See, 85 FR 68723, 68733 

(Oct. 30, 2020). These rulemakings will 

be completed following the procedures 

set out in the Process Rule, and will 

provide manufacturers with the 

opportunity to provide information on 

the costs associated with complying 

with any standards established by DOE. 

B. Anti-Backsliding Consideration, 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) 

In the context of establishing new 

product classes, DOE acknowledges 

EPCA’s general prohibition against 

prescribing amended standards that 

increase the maximum allowable use, or 

in the case of showerheads, faucets, 

water closets, or urinals, water use, or 

decreases the minimum required energy 

efficiency, of a covered product in any 

rulemaking to establish standards for a 

separate product class. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o); the ‘‘anti-backsliding 

provisions’’) Consistent with its prior 

rules, DOE maintains that the antibacksliding prohibition is read in 

conjunction with the Department’s 

product class authority in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q), and does not prohibit the 

establishment of product classes as 

proposed in this document. 84 FR 

33869, 33871–33873 (July 16, 2019); 85 

FR 68723, 68734 (Oct. 30, 2020). DOE 

applies this provision in conjunction 

with the authority set out in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q) to specify ‘‘a level of energy use 

or efficiency higher or lower than that 

which applies (or would apply) for such 

type or class . . .’’ if the Secretary 

determine that covered products within 

such group consume a different type of 

energy or have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature that justifies 

‘‘a higher or lower standard from that 

which applies (or will apply) to other 

products within such type (or class).’’ 

EPCA explicitly acknowledges, through 

this provision, that product features 

may arise that require the designation of 

a product class with a standard lower 

than that applicable to other product 

classes for that covered product. 85 FR 

68723, 68734 (Oct. 30, 2020). 

Commenters opposing the new short 

normal cycle product classes for clothes 

washers and clothes dryers contended 

that the finalization of these product 

classes will weaken existing efficiency 

standards for such products, and argue 

that the Department’s use of the product 

class provision cannot bypass the antibacksliding provision’s requirements. 

Commenters asserted that DOE has 

failed to give full meaning to all of 

EPCA’s provisions and that the NOPR 

contradicts section 6295(o)(1)–(2). These 

commenters argued that the antibacksliding provision, which was 

enacted in 1992 subsequent to section 

6295(q)’s enactment in 1987, should 

control in this situation. Commenters 

also looked to support their position by 

referencing the Second Circuit’s review 

of EPCA’s legislative history as 

discussed in NRDC v. Abraham, 355 

F.3d 179 (2005), to conclude that DOE 

may not render the anti-backsliding 

provision inoperative through the 

proposal’s use of section 6295(q). (No. 

0035, p. 7; Joint Environmental 

Commenters, No. 0041, p. 3). The Joint 

Environmental Commenters also 

contended that the language of the antibacksliding provision must be 

interpreted in light of the appliance 

program’s goals of steadily increasing a 

covered product’s energy efficiency. 

According to these commenters, the 

NOPR incorrectly reasons that the use of 

multiple tenses in the product class 

provision authorizes DOE to weaken the 

standard that applies to a product. 

DOE’s interpretation reads the text of 

the product class provision in a 

vacuum, and ignores that EPCA’s 

statutory context, history, and purposes 

must inform the meaning of the words 

used. The Joint Environmental 

Commenters argued the that the correct 

reading of EPCA provides that the antibacksliding provision constrains the 

product class provision to authorize 

DOE’s creation of a separate product 

class only when available versions of 

the covered product already possess the 

desired feature. Relaxing a current 

standard would never be justified. (No. 

0041, pp. 1–3). 

In support of the proposal, CEI noted 

that DOE has the statutory authority to 

designate a new class of clothes washers 

and dryers, allowing new standards to 

be promulgated within that class 

without regard to anti-backsliding 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81369 

controls otherwise applicable to existing 

product classes. (No. 0031, p. 4). 

In response, DOE actions in issuing 

this final rule are not rendering the antibacksliding provision inoperative 

through the use of section 6295(q) to 

establish short normal cycle product 

classes. As stated in the NOPR, DOE 

recognizes that section 6295(q)’s use of 

the present tense, ‘‘a higher or lower 

standard than that which applies,’’ 

authorizes the Department to reduce the 

stringency of the standard currently 

applicable to the products covered 

under the newly established separate 

product class. Additional evidence 

supporting the Department’s application 

of this provision to current standards is 

found in the reference to standards that 

are not yet applicable, as in standards 

that ‘‘would apply’’ or ‘‘will apply’’. If 

the product class provision were to only 

apply in situation where no standard 

had yet to be established for a covered 

product then there would be no need to 

indicate that the provision applied to 

future standards. There would also be 

no purpose to including a reference in 

the text of the statute to the potential for 

higher or lower standards, as there 

would be no reference to measure the 

potential changes against. DOE 

understands 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) to 

authorize the Department to reduce the 

stringency of the currently applicable 

standard upon making the 

determinations required by 6295(q). 85 

FR 49297, 49306 (Aug. 13, 2020); 85 FR 

68723, 68735 (Oct. 30, 2020). 

Commenters challenged DOE’s 

assertion that section 6295(q) cannot 

prohibit DOE from establishing 

standards that allow for technological 

advances or product features that could 

yield significant consumer benefits and 

associated reference to the 2011 ventless 

clothes dryer product class 

determination and prospective 

rulemaking regarding networkconnected products. Commenters agreed 

that DOE is correct that section 6295(q) 

does not prohibit standards from 

considering technological advances but 

that subsection 6295(o)(1) still prohibits 

the weakening of prescribed energy 

efficiency standards for covered 

products. This means DOE must 

accommodate technological innovation 

within those bounds. Commenters 

agreed that DOE correctly referenced the 

2011 ventless clothes dryers’ product 

class rulemaking as energy efficiency 

standards were not lowered there 

because the product class was not 

previously subject to any standards. 

Alternatively, clothes washers and 

dryers regardless of cycle time are 

presently subject to the existing energy 

and water conservation standards. The 

proposal would therefore result in a 

lowering or elimination of standards 

because it offers no standards to apply 

to the proposed new product classes. 

(Attorneys General and the Corporation 

Counsel of the City of New York, No. 

0035, p. 7; CEC, No. 0038, pp. 4–5; 

ASAP et al., No. 0033, p. 4). 

Commenters incorrectly referred to 

DOE’s 2011 ventless clothes dryer 

product class rulemaking in this 

context. Prior to the establishment of the 

product class, ventless clothes dryers 

were subject to the standards set for the 

product class as a whole. However, as 

these dryers could not at the time be 

tested using the applicable test 

procedure, ventless clothes dryer 

manufacturers subsequently sought and 

received waivers from test procedure 

requirements from the Department. 76 

FR 33271 (June 8, 2011). Because DOE 

issued waivers for the test procedure for 

these dryers, it can only mean that these 

products were subject to DOE testing 

and standards compliance requirements 

prior to the establishment of the 

separate product class. Commenters are 

mistaken to claim that ventless clothes 

dryers were not subject to any standard 

and that the subsequent creation of 

standards for this product class, once 

established, did not result in a lowering 

of existing standards. DOE continues to 

read EPCA’s provisions together to 

authorize the establishment of future 

standards for short cycle clothes washer 

and clothes dryer product classes at 

levels different from, and potentially 

less stringent than, the existing 

standards, if necessary. 

Some commenters argued that 

because all clothes washers and clothes 

dryers are currently subject to energy 

and water conservation standards, 

regardless of the cycle time, that the 

proposal will result in an amendment or 

weakening of the current standards for 

these products in violation of EPCA’s 

anti-backsliding provision. (Attorneys 

General and the Corporation Counsel of 

the City of New York, No. 0035, pp. 3– 

4, 5; CEC, No. 0038, pp. 3–4; LADWP, 

No. 0023, p. 1; NEEA, No. 0044, p. 8). 

Commenters argued that because the 

product classes lack accompanying 

standards, the rulemaking will result in 

an illegal backsliding for an uncertain 

period of time. (Valley Water, No. 0042, 

p. 1; WVWD, No. 0017, pp. 2–3; NEEA, 

No. 0044, p. 8). The new product classes 

will therefore contribute to the 

degradation of future energy and water 

savings as well as cause widespread 

resource waste to the detriment of 

utilities and consumers. (City of Tucson, 

No. 0039, p. 1; MNGWPD, No. 0025, p. 

2; AWE, et al., No. 0029, pp. 2–3). Based 

on the investment manufacturers have 

already made in meeting current 

standards, AHAM notes that these 

product classes would undermine 

decades of improvements. (AHAM, No. 

0030, p. 8). 

DOE reiterates that it has yet to 

determine the standards that would be 

applicable to the new short cycle 

product classes for clothes washers and 

clothes dryers. Following the 

requirements of the Process Rule, DOE 

intends to establish standards through 

the standard-setting rulemaking process. 

Until such rulemakings are initiated, 

neither DOE nor the commenters can 

reasonably conclude whether or to what 

extent the potentially applicable 

standards for these new product classes 

will be lower than the standards 

currently applicable to the other clothes 

washers and clothes dryers product 

classes. As some commenters have 

noted, there are products on the market 

already offering normal cycle times 

close to the normal short cycle times 

that DOE has adopted for the new 

product classes that operate within the 

current conservation standards. (CEC, 

No. 0038, pp. 3–4). Until DOE 

completes its future rulemakings, it is 

premature to presume what standard 

will be applied to the new product 

classes and whether it will result in a 

lowering of existing standards as these 

commenters suggest. 

As stated previously in this final rule, 

EPCA does not require the 

establishment of conservation standards 

simultaneously with the establishment 

of a new product class, see section III.A. 

Commenters’ concerns regarding this 

matter are premature at this time. 

Some commenters noted that DOE 

cannot argue that the anti-backsliding 

provision does not apply to clothes 

washer water efficiency standards while 

also arguing that the product class 

provision applies to those standards. 

DOE’s contention that the text of EPCA’s 

anti-backsliding provision forecloses its 

application to clothes washer water 

efficiency standards, at 85 FR 49307, 

leaves the Department no room to argue 

that the product class provision 

somehow applies to those standards, 

notwithstanding that the text of the 

product class provision addresses 

energy standards exclusively. (Joint 

Environmental Commenters, No. 0041, 

p. 8). 

DOE maintains that the concerns 

raised by commenters regarding the 

overall applicability of EPCA’s antibacksliding provision to clothes washers 

is too broad and ignores the limitations 

that EPCA itself places on the scope of 

the anti-backsliding provision, 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1). DOE reminds commenters 

that EPCA’s anti-backsliding provision 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81370 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

is limited in its applicability with regard 

to water use to four specified products, 

i.e., showerheads, faucets, water closets, 

or urinals. DOE’s existing energy 

conservation standard for clothes 

washers is comprised of both energy 

and water use components. As 

residential clothes washers are not one 

of the products listed in the text of the 

anti-backsliding provision with respect 

to water use, there is no prohibition on 

DOE specifying a maximum amount of 

water use for clothes washers that is 

greater than the existing standard. 

Some commenters also challenged the 

proposed new product classes by 

claiming that DOE cannot argue section 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) prohibits the 

Department from establishing standards 

that would eliminate certain product 

attributes from the market only to then 

claim that it is authorized to use the 

product class provision to reanimate 

features no longer available. 

Commenters argued that DOE cannot 

justify an attempt to claw back 

established energy conservation 

standards that would be contrary to the 

anti-backsliding provision and are 

unsupported by the product class 

provision under the guise of product 

unavailability. (Joint Environmental 

Commenters, No. 0041, p. 8). 

Comments from Consumers’ Research 

proposed that DOE’s current energy 

efficiency standards have degraded 

clothes washer and dryer performance 

causing the disappearance of shorter, 

more effective cycles for these products. 

These commenters took this to mean 

that the current standards are actually in 

conflict with the policy of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4), which prohibits the DOE 

from establishing standards that would 

result in the unavailability of any 

covered type (or class) of performance 

characteristics that were available prior 

to the adoption the a regulation. (No. 

0037, pp. 2–3). Extended average cycle 

times, these commenters argued, may 

have caused a significant reduction in a 

product’s utility that some consumers 

receive while others might voluntarily 

choose the longer cycle to save on their 

utility bill. All consumers should be 

able to choose between better 

performance and savings without losing 

the benefits received from shorter cycle 

times. (No. 0037, p. 3). 

DOE is not relying on 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4) of EPCA to authorize the 

establishment of the new short, normal 

cycle product classes for clothes 

washers and clothes dryers. EPCA’s 

product class provision provides that 

DOE may set standards for different 

product classes based on features that 

provide a consumer utility that is 

separate from other products within the 

same original product class. In this final 

rule, DOE maintains that products that 

can clean or dry clothing more quickly 

offer a specific consumer utility not 

available from appliances that require 

longer cycles to accomplish the same 

task. DOE asserts that the utility 

consumers will receive is the time saved 

resulting from the shorter normal wash 

or dry cycles. DOE reaffirms that while 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) prohibits the 

establishment of standards that would 

eliminate certain product attributes 

from the market, Section 6295(q) of 

EPCA authorizes DOE to establish 

product classes and standards that 

recognize new technologies and product 

features which may no longer be 

available in the market. DOE’s reading 

of the statute is consistent with DOE’s 

prior acknowledgment that its 

determination of what constitutes a 

performance-related feature justifying a 

different standard may change 

depending on the technology and the 

consumer utility at issue, and that as a 

result, certain products may disappear 

from (or reappear in) the market entirely 

due to changing consumer demand. 

This reading is also consistent with 

DOE’s prior statements that DOE 

determines this value on a case-by-case 

basis through its own research as well 

as public comments received. 80 FR 

13120, 13138 (Mar. 12, 2015). In 

addition, once DOE makes a 

determination that a certain product 

attribute is a feature, DOE cannot later 

set a standard that would eliminate that 

feature. 85 FR 68723, 68737 (Oct. 30, 

2020). 

C. Other Statutory Challenges 

Some commenters have argued that 

by categorically excluding this 

rulemaking from environmental review, 

DOE has violated the National 

Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’), 42 

U.S.C. 4321, et seq., by determining that 

the new product classes would result in 

no environmental impacts. These 

commenters believed that this 

conclusion mischaracterizes the 

rulemaking, on the ground that DOE’s 

actions would result in no efficiency 

standard from applying to the new 

product classes, and that this would 

cause unlimited amounts of energy and 

water to be used. In these commenters’ 

view, the categorical exclusion DOE has 

selected is, therefore, not applicable, 

and commenters call for DOE to 

complete the NEPA analysis that they 

contend is necessary. (ASAP, et al., No. 

0033, p. 4; Attorneys General and the 

Corporation Counsel of the City of New 

York, No. 0035, pp. 11, 12–14; Joint 

Environmental Commenters, No. 0041, 

pp. 8–9; CEC, No. 0038, p. 8–9; Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 0026, pp. 13– 

14). The Attorneys General and the 

Corporation Counsel of the City of New 

York argued that amending existing 

regulations by adding new product 

classes not subject to any conservation 

standards would undoubtedly change 

the environmental effect of the rule, and 

that DOE must consider and explain 

how the increased energy use and 

pollution resulting from the proposal 

will impact the environment. (No. 0035, 

pp. 14–15) Some commenters also 

asserted that by applying a categorical 

exclusion to evade NEPA’s review 

process, DOE has failed to provide any 

analysis on the potential impacts to 

water or energy resources that will 

result from finalizing the rulemaking 

without any accompanying efficiency 

standards. (Cohen, No. 0009; Valley 

Water, No. 0042, p. 1). Commenters 

requested that DOE provide more 

information concerning the potential 

environmental impacts of the new 

product classes. (Rubang, No. 0011). 

DOE maintains that this rulemaking, 

once finalized, will only establish new 

product classes for clothes washers and 

clothes dryers with a short normal 

cycles of 30 or 45 minutes. Finalization 

of the rule will not cause adverse 

environmental impacts as commenters 

indicate, and the rule falls within the 

scope of Department activities excluded 

from NEPA review by the A5 

Categorical Exclusion under 10 CFR part 

1021, subpart D. This categorical 

exclusion applies to any rulemaking 

that interprets or amends an existing 

rule without changing the 

environmental effect of that rule. DOE 

maintains that establishing a new 

product classes for covered products 

will not result in a change to the 

environmental effect of the existing 

clothes washers and clothes dryers. As 

stated previously, DOE will engage in 

the rulemaking process to identify and 

select the applicable energy 

conservation standards for these new 

product classes once this rule is 

finalized. That future rulemaking will 

provide for the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 

in a significant conservation of energy. 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). This action, 

which only establishes a product class 

for clothes washers and dryers with a 

short normal cycle of 30 or 45 minutes, 

therefore falls within the scope of the 

A5 Categorical Exclusion. 

DOE also received comments 

challenging the rulemaking as violating 

EPCA and the Administrative Procedure 

Act (‘‘APA’’), 5 U.S.C. 551, et seq., by 

failing to provide a satisfactory 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81371 

explanation and a rational connection 

between the facts found and choice 

made that support finding sufficient 

justification for any requirement of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q). Specifically, these 

commenters argued that DOE provided 

no demonstration that quicker cycle 

times justify higher or lower standards, 

ignored evidence counter to DOE’s 

position, and relied on pure speculation 

and assumptions that current standards 

are preventing manufacturers from 

developing shorter cycle times. 

(Attorneys General and the Corporation 

Counsel of the City of New York, No. 

0035, pp. 15–17). Commenters also 

looked to the data provided by NEEA for 

clothes washers and dryers to conclude 

that consumers use quick cycle options 

relatively infrequently and instead 

choose to prioritize more efficient cycles 

over speed. (No. 0035, pp. 15–17). 

The Department maintains that it has 

met the APA’s requirements for 

providing a sufficient explanation of its 

reasoning for establishing new short 

cycle product classes for clothes 

washers and clothes dryers in the notice 

of proposed rulemaking, public meeting, 

and this final rule. DOE has responded 

to the information submitted through 

the public comment process and has 

concluded that the public would derive 

a utility from the time saved through the 

future availability of short normal cycle 

washers and dryers that are presently 

not available. 

DOE also received comments 

challenging the validity of the 

rulemaking under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 42 U.S.C. 3501. One 

commenter disagreed with DOE’s 

statement that the proposed rule did not 

impose new information or record 

keeping requirements. This commenter 

argued that under the correct definition 

of ‘‘collection of information’’, that the 

proposed rule, if finalized, is an 

instrument that constitutes a collection 

of information and should be subject to 

the procedural and substantive 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. Further, the commenter 

argued that DOE referenced the 

incorrect OMB control number and 

recommended that the Department 

reconsider the PRA. (60 Plus 

Association, No. 0043, p. 2). 

DOE disagrees with these comments. 

The finalization of this rulemaking, 

which establishes product classes for 

residential clothes washers and 

consumer clothes dryers with cycle 

times of 30 or 45 minutes, does not 

establish standards or new testing 

requirements, nor does it impose new 

information or record keeping 

requirements. This is because the rule 

does not amend the reporting, 

recordkeeping, or certification 

requirements contained in the 

Department’s currently-approved 

information collection process. 

Clearance by the Office of Management 

and Budget is not required under the 

PRA for this rulemaking. 

D. Additional Comments 

DOE also received a variety of 

additional comments expressing other 

concerns and support for the new 

product classes for residential clothes 

washers and consumer clothes dryers 

with cycle times of 30 or 45 minutes. 

AHAM submitted a series of 

comments suggesting a number of 

unintended consequences of finalizing 

the proposed rule. AHAM remains 

skeptical that the finalization of the rule 

would actually achieve DOE’s goals, 

especially for clothes dryers. Because 

manufacturers may elect to reduce spin 

time to establish a shorter normal wash 

cycle, this will cause more moisture to 

remain in the fabric and require longer, 

hotter, and more energy intense drying 

times. This, AHAM suggests, would 

make it difficult to sync DOE’s dryer 

normal cycle time for the new product 

class along with the shorter cycle time 

for clothes washers as laundry products 

are sold and used as a pair. (No. 0030, 

p. 9; Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

0026, p. 38). In response, DOE affirms 

that it is finalizing this rulemaking with 

the intent that the new product classes 

will motivate and encourage 

manufacturer innovation. Based on 

DOE’s historic experience with the 

regulatory scheme, DOE has sound 

reason to believe that given the 

opportunity, manufacturers will use the 

technology available to them to develop 

products to meet the specific criteria set 

for new short normal cycle washers and 

dryers so that these products can 

continue to be used together and in less 

time. 

DOE also received comments 

regarding the impacts of differing cycle 

times between clothes washers and 

clothes dryers that result from the use 

of automatic termination settings. These 

commenters argued that while it may be 

unlikely that clothes washer cycle times 

may not vary much from the tested 

cycle time, clothes dryer cycle times for 

automatic termination normal cycles 

could vary widely depending on a 

number of external factors. Commenters 

recommended that DOE must also 

consider the impact that higher 

temperature, a result of faster dryer 

cycles, could have on fabric care and the 

level of risk that consumers may be 

willing to accept in exchange for short 

cycle times. Commenters also noted that 

if DOE’s proposal is finalized, it would 

possibly create disharmony between the 

US and Canada’s standards, contrary to 

the goals of both the United StatesMexico- Canada Trade Agreement and 

the US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation 

Council. Commenters also note that the 

new product classes will increase the 

test burden for clothes washers and 

clothes dryers by requiring cycle time to 

be measured using Appendix D2, with 

no benefit to either consumers or energy 

conservation. (AHAM, No. 0030, pp. 8– 

9). 

The potential unintended 

consequences that AHAM raises here 

are premature at this time and can be 

addressed, as appropriate, in future 

rulemakings concerning standards for 

these new product classes. DOE’s 

actions in this rulemaking involve the 

establishment of new product classes, 

and do not result in the establishment 

of applicable standards or test 

procedures. Commenters will have 

ample opportunities to raise these 

matters in the appropriate future 

rulemakings, where DOE will consider 

costs, benefits, and many of the 

potential unintended consequences that 

AHAM described. 

Additionally, AHAM noted that 

DOE’s creation of the new product 

classes would cause added regulation 

based on the new investment that would 

be needed to meet the new standards 

once imposed. Such action, AHAM 

claims, would conflict with Executive 

Order 13771. (No. 0030, p. 8). GEA also 

commented that the proposal has the 

potential to add regulatory burdens to 

the industry through the costs 

associated with the designing, building, 

stocking, marketing, and selling of new 

models. (No. 0045, p. 3). As DOE 

explained in the NOPR, this rulemaking 

is a deregulatory action. 85 FR 49297, 

49309 (Aug. 13, 2020). Finalization of 

this rulemaking will establish separate 

product classes for short cycle clothes 

washers and dryers and enable 

manufacturers to develop products that 

better meet consumers’ needs as 

identified above. DOE does not require 

manufacturers to produce products that 

would meet the cycle times 

characterizing these product classes. It 

remains a manufacturer’s choice 

whether to invest in the development of 

products for these new product classes. 

DOE received comments requesting 

that the Department abandon this 

discretionary rulemaking action and 

instead focus its resources and attention 

on the many other delayed standards 

rulemakings that are required by EPCA. 

(CEC, No. 0038, pp. 1–2). DOE remains 

committed to providing opportunities to 

introduce products for consumers that 

will meet their specific needs by 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81372 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

engaging in this rulemaking. DOE 

continues to work towards meeting its 

other rulemaking responsibilities while 

advocating for consumer choice and 

enabling manufacturer innovation. 

Some commenters challenged DOE’s 

reliance on CEI’s 2018 petition for short 

cycle dishwasher product class 

rulemaking as being misplaced in this 

rulemaking. (Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 0026, p. 30, 32). Like challenges to 

the dishwasher short cycle product 

class, some commenters similarly called 

DOE’s cycle times for clothes washers 

and clothes dryers to be arbitrarily 

proposed. (AHAM, No. 0030, pp. 2–3). 

Commenters asserted that CEI’s petition 

does not address consumer satisfaction 

and utility regarding energy efficiency 

and conservation, environmental 

impacts, and affordable consumer 

consumption. (Rubang, No. 0011). Other 

commenters supported the similarities 

that DOE recognized between the values 

that both sets of products can offer 

consumers through short normal cycle 

times. (Consumers’ Research, No. 0037, 

pp. 1–3). 

DOE recognizes that there are many 

similarities between consumers’ uses of 

residential dishwashers, residential 

clothes washers, and consumer clothes 

dryers respectively. Such similarities 

include the consumer utility over 

discrete cycles with programmed cycle 

times and the amount of time 

consumers spend running multiple 

cycles on average per week. DOE has 

used CEI’s petition as a starting point to 

consider the types of improvements that 

may be achievable through decreased 

cycle times for clothes washers and 

dryers. DOE will continue to consider 

the impact for shorter normal cycles in 

subsequent rulemakings as required 

through EPCA’s standards and test 

procedure provisions. 

Some commenters claimed that the 

proposal would harm consumers and 

that DOE failed to consider such 

consumer impacts when issuing the 

proposal. Commenters claimed that the 

proposal would arbitrarily deny 

consumers access to accurate 

information about the energy use and 

operating costs associated with using 

their washer and dryer. (Joint 

Environmental Commenters. No. 0041, 

p. 9; City of Tucson, No. 0039, p. 1). 

Similarly, in the absence of 

accompanying conservation standards, 

some commenters argued that 

consumers will be stuck with products 

that significantly increase their utilities 

bills without providing a noticeably 

shorter cycle time than what was 

already available. In addition to 

increasing water and energy use, this 

could also negatively impact domestic 

manufacturers and U.S. jobs through the 

influx of low-cost products from foreign 

manufacturers. (ASAP et al., No. 0033, 

p. 2; Public Transcript, No. 0026, p. 14). 

The LADWP expressed its concern that 

the absence of conservation standards 

could have a significant impact to rebate 

and incentive programs currently 

available to utility customers. (No. 0023 

p. 1). DOE is aware of these 

commenters’ concern for the negative 

impacts they propose will result as a 

product of this rulemaking on 

consumers. In this rulemaking DOE is 

finalizing the establishment of new 

product classes for short normal cycle 

clothes washers and clothes dryers. DOE 

is not setting a mandate that consumers 

must purchase future products that meet 

the criteria of these product classes. In 

response to the concern raised by the 

utilities regarding existing rebates or 

incentives, it is within their authority to 

modify existing programs in light of this 

rulemaking, and nothing in this rule 

would prevent such activity if the utility 

decided to adopt such modifications. 

When this rulemaking is completed, 

consumers will be able to purchase the 

product that best meets their individual 

needs and interests. DOE’s actions here 

serve as an opportunity for 

manufacturers to develop and provide 

new products that expand the choices 

available to consumers when selecting 

the best products for their needs. 

Many commenters voiced their 

concern regarding the lack of analysis 

completed by the Department 

concerning the associated increase of 

water use and depletion of resources 

that would result from this rulemaking. 

(WVWD, No. 0017, p. 2; AWE, et al., No. 

0029, p. 2; Save Water, No. 0006; 

WMWD, No. 0019, p. 1). Commenters 

believed that the increased water use 

caused by the rulemaking will 

negatively impact the current water 

demand projections many local utilities 

and programs depend upon for 

operation. (City of Tucson, No. 0039, p. 

1). Some commenters noted that the 

proposal would conflict with state water 

conservation initiatives and legislation 

as well as cause water demands to 

exceed the available supply. (City of 

Sacramento Department of Utilities, No. 

0020, p. 2). Commenters noted that 

under the current standard, the 

combined savings from various 

plumbing fixtures and appliances, such 

as clothes washers, are anticipated to 

reduce future municipal water 

demands. Reducing the water efficiency 

standard for clothes washers through 

the proposed rulemaking would likely 

reduce the anticipated water savings 

and increase future demands. (TWDB, 

No. 0032, pp. 1–2). DOE recognizes the 

importance of dependable water supply 

predictions and the many water 

availability issues that impact parts of 

the nation. As stated previously, this 

rulemaking does not serve to set water 

(or energy) conservation standards for 

clothes washers. While the various 

concerns expressed by the commenters 

may well be valid as a general matter, 

raising them in this rulemaking is 

premature and it is too soon to speculate 

on the impact of conservation standards 

that have yet to be set. EPCA prescribes 

that when DOE establishes new 

conservation standards, DOE shall 

consider the need for national energy 

and water conservation as part of 

determining whether a potential 

standard is economically justified. 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(b)(i)(VI). DOE will 

consider these concerns in that future 

standards rulemaking. 

CEC claimed that the rulemaking 

amounted to an energy conservation 

standard rulemaking and must follow 

the Department’s Process Rule, 

specifically section 6. (Appendix A to 

subpart C of part 430). CEC argued that 

in order to be consistent with its own 

procedural requirement, DOE should 

withdraw the proposal and issue an 

early assessment for amended standards 

and better engage the public. (No. 0038, 

p. 9). 

CEC is mistaken that this rulemaking 

equates to an energy conservation 

standard rulemaking. In this rulemaking 

DOE is establishing short normal cycle 

product classes for residential clothes 

washers and consumer clothes dryers 

that offer 30 or 45 minute cycles. DOE 

is not setting associated conservation 

standards or test procedures for those 

covered products at this time. DOE 

intends to complete these necessary 

rulemakings once the new product 

classes are established and will follow 

the procedures set out in the Process 

Rule as well as the requirements 

prescribed in EPCA. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 0026, p. 36). Under the 

Process Rule, DOE has 180 days from 

the completion of a test procedure 

determination to propose associated 

conservation standards. Once these new 

product classes are finalized, DOE will 

turn its attention to the next step of the 

process by initiating the required test 

procedure and conservation standard 

rulemakings. 

IV. Conclusion 

DOE has concluded that it has legal 

authority to establish separate shortcycle product classes for residential 

clothes washers and consumer clothes 

dryers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). In 

this rulemaking, DOE has established 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81373 

14https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata. 

separate product classes for top-loading 

standard-size and front-loading 

standard-size residential clothes 

washers with cycle times of less than 30 

and 45 minutes, respectively, and for 

vented electric standard-size and vented 

gas clothes dryers with a cycle time of 

less than 30 minutes. DOE will consider 

test procedures and energy conservation 

standards in separate rulemakings that 

will include an analysis of energy and 

water consumption limits in order to 

determine standards for each product 

class that provide for the maximum 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

will result in a significant conservation 

of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE 

will provide additional opportunity for 

comment on any proposed energy 

conservation standards for short-cycle 

residential clothes washers and 

consumer clothes dryers. 

DOE will update the requirements for 

the residential clothes washer and 

consumer clothes dryer standards at 10 

CFR 430.32(g)(4) and (h)(3), 

respectively. The current requirements 

included in these tables specify the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. DOE will include new 

paragraphs following each table 

showing the current requirements to 

specify that top-loading standard-size 

and front-loading standard-size 

residential clothes washers with an 

average cycle time of less than 30 and 

45 minutes, respectively, are not 

currently subject to energy or water 

conservation standards, and that vented 

electric standard-size and vented gas 

clothes dryers with a cycle time of less 

than 30 minutes are not currently 

subject to energy conservation 

standards. 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’ 

This final rule is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the criteria set 

out in section 3(f) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). 

Accordingly, this action was subject to 

review by the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) in the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’). DOE does not anticipate that 

the creation of the new product classes 

will result in any quantifiable costs or 

benefits. Such costs or benefits would 

derive from the applicable test 

procedures and energy conservations 

standards, which the Department will 

prescribe in separate rulemakings. 

B. Review Under Executive Orders 

13771 and 13777 

On January 30, 2017, the President 

issued Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 13771, 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs.’’ 82 FR 9339. E.O. 

13771 stated the policy of the executive 

branch is to be prudent and financially 

responsible in the expenditure of funds, 

from both public and private sources. 

E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to 

manage the costs associated with the 

governmental imposition of private 

expenditures required to comply with 

Federal regulations. In addition, on 

February 24, 2017, the President issued 

Executive Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing the 

Regulatory Reform Agenda.’’ (82 FR 

12285 (March 1, 2017)). The order 

requires the head of each agency to 

designate an agency official as its 

Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each 

RRO is tasked with overseeing the 

implementation of regulatory reform 

initiatives and policies to ensure that 

individual agencies effectively carry out 

regulatory reforms, consistent with 

applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 

requires the establishment of a 

regulatory task force at each agency. The 

regulatory task force is required to make 

recommendations to the agency head 

regarding the repeal, replacement, or 

modification of existing regulations, 

consistent with applicable law. 

DOE has determined that this final 

rule is a deregulatory action under E.O. 

13771. This rule establishes separate 

product classes for short-cycle 

residential clothes washers and 

consumer clothes dryers with cycle 

times of less than 30 or 45 minutes. DOE 

has designated this rulemaking as 

‘‘deregulatory’’ under E.O. 13771 

because it is an enabling regulation 

pursuant to OMB memo M–17–21. 

Manufacturers could design and 

manufacture new products in this 

product class to meet consumer 

demand. DOE will seek data to assist its 

determination of the appropriate 

standard levels for such product classes 

in subsequent rulemakings. 

C. 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’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment and final regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) for any such rule that 

an agency adopts as a final rule, 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 

Executive Order 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 these procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (http://energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel). 

DOE reviewed this rule under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the procedures and policies 

published on February 19, 2003. DOE 

has concluded that this rule will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis for this determination 

is as follows: 

The Small Business Administration 

(‘‘SBA’’) considers a business entity to 

be a small business, if, together with its 

affiliates, it employs less than a 

threshold number of workers or earns 

less than the average annual receipts 

specified in 13 CFR part 121. The 

threshold values set forth in these 

regulations use size standards and codes 

established by the North American 

Industry Classification System 

(‘‘NAICS’’) that are available at: https:// 

www.sba.gov/document/support--tablesize-standard. The threshold number for 

NAICS classification code 335220, 

major household appliance 

manufacturing, which includes clothes 

dryer and clothes washer 

manufacturers, is 1,500 employees. 

Manufacturers must certify compliance 

of their products to DOE prior to 

distributing them in commerce. Most of 

the manufacturers supplying residential 

clothes washers and consumer clothes 

dryers into the United States are large 

multinational corporations. DOE 

collected data from DOE’s compliance 

certification database 14 to identify 

manufacturers of residential clothes 

washers and consumer clothes dryers. 

DOE then consulted publicly available 

data, purchased company reports from 

vendors such as Dun and Bradstreet, to 

determine whether they meet the SBA’s 

definition of a ‘‘small business 

manufacturer’’ and have their 

manufacturing facilities located within 

the United States. Based on this 

analysis, DOE did not identify any small 

businesses that manufacture residential 

clothes washers or consumer clothes 

dryers. In addition, this rulemaking 

establishes product classes for 

residential clothes washers and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81374 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

consumer clothes dryers with cycle 

times less than 30 or 45 minutes and 

does not impose new requirements on 

small entities. Therefore, no new costs 

will result from the rulemaking. 

Appropriate standard levels will be 

established in subsequent rulemakings, 

which will include consideration of 

potential new costs. As a result, DOE 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 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). 

D. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

This rulemaking, which establishes 

product classes for residential clothes 

washers and consumer clothes dryers 

with cycle times less than 30 or 45 

minutes, but does not establish 

standards or new testing requirements 

that would be required for testing such 

products, imposes no new information 

or record keeping requirements. 

Accordingly, Office of Management and 

Budget clearance is not required under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

Manufacturers of covered products 

generally must certify to DOE that their 

products comply with any applicable 

energy conservation standards. To 

certify compliance, manufacturers must 

first obtain test data for their products 

according to the DOE test procedures, 

including any amendments adopted for 

those test procedures. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including residential clothes washers 

and consumer clothes dryers. (See 

generally 10 CFR part 429). The 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the certification and recordkeeping 

is subject to review and approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (‘‘PRA’’). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 35 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

E. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’) of 

1969, DOE has analyzed this action in 

accordance with NEPA and DOE’s 

NEPA implementing regulations (10 

CFR part 1021). DOE has determined 

that this rule qualifies for categorical 

exclusion (‘‘CX’’) under 10 CFR part 

1021, subpart D, appendix A5, because 

it is an interpretive rulemaking that 

does not change the environmental 

effect of the rule and meets the 

requirements for application of a CX. 

See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE 

has determined that promulgation of 

this rule is not a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment within the meaning 

of NEPA, and does not require an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have federalism 

implications. The Executive order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. EPCA governs and prescribes 

Federal preemption of State regulations 

as to energy conservation for the 

products that are the subject of this final 

rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ imposes on Federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation, and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 

12988 specifically requires that 

executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation, (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction, (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately 

defines key terms, and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this final 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

H. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81375 

consultation under UMRA (62 FR 

12820) (also available at http://

energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/ 

documents/umra_97.pdf). This final 

rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, thus, the requirements under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do 

not apply. 

I. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Public Law 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

final rule would not have any impact on 

the autonomy or integrity of the family 

as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

J. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

The Department has determined, 

under Executive Order 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), 

that this final rule would not result in 

any takings that might require 

compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

K. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed this final rule under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

L. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that 

(1)(i) is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (ii) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(2) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits for 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

This rule, which establishes product 

classes for residential clothes washers 

and consumer clothes dryers with cycle 

times less than 30 or 45 minutes, would 

not have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy and has not otherwise been 

designated by the OIRA Administrator 

as a significant energy action. The rule, 

therefore, is not a significant energy 

action. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 

on this rule. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule before its effective date. The 

report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

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, Small 

businesses. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on December 2, 2020, 

by Daniel R Simmons, 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 December 3, 

2020. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE is amending 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Section 430.32 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (g)(4) and (h)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(4)(i) Except as provided in paragraph 

(g)(4)(ii) of this section, clothes washers 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2018, shall have an Integrated Modified 

Energy Factor no less than, and an 

Integrated Water Factor no greater than: 

Product class 

Integrated 

modified 

energy factor 

(cu.ft./kWh/ 

cycle) 

Integrated 

water 

factor 

(gal/cycle/ 

cu.ft.) 

(A) Top-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ........................................................................................... 1.15 12.0 

(B) Top-loading, Standard (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) .......................................................................................... 1.57 6.5 

(C) Front-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ......................................................................................... 1.13 8.3 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81376 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

Product class 

Integrated 

modified 

energy factor 

(cu.ft./kWh/ 

cycle) 

Integrated 

water 

factor 

(gal/cycle/ 

cu.ft.) 

(D) Front-loading, Standard (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ........................................................................................ 1.84 4.7 

(ii) Top-loading, standard clothes 

washers with an average cycle time of 

less than 30 minutes and front-loading, 

standard clothes washers with an 

average cycle time of less than 45 

minutes are not currently subject to 

energy or water conservation standards. 

(h) * * * 

(3)(i) Except as provided in paragraph 

(h)(3)(ii) of this section, clothes dryers 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2015, shall have a combined energy 

factor no less than: 

Product class 

Combined 

energy factor 

(lbs/kWh) 

(A) Vented Electric, Standard 

(4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ..................................... 3.73 

(B) Vented Electric, Compact 

(120V) (less than 4.4 ft3 

capacity) ............................ 3.61 

(C) Vented Electric, Compact 

(240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 

capacity) ............................ 3.27 

(D) Vented Gas .................... 3.30 

(E) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 

ft3 capacity) ....................... 2.55 

(F) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer ...... 2.08 

(ii) Vented, electric standard clothes 

dryers and vented gas clothes dryers 

with a cycle time of less than 30 

minutes are not currently subject to 

energy conservation standards. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2020–26976 Filed 12–15–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2016–3343; Product 

Identifier 2015–SW–078–AD; Amendment 

39–21353; AD 2020–25–11] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014–12– 

12, which applied to certain Airbus 

Helicopters Model EC120B and 

EC130B4 helicopters. AD 2014–12–12 

required inspecting and, if necessary, 

replacing parts of the sliding door star 

support attachment assembly. This AD 

requires modifying the sliding door star 

support stringer as specified in a 

European Union Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) AD, which is incorporated by 

reference (IBR). This AD was prompted 

by several incidents involving 

helicopter left-hand side doors (both 

swinging and sliding) that revealed 

weaknesses in the locking mechanism. 

The FAA is issuing this AD to address 

the unsafe condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective January 21, 

2021. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of January 21, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated 

by reference in this AD, contact the 

EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 

Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 

8999 000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu; 

internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may 

find this material on the EASA website 

at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may 

view this material at the FAA, Office of 

the Regional Counsel, Southwest 

Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 

6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 817–222–5110. 

It is also available in the AD docket on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2016– 

3343. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2016– 

3343; or in person at Docket Operations 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The AD docket contains this final rule, 

any comments received, and other 

information. The address for Docket 

Operations is U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, 

Large Aircraft Section, International 

Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 

216th St., Des Moines, WA; telephone 

206–231–3218; email 

kathleen.arrigotti@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

The EASA, which is the Technical 

Agent for the Member States of the 

European Union, has issued EASA AD 

2020–0095, dated April 29, 2020 (EASA 

AD 2020–0095), to correct an unsafe 

condition for certain Airbus Helicopters 

Model EC120B and EC130B4 

helicopters. 

The FAA issued a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 

to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an 

AD to supersede AD 2014–12–12, 

Amendment 39–17873 (79 FR 36638, 

June 30, 2014) (AD 2014–12–12). AD 

2014–12–12 applied to certain Airbus 

Helicopters Model EC120B and 

EC130B4 helicopters. The SNPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 22, 2020 (85 FR 59454). The 

FAA preceded the SNPRM with a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74362). The 

NPRM was prompted by the 

determination to expand the 

applicability to all serial-numbered 

EC120B helicopters with affected 

sliding doors installed and require 

compliance with revised service 

information. The NPRM proposed to 

require inspecting each upper and lower 

locking pin control rod end fitting and 

replacing it if necessary, cleaning and 

dye-penetrant inspecting the star 

support pin for cracking and replacing 

it if necessary, and reinforcing the 

sliding door star support stringer. The 

SNPRM proposed to require modifying 

the door locking/unlocking mechanism, 

as specified in EASA AD 2020–0095. 

The FAA is proposing this AD to 

address failure of the sliding door star 

support, which could inhibit the 

operation of the sliding door from the 

inside, delaying the evacuation of 

passengers during an emergency. See 

EASA AD 2020–0095 for additional 

background information. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES