This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

2673 

Vol. 87, No. 12 

Wednesday, January 19, 2022 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

2 CFR Part 200 

Uniform Administrative Requirements, 

Cost Principles, and Audit 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Office of Management and 

Budget. 

ACTION: Guidance. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

availability of the second of two 2021 

Compliance Supplement Addenda 

(2021 Addendum 2) for the Office of 

Management and Budget’s uniform 

administrative requirements, cost 

principles, and audit requirements 

regulations. The first 2021 Addendum 1 

was published in the Federal Register 

on December 3, 2021. This document 

also offers interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 2021 

Addendum 2. 

DATES: The 2021 Addendum 2 serves as 

a complement to the 2021 Compliance 

Supplement published on August 13, 

20211 (FR Doc. 2021–17363) and 

applies to fiscal year audits beginning 

after June 30, 2020. All comments to the 

2021 Addendum 2 must be in writing 

and received by February 18, 2022. Late 

comments will be considered to the 

extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: Comments will be reviewed 

and addressed, when appropriate, in the 

2022 Compliance Supplement. 

Electronic mail comments may be 

submitted to: https://

www.regulations.gov. Please include ‘‘2 

CFR part 200 Subpart F—Audit 

Requirements, Appendix XI— 

Compliance Supplement Addendum— 

2021 2’’ in the subject line and the full 

body of your comments in the text of the 

electronic message and as an 

attachment. Please include your name, 

title, organization, postal address, 

telephone number, and email address in 

the text of the message. Comments may 

also be sent to: GrantsTeam@

omb.eop.gov. 

Please note that all public comments 

received are subject to the Freedom of 

Information Act and will be posted in 

their entirety, including any personal 

and/or business confidential 

information provided. Do not include 

any information you would not like to 

be made publicly available. 

The 2021 Addendum 2 with Part 4 of 

the seven programs (described in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) is 

available online on the CFO home page 

at https://www.cfo.gov/policies-andguidance/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Recipients and auditors should contact 

their cognizant or oversight agency for 

audit, or Federal awarding agency, as 

appropriate under the circumstances. 

The Federal agency contacts are listed 

in appendix III of the Supplement. 

Subrecipients should contact their passthrough entity. Federal agencies can 

contact the OMB Grants team at 

GrantsTeam@omb.eop.gov or Gil Tran at 

202–881–7830. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 2021 

Addendum 2 (2 CFR part 200, subpart 

F, appendix XI) adds audit guidance for 

7 programs to Part 4 of the 2021 

Compliance Supplement. This guidance 

is applicable only for audits with report 

dates subsequent to issuance of this 

guidance. Other Parts of the 2021 

Compliance Supplement remain 

unchanged. The programs are: 

USDA 10.542—Pandemic EBT—Food 

Benefits 

USDA 10.649—Pandemic EBT—Admin 

Costs 

HHS 93.575—Child Care and 

Development Block Grant 

HHS 93.499—Low Income Household 

Water Assistance Program 

HHS 93.558—TANF 

HUD 14.871—Section 8 Housing Choice 

Vouchers 

DOT 20.315—National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation Grants 

Deidre A. Harrison, 

Acting Controller. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00947 Filed 1–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2021–BT–STD–0002] 

RIN 1904–AF14 

Energy Conservation Program: 

Product Classes for Residential 

Dishwashers, Residential Clothes 

Washers, and Consumer Clothes 

Dryers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On October 30, 2020, and 

December 16, 2020, the U.S. Department 

of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) published two final 

rules that established product classes for 

residential dishwashers with a cycle 

time for the normal cycle of 60 minutes 

or less, top-loading residential clothes 

washers and certain classes of consumer 

clothes dryers with a cycle time of less 

than 30 minutes, and front-loading 

residential clothes washers with a cycle 

time of less than 45 minutes (‘‘shortcycle product classes’’). The rules 

resulted in amended energy 

conservation standards for these shortcycle product classes, without 

determining whether relevant statutory 

criteria for amending standards were 

met. On August 11, 2021, DOE 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) to withdraw these 

short-cycle product classes This final 

rule finalizes the revocation of the two 

earlier rules that improperly 

promulgated standards for these new 

product classes and reinstates the prior 

product classes and applicable 

standards for these covered products. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

February 18, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking, which includes Federal 

Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EEREVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jan 18, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM 19JAR1

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
2674 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended by the Energy Act of 

2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020). 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A. 

2021-BT-STD-0002. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by 

email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Cymbalsky, 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. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

2002. Email: Kathryn.McIntosh@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

II. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Residential Dishwashers 

2. Residential Clothes Washers and 

Consumer Clothes Dryers 

III. Discussion 

A. Comments on DOE’s Statutory 

Authority 

1. Interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) 

2. Interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) 

3. Interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) 

4. Other Statutory Concerns 

B. Impact on Water and Energy Use 

C. Impact to Manufacturers 

D. Other Concerns 

IV. Conclusion 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Congressional Notification 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

On October 30, 2020, and December 

16, 2020, DOE published two final rules 

that established new short-cycle product 

classes for residential dishwashers, 

residential clothes washers, and 

consumer clothes dryers. 85 FR 68723 

(‘‘October 2020 Final Rule’’); 85 FR 

81359 (‘‘December 2020 Final Rule’’); 

collectively, the ‘‘2020 Final Rules.’’ 

While these short-cycle products had 

previously been subject to energy and 

water conservation standards, the 2020 

Final Rules created new short-cycle 

product classes that are not subject to 

any water or energy conservation 

standards. 85 FR 68723, 68742; 85 FR 

81359, 81376. As a result, products 

falling into these short-cycle classes are 

currently allowed to consume unlimited 

amounts of energy and water. 

In amending its standards to allow for 

short-cycle products that can use 

unlimited water and energy, DOE had 

not considered whether the amended 

standards met the criteria in the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act, as 

amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 for issuing an 

amended standard. Notably, among 

other things, DOE did not determine, as 

required, that the amended standards 

for short-cycle products were designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A). 

On August 11, 2021, DOE published 

a NOPR (‘‘August 2021 NOPR’’) 

proposing to revoke the 2020 Final 

Rules. 86 FR 43970. DOE stated that 

these two rules improperly resulted in 

new product classes that amended the 

existing energy conservation standards 

for these products without determining 

whether the relevant statutory criteria 

for amending such standards were met. 

As a result, DOE proposed to reinstate 

the prior product classes and applicable 

standards for these covered products 

that existed prior to the 2020 Final 

Rules. Id. at 86 FR 43971. 

In this final rule, based on the failure 

of the 2020 Final Rules to consider 

whether amended standards for the 

short-cycle products met the EPCA 

criteria, DOE revokes the 2020 Final 

Rules and reinstates the prior product 

classes and applicable standards for 

these covered products. 

II. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317) Title III, Part B2 of EPCA 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles, which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. These 

covered products include residential 

dishwashers, residential clothes 

washers, and consumer clothes dryers, 

the subjects of this document. 42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(6), (7), and (8), respectively. 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6296). 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including residential dishwashers, 

residential clothes washers, and 

consumer clothes dryers. For instance, 

any new or amended standard for a 

covered product must be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). In deciding 

whether a standard is economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens by considering the comments 

received on the proposed rule and, to 

the greatest extent possible, considering 

the following seven statutory factors: (1) 

The economic impact of the standard on 

manufacturers and consumers of the 

products subject to the standard; (2) the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

products in the type (or class) compared 

to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for 

the covered products that are likely to 

result from the standard; (3) the total 

projected amount of energy (or as 

applicable, water) savings likely to 

result directly from imposition of the 

standard; (4) any lessening of the utility 

or the performance of the covered 

products likely to result from 

imposition of the standard; (5) the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from the imposition of the standard; (6) 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 2675 

3The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in Docket No. EERE–2021– 

BT–STD–0002, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov. The references are arranged as 

follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID 

number, page of that document). 

4 ‘‘Normal cycle’’ is the cycle type, including 

washing and drying temperature options, 

recommended in the manufacturer’s instructions for 

daily, regular, or typical use to completely wash a 

full load of normally soiled dishes, including the 

Continued 

the need for national energy and water 

conservation; and (7) other factors the 

Secretary of Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) 

considers relevant. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII). Furthermore, 

the new or amended standard must 

result in a significant conservation of 

energy. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). 

EPCA also includes what is known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing 

any amended standard that either 

increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of a covered 

product. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). 

Additionally, when prescribing an 

energy conservation standard, EPCA 

requires DOE to specify a different 

standard level than that which applies 

generally to a type or class of products 

for any group of covered products that 

have the same function or intended use, 

if DOE determines that products within 

such group: (A) Consume a different 

kind of energy from that consumed by 

other covered products within such type 

(or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1). In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies 

such a different standard for a group of 

products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing 

such a ‘‘higher or lower standard’’ must 

include an explanation of the basis on 

which such higher or lower level was 

established. 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2). 

B. Background 

As previously described, DOE’s 2020 

Final Rules amended the applicable 

energy and water conservation 

standards for residential dishwashers, 

residential clothes washers, and 

consumer clothes dryers in establishing 

new short-cycle product classes for 

those products. Creation of those shortcycle classes effectively removed the 

energy and water conservation 

standards that had previously applied to 

those products. 

Through its August 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to revoke the 2020 Final Rules 

and reinstate the prior product classes 

and applicable standards for these 

covered products. 86 FR 43970. DOE 

received comments in response to the 

August 2021 NOPR from the interested 

parties listed in Table II.1. 

TABLE II.1—WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE AUGUST 2021 NOPR AND REFERENCED IN THE FINAL

RULE

Commenter(s) Abbreviation used in this final rule Commenter type 

60 Plus Association ........................................................................................ ............................................................ Advocates. 

Alliance for Water Efficiency .......................................................................... AWE ................................................... Efficiency Organization. 

Americans for Tax Reform ............................................................................. ............................................................ Advocates. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (‘‘ASAP’’), Alliance for Water Efficiency (‘‘AWE’’), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

(‘‘ACEEE’’), Consumer Federation of America (‘‘CFA’’), National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients (‘‘NCLC’’), and 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (‘‘NEEA’’).

Joint Commenters ............................. Efficiency Organizations. 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ............................................. AHAM ................................................ Trade Association. 

Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, 

New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District 

of Columbia, and the City of New York.

Joint State AGs, DC, and NYC ......... State Officials. 

Attorney General of Missouri, Eric Schmitt .................................................... Missouri AG ....................................... State Officials. 

California Energy Commission ....................................................................... CEC ................................................... State Agency. 

Competitive Enterprise Institute ..................................................................... CEI ..................................................... Advocates. 

FreedomWorks Foundation ............................................................................ ............................................................ Advocates. 

GE Appliances, a Haier Company ................................................................. GEA ................................................... Manufacturer. 

Institute for Policy Integrity ............................................................................. IPI ...................................................... Advocates. 

Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Mark Brnovich ................................. Arizona AG ........................................ State Officials. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (‘‘PG&E’’), San Diego Gas and Electric 

(‘‘SDG&E’’), and Southern California Edison (‘‘SCE’’), collectively, the 

California Investor-Owned Utilities.

the CA IOUs ...................................... Utilities. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Earthjustice ............. NRDC, SC, and EJ ............................ Efficiency Organizations. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council ................................................. NWPCC ............................................. Interstate Compact Agency. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.3 In addition to the 

comments listed in Table II.1, DOE also 

received 246 comments from 

individuals, which were considered in 

the development of this final rule and 

discussed generally in the following 

sections, but not cited individually. 

As discussed in greater detail in the 

August 2021 NOPR and the following 

sections, the 2020 rulemakings failed to 

consider the criteria prescribed under 

EPCA to amend a standard— 

specifically, whether the amended 

standards were designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). 

1. Residential Dishwashers 

Prior to the October 2020 Final Rule, 

residential dishwashers were divided 

into two product classes by size: 

Standard and compact. Standard size 

dishwashers had a capacity equal to or 

greater than eight place settings plus six 

serving pieces, while compact size 

dishwashers had a capacity of less than 

eight place settings plus six serving 

pieces. 10 CFR 430.32(f)(1) (Oct. 29, 

2020 edition). Standard size 

dishwashers, regardless of normal cycle 

time,4 were required to use less than 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
2676 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

power-dry setting. 10 CFR part 430 subpart B 

appendix C1 (‘‘Appendix C1’’), section 1.12. 

5AHAM submitted its petition pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’), 5 U.S.C. 

551 et seq., which provides, among other things, 

that ‘‘[e]ach agency shall give an interested person 

the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, 

or repeal of a rule.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(e). The AHAM 

petition is available in the docket to this 

rulemaking, EERE–2021–BT–STD–0002, at 

www.regulations.gov. 

6NRDC also submitted its petition pursuant to the 

APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(e), to repeal the final rule. The 

NRDC petition is available in the docket to the is 

rulemaking, EERE–2021–BT–STD–0002, at 

www.regulations.gov. 

307 kilowatt-hours per year (‘‘kwh/ 

year’’) and 5.0 gallons per cycle, while 

compact dishwashers, regardless of 

normal cycle time, were required to use 

less than 222 kwh/year and 3.5 gallons 

per cycle. 

The October 2020 Final Rule replaced 

an existing product class for standard 

size residential dishwashers with two 

new product classes based on cycle time 

and amended the standards for such 

dishwashers. 85 FR 68723. DOE 

initiated the rulemaking in response to 

a petition for rulemaking submitted by 

CEI in March 2018, in which CEI 

asserted that there was considerable 

consumer dissatisfaction with the 

dramatically longer cycle time for 

residential dishwashers under the thencurrent energy conservation standards. 

83 FR 17768 (Apr. 24, 2018). CEI 

requested that DOE establish a new 

product class for residential 

dishwashers with a cycle time of less 

than one hour. Id. at 83 FR 17771. 

In the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE 

stated that a product class of standard 

size residential dishwashers with a 

normal cycle of 60 minutes or less 

would allow manufacturers to provide 

consumers with the option to purchase 

a dishwasher that maximizes the 

consumer utility of a short-cycle time to 

wash and dry dishes. 85 FR 68723, 

68724. DOE also stated that a product 

class for which the normal cycle time is 

60 minutes or less could spur 

manufacturer innovation to generate 

additional product offerings to fill the 

market gap that exists for these 

products. Id. at 85 FR 68726. DOE 

determined that, under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q), residential dishwashers with a 

normal cycle time of 60 minutes or less 

have a performance-related feature that 

other dishwashers lack and that this 

feature justifies a separate product class 

subject to a higher or lower standard 

than the standards currently applicable 

to the existing product classes of 

residential dishwashers. Id. As a result, 

DOE replaced the existing product class 

for standard size dishwashers with two 

new product classes for standard size 

dishwashers based on normal cycle 

time. DOE kept the existing energy 

conservation standards for standard size 

dishwashers with a normal cycle time 

greater than 60 minutes at the level 

previously prescribed for the product 

class that covered all standard size 

dishwashers. Id. at 85 FR 68741. DOE 

also stated that standard size 

dishwashers with a normal cycle time of 

60 minutes or less were not subject to 

any energy or water conservation 

standards, thus allowing for unlimited 

water and energy usage. Id. at 85 FR 

68742. DOE based its decision on CEI’s 

petition and the comments the 

Department received in response to the 

petition and the proposed rule, as well 

as additional testing and evaluation 

conducted by the Department. Id. at 85 

FR 68723. DOE stated it would consider 

further amending energy and water 

conservation standards for standard size 

dishwashers with a normal cycle time of 

60 minutes or less in a future 

rulemaking. Id. at 85 FR 68724. 

On December 29, 2020, NRDC, Sierra 

Club, Consumer Federation of America, 

and Massachusetts Union of Public 

Housing Tenants petitioned the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 

to review and set aside the October 2020 

Final Rule. Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, No. 20– 

4256 (2d Cir.). On the same day, the 

States of California, Connecticut, 

Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, 

New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, 

Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and 

Washington, the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, 

and the City of New York filed a 

separate petition for review of the 

October 2020 Final Rule in the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 

California v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, No. 

20–4285 (2d Cir.). These two cases have 

been consolidated in the Second Circuit 

and have been placed in abeyance 

pending DOE’s review of the October 

2020 Final Rule. 

Further, on March 1, 2021, AHAM 

petitioned DOE to reconsider the 

October 2020 Final Rule that established 

and amended standards for short-cycle 

residential dishwashers. ‘‘AHAM 

Petition for Reconsideration-1’’; Docket 

EERE–2021–BT–STD–0002, No. 001 at 

p. 2.5 On April 28, 2021, the NRDC, 

Sierra Club, the Consumer Federation of 

America, and the Massachusetts Union 

of Public Housing Tenants (‘‘NRDC et 

al.’’) also submitted a petition for DOE 

to repeal the same October 2020 Final 

Rule (‘‘NRDC Petition for 

Reconsideration’’).6 This petition 

challenged the legality of the final rule, 

stating that the creation of the new 

product class violated the core 

requirements of EPCA. NRDC Petition 

for Reconsideration, Docket EERE– 

2021–BT–STD–0002, No. 003 at p. 2. 

The petition contended that addressing 

those defects is critical to preventing 

such an error from being repeated in the 

future. 

2. Residential Clothes Washers and 

Consumer Clothes Dryers 

Prior to the December 2020 Final 

Rule, product classes for residential 

clothes washers were based on clothes 

container capacity and axis of loading— 

i.e., front-loading or top-loading. 10 CFR 

430.32(g)(4) (Dec. 15, 2020 edition). 

And, prior to the December 2020 Final 

Rule, product classes for consumer 

clothes dryers were based on fuel source 

(120 volt (‘‘V’’) electric, 240V electric, or 

gas), venting configuration (vented or 

ventless), capacity, and integration with 

a clothes washer (combination washerdryer). 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3) (Dec. 15, 

2020 edition). Each product class was 

subject to a specific energy or energy 

and water conservation standard that 

applied regardless of the cycle time. 

In August 2020, DOE proposed to 

replace the existing product classes with 

new product classes based on cycle time 

for top-loading standard residential 

clothes washers (30 minutes or greater; 

less than 30 minutes), front-loading 

standard residential clothes washers (45 

minutes or greater; less than 45 

minutes), and vented electric standard 

and vented gas consumer clothes dryers 

(30 minutes or greater; less than 30 

minutes). 85 FR 49297, 49311–49312 

(Aug. 13, 2020) (‘‘August 2020 NOPR’’). 

Unlike the residential dishwasher 

product class rulemaking, this 

rulemaking was not initiated in 

response to a petition, but instead relied 

on particular similarities between 

consumer use of residential dishwashers 

and residential clothes washers and 

consumer clothes dryers as the basis for 

proposing the rulemaking. Id. at 85 FR 

49298. Shortly thereafter, on December 

16, 2020, DOE published the December 

2020 Final Rule that replaced the 

product classes with new product 

classes based on cycle time and kept the 

existing energy conservation standards 

for the new product classes with longer 

cycle times, while declaring the shortcycle product classes are not currently 

subject to any energy or water 

conservation standards, thus allowing 

for unlimited water and energy usage. 

85 FR 81359, 81375–81376. 

On January 19, 2021, the States of 

California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, 

Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New 

Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, 

Vermont, and Washington, the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 2677 

7As with its first petition, AHAM submitted its 

second petition pursuant to the APA. The AHAM 

Petition for Reconsideration-2 is available in the 

docket to this rulemaking, EERE–2021–BT–STD– 

0002, at www.regulations.gov. 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the 

District of Columbia, and the City of 

New York filed a petition for review of 

the December 2020 Final Rule in the 

Second Circuit. California v. U.S. Dep’t 

of Energy, No. 21–108 (2d Cir.). Shortly 

thereafter, two other groups of 

petitioners filed petitions for review of 

the December 2020 Final Rule. The 

AWE, the U.S. Public Interest Research 

Group, and Environment America 

(‘‘AWE, et al.’’) filed a petition for 

review of that final rule in the Seventh 

Circuit on January 17, 2021, and the 

Sierra Club filed a petition for review of 

that final rule in the Ninth Circuit on 

February 12, 2021. Alliance for Water 

Efficiency v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, No. 

21–428 (2d Cir.); Sierra Club v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Energy, No. 21–564 (2d Cir.). 

After transfer of the Seventh and Ninth 

Circuit petitions for review, all three 

cases were consolidated in the Second 

Circuit. In its court filings, AWE, et al. 

raised the following issues with the 

December 2020 Final Rule: (1) That DOE 

lacks authority to exempt a product 

group from water conservation 

standards; (2) that DOE failed to comply 

with the requirements for a section 

325(q) (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) rule; (3) that 

DOE violated EPCA’s anti-backsliding 

provision; and (4) that DOE violated the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

Briefing on the merits is currently 

stayed through February 1, 2022, while 

DOE reviews the December 2020 Final 

Rule. 

On April 2, 2021, AHAM further 

petitioned DOE to reconsider the 

December 2020 Final Rule that 

established and amended standards for 

short-cycle residential clothes washers 

and consumer clothes dryers. ‘‘AHAM 

Petition for Reconsideration-2’’; Docket 

EERE–2021–BT–STD–0002, No. 002 at 

p. 2.7 AHAM argued that the short-cycle 

product classes were neither justified 

nor needed for three reasons. First, 

AHAM stated that many residential 

clothes washers and consumer clothes 

dryers already offer cycles that are 

within the December 2020 Final Rule’s 

cycle time goal and that meet the 

existing standards. Id. at pp. 7–8, 12. 

Second, AHAM argued that the cycle 

times in the December 2020 Final Rule 

were arbitrary because DOE lacked the 

data necessary to demonstrate a 

consumer desire for the times adopted. 

Id. at p. 13. Third, AHAM specified that 

establishing the separate product classes 

would likely cause negative, unintended 

consequences such as stranded 

manufacturer investments; create new 

regulation; introduce manufacturer 

uncertainty until standards for the new 

product classes are developed; increase 

test burden; and potentially cause 

disharmony in North America for 

residential clothes washer and 

consumer clothes dryer standards. Id. at 

pp. 8–9, 16–18. For these reasons, 

AHAM requested that DOE withdraw 

the December 2020 Final Rule. Id. at p. 

19. 

Like its petition regarding the shortcycle product class for residential 

dishwashers, AHAM requested that 

DOE stay the effectiveness of the final 

rule while considering the petition since 

the rule allows for unlimited energy and 

water use by these products. AHAM 

also asked that DOE issue a statement to 

the market indicating that these new 

product classes cannot reliably be used 

as the basis for new products. Id. at p. 

2. 

III. Discussion 

In issuing the 2020 Final Rules, DOE 

relied on its authority under EPCA to 

establish product classes with higher or 

lower levels of energy use or efficiency 

when prescribing, by rule, an energy 

conservation standard. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q). In so doing, the 2020 Final 

Rules also amended the energy 

conservation standards for the shortcycle product classes by stating they 

were no longer subject to energy and 

water conservation standards. 85 FR 

68733; 85 FR 81366. But these rules did 

not address any of EPCA’s requirements 

for amending an energy conservation 

standard, such as analyzing whether the 

amended standards are designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A); see 85 FR 81361. 

The rules also did not, among other 

things, adequately consider whether the 

amended standards violated EPCA’s 

prohibition against prescribing an 

amended standard that increases the 

maximum allowable energy use or 

decreases the energy efficiency of a 

covered product. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). 

AHAM; GEA; AWE; NWPCC; IPI; 

NRDC, SC, and EJ; CEC; the CA IOUs; 

Joint State AGs, DC, and NYC; and Joint 

Commenters all supported DOE’s 

proposal to revoke the 2020 Final Rules. 

(AHAM, No. 253 at p.1; GEA, No. 255 

at p. 2; AWE, No. 254 at p. 1; NWPCC, 

No. 9 at p. 1; IPI, No. 244 at p. 1; NRDC, 

SC, and EJ, No. 243 at p. 1; CEC, No. 245 

at pp. 1–2; CA IOUs, No. 247 at p. 1; 

Joint State AGs, DC, and NYC, No. 249 

at p. 1; Joint Commenters, No. 252 at p. 

1; ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

12 at p. 11; AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 12 at p. 13) AHAM and 

the CA IOUs specifically requested that 

DOE finalize its proposed rule as soon 

as possible. (AHAM, No. 253 at pp. 1– 

2; CA IOUs, No. 247 at p. 2) AHAM also 

asserted that doing so would prevent 

use of the new product classes as the 

basis for new product offerings and 

would reduce possibilities for confusion 

in the market. (AHAM, No. 253 at pp. 

1–2;) 

CEI, Americans for Tax Reform, 

FreedomWorks Foundation, the 60 Plus 

Association, the Arizona AG, and 

Missouri AG urged DOE to reconsider 

its proposal to revoke the short-cycle 

product classes. (CEI, No. 239 at p. 1; 

Americans for Tax Reform, No. 223 at p. 

2; FreedomWorks Foundation, No. 238 

at p. 1; 60 Plus Association, No. 251 at 

p. 1; Arizona AG, No. 248 at p. 1; 

Missouri AG, No. 246 at p. 1) 

Of the 246 comments received from 

individuals, approximately 46 percent 

opposed any type of regulation for 

residential dishwashers, residential 

clothes washers, or consumer clothes 

dryers (e.g., ‘‘Please stop making 

regulations about appliances. The 

regulations are driving us crazy!’’ 

(Cooksey, No. 37, at p. 1); ‘‘Leave our 

appliances as is. No new Regulations 

now or ever!’’ (Bise, No. 52, at p. 1); 

‘‘We do not need more regulations. 

Companies have enough regulatory 

constraints to deal with already. Why 

burden them with more by making 

appliances less efficient.’’ (Qualls, No. 

61, at p. 1)). An additional 39 percent 

of the individuals expressed concern 

with cycle times and generally 

supported short-cycle product classes 

(e.g., ‘‘Please make household 

appliances so that they work quickly 

and efficiently, and so that they are not 

disposable. It’s better for the 

environment if I keep the appliances for 

20 years and they work with minimal 

maintenance and wear and tear.’’ 

(Anonymous, No. 17 at p. 1); ‘‘Please 

leave the dishwashers which clean 

dishes in 1 hour very well alone. I do 

not want a dishwasher which takes 2– 

3 hours to clean dishes and uses much 

more water and energy.’’ (Sieben, No, 48 

at p. 1); ‘‘Please don’t change the 

dishwasher rules again! If one has to run 

the dishwasher twice to get the dishes 

clean, we are not saving any water or 

electricity!’’ (Spurlock; No. 56 at p. 1). 

The remaining 15 percent of individual 

commenters included general 

complaints, but did not specifically 

comment about the regulations or 

product classes for residential 

dishwashers, residential clothes 

washers, and consumer clothes dryers 

(e.g., ‘‘Keep dishwasher [sic] safe. Keep 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
2678 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

energy prices low.’’ (Sith, No. 49 at p. 

1); ‘‘My new dishwasher doesn’t clean 

like old one.’’ (Hall, No. 106 at p. 1); 

‘‘Enough is enough.’’ (Mudaro, No. 242 

at p. 1) 

DOE received numerous comments 

discussing the concern that this 

rulemaking would create longer cycle 

times for residential dishwashers, 

residential clothes washers, and 

consumer clothes dryers. DOE is 

clarifying that this rulemaking does not 

change the cycle times currently 

available on the market nor does it 

change the cycle options available on 

these products. 

The following sections discuss and 

address the issues raised by commenters 

in response to the initial determination 

and proposed amendments in the 

August 2021 NOPR. 

A. Comments on DOE’s Statutory 

Authority 

1. Interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A) 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including residential dishwashers, 

residential clothes washers, and 

consumer clothes dryers. EPCA 

specifies that any new or amended 

energy conservation standard for any 

type of covered product shall be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A). In the 2020 Final Rules, 

DOE stated that it would consider 

establishing energy conservation 

standards for the new established 

product classes in subsequent 

rulemakings. 85 FR 68723, 68724; 85 FR 

81359, 81360. As stated in the August 

2021 NOPR, the plain meaning of the 

statutory term ‘‘amend’’ is to ‘‘alter 

formally by adding, deleting or 

rephrasing.’’ (American Heritage 

Dictionary for the English Language 42 

(1981)). The 2020 Final Rules altered 

the existing energy and water 

conservation standards for the short 

cycle products by removing the 

standards applicable to those products 

to allow for unlimited energy and water 

use. This activity clearly fits within this 

scope of the definition of ‘‘amend’’ 

because DOE deleted the applicable 

standards altogether. 86 FR 43970, 

43973. 

Further, in the August 2021 NOPR, 

DOE stated that even assuming that 

EPCA were ambiguous in this regard, 

DOE’s position—that the 2020 Final 

Rules improperly amend the energy and 

water conservation standards for the 

short-cycle products—is the better 

understanding of the statute. Prior to the 

2020 Final Rules, the short-cycle 

products belonged to product classes 

subject to specific energy and/or water 

conservation standards. The 2020 Final 

Rules separated the products that met 

the classification for the new short-cycle 

product classes from their regulated 

counterparts to established product 

classes not subject to any standard and 

that could operate with unlimited 

energy and water use. Those products 

now do not have any applicable 

standard, which effectively amended 

the prior energy or water conservation 

standards for those products to zero. But 

the 2020 Final Rules did so without 

considering any of EPCA’s requirements 

for such action. 86 FR 43970, 43973. 

CEC, AWE, IPI, and the Joint 

Commenters explained that when 

amending standards, DOE is required to 

consider whether the standard meets 

EPCA’s criteria for amending a standard, 

whether the standard is designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

(CEC, No. 245 at p. 3; AWE, No. 254 at 

p. 3; Joint Commenters, No. 252 at pp. 

1–2; IPI, No. 244 at p. 1) Further, CEC, 

IPI, and AWE stated that DOE failed to 

consider those criteria in the 2020 Final 

Rules. (CEC, No. 245 at p. 3; AWE, No. 

254 at p. 3; IPI, No. 244 at p. 1) AWE 

also stated that the 2020 Final Rules did 

not even attempt such an analysis, and 

it is hard to see how an analysis under 

paragraph (o)(2) could have supported 

the Rule as the previous standards were, 

clearly, technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (AWE, No. 254 

at p. 3) 

AWE, IPI, CEC, Joint State AGs, DC, 

and NYC and the Joint Commenters 

asserted that the 2020 Final Rules 

violated EPCA because DOE did not 

include an analysis of whether the 

amended standards are designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). 

(AWE, No. 254 at p. 3; IPI, No. 244 at 

p. 1; CEC, No. 243 at p. 3; Joint State 

AGs, DC, and NYC, No. 249 at pp. 5– 

6; Joint Commenters, No. 252 at pp. 1– 

2) AWE further commented that a 

standard that allows unlimited energy 

and water use would not be justified 

under EPCA because the standards that 

existed prior to the creation of the shortcycle product classes were 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and have been 

used to certify residential dishwashers, 

residential clothes washers, and 

consumer clothes dryers for years. 

(AWE, No. 254 at p. 3) CEC further 

commented that in issuing the 2020 

Final Rules, DOE also disregarded the 

provision at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), 

which requires DOE to consider 

economic impacts on consumers and 

manufacturers, savings in operating cost 

versus increases in price, total projected 

energy or water savings, and other 

relevant factors. (CEC, No. 245 at p. 3) 

Upon reconsideration, DOE agrees 

with the commenters that DOE was 

required to address EPCA’s 

requirements for establishing or 

amending an energy conservation 

standard in the 2020 Final Rules, which 

lacked any analysis of whether the 

standards were designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that was technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). Further, as 

discussed at the beginning of this 

section, applying the plain meaning of 

the term ‘‘amend,’’ DOE altered the 

existing energy and water conservation 

standards for short-cycle products in the 

2020 Final Rules. Thus, DOE has 

determined that by stating that the new 

product classes were not subject to any 

energy or water conservation standards 

without following 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), the 

2020 Final Rules amended the existing 

standards in violation of EPCA. 

2. Interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) 

EPCA also specifies that the Secretary 

may not prescribe any amended 

standard which increases the maximum 

allowable energy use of a covered 

product. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). This is 

generally referred to as the ‘‘antibacksliding’’ provision. 

AWE; NRDC, SC, and EJ; the CA 

IOUs; CEC; Joint State AGs, DC, and 

NYC; and Joint Commenters stated that 

the 2020 Final Rule violated EPCA’s 

anti-backsliding provision. (AWE, No. 

254 at pp. 2–3; NRDC, SC, and EJ, No. 

243 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 247 at p. 2; 

CEC, No. 245 at pp. 1–2; Joint State AGs, 

DC, and NYC, No. 249 at pp. 4–5; CA 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 12 

at p. 12) IPI and the Joint Commenters 

stated that the 2020 Final rules 

amended the applicable efficiency 

standards without considering the 

prohibition on backsliding. (IPI, No. 244 

at p. 1; Joint Commenters, No. 252 at pp. 

1–2) CEC stated that the 2020 Final 

Rules violate EPCA’s anti-backsliding 

prohibition. (CEC, No. 245 at pp. 1–2) 

CEC further supported what is described 

as ‘‘DOE’s strong repudiation of the 

previous unlawful rationale that the 

anti-backsliding prohibition did not 

apply because the standards were 

merely being ‘‘deferred’’ for these 

products.’’ (CEC, No. 245 at p. 4) NRDC, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 2679 

SC, and EJ commented that the plain 

language of the anti-backsliding 

provision allows no exceptions and 

serves an important purpose, referring 

to a House Report, ‘‘to maintain a 

climate of relative stability with respect 

to future planning by all interested 

parties.’’ (NRDC, SC, and EJ, No. 243 at 

p. 2; citing House Report 100–11, at 22 

(Mar. 3, 1987) Moreover, NRDC, SC, and 

EJ explained that the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Second Circuit stated in 

NRDC v. Abraham, the anti-backsliding 

provision must be interpreted in light of 

‘‘the appliance program’s goal of 

steadily increasing the energy efficiency 

of covered products’’ and congressional 

intent to provide a ‘‘sense of certainty 

on the part of manufacturers as to the 

required energy efficiency standards.’’ 

(NRDC, SC, and EJ, No. 243 at p. 2; 

citing NRDC v. Abraham, 355 F.3d 179, 

197 (2d Cir. 2004)) 

Joint State AGs, DC, and NYC stated 

that while DOE had argued that the 

product class provision conditioned the 

anti-backsliding provision in the 2020 

Final Rules, the contrary reading is 

more appropriate in light of the 

provisions themselves, the canons of 

statutory interpretation, and EPCA’s 

legislative history, in which the antibacksliding provision was adopted after 

the product class provisions. (Joint State 

AGs, DC, and NYC, No. 249 at pp. 4– 

5) NRDC, SC, and EJ further discussed 

this and stated that the anti-backsliding 

provision constrains DOE’s creation of 

new product classes under EPCA 

section 325(q). The product class 

provision authorizes DOE to determine 

that the presence of a ‘‘performancerelated feature’’ in certain products 

‘‘justifies the establishment of a higher 

or lower standard’’ than the one that 

‘‘applies (or will apply)’’ to those 

products. NRDC, SC and EJ explained 

that in the 2020 Final Rules, DOE used 

the multiple tenses to argue that DOE 

can reduce the stringency of a standard, 

but this interpretation improperly reads 

the text of the product class provision 

in a vacuum, ignoring that the statutory 

context and EPCA’s history and 

purposes must inform the meaning of 

the words. (NRDC, SC, and EJ, No. 243 

at pp. 2–3) NRDC, SC and EJ 

commented that in light of the statutory 

context and purpose, the only plausible 

interpretation is that Congress intended 

the anti-backsliding provision to 

constrain DOE’s authority under the 

product class provision, and the broad 

application of the anti-backsliding 

provision is consistent with EPCA’s 

goals of ‘‘conserv[ing] energy supplies 

through energy conservation programs,’’ 

‘‘provid[ing] for improved energy 

efficiency of motor vehicles, major 

appliances, and certain other consumer 

products,’’ and ‘‘conserv[ing] water by 

improving the water efficiency of 

certain plumbing products and 

appliances.’’ Further, the ‘‘climate of 

relative stability’’ that Congress sought 

to ensure would be undermined by a 

reading of the product class provision 

that enables DOE to waive the 

applicability of the anti-backsliding 

provision as to all existing energy use of 

efficiency standards for consumer 

products. (NRDC, SC, and EJ, No. 243 at 

p. 3) 

NRDC, SC, and EJ also noted the 

history of the product class provision. 

The 1978 version of the product class 

provision authorized DOE to ‘‘specify a 

level of energy efficiency higher or 

lower than that which applies (or would 

apply)’’ to the product. As enacted in 

1978, the product class provision might 

have been reasonably interpreted to 

allow for the weakening of existing 

standards. However, when Congress 

imposed the anti-backsliding provision 

on DOE in 1987 and made conforming 

changes to the product class provision, 

that amendment altered the degree of 

discretion conferred in the product class 

provision. (NRDC, SC, and EJ, No. 243 

at p. 3) 

DOE agrees with AWE; NRDC, SC, 

and EJ; the CA IOUs; CEC; Joint State 

AGs, DC, and NYC; and the Joint 

Commenters that DOE erred when it did 

not adequately consider EPCA’s antibacksliding provisions in the 2020 Final 

Rules. 

Joint State AGs, DC, and NYC 

explained that because Congress had 

already set minimum standards for 

residential clothes washers, 42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(9), and residential dishwashers, 

42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10), DOE could only 

strengthen those standards, consistent 

with anti-backsliding provision, but the 

2020 Final Rules weakened those 

standards by applying no standards to 

short-cycle products. Congress did not 

provide for separate classes for shortcycle products, and the standards thus 

applied to all such products regardless 

of that feature. Thus, the Join State AGs, 

DC, and NYC asserted, the 2020 Final 

Rules violated EPCA’s minimum energy 

conservation standards for those 

products. (Joint State AGs, DC, and 

NYC, No. 249 at pp. 6–7) 

DOE agrees with the Joint State AGs, 

DC, and NYC that because Congress had 

set standards for residential clothes 

washers and residential dishwashers 

that DOE could not weaken those 

standards without considering EPCA’s 

anti-backsliding provision. 

CEI commented that the provision at 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) does not apply to 

the short-cycle product classes because 

no standard has yet been established for 

these new product classes. CEI cited 42 

U.S.C. 6291(6) stating that a standard 

specifies the ‘‘minimum level of energy 

efficiency or maximum quantity of 

energy use’’ for a covered product. The 

rulemakings creating these new product 

classes did not specify a ‘‘minimum 

level of energy efficiency or maximum 

quantity of energy use’’ for these 

products. For that reason, the creation of 

these product classes did not, as defined 

by the statute, create, modify, or amend 

any standard for these products. (CEI, 

No. 239 at p. 5) CEI stated that since 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) only applies to an 

‘‘amended standard,’’ it does not apply 

to a new product class for which no 

standard yet exists. (CEI, No. 239 at p. 

5; see also CEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 12 at pp. 9–10) CEI 

further explained that though the lack of 

a standard does not limit energy and 

water use of those products, that does 

not mean that an ‘‘amendment’’ of any 

standard occurred. (CEI, No. 239 at p. 6) 

CEI stated that those standards still exist 

today, just as they did before with the 

exact same water and energy 

requirements. (CEI, No. 239 at p. 6; see 

also CEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

12 at p. 10) CEI also highlighted other 

rulemakings where DOE established 

new product classes without 

establishing standards for those classes, 

including distribution transformers in 

2007 and beverage vending machines in 

2009. CEI stated the fact that no ‘‘first 

instance of energy conservation 

standards’’ have been issued for faster 

dishwashers does not undercut the 

validity of the short-cycle product class 

for these dishwashers. (CEI, No. 239 at 

pp. 5–6) CEI argued that the text of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) explicitly allows a 

lower standard than applies to other 

products that do not have that feature 

and as such, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) 

provision does not apply to new 

product classes when there is no prior 

standard. (CEI, No. 239 at p. 6) 

As explained in the August 2021 

NOPR, the October 2020 and December 

2020 Final Rules inaccurately cited 

DOE’s 2007 distribution transformer and 

2009 beverage vending machine 

(‘‘BVM’’) energy conservation standards 

rulemakings as support. 85 FR 68723, 

68733; 85 FR 81361, 81368. In the 2007 

distribution transformers rulemaking, 

DOE established a separate equipment 

class for underground mining 

distribution transformers without 

establishing associated energy 

conservation standards. 72 FR 58190 

(Oct. 12, 2007). Similarly, in the 2009 

BVM rulemaking, DOE established a 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
2680 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

separate equipment class for 

combination BVMs without establishing 

associated energy conservation 

standards. 74 FR 44914 (Aug. 31, 2009). 

But the October 2020 and December 

2020 Final Rules failed to note the key 

distinction between these examples and 

the short-cycle product class 

rulemakings. Both the 2007 and 2009 

rulemakings were the first instance of 

energy conservation standards being 

promulgated for distribution 

transformers and BVMs. As such, not 

setting standards for those equipment 

classes simply maintained the status 

quo–that is, underground mining 

distribution transformers and 

combination BVMs were not subject to 

energy use or efficiency restrictions 

either before or after those rulemakings. 

As a result, DOE did not establish or 

‘‘amend’’ the standards for these 

equipment classes and thus was not 

required to satisfy any of the criteria in 

EPCA for amending a standard for these 

equipment classes. 86 FR 43970, 43973– 

43974. 

In contrast, short-cycle residential 

dishwashers, residential clothes 

washers, and consumer clothes dryers 

were all subject to energy conservation 

standards prior to the October 2020 and 

December 2020 Final Rules. By stating 

that short-cycle products were no longer 

subject to energy or water conservation 

standards, the October 2020 and 

December 2020 Final Rules changed the 

status quo in a direction that would 

allow for unlimited energy and water 

use by these short-cycle products. Thus, 

DOE did ‘‘amend’’ the standards for 

these equipment classes and thus was 

required to satisfy the requirements in 

EPCA for issuing an amended standard. 

86 FR 43970, 43973–43974. 

While CEI is correct that there are not 

currently any standards applicable to 

the short-cycle product classes, this 

ignores the fact that prior to the 2020 

Final Rules, products currently defined 

as short-cycle products were subject to 

energy conservation and water 

conservation standards. (See 10 CFR 

430.32(f), (g), and (h) (Jan. 1, 2020 

edition), which prescribed standards for 

residential dishwashers, residential 

clothes washers, and consumer clothes 

dryers, respectively, without regard to 

cycle time.) As discussed in section 

III.A.1 of this document, by separating 

certain models of residential 

dishwashers, residential clothes 

washers, and consumer clothes dryers 

from a product class with standards to 

a new product class that did not have 

any applicable standards, DOE amended 

(or altered) the standards applicable to 

those models in the 2020 Final Rules. 

Contrary to CEI’s assertions, this is not 

analogous to the first instance of energy 

conservation standards for beverage 

vending machines and distribution 

transformers, as there were already 

standards in place for these products. 

Under the newly-created product 

classes, these products now have no 

applicable standard, which allows the 

energy and water use of these products 

to be higher than the standard to which 

they were subjected previously. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

did not adequately consider EPCA’s 

requirements, including the antibacksliding provision, when it finalized 

the 2020 Final Rules. 

3. Interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) 

EPCA provides that, when prescribing 

an energy conservation standard for a 

new product class, DOE must specify a 

different standard level than that which 

applies generally to a type or class of 

products for any group of covered 

products that have the same function or 

intended use, if DOE determines that 

products within such group: (A) 

Consume a different kind of energy from 

that consumed by other covered 

products within such type (or class); or 

(B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1). In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies 

such a different standard for a group of 

products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. 

As stated in the August 2021 NOPR, 

as support for establishing product 

classes without associated energy 

conservation standards, the October 

2020 and December 2020 Final Rules 

asserted that those rules were simply 

deferring the issuance of new 

conservation standards. 85 FR 68723, 

68733; 85 FR 81359, 81368. As 

discussed in section III.A.1 of this 

document, EPCA does not, however, 

allow DOE to simply defer the 

establishment of new energy 

conservation standards for regulated 

products or equipment that already have 

energy conservation standards. Even if 

EPCA authorized deferrals in some 

instances, any creation of the new 

product classes here would have needed 

to follow the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q), which frames the development 

of a product class within the context of 

an energy conservation standard 

rulemaking. But the October 2020 and 

December 2020 Final Rules did not 

develop the new product classes in the 

context of an energy conservation 

standard rulemaking. Instead, by stating 

that the new product classes were not 

subject to any energy conservation 

standards without following 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q), the October 2020 and December 

2020 Final Rules were an amendment in 

violation of EPCA. 86 FR 43970, 43973. 

CEC asserted that although the 

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

provides DOE with the authority to 

establish new product classes, if DOE 

determines that the sub-class includes a 

‘‘performance-related feature [that] 

justifies the establishment of a higher or 

lower standard,’’ DOE erroneously 

relied on that authority to justify 

establishing new product classes and 

setting lower standards in the 2020 

Final Rules. (CEC, No. 245 at p. 4) CEC 

and IPI stated that the 2020 Final Rules 

amended the applicable standards 

without justifying short cycle time as a 

product utility nor providing any data to 

justify the creation of a new product 

class or higher or lower standards. (CEC, 

No. 245 at p. 4; IPI, No. 244 at p. 1) 

The Joint State AGs, DC, and NYC 

asserted that short-cycle functionality 

does not provide consumer utility that 

would qualify as a ‘‘performance-related 

feature’’ consistent with prior 

interpretations, and, where cycle 

duration was considered in the past 

rulemakings, it was not in the product 

class context. Further, Joint State AGs, 

DC, and NYC stated that the 

administrative records compiled in 

support of the 2020 Final Rules failed to 

meet either burden, as they did not 

support DOE’s determination that shortcycle functionality was a ‘‘performancerelated feature’’ as that term is 

interpreted under EPCA, or that separate 

standards were necessary to maintain 

that functionality. The Joint State AGs, 

DC, and NYC also questioned whether 

short-cycle functionality provides 

unique consumer utility and stated that 

ENERGY STAR data indicated that 

consumer preferences were more 

influenced by efficiency and other 

features of the products instead of cycle 

time. The Joint State AGs, DC, and NYC 

concluded that short-cycle time does 

not qualify as a ‘‘performance-related 

feature’’ that could justify a separate 

product class with different energy 

conservation standards under EPCA. 

(Joint State AGs, DC, and NYC, No. 249 

at pp. 6–7) Joint State AGs, DC, and 

NYC also explained that even if shortcycle functionality could be a 

performance-related feature under 

EPCA, DOE did not demonstrate that 

different energy conservation standards 

were necessary to provide short-cycle 

functionality for the subject products. 

DOE’s presumption that weaker energy 

conservation standards would result in 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 2681 

8www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0014-0019. 

9www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2018-BTSTD-0005-2233. 

10 Dishwasher NODA Test Data (5–21–20). 

Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2018-BT-STD-0005-3213. 

11 DOE’s Compliance Certification Management 

System database is available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data. 

12www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BTSTD-0001-0033. 

quicker cycle times was also belied by 

the data in the rulemaking records, 

which, when assessed accurately, 

showed that energy conservation 

standards did not cause any increase in 

cycle times. (Joint State AGs, DC, and 

NYC, No. 249 at p. 7) 

Other interested parties cited the 

availability of short-cycle functionality 

on existing products as evidence that 

categorizing normal cycle time as a 

performance-related feature is 

unwarranted and unjustified. NWPCC 

asserted that the residential dishwasher 

short-cycle product class is unnecessary 

because, according to a December 2020 

NEEA survey, residential dishwasher 

short-cycles are only used about 8 

percent of the time. (NWPCC, No. 9 at 

p. 2) ASAP, the CA IOUs, and the Joint 

Commenters stated that the separate 

product classes are unwarranted and 

there are already products available on 

the market with the option of a short 

cycle. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 12 at p. 11; Joint 

Commenters, No. 252 at p. 2; CA IOUS, 

No. 247 at p. 2) NWPCC; AHAM; Joint 

State AGs, DC, and NYC; and NRDC, SC, 

and EJ commented that many residential 

dishwasher, residential clothes washer, 

and consumer clothes dryer models 

already provide short-cycle times while 

meeting the existing standards. 

(NWPCC, No. 9 at p. 2; AHAM, No. 253 

at p. 2; AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 12 at p. 14; NRDC, SC, 

and EJ, No. 243 at pp. 3–4; Joint State 

AGs, DC, and NYC, No. 249 at p. 7) 

Specifically, the CA IOUs cited data 

from NEEA, which showed that 76 

percent of top-selling residential clothes 

washers in NEEA’s incentive programs, 

and from AHAM, where over 75 percent 

of the most popular residential 

dishwasher models on the market, were 

equipped with short-cycle options.8 9

The CA IOUs further commented that 

data published by DOE in support of the 

October 2020 Final Rule 10

demonstrated that, across 29 tested 

units with a quick-cycle option, the 

majority of units achieved a higher percycle cleaning index score for the quick 

cycle than for the normal cycle. 

Accordingly, in their view, the creation 

of separate product classes is not 

needed to ensure the availability of 

quick cycles with adequate cleaning 

performance, since they are already 

available to consumers. (CA IOUs, No. 

247 at p. 2) 

The CA IOUs further commented that 

cycle time for commonly used 

appliances may be an important 

attribute for some consumers, but that 

cycle time could be incorporated into 

performance standards, as DOE 

proposed in the clothes washer test 

procedure NOPR that DOE published on 

September 1, 2021. 86 FR 49140. The 

CA IOUs contended that this approach 

would create incentives for 

manufacturers to develop products with 

a balance of short-cycle times and 

energy and water efficiency. The CA 

IOUs further commented that publicly 

reporting cycle times in DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Management 

System (‘‘CCMS’’) database,11 as 

ENERGY STAR already does in its 

database of qualified products, would 

provide many consumer information 

platforms such as Consumer Reports to 

incorporate and report on cycle time for 

all DOE-certified appliances, including 

non-ENERGY STAR products. (CA 

IOUs, No. 247 at p. 3) 

The Joint Commenters specifically 

noted that, for residential dishwashers, 

there is wide availability of products 

that provide the option of a short cycle 

with a cycle time of less than one hour. 

The Joint Commenters added that, for 

residential clothes washers and 

consumer clothes dryers, DOE’s test 

data 12 showed the availability of 

products with short cycle times on the 

normal cycle, which is the cycle that is 

tested for certification purposes. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 252 at p. 2) NRDC, SC, 

and EJ commented that the product 

class provision at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) 

permits DOE to distinguish among 

classes of products only when products 

‘‘have a capacity or other performancerelated feature which other products 

. . . do not have,’’ and asserted that this 

provision in EPCA does not offer 

limitless discretion to DOE. These 

commenters noted further that 

residential dishwashers, residential 

clothes washers, and consumer clothes 

dryers are available on the market with 

cycle options resulting in cycle times 

shorter than the thresholds in the 2020 

Final Rules, indicating that consumers 

who are concerned about cycle duration 

can already purchase models that meet 

their needs. (NRDC, SC, and EJ, No. 243 

at pp. 3–4) 

AHAM commented that there are not 

sufficient data to show that a shorter 

normal cycle time for residential clothes 

washers and consumer clothes dryers 

would offer consumer utility that 

justifies a higher or lower standard. 

(AHAM, No. 253 at p. 3) 

AWE and the Joint State AGs, DC, and 

NYC asserted that establishing the new 

short-cycle product classes without 

simultaneously establishing new 

standards for them goes against the 

provision at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1). (AWE, 

No. 254 at p. 3; Joint State AGs, DC, and 

NYC, No. 249 at pp. 5–6) AWE 

commented that the authority on which 

the 2020 Final Rules relied for creating 

for creating product classes does not 

allow a new product class with different 

water efficiency or usage at all, because 

section 325(q) applies only to rules that 

specify ‘‘level[s] of energy use or energy 

efficiency.’’ Thus, according to AWE, 

DOE had no authority to carve out shortcycle residential clothes washers as a 

class that can use extra water. AWE 

added that the central purpose of EPCA, 

energy and water conservation, would 

be defeated if DOE were to avoid the 

statutory limitations set forth by 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) by recharacterizing the 

amendment of existing standards for the 

short-cycle products as though it is not 

an amendment and instead 

characterizing it as the establishment of 

new product classes for which prior 

standards did not exist. (AWE, No. 254 

at p. 3) 

Americans for Tax Reform argued that 

DOE is required to assess standards 

based on a number of statutory factors, 

including the economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers, as well as ‘‘the utility or 

performance of the covered product.’’ 

Americans for Tax Reform asserted that 

the August 2021 NOPR failed to 

appropriately assess these factors, as the 

evidence demonstrates faster classes of 

consumer appliances are of significant 

benefit to members of the public. 

Specifically, Americans for Tax Reform 

referenced polling data that shows in 

excess of 80 percent of consumers 

would find such projects useful. 

Americans for Tax Reform commented 

that 98 percent of individuals who 

submitted comments in response to the 

dishwasher short-cycle product class 

rulemaking were in favor of the 

dishwasher short-cycle product class. 

(Americans for Tax Reform, No. 223 at 

p. 1) Americans For Tax Reform 

commented that consumer appliances 

with shorter cycle times would be 

particularly beneficial to larger families 

and cited a 2017 survey from 

Statista.com that showed that families 

in lower income brackets tend to have 

higher birth rates. Americans for Tax 

Reform suggested that denying access to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
2682 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

13Attachment C: Hoffman Evaluation available at: 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-STD0002-0239. 

14See Bethany A. Davis Noll & Denise A. Grab, 

Deregulation: Process and Procedures that Govern 

Agency Decisionmaking in an Era of Rollbacks, 38 

ENERGY L. J. 269, 292–93 (2017) (summarizing the 

legal requirements and case law). 

appliances with shorter cycle times 

indirectly penalizes low-income 

families and exacerbates the problems 

associated with income inequality, 

asserting that higher-income families or 

those able to afford housekeeping 

services may not need shorter cycle 

times. (Americans for Tax Reform, No. 

223 at p. 1) The 60 Plus Association 

claimed that senior citizens would 

benefit from cycle times less than an 

hour. (60 Plus Association, No. 251 at p. 

3) 

The Arizona AG argued that the 

August 2021 NOPR, if finalized, would 

be a detriment to consumers, who stand 

to benefit greatly from products 

produced under the new classes of 

machines and who expressed much 

support for the two rules. (Arizona AG, 

No. 248 at p. 1) The Arizona AG 

highlighted comments from consumers 

and industry groups about the prior 

standards, which stated that the prior 

standards led to machines that did not 

clean as well and took longer to do it, 

which created a burden on many, 

including large families, work 

professionals, and seniors. (Arizona AG, 

No. 248 at p. 2) 

FreedomWorks Foundation argued 

that the 2020 Final Rules determined 

that a new class of dishwashers was a 

performance-related feature that 

justified creation of a standard that 

allowed use of more energy and water. 

FreedomWorks Foundation claimed that 

short-cycle product classes would help 

busy Americans maintain their 

households, and that repealing these 

product classes would be neglectful to 

those citizens. (FreedomWorks 

Foundation, No. 238 at p. 2) 

FreedomWorks Foundation and the 

Arizona AG highlighted consumer 

comments filed in support of the 2020 

Final Rules. (FreedomWorks 

Foundation, No. 238 at pp. 1–2; Arizona 

AG, No. 248 at p. 2) The Arizona AG 

stated that utility to the consumer had 

been well established by the DOE’s 

previous findings and the hundreds of 

comments in support in the docket for 

the 2020 Final Rules. (Arizona AG, No. 

248 at pp. 4–5) 

CEI argued that these faster products 

provide substantial utility to consumers. 

CEI highlighted the magnitude of 

comments from individual consumers 

in the prior rulemaking that stated that 

faster dishwashers would be useful to 

them. (CEI, No. 239 at p. 2; see also CEI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 12 at pp. 

6–7) CEI commented that more than 

2,200 individuals submitted comments 

supporting the dishwasher short-cycle 

product class in the rulemaking leading 

to the October 2020 Final Rule, while 

only 57 individuals opposed the shortcycle product class or were neutral. 

(CEI, No. 239 at p. 2) CEI also noted a 

comment received as a part of this 

rulemaking, where the commenter 

stated that ‘‘a short normal cycle clothes 

washer is essential to someone like me, 

a working mother doing laundry for a 

family of six, to allow me to schedule 

around the sun and use a clothesline 

rather than being forced into using a 

heated tumble clothes drier [sic].’’ (CEI, 

No. 239 at p. 3) CEI further 

commissioned a survey of over 1,000 

random Americans, of which 81 percent 

said the new class of short-cycle 

dishwashers would be useful to them 

and only 8 percent thought a 

dishwasher should take more than an 

hour. (CEI, No. 239 at p. 3; see also CEI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 12 at pp. 

7–8) In further support of its view that 

short-cycles provide consumer utility, 

CEI referenced a comment provided by 

Robert C. Hoffman in response to DOE’s 

July 2019 NOPR to establish the new 

dishwasher product class, noting that he 

is an ‘‘expert with nearly three decades 

of experience in the appliance industry 

and in DOE compliance testing.’’ 

Hoffman stated that, ‘‘clearly a 

percentage of the dishwasher market in 

the U.S. is dissatisfied with current 

dishwasher cleaning and cycle time 

performances,’’ and viewed DOE’s 

stringent energy standards as restricting 

the availability of products that were on 

the market.13 (CEI, No. 239 at p. 3) 

CEI stated that the provision at 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) explicitly allows the 

establishment of a lower standard for 

products that have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature than applies 

to other products that do not have that 

feature. (CEI, No. 239 at p. 6) The 

Arizona AG stated that DOE has the 

regulatory authority to empower 

consumers to buy residential 

dishwashers, residential clothes 

washers, and consumer clothes dryers 

that will fit their specific needs and 

time constraints. The Arizona AG and 

Missouri AG argued that EPCA 

authorizes the creation of a ‘‘higher or 

lower’’ energy conservation standard for 

a new class of products provided that 

DOE determines that the class is 

characterized by a distinct performancerelated feature. (Arizona AG, No. 248 at 

p. 4 (citing 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)); 

Missouri AG, No. 246 at pp. 4–5) 

Furthermore, the Missouri AG asserted 

if the current classes of regulated 

appliances do not accurately describe a 

new type of product to be introduced to 

the market, regulators are free to craft a 

completely new, less burdensome, 

regulatory scheme for this new product, 

which is what the 2020 Final Rules did. 

(Missouri AG. No. 246 at p. 5) 

Although irrelevant to the conclusion 

that the 2020 Final Rules failed to 

follow the statutory requirements for 

amending standards, it nonetheless 

bears mentioning that DOE standards 

apply only to the particular cycles 

required by the test procedure for 

testing these products. Most basic 

models of residential dishwashers, 

residential clothes washers, and 

consumer clothes dryers provide 

multiple cycle options that are not 

regulated, each of which are designed 

for different purposes. For instance, a 

residential dishwasher may have a 

quick cycle, heavy cycle, delicates, etc. 

in addition to the normal cycle. These 

unregulated cycles provide consumers 

options to their individual needs in the 

moment. The standards in place prior to 

the 2020 Final Rules, to which DOE is 

now reverting, do not impede the 

inclusion of these cycle options in 

products currently available on the 

market. 

Further, DOE is not contending in this 

rulemaking the validity of the 

determinations made about whether 

short cycles provide a ‘‘performancerelated feature’’ and ‘‘utility.’’ However, 

the appropriate occasion for conducting 

the 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) analysis is in a 

rulemaking prescribing new or amended 

standards. As discussed previously, the 

2020 Final Rules failed to undertake 

consideration of the statutory criteria 

explicitly applicable to a rulemaking to 

establish a new or amended standard. 

See generally 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). By 

failing to adhere to the process set out 

in EPCA for it to consider these 

prescribed criteria, DOE has concluded 

that the 2020 Final Rules were 

promulgated in violation of that process. 

4. Other Statutory Concerns 

IPI stated that when agencies 

deregulate in ways that impose costs— 

including harms to human health and 

the environment—the Administrative 

Procedure Act, principles for rational 

rulemaking, and court precedent all 

require agencies to consider the forgone 

benefits of deregulation.14 IPI 

commented that the 2020 Final Rules 

explicitly declined to consider any 

forgone benefits from those actions. 

Further, IPI stated that the 2020 Final 

Rules directly opened the possibility 

that products could be sold that would 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 2683 

consume unlimited amounts of energy 

or water could pose the risk of increased 

consumer costs and pollution, resulting 

in financial, health, climate, and other 

environmental harms. IPI asserted that 

DOE should cite the failure to consider 

forgone benefits as another justification 

for revoking the 2020 Final Rules. (IPI, 

No. 244 at pp. 1–2) 

As discussed previously, due to the 

uncertainty in the market about these 

product classes and energy conservation 

standards, it is DOE’s understanding 

that new products in these short-cycle 

product classes have not entered the 

market at this time. As such, DOE 

believes that it is unlikely that the 

foregone benefits referenced by IPI have 

resulted. 

CEI stated when it made the request 

for a new product class for dishwashers, 

it expected DOE to issue the new 

standard as part of the same rulemaking 

process that established the new class of 

product. CEI commented that, instead, 

DOE decided to split the creation of the 

standard for this new product class into 

two different parts, and if DOE now 

believes that this product class had to be 

issued with a new standard in one step, 

as CEI originally requested, then DOE 

can fix that problem by issuing that 

standard now. (CEI, No. 239 at p. 7 ; see 

also CEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

12 at p. 8) CEI asserted that other than 

the absurd idea that DOE cannot create 

a new product class with a lower energy 

standard due to a performance-related 

feature, ‘‘there is no argument that DOE 

does not have the power to issue a valid 

standard for these new product classes 

now.’’ Further, CEI argued that issuing 

a standard for these products is a 

reasonable regulatory alternative, which 

the APA requires DOE to consider prior 

to revoking these product classes. (CEI, 

No. 239 at p. 7 (citing California v. 

Interior, 381 F. Supp. 3d 1153, 1168 

(N.D. Cal. 2019) (‘‘When considering 

revoking a rule, an agency must 

consider alternatives in lieu of a 

complete repeal, such as by addressing 

the deficiencies individually.’’); citing 

Yakima Valley Cablevision v. F.C.C., 

794 F.2d 737, 746 n. 36 (‘‘The failure of 

an agency to consider obvious 

alternative has led uniformly to 

reversal.’’)) Sabedra also suggested that 

the short-cycle product classes be 

subject to energy conservation 

standards, which would ensure 

companies will continue to move 

forward with technological 

advancements that can conserve both 

water and energy, while filling the 

market gap that exists for these 

products. (Sabedra, No. 7) An 

anonymous commenter also suggested 

that short-cycle product classes should 

have regulations for water and cleaning 

efficiency set for them, so that 

manufacturers of these products can add 

this option to their products. 

(Anonymous, No. 8) 

While DOE could propose new 

standards for short-cycle products—as 

certain commenters suggested—DOE is 

declining to do so at this time. DOE 

reached this judgment after considering: 

(1) The time and resources that it would 

entail to develop these new standards in 

relation to other obligations of the 

program, (2) the lack of presentlyavailable data that would be necessary 

to analyze the short-cycle product 

classes and establish new standards for 

these class, and (3) the absence of new 

products on the market that would fall 

within these new product classes. DOE 

weighed these factors against the benefit 

of more quickly fixing an EPCA 

procedural error through the revocation 

of this rulemaking. As such, DOE 

determined that revoking the 2020 Final 

Rules was the best course of action. 

Additionally, as discussed throughout 

this document, many residential 

dishwashers, residential clothes 

washers, and consumer clothes dryers 

offer shorter cycle options on models 

already available to consumers. The 

inclusion of these cycle options has not 

been hindered by the existing 

conservation standards, meaning 

consumers can purchase such models if 

desired. 

Americans for Tax Reform 

commented that the August 2021 NOPR 

should be withdrawn because DOE had 

failed to fulfill the statutory 

requirements of EPCA by neglecting to 

complete a cost benefit analysis, an 

adequate analysis of consumer welfare 

or the disproportionate harm this rule 

would cause low-income earners, and a 

genuine analysis of the environmental 

impact. (Americans for Tax Reform, No. 

223, at p. 2) CEI claimed that repealing 

the short-cycle product classes would be 

contrary to the provision at 42 U.S.C. 

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

creating standards that eliminate 

existing ‘‘performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes.’’ CEI stated 

that before these new classes of faster 

products were established, the 

regulations at issue prevented people 

from making the trade-off between 

speed and efficiency. (CEI, No. 239 at p. 

1) 

As DOE is not establishing or 

amending energy conservation 

standards in this final rule under 42 

U.S.C. 6295, DOE disagrees with the 

Americans for Tax Reform that DOE is 

required to fulfill EPCA’s requirements 

for developing standards when revoking 

the 2020 Final Rules. Instead, DOE 

notes that it should have completed 

such an analysis in the 2020 Final Rules 

that established the product classes at 

issue here as discussed in section III.A.1 

of this document. Additionally, the 

revocation of the 2020 Final Rules will 

return the applicable regulations and 

the marketplace to the status-quo prior 

to October 2020. As discussed in section 

III.A.3 of this document, the 

marketplace already includes products 

that provide consumers with shorter 

cycle options, such as residential 

dishwasher products with cycles times 

of less than 60 minutes. As such, the 

revocation of the 2020 Final Rules will 

not result in the elimination of any 

existing performance characteristics 

from the market. 

B. Impact on Water and Energy Use 

In the August 2021 NOPR, DOE 

explained that it made a policy 

judgment that EPCA’s express purpose 

of energy and water conservation (42 

U.S.C. 6201(4), (5), (8)) would be 

thwarted if DOE could avoid restrictions 

on amending existing standards by 

nominally characterizing a regulatory 

change in the energy conservation 

standards applicable to a covered 

product as something other than an 

amendment. 86 FR 43980, 43974. In 

response, DOE received comments on 

the impacts of the proposal on water 

and energy use. AWE stated that 

reverting to the prior standards will 

have significant environmental benefits. 

Specifically, AWE highlighted that 

efficient residential clothes washers 

have helped reduce water use by an 

average of 5.4 gallons per person per 

day—nationwide savings of more than 

640 billion gallons a year, the single 

most effective per-capita water 

reduction effort in 15 years. For 

consumer clothes dryers, AWE noted 

DOE findings that prior standards will, 

over 30 years, save 0.39 quadrillion 

British thermal units (‘‘quads’’) of 

energy, reduce electricity generation 

requirements by nearly 1 gigawatt, and 

reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 

about 36 million metric tons. AWE also 

stated that DOE also determined that the 

prior standards would result in a 

cumulative national net present value of 

total consumer costs and savings from 

$1.08 billion to $3.01 billion for 

consumer clothes dryers, and from 

$13.01 billion to $31.29 billion for 

residential clothes washers. (AWE, No. 

254 at pp. 1–2) AWE also commented 

that the 2020 Final Rules go against the 

purpose of EPCA to consistently 

improve energy and water efficiency 

over time, and stated that if DOE did not 

revoke the 2020 Final Rules, long-term 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
2684 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

15Attachment B: Survey Concerning Dishwashers 

available at: www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE2021-BT-STD-0002-0239. 

consequences could erase water and 

energy savings produced by previous 

efficiency standards. (AWE, No. 254 at 

p. 2) CEC stated that repealing the 2020 

Final Rules would ensure that DOE is 

properly exercising its authority to 

prevent excess energy and water 

consumption and save consumers 

money, instead of allowing products 

with short cycle times to consume 

unlimited amounts of energy and water. 

(CEC, No. 245 at p. 2) ASAP explained 

that the short-cycle product classes put 

at risk huge gains in energy and water 

efficiency that have been achieved in 

the past three decades for these 

products. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 12 at pp. 11–12) 

NWPCC commented that if the shortcycle product classes remain in effect, 

machines with primarily short-cycle 

operations would be developed and 

would require more per-cycle energy 

and water use. This could lead to 

significant energy and water use 

increases, which would represent 

backsliding relative to current per-unit 

consumption rates. NWPCC also noted 

that clothes washing and drying 

represents approximately 10 percent of 

the residential energy load in the 

northwest region of the United States. 

(NWPCC, No. 9 at p. 2) NWPCC asserted 

that while it is unknown how many 

clothing loads would be performed by 

short-cycle units in the future, it is clear 

that the short-cycle product classes 

would result in an increase in energy 

and water consumption. (NWPCC, No. 9 

at p. 2) 

AWE commented that much of the 

western United States is in an extended 

drought, and scientists warn that water 

shortages are likely to become more 

common and significant due to climate 

change across the United States because 

of climate change. (AWE, No. 254 at p. 

2) CEC commented that because climate 

change is threatening communities 

across the country and the Western 

United States is experiencing severe 

drought conditions, with California 

experiencing extreme or exceptional 

drought conditions, DOE must utilize 

every available tool to address climate 

change and drought. (CEC, No. 245 at p. 

2) 

The FreedomWorks Foundation 

claimed that pre-2020 energy and water 

standards are responsible for increased 

cycle times and poor residential 

dishwasher performance that result in 

consumers frequently hand washing 

dishes or resorting to other methods that 

consume additional energy and water. 

(FreedomWorks Foundation, No. 238 at 

p. 1) The Arizona AG commented that, 

during previous rulemakings, 

consumers expressed concerns about 

the negative environmental impact of 

residential dishwashers that must have 

cycles repeated or extra pre-washing 

conducted before use. (Arizona AG, No. 

248 at p. 3) 

Americans for Tax Reform argued that 

the August 2021 NOPR follows an 

extremely superficial analysis of the 

environmental impact, neglecting to 

consider the abundance of evidence 

regarding the longer-term environmental 

benefits brought about through these 

new classes of products. Americans for 

Tax Reform suggested that other existing 

metrics fail to adequately capture the 

full energy and water use as according 

to survey data up to 86 percent of 

Americans wash their dishes by hand at 

least some or all of the time because of 

long cycle times. (Americans for Tax 

Reform, No. 223 at p. 1) Americans for 

Tax Reform further stated that washing 

dishes by hand is significantly more 

water and energy intensive than any 

form of dishwasher use and, as such, the 

August 2021 NOPR may significantly 

increase water usage. Americans for Tax 

Reform also suggested that longer cycles 

for residential clothes washers make it 

more difficult for consumers to time 

their clothes washing around the 

weather, so as to take advantage of 

sunshine to dry their clothes. This could 

lead to increased energy use as people 

are forced to use tumble dryers when 

the new rules would allow for greater 

use of clotheslines. (Americans for Tax 

Reform, No. 223 at p. 1) Similarly, 

Randtke discussed the importance of 

having a residential clothes washer with 

a short normal wash cycle time because 

it allows them to run the clothes washer 

before work and use a clothesline to dry 

their families’ clothes instead of using a 

clothes dryer. (Randtke, No. 6 at pp. 1– 

2) Randtke suggested that longer cycles 

times for residential clothes washers put 

pressure on them to switch from a 

clothesline to a heated tumble clothes 

dryer, which they asserted uses a lot 

more energy. (Randtke, No. 6 at p. 3) 

Randtke also commented that water is 

necessary to wash clothes, and that to 

limit water use results in them running 

multiple cycles for the same load of 

laundry, as it affects the ability of the 

washer to get clothes clean. (Randtke, 

No. 6 at pp. 3–6) 

CEI stated that the issue DOE failed to 

consider is that faster residential 

dishwashers save water and energy. CEI 

asserted that even if faster residential 

dishwashers use more water and energy 

per cycle, they can still end up saving 

water and energy by reducing the need 

for hand washing or extensive prescrubbing or running double cycles in 

order to get dishes clean. (CEI, No. 239 

at p. 4) CEI cited its own survey, which 

showed that 23 percent of consumers 

always wash their dishes by hand 

because their residential dishwasher 

takes too long, 27 percent of consumers 

do so often, and 37 percent of 

consumers do so sometimes.15 (CEI, No. 

239 at p. 4; see also CEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 12 at p. 8) 

Thompson stated that returning to the 

prior standards will not save energy or 

water, as people are forced to perform 

significant pre-rinsing and run multiple 

loads. Thompson further noted that 

these efficiency rules that are meant to 

save energy and water have added to 

their home’s energy and water use, as 

well as increased the amount of 

chemicals consumed, and added to the 

environment [sic] through additional 

detergent and rinse aid use. (Thompson, 

No. 122) Simpson stated that water and 

electricity conservation was not needed 

because an industrialized society can 

produce more of those things. (Simpson, 

No. 130) 

As stated previously, DOE has 

determined that the 2020 Final Rules 

that established the short-cycle product 

classes and amended the associated 

energy conservation standards violated 

EPCA and are, therefore, invalid. The 

product class structure and associated 

energy conservation standards that were 

in effect prior to the 2020 Final Rules, 

and which DOE is reinstating, were 

subject to the necessary considerations 

of energy and water savings, 

technological feasibility, and economic 

justification as required by EPCA. See 

77 FR 31918 (May 30, 2012) 

(establishing amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

dishwashers); 77 FR 59719 (Oct. 1, 

2012) (establishing amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

clothes washers); and 76 FR 22454 (Apr. 

21, 2011) (establishing amended energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

clothes dryers). 

DOE recognizes the concerns raised 

by commenters about the potential 

impacts on energy and water use that 

could result from permitting the 2020 

Final Rules to remain in effect. As stated 

in the August 2021 NOPR, DOE has 

made a policy judgement that EPCA’s 

expressed purposes for energy and 

water conservation (42 U.S.C. 6201(4), 

(5), and (8)) would be thwarted if DOE 

could avoid EPCA’s restrictions on 

amending existing standards by 

nominally characterizing a regulatory 

change to an existing standard as 

something other than an amendment. 86 

FR 43970, 43974. Considerations 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 2685 

16Liam McCabe, Did Trump Really Make 

Dishwashers Great Again?, New York Times (Mar. 

2, 2021). www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/ 

dishwashers-trump-efficiency/. 

regarding energy and water use, as well 

as EPCA’s other requirements, should 

have been addressed during the 

rulemaking process for the 2020 Final 

Rules, as discussed in section III.A.1 of 

this document. 

C. Impact to Manufacturers 

Commenters also discussed the 

impact of the proposal on 

manufacturers. AHAM commented that 

short-cycle product classes for 

residential clothes washers and 

consumer clothes dryers would likely 

have negative, unintended 

consequences. Specifically, AHAM 

stated that retaining the short-cycle 

product classes could strand 

manufacturer investments in efficiency 

and require new investments to develop 

new products; create new regulation; 

introduce uncertainty for manufacturers 

until DOE develops energy conservation 

standards for the new product classes; 

increase test burden for laundry 

products; and create possible 

disharmony in North American laundry 

energy conservation standards. (AHAM, 

No. 253 at p. 3) 

GEA commented that by failing to 

follow the requirements of EPCA, the 

Appliance Standards Process Rule (see 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix 

A—Procedures, Interpretations, and 

Policies for Consideration of New or 

Revised Energy Conservation Standards 

and Test Procedures for Consumer 

Products and Certain Commercial/ 

Industrial Equipment), and the APA, the 

2020 Final Rules damaged the 

relationship between major appliance 

manufacturers and DOE, threatened 

domestic manufacturing of major 

appliances, and undercut the significant 

work DOE and manufacturers have done 

to bring highly effective and efficient 

appliances to U.S. consumers. 

According to GEA, manufacturers were 

unable to plan for and implement any 

changes in response to the short-cycle 

product class rulemaking due to the 

uncertainty created by not establishing 

standards for the new product classes. 

GEA stated that manufacturers rely on 

DOE to consistently follow EPCA and 

the APA in order to invest with 

confidence in U.S.-based technology, 

manufacturing facilities, and jobs 

because domestic manufacturing 

requires greater capital investment, 

longer lead times, and greater risk than 

sourcing or foreign manufacturing. GEA 

also noted that manufacturers rely on 

the information and understanding 

provided by the standards rulemaking 

process to make predictions and 

projections about forthcoming standards 

and the 3–5-year implementation times 

for new standards to redesign their 

products and implement new 

manufacturing capabilities. (GEA, No. 

255 at p. 2) 

GEA further noted that the short-cycle 

product classes could lead to possible 

job losses, decreased sales, and a loss of 

confidence in residential dishwashers, 

residential clothes washers, and 

consumer clothes dryers. It added that 

the short-cycle product class rulemaking 

threatens established manufacturing 

jobs in the U.S. because the short-cycle 

product classes are susceptible to being 

filled with low-quality imported 

products made by manufacturers that 

GEA asserts lack the care or resources 

for consumers, competitors, and DOE to 

be assured they comply with U.S. law. 

(GEA, No. 255 at pp. 2–3) GEA 

commented that the predictability and 

consistency inherent to the DOE 

Appliance Standards Program reduce 

development cost, manufacturing cost, 

and stranded investment. GEA further 

explained that all of these cost factors 

are used to determine what maximum 

efficiency levels are economically 

justified for both manufacturers and 

consumers under EPCA’s economic 

justification requirements. GEA stated, 

therefore, that the short-cycle product 

class rulemakings and their impacts on 

the market threaten to drive up cost for 

manufacturers and consumers, which 

would make more efficient products 

unavailable under EPCA’s requirements. 

GEA added that EPCA’s processes are 

essential to the success of EPCA’s 

ultimate goal of conserving water and 

energy consumption, and in order to 

continue to reach for this goal, the shortcycle product classes should be 

terminated. (GEA, No. 255 at p. 3) 

AWE noted that the residential 

clothes washer and consumer clothes 

dryer standards preceding the shortcycle rulemaking benefited 

manufacturers by creating a level, wellunderstood playing field for American 

companies that have invested heavily in 

creating products that meet the prior 

standards and that reverting to the prior 

standards will result in essential savings 

for both consumers and manufacturers. 

(AWE, No. 254 at p. 2) 

CEI countered AHAM and 

manufacturers’ opposition to the 

formation of short-cycle product classes, 

stating that the manufacturers’ 

arguments—that there is no utility for 

the short-cycle product classes, and that 

their past investment in more efficient 

products might be wasted—are 

contradictory because, according to CEI, 

if no consumers purchase products with 

shorter cycle times due to a lack of 

utility, then AHAM members could 

continue selling higher efficiency 

products without losing market share 

and without loss of investment. CEI 

asserted that some of AHAM’s members 

understand that there is utility to shortcycle products, citing a statement from 

one AHAM member’s senior manager 

that the manufacturer would probably 

redesign residential dishwashers if a 

standard was issued for these 

products.16 CEI asserted that short-cycle 

products are not currently available 

because DOE has not yet issued a 

standard for these product classes, and, 

according to CEI, manufacturers do not 

want to create products that could soon 

be illegal to sell if they do not meet that 

standard. (CEI, No. 239 at p. 3) 

Americans for Tax Reform also asserted 

that the lack of new products being 

introduced to the market is partially 

attributed to regulatory uncertainty, and 

argued that this rule would block 

innovation without assessing future 

technological innovation. Americans for 

Tax Reform suggested that, while it is 

true that no products under the new 

rules have been presently introduced to 

the market, that is not an adequate 

reason to finalize this withdrawal 

rulemaking. Americans for Tax Reform 

cautioned DOE against engaging in anticompetitive regulatory policy, which 

would benefit existing manufacturers, at 

the expense of newer ones trying to 

enter the market, and stated that 

benefiting vested interest to prevent 

consumer interest would be contrary to 

sound public policy. (Americans for Tax 

Reform, No. 223 at p. 2) 

The Arizona AG commented that 

repealing the short-cycle product class 

would limit consumers’ choices and 

block innovation of technology and 

products in the marketplace that can 

meet consumer demands. The Arizona 

AG added that the technology exists for 

more helpful machines that meet the 

needs of modern lifestyles, and that 

DOE should allow the 2020 short-cycle 

rulemakings to stand instead of 

repealing them. (Arizona AG, No. 248 at 

pp. 5–6) 

As discussed in section III.A.1 of this 

document, in amending the standards 

for the short-cycle products, DOE failed 

to consider the potential impacts on 

manufacturers. Commenters suggest that 

the standards as amended by the 2020 

Final Rules may have economic impacts 

on manufacturers that were not 

appropriately considered. Appropriate 

consideration of the potential impacts 

on manufacturers resulting from 

amended product classes would occur 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
2686 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

17 DOE’s Compliance Certification Management 

System database is available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/. 

as part of a standards rulemaking as 

required by EPCA. 

D. Other Concerns 

The CA IOUs commented that the 

2020 Final Rules delayed the EPCA 6- 

and 7-year lookback periods for energy 

conservation standards and test 

procedures, respectively, for 

dishwashers, clothes washers, and 

clothes dryers, and created uncertainty 

in their evaluations. The CA IOUs 

commented that there is an opportunity 

to save a significant amount of energy, 

but the creation of the short-cycle 

product classes without a testing 

method to verify product class 

eligibility or associated energy and 

water efficiency standards created 

uncertainty for stakeholders. (CA IOUs, 

No. 247 at pp. 2–3) 

DOE is actively pursuing a robust 

rulemaking schedule to meet EPCA’s 6- 

and 7- year lookback period 

requirements for energy conservations 

standards and test procedures. See 

notice of proposed rulemaking for the 

residential and commercial clothes 

washer test procedure (86 FR 49140 

(Sept. 1, 2021)); notice and request for 

comment on a preliminary analysis of 

residential clothes washer energy 

conservation standards (86 FR 53886 

(Sept. 29, 2021)); notice and request for 

comment on a preliminary analysis of 

consumer clothes dryer standards (86 

FR 20327 (Apr. 19, 2021)). DOE notes 

that the requirements regarding the 

measurement and reporting of cycletime would more appropriately be 

addressed in a test procedure 

rulemaking and DOE therefore is not 

addressing such requirements in this 

final rule. 

The Joint State AGs, DC, and NYC 

expressed concern that the 2020 Final 

Rules have weakened the energy 

efficiency program by removing 

standards for important consumer 

products and creating unjustified 

product classes, which in turn opened 

the possibility of similar proposals in 

the future that could further undermine 

the program. (Joint State AGs, DC, and 

NYC, No. 249 at p. 2) 

As mentioned in section III.B of this 

document, DOE recognizes that EPCA’s 

expressed purposes for energy and 

water conservation would be thwarted if 

the 2020 Final Rules remained in place, 

as those rules avoided EPCA’s 

restrictions on amending existing 

standards to permit the short-cycle 

products to operate with unlimited 

energy and water use. By finalizing this 

proposal, DOE will revoke the 2020 

Final Rules and ensure that the energy 

efficiency program fulfills EPCA’s 

purposes. 

IV. Conclusion 

After careful consideration, DOE is 

revoking the October 2020 and 

December 2020 Final Rules that 

improperly amended standards and is 

reinstating the prior product classes and 

applicable standards for residential 

dishwashers, residential clothes 

washers, and consumer clothes dryers. 

The short-cycle residential dishwashers, 

residential clothes washers, and 

consumer clothes dryers were all subject 

to energy conservation standards prior 

to the 2020 Final Rules. By stating that 

short-cycle products were no longer 

subject to energy or water conservation 

standards, the 2020 Final Rules allowed 

for unlimited energy and water use by 

these short-cycle products. DOE was 

required to satisfy the requirements in 

EPCA before issuing these amended 

standards. 

In addition, DOE has made a policy 

judgment that EPCA’s express purposes 

of energy and water conservation (42 

U.S.C. 6201(4), (5), (8)) would be 

thwarted if DOE could avoid restrictions 

on amending existing standards by 

nominally characterizing a regulatory 

change in the energy conservation 

standards applicable to a covered 

product as something other than an 

amendment. The 2020 Final Rules 

contravened EPCA by failing to consider 

these criteria when the rules amended 

the existing standards for short-cycle 

products in the 2020 Final Rules. 

DOE is not aware of any residential 

dishwashers, residential clothes 

washers, or consumer clothes dryers 

that are certified and sold as short-cycle 

products at this time. DOE considers the 

lack of products on the market classified 

under the short-cycle product 

definitions and the short time period 

between 2020 Final Rules and the 

proposed revocation of those rules by 

the August 2021 NOPR to indicate a 

lack of reliance by stakeholders on the 

short-cycle product class definitions 

revoked in this final rule. 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 

The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) in the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) has waived review of this rule 

pursuant to Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) and a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) for any 

rule that by law must be proposed for 

public comment, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. As required by E.O. 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel). 

DOE reviewed this final rule under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. As discussed, DOE has concluded 

that this rule would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The factual 

basis for this certification 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: 

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

for NAICS classification code 335220, 

‘‘Major Household Appliance 

Manufacturing,’’ which includes 

residential dishwasher, residential 

clothes washer, and consumer clothes 

dryer manufacturers, is 1,500 

employees. 

Most of the companies that 

manufacture residential dishwashers, 

residential clothes washers, and/or 

consumer clothes dryers are large 

multinational corporations. DOE 

collected data from CCMS 17 and 

reviewed data from prior rulemakings to 

identify original equipment 

manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) of the products 

covered by this rulemaking. DOE then 

consulted publicly available data, such 

as individual company websites, and 

subscription-based market research 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 2687 

18The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription 

login is available at https://app.dnbhoovers.com/. 

19See Supporting Statement for Certification 

Reports, Compliance Statements, Application for a 

Test Procedure Waiver, and Recording keeping for 

Consumer Products and Commercial Equipment 

Subject to Energy or Water Conservation Standards, 

available at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202102-1910-002. 

tools, such as Dun & Bradstreet,18 to 

determine whether they meet the SBA’s 

definition of a ‘‘small business 

manufacturer’’. DOE screened out 

companies that do not offer products 

covered by this rulemaking, do not meet 

the definition of a ‘‘small business,’’ or 

are foreign-owned and operated. 

In response to the August 2021 NOPR, 

the 60 Plus Association stated that it 

observed the agency justification for 

OMB control number 1910–1400 

indicates small businesses are impacted 

by the collection of information and its 

associated standards. The 60 Plus 

Association explained that the August 

2021 NOPR indicated that the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act is not 

triggered and suggested that DOE review 

this determination. (60 Plus 

Association, No. 251 at p. 3) 

In the August 2021 NOPR, DOE 

initially identified two small domestic 

OEMs of residential dishwashers and 

zero small domestic OEMs of residential 

clothes washers or consumer clothes 

dryers. DOE also initially determined 

that there were no compliance or other 

requirements imposed by the proposed 

rule on manufacturers, including small 

businesses. 86 FR 43970, 43974–43975. 

Upon further review, DOE has amended 

its small business counts for the 

products covered under this 

rulemaking. DOE determined that no 

small domestic OEMs manufacture 

residential dishwashers or consumer 

clothes dryers. DOE confirmed that one 

small domestic OEM manufactures 

residential clothes washers. 

This rulemaking eliminates the 

product classes for residential clothes 

washers based on cycle time established 

in the December 2020 Final Rule. DOE 

has determined that this final rule 

would not impose any compliance or 

other requirements on manufacturers of 

residential clothes washers, including 

small businesses, as revoking the 

December 2020 Final Rule would not 

eliminate any products on the market. 

As a result, DOE certifies that this 

final rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a FRFA for this rule. DOE has 

transmitted 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). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of covered products/ 

equipment, such as residential 

dishwashers, residential clothes 

washers, and consumer clothes dryers, 

must certify to DOE that their products 

comply with any applicable energy 

conservation standards. In certifying 

compliance, manufacturers must test 

their products according to the DOE test 

procedures for residential dishwashers, 

residential clothes washers, and 

consumer clothes dryers, 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 dishwashers, residential 

clothes washers, and consumer clothes 

dryers. 76 FR 12422 (Mar. 7, 2011); 80 

FR 5099 (Jan. 30, 2015). The collectionof-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. 

The 60 Plus Association commented 

that the August 2021 NOPR did not 

clarify whether the collection of 

information for reporting, 

recordkeeping, or certification 

requirements obtained necessary OMB 

approval, as is required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act and the 

corresponding implementing rule. The 

60 Plus Association further stated that 

the OMB approval of 1910–1400 control 

number operated illegally for a six 

month period until approval in 

September 2021, which indicates that 

what DOE refers to as a necessary 

approved collection of information 

received approval just recently. (60 Plus 

Association, No. 251, p. 2) 

DOE notes that the currently 

approved information collection request 

that includes consumer dishwashers, 

residential clothes washers, and 

consumer clothes dryers (OMB No. 

1910–1400) accounts for the 

certification of these products without 

regard to cycle-time distinctions and, 

therefore, reflects the certification of the 

products previously defined as shortcycle products.19

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. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(‘‘NEPA’’) of 1969, DOE has analyzed 

this proposed action rule in accordance 

with NEPA and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR part 

1021). DOE has determined that this 

rule qualifies for categorical exclusion 

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 EA or 

EIS. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 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. DOE has examined this final rule 

and has determined that it would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
2688 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

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, (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(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 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 E.O. 

12988. 

G. 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, 

section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 

For a 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 consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at https://

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

documents/umra_97.pdf. 

DOE examined this final rule 

according to UMRA and its statement of 

policy and determined that the rule 

contains neither an intergovernmental 

mandate nor a mandate that may result 

in the expenditures of $100 million or 

more in any one year, so these 

requirements do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 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. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this regulation 

will not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. 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). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/ 

12/f70/DOE%20Final

%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines

%20Dec%202019.pdf. 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. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 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) is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, or 

any successor order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use should the 

regulation be implemented, and of 

reasonable alternatives to the action and 

their expected benefits on energy 

supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that this 

regulatory action, which would 

eliminate certain product classes for 

residential dishwashers, residential 

clothes washers, and consumer clothes 

dryers would not have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy and, 

therefore, is not a significant energy 

action. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 

on this final rule. 

L. Congressional Notification 

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

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 2689 

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 January 11, 2022, 

by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on January 12, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 

chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, to read 

as set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 430.32 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing paragraph (f)(1)(iii); and 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (g)(4) and 

(h)(3). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(4) 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.) 

(i) Top-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft 3 capacity) ............................................................. 1.15 12.0 

(ii) Top-loading, Standard (1.6 ft 3 or greater capacity) ........................................................... 1.57 6.5 

(iii) Front-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft 3 capacity) ......................................................... 1.13 8.3 

(iv) Front-loading, Standard (1.6 ft 3 or greater capacity) ....................................................... 1.84 4.7 

(h) * * * (3) 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) 

(i) Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity) .................................................................................................. 3.73 

(ii) Vented Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) ....................................................................................... 3.61 

(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) ...................................................................................... 3.27 

(iv) Vented Gas .................................................................................................................................................................... 3.30 

(v) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) .................................................................................... 2.55 

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

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–00833 Filed 1–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 29 

[Docket No. FAA–2021–0065; Special 

Conditions No. 29–054–SC] 

Special Conditions: Bell Textron Inc. 

Model 525 Helicopter; Fly-By-Wire 

Flight Control System 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special conditions. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for the Bell Textron Inc. (Bell) 

Model 525 helicopter. This helicopter 

will have a novel or unusual design 

feature associated with a fly-by-wire 

(FBW) flight control system (FCS). The 

applicable airworthiness regulations do 

not contain adequate or appropriate 

safety standards for this design feature. 

These special conditions contain the 

additional safety standards that the 

Administrator considers necessary to 

establish a level of safety equivalent to 

that established by the existing 

airworthiness standards. 

DATES: Effective February 18, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

VanHoudt, FAA, Dynamic Systems 

Section, AIR–627, Technical Innovation 

Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 

10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, 

TX 76177–1524; telephone and fax 817– 

222–5193; email John.G.Van.Houdt@

FAA.Gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 15, 2011, Bell applied 

for a type certificate for a new transport 

category helicopter, designated as the 

Model 525, under Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 29. Bell 

applied for multiple extensions, with 

the most recent occurring on November 

12, 2020. The date of the updated type 

certification basis is December 31, 2016, 

based upon the applicant’s proposed 

type certificate issuance date of 

December 31, 2021. The Model 525 is a 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1