Energy Conservation Program: Establishment of New Product Classes for Residential Clothes Washers and Consumer Clothes Dryers, 81359-81376 [2020-26976]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81359-81376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26976]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0001]
RIN 1904-AE86


Energy Conservation Program: Establishment of New Product Classes 
for Residential Clothes Washers and Consumer Clothes Dryers

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''), 
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products 
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including residential 
clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers. In this final rule, the 
U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'' or ``the Department'') establishes 
separate product classes for top-loading consumer clothes washers and 
consumer clothes dryers that offer cycle times for a normal cycle of 
less than 30 minutes, and for front-loading

[[Page 81360]]

residential clothes washers that offer cycle times for a normal cycle 
of less than 45 minutes. DOE's decision to establish these new product 
classes is based on the comments received in response to the proposed 
rule as well as testing and evaluation conducted by the Department. 
This rulemaking sets out the basis for the new product classes. DOE 
intends to determine the specific energy and water consumption limits 
for the new product classes in separate rulemakings in accordance with 
the requirements of the Department's Process Rule.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in 
the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. However, 
not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such 
as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at https://beta.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0001. The docket web page contains instructions 
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the 
docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 
DC, 20585-0121. Email: [email protected].
    Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. Email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Final Rule
II. Introduction
    A. Background
    B. DOE Testing and Analysis of Results
III. Discussion
    A. Establishment of Short-Cycle Product Classes Pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q)
    B. Anti-Backsliding Consideration, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)
    C. Other Statutory Challenges
    D. Additional Comments
IV. Conclusion
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review''
    B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    M. Congressional Notification
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Final Rule

    In this final rule, DOE establishes separate product classes for 
top-loading consumer (residential) clothes washers and consumer clothes 
dryers that offer cycle times for a normal cycle of less than 30 
minutes, and for front-loading residential clothes washers that offer 
cycle times for a normal cycle of less than 45 minutes, as identified 
under 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7) and (8). Relying on its own analysis and the 
comments received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking 
(``NOPR''), 85 FR 49297 (Aug. 13, 2020), DOE has determined that the 
establishment of these new product classes would protect a consumer 
utility (i.e., cycle time), and could spur manufacturer innovation to 
generate additional product offerings to fill the market gap that 
exists for these products.
    In establishing short cycle product classes offering 30 and 45 
minute cycle times for clothes washers and clothes dryers, DOE is 
introducing additional consumer choice to the clothes washer and 
clothes dryer market. DOE's actions are intended to incentivize 
manufacturers to provide consumers with new options when purchasing 
top-loading residential clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers 
with a normal cycle of less than 30 minutes, and front-loading 
residential clothes washers that offer cycle times for a normal cycle 
of less than 45 minutes. This activity does not prevent consumers from 
choosing to purchase clothes washers and dryers from the currently-
existing product classes that offer longer normal cycles as well as 
quick or alternative cycle options. The distinction created through the 
establishment of these new product classes rests on the length of the 
normal cycle, which is the cycle that would be subject to product 
testing for compliance with a future energy or water conservation 
standard.
    As stated in the NOPR, the data gathered by the Department on cycle 
times, which was based on a range of products and demonstrated the wide 
range of cycle times available among clothes washer and clothes dryer 
models. For residential clothes washers, DOE evaluated the cycle times 
of a representative sample of units within the top-loading standard-
size and front-loading standard-size product classes. For top-loading 
standard-size units, this testing included 23 units covering 10 brands 
across 7 manufacturers. For the front-loading standard-size product 
class, DOE tested 20 units representing 14 brands across 12 
manufacturers. Generally, this testing was performed using the 
``normal'' cycle (i.e., wash program), which is defined as the wash 
program recommended for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up 
to a full load of normally-soiled cotton clothing. For consumer clothes 
dryers, DOE evaluated the cycle times of a representative sample of 
units within the vented electric standard-size and vented gas product 
classes. For vented electric standard-size product classes, DOE tested 
6 units representing 4 brands across 4 manufacturers. DOE also 
considered cycle time data from the ENERGY STAR product database for an 
additional 245 vented electric standard-size units representing 14 
brands across 7 manufacturers. For the vented gas product class, DOE 
tested 8 units representing 4 brands across 4 manufacturers. DOE 
evaluated cycle time data from the ENERGY STAR product database for an 
additional 110 vented gas units representing 9 brands across 5 
manufacturers.\1\ Under 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2 
(``appendix D2''), clothes dryers with automatic cycle termination are 
operated using the ``normal'' program (or the cycle recommended by the 
manufacturer for drying cotton or linen clothes in the absence of a 
normal program) until the completion of the cycle, as indicated to the 
consumer.\2\

[[Page 81361]]

DOE's analysis, in total, considered the cycle times of units 
representing over 50 percent of residential clothes dryer basic 
models.\3\ (See Section II.B for more information). 85 FR 49297, 49300-
49306 (Aug. 13, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ When seeking ENERGY STAR qualification for a consumer 
clothes dryer basic model, manufacturers must report cycle time as 
tested under Appendix D2. ENERGY STAR product database for clothes 
dryers is available at https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-clothes-dryers/results. Last accessed November 24, 
2020.
    \2\ For clothes dryers, 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, 
does not provide data that can be used to determine a ``cycle time'' 
because the drying cycle is artificially terminated. The 
artificially terminated cycle has a field use factor applied to 
calculate representative energy consumption. DOE used appendix D2 
because it provides representative energy use and a corresponding 
cycle time as the cycle is run from start to completion without 
being artificially terminated. 85 FR 49297, 49303 (Aug. 13, 2020).
    \3\ The Technical Appendix provides additional details of the 
technical attributes of each of the units DOE evaluated in support 
of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's data revealed that the shortest available cycle time for 
standard-size top-loading clothes washers on the market was 
appropriately 30 minutes and that for standard-size front-loading 
clothes washers the shortest cycle time was approximately 45 minutes. 
DOE's data indicated that the shortest available cycle time for vented 
electric standard-size and vented gas clothes dryers with cycle time 
was also approximately 30 minutes. DOE believes the creation of these 
new product classes will incentivize manufacturers, if they so choose, 
to develop innovative products with short cycle times for those 
consumers that receive a value from the time saved washing and drying 
their clothing. DOE intends to determine the specific energy and water 
conservation standards for the new short cycle product classes in a 
separate rulemaking following the procedures set out in the Process 
Rule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Procedures for Use in New or Revised Energy Conservation 
Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/
Industrial Equipment (``Process Rule''), 85 FR 8626 (Feb. 14, 2020); 
Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430--Procedures, Interpretations and 
Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation 
Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Certain 
Commercial/Industrial Equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Introduction

A. Background

    On August 13, 2020, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking, 
(``NOPR''), setting out the Department's intent to establish new 
product classes for residential clothes washers and consumer clothes 
dryers, and requesting comments and data on the proposed short cycle 
product classes. 85 FR 49297. The recently finalized rulemaking 
establishing a normal short cycle product class for standard 
residential dishwashers (85 FR 68724 (Oct. 30, 2020)) re-affirmed the 
Department's recognition of cycle time as a valuable consumer utility 
and performance-related feature. In light of that rulemaking, the 
Department determined that similarities existed between the consumer 
use of dishwashers and residential clothes washers and consumer clothes 
dryers (i.e., products that provide consumer utility over discrete 
cycles with programmed cycle times, and consumers run these cycles 
multiple times per week on average). DOE conducted its own analysis on 
clothes washer and dryer cycle times and presented its analysis in 
Section II of the NOPR in support of the proposed product classes. 
There, DOE explained that based on the length of available cycle times 
that it was reasonable to propose establishing separate product classes 
for these products to preserve a performance-related feature of both 
residential clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers (i.e., the 
consumer utility of a short cycle time). 85 FR 49297, 49298 (Aug. 13, 
2020).

B. DOE Testing and Analysis of Results

    The testing and analysis conducted as part of the NOPR included a 
review of the normal cycles currently available for a range of clothes 
washers and clothes dryers.\5\ These cycle times were measured under 
the DOE test procedure (i.e., the ``normal'' cycles only).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The technical appendix provides additional details of the 
technical attributes of each of the units evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's proposed rule presumed that certain manufacturers were 
implementing the shortest possible cycle times that enabled a clothes 
washer to achieve satisfactory cleaning performance (and other aspects 
of clothes washer performance) while meeting the applicable energy and 
water conservation standards. DOE believed the current energy 
conservation standards may have been precluding manufacturers from 
introducing models to the market with substantially shorter cycle 
times. To facilitate the opportunity for manufacturers to innovate and 
develop products that would provide consumers the utility of such 
shorter cycle times, DOE proposed to establish separate product classes 
for top-loading standard-size residential clothes washers with average 
cycle times less than 30 minutes and front-loading standard-size 
residential clothes washers with average cycle times less than 45 
minutes. 85 FR 49297, 49305 (Aug. 13, 2020).
    Similarly, DOE's data indicated that vented electric standard-size 
and vented gas clothes dryers that comply with the current energy 
conservation standards exhibit cycle times of approximately 30 minutes 
or longer. Thus, assuming certain manufacturers were already 
implementing the shortest possible cycle times that enabled a clothes 
dryer to achieve satisfactory drying performance (and other aspects of 
clothes dryer performance) while meeting the applicable energy 
conservation standards, DOE's standards may have discouraged 
manufacturers from developing such products for consumers that provide 
the utility of 30 minute or less cycle times. For these reasons, DOE 
proposed to establish separate product classes for vented electric 
standard-size and vented gas clothes dryers with cycle times less than 
30 minutes. 85 FR 49297, 49306 (Aug. 13, 2020).

III. Discussion

    Based on the evaluation of comments submitted in response to the 
NOPR and the data the Department compiled (see Section II.B of this 
document), DOE establishes separate product classes for top-loading 
residential clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers that offer 
cycle times for a normal cycle of less than 30 minutes, and for front-
loading residential clothes washers that offer cycle times for a normal 
cycle of less than 45 minutes. DOE intends to conduct separate 
rulemakings to determine energy conservation standards for these new 
product classes that provide the maximum energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in 
a significant conservation of energy, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A), as well 
as to establish the applicable test procedure. DOE will complete these 
associated rulemakings following the procedures outlined in the Process 
Rule.

A. Establishment of Short-Cycle Product Classes Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)

    EPCA directs that when prescribing an energy conservation standard 
for a type (or class) of a covered product, DOE must specify a level of 
energy use or efficiency higher or lower than that which applies (or 
would apply) for such type (or class) for any group of covered products 
which have the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that 
covered products within such a group:
     Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by 
other covered products within such type (or class); or
     Have a capacity or other such performance-related feature 
which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such 
feature justifies a higher or lower standard from that which applies 
(or will apply) to other products within such type.

In making a determination concerning whether a performance-related 
feature justifies the establishment of a higher or lower standard, DOE 
must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a 
feature, and such other factors as DOE deems appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(1))
    EPCA authorizes DOE to establish separate product classes for 
residential

[[Page 81362]]

clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers characterized by offering 
short normal cycles of less than 30 or 45 minutes pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6295(q). Products with a short normal cycle offer consumers a specific 
utility that justifies the establishment of such product classes 
subject to a higher or lower standard than that currently applicable to 
products currently on the market. 85 FR 49297, 49298 (Aug. 13, 2020). 
With this final rule, DOE intends to incentivize manufacturers to 
provide products that best meet the specific needs of consumers with 
competing interests. Consumers who place a higher value on time saved 
while running single or multiple loads of laundry can select a washer 
or dryer characterized by a shorter normal cycle, while consumers who 
prioritize energy and water efficiency will continue to be able to 
purchase models characterized by a longer normal cycle. Consistent with 
the position taken in prior rulemakings, DOE maintains that products 
offering quick and alternative cycles are not the same as the products 
that will be available under this new product class. This is because 
quick and alternative cycles are designed not as the normal use cycle, 
but provide consumers with other wash or dry cycles for specific 
washing or drying needs. The creation of short normal cycle washers and 
dryers in this final rule opens the door for manufacturers to develop 
short cycle products intended specifically for normal activity. See, 85 
FR 68723, 68727 (Oct. 30, 2020).
    In response to the NOPR, DOE received multiple comments challenging 
the Department's position that cycle time was a performance-related 
feature that justified the establishment of new short normal cycle 
product classes for residential clothes washers and consumer clothes 
dryers.\6\ These commenters focused on the Department's identification 
of cycle time as a performance-related feature. These commenters argued 
that product classes characterized by short normal cycles did not offer 
a consumer utility and were unnecessary based on a lack of data or 
evidence demonstrating the utility consumers would receive from the new 
product classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Commenters challenging DOE's position that cycle time is a 
performance related feature included: Anonymous Anonymous, No. 0002; 
Cohen, No. 0009; Rubang, No. 0011; Anonymous, No. 0014; Cyra-
Korsgaard, No. 0015; Walnut Valley Water District (``WVWD''), No. 
0017; City of Sacramento Department of Utilities, No. 0020; 
Northwest Power and Conservation Council, No. 0021; Davis, No. 0022; 
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (``MNGWPD''), No. 
0025; Spire Inc., the American Public Gas Association, the American 
Gas Association, and the National Propane Gas Association (``Gas 
Industry''), No. 0028; Alliance for Water Efficiency, et al. (``AWE, 
et al.''), No. 0029; Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 
(``AHAM''), No. 0030; Appliance Standards Awareness Project 
(``ASAP''), Alliance for Water Efficiency, Consumer Federation of 
America, National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income 
clients, and Natural Resources Defense Council (``ASAP et al.'') No. 
0033; California State Water Resources Control Board (``CA SWRCB''), 
No. 0034; Attorneys General Of Oregon, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New 
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Vermont, Washington, 
And The District Of Columbia, And The Corporation Counsel Of The 
City Of New York (``Attorneys General and the Corporation Counsel of 
the City of New York''), No. 0035; California Energy Commission 
(``CEC''), No. 0038; Sierra Club and Earthjustice (``Joint 
Environmental Commenters''), No. 0041; Valley Water, No. 0042; 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (``NEEA''), No. 0044; and GE 
Appliances (``GEA''), No. 0045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, some commenters argued that DOE failed to meet the 
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) because the NOPR did not establish 
cycle time as a consumer utility justifying the creation of the new 
product classes. (CEC, No. 0038, pp. 6-7). AHAM argued that DOE failed 
to demonstrate that shorter cycle times were a performance related 
feature that provided a utility to consumers and submitted data to 
argue that the creation of normal cycle times shorter than those 
available today were unlikely to provide a significant consumer 
utility. AHAM continued that unless DOE could demonstrate that cycle 
time is a performance related feature, then it cannot rely solely on 
cycle time to establish the new product class. DOE would need cycle 
time plus something else like consumer preference or data supporting 
the new product class to justify the creation of the proposed product 
classes. AHAM distinguished the parallel DOE referenced in the NOPR 
between new product classes for certain clothes washers and clothes 
dryers and the separation of product classes for top- and front-loading 
commercial clothes washers by noting that the previous rulemaking 
rested not solely on cycle time as a performance related feature, but 
also on the consumer preference for the axis of loading which justified 
the new product class. AHAM argued that its data show that there is not 
a strong correlation between cycle time and consumer satisfaction, 
meaning consumers are not looking for products with shorter cycles and 
that consumers already have the option to use shorter cycles when 
needed as most washers and dryers offer quick cycles. (No. 0030, pp. 7-
8).
    Similarly, comments submitted by the Attorneys General and the 
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York argued that the proposal 
failed to meet the requirements of section 6295(q) because a reduced or 
shorter cycle time is not a performance related feature as the consumer 
utility of clothes washers and dryers is to clean and dry clothes, 
regardless of cycle time. While short cycles may lead to consumers 
receiving clean and dry clothes faster, short cycles do not provide an 
additional distinct utility beyond the purposes of washing and drying. 
(No. 0035, pp. 8-9). Commenters explained that while 42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(1)(B) does not define performance-related feature, the 
legislative history offers guidance on DOE's authority under the 
section and instructs DOE to ``use [its] discretion carefully, and 
establish separate standards only if the feature justifies a separate 
standard, based upon the utility to the consumer and other appropriate 
criteria'' because ``if [DOE] established a separate standard for every 
appliance having a detectable difference in features, no matter how 
slight, . . . then hundreds of standards might result.'' (No. 0035, p. 
9 referencing H.R. Rep. 95-1751, at 115; Joint Environmental 
Commenters, No. 0041, p. 4). These commenters continued that different 
classes should be based on the product's capacity to provide consumers 
with a utility beyond what is provided by the corresponding basic 
product class. Here, commenters contend the short cycle washer and 
dryer classes provide the same utility as normal washer and dryer 
classes--clean and dry clothing. Without a detectable difference, DOE 
lacks sufficient justification to establish separate energy efficiency 
classes and standards for these products. (No. 0035, p. 9).
    The Attorneys General and the Corporation Counsel of the City of 
New York also argued that this rulemaking presented an inappropriate 
interpretation of section 6295(q) when compared with prior rulemakings. 
This is because DOE's prior rulemakings resulted in a new product class 
only when a product type offered a substantial and distinct consumer 
utility, which cycle time does not. These commenters looked to DOE's 
water heater and self-cleaning oven rulemakings to demonstrate this 
distinction. In its water heater rulemaking, commenters argued that DOE 
determined the differences between heat pump and electric resistance 
storage water heaters did not justify separate product classes because 
both provided the same customer utility: Hot water. Whereas in the 
self-cleaning oven rulemaking, DOE determined the self-cleaning feature

[[Page 81363]]

justified a separate product class because the self-cleaning function 
was a distinct feature that standard ovens did not provide. Commenters 
assert that the NOPR most closely resembles the water heater rulemaking 
because clothes washers and dryers, regardless of cycle length, provide 
the same consumer utility of clean and dry clothes, like heat pump and 
electric resistance water heaters provide the same utility of hot 
water. The proposal thus is inconsistent with prior rulemakings. (No. 
0035, pp. 9-10). Commenters also note that DOE incorrectly relies on 
the previous residential clothes washer rulemaking because that 
rulemaking considered cycle time only to the extent that differential 
cycle times existed between front-loading and top-loading clothes 
washers. DOE determined that the method of loading was a feature, not 
the cycle time itself. (No. 0035, p. 10).
    These commenters continued that DOE misstates the conclusions 
reached in other prior rulemakings to support the NOPR by equating a 
performance-related feature with mere consumer preference. The electric 
cooking products rulemaking did not result in a determination that oven 
windows were a feature justifying a product class, but concluded that 
windowless oven doors should not be considered as a potential design 
option because the windows provide consumer utility and in fact 
increase efficiency by reducing oven door openings. (Attorneys General 
and the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, No. 0035, p. 10, 
referencing 63 FR 48038, 48040 (Sept. 8, 1998)). The establishment of 
refrigerator-freezer product classes based on freezer placement were 
justified by the unique utility provided by different configurations 
and efficiency capabilities. (No. 0035, p. 10 referencing 53 FR 48798, 
48807 (Dec. 2, 1988)). These commenters continued that the NOPR is 
distinguishable from these prior rulemakings as they demonstrate the 
type of substantial consumer utility differences that necessitate a 
separate energy efficiency standard to maintain the utility that then 
justifies a separate product class. Therefore, these rulemakings 
demonstrate that a performance-related feature must be more substantial 
and qualitatively different than cycle time. (No. 0035, p. 10).
    The Competitive Enterprise Institute (``CEI'') agreed with DOE's 
proposal that the time savings consumers would receive from the shorter 
cycles is a performance related feature and that this utility justifies 
a different efficiency level than other similar products. (No. 0031, p. 
4). To support its position, CEI noted consumers are already 
sacrificing their time when washing and drying their clothing. CEI 
received feedback from consumers that (in CEI's view) demonstrates that 
a need does exist for new washers and dryers that operate faster. CEI 
commented that consumers are moving towards faster washing machines 
over those that offer higher efficiency ratings. This preference is 
demonstrated by 38 percent of consumers moving away from slower front-
loading machines (70-120 minute cycles) to faster top-loading machines. 
(No. 0031, p. 3). CEI continued that consumers would benefit from being 
able to access an increased range of products to meet their specific 
needs and free up time for other things in their lives. (No. 0031, p. 
2). The time saved resulting from short cycles is the utility and 
appliances that can clean or dry clothing more quickly offer a specific 
utility not available from those appliances that require longer cycles 
to accomplish the same task.
    Similarly, the 60 Plus Association applauded the Department's 
recognition of cycle time as a performance-related feature. This 
commenter, arguing on behalf of its senior citizen members, believed 
the rulemaking will offer a significant benefit to individuals looking 
to make the most of their time. This commenter noted that the time 
saved through the use of future, short normal cycles will make a 
noticeable difference in the lives of its underrepresented members. 
(No. 0043, p. 1).
    Comments from Spire Inc., the American Public Gas Association, the 
American Gas Association, and the National Propane Gas Association 
(``Gas Industry Commenters'') also agreed that appliances that can 
clean or dry clothing more quickly are appliances that offer a specific 
utility not available from appliances that require more time to 
accomplish the same task. These commenters continued that while this 
utility may not be significant for all consumers, many consumers have a 
strong preference for getting things done materially faster, even 
potentially at the expense of some increase in operating costs. (No. 
0028, p. 3).
    Additional support for the new clothes washer and clothes dryer 
product classes included some commenters recognizing the importance of 
consumer access to products that would offer features that address 
individual family needs, even if this could come with additional energy 
use. (Tanner, No. 0024). Another commenter suggested that the 
rulemaking would create greater competition between manufactures for 
the development of efficient appliances within the new product class 
and ultimately provide consumers with product options that best meet 
their different needs. (Anonymous, No. 0040).
    As an initial matter, DOE maintains that short normal cycle product 
classes for clothes washers and clothes dryers will provide a distinct 
utility to consumers that other clothes washers and clothes dryers do 
not provide; i.e., time saved. Some commenters may not recognize the 
benefit from saving small increments of time here and there over the 
course of a week or month and think that this rulemaking lacks value. 
But there are other consumers that do value this benefit and look for 
any time saved that can then be repurposed for other tasks. Households 
with greater frequency of use (i.e., households that cycle multiple 
loads of laundry) are likelier to see the cumulative benefits of time 
saved from not having to wait as long for a normal cycle to complete. 
Time is an irreplaceable resource. This rulemaking would benefit those 
consumers who have chosen to place an additional value on their time. 
This category may include households of senior citizens, families with 
small children, and other categories of consumers for whom frequency of 
use or other factors may affect their valuation of time savings 
relative to other features.
    DOE has taken the view in its prior rulemakings that consumer 
utility is an aspect of the product that is accessible to the layperson 
and based on user operation, rather than performing a theoretical 
function.\7\ This interpretation has been implemented in DOE's 
determinations of utility through the value the particular feature 
brings to the consumer, rather than through analyzing more complicated 
design features or costs that anyone, including the consumer, 
manufacturer, installer, or utility may bear. DOE has determined that 
this approach is consistent with EPCA's requirement for considering the 
economic justification for adopting of any new or amended energy 
conservation standard. 85 FR 49297, 49298 (Aug. 13, 2020). DOE 
maintains,

[[Page 81364]]

under this approach, that cycle time is a consumer utility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Comments from the Gas Industry Commenters also called it 
unreasonable for DOE to suggest features desired by consumers 
warrant protection only if they are ``accessible to the laypersons'' 
or to dismiss the need for building modifications as a matter of the 
associated economic cost of modification. (No. 0028, p. 4). These 
comments were submitted in relation to a separate rulemaking, Energy 
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential 
Furnaces and Commercial Water Heaters, 84 FR 33011 (July 11, 2019), 
and are outside the scope of the rulemaking action addressed here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In prior rulemakings, DOE has determined that refrigerator-freezer 
configurations,\8\ oven door windows,\9\ and top loading clothes washer 
configurations \10\ offered performance-related features that justified 
the creation of new product classes. DOE has also determined cycle 
time, in addition to axis of access, is a performance-related feature 
with respect to commercial clothes washers (77 FR 32308, 32319 (May 31, 
2012)) and residential dishwashers (85 FR 68723 (Oct. 30, 2020). The 
creation of a product class characterized by offering a short normal 
cycle is no different than the conclusions reached previously. Like 
these prior rulemakings, DOE has recognized that consumers received a 
utility from the feature to support the establishment of the new 
product class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 75 FR 59469 (Sept. 27, 2010) (creating a separate product 
class for refrigerators with bottom-mounted freezers).
    \9\ 63 FR 48038, 48041 (Sept. 8, 1998) (determined that the 
window in an oven door was a ``feature'' which eliminated from 
consideration the design option that would have removed the window 
feature).
    \10\ 77 FR 32308, 32319 (May 31, 2012) (creating a separate 
product class for compact front-loading residential clothes 
washers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has previously rejected the notion that the Department can 
determine a product attribute is a performance-related feature only if 
the feature adds a performance characteristic or utility distinct from 
the primary purpose of the product. To act otherwise would mean that a 
refrigerator-freezer's primary utility is only to store and preserve 
fresh food, and that consumers are not benefited from being able to 
access the contents through different door configurations. Because an 
oven's primary utility is to cook food, and food cooks in both a 
windowless oven and in an oven with a door window, DOE would be 
prohibited from recognizing the utility consumers receive from being 
able to see the contents cooking. Even though an oven with a door 
window uses more energy than an oven without a window, DOE has 
recognized that the window offers consumers a distinct consumer utility 
that goes beyond the oven's primary function of cooking food. 85 FR 
68723, 68727 (Oct. 30, 2020). DOE's prior rulemakings support the 
determination that shorter normal cycle times are features that provide 
a consumer utility and justify the creation of a new product class for 
clothes washers and dryers.
    DOE maintains that consumer preference for a particular feature 
indicates that the feature provides a utility to the consumer, even if 
that feature is related to the primary function or purpose of the 
product. In DOE's prior commercial clothes washer standards rulemaking, 
for example, DOE determined not only that the ``axis of loading'' 
constituted a feature that justified separate product classes for top-
loading and front-loading clothes washers, but also the cycle time 
difference between the two models warranted separate product classes. 
79 FR 74492, 74498 (Sept. 15, 2014). The split in preference between 
the models, DOE stated, indicated that a certain percentage of the 
market expressed a preference for (i.e., derived a utility from) the 
faster top-loading configuration. DOE has also noted that the various 
refrigerator-freezer configurations provide no additional performance 
related utility other than consumer preference as all configurations 
still result in the storage of fresh food. This means that it is the 
location of access itself that provides a distinct consumer utility, 
which is unrelated to the primary purpose or function of the 
refrigerator. 79 FR 74492, 74499 (Sept. 15, 2014).
    Additionally, comments arguing that this rulemaking more closely 
resembles DOE's prior hot water rulemaking are misplaced. In that 
rulemaking, DOE maintained the single product class for water heaters 
regardless of the technology utilized to heat the water. There, DOE 
acknowledged that it did not believe heat-pump and electric storage 
water heaters offered a different utility, but offered the same utility 
to the consumer (i.e., hot water).\11\ This is distinguishable from the 
utility consumers will receive when using clothes washers and clothes 
dryers with short normal cycles because these consumers will receive 
time savings as a result of the shorter cycles. DOE maintains that the 
products that can clean or dry clothing in less time offer consumers a 
utility not available from products that require more time to complete 
a comparable normal wash or dry cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 74 FR 65852, 65871 (Dec. 11, 2009) (No separate product 
class was needed as DOE did not believe heat pump water heaters 
provided a different utility from traditional electric resistance 
water heaters. Heat pump water heaters provide hot water to a 
residence just as a traditional electric storage water heater).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE recognizes that the comments submitted by CEI, 60 Plus 
Association, and individual members of the public evidence a consumer 
preference for shorter normal cycles. Looking again to DOE's rulemaking 
history, the Department maintains that establishing a short normal 
cycle for clothes washers and clothes dryers is no different from 
establishing product classes based on the axis of loading or the 
configuration of other covered products. DOE has also recognized the 
consumer value in being able to see inside an oven when cooking, as 
opposed to opening the oven door, and retained the window as a 
performance related feature. In each of these rulemakings, DOE 
identified a feature that provides a utility to the consumer. Comments 
challenging DOE's action on the basis that a feature must be 
accompanied by something else or offer a utility beyond the primary 
purpose of the product, are inconsistent with conclusions DOE reached 
in prior rulemakings.
    To act otherwise, as these commenters suggest, would limit the 
Department's ability to establish product classes for features that may 
augment, but are not somehow separate from, the primary purpose for a 
product even if consumers received a recognizable utility from the 
feature as set out in 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE's authority to establish a 
product class based on capacity and fuel type casts doubt on 
commenters' belief that features must go beyond the primary purpose of 
a product under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A).\12\ As provided in EPCA, DOE 
may consider other criteria when exercising its discretion to identify 
the utility a feature provides consumers such as fuel type and 
capacity, which do not specifically add to the primary purpose of a 
product. As a result, DOE realizes it would be unreasonable to limit 
the authority granted in EPCA under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) to only recognize 
new product classes on the basis of a feature's direct relationship to 
the primary purpose of the product. 85 FR 68723, 68728 (Oct. 30, 2020). 
Here, DOE maintains that the time consumers will save from using short 
normal cycles for clothes washers and clothes dryers justifies the 
creation of the new product classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A) provides that DOE may establish a 
new product class for a type of covered product that consumes a 
different kind of energy (fuel or capacity) than other covered 
products within that same class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also received a variety of comments arguing that the 
establishment of the new product classes were not necessary given the 
availability of quick or alternative cycles available on current 
clothes washer and dryer models. AHAM argued that DOE failed to 
demonstrate that a new product class based on cycle time is necessary 
and that such action will have unintended consequences on laundry 
products, consumers, and manufacturers. (No. 0030, p. 2). Other

[[Page 81365]]

commenters noted that the proposal is unnecessary because products 
meeting the short cycle times are already available, thereby making 
such actions not justified. (Joint Environmental Commenters, No. 0043, 
pp. 4-5; Cohen, No. 0009; Davis, No. 0022; ASAP et al., No. 0033, p. 
2). GE Appliances commented that while cycle time is an important 
consideration, the current product classes, standards, and test 
procedures already allow for a short cycle, making this action 
unnecessary. (GEA, No. 0045, p. 2).
    Many commenters also called the proposal unnecessary because DOE 
failed to provide any documentation or evidence of a need for shorter 
normal cycles and that consumers want such products. Commenters' 
continued that the data DOE provided actually show the availability of 
products that can meet the cycle times proposed, and DOE needs 
additional data to demonstrate necessity of the rule. (AWE, et al., No. 
0029, p. 1; WVWD, No, 0017, p. 1; CA SWRCB, No. 0034, pp. 1-2; Valley 
Water, No. 0042, p. 1; AHAM, No. 0030, p. 3; CEC, No. 0038, p. 7; ASAP 
et al., No. 0033, p. 3; Rubang, No. 0011; Northwest Power and 
Conservation Council, No. 0021, pp. 2-3; MNGWDP, No. 0025, p. 2). Other 
commenters note that there is no evidence as to whether the new classes 
will be affordable to consumers or whether consumers will be harmed as 
a result of increased energy and water use. (``Anonymous''_WC, No. 
0012; Cyra-Korsgaard. No. 0015; Armstrong, No. 0004).
    AHAM offered its weighted data to show the prevalence of each 
washer model on the market. AHAM's data indicate that there are laundry 
products already on the market that provide consumers with reasonable 
cycle times and comply with the current energy conservation standards. 
According to AHAM's data, top-loading and front-loading clothes washers 
have shipment weighted average normal cycle times of 43 and 57 minutes, 
and for clothes dryers, the shipment weighted average cycle time is 34 
minutes. AHAM's relies on this data set to show that almost 20 percent 
of top-loading clothes washer shipments, about 45 percent of front-
loading washer shipments, and about 75 percent of clothes dryer 
shipments are at or very near (within 10 minutes of) DOE's proposed 
product class division line. AHAM concluded that DOE's limited data 
sample proves that the market already has products that can meet the 
cycle times proposed. (AHAM, No. 0030, pp. 4-5).
    These comments challenged the data and analysis provided in the 
NOPR as demonstrating that the new product classes are not necessary 
because similar products are already available. In response, DOE notes 
that commenters are correct that DOE's data shows the cycle time of 
products currently available to consumers and identifies a small number 
of models that have cycles close to the cycle times proposed in the 
NOPR. However, this information validates the view that clothes washers 
and dryers on the market that have a normal cycle that is less than 30 
minutes or 45 minutes for top- or front-loading clothes washers are not 
widely available. According to AHAM's data, top-loading and front-
loading clothes washers have shipment weighted average normal cycle 
times longer than the product class thresholds established in this 
final rule (43 and 57 minutes). AHAM's data for clothes dryers also 
show that the shipment weighted average cycle time is longer than the 
product class threshold established in this final rule (34 minutes). 
These data, which indicate that more than half of the shipments for 
both consumer clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers have cycle 
times longer than the established cycle times for the new product class 
thresholds, therefore support the appropriateness of these product 
class thresholds established by DOE. AHAM's and other similar comments 
noting that there are current models close to the 30 or 45 minute short 
cycle thresholds do not negate the need for short normal cycle 
products, but reveal that there is demand--and therefore, consumer 
preference--for products with shorter cycles, and offer a starting 
point for manufacturer innovation.
    CEC also argued that DOE has not met its burden to establish the 
new product classes based on a cycle time as a performance-related 
feature because most clothes washers and dryers offer a short cycle 
already. CEC takes this to mean that DOE's proposal therefore 
identifies the actual customer utility as the benefit of not having to 
press a button to access the short cycle from the models settings. (No. 
0038, pp. 6-7).
    DOE notes that many appliances, not just clothes washers and 
dryers, are operated through selecting a specific setting or cycle. As 
with dishwashers, manufacturers describe in product literature the 
different intended uses for various products, and DOE presumes that 
manufacturers must intend something other than the ``normal'' cycle 
when describing a ``quick'' or lightly soiled-type cycle. In addition, 
while some commenters such as CEC associate pressing the start button 
as the same utility as utilizing a desired cycle feature, DOE realizes 
that not every consumer will use the variety of cycles on a device, or 
want to spend the time completing multiple cycles to adequately clean 
or dry their clothing. Some consumers may just want the availability of 
one short cycle, provided as the normal cycle, which can be used every 
time they wash or dry their clothing. That is what this rulemaking 
seeks to provide. Offering short normal wash and dry cycles as standard 
features on their appliances will reasonably provide a utility to those 
consumers seeking to cut down on the time they spend waiting for their 
clothing to be clean and dry.
    In response to DOE's request for information in the NOPR, NEEA 
submitted comments arguing that market data, consumer-use data, and 
technology research for both clothes washers and clothes dryers suggest 
that short-cycle product classes as proposed in the NOPR are 
unnecessary. (No. 0044, pp. 2-5, 6-8).
    NEEA's market data showed that a shorter cycle option is already 
available on the majority of bestselling clothes washers, both top- and 
front-loading styles. Short or fast cycles are widely available, with 
79 percent of washers offering this option. NEEA noted that the wide 
availability of these and alternative cycles supported the conclusion 
that a product class based on cycle time is unnecessary. NEEA also 
commented that, based on high consumer demand for efficient washers, 
consumers are currently satisfied with the current cycle and technology 
options. NEEA also relied on high market penetration for ENERGY STAR-
qualified washers to indicate a strong consumer demand for washers with 
high efficiency and satisfaction with current cycle times. 
Additionally, NEEA noted that consumer demand for efficient machines 
continues to grow based on its consumer-use data that showed consumers 
use fast cycles relatively infrequently, with a NEEA's RBSA Laundry 
Study revealing that consumers only use the fast cycle 8 percent of the 
time. Consumers select the Normal cycle most frequently, at about 59 
percent of the time. NEAA noted that there is also good cleaning 
performance for many fast wash cycles available today. NEEA's laundry 
study also showed that while Normal is the most common cycle, consumers 
also select a variety of alternative wash cycles, which include 
Delicate (6 percent), Heavy Duty (4 percent), and others that also use 
more water and energy than the Normal cycle. Thus, having a fast cycle 
as the Normal cycle does not offer consumers a unique utility given 
that most consumers can

[[Page 81366]]

access fast cycle choices on many machines. (No. 0044, pp. 2-5).
    Similar to clothes washers, NEEA's market data showed that current 
clothes dryer models already offer consumers fast cycles. Additionally, 
consumer demand for efficient clothes dryers remains high, which 
indicates that consumers are satisfied with the available technology 
and cycle times. Similar high market penetration for ENERGY STAR 
qualified dryers also exists and provides additional support for 
consumer satisfaction with cycle times and demand for high efficiency 
products. NEAA argued that the availability of setting options offered 
with today's dryers sufficiently meets the demand for fast dryer cycle 
times. NEEA's RBSA Laundry Study revealed that medium heat is the most 
common temperature selection for dryers (52 percent). Virtually all 
dryers have a fast (high heat) cycle option for use when a shorter 
cycle is needed, but high heat can cause more wear and tear on cotton 
fabric and is often not recommended at all for synthetic fabrics. 
Fabric care guidelines and consumer concern about clothing wear and 
tear contribute to the lower use of high heat, which is used about one-
third of the time. Taken together, NEEA concluded that today's dryers 
sufficiently meet consumer demand for fast dryer cycle times. (NEEA, 
No. 44, pp. 6-8).
    In response, DOE acknowledges NEEA's comment that, based on high 
consumer demand for efficient washers and dryers, consumers are 
currently satisfied with the current cycle and technology options, and 
that the high market penetration for ENERGY STAR qualified products 
indicates a strong consumer demand for washers with high efficiency and 
satisfaction with current cycle times. In both cases, NEEA's data prove 
only that consumers are purchasing the products that are available. The 
data has no bearing on whether consumers would purchase a clothes 
washer or dryer with a short, normal cycle, if such product were 
available. Moreover, NEEA's data demonstrate that the majority of 
consumers select the normal cycle for operation of their device, and 
choose more specific settings in a very small percentage of cycles. The 
high percentage selection of the normal is cycle would seem to support 
establishment of a short-cycle product class so that those consumers 
who want that utility can purchase models designed to provide that 
cycle as the default, i.e., normal, choice.
    In finalizing the short-cycle product classes in this final rule, 
DOE intends to spur manufacturer innovation and push for the 
development of short-cycle products, as the normal cycle, which will 
wash and dry a normal load of laundry and be subject to manufacturers 
testing. This is distinguishable from calling existing fast or quick 
cycles the new short normal cycle, as these comments seem to suggest, 
because those cycles are not designed to satisfy consumers' normal 
washing and drying needs. Based on descriptions in manufacturer 
literature, these existing quick cycles are for situations when a 
consumer wants to, for example, wash lightly soiled garments or get 
wrinkles out of already dry clothing. DOE's actions here seek to 
accomplish a very different outcome.
    In its comments, NEEA argued that the proposal was unnecessary, in 
part, because technologies already exist to improve water extraction 
and reduce dryer energy consumption that could substantially improve 
the efficiency of washers as measured by the integrated modified energy 
factor (``IMEF'') rating, which is used in DOE's test procedure. NEEA 
further asserts that these advances to washers could also include 
lowering the remaining moisture content to reduce the energy needed for 
drying. NEEA also states that there are a number of technologies 
(increased spin speed; increased basket diameter; alternate basket 
perforation patterns; and ribbed drums) available for both front-and 
top-loading washers that can reduce remaining moisture without 
lengthening cycle time and enable faster cycle times. (No. 0044, pp. 2-
5). For consumer clothes dryers, NEEA identified technologies available 
to reduce cycle time and improve efficiency. These technologies include 
alternate refrigerants and venting, modulating burners, and improved 
termination controls. (NEEA, No. 44, pp. 6-8).
    Additionally, some commenters argued that the proposal rested on a 
presumption that the current standards for clothes washers and clothes 
dryers are preventing manufacturers from creating products with shorter 
cycle times. Commenters noted that such a presumption was unsupported 
by the evidence included in the NOPR and also lacks consideration of 
the impact shorter, hotter dryer cycles could have on clothing. (ASAP 
et al., No. 0033, p. 3; Northwest Power and Conservation Council No. 
0021, p. 2; Anonymous, No. 0002).
    In response, Consumers' Research argued against this comment by 
noting that under the current standards, cycle times for clothes 
washers have in fact become very long for some consumers. (No. 0037, p. 
2) This commenter agreed with DOE that even though quick or alternative 
cycles are available, those cycles are recommended only for lightly 
soiled clothing meaning that a quick cycle will not clean or dry 
normally soiled clothing. DOE's proposal therefore provides consumers 
with added choice and convenience. (No. 0037, p. 2)
    Countering those commenters that contented short cycles were 
unnecessary or lacked a justified utility, CEI noted that consumers are 
already forced to sacrifice their time when cleaning and drying their 
clothing. DOE's proposal offered consumers a benefit by increasing the 
range of products on the market that would allow those consumers with a 
need or desire for short washer or dryer cycles to purchase the product 
that best fit their lifestyle. The proposal therefore eliminated 
impediments to these choices and provided manufacturers the means of 
meeting consumer demand for new products. CEI based this position on 
the feedback it received from consumers who have expressed a need for 
clothes washers and dryers that operate faster with comparable 
performance. CEI's comments also recognized the growing consumer 
dissatisfaction with current cycle times that have increased in length 
due to water and energy use regulations that have added time needed so 
that detergents can penetrate clothes and remove soils as a result of 
decreased water and agitation. CEI also noted that while current 
products offer faster cycles for lightly soiled clothing, those cycles 
are ineffective on normally soiled garments. (No. 0031, pp. 2-3).
    DOE realizes that consumers have different opinions on the current 
length of time needed to run a full normal cycle for washing and drying 
clothing. AHAM's comments indicated that consumers do value cycle time 
as an important feature and noted that if cycle time becomes too long, 
consumers will not be satisfied with their products. (No. 0030, p. 2). 
In the NOPR and comments received from CEI and 60 Plus Association, 
DOE's rulemaking has shown that some consumers already believe cycle 
times are in fact too long and that shorter cycles are possible to 
support of the necessity of the proposal. DOE seeks to use this 
rulemaking as an opportunity for manufacturers to respond to the 
consumer utility recognized in this rulemaking for short normal cycle 
clothes washers and clothes dryers. DOE will consider appropriate 
standards in a separate energy conservation standards rulemaking, 
analyzing the factors specified in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

[[Page 81367]]

    Some commenters argued that the conditions precedent to DOE's 
application of the product class provision have not been satisfied in 
this rulemaking. Commenters assert that DOE may only create a new 
product class when there are products that have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature which other like products do not have. This 
feature then justifies a different standard after taking into 
consideration the utility the consumer receives from the feature at 
issue. (No. 0041, p. 4). Commenters look to support their position by 
arguing that the product class provision uses the present tense to 
describe a feature that may trigger DOE action whereas the NOPR 
presents the provision as offering DOE the discretion to determine that 
some products should have a capacity or other performance-related 
feature they presently lack. (Joint Environmental Commenters, No. 0041, 
pp. 4-5). Commenters conclude that DOE's interpretation is incorrect 
and inconsistent with prior rulemakings because 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) 
actually enables DOE to react to features that manufacturers bring to 
market and does not facilitate the introduction of nonexistent features 
into existing products. (No. 0041, p. 6 referencing 76 FR 22454, 22485 
(Apr. 21, 2011)).
    In response, DOE affirms that EPCA does not specify how prevalent a 
specific feature must be on the market (i.e., stipulate that DOE can 
act only when there are covered products with that feature already part 
of an existing product class) when establishing a new product class 
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). If this were true, such products may never 
come onto the market because they may not comply with existing energy 
conservation standards and therefore be unlawful to produce. In 
addition, and as a point of reference, DOE is currently exploring the 
energy use associated with the network connectivity of covered 
products. Network connectivity is clearly a desirable consumer utility 
and is quickly becoming a common component of new models of covered 
products. Network connectivity, however, comes with attendant energy 
use. EPCA's product class provision cannot be read to prohibit DOE from 
establishing product classes for products that offer network mode 
connectivity simply because that feature is not currently common on the 
market.\13\ Such a reading of the statute would prevent manufacturers 
from innovating and developing new product designs in response to 
consumer demand and technological developments. Likewise, for clothes 
washers and clothes dryers, EPCA's product class provision authorizes 
DOE to establish standards for new product features that provide 
consumer utilities, such as shorter cycle times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Similarly, EPCA's anti-backsliding provision cannot be used 
to prohibit the development of product classes that allow for 
covered products to be connected to a network simply because 
standards for those products were established prior to the 
development of network connectivity and eliminating the ability to 
implement this option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even if products with short normal cycle times for clothes washers 
and clothes dryers were readily available, the product class provision 
would still be appropriately applied in this rulemaking. DOE has 
previously established product classes based on existing features. 
Ventless clothes dryers had been on the market for at least 25 years 
before the Department established separate energy conservation 
standards because ventless clothes dryers could not comply with the 
energy conservation standards applicable to vented units. There, DOE 
reasoned that because ventless clothes dryers provided a unique utility 
to consumers (available for installation in areas where vents were 
otherwise impossible to install) that a separate product class was 
justified. 76 FR 22454, 22485 (Apr. 21, 2011). DOE reiterates that the 
impact of this rulemaking is not to require manufacturers to develop 
clothes washers and dryers with short normal cycle times, but rather to 
establish product classes based on that criterion and incentivize 
manufacturers to develop such products.
    Comments submitted by the Joint Environmental Commenters and others 
argued that the Department cannot use the product class provision to 
avoid prescribing energy conservation standards for the new product 
classes. These commenters explain that DOE misapplies the new product 
class provision in the NOPR by attempting to exempt certain clothes 
washers and dryers from the applicable energy conservation standard by 
postponing the adoption of replacement standards. These commenters 
believe that DOE must read EPCA's product class provision with the 
requirements for conservation standards and to do otherwise ignores the 
limitations placed on the Department's discretion when creating a new 
product class. (No. 0041, pp. 6-7; WVWD, No. 0017, pp. 1-2; Northwest 
Power and Conservation Council, No. 0021, p. 3; Davis, No. 0022, p. 1). 
Some commenters also note that such a process makes it increasingly 
difficult for manufacturers to accurately predict the costs associated 
with the new product classes. (AHAM, No. 0030, p. 9).
    Other commenters note that the associated impact of finalizing 
these product classes without accompanying standards would result in 
the creation of unregulated products that would then negatively impact 
consumers by causing product confusion, increased water and energy use, 
and higher utility bills. (MNGWPD, No. 0025, p. 1; AWE, et al., No. 
0029, p. 1 Northwest Power and Conservation Council, No. 0021, p. 3).
    Similarly, comments submitted by the Attorneys General and the 
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York argued that DOE has 
violated 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) by failing to specify a level of energy 
use in the NOPR for the new product classes. Section 6295(q)(2) is also 
violated by DOE's failure to provide an explanation on the basis for 
which a lower or higher level was established because DOE offers no 
such accompanying explanation. (No. 0035, p. 6) These and other 
commenters argued that all clothes washers and dryers must adhere to 
the current energy and water use standards regardless of cycle time. 
(City of Sacramento Department of Utilities, No. 0020, p. 2; CEC, No. 
0038, pp. 3-4). These commenters contend that DOE believes it can 
override the existing efficiency standards for clothes washers and 
dryers by stating that the proposed product classes would not be 
subject to energy or water conservations standards. (No. 0035, p. 8).
    Consumers' Research supported a future standards rulemaking for 
short cycle products and stated that it would be the appropriate next 
step. (No. 0037, p. 2).
    As stated in the NOPR, DOE intends to complete the necessary 
conservation standards rulemaking once the product classes for short 
cycle clothes washers and clothes dryers are established. 85 FR 49297, 
49300 (Aug. 13, 2020). DOE has previously explained that EPCA, 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B), does not require the Department to simultaneously 
establish energy conservation standards in the same rulemaking as the 
determination of a new product class. DOE reminds commenters that the 
establishment of a new product class is similar to situations where DOE 
has finalized a coverage determination and a covered product exists 
without an applicable standard until the Department completes a test 
procedure rulemaking for that product. See 42 U.S.C. 6292(b). 
Commenters can look to the Department's 2009 beverage vending machines 
(``BVM'') energy conservations standard rulemaking and

[[Page 81368]]

the 2007 distribution transformer energy conservation standards 
rulemaking as examples of prior instances where DOE established a new 
product class without simultaneously prescribing an associated 
conservation standard. 81 FR 44914, 44920 (Aug. 31, 2009); 72 FR 58190, 
58197 (Oct. 12, 2007).
    When DOE initially considered energy conservation standards for 
BVMs, DOE did not consider combination vending machines as a separate 
equipment class, but instead considered that equipment with all other 
Class A and Class B BVMs. DOE later recognized that combination vending 
machines offered a distinct utility and concluded that those machines 
were a separate class of BVMs. DOE was unable to determine, at the same 
time as the product class determination, whether energy conservation 
standards for combination vending machines were economically justified 
and would result in significant energy savings. DOE subsequently 
decided to not set standards for the equipment class at that time. DOE 
reserved standards for combination vending machines and modified the 
definition of Class A and Class B BVMs to accommodate a definition for 
combination vending machines. 74 FR 44914, 44920 (Aug. 31, 2009). DOE's 
action thereby reserved a place for the development of future standards 
for combination vending machines that DOE then established in 2016. 81 
FR 1028, 1035 (Jan. 08, 2016).
    Similarly, the energy conservation standards rulemaking for 
distribution transformers in 2007 provides another example of this 
activity by the Department. There, DOE clarified that although it 
believed underground mining distribution transformers were within the 
scope of coverage, it recognized that mining transformers were subject 
to unique and extreme dimensional constraints that impacted their 
efficiency and performance capabilities, and decided to not establish 
energy conservation standards for underground mining transformers. In 
the final rule DOE established a separate equipment class for mining 
transformers and reserved a section with the intent to develop the 
analysis required to establish an appropriate energy conservation 
standard in the future. 72 FR 58190, 58197 (Oct. 12, 2007). DOE later 
reached a similar conclusion in 2013 when it decided to again not set 
standards for mining distribution transformers. 78 FR 23336, 23353 
(Apr. 18, 2013). In both rulemakings, DOE reserved a place for the 
future development of the necessary standards and did not set standards 
at the same time as creating the separate product classes.
    Here, DOE is following the same practice by first establishing new 
product classes for short normal cycle clothes washers and clothes 
dryers and reserving a place for future energy conservation standards. 
DOE intends to conduct the necessary rulemakings that will consider and 
evaluate the energy and water consumption limits for the new product 
classes to determine the applicable standards that provide the maximum 
energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 
justified, and will result in a significant conservation of energy, 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). DOE will provide interested members of the public 
an opportunity to comment on any preliminary rulemaking documents and 
proposed energy conservation standards for these product classes during 
these future rulemaking proceedings. See, 85 FR 68723, 68733 (Oct. 30, 
2020). These rulemakings will be completed following the procedures set 
out in the Process Rule, and will provide manufacturers with the 
opportunity to provide information on the costs associated with 
complying with any standards established by DOE.

B. Anti-Backsliding Consideration, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)

    In the context of establishing new product classes, DOE 
acknowledges EPCA's general prohibition against prescribing amended 
standards that increase the maximum allowable use, or in the case of 
showerheads, faucets, water closets, or urinals, water use, or 
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency, of a covered product 
in any rulemaking to establish standards for a separate product class. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o); the ``anti-backsliding provisions'') Consistent 
with its prior rules, DOE maintains that the anti-backsliding 
prohibition is read in conjunction with the Department's product class 
authority in 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), and does not prohibit the establishment 
of product classes as proposed in this document. 84 FR 33869, 33871-
33873 (July 16, 2019); 85 FR 68723, 68734 (Oct. 30, 2020). DOE applies 
this provision in conjunction with the authority set out in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(q) to specify ``a level of energy use or efficiency higher or 
lower than that which applies (or would apply) for such type or class . 
. .'' if the Secretary determine that covered products within such 
group consume a different type of energy or have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature that justifies ``a higher or lower standard 
from that which applies (or will apply) to other products within such 
type (or class).'' EPCA explicitly acknowledges, through this 
provision, that product features may arise that require the designation 
of a product class with a standard lower than that applicable to other 
product classes for that covered product. 85 FR 68723, 68734 (Oct. 30, 
2020).
    Commenters opposing the new short normal cycle product classes for 
clothes washers and clothes dryers contended that the finalization of 
these product classes will weaken existing efficiency standards for 
such products, and argue that the Department's use of the product class 
provision cannot bypass the anti-backsliding provision's requirements.
    Commenters asserted that DOE has failed to give full meaning to all 
of EPCA's provisions and that the NOPR contradicts section 6295(o)(1)-
(2). These commenters argued that the anti-backsliding provision, which 
was enacted in 1992 subsequent to section 6295(q)'s enactment in 1987, 
should control in this situation. Commenters also looked to support 
their position by referencing the Second Circuit's review of EPCA's 
legislative history as discussed in NRDC v. Abraham, 355 F.3d 179 
(2005), to conclude that DOE may not render the anti-backsliding 
provision inoperative through the proposal's use of section 6295(q). 
(No. 0035, p. 7; Joint Environmental Commenters, No. 0041, p. 3). The 
Joint Environmental Commenters also contended that the language of the 
anti-backsliding provision must be interpreted in light of the 
appliance program's goals of steadily increasing a covered product's 
energy efficiency. According to these commenters, the NOPR incorrectly 
reasons that the use of multiple tenses in the product class provision 
authorizes DOE to weaken the standard that applies to a product. DOE's 
interpretation reads the text of the product class provision in a 
vacuum, and ignores that EPCA's statutory context, history, and 
purposes must inform the meaning of the words used. The Joint 
Environmental Commenters argued the that the correct reading of EPCA 
provides that the anti-backsliding provision constrains the product 
class provision to authorize DOE's creation of a separate product class 
only when available versions of the covered product already possess the 
desired feature. Relaxing a current standard would never be justified. 
(No. 0041, pp. 1-3).
    In support of the proposal, CEI noted that DOE has the statutory 
authority to designate a new class of clothes washers and dryers, 
allowing new standards to be promulgated within that class without 
regard to anti-backsliding

[[Page 81369]]

controls otherwise applicable to existing product classes. (No. 0031, 
p. 4).
    In response, DOE actions in issuing this final rule are not 
rendering the anti-backsliding provision inoperative through the use of 
section 6295(q) to establish short normal cycle product classes. As 
stated in the NOPR, DOE recognizes that section 6295(q)'s use of the 
present tense, ``a higher or lower standard than that which applies,'' 
authorizes the Department to reduce the stringency of the standard 
currently applicable to the products covered under the newly 
established separate product class. Additional evidence supporting the 
Department's application of this provision to current standards is 
found in the reference to standards that are not yet applicable, as in 
standards that ``would apply'' or ``will apply''. If the product class 
provision were to only apply in situation where no standard had yet to 
be established for a covered product then there would be no need to 
indicate that the provision applied to future standards. There would 
also be no purpose to including a reference in the text of the statute 
to the potential for higher or lower standards, as there would be no 
reference to measure the potential changes against. DOE understands 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q) to authorize the Department to reduce the stringency of 
the currently applicable standard upon making the determinations 
required by 6295(q). 85 FR 49297, 49306 (Aug. 13, 2020); 85 FR 68723, 
68735 (Oct. 30, 2020).
    Commenters challenged DOE's assertion that section 6295(q) cannot 
prohibit DOE from establishing standards that allow for technological 
advances or product features that could yield significant consumer 
benefits and associated reference to the 2011 ventless clothes dryer 
product class determination and prospective rulemaking regarding 
network-connected products. Commenters agreed that DOE is correct that 
section 6295(q) does not prohibit standards from considering 
technological advances but that subsection 6295(o)(1) still prohibits 
the weakening of prescribed energy efficiency standards for covered 
products. This means DOE must accommodate technological innovation 
within those bounds. Commenters agreed that DOE correctly referenced 
the 2011 ventless clothes dryers' product class rulemaking as energy 
efficiency standards were not lowered there because the product class 
was not previously subject to any standards. Alternatively, clothes 
washers and dryers regardless of cycle time are presently subject to 
the existing energy and water conservation standards. The proposal 
would therefore result in a lowering or elimination of standards 
because it offers no standards to apply to the proposed new product 
classes. (Attorneys General and the Corporation Counsel of the City of 
New York, No. 0035, p. 7; CEC, No. 0038, pp. 4-5; ASAP et al., No. 
0033, p. 4).
    Commenters incorrectly referred to DOE's 2011 ventless clothes 
dryer product class rulemaking in this context. Prior to the 
establishment of the product class, ventless clothes dryers were 
subject to the standards set for the product class as a whole. However, 
as these dryers could not at the time be tested using the applicable 
test procedure, ventless clothes dryer manufacturers subsequently 
sought and received waivers from test procedure requirements from the 
Department. 76 FR 33271 (June 8, 2011). Because DOE issued waivers for 
the test procedure for these dryers, it can only mean that these 
products were subject to DOE testing and standards compliance 
requirements prior to the establishment of the separate product class. 
Commenters are mistaken to claim that ventless clothes dryers were not 
subject to any standard and that the subsequent creation of standards 
for this product class, once established, did not result in a lowering 
of existing standards. DOE continues to read EPCA's provisions together 
to authorize the establishment of future standards for short cycle 
clothes washer and clothes dryer product classes at levels different 
from, and potentially less stringent than, the existing standards, if 
necessary.
    Some commenters argued that because all clothes washers and clothes 
dryers are currently subject to energy and water conservation 
standards, regardless of the cycle time, that the proposal will result 
in an amendment or weakening of the current standards for these 
products in violation of EPCA's anti-backsliding provision. (Attorneys 
General and the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, No. 0035, 
pp. 3-4, 5; CEC, No. 0038, pp. 3-4; LADWP, No. 0023, p. 1; NEEA, No. 
0044, p. 8). Commenters argued that because the product classes lack 
accompanying standards, the rulemaking will result in an illegal 
backsliding for an uncertain period of time. (Valley Water, No. 0042, 
p. 1; WVWD, No. 0017, pp. 2-3; NEEA, No. 0044, p. 8). The new product 
classes will therefore contribute to the degradation of future energy 
and water savings as well as cause widespread resource waste to the 
detriment of utilities and consumers. (City of Tucson, No. 0039, p. 1; 
MNGWPD, No. 0025, p. 2; AWE, et al., No. 0029, pp. 2-3). Based on the 
investment manufacturers have already made in meeting current 
standards, AHAM notes that these product classes would undermine 
decades of improvements. (AHAM, No. 0030, p. 8).
    DOE reiterates that it has yet to determine the standards that 
would be applicable to the new short cycle product classes for clothes 
washers and clothes dryers. Following the requirements of the Process 
Rule, DOE intends to establish standards through the standard-setting 
rulemaking process. Until such rulemakings are initiated, neither DOE 
nor the commenters can reasonably conclude whether or to what extent 
the potentially applicable standards for these new product classes will 
be lower than the standards currently applicable to the other clothes 
washers and clothes dryers product classes. As some commenters have 
noted, there are products on the market already offering normal cycle 
times close to the normal short cycle times that DOE has adopted for 
the new product classes that operate within the current conservation 
standards. (CEC, No. 0038, pp. 3-4). Until DOE completes its future 
rulemakings, it is premature to presume what standard will be applied 
to the new product classes and whether it will result in a lowering of 
existing standards as these commenters suggest.
    As stated previously in this final rule, EPCA does not require the 
establishment of conservation standards simultaneously with the 
establishment of a new product class, see section III.A. Commenters' 
concerns regarding this matter are premature at this time.
    Some commenters noted that DOE cannot argue that the anti-
backsliding provision does not apply to clothes washer water efficiency 
standards while also arguing that the product class provision applies 
to those standards. DOE's contention that the text of EPCA's anti-
backsliding provision forecloses its application to clothes washer 
water efficiency standards, at 85 FR 49307, leaves the Department no 
room to argue that the product class provision somehow applies to those 
standards, notwithstanding that the text of the product class provision 
addresses energy standards exclusively. (Joint Environmental 
Commenters, No. 0041, p. 8).
    DOE maintains that the concerns raised by commenters regarding the 
overall applicability of EPCA's anti-backsliding provision to clothes 
washers is too broad and ignores the limitations that EPCA itself 
places on the scope of the anti-backsliding provision, 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(1). DOE reminds commenters that EPCA's anti-backsliding 
provision

[[Page 81370]]

is limited in its applicability with regard to water use to four 
specified products, i.e., showerheads, faucets, water closets, or 
urinals. DOE's existing energy conservation standard for clothes 
washers is comprised of both energy and water use components. As 
residential clothes washers are not one of the products listed in the 
text of the anti-backsliding provision with respect to water use, there 
is no prohibition on DOE specifying a maximum amount of water use for 
clothes washers that is greater than the existing standard.
    Some commenters also challenged the proposed new product classes by 
claiming that DOE cannot argue section 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) prohibits 
the Department from establishing standards that would eliminate certain 
product attributes from the market only to then claim that it is 
authorized to use the product class provision to reanimate features no 
longer available. Commenters argued that DOE cannot justify an attempt 
to claw back established energy conservation standards that would be 
contrary to the anti-backsliding provision and are unsupported by the 
product class provision under the guise of product unavailability. 
(Joint Environmental Commenters, No. 0041, p. 8).
    Comments from Consumers' Research proposed that DOE's current 
energy efficiency standards have degraded clothes washer and dryer 
performance causing the disappearance of shorter, more effective cycles 
for these products. These commenters took this to mean that the current 
standards are actually in conflict with the policy of 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4), which prohibits the DOE from establishing standards that 
would result in the unavailability of any covered type (or class) of 
performance characteristics that were available prior to the adoption 
the a regulation. (No. 0037, pp. 2-3). Extended average cycle times, 
these commenters argued, may have caused a significant reduction in a 
product's utility that some consumers receive while others might 
voluntarily choose the longer cycle to save on their utility bill. All 
consumers should be able to choose between better performance and 
savings without losing the benefits received from shorter cycle times. 
(No. 0037, p. 3).
    DOE is not relying on 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) of EPCA to authorize the 
establishment of the new short, normal cycle product classes for 
clothes washers and clothes dryers. EPCA's product class provision 
provides that DOE may set standards for different product classes based 
on features that provide a consumer utility that is separate from other 
products within the same original product class. In this final rule, 
DOE maintains that products that can clean or dry clothing more quickly 
offer a specific consumer utility not available from appliances that 
require longer cycles to accomplish the same task. DOE asserts that the 
utility consumers will receive is the time saved resulting from the 
shorter normal wash or dry cycles. DOE reaffirms that while 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4) prohibits the establishment of standards that would 
eliminate certain product attributes from the market, Section 6295(q) 
of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish product classes and standards that 
recognize new technologies and product features which may no longer be 
available in the market. DOE's reading of the statute is consistent 
with DOE's prior acknowledgment that its determination of what 
constitutes a performance-related feature justifying a different 
standard may change depending on the technology and the consumer 
utility at issue, and that as a result, certain products may disappear 
from (or reappear in) the market entirely due to changing consumer 
demand. This reading is also consistent with DOE's prior statements 
that DOE determines this value on a case-by-case basis through its own 
research as well as public comments received. 80 FR 13120, 13138 (Mar. 
12, 2015). In addition, once DOE makes a determination that a certain 
product attribute is a feature, DOE cannot later set a standard that 
would eliminate that feature. 85 FR 68723, 68737 (Oct. 30, 2020).

C. Other Statutory Challenges

    Some commenters have argued that by categorically excluding this 
rulemaking from environmental review, DOE has violated the National 
Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA''), 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq., by 
determining that the new product classes would result in no 
environmental impacts. These commenters believed that this conclusion 
mischaracterizes the rulemaking, on the ground that DOE's actions would 
result in no efficiency standard from applying to the new product 
classes, and that this would cause unlimited amounts of energy and 
water to be used. In these commenters' view, the categorical exclusion 
DOE has selected is, therefore, not applicable, and commenters call for 
DOE to complete the NEPA analysis that they contend is necessary. 
(ASAP, et al., No. 0033, p. 4; Attorneys General and the Corporation 
Counsel of the City of New York, No. 0035, pp. 11, 12-14; Joint 
Environmental Commenters, No. 0041, pp. 8-9; CEC, No. 0038, p. 8-9; 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0026, pp. 13-14). The Attorneys General 
and the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York argued that 
amending existing regulations by adding new product classes not subject 
to any conservation standards would undoubtedly change the 
environmental effect of the rule, and that DOE must consider and 
explain how the increased energy use and pollution resulting from the 
proposal will impact the environment. (No. 0035, pp. 14-15) Some 
commenters also asserted that by applying a categorical exclusion to 
evade NEPA's review process, DOE has failed to provide any analysis on 
the potential impacts to water or energy resources that will result 
from finalizing the rulemaking without any accompanying efficiency 
standards. (Cohen, No. 0009; Valley Water, No. 0042, p. 1). Commenters 
requested that DOE provide more information concerning the potential 
environmental impacts of the new product classes. (Rubang, No. 0011).
    DOE maintains that this rulemaking, once finalized, will only 
establish new product classes for clothes washers and clothes dryers 
with a short normal cycles of 30 or 45 minutes. Finalization of the 
rule will not cause adverse environmental impacts as commenters 
indicate, and the rule falls within the scope of Department activities 
excluded from NEPA review by the A5 Categorical Exclusion under 10 CFR 
part 1021, subpart D. This categorical exclusion applies to any 
rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing 
the environmental effect of that rule. DOE maintains that establishing 
a new product classes for covered products will not result in a change 
to the environmental effect of the existing clothes washers and clothes 
dryers. As stated previously, DOE will engage in the rulemaking process 
to identify and select the applicable energy conservation standards for 
these new product classes once this rule is finalized. That future 
rulemaking will provide for the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, 
and will result in a significant conservation of energy. 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A). This action, which only establishes a product class for 
clothes washers and dryers with a short normal cycle of 30 or 45 
minutes, therefore falls within the scope of the A5 Categorical 
Exclusion.
    DOE also received comments challenging the rulemaking as violating 
EPCA and the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''), 5 U.S.C. 551, et 
seq., by failing to provide a satisfactory

[[Page 81371]]

explanation and a rational connection between the facts found and 
choice made that support finding sufficient justification for any 
requirement of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). Specifically, these commenters argued 
that DOE provided no demonstration that quicker cycle times justify 
higher or lower standards, ignored evidence counter to DOE's position, 
and relied on pure speculation and assumptions that current standards 
are preventing manufacturers from developing shorter cycle times. 
(Attorneys General and the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, 
No. 0035, pp. 15-17). Commenters also looked to the data provided by 
NEEA for clothes washers and dryers to conclude that consumers use 
quick cycle options relatively infrequently and instead choose to 
prioritize more efficient cycles over speed. (No. 0035, pp. 15-17).
    The Department maintains that it has met the APA's requirements for 
providing a sufficient explanation of its reasoning for establishing 
new short cycle product classes for clothes washers and clothes dryers 
in the notice of proposed rulemaking, public meeting, and this final 
rule. DOE has responded to the information submitted through the public 
comment process and has concluded that the public would derive a 
utility from the time saved through the future availability of short 
normal cycle washers and dryers that are presently not available.
    DOE also received comments challenging the validity of the 
rulemaking under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 42 U.S.C. 3501. One 
commenter disagreed with DOE's statement that the proposed rule did not 
impose new information or record keeping requirements. This commenter 
argued that under the correct definition of ``collection of 
information'', that the proposed rule, if finalized, is an instrument 
that constitutes a collection of information and should be subject to 
the procedural and substantive requirements of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act. Further, the commenter argued that DOE referenced the incorrect 
OMB control number and recommended that the Department reconsider the 
PRA. (60 Plus Association, No. 0043, p. 2).
    DOE disagrees with these comments. The finalization of this 
rulemaking, which establishes product classes for residential clothes 
washers and consumer clothes dryers with cycle times of 30 or 45 
minutes, does not establish standards or new testing requirements, nor 
does it impose new information or record keeping requirements. This is 
because the rule does not amend the reporting, recordkeeping, or 
certification requirements contained in the Department's currently-
approved information collection process. Clearance by the Office of 
Management and Budget is not required under the PRA for this 
rulemaking.

D. Additional Comments

    DOE also received a variety of additional comments expressing other 
concerns and support for the new product classes for residential 
clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers with cycle times of 30 or 
45 minutes.
    AHAM submitted a series of comments suggesting a number of 
unintended consequences of finalizing the proposed rule. AHAM remains 
skeptical that the finalization of the rule would actually achieve 
DOE's goals, especially for clothes dryers. Because manufacturers may 
elect to reduce spin time to establish a shorter normal wash cycle, 
this will cause more moisture to remain in the fabric and require 
longer, hotter, and more energy intense drying times. This, AHAM 
suggests, would make it difficult to sync DOE's dryer normal cycle time 
for the new product class along with the shorter cycle time for clothes 
washers as laundry products are sold and used as a pair. (No. 0030, p. 
9; Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0026, p. 38). In response, DOE 
affirms that it is finalizing this rulemaking with the intent that the 
new product classes will motivate and encourage manufacturer 
innovation. Based on DOE's historic experience with the regulatory 
scheme, DOE has sound reason to believe that given the opportunity, 
manufacturers will use the technology available to them to develop 
products to meet the specific criteria set for new short normal cycle 
washers and dryers so that these products can continue to be used 
together and in less time.
    DOE also received comments regarding the impacts of differing cycle 
times between clothes washers and clothes dryers that result from the 
use of automatic termination settings. These commenters argued that 
while it may be unlikely that clothes washer cycle times may not vary 
much from the tested cycle time, clothes dryer cycle times for 
automatic termination normal cycles could vary widely depending on a 
number of external factors. Commenters recommended that DOE must also 
consider the impact that higher temperature, a result of faster dryer 
cycles, could have on fabric care and the level of risk that consumers 
may be willing to accept in exchange for short cycle times. Commenters 
also noted that if DOE's proposal is finalized, it would possibly 
create disharmony between the US and Canada's standards, contrary to 
the goals of both the United States-Mexico- Canada Trade Agreement and 
the US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council. Commenters also note that 
the new product classes will increase the test burden for clothes 
washers and clothes dryers by requiring cycle time to be measured using 
Appendix D2, with no benefit to either consumers or energy 
conservation. (AHAM, No. 0030, pp. 8-9).
    The potential unintended consequences that AHAM raises here are 
premature at this time and can be addressed, as appropriate, in future 
rulemakings concerning standards for these new product classes. DOE's 
actions in this rulemaking involve the establishment of new product 
classes, and do not result in the establishment of applicable standards 
or test procedures. Commenters will have ample opportunities to raise 
these matters in the appropriate future rulemakings, where DOE will 
consider costs, benefits, and many of the potential unintended 
consequences that AHAM described.
    Additionally, AHAM noted that DOE's creation of the new product 
classes would cause added regulation based on the new investment that 
would be needed to meet the new standards once imposed. Such action, 
AHAM claims, would conflict with Executive Order 13771. (No. 0030, p. 
8). GEA also commented that the proposal has the potential to add 
regulatory burdens to the industry through the costs associated with 
the designing, building, stocking, marketing, and selling of new 
models. (No. 0045, p. 3). As DOE explained in the NOPR, this rulemaking 
is a deregulatory action. 85 FR 49297, 49309 (Aug. 13, 2020). 
Finalization of this rulemaking will establish separate product classes 
for short cycle clothes washers and dryers and enable manufacturers to 
develop products that better meet consumers' needs as identified above. 
DOE does not require manufacturers to produce products that would meet 
the cycle times characterizing these product classes. It remains a 
manufacturer's choice whether to invest in the development of products 
for these new product classes.
    DOE received comments requesting that the Department abandon this 
discretionary rulemaking action and instead focus its resources and 
attention on the many other delayed standards rulemakings that are 
required by EPCA. (CEC, No. 0038, pp. 1-2). DOE remains committed to 
providing opportunities to introduce products for consumers that will 
meet their specific needs by

[[Page 81372]]

engaging in this rulemaking. DOE continues to work towards meeting its 
other rulemaking responsibilities while advocating for consumer choice 
and enabling manufacturer innovation.
    Some commenters challenged DOE's reliance on CEI's 2018 petition 
for short cycle dishwasher product class rulemaking as being misplaced 
in this rulemaking. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0026, p. 30, 32). 
Like challenges to the dishwasher short cycle product class, some 
commenters similarly called DOE's cycle times for clothes washers and 
clothes dryers to be arbitrarily proposed. (AHAM, No. 0030, pp. 2-3). 
Commenters asserted that CEI's petition does not address consumer 
satisfaction and utility regarding energy efficiency and conservation, 
environmental impacts, and affordable consumer consumption. (Rubang, 
No. 0011). Other commenters supported the similarities that DOE 
recognized between the values that both sets of products can offer 
consumers through short normal cycle times. (Consumers' Research, No. 
0037, pp. 1-3).
    DOE recognizes that there are many similarities between consumers' 
uses of residential dishwashers, residential clothes washers, and 
consumer clothes dryers respectively. Such similarities include the 
consumer utility over discrete cycles with programmed cycle times and 
the amount of time consumers spend running multiple cycles on average 
per week. DOE has used CEI's petition as a starting point to consider 
the types of improvements that may be achievable through decreased 
cycle times for clothes washers and dryers. DOE will continue to 
consider the impact for shorter normal cycles in subsequent rulemakings 
as required through EPCA's standards and test procedure provisions.
    Some commenters claimed that the proposal would harm consumers and 
that DOE failed to consider such consumer impacts when issuing the 
proposal. Commenters claimed that the proposal would arbitrarily deny 
consumers access to accurate information about the energy use and 
operating costs associated with using their washer and dryer. (Joint 
Environmental Commenters. No. 0041, p. 9; City of Tucson, No. 0039, p. 
1). Similarly, in the absence of accompanying conservation standards, 
some commenters argued that consumers will be stuck with products that 
significantly increase their utilities bills without providing a 
noticeably shorter cycle time than what was already available. In 
addition to increasing water and energy use, this could also negatively 
impact domestic manufacturers and U.S. jobs through the influx of low-
cost products from foreign manufacturers. (ASAP et al., No. 0033, p. 2; 
Public Transcript, No. 0026, p. 14). The LADWP expressed its concern 
that the absence of conservation standards could have a significant 
impact to rebate and incentive programs currently available to utility 
customers. (No. 0023 p. 1). DOE is aware of these commenters' concern 
for the negative impacts they propose will result as a product of this 
rulemaking on consumers. In this rulemaking DOE is finalizing the 
establishment of new product classes for short normal cycle clothes 
washers and clothes dryers. DOE is not setting a mandate that consumers 
must purchase future products that meet the criteria of these product 
classes. In response to the concern raised by the utilities regarding 
existing rebates or incentives, it is within their authority to modify 
existing programs in light of this rulemaking, and nothing in this rule 
would prevent such activity if the utility decided to adopt such 
modifications. When this rulemaking is completed, consumers will be 
able to purchase the product that best meets their individual needs and 
interests. DOE's actions here serve as an opportunity for manufacturers 
to develop and provide new products that expand the choices available 
to consumers when selecting the best products for their needs.
    Many commenters voiced their concern regarding the lack of analysis 
completed by the Department concerning the associated increase of water 
use and depletion of resources that would result from this rulemaking. 
(WVWD, No. 0017, p. 2; AWE, et al., No. 0029, p. 2; Save Water, No. 
0006; WMWD, No. 0019, p. 1). Commenters believed that the increased 
water use caused by the rulemaking will negatively impact the current 
water demand projections many local utilities and programs depend upon 
for operation. (City of Tucson, No. 0039, p. 1). Some commenters noted 
that the proposal would conflict with state water conservation 
initiatives and legislation as well as cause water demands to exceed 
the available supply. (City of Sacramento Department of Utilities, No. 
0020, p. 2). Commenters noted that under the current standard, the 
combined savings from various plumbing fixtures and appliances, such as 
clothes washers, are anticipated to reduce future municipal water 
demands. Reducing the water efficiency standard for clothes washers 
through the proposed rulemaking would likely reduce the anticipated 
water savings and increase future demands. (TWDB, No. 0032, pp. 1-2). 
DOE recognizes the importance of dependable water supply predictions 
and the many water availability issues that impact parts of the nation. 
As stated previously, this rulemaking does not serve to set water (or 
energy) conservation standards for clothes washers. While the various 
concerns expressed by the commenters may well be valid as a general 
matter, raising them in this rulemaking is premature and it is too soon 
to speculate on the impact of conservation standards that have yet to 
be set. EPCA prescribes that when DOE establishes new conservation 
standards, DOE shall consider the need for national energy and water 
conservation as part of determining whether a potential standard is 
economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(b)(i)(VI). DOE will consider 
these concerns in that future standards rulemaking.
    CEC claimed that the rulemaking amounted to an energy conservation 
standard rulemaking and must follow the Department's Process Rule, 
specifically section 6. (Appendix A to subpart C of part 430). CEC 
argued that in order to be consistent with its own procedural 
requirement, DOE should withdraw the proposal and issue an early 
assessment for amended standards and better engage the public. (No. 
0038, p. 9).
    CEC is mistaken that this rulemaking equates to an energy 
conservation standard rulemaking. In this rulemaking DOE is 
establishing short normal cycle product classes for residential clothes 
washers and consumer clothes dryers that offer 30 or 45 minute cycles. 
DOE is not setting associated conservation standards or test procedures 
for those covered products at this time. DOE intends to complete these 
necessary rulemakings once the new product classes are established and 
will follow the procedures set out in the Process Rule as well as the 
requirements prescribed in EPCA. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0026, 
p. 36). Under the Process Rule, DOE has 180 days from the completion of 
a test procedure determination to propose associated conservation 
standards. Once these new product classes are finalized, DOE will turn 
its attention to the next step of the process by initiating the 
required test procedure and conservation standard rulemakings.

IV. Conclusion

    DOE has concluded that it has legal authority to establish separate 
short-cycle product classes for residential clothes washers and 
consumer clothes dryers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). In this 
rulemaking, DOE has established

[[Page 81373]]

separate product classes for top-loading standard-size and front-
loading standard-size residential clothes washers with cycle times of 
less than 30 and 45 minutes, respectively, and for vented electric 
standard-size and vented gas clothes dryers with a cycle time of less 
than 30 minutes. DOE will consider test procedures and energy 
conservation standards in separate rulemakings that will include an 
analysis of energy and water consumption limits in order to determine 
standards for each product class that provide for the maximum energy 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, 
and will result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE will provide additional opportunity for comment on 
any proposed energy conservation standards for short-cycle residential 
clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers.
    DOE will update the requirements for the residential clothes washer 
and consumer clothes dryer standards at 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4) and (h)(3), 
respectively. The current requirements included in these tables specify 
the applicable energy conservation standards. DOE will include new 
paragraphs following each table showing the current requirements to 
specify that top-loading standard-size and front-loading standard-size 
residential clothes washers with an average cycle time of less than 30 
and 45 minutes, respectively, are not currently subject to energy or 
water conservation standards, and that vented electric standard-size 
and vented gas clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes 
are not currently subject to energy conservation standards.

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review''

    This final rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
criteria set out in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.'' 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was subject to review by the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office of Management and Budget 
(``OMB''). DOE does not anticipate that the creation of the new product 
classes will result in any quantifiable costs or benefits. Such costs 
or benefits would derive from the applicable test procedures and energy 
conservations standards, which the Department will prescribe in 
separate rulemakings.

B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777

    On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 
(``E.O.'') 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs.'' 82 FR 9339. E.O. 13771 stated the policy of the executive 
branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure 
of funds, from both public and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is 
essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental 
imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal 
regulations. In addition, on February 24, 2017, the President issued 
Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' (82 
FR 12285 (March 1, 2017)). The order requires the head of each agency 
to designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). 
Each RRO is tasked with overseeing the implementation of regulatory 
reform initiatives and policies to ensure that individual agencies 
effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable 
law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory 
task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to 
make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, 
replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with 
applicable law.
    DOE has determined that this final rule is a deregulatory action 
under E.O. 13771. This rule establishes separate product classes for 
short-cycle residential clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers 
with cycle times of less than 30 or 45 minutes. DOE has designated this 
rulemaking as ``deregulatory'' under E.O. 13771 because it is an 
enabling regulation pursuant to OMB memo M-17-21. Manufacturers could 
design and manufacture new products in this product class to meet 
consumer demand. DOE will seek data to assist its determination of the 
appropriate standard levels for such product classes in subsequent 
rulemakings.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment and final 
regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any such rule that an 
agency adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the 
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 
67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on 
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on 
small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. 
68 FR 7990. DOE has made these procedures and policies available on the 
Office of the General Counsel's website (https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    DOE reviewed this rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003. DOE has concluded that this rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for 
this determination is as follows:
    The Small Business Administration (``SBA'') considers a business 
entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it 
employs less than a threshold number of workers or earns less than the 
average annual receipts specified in 13 CFR part 121. The threshold 
values set forth in these regulations use size standards and codes 
established by the North American Industry Classification System 
(``NAICS'') that are available at: https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standard. The threshold number for NAICS 
classification code 335220, major household appliance manufacturing, 
which includes clothes dryer and clothes washer manufacturers, is 1,500 
employees. Manufacturers must certify compliance of their products to 
DOE prior to distributing them in commerce. Most of the manufacturers 
supplying residential clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers into 
the United States are large multinational corporations. DOE collected 
data from DOE's compliance certification database \14\ to identify 
manufacturers of residential clothes washers and consumer clothes 
dryers. DOE then consulted publicly available data, purchased company 
reports from vendors such as Dun and Bradstreet, to determine whether 
they meet the SBA's definition of a ``small business manufacturer'' and 
have their manufacturing facilities located within the United States. 
Based on this analysis, DOE did not identify any small businesses that 
manufacture residential clothes washers or consumer clothes dryers. In 
addition, this rulemaking establishes product classes for residential 
clothes washers and

[[Page 81374]]

consumer clothes dryers with cycle times less than 30 or 45 minutes and 
does not impose new requirements on small entities. Therefore, no new 
costs will result from the rulemaking. Appropriate standard levels will 
be established in subsequent rulemakings, which will include 
consideration of potential new costs. As a result, DOE certifies that 
this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. DOE will transmit the certification and supporting 
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This rulemaking, which establishes product classes for residential 
clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers with cycle times less than 
30 or 45 minutes, but does not establish standards or new testing 
requirements that would be required for testing such products, imposes 
no new information or record keeping requirements. Accordingly, Office 
of Management and Budget clearance is not required under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
    Manufacturers of covered products generally must certify to DOE 
that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation 
standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test 
data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including 
any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established 
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for 
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including 
residential clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers. (See generally 
10 CFR part 429). The collection-of-information requirement for the 
certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by 
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This requirement has 
been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public 
reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 35 hours 
per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') of 
1969, DOE has analyzed this action in accordance with NEPA and DOE's 
NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has determined 
that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion (``CX'') under 10 
CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A5, because it is an interpretive 
rulemaking that does not change the environmental effect of the rule 
and meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR 
1021.410. Therefore, DOE has determined that promulgation of this rule 
is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of 
the human environment within the meaning of NEPA, and does not require 
an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), 
imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA governs and 
prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. 
States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No 
further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty 
to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors 
and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, and (3) 
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a 
general standard and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 
61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines 
key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it 
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published 
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental

[[Page 81375]]

consultation under UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf). This final 
rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that 
may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, 
thus, the requirements under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do not 
apply.

I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a 
Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family 
well-being. This final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy 
or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

J. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    The Department has determined, under Executive Order 12630, 
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), that this final rule 
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under 
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to 
review most disseminations of information to the public under 
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to 
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB 
and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with 
applicable policies in those guidelines.

L. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA 
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant 
energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action 
by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of 
a final rule, and that (1)(i) is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (ii) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy; or (2) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits for energy supply, distribution, and use. This rule, which 
establishes product classes for residential clothes washers and 
consumer clothes dryers with cycle times less than 30 or 45 minutes, 
would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy and has not otherwise been designated by 
the OIRA Administrator as a significant energy action. The rule, 
therefore, is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not 
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on this rule.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small 
businesses.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 2, 
2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the 
Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date 
is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on December 3, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE is amending part 430 
of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

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

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


0
2. Section 430.32 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(4) and (h)(3) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  430.32   Energy and water conservation standards and their 
compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (4)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section, 
clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2018, shall have an 
Integrated Modified Energy Factor no less than, and an Integrated Water 
Factor no greater than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Integrated
                                             modified       Integrated
              Product class                energy factor   water factor
                                           (cu.ft./kWh/     (gal/cycle/
                                              cycle)          cu.ft.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Top-loading, Compact (less than 1.6             1.15            12.0
 ft3 capacity)..........................
(B) Top-loading, Standard (1.6 ft3 or               1.57             6.5
 greater capacity)......................
(C) Front-loading, Compact (less than               1.13             8.3
 1.6 ft3 capacity)......................

[[Page 81376]]

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

    (ii) Top-loading, standard clothes washers with an average cycle 
time of less than 30 minutes and front-loading, standard clothes 
washers with an average cycle time of less than 45 minutes are not 
currently subject to energy or water conservation standards.
    (h) * * *
    (3)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section, 
clothes dryers manufactured on or after January 1, 2015, shall have a 
combined energy factor no less than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Combined
                      Product class                        energy factor
                                                             (lbs/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater                   3.73
 capacity)..............................................
(B) Vented Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft3              3.61
 capacity)..............................................
(C) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3              3.27
 capacity)..............................................
(D) Vented Gas..........................................            3.30
(E) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3            2.55
 capacity)..............................................
(F) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer.........            2.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Vented, electric standard clothes dryers and vented gas 
clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes are not 
currently subject to energy conservation standards.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-26976 Filed 12-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P