Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4883 

support the information provided on 

their application if requested by FSA. 

■ 8. Amend newly redesignated § 9.203 

as follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (a)(3); 

■ b. Add paragraph (a)(4); 

■ c. In paragraph (c), remove the words 

‘‘producer multiplied’’ and add the 

words ‘‘producer, multiplied’’ in their 

place; 

■ d. Revise paragraph (i)(1); 

■ e. In paragraph (i)(2), remove the 

words ‘‘sales as’’ and add the words 

‘‘sales, without crop insurance 

indemnities and NAP and WHIP+ 

payments, as’’ in their place; 

■ f. In the heading of the first column 

of Table 2 to paragraph (j), add 

‘‘(including crop insurance indemnities 

and NAP and WHIP+ payments)’’ 

immediately after ‘‘2019 Sales range’’; 

and 

■ g. Add paragraph (l). 

The additions and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 9.203 Calculation of payments. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Under paragraph (a) of this 

section, eligible acres include the 

producer’s share of the determined 

acres, or reported acres if determined 

acres are not present, of the crop 

planted for the 2020 crop year, 

excluding prevented planted and 

experimental acres. For producers who 

insured acres of the crop under a policy 

or plan of insurance under the Federal 

Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501– 

1524), the yield will be the average of 

the producer’s 2020 actual production 

history (APH) approved yield from all of 

the producer’s insured acres 

nationwide. For producers for whom 

FSA is unable to obtain a 2020 APH 

approved yield, the yield will be: 

(i) The 2019 Agriculture Risk 

Coverage-County Option (ARC–CO) 

benchmark yield if the applicant: 

(A) Has coverage for the crop under 

an Area Risk Protection Insurance Plan, 

Margin Protection Plan, Stacked Income 

Protection Plan, Supplemental Coverage 

Option, or Whole-Farm Revenue 

Protection Plan under the Federal Crop 

Insurance Act; 

(B) Is a landlord of the applicable 

acreage and their share is insured by the 

tenant under a policy or plan of 

insurance under the Federal Crop 

Insurance Act; 

(C) Is a tenant of the applicable 

acreage and their share is insured by the 

landlord under a policy or plan of 

insurance under the Federal Crop 

Insurance Act; or 

(D) Is a joint venture and the crop is 

insured by one of the members under a 

policy or plan of insurance under the 

Federal Crop Insurance Act; or 

(ii) The 2019 Agriculture Risk 

Coverage-County Option (ARC–CO) 

benchmark yield multiplied by 85 

percent for all other applicants. 

(4) ARC–CO yields in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section for producers growing a 

crop in multiple counties will be 

weighted based on the producer’s crop 

acreage physically located in each 

county. 

* * * * * 

(i)(1) Payments for sales commodities 

will be equal to the sum of the results 

for the following calculation for each 

2019 sales range in Table 2 of paragraph 

(j) of this section: The sum of the 

amount of the producer’s eligible sales 

for the sales commodities in calendar 

year 2019 and the producer’s crop 

insurance indemnities and NAP and 

WHIP+ payments for the sales 

commodities for the 2019 crop year 

within the specified range, multiplied 

by the payment rate for that range in 

Table 2 of paragraph (j) of this section. 

Eligible sales only includes sales of raw 

commodities grown by the producer; the 

portion of sales derived from adding 

value to the commodity, such as 

processing and packaging, and from 

sales of products purchased for resale is 

not included in the payment calculation 

unless determined eligible by the 

Secretary. 

* * * * * 

(l) For eligible contract producers of 

broilers, pullets, layers, chicken eggs, 

turkeys, hogs, or pigs, if eligible revenue 

for the period from January 1, 2020, 

through December 27, 2020, decreased 

compared to eligible revenue for the 

period from January 1, 2019, through 

December 27, 2019, then payments will 

be equal to: 

(1) Eligible revenue received from 

January 1, 2019, through December 27, 

2019, minus eligible revenue received 

from January 1, 2020, through December 

27, 2020; multiplied by 

(2) 80 percent. 

(3) This calculation is subject to the 

availability of funds and will be 

factored, if needed. 

William Northey, 

Under Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01077 Filed 1–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–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; 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: 

Kathryn.McIntosh@hq.doe.gov. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4884 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1Procedures 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. 

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 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). 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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2019–BT–STD–0008] 

RIN 1904–AD29 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Small 

Electric Motors 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final determination. 

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 small electric motors 

(‘‘SEMs’’). EPCA also requires the U.S. 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to 

periodically determine whether morestringent standards would be 

technologically feasible and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES