[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4883-4885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00842]


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

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; Correction

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

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On December 16, 2020, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') 
published a final rule establishing 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 residential clothes washers that offer cycle times for a normal 
cycle of less than 45 minutes. This correction responds to specific 
comments submitted by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (``PG&E''), 
San Diego Gas and Electric (``SDG&E''), and Southern California Edison 
(``SCE'') in response to DOE's notice of proposed rulemaking 
(``NOPR''), which were inadvertently omitted from the final rule. DOE 
has considered the comments and determined that in most instances, 
these comments raise issues substantially similar to those raised by 
other commenters that DOE previously considered and addressed in the 
final rule. To the extent these comments raise issues not explicitly 
addressed in the preamble of the final rule, DOE determined that the 
comments submitted by PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE do not alter any of the 
conclusions reached in support of the final rule and would not have 
resulted in an outcome different than as set forth in the final rule.

DATES: Effective January 15, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence 
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9cd7fde8f4eee5f2b2d1ffd5f2e8f3eff4dcf4edb2f8f3f9b2fbf3ea"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e755f4a564c475010735d77504a514d567e564f105a515b10595148">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE published a final rule in the Federal 
Register on December 16, 2020 (the ``December 2020 final rule''), 
establishing separate product classes for top-loading consumer clothes 
washers and consumer clothes dryers that offer cycle times for a normal 
cycle of less

[[Page 4884]]

than 30 minutes, and for front-loading residential clothes washers that 
offer cycle times for a normal cycle of less than 45 minutes. 85 FR 
81359. This document responds to comments unintentionally omitted from 
the final rule.

Correction

    DOE received a submission from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company 
(``PG&E''), San Diego Gas and Electric (``SDG&E''), and Southern 
California Edison (``SCE'') (collectively referred to as the ``CA 
IOUs'') in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking to establish 
separate product classes for consumer clothes washers and consumer 
clothes dryers, 85 FR 49297 (Aug. 13, 2020). Through an unintentional 
oversight, DOE did not make specific reference to the CA IOUs comments 
submitted in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking in the final 
rule. DOE considered the comments and determined that many of the 
substantive issues the CA IOUs comment brought to DOE's attention were 
also raised by the other commenters and addressed by DOE in the final 
rule.
    Like other commenters, CA IOUs opposed the rulemaking and expressed 
various arguments regarding DOE's determination that cycle time was a 
performance related feature under the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act (``EPCA''), 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), that justified the creation of the 
new product classes. Like other commenters, the CA IOUs also argued 
that, if finalized, the product classes would result in illegal 
backsliding of the applicable energy conservation standards under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). (No. 0036, pp. 6-8) Commenters, including the CA 
IOUs, stated that the notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), 85 FR 
68724 (Oct. 30, 2020), failed to provide evidence that the current 
energy and water conservation standards were precluding the shorter 
normal cycle products from being made available. (No. 0036, p. 1) Like 
other commenters, CA IOUs also noted that DOE's data implied that 
multiple clothes washers on the market already met the proposed 
requirements for the new product classes while also meeting the current 
energy and water conservation standards. (No. 0036, at p. 3; see also 
NEEA, No. 0044, pp. 2-5) Commenters, including the CA IOUs, also 
challenged DOE's determination regarding the environmental impact of 
the new product classes and urged DOE to conduct and publicly release 
the analysis to confirm that the proposed product classes should be 
granted an A5 Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental 
Policy Act (``NEPA'') of 1969. (No. 0036, p. 11) Like other commenters, 
CA IOUs also opposed establishing the new product classes without 
accompanying test procedures and standards, explaining that the new 
product classes introduce potential market uncertainties and 
distortions. They continue that because cycle time is not a factor 
recorded in the current test procedure for either product and the NOPR 
lacked reference to reporting requirements, DOE should delay finalizing 
the rule until greater clarity is provided. (No. 0036, p. 5)
    DOE responded to these concerns in the December 2020 final rule, 
concluding that cycle time was a performance related feature and that 
the establishment of the new product classes would not result in a 
violation of EPCA's anti-backsliding provision, see 85 FR 81359, 81362-
81368, 81368-81370. DOE maintains that the concerns raised by 
commenters regarding the overall applicability of EPCA's anti-
backsliding 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). 85 FR 81369-81370.
    DOE responded to those comments discussing the necessity of the new 
product classes in the final rule. 85 FR 81359, 81365-81366. DOE 
concluded that even if products with comparable cycle times were 
already on the market, products under the new product classes would be 
distinguishable because they are specifically characterized as offering 
short normal cycles and would be subject to manufacturer testing.
    Additionally, DOE stated in the December 2020 final rule that the 
rulemaking, once finalized, would only establish new product classes, 
and would not cause adverse environmental impacts, therefore, leaving 
the rulemaking within the scope of the A5 Categorical Exclusion. 85 FR 
81359, 81370.
    DOE explained in the final rule that the product class provision 
under 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. The 
establishment of a new product class is functionally equivalent to the 
finalization of a coverage determination where a covered product would 
then exist without an applicable standard until the Department 
completes a test procedure rulemaking for that product. 42 U.S.C. 
6292(b); 85 FR 81359, 81367.
    Here, DOE is not acting inconsistently with past practices by 
establishing the new product classes without accompanying test 
procedures or standards. Commenters can look to the Department's 2009 
beverage vending machines energy conservations standard rulemaking and 
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). See 85 FR 81359, 81367-81368. DOE intends, as 
these commenters requested, to conduct the necessary rulemakings to 
consider and evaluate the energy and water consumption limits for the 
new product classes and 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 conduct these rulemakings 
following EPCA's requirements and the procedures set out in the Process 
Rule,\1\ which will provide the clarity these commenters requested 
regarding the implementation of this rulemaking. 85 FR 81359, 81368, 
81372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Procedures 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these shared concerns, the CA IOUs also raised 
unique comments that DOE addresses in the following paragraphs.
    The CA IOUs, in challenging the validity of the short cycle 
thresholds, noted that DOE tested the 14 consumer clothes dryers for 
which data was presented according to the Appendix D2 test procedure, 
which is the optional test procedure for those products. The CA IOUs 
argued that Appendix D1, which is available for product certification, 
allows for shorter cycle times while maintaining compliance with the 
energy efficiency standard according to data produced through DOE-
sponsored research at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. To support 
their assertion of the unreasonableness of cycle thresholds proposed, 
CA IOUs continued that this research demonstrated that five products 
tested under Appendix D1 already offered a cycle time of less than 30 
minutes (high temperature setting) while meeting the

[[Page 4885]]

current standard, in addition to the one product that also had a cycle 
time of 30 minutes (high temperature setting) and met the standard when 
tested under Appendix D2. The CA IOUs also conducted independent 
testing, using Appendix D1, that showed there were multiple clothes 
dryers on the market offering a 30 minute or less cycle time (high 
temperature setting) that also met the current energy conservation 
standard. (No. 0036, pp. 3-4) These commenters concluded that based on 
this data, short cycle time was not a feature justifying a different a 
standard and the proposed product classes were not warranted for 
clothes washers and clothes dryers. (No. 0036, p. 5)
    DOE testing presented in the NOPR was conducted according to the 
Appendix D2 methodology because, unlike Appendix D1, it produces a 
cycle time that is representative of an average use cycle (even though 
cycle time is not currently recorded in either test procedure). The 
methodology in Appendix D1 will not allow for the measurement of a 
cycle time that is representative of average use, because the cycle is 
interrupted before completion. While cycle time measured using Appendix 
D1 would be shorter than the cycle time measured under Appendix D2, DOE 
maintains that this is not an accurate representation of how consumers 
would use these products.
    As DOE explained in the December 2020 final rule, even if clothes 
washers and clothes dryers with short normal cycle times for were 
available, the product class provision, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), would still 
be appropriately applied in this rulemaking. While there are some 
products on the market that may complete a cycle within the time 
thresholds, DOE is establishing these short cycle product classes to 
facilitate the development of products design to complete a normal 
cycle within the threshold times and be subject to testing by the 
manufacturer. DOE notes that the impact of this rulemaking is to 
establish product classes based on short normal wash or dry cycles, 
therefore incentivizing manufacturers to develop such products that can 
meet consumer needs. 85 FR 81359, 81367.
    The CA IOUs reliance on the Oak Ridge study, and the CA IOUs own 
data, are also out of place in the context of this rulemaking because 
these data were generated using the test method set forth in Appendix 
D1. As DOE explained in the NOPR, Appendix D1 does not provide data 
that can be used to determine a ``cycle time'' as experienced by the 
consumer. This is because Appendix D1 requires manually stopping 
operation at a specified moisture content, normalizing, and applying a 
field use factor, therefore, the length of time that a clothes dryer is 
operated during an Appendix D1 test does not necessarily correspond to 
the length of time that a consumer would operate the clothes dryers (in 
contrast to the calculated energy use, which is representative of the 
energy use experienced by the consumer). 85 FR 49297, 49303. This means 
that while testing under Appendix D1 may identify products on the 
market that could dry clothes in 30 minutes, it is not an accurate 
representation of how consumers would use these products because the 
cycle is manually stopped at the target remaining moisture content. DOE 
established these short cycle product classes so that consumers would 
have access to products that accomplish normal washing or drying within 
the specified cycle time, not just in control room settings.
    The CA IOUs also present their review of 111 products in the 
Consumer Reports database that showed ``no clear relationship between 
normal cycle time and consumer satisfaction'' and requested DOE provide 
evidence of consumer demand. (No. 0036, p. 7) Comments submitted by the 
Competitive Enterprise Institute (``CEI'') and the 60 Plus Association 
demonstrated that consumers want and desire these faster products. CEI 
shared feedback it received from consumers that expressed a need for 
faster appliances and identified growing consumer dissatisfaction with 
the current length of cycles. 85 FR 81359, 81366 referencing No. 0031, 
pp. 2-3. The 60 Plus Association submitted comments, arguing on behalf 
of its senior citizen members, that the rulemaking offers a significant 
benefit to individuals looking to make the most of their time. This 
commenter noted that the time saved by utilizing future, short normal 
cycle products would make a noticeable difference in the lives of its 
underrepresented members. 85 FR 81363, referencing No. 0043, p. 1.
    The CA IOUs also worried that some manufacturers may easily modify 
their current products to meet the requirements of the new product 
classes at the expense of the consumer. (No. 0036, p. 5) While DOE 
acknowledges these concerns, DOE has no information to support the 
contention, and does not anticipate that manufacturers would reengineer 
products already on the market in response to this rulemaking. Further, 
it remains the consumer's choice ultimately to decide which product on 
the market that they will choose to purchase. The creation of the new 
product classes does not set a mandate that consumers must purchase 
products from these product classes.
    DOE thanks the CA IOUs for their comments and directs them to the 
responses provided in the December 2020 final rule for the shared 
issues they raised. After considering the unique comments provided by 
the CA IOUs, DOE affirms the conclusions reached in the December 2020 
final rule.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 11, 
2021, 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 January 12, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-00842 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


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