[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2673-2689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00833]


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

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 
(``short-cycle product classes''). The rules resulted in amended energy 
conservation standards for these short-cycle 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/
EERE-

[[Page 2674]]

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87c6f7f7ebeee6e9e4e2d4f3e6e9e3e6f5e3f4d6f2e2f4f3eee8e9f4c7e2e2a9e3e8e2a9e0e8f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2f3c2c2dedbd3dcd1d7e1c6d3dcd6d3c0d6c1e3c7d7c1c6dbdddcc1f2d7d79cd6ddd79cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a>.

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87c6f7f7ebeee6e9e4e2d4f3e6e9e3e6f5e3f4d6f2e2f4f3eee8e9f4c7e2e2a9e3e8e2a9e0e8f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c180b1b1ada8a0afa2a492b5a0afa5a0b3a5b290b4a4b2b5a8aeafb281a4a4efa5aea4efa6aeb7">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d466c79657f746323406e446379627e654d657c23696268236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f446e7b677d766121426c46617b607c674f677e216b606a21686079">[email protected]</span></a>.

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 B \2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was re-designated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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)

[[Page 2675]]

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 short-cycle 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Abbreviation used in this
              Commenter(s)                       final rule                         Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 Plus Association....................  ..........................  Advocates.
Alliance for Water Efficiency..........  AWE.......................  Efficiency Organization.
Americans for Tax Reform...............  ..........................  Advocates.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project    Joint Commenters..........  Efficiency Organizations.
 (``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'').
Association of Home Appliance            AHAM......................  Trade Association.
 Manufacturers.
Attorneys General of California,         Joint State AGs, DC, and    State Officials.
 Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois,         NYC.
 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.
Attorney General of Missouri, Eric       Missouri AG...............  State Officials.
 Schmitt.
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,  Arizona AG................  State Officials.
 Mark Brnovich.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company         the CA IOUs...............  Utilities.
 (``PG&E''), San Diego Gas and Electric
 (``SDG&E''), and Southern California
 Edison (``SCE''), collectively, the
 California Investor-Owned Utilities.
Natural Resources Defense Council,       NRDC, SC, and EJ..........  Efficiency Organizations.
 Sierra Club, and Earthjustice.
Northwest Power and Conservation         NWPCC.....................  Interstate Compact Agency.
 Council.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2676]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 power-dry 
setting. 10 CFR part 430 subpart B appendix C1 (``Appendix C1''), 
section 1.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 then-current 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ AHAM 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.
    \6\ NRDC 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 washer-dryer). 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 short-cycle 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

[[Page 2677]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like its petition regarding the short-cycle 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 short-cycle 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

[[Page 2678]]

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 short-cycle 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 ``anti-backsliding'' 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,

[[Page 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 anti-
backsliding 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 ``performance-related 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 anti-backsliding 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 short-cycle 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

[[Page 2680]]

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 anti-backsliding 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 short-cycle functionality was a ``performance-
related 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 short-cycle 
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

[[Page 2681]]

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 per-cycle 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0019.
    \9\ www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-2233.
    \10\ Dishwasher NODA Test Data (5-21-20). Available at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ DOE's Compliance Certification Management System database 
is available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 performance-
related 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0001-0033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 short-cycle 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

[[Page 2682]]

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 short-cycle 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Attachment C: Hoffman Evaluation available at: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0002-0239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 performance-related 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 
``performance-related 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

[[Page 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 presently-available 
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

[[Page 2684]]

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 short-cycle 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 pre-scrubbing 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Attachment B: Survey Concerning Dishwashers available at: 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0002-0239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2685]]

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 short-cycle 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 short-cycle rulemaking benefited 
manufacturers by creating a level, well-understood 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 short-cycle 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 
anti-competitive 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Liam McCabe, Did Trump Really Make Dishwashers Great 
Again?, New York Times (Mar. 2, 2021). www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/dishwashers-trump-efficiency/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2686]]

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 cycle-time 
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-table-size-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

[[Page 2687]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ DOE's Compliance Certification Management System database 
is available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.
    \18\ The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription login is 
available at https://app.dnbhoovers.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 collection-of-information 
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to 
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). 
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated 
to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    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 short-cycle products.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2688]]

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.

[[Page 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.


0
2. Section 430.32 is amended by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (f)(1)(iii); and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (g)(4) and (h)(3).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Integrated modified
                         Product class                           energy factor (cu.ft./  Integrated water factor
                                                                       kWh/cycle)           (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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Combined energy factor
                 Product class                          (lbs/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft \3\ or                        3.73
 greater capacity).............................
(ii) Vented Electric, Compact (120V) (less than                     3.61
 4.4 ft \3\ capacity)..........................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less                         3.27
 than 4.4 ft \3\ capacity).....................
(iv) Vented Gas................................                     3.30
(v) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less                         2.55
 than 4.4 ft \3\ capacity).....................
(vi) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-                         2.08
 Dryer.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2022-00833 Filed 1-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


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